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 jmei on May 27, 2014 13:33:42 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. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. By lumping everyone together, we get one ham-fisted thought on each player rather than any nuance or analysis. And now we're going to nit-pick about individual players because I disagree with your assessment of these guys. This is why these "system as a whole" threads are a waste of time. [Kelly had TJ surgery and only recently started pitching in the minors again. Before he got hurt, he was a top-50 prospect. Judging Masterson on the basis of two months of ERA is pretty silly-- we're talking about a player with a career 3.83 FIP who is going to get paid this offseason. Reddick is one of the best defensive outfielders in the game and has been worth 3.1 fWAR per 600 PAs over his career. Lowrie is one of the best shortstops in the league (this despite his below-average defense). Iglesias is going to be an above-average player if he hits the mendoza line.]
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 14:03:25 GMT -5
Look at Masterson's ERAs. He's only had two sub 4.50 ERA seasons. Lots of folks were pointing to this season as the time when he would step up and get the mega contract. He has gone backwards big time. Who cares is Kelly was a top 50 prospect? What is he now? Reddick is a below .700 ops outfielder. Only two years of his career has he been over .700. When your that low, your fielding doesn't neutralize things. Lowrie is good offense, mediocre defense, questionable durability. Sox had him and decided not to keep him. Iglesias has never hit. No reason to think that will change. There has not been much production from a minor league system over the past five to seven years.
My belief that a good farm system should produce two starters per year comes from Haywood Sullivan, former owner of the Sox, who was a schmuck but was in charge when the Sox had a strong system. He was cheap, stayed away from free agents and advocated building from within. He was in the game and had great responsibility, therefore, its a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 14:10:53 GMT -5
I guess you're committed to only judging players by ERA and OPS. If you don't think that Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, and Iglesias are quality starters, it's no wonder that we can't agree on the current state of the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 14:33:23 GMT -5
Masterson was also the major piece in the Victor Martinez trade, who was not only decent for us, but also netted us comp picks which turned into Matt Barnes and Henry Owens.
So sometimes the hype works out well.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 14:40:59 GMT -5
I guess you're committed to only judging players by ERA and OPS. If you don't think that Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, and Iglesias are quality starters, it's no wonder that we can't agree on the current state of the farm system. Ah, I actually said Rizzo and Lowrie was fine, although Lowrie was a durability question. No matter how hard you try, you can't put a ribbon on an outfielder with and OPS below .700. If you put this group together and eliminate their replacements from last years team sox don't win world series. Keep Masterson, eliminate Lackey. Keep Rizzo, eliminate Napoli. Keep Lowrie, eliminate Drew. Keep Reddick, eliminate Victorino.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 14:43:16 GMT -5
I guess you're committed to only judging players by ERA and OPS. If you don't think that Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, and Iglesias are quality starters, it's no wonder that we can't agree on the current state of the farm system. Ah, I actually said Rizzo and Lowrie was fine, although Lowrie was a durability question. No matter how hard you try, you can't put a ribbon on an outfielder with and OPS below .700. If you put this group together and eliminate their replacements from last years team sox don't win world series. Keep Masterson, eliminate Lackey. Keep Rizzo, eliminate Napoli. Keep Lowrie, eliminate Drew. Keep Reddick, eliminate Victorino. Oh come on. That's not how anyone builds a team.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 14:45:13 GMT -5
My point is in comparison to what it took the win the world series, the group of prospects was lacking. Severely.
