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.
How Strong is the System?
|
Post by oilcansman on Aug 1, 2014 13:16:15 GMT -5
Well, BC has decided to put the system to the test for the next few months. Much will be learned. If I had to guess, Middlesbrooks will fail, Bradley will succeed, Boggie will rise again, Webster will fail, Rubby will be a trick or treat, Workman will be just ok. I would love to see the Sox give Owens and Johnson a shot. Both are sure fire major league pitchers by the middle of next season so why not go with a look see now when the stakes are quite low.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Aug 1, 2014 13:45:05 GMT -5
Well, BC has decided to put the system to the test for the next few months. Much will be learned. If I had to guess, Middlesbrooks will fail, Bradley will succeed, Boggie will rise again, Webster will fail, Rubby will be a trick or treat, Workman will be just ok. I would love to see the Sox give Owens and Johnson a shot. Both are sure fire major league pitchers by the middle of next season so why not go with a look see now when the stakes are quite low.I wouldn't. Neither has sniffed triple-A though Owens will starting by arriving there tonight. Johnson won't likely get there this year unless he really forces there hand. Also there is no reason to put either on the 40 man roster before December of 2015 with a roster crunch coming this winter.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 1, 2014 16:03:10 GMT -5
Well, BC has decided to put the system to the test for the next few months. Much will be learned. If I had to guess, Middlesbrooks will fail, Bradley will succeed, Boggie will rise again, Webster will fail, Rubby will be a trick or treat, Workman will be just ok. I would love to see the Sox give Owens and Johnson a shot. Both are sure fire major league pitchers by the middle of next season so why not go with a look see now when the stakes are quite low.I wouldn't. Neither has sniffed triple-A though Owens will starting by arriving there tonight. Johnson won't likely get there this year unless he really forces there hand. Also there is no reason to put either on the 40 man roster before December of 2015 with a roster crunch coming this winter. I know, I know...It doesn't count. But wasn't Owens pickled in ST??
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 3, 2014 14:56:19 GMT -5
I tell you the manager in Portland Mcmillon is someone to keep your eye on.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 3, 2014 17:58:22 GMT -5
I tell you the manager in Portland Mcmillon is someone to keep your eye on. Not disagreeing, but what do you like about him?
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 3, 2014 21:35:25 GMT -5
He managed for a title last year in A ball at Salem and got promoted to Portland and there kicking ass this year. Seems to be pushing the right buttons to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 4, 2014 7:24:36 GMT -5
No disrespect to Billy, who is by all accounts a great manager, but he's had the benefit of having stacked rosters the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 4, 2014 14:02:07 GMT -5
He also took a lot of loses off of the roster also. Still managed pretty good to me.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Aug 4, 2014 14:11:20 GMT -5
With Swihart promoted to Pawtucket, we are stacked their!!
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 4, 2014 16:51:23 GMT -5
I tell you the manager in Portland Mcmillon is someone to keep your eye on. Not disagreeing, but what do you like about him? I agree with you about billy McMillon. He has had winning seasons every time for the system. He will probably get a nod for Pawtucket next year, but I would like to see him with the big club. farrell and his minions have done a terrible job this year. I do agree that he has been blessed with a stacked club the past 2 yrs. greenville, which was supposed to be stacked has been horrible. Whoever the manager is of that club should be shown the door.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 4, 2014 17:13:25 GMT -5
Greenville was definitely not considered stacked, and they are a perfect example of why not to measure minor league teams by win-loss record. Fenster is an excellent young development guy, and Greenville has had a ton of players overachieve, particularly at the plate. Witte and Asuaje weren't talked about at the beginning of the season, Perkins has put himself back on the radar, Margot has improved very steadily, Rijo has been outstanding despite being one of the yongest players in the league. On the mound, Kukuk and Pat Light, coming off poor 2013 seasons, put things together quickly in 2014 and re-established themselves as prospects. Even Trey Ball, who has had his ups and downs, has been pitching much, much better in the last six weeks.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 4, 2014 17:24:54 GMT -5
The overall goal of the system is to develop players for the major league team. So what is the score lately: Middlebrooks is still "developing". Bradley is frustrating with the bat, Xander has problems with glove and bat and is still developing, Webster is a flop so far or still developing, to put it kindly, Workman is so so, and Vasquez is a find. Wilson has become a yo yo. Ruddy and Holt were from other systems,with Hotz a find and Ruddy promising. And Hassan was quickly sent packing back. Now a career minor leaguer, Brown, is up. I might be missing a few. It is hot here.
Draw your own conclusions, but don't count the players still in the minors as they have no major league track record. The 2013 draft is real spotty so far, but that is another story.
