SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Baseball America Red Sox Top 10 Prospects
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 9:34:03 GMT -5
Callis had the opportunity to watch AAA and high A games in the Durham area and did so. I've watched hundreds of minor league games. That doesn't make me a scout. Callis is an analyst/writer with a ton of contacts. That's pretty much true of the entire industry. It's in no way is it a negative. His words are the sum of the feelings of the contacts he has, most of whom are either scouts or else people that hire scouts. I hear what you're saying, but what actually makes anyone a scout? There is no licensing or certification or qualification standards. The only thing that makes you a scout is if someone else believes in your view. Sure, this is an over simplification, there are now scouting schools, etc, and no one would be a National Cross checker or head a scouting department without vast knowledge and success. Regardless, no scout sees all of these players enough times to draw all their own conclusions. Most of the reports we get are watered down view points from people having the same conversations with the few scouts who really know the player. Once a kid is in the minors, how much do other teams really spend looking at that player? Not very much. Owens for example, only gets seen by other teams a start at a time. The reports vary based on his inconsistency from start to start. Even if a team is looking at a possible trade with Boston, how many starts do they conceivably see? They can go back and watch video, but how good is minor league video from the low minors? Is it readily available for all teams for all games, even if not televised?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 17, 2013 9:37:01 GMT -5
And he mentioned that within a year Margot could be in the top 5, if he performs well at Greenville. The guys down in the DR are doing work.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 9:46:23 GMT -5
One surprise for me, after reading the chat, was Hassan outside the top 30. Unless, I'm miss-remembering, I believe they said he received consideration. He's ranked 21 here, which is hard to quibble with, but I think Speier is overlooking him, most likely because he's not a great athlete and is an outfielder/first baseman without big time power. It's a mistake to let those things blind you from what he does extremely well. This is baseball after all. It doesn't take a sexy athlete to be a very good player. The guy seems like he can hit and control the zone. We'll see, scouts don't seem like his swing all that much, but it produces. See ball/hit ball.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 10:07:44 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, but what actually makes anyone a scout? There is no licensing or certification or qualification standards. There are standardized scouting schools/programs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2013 10:25:52 GMT -5
One surprise for me, after reading the chat, was Hassan outside the top 30. Unless, I'm miss-remembering, I believe they said he received consideration. He's ranked 21 here, which is hard to quibble with, but I think Speier is overlooking him, most likely because he's not a great athlete and is an outfielder/first baseman without big time power. It's a mistake to let those things blind you from what he does extremely well. This is baseball after all. It doesn't take a sexy athlete to be a very good player. The guy seems like he can hit and control the zone. We'll see, scouts don't seem like his swing all that much, but it produces. See ball/hit ball. I think it's a comment on the system's depth more than anything. He said there's not as much power as you'd like from a corner outfielder. I'm kind of looking forward to Sickels's rankings this year, if only to see how many guys he writes up. He doesn't have a set number, so he'll list more guys in the deeper systems. That said, he's WAY behind due to issues stemming from a concussion.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 17, 2013 11:50:05 GMT -5
One surprise for me, after reading the chat, was Hassan outside the top 30. Unless, I'm miss-remembering, I believe they said he received consideration. He's ranked 21 here, which is hard to quibble with, but I think Speier is overlooking him, most likely because he's not a great athlete and is an outfielder/first baseman without big time power. It's a mistake to let those things blind you from what he does extremely well. This is baseball after all. It doesn't take a sexy athlete to be a very good player. The guy seems like he can hit and control the zone. We'll see, scouts don't seem like his swing all that much, but it produces. See ball/hit ball. I think it's a comment on the system's depth more than anything. He said there's not as much power as you'd like from a corner outfielder. I'm kind of looking forward to Sickels's rankings this year, if only to see how many guys he writes up. He doesn't have a set number, so he'll list more guys in the deeper systems. That said, he's WAY behind due to issues stemming from a concussion. Sickels yesterday started discussing the Sox and invited comment. www.minorleagueball.com/2013/12/16/5216022/boston-red-sox-organization-discussion"***Do you think Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley Jr. are ready to contribute in 2014? ***Mookie Betts: is he for real, or will he be exposed at higher levels? Where would you place him to begin '14? ***Brandon Workman: starter or reliever? ***Garin Cecchini: the new Bill Mueller? ***As always, any other thoughts about the system are welcome, including your sleepers to watch."