|
|
|
Post by geezergeek on May 27, 2014 14:45:29 GMT -5
He's not popular, but he's quite relevant. Dan Shaughnessy wondered in his column today about the sox farm system. Most of you won't like this, but he has an interesting point. The top prospects are at AA or above. 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. Last year Allen Webster busted in his call up. Middlebrooks has been terrible. JBJ's hitting is as bad as I've seen from a Sox regular outfielder in my lifetime (I was born in the '60s). His defense is excellent but offense is necessary. Bogaerts is going to be an excellent third baseman but even he looks like a position switch. Heck, Stephen Drew had to be re-signed. There's plenty of opportunity, but not much help available from the farm. Back in the 90s we heard over and over about the Blue Jays farm system. Baseball America and Peter Gammons were in prickly heat about it. Jose Pet, Sil Campusano anyone? It turned out to be a myth. Of course, the 80s blue jays system was historically terrific. At some point, we need to leave the vacuum and honestly ask whether the Sox system is all hype. I'm not scouting box scores. I'm looking at the players on the field. My response to Dan's column in the Globe. The Red Sox farm system as it is presently constituted, in my knowledge, is one of the top Sox systems in the past 30 or 40 years. It's not just Mookie Betts as it was not just Xander Bogaerts last year. I'm not saying it is the best in baseball right now nor am I saying that they will produce stars or regulars every year but they will churn out major leaguers yearly. They are so deep that their concern is losing players to the rule 5 draft and minor league free agency because there is not enough room on the 40 man roster. From Rookie league through AAA and you will find nuggets on each level that will one day play for the Red Sox or be used as trade fodder and end up on another teams major league roster. Charrington knew the system was not ready to provide players at the start of last season thus the low cost short term fill ins. Yes, he got lucky and we had one heck of a ride. Charrington is building this team for the long run much like the Patriots. No, they won't win the World series every year but with their minor league foundation and a few smart free agent signings every once in a while this organization will be competitive for a long time. By the way it is a smart move to be under the cap now if trade(s) are necessary in July. Come on Dan if you are going to Shank management tell the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 14:49:09 GMT -5
My point is in comparison to what it took the win the world series, the group of prospects was lacking. Severely. As is the case for every single team since free agency began.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 27, 2014 14:49:25 GMT -5
Impossibly high standards. Some of this is getting out of hand. Should I be reading the original question "How strong is the system" in the context of other MLB farm systems? If so, then the system is strong, very strong. However, if the system is expected to produce 2 all-stars a year, be strong in the upper, mid and lower levels of the system, while making sure we're stocked full of high-end pitchers (potential #1s), guys who can hit for a high average, field up-the-middle positions, get on base while barely striking out, steal bases, and hit for power......then uh yeah, the system has some "holes." I've just read some ridiculous comments in multiple threads for the past week. Please take a moment and visit each and every team's top 20 prospects, and then come back and report to me that this system is weak.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 27, 2014 14:55:54 GMT -5
Ah, I actually said Rizzo and Lowrie was fine, although Lowrie was a durability question. No matter how hard you try, you can't put a ribbon on an outfielder with and OPS below .700. If you put this group together and eliminate their replacements from last years team sox don't win world series. Keep Masterson, eliminate Lackey. Keep Rizzo, eliminate Napoli. Keep Lowrie, eliminate Drew. Keep Reddick, eliminate Victorino. Oh come on. That's not how anyone builds a team. Once again, the goal of a strong farm system isn't to have an entirely home-grown team. The goal is to get a few cost-controlled players so that you can afford to sign some free agents, to get some continuity so that chemistry is better, and to use some players as trade chips. Dan's point is, "if our farm system is so strong, why don't they come up and fix the MLB team". And my point is that's not possible. We don't have a major league team-in-waiting down there, just a bunch of lottery tickets, some of whom will work out to a greater or lesser degree. Not everyone can be Dustin/Ells/Xander/Lester/HanRam, but those guys help you get Lackey, Drew, Beckett, Lowell, Pedro, etc. either indirectly or directly. Also, I thought we were arguing about THIS farm system. Why do we keep bringing up former farmhands as evidence that this system is no good? This system is BETTER than in the past.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 27, 2014 15:13:49 GMT -5
Impossibly high standards. Some of this is getting out of hand. Should I be reading the original question "How strong is the system" in the context of other MLB farm systems? If so, then the system is strong, very strong. However, if the system is expected to produce 2 all-stars a year, be strong in the upper, mid and lower levels of the system, while making sure we're stocked full of high-end pitchers (potential #1s), guys who can hit for a high average, field up-the-middle positions, get on base while barely striking out, steal bases, and hit for power......then uh yeah, the system has some "holes." I've just read some ridiculous comments in multiple threads for the past week. Please take a moment and visit each and every team's top 20 prospects, and then come back and report to me that this system is weak. I never said anything about producing all stars. All I did was say 2 starters per year on average. I never said anything about high end pitchers, although it should be noted that only guy in the system that seems to be a legit top end rotation threat is Owens. My point is that I have been reading and listening to people tell me about the amazing sox farm system and the returns over the past five years have been disappointing. The only player above AA that looks exciting is Boggie (he looks potentially incredible). At AA, Owens, Betts and Swihart look like front line talent. Boggie and those three may be it for the next three years or so. After that, your looking at lots of HUGE question marks.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 27, 2014 15:15:24 GMT -5
At least we have question marks as opposed to a lot of other teams who have automatic NOs.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 15:17:02 GMT -5
