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.
Boston Red Sox Top 20 Prospects for 2014 (By John Sickels)
|
Post by alex710707 on Jan 1, 2014 22:07:20 GMT -5
1) Xander Bogaerts, SS-3B, Grade A: A Grade A prospect who should do everything well except steal bases. Power should steadily increase. Not hype, he is for real. 2) Jackie Bradley, OF, Grade B+: Although I wouldn’t expect him to be a .300 type hitter, his broad secondary skills and impressive defense should make him a long-term regular. 3) Garin Cecchini, 3B, Grade B+: I won’t be talked out of the B+ grade like I was last year. Absolutely love this bat and superior on-base skills. Have to see where he fits defensively. I’ve gone back-and-forth with Bradley at 2 and this could flip depending on how I want to slot them in the Top 50, but I will worry about that next month. 4) Henry Owens, LHP, Grade B+: Walk rate in Double-A was the only negative here, but the overall package looks like a sound number three starter to me, perhaps more. SUMMARY: Obviously this is a very deep system, with at least four B+ or better prospects. You have a future All-Star in Bogaerts, and at least four guys who can be major league regulars. There are high-ceiling tools players, and high floor skill players. There’s depth at all levels, with several prospects near the majors but plenty following at the lower levels. There are guys who can hit and guys who can field. There’s everything basically. If you are looking for a flaw, there are no certain top-of-the-rotation starting pitchers, nobody who looks like a Grade A pitching prospect for certain. But you can say that about a lot of teams. Most organizations don’t have a future number one starter. That said, the Red Sox have more pitching depth than most systems, with at least four plausible mid-rotation arms and a bevy of bullpen possibilities. As with the hitters, there’s a good mixture of pitchers ready or almost ready for the majors, but plenty of depth behind them. I keep using the word depth, but it fits. complete list on the website below. www.minorleagueball.com/2014/1/1/5264914/boston-red-sox-top-20-prospects-for-2014
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2014 23:09:09 GMT -5
That he thinks Ranaudo might be as good of a prospect as Bradley-Cecchini-Owens is kind of a joke a bit odd.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2014 23:15:04 GMT -5
Sickles' comment on Ranaudo's stuff seems suspect to me. I have him far lagging Webster and Barnes in that department, though Anthony has the best command out of those three. IIRC, Sickels has always loved Ranaudo and has consistently ranked him high.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 1, 2014 23:37:53 GMT -5
That he thinks Ranaudo might be as good of a prospect as Bradley-Cecchini-Owens is kind of a joke. Really? I don't think they are apart on prospect status, it's not like he's saying Ranaudo is at the same level as Bogey. Ranaudo has tremendous physical tools and actually performed very well this year. I'm okay with it.
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Jan 2, 2014 0:12:17 GMT -5
These rankings seem a little suspect. Vazquez below mercedes is a joke, (although he did say the C+s could be ranked in any order) and Margots not even in the top 20 behind guys like callahan johnson and buttrey.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Jan 2, 2014 0:30:35 GMT -5
While I do disagree with some of these placements (specifically in regards to Britton and Mercedes) and find his bullishness on Ranaudo to be questionable, I find it entirely unfair to dismiss Sickles' opinions and to label the list as a "joke". For a free non-subscriber website, minor league ball is above most others and Sickles does pretty solid work.
Again, I agree with both Chris and jbberlo (welcome to the site), but I feel like calling the list and or Sickels a "joke" is an overreaction.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 2, 2014 0:32:55 GMT -5
Well, one issue with Sickels, I think, is that he doesn't really put a ton of time into ordering the guys at a certain tier. He says this year, as he did last year, that anyone in the C+ range could probably be ordered in any order. So if he's basically going to say, in that sense, not to pay attention to the rankings, I won't.
That said, even looking at the grades, he can be way off sometimes. He got talked out of giving Cecchini a B+ last year and he was right the whole time there. However, he also gave Pat Light a B-, which was ridiculous at the time and looks that way now. Seeing that and Mercedes this year at 13 this year makes me wonder if he's got a guy he talks to for NYPL guys who gets super bullish on some arms and influences him.
Also worth noting that Sickels is way behind schedule because of his concussion and thus is probably rushing his process a bit.