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 12:12:48 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in.
For example, let's say if Ranaudo were in the Yankees system and he was ranked number 3 there, would he be easier to include as a bigger part of a trade then he is with Boston because he's the 11th rated guy?
If so is this because a GM wants to be able to say he got the number 3 guy vs the number 11 guy or is it because the GM would try to get the higher ranked guys from Boston and when that failed wouldn't lower the price?
Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here..
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 17, 2013 12:29:33 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in. For example, let's say if Ranaudo were in the Yankees system and he was ranked number 3 there, would he be easier to include as a bigger part of a trade then he is with Boston because he's the 11th rated guy? If so is this because a GM wants to be able to say he got the number 3 guy vs the number 11 guy or is it because the GM would try to get the higher ranked guys from Boston and when that failed wouldn't lower the price? Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here.. John Mozeliak said teams asking too much in trade talks because Cardinals has lots of elite talents. Shelby miller would be untouchable for many teams but he was asked very often because Cards has several great young arms and teams thought he could be available.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2013 13:16:45 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in. ... Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here.. Latter. Teams don't base trades on what rank a guy is in a given system, especially given that rankings are a snapshot of a certain point in time. After even a month or so, they're irrelevant.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 413
|
Post by badfishnbc on Dec 17, 2013 13:21:51 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in. For example, let's say if Ranaudo were in the Yankees system and he was ranked number 3 there, would he be easier to include as a bigger part of a trade then he is with Boston because he's the 11th rated guy? If so is this because a GM wants to be able to say he got the number 3 guy vs the number 11 guy or is it because the GM would try to get the higher ranked guys from Boston and when that failed wouldn't lower the price? Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here.. I'd say that it only impacts public perception of a deal - when you trade away a star at the deadline for a youngster whose name your fanbase is not familiar with, the local media keys on rankings, and only adds context later when they've had a bit more time to digest. So an idiot GM in a market with a rabid fanbase might be swayed by this.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 17, 2013 14:39:37 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in. ... Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here.. Latter. Teams don't base trades on what rank a guy is in a given system, especially given that rankings are a snapshot of a certain point in time. After even a month or so, they're irrelevant. I'm less concerned about the actual rank (from a particular entity) then I am of the number of prospects in front of him in a given system, if that makes sense. and it really only matters on the internal ranking from the team you're dealing with. I tend to think the most GM's have no idea what the BA ranks are for each system. I just wonder if a rival GM would try so hard to get guys higher up the ranks in the deeper system that it would actually drive down what you could get for the guy who's further down in your system. Whereas, if that same player were in another system there are fewer players in front of him so he may be looked at more favorably. Not sure if I'm explaining it right as it's an awkward thing to type out. Won't waste any further time on it trying to explain further as it's just a curiosity that's really not answerable in any definitive fashion.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 17, 2013 17:08:01 GMT -5
I'm curious do you think players with a lower rank within a strong system carry less weight in a trade scenario because of the system they are in. For example, let's say if Ranaudo were in the Yankees system and he was ranked number 3 there, would he be easier to include as a bigger part of a trade then he is with Boston because he's the 11th rated guy? If so is this because a GM wants to be able to say he got the number 3 guy vs the number 11 guy or is it because the GM would try to get the higher ranked guys from Boston and when that failed wouldn't lower the price? Or does it not matter in the least... We knownir wouldn't for some organizations but lets deal with the dumber ones here.. I'd say that it only impacts public perception of a deal - when you trade away a star at the deadline for a youngster whose name your fanbase is not familiar with, the local media keys on rankings, and only adds context later when they've had a bit more time to digest. So an idiot GM in a market with a rabid fanbase might be swayed by this. Ruben Amaro Jr fits that criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 17, 2013 20:14:30 GMT -5
Latter. Teams don't base trades on what rank a guy is in a given system, especially given that rankings are a snapshot of a certain point in time. After even a month or so, they're irrelevant. I'm less concerned about the actual rank (from a particular entity) then I am of the number of prospects in front of him in a given system, if that makes sense. and it really only matters on the internal ranking from the team you're dealing with. I tend to think the most GM's have no idea what the BA ranks are for each system. I just wonder if a rival GM would try so hard to get guys higher up the ranks in the deeper system that it would actually drive down what you could get for the guy who's further down in your system. Whereas, if that same player were in another system there are fewer players in front of him so he may be looked at more favorably. Not sure if I'm explaining it right as it's an awkward thing to type out. Won't waste any further time on it trying to explain further as it's just a curiosity that's really not answerable in any definitive fashion. So having more depth may make a team more likely to deal a player of a certain type - see my oft-repeated prediction that someone from the Ranaudo/Barnes/Workman/Britton/etc. crew gets traded before Opening Day 2014 - but it's not like their value takes a hit because the system is deeper. I think it makes a team more likely to explore trades for a certain player than they otherwise would, which I guess means that the team will take a bit less for them, but my prior point was that it's not like internally a team will say "gee, this guy is a future role 6 player, but since he's only our 7th best prospect, we can trade him."
