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 jimed14 on May 27, 2014 10:51:30 GMT -5
Portland is 34-16 and it's not because they have a bunch of career minor leaguers. And I look forward to seeing Johnson, Betts, Marrero, Swihart and maybe even Ramos. But, my goodness, what about the young guys in Boston and Pawtucket? We've been hearing about them for 3-4 years, and things are looking shaky. I guess my question is how does the hype get started and why? It seems to build on itself, often without justification. And why aren't we more critical and assessing these players? BTW, critical means fair and thoughtful, not cruel. Maybe we should start booing them too. It will help their confidence. I'm quite confident in JBJ being at least an average MLB hitter, because he has always had blips as he moved up and then adjusted. With his defense, this makes him quite a valuable player. I'm fully confident that 1-2 starters in AAA will join our rotation and be at least solid because of the sheer numbers. It takes a lot of negative confidence to believe they're all going to bust. Some that don't become starters will at worst be decent and maybe great relief pitchers. I'm fully confident that Xander will be what he's expected to be. I'm not confident in WMB or Cecchini, but we don't really need them if Xander is at 3rd. I'm fully confident that Betts could contribute in the majors today. Just because the Red Sox suck today and JBJ is struggling while everyone else is stuck in the minors because Cherington overrates his major league depth does NOT mean the world is ending and that everyone sucks. You're too negative. Go re-watch last season. When you're trying to evaluate young players and the future of the team, you do it in terms of years, not months.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 27, 2014 10:54:29 GMT -5
Who's angry? You just made a pretty silly point and people are responding to it. Isn't that what you wanted to happen? Actually, no. Not sure why claiming the farm system may not in fact be that strong is so upsetting to people. The strange thing is that when players move up to majors and don't perform, people here act like they don't exist anymore. Major league performance is the jury verdict of any farm system. The few verdicts we have over the past years are troubling, with the shining exception of Bogaerts. It's not the claim that's per se silly; it's the lack of evidence for the claim. Webster didn't pitch well last year in his first starts? JBJ hasn't hit? That's evidence? Your opinion on the guys still in the system is your opinion, but you can't base an entire indictment of the system from your opinion on a few players. And it ignores the fact that Bogaerts looks very much like a superstar in the making, even if he is at third (which is arguable; I think he sticks at short). Actually, the Sox system has, in the recent past, probably outperformed its hype. Lars Anderson busted out fairly early, but the hit rate on other products of the system has actually been quite good. Lowrie, Moss, Anibal, Hanley, Papelbon, Ellsbury, etc, etc ... almost all of those guys outperformed their slot of the BA top 100, if they ever appeared there. edit: As for your "current GM" distinction, Cherington was in charge of player development for pretty much the entire Theo regime, iirc, so those are his guys as much as anyone. one more edit: there is a decent point here, but it's highlighted - rather than made - by oilcan ... people need to be realistic about the burn rate on prospects. If ONE of the current Pawtucket guys turns into a quality MLB starter, that'd be ok to me, more than one would be really good. The Sox know this, and they were prepared to let JBJ struggle; the rest of the team has cratered, though.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 11:00:55 GMT -5
brianthetaoist:
There is no better evidence than Major League performance. It just may not be an adequate sample size, that's all. Where did I indict the system? Why the hyperbole from you? All of the prospects you list were drafted and developed by a different GM and scouting director. Why is this not relevant?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 11:03:28 GMT -5
brianthetaoist: There is no better evidence than Major League performance. It just may not be an adequate sample size, that's all. Where did I indict the system? Why the hyperbole from you? All of the prospects you list were drafted and developed by a different GM and scouting director. Why is this not relevant? When you started the thread
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 11:05:13 GMT -5
brianthetaoist: There is no better evidence than Major League performance. It just may not be an adequate sample size, that's all. Where did I indict the system? Why the hyperbole from you? All of the prospects you list were drafted and developed by a different GM and scouting director. Why is this not relevant? When you started the thread Wow. I guess this really is an fan site. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 27, 2014 11:13:03 GMT -5