And for the record, I did not call Sickels a joke. I called the fact that he thinks Ranaudo might be a B+ prospect, which for Sickels means a top 70-ish prospect in baseball, kind of a joke. Admittedly, that's probably a bit strong, but it's just a tad strange to me.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 2, 2014 2:17:49 GMT -5
Don't we have to give him at least a little bit of a break considering that it is a draft? Also, I like his method of separating talent into letter grade groupings rather than clear-cut numeric rankings. Numeric rankings are fun but often the 16th ranked prospect and the 18th ranked prospect, on any list, can be interchangeable.
I think that his assessment of Ranaudo is pretty fair: 'I think he has the best combination of stuff and command among the Bosox RHP prospect corps'
Between Barnes, RDLR, Webster, Owens and Ranaudo - Ranaudo does have the best present command - right? It's hard to balance stuff + command, but if you are looking for non-K results, he was as good as any Sox prospect last year wasn't he?
Seems to me that most prospect evaporators have Barnes,Owens, Webster and Ranaudo at, or close to, a #3 projection.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 2, 2014 9:17:24 GMT -5
Yes, it's key that "All of these grades are preliminary and subject to change." He can be persuaded by good arguments in the comments to change the grade either on there website or for the book. Notice that five of the top 10 are "x but borderline one grade higher." So y'all can go and tell him Ranaudo (if you want!) should be a B and Betts and Swihart a B+
Note this exchange in comments: "Is NO.5 ~ NO.10 quite close? Ranking Anthony Ranaudo at NO. 5 before Barnes, even Mookie Betts and Swihart is quite surprising. He is not in BA’s Top 10. Is the ranking from NO.5~NO.10 of the sox quite close? by alex710707 on Jan 1, 2014
Very much so I think 1 through 4 are firm, but after that it gets very mushy on who should rank ahead of who. Large group of B types. by John Sickels"
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 2, 2014 9:20:59 GMT -5
Note that a couple days ago, Sickels teased that Sox had two B+ guys and three Bs. Wound up with 3 of each, so one B moved up to B+ and one B- or lower up to B.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 2, 2014 9:24:57 GMT -5
That he thinks Ranaudo might be as good of a prospect as Bradley-Cecchini-Owens is kind of a joke a bit odd. Same tier doesn't mean "as good". In my classes an 86.5% average is borderline B+ while 89 is also B+. I often look at final grades and marvel that X got the same grade as Y without being quite as good.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 2, 2014 9:40:23 GMT -5
That he thinks Ranaudo might be as good of a prospect as Bradley-Cecchini-Owens is kind of a joke a bit odd. Don't think that's really what he meant or said ... in the comments, he mentioned that he was firm on the top 4 (X, JBJ, Cecchini, Owens), then the next 6 or 7 were really squishy, lots of B-type prospects that can be shuffled. Anyway, I disagree with him, but I don't think it's completely outlandish to think that Ranaudo may have a better career than, say, Webster. It's all in what you value. If you squint a certain way, either of those guys looks terrific, but if you squint another way, they both look like washouts. edit: eh, basically what those guys said while my browser was open. This is actually what I like about Sickels; he doesn't get all that caught up in numerical rankings. He knows the error bars on these guys are bigger than the perceived difference between them. It's more about tiers and grades, then he gets around to shuffling around the order when he has the time.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 2, 2014 10:04:17 GMT -5
Sickles' comment on Ranaudo's stuff seems suspect to me. I have him far lagging Webster and Barnes in that department, though Anthony has the best command out of those three. IIRC, Sickels has always loved Ranaudo and has consistently ranked him high. Except what he said was:
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 2, 2014 10:16:27 GMT -5
Thinking Ranaudo may be a top 70 prospect is a joke? That's a bit extreme. I get the initial reaction, but it seems your word choice to begin with was a bit reflexive and overly harsh. We've all been there, don't have to try to justify it. Just because BA had him outside the top 10 doesn't mean he's not to 70 worthy for someone else. If his FB CB combo with the command profiles as a good 3/4 with a floor of a late inning bullpen guy (in his mind). That could justify things.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 2, 2014 10:34:19 GMT -5