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 17, 2013 20:47:37 GMT -5
Badler (who mentioned all 10 Sox had a "legitimate" shot at the top 100), also had this to say in reply to a question about whether Ranaudo was a disappointment in the second half:
"@jeremymbarr More about the strength of Boston's system than anything else. He's definitely in the Top 100 mix."
So ... wow! Eleven Sox players in the mix for top-100 status. That's insane. You gotta think at some point they'd just stop adding Sox players to the list.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 17, 2013 21:51:58 GMT -5
Don't forget, the top 100 is voted on by the staff at BA, whereas this list is really Alex's list. So IOW, Ranaudo could actually end up ranked higher on the top 100 than some of the guys ahead of him on the Red Sox list. I think they'll end up with 7 or 8 guys on there.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2013 22:38:48 GMT -5
I'm less concerned about the actual rank (from a particular entity) then I am of the number of prospects in front of him in a given system, if that makes sense. and it really only matters on the internal ranking from the team you're dealing with. I tend to think the most GM's have no idea what the BA ranks are for each system. I just wonder if a rival GM would try so hard to get guys higher up the ranks in the deeper system that it would actually drive down what you could get for the guy who's further down in your system. Whereas, if that same player were in another system there are fewer players in front of him so he may be looked at more favorably. Not sure if I'm explaining it right as it's an awkward thing to type out. Won't waste any further time on it trying to explain further as it's just a curiosity that's really not answerable in any definitive fashion. So having more depth may make a team more likely to deal a player of a certain type - see my oft-repeated prediction that someone from the Ranaudo/Barnes/Workman/Britton/etc. crew gets traded before Opening Day 2014 - but it's not like their value takes a hit because the system is deeper. I think it makes a team more likely to explore trades for a certain player than they otherwise would, which I guess means that the team will take a bit less for them, but my prior point was that it's not like internally a team will say "gee, this guy is a future role 6 player, but since he's only our 7th best prospect, we can trade him." Without trying to generate a whole bunch of senseless posts with trade ideas, just the general case. I wouldn't mind seeing the Sox execute one or two trades along the 2 for 1 concept where our returns would be a starting pitcher or two that is closer to Bogaerts status than anything we have now and what we would be losing is starting pitcher quantity.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 18, 2013 6:43:04 GMT -5
Don't forget, the top 100 is voted on by the staff at BA, whereas this list is really Alex's list. So IOW, Ranaudo could actually end up ranked higher on the top 100 than some of the guys ahead of him on the Red Sox list. I think they'll end up with 7 or 8 guys on there. Yeah, but Badley had already said that the 10 guys on Speier's top-10 list are all in the mix for top-100 ... so the relative ranking of them within that is irrelevant to the statement that 11 are in the mix. That said, I don't think there's any way they get 10 guys on the top 100, even 8 feels very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2013 6:51:27 GMT -5
Don't forget, the top 100 is voted on by the staff at BA, whereas this list is really Alex's list. So IOW, Ranaudo could actually end up ranked higher on the top 100 than some of the guys ahead of him on the Red Sox list. I think they'll end up with 7 or 8 guys on there. Yeah, but Badley had already said that the 10 guys on Speier's top-10 list are all in the mix for top-100 ... so the relative ranking of them within that is irrelevant to the statement that 11 are in the mix. That said, I don't think there's any way they get 10 guys on the top 100, even 8 feels very unlikely. I'm not sure those two statements are inconsistent. His point is that Ranaudo could get on there and not Ball, for example. Doesn't mean Ball wasn't in the mix when they discussed the top 100.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 18, 2013 7:00:03 GMT -5