brianthetaoist: There is no better evidence than Major League performance. It just may not be an adequate sample size, that's all. Where did I indict the system? Why the hyperbole from you? All of the prospects you list were drafted and developed by a different GM and scouting director. Why is this not relevant? "The major league team stinks and one reason is there's no depth. It's a perfect chance for new blood, yet there is none." "There's plenty of opportunity, but not much help available from the farm." "At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype." I already mentioned this, but Cherington developed all of those guys ...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 11:16:08 GMT -5
When you started the thread Wow. I guess this really is an fan site. Too bad. Go read what you wrote.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 11:24:11 GMT -5
brianthetaoist: There is no better evidence than Major League performance. It just may not be an adequate sample size, that's all. Where did I indict the system? Why the hyperbole from you? All of the prospects you list were drafted and developed by a different GM and scouting director. Why is this not relevant? "The major league team stinks and one reason is there's no depth. It's a perfect chance for new blood, yet there is none." "There's plenty of opportunity, but not much help available from the farm." "At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype." I already mentioned this, but Cherington developed all of those guys ... Is there a single thing I said that is incorrect? I made a few points and asked a question. I'm not saying its all hype, but there appears to have been too much optimism. BTW, cherington worked for the Sox but Epstein and McLeod were responsible for the drafts before Amiel Sawdaye stepped up.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on May 27, 2014 11:37:48 GMT -5
I think it's fine to ask questions about Amiel Sawdaye but I don't know how that has anything to do with the system being overrated or whatever.
To me Sawdaye is falling into the Graig Shipley category. He is not bad but perhaps a new direction and a few philosophical tweaks to the overall scouting strategy might do the team some good.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 11:43:37 GMT -5
"The major league team stinks and one reason is there's no depth. It's a perfect chance for new blood, yet there is none." "There's plenty of opportunity, but not much help available from the farm." "At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype." I already mentioned this, but Cherington developed all of those guys ... Is there a single thing I said that is incorrect? I made a few points and asked a question. I'm not saying its all hype, but there appears to have been too much optimism. BTW, cherington worked for the Sox but Epstein and McLeod were responsible for the drafts before Amiel Sawdaye stepped up. Perfect chance for new blood, yet there is none, because Cherington won't get rid of his crappy major league depth players to make room for them. There's a difference. Brock Holt looks pretty decent for instance, but he wasn't given a chance over Herrera as he should have been since day 1. I wouldn't have signed Capuano and instead put Workman in the bullpen to start the season. That's not an indictment of Workman (who was pushing Tazawa last fall for high leverage innings). That's an indication that Ben wants a stupid amount of depth over the best 25-man roster. We could do something about Mujica too, but Ben doesn't want to give up on him either. That does not mean that there is no one worth adding. It means that Cherington is not willing to get rid of major league guys to make room for them. I place blame on Ben for that, but am not saying that there is nothing available and no depth. We have to root for injuries to ever see anyone from the minors.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 27, 2014 11:49:05 GMT -5