Theo's regime seemed to at least produce players who did well in the majors in relatively efficient time. (Dustin was a one month problem)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 4, 2014 17:28:10 GMT -5
The overall goal of the system is to develop players for the major league team. So what is the score lately: Middlebrooks is still "developing". Bradley is frustrating with the bat, Xander has problems with glove and bat and is still developing, Webster is a flop so far or still developing, to put it kindly, Workman is so so, and Vasquez is a find. Wilson has become a yo yo. Ruddy and Holt were from other systems,with Hotz a find and Ruddy promising. And Hassan was quickly sent packing back. Now a career minor leaguer, Brown, is up. I might be missing a few. It is hot here. Draw your own conclusions, but don't count the players still in the minors as they have no major league track record. The 2013 draft is real spotty so far, but that is another story. Theo's regime seemed to at least produce players who did well in the majors in relatively efficient time. (Dustin was a one month problem) I'm sorry, who drafted/signed Middlebrooks and Bradley and Workman and Bogaerts and Wilson and Hassan? For that matter, how come Holt and De La Rosa can't be counted as successes because they're from other organizations, but Webster's struggles are noted as a mark against?
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 4, 2014 17:48:29 GMT -5
Who cares who drafted them. And I did count Holt and Ruddy as promising, but noted they came from other organizations for obvious reasons, so. The reference to Theo was primarily a base line but you are correct there is a implication there. That may have been a mistake for I did now want it to get in the Theo versus Ben debate and thus avoid the issue here. Wanted a discussion on the recent call ups and what it means, if anything. On the surface it makes me just wonder, but that's me.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Aug 5, 2014 22:15:51 GMT -5
Bighead: I already wrote a post where I said the basis of the two prospects per season was Haywood Sullivan's belief. Sullivan began in baseball operations with the Sox in the 60s under Dick O'Connell and eventually became a much despised owner. Nonetheless, he was a baseball guy who didn't believe in free agency, perhaps conveniently, and thought a good farm system should produce two starters per year. Notice I NEVER said stars - starters. Some posters seem to think I was talking about stars. My claim that the system is underperforming is based on the fact no young players from the system for the past 4-5 years have contributed as starters to the team. There have been some interesting rebuttals (Reddick, Lowrie, Masterson, Kalish injury)I have commented on those players. No need to rehash. One of the primary problems we all have is we tend to believe what we want evidence be damned. Believe me, I am sometimes an offender. Haywood would be so proud: The late Haywood Sullivan, who was way ahead of his time with running farm systems and developing talent, always said that every five years you should be able to replace one of your players with someone from your farm system. Maybe that replacement is Henry Owens. And maybe you have to wait for him. www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/08/05/ask-nick-trading-for-giancarlo-stanton-still-possible/ReZZQoU1EFwSklMNy9NrDJ/story.html?event=event25
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 5, 2014 23:01:30 GMT -5
I think the system is stacked. I'd say top 5 to 10. The amount of talent in the system right now is crazy. I biggest problem I see going forward is how to maximize the returns from all these prospects.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 5, 2014 23:48:29 GMT -5
Since John Henry bought the Red Sox, they have acquired Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, Adrian Gonzalez, Andrew Bailey and Jake Peavy for prospects. Those prospects have included Jorge De La Rosa, Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Andy Marte, Justin Masterson,Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick and Jose Iglesias.
None of those trades was a bad trade, and some of them were excellent.
Despite that the departed prospects have produced more WAR than the acquired veterans. If we include only contractual time actually traded (e.g. one year of Adrian Gonzalez vs. six years of Anthony Rizzo), the prospects have been worth more than double the WAR of the acquired veterans.
I think, provided Bogaerts and Betts and Swihart aren't busts, that there is enough talent in the farm system that the Red Sox can, with a few good free agent signings, have a really good team by 2016, and possibly even in 2015. I don't feel they have the prospects to acquire a Giancarlo Stanton (who will cost at a minimum three of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Owens)and have enough left to build a contender.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 6, 2014 7:51:04 GMT -5
Despite that the departed prospects have produced more WAR than the acquired veterans. If we include only contractual time actually traded (e.g. one year of Adrian Gonzalez vs. six years of Anthony Rizzo), the prospects have been worth more than double the WAR of the acquired veterans. This is a flawed way of looking at trades. You can't look at total WAR of a prospect traded. You have to look at it in terms of WAR/Roster Spot/Season. I won't get into details of individual trades, but teams like the Red Sox are trading for above average players to fill immediate needs. Context is very, very important; much more so than generic WAR vs. WAR analysis.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 6, 2014 9:29:27 GMT -5
Raftsox,
Agreed, but I wasn't trying to evaluate the trades (in fact, I thought they were for the most part good trades).
When a team trades prospects for players, it does at least two things. It normally gives up ceiling (prospects traded will normally have a higher ceiling) in exchange for lowered risk (veterans carry less risk). It also trades future wins for current wins.
In a reasonably rational market, one would expect current wins to be more highly valued than future wins, and, looking at the Red Sox over past decade, that does appear to be the case.
My point was that I think the Red Sox system is strong enough to get them back into contention; I don't think it is strong enough to do so and reduce the risk associated with prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2014 9:35:41 GMT -5
You should subtract the WAR of the players who play in place of the prospects lost and factor in money. Because it's not as if we're replacing them with replacement players.
For a team like the Red Sox who expects to contend yearly, you almost need a new stat like wins over (expected) average Red Sox player. 2 WAR players aren't that valuable to us. I'd give up 4 of them for a 6 WAR player without thinking even though we'd get less WAR in the trade.
