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 kungfuizzy on Jan 14, 2014 7:07:09 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. Well let's think about this here. Not disputing the fact he's a little high on him but Ranaudo was highly regarded coming out of college before the injury. It does take a while after surgery to get a feel for pitching again especially if you're still developing. The big question is was last year for real? The talent is there. But what do they have? The other two Barnes and Webster don't have his command as you mentioned, especially Webster who is probably the most maddening of all the Sox prospects. I feel we will get a chance to see all three in Boston this year so this question will certainly be answered in time. One slight observation. While Ranaundo's raw talent is unquestioned why is he much more highly regarded than another breakout player from last year, Mookie Betts? Higher ceiling, sure. Different position, sure. But both have been productive for one year as a pro. Betts if everything breaks right could be your prototypical #2 hitter. He could also be great trade bait too in the spring if someone like Stanton becomes available and he's one of the prospects that keeps producing. Boegarts is certainly my #1 prospect. After him it's all about preference. For example I have Cecchini at #6 because I don't see him developing more than 15 homer power and while the hit tool overall is solid if he switches positions and goes to left field he'll be average. I'd put my top 5 as Xander, Bradley, Swihart, Webster then Owens Why am I very high on Webster? It's not a stuff issue with him it's all about harnessing his control. He's pitched for 4-5 years and control can be a difficult thing to learn if you're still somewhat new to pitching (I get that will annoy people on this site) learning a delivery and repeating said delivery takes time. I think he takes a gigantic leap forward this year. His stuff compares to Clay's when he was in the minors. Not his numbers but his pure stuff. Swihart I'll defend this until the end. There is no more valuable prospect in all of baseball in my opinion than a young cost controlled catcher that is a dual threat. He'll probably never be Posey but he probably has the potential to be about 60-70% of him and a regular starter on a 1st division team that could sneak a few all star appearances in. If he can become Salvador Perez for example I would be extremely happy. The fact that any of these guys after Xander and Bradley can be interchangeable speaks to the depth of this system and really isn't a knock on any particular player. Right now one of if not the best system in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jan 14, 2014 11:15:05 GMT -5
As an old timer, I've never seen so many Sox pitchers who were potential big league starters in their minor league system at one time. It seems they've gone after big arms in recent drafts and it's paying off. The old saying that you can never have too much pitching bodes well for the future. At the infield positions and catcher, they also have a lot of talent ready to come up. Their weakness? Outfield and power hitters. There are no outfielders ready to jump, other than JBJ, who is not a great power hitter. There are no power 1B guys either. So, I'm hoping they concentrate on outfield power and 1B power in this year's draft. That said, they have Mookie, who looks like he has a little power, but is blocked out of the infield. I'm thinking they might push him to left this season in Portland to learn the position and the Wall. Still, the execs have done a great job in drafting the last few years. They just have to change their priorities a little this year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2014 11:27:54 GMT -5
The problem with targeting power 1B in the draft is that there are almost no 1B prospects to begin with and if there are, they are the most likely to bust because it's an immense amount of pressure on the bat given the fact that they are likely slow and terrible defensively.