so I suppose WAR_def might be unfair to 1B and DH? WAR has an adjustment that reflects that a "replacement player" will provide different levels of offensive production at different positions. If I sign a replacement-level, average-defense 1B off the street, he had damn well better hit harder and more often than my replacement-level, average-defense SS. If you consider this unfair then go ahead and vote for Miguel Cabrera as MVP.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on May 27, 2014 15:32:23 GMT -5
Impossibly high standards. Some of this is getting out of hand. Should I be reading the original question "How strong is the system" in the context of other MLB farm systems? If so, then the system is strong, very strong. However, if the system is expected to produce 2 all-stars a year, be strong in the upper, mid and lower levels of the system, while making sure we're stocked full of high-end pitchers (potential #1s), guys who can hit for a high average, field up-the-middle positions, get on base while barely striking out, steal bases, and hit for power......then uh yeah, the system has some "holes." I've just read some ridiculous comments in multiple threads for the past week. Please take a moment and visit each and every team's top 20 prospects, and then come back and report to me that this system is weak. I never said anything about producing all stars. All I did was say 2 starters per year on average. I never said anything about high end pitchers, although it should be noted that only guy in the system that seems to be a legit top end rotation threat is Owens. My point is that I have been reading and listening to people tell me about the amazing sox farm system and the returns over the past five years have been disappointing. The only player above AA that looks exciting is Boggie (he looks potentially incredible). At AA, Owens, Betts and Swihart look like front line talent. Boggie and those three may be it for the next three years or so. After that, your looking at lots of HUGE question marks. I believe this is a conclusion drawn when you discounted the likes of Masterson, Lowrie, Reddick and so forth as major league starters because they have some deficiencies. They are clearly major league starters and have been for multiple years. If you take away the deficiencies then your left with All-Star starters. Its just the natural inclination when you draw hard lines about what a major league starter is.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 27, 2014 15:34:32 GMT -5
If you want a minor league system to produce, on average, two players a year better than Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie, you have unreasonable standards.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on May 27, 2014 15:35:46 GMT -5
I was not suggesting that the WAR system is not accurate in its purpose, but rather specifically to the purpose of using WAR_def to find the all time worst player defensively at his position. If an average defensive SS is assigned +1, while an average 1B is assigned -1 (for the purpose of computing overall WAR), then a poor defensive 1B might be -2 while a poor SS might be 0, both 1 below average defensively. But I am not sure how replacement level WAR_def is assigned by position.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 27, 2014 15:41:35 GMT -5
I was not suggesting that the WAR system is not accurate in its purpose, but rather specifically to the purpose of using WAR_def to find the all time worst player defensively at his position. If an average defensive SS is assigned +1, while an average 1B is assigned -1 (for the purpose of computing overall WAR), then a poor defensive 1B might be -2 while a poor SS might be 0, both 1 below average defensively. But I am not sure how replacement level WAR_def is assigned by position. Yes, what you're looking for is the raw WAR_def before applying the positional adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 27, 2014 16:01:47 GMT -5
Two first division starters per year, and they can't struggle initially or have injury/durability issues. Over a 6-7 year period you'd have an entire lineup and rotation of cost controlled above average players. That's not reasonable? We're Red Sox fans, we deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on May 27, 2014 16:02:05 GMT -5
Sure, everything is hype until it happens. What is your point? There's no room for all of Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes, Ranaudo on the MLB club at the moment. Last year they graduated Xander who is excellent and Workman who is pretty decent. How many guys can you graduate every year? 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. Barnes coming off a lousy year at Portland, off to a ho hum start at Pawtucket. He hasn't posted impressive stats since Greenville. And, yes, at some point, stats do matter. Ranaudo is the only one who looks interesting - if he can get his walks under control. Why do people here get angry when these opinions are posted? That's the real mystery to me. I'm not angry. There just isn't enough information to say whether the system is just a pile of hype or not. You can't say one way or the other until there is performance in the positive or negative at the major league level. Maybe JBJ and Middlebrooks were over hyped but maybe guys like Nava, Tazawa, Workman were underhyped.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 27, 2014 16:06:12 GMT -5
If you want a minor league system to produce, on average, two players a year better than Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie, you have unreasonable standards. That's the bottom line for this discussion as far as I'm concerned. If you focus on only the warts of each player, you'll end up with one fugly minor league system and a decent prospect or two.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 27, 2014 16:16:19 GMT -5
My point is that I have been reading and listening to people tell me about the amazing sox farm system and the returns over the past five years have been disappointing. The only player above AA that looks exciting is Boggie (he looks potentially incredible). At AA, Owens, Betts and Swihart look like front line talent. Boggie and those three may be it for the next three years or so. After that, your looking at lots of HUGE question marks. I think I'm just going to have to leave this thread because there's really no objective basis for debate, like jmei said ... having a potential ROY candidate and three front-line talents in AA is good. Having guys that even rise to the level of question marks beyond that is also good, honestly (they're called "prospects" for a reason). And saying that the performance over the last five years has any bearing on the "hype" of players currently in the minors is nonsensical. No one was talking about the Sox system as among the best in the game 4 years ago. It was seen as a middling-at-best system then, and it turned out talent probably better than its reputation at the time.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 27, 2014 16:26:50 GMT -5
I think there are some different questions being asked? How good is it? Well it depends on your definition of impact prospects and depth of system versus what all the other ballclubs in baseball possess.