Thinking Ranaudo may be a top 70 prospect is a joke? That's a bit extreme. I get the initial reaction, but it seems your word choice to begin with was a bit reflexive and overly harsh. We've all been there, don't have to try to justify it. Just because BA had him outside the top 10 doesn't mean he's not to 70 worthy for someone else. If his FB CB combo with the command profiles as a good 3/4 with a floor of a late inning bullpen guy (in his mind). That could justify things. Pretty much how I feel, I don't think Ranaudo got overrated at all. And for one I think that Sickels does a very nice job, even more so considering is a free website and he doesn't pass that circle jerk vibe that a lot of other scouts do.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 2, 2014 10:48:53 GMT -5
I get the initial reaction, but it seems your word choice to begin with was a bit reflexive and overly harsh. Yep. Which is why I've already said this.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 2, 2014 10:50:08 GMT -5
It seems like Workman is doing quite well in the majors for a guy who everyone thought didn't have good enough stuff to be a starter. The guy is built like a tank and can throw strikes. So far it looks like a career as a #4 or 5 but durable as heck. That is worth quite a bit. Fastball command is still under rated as an attribute and it is amazing what adding a cutter can do for a lot of guys careers.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 2, 2014 11:04:54 GMT -5
Putting aside the minor details and looking at the bigger picture, a comment made by Sickels really says a lot about our system to me.
When explaining his placement of Vazquez at number 14, he said it's because he's not convinced yet that Vazquez will be a starter. He later added that he'd bet that Vazquez will have at least a 10 year major league career.
Think about how deep he must think our system is if he ranks a 10 year major league career 14th on his list.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 2, 2014 11:10:41 GMT -5
I have Ranaudo as the third of the AAA trio, but I think you can justify any of the three as a B+ and can rank them in any order and be fully justified.
It looks like BA is the highest on Webster and is going to have him as potentially a top 50 prospect.
This site has Ranaudo ahead of Webster.
Baseball Prospectus looks to be the highest on Barnes.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 2, 2014 11:29:53 GMT -5
Yes, it's key that "All of these grades are preliminary and subject to change." He can be persuaded by good arguments in the comments to change the grade either on there website or for the book. Notice that five of the top 10 are "x but borderline one grade higher." So y'all can go and tell him Ranaudo (if you want!) should be a B and Betts and Swihart a B+ Note this exchange in comments: "Is NO.5 ~ NO.10 quite close? Ranking Anthony Ranaudo at NO. 5 before Barnes, even Mookie Betts and Swihart is quite surprising. He is not in BA’s Top 10. Is the ranking from NO.5~NO.10 of the sox quite close? by alex710707 on Jan 1, 2014 Very much so I think 1 through 4 are firm, but after that it gets very mushy on who should rank ahead of who. Large group of B types. by John Sickels" This is the format I would like to see adopted by the other prospect mavens. To me, it's much more interesting to see grades (I love BAs new format of #/risk, too) rather than a set number of prospects for each team. Or, really, even a top 100 list. I tend to group most things which require ranking into a tier system rather than a solid order. I'd love to see a move towards ignoring who is ranked #50 and who is ranked #58 because # 58 is sooo much better than #50, blah blah blah. BA seems to be going that way somewhat and Sickels has been doing it as long as I've been following his work. It would really help for MILB-wide ranking. Rather than focus on the "Top 10X" prospects you could look and see where the groups diverge and discuss within each group the differences between players. Within this system you have Barnes, Ranaudo, Webster, Swihart, Mookie all in the same tier of players; none of whom are significantly better or worse than the others.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 2, 2014 11:58:41 GMT -5
It seems like Workman is doing quite well in the majors for a guy who everyone thought didn't have good enough stuff to be a starter. The guy is built like a tank and can throw strikes. So far it looks like a career as a #4 or 5 but durable as heck. That is worth quite a bit. Fastball command is still under rated as an attribute and it is amazing what adding a cutter can do for a lot of guys careers. Actually, the knocks on Workman were: 1. He uses maximal effort in his delivery which leads to concerns about injuries during a starters' workload. 2. He doesn't have a good breaking ball making him vulnerable to opposite handed batters. His 2013 FIP (SSS) was almost a full run higher vs. LHH than RHH. Also, the value of his CB was well below that of his other pitches on a per 100 pitch basis. I do agree with you that command trumps stuff in many cases. Diasuke is a favorite example of mine: his stuff was fantastic, but as we all know, he literally couldn't hit the broad-side of a barn. Workman's really not a great pitcher, though I think he's very servicable; last season's success was largely reliant on him limiting free passes and having a very good defense behind him.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 2, 2014 12:05:29 GMT -5