I'm not that worried about 1B, they are around almost every year to sign, plus pretty much anyone can pick up the position. Hell, even Papi isn't a trainwreck at 1B and the only reason he hasn't played it more often is to keep him healthier. We could have probably platooned Carp and Hassan at 1B and done pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 14, 2014 11:51:50 GMT -5
The problem with targeting power 1B in the draft is that there are almost no 1B prospects to begin with and if there are, they are the most likely to bust because it's an immense amount of pressure on the bat given the fact that they are likely slow and terrible defensively. I'm not that worried about 1B, they are around almost every year to sign, plus pretty much anyone can pick up the position. Hell, even Papi isn't a trainwreck at 1B and the only reason he hasn't played it more often is to keep him healthier. We could have probably platooned Carp and Hassan at 1B and done pretty well. I hear you, although sometimes it feels like the Red Sox undervalue the lumbering, 1B types with above average offense potential. I would have loved to scoop up Rowdy Tellez late in the draft last year with some of that extra bonus money that didn't get spent.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2014 12:10:34 GMT -5
The problem with targeting power 1B in the draft is that there are almost no 1B prospects to begin with and if there are, they are the most likely to bust because it's an immense amount of pressure on the bat given the fact that they are likely slow and terrible defensively. I'm not that worried about 1B, they are around almost every year to sign, plus pretty much anyone can pick up the position. Hell, even Papi isn't a trainwreck at 1B and the only reason he hasn't played it more often is to keep him healthier. We could have probably platooned Carp and Hassan at 1B and done pretty well. I hear you, although sometimes it feels like the Red Sox undervalue the lumbering, 1B types with above average offense potential. I would have loved to scoop up Rowdy Tellez late in the draft last year with some of that extra bonus money that didn't get spent. I know. We were all drooling over him. They probably didn't like him for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 14, 2014 22:12:26 GMT -5
One slight observation. While Ranaundo's raw talent is unquestioned why is he much more highly regarded than another breakout player from last year, Mookie Betts? Higher ceiling, sure. Different position, sure. But both have been productive for one year as a pro. Betts if everything breaks right could be your prototypical #2 hitter. He could also be great trade bait too in the spring if someone like Stanton becomes available and he's one of the prospects that keeps producing. He's not. I'm not sure where you're getting that Ranaudo is "much more highly regarded."
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 14, 2014 22:22:29 GMT -5
From what I've read to date it appears this years draft is leaning stronger in pitching. Not to say finding hitting prospects will be improbable but I won't be surprised if Boston adds an arm or two as the best value with their first few picks.
I do agree a lumbering power bat hasn't been a Sox target as they do like a more complete player offensively and defensively which ultimately may pay greater dividends. As an example Boston selected in 2012 Devin Marrero with pick 24, Brian Johnson with pick 31 and even Pat Light two picks before Joey Gallo was selected by the Rangers who fits this description well. Most here would likely rather have Gallo's offensive upside and risk over Light at this point.
Still I don't believe in targeting any position or commodity such as power or speed. Each prospect has to be judged as a whole and in comparison to expected value vs other prospects.
When you target power you often get a Brentz or Shaw prospect who has holes in their game and will struggle to stick as a full time starter at the major league level for more than a year or two. As opposed to a well rounded player like Cecchini who could/should develop 15 to 18 Hr power in time but brings high OPB and solid base running. Or Betts who can add 15 to 20 per year. Bogaerts can be 30 plus. Vazquez can add 10 plus. Swihart could see 12 to 15 in time. As opposed to a team with two or three 30 plus HR players it's not a bad thing to have six or seven who can hit 15 plus especially if players get on base at high rates. I believe it would create a likelihood to score runs at a more even distribution throughout the lineup providing more consistent scoring.
|
|
rasimon
Veteran
Posts: 432
Member is Online
|
Post by rasimon on Jan 14, 2014 23:54:27 GMT -5
The problem with targeting power 1B in the draft is that there are almost no 1B prospects to begin with and if there are, they are the most likely to bust because it's an immense amount of pressure on the bat given the fact that they are likely slow and terrible defensively. I'm not that worried about 1B, they are around almost every year to sign, plus pretty much anyone can pick up the position. Hell, even Papi isn't a trainwreck at 1B and the only reason he hasn't played it more often is to keep him healthier. We could have probably platooned Carp and Hassan at 1B and done pretty well. I hear you, although sometimes it feels like the Red Sox undervalue the lumbering, 1B types with above average offense potential. I would have loved to scoop up Rowdy Tellez late in the draft last year with some of that extra bonus money that didn't get spent. I would have preferred using our first pick on Austin Meadows. He's not a sure thing, but neither is Trey Ball. I don't think they should draft specific positions based on current need - for example if they are currently weak at catcher in the big leagues it still does not make sense to draft a catcher. Development time is generally too long to draft for need. By the time the draftee is ready for the big leagues who knows what the team will look like. There is the very rare exception to that rule - the guy who can come right out of the draft and be ready within a year but those guys are pretty rare. I do think however you can draft based on broad strengths and weaknesses within the organization. The Sox are strong in pitching prospects and relatively weak in power prospects so all else approximately equal lean toward drafting the power prospect and against drafting pitching. Ball was not a bad pick but I would have preferred we roll the dice of Meadows.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 15, 2014 2:31:00 GMT -5
I don't know why we couldn't target both speed and power. Philip Ervin was taken as the 27th pick, at 1.8 mil and looked to me to be a solid pick and so far it is proving to be a great choice. We could have had him over Ball at over a million less, enabling us to maybe get that kid who went to Nebraska also with that kind of savings: mlb.mlb.com/news/article/cin/phillip-ervins-early-returns-already-impressing-cincinnati-reds?ymd=20140101&content_id=66228852Ball has great upside but he was also incredibly risky. When we have a pick that high it would seem that we shouldn't incur that level of risk. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it just seemed that the upside was not so great as to incur that level of risk.