Yeah, but Badley had already said that the 10 guys on Speier's top-10 list are all in the mix for top-100 ... so the relative ranking of them within that is irrelevant to the statement that 11 are in the mix. That said, I don't think there's any way they get 10 guys on the top 100, even 8 feels very unlikely. I'm not sure those two statements are inconsistent. His point is that Ranaudo could get on there and not Ball, for example. Doesn't mean Ball wasn't in the mix when they discussed the top 100. Sure, that's my point ... "11 guys in the mix" doesn't make any statement about the relative ranking of those guys or likelihood of each making it. I was about to use the same players to illustrate it; I personally would think Ranaudo would be more likely to make it than Ball.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 18, 2013 9:07:03 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of the rankings at all. A lot of it just seems like needless quantification, but it is what humans like to do. Rarely, there's a player who's such a standout it becomes easy to pick them out from the crowd. Bogaerts is such a player.
On the other hand, the sheer number of prospects who deserve acknowledgment this year is an eye opener. Ranaudo would be one of the highlight guys on many lists. That tells you what you need to know about this system.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 18, 2013 9:37:01 GMT -5
In his weekly Q&A two weeks ago, Law made the statement that Workman is no longer qualified. Has Workman spent enough time with the Sox to be no longer rookie eligible ?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 18, 2013 10:18:20 GMT -5
In his weekly Q&A two weeks ago, Law made the statement that Workman is no longer qualified. Has Workman spent enough time with the Sox to be no longer rookie eligible ? Yes, Workman passed the service time date by about eight days. He's no longer eligible for ROY, but BA doesn't use the service time qualification in their prospect rankings.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 18, 2013 17:04:11 GMT -5
Don't forget, the top 100 is voted on by the staff at BA, whereas this list is really Alex's list. So IOW, Ranaudo could actually end up ranked higher on the top 100 than some of the guys ahead of him on the Red Sox list. I think they'll end up with 7 or 8 guys on there. Yeah, but Badley had already said that the 10 guys on Speier's top-10 list are all in the mix for top-100 ... so the relative ranking of them within that is irrelevant to the statement that 11 are in the mix. That said, I don't think there's any way they get 10 guys on the top 100, even 8 feels very unlikely. I wasn't really responding to anyone in particular, just pointing out. I guess I was somewhat responding to the notion that they might be down on Ranaudo based on the top 10 but Badler himself dispelled that.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 18, 2013 17:19:00 GMT -5
Don't forget, the top 100 is voted on by the staff at BA, whereas this list is really Alex's list. So IOW, Ranaudo could actually end up ranked higher on the top 100 than some of the guys ahead of him on the Red Sox list. I think they'll end up with 7 or 8 guys on there. Yeah, but Badley had already said that the 10 guys on Speier's top-10 list are all in the mix for top-100 ... so the relative ranking of them within that is irrelevant to the statement that 11 are in the mix. That said, I don't think there's any way they get 10 guys on the top 100, even 8 feels very unlikely. I believe Callis said on Alex Speier's podcast that nine Red Sox made MLB.com's top 100 list (with Cecchini, Webster, Swihart and Betts all being between 47 and 59 on Callis' personal list and Ball and Ranaudo being near the bottom of the top 100).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2013 18:35:43 GMT -5
The most amazing things about this list are:
1. Trey Ball at 10. He's the number 7 pick in a deep draft and wasn't considered a reach. How is a high ceiling high draft pick so low on a top 10 list? Because of incredible talent and depth... crazy
2. Ranaudo at number 11. has already been talked about so I don't have to reiterate, but still crazy...
|
|
|