Of course this excludes the season in which almost every player on the team is disappointing or having their worst season of their career. We could have used a few more 2 WAR players this year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 6, 2014 12:44:43 GMT -5
Since John Henry bought the Red Sox, they have acquired Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, Adrian Gonzalez, Andrew Bailey and Jake Peavy for prospects. Those prospects have included Jorge De La Rosa, Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Andy Marte, Justin Masterson,Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick and Jose Iglesias. None of those trades was a bad trade, and some of them were excellent. Despite that the departed prospects have produced more WAR than the acquired veterans. If we include only contractual time actually traded (e.g. one year of Adrian Gonzalez vs. six years of Anthony Rizzo), the prospects have been worth more than double the WAR of the acquired veterans. I think, provided Bogaerts and Betts and Swihart aren't busts, that there is enough talent in the farm system that the Red Sox can, with a few good free agent signings, have a really good team by 2016, and possibly even in 2015. I don't feel they have the prospects to acquire a Giancarlo Stanton (who will cost at a minimum three of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Owens)and have enough left to build a contender. We have more then enough to get Stanton and saying the minimum price would be 3 of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Owens is crazy. Those are 4 prospects that have all been top 25 prospects. Yes that might be what the Marlins start out asking for, but it won't take that much. Not when prospects are valued as high as they are today. I think a package of Betts, two of the following Devers, Webster, Ranaudo, Marrero, Vazquez, Johnson, Rodriquez, Barnes, Coyle and Cecchini. Then another lottery ticket type player like a Margot or Rijo. I just don't see another team willing to give up 3 elite prospects for Stanton. Lets say the offer was Betts, Ranaudo, Rodriquez and Rijo. That's three top 100 prospects and Rijo a high upside very young player. If Betts was still being considered for Keith Laws mid season top 50, he should have been in the top 10. Betts most likely will be the single best prospect the Marlins get offered for Stanton. Now to your point on WARS on players traded. I'm sure your right, the problem is we have too many good prospects and don't seem interest in developing them. So we have to trade some of them. I wish they'd understand that not all players get to the majors and have success right away. They should have left Bogaerts at SS and they should be playing Bradley almost everyday. You need to give our elite prospects two years of regular playing time before you can say their a bust. I just remember a month back when Bradley really heated up and what did they do? Brought up Betts and were playing Bradley every other day. If the Red Sox aren't willing to give our prospects more then a month or two to prove themselves, then we are going to have a really hard time developing this stacked farm system.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 18, 2014 10:59:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geezergeek on Sept 22, 2014 17:22:19 GMT -5
Since John Henry bought the Red Sox, they have acquired Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, Adrian Gonzalez, Andrew Bailey and Jake Peavy for prospects. Those prospects have included Jorge De La Rosa, Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Andy Marte, Justin Masterson,Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick and Jose Iglesias. None of those trades was a bad trade, and some of them were excellent. Despite that the departed prospects have produced more WAR than the acquired veterans. If we include only contractual time actually traded (e.g. one year of Adrian Gonzalez vs. six years of Anthony Rizzo), the prospects have been worth more than double the WAR of the acquired veterans. I think, provided Bogaerts and Betts and Swihart aren't busts, that there is enough talent in the farm system that the Red Sox can, with a few good free agent signings, have a really good team by 2016, and possibly even in 2015. I don't feel they have the prospects to acquire a Giancarlo Stanton (who will cost at a minimum three of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Owens)and have enough left to build a contender. We have more then enough to get Stanton and saying the minimum price would be 3 of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart and Owens is crazy. Those are 4 prospects that have all been top 25 prospects. Yes that might be what the Marlins start out asking for, but it won't take that much. Not when prospects are valued as high as they are today. I think a package of Betts, two of the following Devers, Webster, Ranaudo, Marrero, Vazquez, Johnson, Rodriquez, Barnes, Coyle and Cecchini. Then another lottery ticket type player like a Margot or Rijo. I just don't see another team willing to give up 3 elite prospects for Stanton. Lets say the offer was Betts, Ranaudo, Rodriquez and Rijo. That's three top 100 prospects and Rijo a high upside very young player. If Betts was still being considered for Keith Laws mid season top 50, he should have been in the top 10. Betts most likely will be the single best prospect the Marlins get offered for Stanton. Now to your point on WARS on players traded. I'm sure your right, the problem is we have too many good prospects and don't seem interest in developing them. So we have to trade some of them. I wish they'd understand that not all players get to the majors and have success right away. They should have left Bogaerts at SS and they should be playing Bradley almost everyday. You need to give our elite prospects two years of regular playing time before you can say their a bust. I just remember a month back when Bradley really heated up and what did they do? Brought up Betts and were playing Bradley every other day. If the Red Sox aren't willing to give our prospects more then a month or two to prove themselves, then we are going to have a really hard time developing this stacked farm system. 3 top 100 prospects and a secondary prospect for the privilege of paying Stanton $250-300 million for 10 years. Yasmani Tomas is starting to look like a good deal even at $100 mil. Save the prospects for a #1 and 2 starter. (GG: Please try to be careful about not putting what you're posting inside of the "quote" tags. Thanks.)
|
|
|