I'm not an expert in the other farm systems. I know if Sano recovers the Twins are loaded as are the Cards. The "experts" have the Sox in the top five or so. I have no reason not to believe them.
It's not hard to see the promise and the potential warts that are prospects have. The Red Sox have two most likely to be perennial all-stars in Bogaerts and Betts, and have some potential all-stars in Swihart, Cecchini, Owens, and even Bradley, but they are less certain than Bogaerts and Betts. Beyond that there's some possible average players who could be better than that and probably a lot of flame-outs.
I understand oilcansman's point as far as a homegrown ballclub goes. He's been a fan for awhile as have I. I remember the 1988 (sure a bunch of posters here weren't even born then) lineup featuring Rice at DH, Gedman catching, an infield of Benzinger, Barrett, Reed, and Boggs and an outfield of Greenwell, Burks, and Evans (and Brady Anderson to start the season), and a rotation that featured Clemens, Hurst, and Boyd and Boddicker (who was acquired for AA pitcher Curt Schilling and Anderson), and a bullpen that still involved Bob Stanley - all these guys were homegrown.
I don't think you see that as much anymore, but I think that might be a little bit of what he's talking about. Naturally all those guys were at different stages of their career, and had different levels of value, but all came up thru the Sox system. I don't know that the farm system is better now than it was in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s - I think the Sox did a really good job of producing talent back then. It leveled off during the 1990s and second half of the 2000s before improving in the last half of last decade thru now, but I don't know that it's necessarily better than what was produced in the past.
It's too bad the Sox didn't know how to make smart acquisitions to supplement those young kids back then or else perhaps the drought wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 27, 2014 19:11:34 GMT -5
Good thread. The apex point I can remember in the sox system was around 1972. At the end of '71 a bright group was brought up called "Kasko's kiddy corp" which included Cecil Cooper, Rick Miller, Juan Beniquez, Carlton Fisk. Dwight Evans came up in '72, and Jim Rice was an all star in AA. That's two hall of famers, another for cosideration (Evans), a star (Cooper) and a gold glover (Miller) considered perhaps an even better defensive outfielder than Fred Lynn. And on the pitching side a Detroit scout cited the Sox as having more great minor league arms than anyone, to include 1972 rookie star Lynn Mglothen and Roger Moret who threw mid-90's, and John Curtis. Other good arms were Mike Garmen, Craig Skok, Ken Brett, and Dick Pole (who had a AAA era one year close to 1.99, then got a sore arm). I was dreading a deal which would have sent Mcglothen, Curtis, Skok, and perhaps Cooper to Cleveland for Gaylord Perry- it was blocked by some Cleveland ownership staff- not their "baseball people" and would have probably brought those strong hitting Sox teams just over that edge and perhaps one a pennant or world series or two which they just missed (to this day I overrate prospects value).
|
|
|
Post by bighead on May 27, 2014 20:15:09 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. This is not a discussion but trolling. If a "healthy farm system" produces two players per year how much does a top farm system produce? Just curious if you would be able to provide examples of a "healthy farm system" using this criteria. Citing failure on unrealistic absolute terms is meaningless. How about providing evidence of the Sox average or poor farm system on a relative basis? Show us examples using your objective criteria of top farm systems and how the Sox system is significantly underperforming those systems.
|
|
|