"The major league team stinks and one reason is there's no depth. It's a perfect chance for new blood, yet there is none." "There's plenty of opportunity, but not much help available from the farm." "At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype." I already mentioned this, but Cherington developed all of those guys ... Is there a single thing I said that is incorrect? I made a few points and asked a question. I'm not saying its all hype, but there appears to have been too much optimism. BTW, cherington worked for the Sox but Epstein and McLeod were responsible for the drafts before Amiel Sawdaye stepped up. You are conflating "drafting" with "developing" there ... Epstein and McLeod acquired the players, but they didn't develop them. That was the job of the Director of Player Development, a man by the name of Ben Cherington. If you're only point is that there's too much optimism, you could probably make that just about any time and be right. There's *always* too much optimism, until they start playing in the major leagues, and then there's probably too much pessimism, or at least too many snap judgements. JBJ is not a flop because he has had some trouble hitting so far, and I was saying over the winter that I was worried about whether he was ready with the bat or not. Webster is not a flop because he had trouble last year in his starts. It takes time to work guys in and find out who they really are. The Sox system is very strong, with promising guys up and down the ladder (and some holes here and there). But that doesn't mean that there's this inexhaustible talent pool to fill in for a collapse at the major league level like the Sox are experiencing, or that a majority of the prospects are going to work out and contribute. It doesn't work like that, and either expecting that it will (rampant optimism) or condemning it because it doesn't (like you are) is faulty logic.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 27, 2014 11:52:23 GMT -5
Contrast: I'm not saying its all hype. With: At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype. JiMed's right (at least this once) when he tells you to go back and read what you said. My point is that there's nothing about them that merits much hype. Webster call up last year was a joke. De La Rosa looks like a bullpen arm, which is fine but not worthy of great hype. [emphasis mine] Also worth noting you're not on an island here, and that many of the counter-responses are also countering the others as well. For my part, I think you can have a great system, even at the top, and still not have any immediate help for the MLB team. Most prospects don't become great players, that's just the way it is. Lastly, if we want to have a conversation about whether we have enough (any?) pitching in the minors, I'm open to that. We haven't developed a great pitcher since Lester, and it's already a problem, and about to become a bigger one unless one of the AAA/AA guys pays off soon and big. Only other option is to pay for pitching on the FA market or trades.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on May 27, 2014 11:58:06 GMT -5
one more edit: there is a decent point here, but it's highlighted - rather than made - by oilcan ... people need to be realistic about the burn rate on prospects. If ONE of the current Pawtucket guys turns into a quality MLB starter, that'd be ok to me, more than one would be really good. The Sox know this, and they were prepared to let JBJ struggle; the rest of the team has cratered, though. I think that this may be the seminal point of agreement between Oilcan and Brian and others. I think that Oilcan (and I would tend to agree) is not asking "are we good at producing players?" His real question is "are we good enough a system so that we can rely upon it as a major feeder or talent?" Because Ben's philosophy depends so much on replenishing from within, do the results of our internal players since 2007 (post Ellsbury) support this approach? I think that's a valid question. If we agree that the initial results of the kids (Bogaerts exempted) are weak, should we move to having external players, and get surprised if one of our own takes a spot. Whatever the failure point for the players becoming impact players (no front line starters since Lester, one impact positional players since Ellsbury), even if that is above average, can it support the Sox model?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 12:02:31 GMT -5
I don't see any benefit from lumping every prospect in the system together for the sake of discussion. That results in shallow analysis (e.g., one conclusory sentence for each player) and devolves into endless nitpicking, as we've already seen here. We have individual threads for individual players for a reason-- so that we can go more in-depth on each guy's strengths and weaknesses rather than making broad statements about the system that are basically more gut-feelings than anything else. As for "hype"-- it's on you if you had unrealistic expectations. I'd guess that a plurality of my prospect-related posts on the forum are focused on tamping down expectations (see, e.g., Brock Holt, Deven Marrero, Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley, Henry Owens, etc). It's also important to remember that they don't need to net a half-dozen All-Stars from the current crop of prospects for this to be one of the best farm systems in the league. If they get one All-Star (say, Xander), three other above-average starters (say, Betts, Swihart, and Owens), and a half-dozen bench/depth guys (take your pick), that's a crazy productive minor league system.