|
|
|
Post by curll on Jan 15, 2014 10:26:43 GMT -5
Hindsight is always 20/20 but it just seemed that the upside was not so great as to incur that level of risk. There was a lot of talent at the Red Sox spot last year. They took what they thought was the best available talent. We could analyze every pick from the last decade (KOLBRIN EFFIN' VITEK!!!!! ) and say who we should've/could've picked. But, we're just over 6 months out from the 2013 draft. We should save the what ifs for quite some time.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 15, 2014 16:37:18 GMT -5
I don't know why we couldn't target both speed and power. Philip Ervin was taken as the 27th pick, at 1.8 mil and looked to me to be a solid pick and so far it is proving to be a great choice. We could have had him over Ball at over a million less, enabling us to maybe get that kid who went to Nebraska also with that kind of savings: mlb.mlb.com/news/article/cin/phillip-ervins-early-returns-already-impressing-cincinnati-reds?ymd=20140101&content_id=66228852Ball has great upside but he was also incredibly risky. When we have a pick that high it would seem that we shouldn't incur that level of risk. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it just seemed that the upside was not so great as to incur that level of risk. The upside is that he's a future number 1 or 2. What more do you want? There's a reason Ervin lasted until 27.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 15, 2014 16:55:31 GMT -5
I don't know why we couldn't target both speed and power. Philip Ervin was taken as the 27th pick, at 1.8 mil and looked to me to be a solid pick and so far it is proving to be a great choice. We could have had him over Ball at over a million less, enabling us to maybe get that kid who went to Nebraska also with that kind of savings: mlb.mlb.com/news/article/cin/phillip-ervins-early-returns-already-impressing-cincinnati-reds?ymd=20140101&content_id=66228852Ball has great upside but he was also incredibly risky. When we have a pick that high it would seem that we shouldn't incur that level of risk. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it just seemed that the upside was not so great as to incur that level of risk. Hindsight, indeed. So, let's go back to BA's mock drafts: 1.0 - Ervin #24 2.0 - Ervin #19 3.0 - Ervin #21 4.0 - Ervin #27 (which is where he was picked) If the Red Sox had taken him at #7, there would have been outrage. Why pick Ervin at #7 - he was a mid-to-late round pick? Ervin is a short, stocky guy with serious tools. He profiled as a corner outfielder, with an ability to play right field. He profiled as having very good bat speed but was inconsistent. He was not projectable and, in fact, projected to regress if he slowed down and filled out more. Ervin was a solid pick ... at #27. At #7, it would have been a ridiculous reach. As to who has a better major league career, we can have that discussion in 10-12 years.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 15, 2014 16:57:07 GMT -5
Ball has great upside but he was also incredibly risky. When we have a pick that high it would seem that we shouldn't incur that level of risk. So, your argument is that we should not ever draft a high school pitcher with a top ten pick? TINSTAAPP
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 15, 2014 17:01:39 GMT -5
I don't know why we couldn't target both speed and power. Philip Ervin was taken as the 27th pick, at 1.8 mil and looked to me to be a solid pick and so far it is proving to be a great choice. We could have had him over Ball at over a million less, enabling us to maybe get that kid who went to Nebraska also with that kind of savings: mlb.mlb.com/news/article/cin/phillip-ervins-early-returns-already-impressing-cincinnati-reds?ymd=20140101&content_id=66228852Ball has great upside but he was also incredibly risky. When we have a pick that high it would seem that we shouldn't incur that level of risk. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it just seemed that the upside was not so great as to incur that level of risk. Hindsight, indeed. So, let's go back to BA's mock drafts: 1.0 - Ervin #24 2.0 - Ervin #19 3.0 - Ervin #21 4.0 - Ervin #27 (which is where he was picked) If the Red Sox had taken him at #7, there would have been outrage. Why pick Ervin at #7 - he was a mid-to-late round pick? Ervin is a short, stocky guy with serious tools. He profiled as a corner outfielder, with an ability to play right field. He profiled as having very good bat speed but was inconsistent. He was not projectable and, in fact, projected to regress if he slowed down and filled out more. Ervin was a solid pick ... at #27. At #7, it would have been a ridiculous reach. As to who has a better major league career, we can have that discussion in 10-12 years. And in 10-12 years, it would still be a dumb conversation because no one can predict the future. Ball was a good pick at 7 no matter what happens. If Ball is a bust, he was still a decent pick at 7 at the time because of the chances that he becomes what his projected ceiling might be. There's no point in ever using hindsight except for fun.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jan 15, 2014 17:18:53 GMT -5
To be fair, several people questioned the Ball pick when made, including tlg. But no one suggested that Ervin be the pick. In fact, as I recall tlg wanted Frazier or Stewart, neither of whom are less risky than Ball. Given how the draft fell, most people were expecting Shipley or Meadows.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 15, 2014 17:23:34 GMT -5
To be fair, several people questioned the Ball pick when made, including tlg. But no one suggested that Ervin be the pick. In fact, as I recall tlg wanted Frazier or Stewart, neither of whom are less risky than Ball. Given how the draft fell, most people were expecting Shipley or Meadows. Fine, but I meant Ball was not much of a reach at all.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 15, 2014 18:40:48 GMT -5
I brought up Ervin twice but it was summarily trounced on. I finally ended up hoping for Frazier or Stewart but oh well. I loved his tools and his stroke. I think this guy will be fine against better competition.
Again, it's hindsight so there is no point other than to say that there were speed and power guys out there. If they were not considered worth the #8 pick ( or whatever ) you can always cut a deal before drafting them as other teams did, saving the money for other options.
You might actually like a guy projected at 27 as your #8 selection. Why not save the cash? Use it for an overslot signing somewhere else.
Ball may well end up a tremendous pick. Let's hope he is. Seems like a great kid. I hope he tears it up.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 15, 2014 18:42:52 GMT -5
To be fair, several people questioned the Ball pick when made, including tlg. But no one suggested that Ervin be the pick. In fact, as I recall tlg wanted Frazier or Stewart, neither of whom are less risky than Ball. Given how the draft fell, most people were expecting Shipley or Meadows. I think both Frazier and Stewart were less risky than Ball, but so did the teams that drafted them ahead of us!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 15, 2014 18:54:00 GMT -5
I brought up Ervin twice but it was summarily trounced on. I finally ended up hoping for Frazier or Stewart but oh well. I loved his tools and his stroke. I think this guy will be fine against better competition. Again, it's hindsight so there is no point other than to say that there were speed and power guys out there. If they were not considered worth the #8 pick ( or whatever ) you can always cut a deal before drafting them as other teams did, saving the money for other options. You might actually like a guy projected at 27 as your #8 selection. Why not save the cash? Use it for an overslot signing somewhere else. Ball may well end up a tremendous pick. Let's hope he is. Seems like a great kid. I hope he tears it up. But what's even a "speed and power guy" to you then? Was Hazelbaker? Look at what Ervin is: BA (#3 in Reds system): "Ervin may not have a plus-plus tool, but his scouting report has plenty of 60s on the 20-80 scale. ... Ervin has battled minor injuries since high school, starting with a knee injury as a prep senior. He’s had hand and hamstring injuries (summer after freshman year), a sprained ankle (junior year) and a wrist injury that cut his pro debut short." "Ervin was one of the safer bats in the 2013 draft. He may lack star potential, but he should advance quickly." BP (from a chat on 11/8): Mark Anderson: "I certainly don't buy the power surge in the rookie-level Pioneer League, but there's a little more juice in the bat than I think he was given credit for entering the draft. I think there's a chance he ends up with average power that manifests in a pile of doubles and 15 home runs a year, which makes him an extremely useful player if he can stick in the middle of the outfield." www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=1095So you're upset they didn't take a guy who "lacks star potential," has a well-documented injury problem, and has "a chance ... [to be] an extremely useful player" at 1-7 instead of a HS pitcher because he's "safer" and is a "speed and power guy." That sum it up? Look, Ervin was a first-rounder, and probably a damn good pick at 27, but like amfox said above, he wasn't a top-15 pick in this draft.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 15, 2014 21:29:12 GMT -5