Well, one issue with Sickels, I think, is that he doesn't really put a ton of time into ordering the guys at a certain tier. He says this year, as he did last year, that anyone in the C+ range could probably be ordered in any order. So if he's basically going to say, in that sense, not to pay attention to the rankings, I won't. That said, even looking at the grades, he can be way off sometimes. He got talked out of giving Cecchini a B+ last year and he was right the whole time there. However, he also gave Pat Light a B-, which was ridiculous at the time and looks that way now. Seeing that and Mercedes this year at 13 this year makes me wonder if he's got a guy he talks to for NYPL guys who gets super bullish on some arms and influences him. Also worth noting that Sickels is way behind schedule because of his concussion and thus is probably rushing his process a bit. And for the record, I did not call Sickels a joke. I called the fact that he thinks Ranaudo might be a B+ prospect, which for Sickels means a top 70-ish prospect in baseball, kind of a joke. Admittedly, that's probably a bit strong, but it's just a tad strange to me. Baseball America had Ranaudo 37th on their midseason top 50, and said he would be even higher if not for his injury history; I don't really see how Sickels saying he's "top 70-ish" is a joke now, even if he has him pushing the top 50 I can't really see calling it a joke (unless you think Callis/BA are completely out of their minds, and I don't remember comments like that at the time). It's higher than I would have him in the org top ten, but top 70 sounds pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 6, 2014 19:38:23 GMT -5
It seems like Workman is doing quite well in the majors for a guy who everyone thought didn't have good enough stuff to be a starter. The guy is built like a tank and can throw strikes. So far it looks like a career as a #4 or 5 but durable as heck. That is worth quite a bit. Fastball command is still under rated as an attribute and it is amazing what adding a cutter can do for a lot of guys careers. I agree with you about Workman. For a guy who has barely broke any top ten lists... he sure looks like a guy who will have a long career on a championship caliber team. He has a great pitch ability and that is enough to carry a good bullpen arm. He certainly could be a back of the rotation starter as well and one or both of those will happen next year. I like knowing that he could be an emergency swing man if need be. I think the Sox have a clear directive to get relief pitchers who pound the strike zone. Much like they have a distinct personality when it comes to finding a Red Sox style of patient hitter. I think we are seeing a clear personality of the bullpen develop moving forward. The choice in relief pitching shows a desire for guys to simply pound the strike zone with Koji, Mujica, Taza and the next class down Workman, Breslow and Badenhop. I think Workman can be stretched out at the end of the year if our other prospects can't show the ability to start games in the majors. Either one of those positions is very valuable and it adds flexibility on the MLB roster. We are paying Dempster $13 million and Peavy $14.5 million... prices for starters aren't going down anytime soon. If you can find a solid back of the rotation starter in your system in today's market it is incredibly valuable. The value does go way down for a relief pitcher where we paid 2 years @ $9.5 million for Mujica... but that still has considerable value compounded over many years. I believe that is why many sites do not have Workman rated higher even though he has all the indicators of a future quality MLB player.
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jan 7, 2014 0:14:30 GMT -5
Well, one issue with Sickels, I think, is that he doesn't really put a ton of time into ordering the guys at a certain tier. He says this year, as he did last year, that anyone in the C+ range could probably be ordered in any order. So if he's basically going to say, in that sense, not to pay attention to the rankings, I won't. That's actually what I like about him. If two prospects are close but in different ways personal preference may have one person ahead of another and that's what starts the "player X over Y is so bogus" stuff. Pay attention to the tiers and know that basically the players within them could change places easily.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 10, 2014 16:00:23 GMT -5
I like Ranaudo and Barnes tied as the top right-handers in the system. I have no problem with Sickles ranking Anthony's success and nearness to the bigs above Swihart. I'm more surprised with the low ranking or Barnes.
|
|
|