|
|
|
Post by glassox on May 27, 2014 12:06:16 GMT -5
I think this is a fan site but one that is very very knowledgeable. Yeah there are more high end prospects from the Theo era, as there should be for a couple reasons. 1)those players have been developing for years and are getting close to MLB ready 2)the draft has changed completely over the last few years and for the most part high end talent dose not slide in the draft like it use to. That being said i think our system is stacked with MLB talent. If people think the prospects are over rated fine but its not by just us here, look at any prospect list and the Sox have plenty to be excited about. I don't think this season is lost for the Sox yet, so i'm not ready to bring up players just to see what kind of MlB players they will be.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 12:11:11 GMT -5
okin15: you clearly didn't read, or understand, the posts for context.
jimed: Cherrington gave Centerfield, shortstop and third base to unproven young players this year. It was an extraordinary commitment to youth. It has backfired thus far.
brianthetaoist: at what point does a player become a "flop", using your word?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 12:11:20 GMT -5
Whatever the failure point for the players becoming impact players (no front line starters since Lester, one impact positional players since Ellsbury), even if that is above average, can it support the Sox model? This is kind of an unfair way to look at it because the Red Sox used a lot of their prospect bounty in trades during the period you're talking about here. Justin Masterson, Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick, Jed Lowrie, Jose Iglesias-- these were impact players that were traded away for more established talent in the 2008-2012 period.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 12:15:45 GMT -5
one more edit: there is a decent point here, but it's highlighted - rather than made - by oilcan ... people need to be realistic about the burn rate on prospects. If ONE of the current Pawtucket guys turns into a quality MLB starter, that'd be ok to me, more than one would be really good. The Sox know this, and they were prepared to let JBJ struggle; the rest of the team has cratered, though. I think that this may be the seminal point of agreement between Oilcan and Brian and others. I think that Oilcan (and I would tend to agree) is not asking "are we good at producing players?" His real question is "are we good enough a system so that we can rely upon it as a major feeder or talent?" Because Ben's philosophy depends so much on replenishing from within, do the results of our internal players since 2007 (post Ellsbury) support this approach? I think that's a valid question. If we agree that the initial results of the kids (Bogaerts exempted) are weak, should we move to having external players, and get surprised if one of our own takes a spot. Whatever the failure point for the players becoming impact players (no front line starters since Lester, one impact positional players since Ellsbury), even if that is above average, can it support the Sox model? Bingo. The system hasn't been working for the past four years or so. A healthy farm system should pump a player or two onto the major league team per year. Maybe one sticks long term and one leaves. Some years two will stick. Nothing like this has been happening.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 12:31:52 GMT -5
Whatever the failure point for the players becoming impact players (no front line starters since Lester, one impact positional players since Ellsbury), even if that is above average, can it support the Sox model? This is kind of an unfair way to look at it because the Red Sox used a lot of their prospect bounty in trades during the period you're talking about here. Justin Masterson, Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick, Jed Lowrie, Jose Iglesias-- these were impact players that were traded away for more established talent in the 2008-2012 period. Put all those players on the table. Kelly hasn't come through. Rizzo looks like the real deal. Masterson has had two good seasons and has been otherwise lousy. This year he's terrible. Reddick has one good year and the rest lousy. Lowrie is a very solid. Iglesias can't hit. Rizzo is the only one you'd really love to have back and maybe Brandon Moss, who was a David Chadd guy. django: thank you for a balanced, reasoned post. This is the type of stuff I'm looking for.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 27, 2014 12:41:48 GMT -5
A few points.
1. Sizemore started in center field on opening day. The problem wasn't that the Red Sox didn't bring in a veteran to compete with Bradley, the problem seems to be that they brought in one who wasn't good enough. 2. Maybe Jackie Bradley will never hit. That doesn't mean the system is bad. Matt Barnes being good is 100% independent of whether Jackie Bradley hits. What's funny is that, in the original post, oilcansman criticized the early-90's Blue Jays for Jose Pett without mentioning his minor league teammate Roy Halladay. Jose Pett was a bust. Roy Halladay should end up in the Hall of Fame. The 1994 Blue Jays didn't have a 100% hit rate on prospects, and neither will the 2014 Red Sox. But that system was good and so is this one. 3. Will Middlebrooks hasn't been a prospect for two years now, and had nothing to do with the Red Sox BA prospect rankings.