You might actually like a guy projected at 27 as your #8 selection. Why not save the cash? Use it for an overslot signing somewhere else. Because I'm not sure how someone would react to a team saying "hey, in another hypothetical world you were drafted #27 overall and signed for much less than Trey Ball, our own selection at that time, so we were wondering if you would take that same bonus for us to completely overdraft you". Plus, the Red Sox actually DID something to that effect with both BJ and Pat Light and it didn't work out so great without extra dimensional experiences.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jan 15, 2014 23:52:59 GMT -5
I was disappointed in now the draft fell, but I am on board with Ball. Meadows would have been OK in my mind (at the time, he has played really well since), but if it was a bat, I wanted the Red Sox to take Dominic Smith. Power from 1B and he can field the position well.
Ervin would have been a reach, the kind of player that they can nab at the end of the 1st each year. Maybe he outperforms expectations, but since you can't trade 1st round picks, they needed to take the highest rated player on their board, which appears to have been Ball.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Jan 25, 2014 15:54:23 GMT -5
This has been bugging me since John came out with the list. Last year, from the preliminary lists posted on the web, there were 150 B prospects or better. Workman, Webster, Barnes, and Ball all have a chance at being top 100 prospects. Yet they're all B- prospects here. So, do you think John is a bit down on them compared to others? Neither his write-ups nor his comments seem to indicate that. John does seem to be more aware of the increased riskiness of pitching prospects compared to other prospect writers--could that be what's going on? Or do you think that he was being cautious as this was early in the process and when he sees how they fit compared to other players the grades will be increased? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 25, 2014 16:11:34 GMT -5
This has been bugging me since John came out with the list. Last year, from the preliminary lists posted on the web, there were 150 B prospects or better. Workman, Webster, Barnes, and Ball all have a chance at being top 100 prospects. Yet they're all B- prospects here. So, do you think John is a bit down on them compared to others? Neither his write-ups nor his comments seem to indicate that. John does seem to be more aware of the increased riskiness of pitching prospects compared to other prospect writers--could that be what's going on? Or do you think that he was being cautious as this was early in the process and when he sees how they fit compared to other players the grades will be increased? Any thoughts? Maybe he thinks minor league talent in general is down this year...guess we will find out soon.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 26, 2014 21:00:45 GMT -5
Or maybe he over graded in the past
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 26, 2014 22:51:28 GMT -5
I was disappointed in now the draft fell, but I am on board with Ball. Meadows would have been OK in my mind (at the time, he has played really well since), but if it was a bat, I wanted the Red Sox to take Dominic Smith. Power from 1B and he can field the position well. Ervin would have been a reach, the kind of player that they can nab at the end of the 1st each year. Maybe he outperforms expectations, but since you can't trade 1st round picks, they needed to take the highest rated player on their board, which appears to have been Ball. This sums up my feelings exactly. I was disappointed by the first six picks (in my opinion at the time the six best players went 1-6). I wanted meadows or smith. Ball however was a pretty good possibility and I posted immediately before the pick "I bet they do something unexpected and take Ball". Ball was a top ten pick, he is further away than others, so we will need to more patient with him.
|
|
|