Oilcansman. When people disagree with you, they aren't angry. They just disagree.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on May 27, 2014 12:50:46 GMT -5
Before he got old, Jeter was a very good defensive shortstop - at times excellent. New York hyped him a little too much but he was good. He aged terribly defensively. Tejada not as good a Jeter, but I recall before he got old he was fine. Ramirez has always been a third baseman playing shortstop. Jeter always graded below average in range. To insinuate that Xander might be a bust because of his defense...I dunno it is a pretty CHB kind of argument.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 27, 2014 12:54:52 GMT -5
Is the issue that the system hasn't produced people over 4 years, or isn't that good this year? I can't tell what the point is.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on May 27, 2014 13:01:18 GMT -5
This is kind of an unfair way to look at it because the Red Sox used a lot of their prospect bounty in trades during the period you're talking about here. Justin Masterson, Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo, Josh Reddick, Jed Lowrie, Jose Iglesias-- these were impact players that were traded away for more established talent in the 2008-2012 period. Put all those players on the table. Kelly hasn't come through. Rizzo looks like the real deal. Masterson has had two good seasons and has been otherwise lousy. This year he's terrible. Reddick has one good year and the rest lousy. Lowrie is a very solid. Iglesias can't hit. Rizzo is the only one you'd really love to have back and maybe Brandon Moss, who was a David Chadd guy. django: thank you for a balanced, reasoned post. This is the type of stuff I'm looking for. I think the problem with your argument is you haven't defined what composes a "good" system. The success rate for prospects, even the ones with the best systems, is miserable. That's a key component to prospect analysis, knowing even when you have a strong system, many of these guys aren't going to work out at the MLB level. That's true of all systems, but ours has been hyped a lot. I agree that each of our AAA starters has a problem that is holding them back from realistically reaching their ceiling, with a common theme being control. But for the most part, each has some tantalizing "stuff". Very few prospects have it all together, and those that do are considered very special (remember when it was thought that Buchholz and Hughes were those guys). For the rest, there's a hope that they'll overcome a flaw (ie, bad command), and that does happen (sometimes at the MLB level...look at Nate Eovaldi, Jeff Samardzija for recent examples). But often times they never make that key improvement. That's why I'm hoping one or two of our AAA starters can either improve or succeed despite control issues (which also happens). The rest either move to relief or are career AAA fodder. And that's not damning of our system...having 5 conceivable MLB starters in AAA is impressive. But I agree that the prospects seen so far have been disappointing. Xander looks like the only success, but let's not gloss over that. Jackie's k issues are alarming. Middlebrooks hasn't overcome his own issues, despite his intriguing skills (pitch recognition/plate discipline).. It would be fair to call into question the system if it was believed to be barren after them. But we still have a lot of pitching depth in the minors, with Owens and Johnson in AA and Salem has a couple interesting guys too. And Mookie is becoming a very highly regarded prospect, and Swihart I believe in. Most prospects have their warts and are going to fail. If we can fail even a little less than most teams, that's exciting. And I think there's a lot of near MLB talent we need to see for a few years at the MLB level before we call this an overhyped system. It could be, only one of the guys I've mentioned could find success. But if even 3 or 4 do, that's become a really strong crop of young talent.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 13:04:15 GMT -5
JamesDunne:
1. the problem is JBJ has been a bust thus far. The sox gave him centerfield this year. It's hypocritical to ask the Sox to give prospects a fair chance and then to make excuses for them when they fail. He's a big league player being given a big league chance. He's 24 years old, not 22. Pedroia was 22 when he got off to to slow start people here always reference. He was ROY at 23 and MVP at 24. Not looking for similar results from JBJ but this is his second shot at the big leagues and its fair to begin assessing him.
2. More hyperbole. Nobody ever said system is bad. I am suggesting that few people on this site honestly assess it. The primary reason is because most are fans, which is nice but not credible.
3. This is a classic example of my point. You simply skip over Middlebrooks. Middlebrooks is a bust. Who cares about BA or the prospects lists on this site. Both clearly were 100% wrong. The intelligent question is why? My belief is that Middlebrooks showed terrible plate discipline in the lower minors, always had a high strikeout rate and it has ended up burying him in the big leagues, where teams have the money to get top shelf advance scouting reports. Maybe there's something useful we can learn from this. We really need to consider high strike out rates mores seriously - we certainly didn't with Middlebrooks.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 27, 2014 13:12:37 GMT -5
I think that this may be the seminal point of agreement between Oilcan and Brian and others. I think that Oilcan (and I would tend to agree) is not asking "are we good at producing players?" His real question is "are we good enough a system so that we can rely upon it as a major feeder or talent?" Because Ben's philosophy depends so much on replenishing from within, do the results of our internal players since 2007 (post Ellsbury) support this approach? I think that's a valid question. If we agree that the initial results of the kids (Bogaerts exempted) are weak, should we move to having external players, and get surprised if one of our own takes a spot. Whatever the failure point for the players becoming impact players (no front line starters since Lester, one impact positional players since Ellsbury), even if that is above average, can it support the Sox model? Bingo. The system hasn't been working for the past four years or so. A healthy farm system should pump a player or two onto the major league team per year. Maybe one sticks long term and one leaves. Some years two will stick. Nothing like this has been happening. I think you're asking an interesting question. I certainly have no problem with it. The only major issue I would have is in your choice of liking Shaughnessy but to each their own. I like the Sox farm system a good deal, but at the same time I worry about lack of power and lack of front line starting pitching. I have my reservations about Webster, De La Rosa (who I think will wind up an 8th inning type of guy although I hope not), Barnes, Workman, and Ranaudo. I believe if one of these guys was truly knocking down the door the Sox would have figured out a way to manipulate the roster to get the pitcher up. I think in that grouping the Sox have two pitchers who I think will make for good bullpen guys in Workman and De La Rosa, and perhaps Webster, Barnes and Ranaudo make it as a backend starter and in their peak season perhaps exceed that. I think Brentz can be a fringy corner OF somewhere in the majors and I do believe Vazquez will be a regular and eventual winner of gold gloves while catching. I do believe Swihart will be an all-star caliber regular catcher and I'm totally sold on Mookie Betts. I believe that Cecchini will have some Wade Boggs in him, with less BA, but eventually more power and the same kind of approach at the plate and I do believe he'll improve his defense. I believe Marrero is a regular SS and will be in the top half of the league among SS. I have no idea what Owens will become. I think he'll be a middle of the rotation starter because I can't see how a guy with that good a stats set can be that bad in the majors, but also how a guy who doesn't have plus stuff and has spotty control can be better than a middle of the rotation starter. That's not a bad tally. I'm starting to get off the WMB bandwagon. I believe JBJ will eventually figure it out, and Bogaerts will wind up at 3b, which may lead to Cecchini being dealt away. As a fan I can't help but think of a player's potential in positive terms as hitting his ceiling although the reality of that is quite different, and the fear is always that somebody gets dealt away ala Jeff Bagwell and the regret is great. It's tough watching Brandon Moss rake while the Sox lack power and a consistent LF, but he didn't develop so quickly either. I think the Sox are fine if they're under no illusions about what they have. If they need power, they're not going to get it from the farm system. If they're looking for a top notch starter, they're not going to get it out of this farm system at the moment. If there looking for some solid core players who can do the job effectively and on the cheap and if they're patient, they have some good players to choose from and some to deal if need be. Of course with the way I'm foolishly optimistically projecting these guys sometimes, it's hard to want to part with them, which is why I say things like, "Don't trade Mookie no matter what...."
|
|
|