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 Jun 16, 2014 12:06:54 GMT -5
I'm just telling what Buckley says Theo wanted.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 16, 2014 12:08:30 GMT -5
There's a difference, though, between the ambitious goal of a team's general manager, and the realistic expectations its fans should have.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jun 16, 2014 12:16:01 GMT -5
Why should there be? Holding the Red Sox to their own standards is quite reasonable, especially when you consider the wealth of the organization and the ticket prices it charges. The Red Sox have the highest average ticket prices in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 16, 2014 12:16:51 GMT -5
I'm just telling what Buckley says Theo wanted. Can you give us a link to were Buckley says whatever he says? Just the minimal amount of work to set the thread up, since you don't want to defend the claim but instead want to rely on what you are telling us Buckley said he heard from someone else.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5
Why should there be? Holding the Red Sox to their own standards is quite reasonable, especially when you consider the wealth of the organization and the ticket prices it charges. The Red Sox have the highest average ticket prices in baseball. The goal of the Red Sox front office is to win the World Series every year. That is the standard they set for themselves. Should we consider them a complete failure every year they fail to do so? Should we have threads blasting the front office as "all hype" every year they don't win it all? By the way, ticket prices are set by supply and demand. If the Boston area had fewer rabid Red Sox fans, prices would be cheaper. The success of the farm system has even pretty much no direct effect on ticket prices.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2014 12:41:16 GMT -5
Can you provide an example of any farm system which has produced one "quality starter" per year since 2008? I have down four by my count who did it between 2008 and 2013. They would be the Braves, Rays, Reds and Cards. The A's were next and would have made it had I included Cespedes. So that certainly seems like an achievable goal.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 16, 2014 12:54:25 GMT -5
Steve Buckley was on CSNNE Sports Sunday last week and he said Theo Epstein believed the Sox should introduce one rookie per year to the team. He then cited Pedroia, Papelbon, Buchholz and Ellsbury as examples. Buckley seemed to imply that Theo wanted one rookie starter, not a mid tier bullpen arm or utility player. I mentioned earlier that old Red Sox owner Haywood Sullivan believed that two per year was appropriate but that was back when the Red Sox usually stayed out of free agency. Since Theo supervised him, it stands to reason Cherington has similar beliefs, although I don't know. Since 2008, how has the farm system met Theo's standards? The only guy that clearly meets the standard is Bogaerts. Maybe Doubront, maybe Middlebrooks. Daniel Nava? Well, ok, I guess. But those three at best have been inconsistent and clearly can't be relied upon. Integrating reliable starting rookie players has been a significant problem for the sox. As for prospects that have been traded away, the only one that comes to mind is Rizzo. I believe the mediocrity of the Red Sox farm system over the past five-six years has come home to roost. Ignoring the obvious question of how does this describe the system now, which I assume was the original point of the thread... I think this is a valid point. Since '04, the highest home-grown Sox' WAR have been Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Lowrie, Nava, Middlebrooks and Bogaerts (we can't count Nixon here, as he came up in '96). For pitchers, it's been Lester, Papelbon, Buchholz, Doubront, Bard, Delcarmen, Tazawa, Masterson. While you might rank the earlier guys higher, it's really too early to tell on Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Buchholz, Doubront and Tazawa. The '09-'12 time with fewer call-ups was straight up weak. '08 was also weak for a good year (Masterson and Buchholz are unlikely to be the caliber of Lester and Pedroia), and we traded Rizzo but didn't hang on to the return for long enough. (I'd do that trade again in the moment). Still, we had Iglesias and Reddick (plus the afformentioned Rizzo) who were traded and will continue to be valuable players. We brought up Doubront, Tazawa, Britton and Middlebrooks who may yet play on another championship team. E Beltre, Hagadone, Almanzar and C. Kelly may still have value as well. Bard played well for a time. Note that the graduating classes we're discussing were drafted in the Epstein/McCloud era, '05-'09. We hit pretty good in '05, and missed in '06. Jury is still out on some players from '07, plus Vasquez from '08. Wilson is the best hope for the '09 class. Internationally, there probably aren't any great hopes remaining from the '05-'09 years, though some wild cards are still young. If you look back though, there really is a fine line between successful and failed drafts. Pedroia was the only guy to come out of his draft, and David Murphy was the only guy from '03, and it took him several extra years and a second organization. If Westmoreland weren't hurt, or if Buchholz or Nava or Middlebrooks could keep it together for two years, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Plus, as I mentioned to begin with, the system might have been weak for a few years, but it's strong now, and we should see the fruits of that in the very near future.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 16, 2014 13:03:04 GMT -5
Why should there be? Holding the Red Sox to their own standards is quite reasonable, especially when you consider the wealth of the organization and the ticket prices it charges. The Red Sox have the highest average ticket prices in baseball. The goal of the Red Sox front office is to win the World Series every year. That is the standard they set for themselves. Should we consider them a complete failure every year they fail to do so? Should we have threads blasting the front office as "all hype" every year they don't win it all? Their stated goal is something more like "To make the playoffs this year and 8 of 10." I do think it's fair to hold them to that standard. And also the one prospect every year integration. However, it doesn't have to be like clockwork (exactly one per year), and obviously, not every player will be a 6-year starter. That would be unrealistic. I think the Sox probably missed the one per year goal by a Rizzo/AGon over the 2004-2014 period. If AGon had stuck, or Rizzo had been here, we wouldn't be having this convo. Ditto a bunch of other scenarios involving more consistency from somebody, or fewer injuries to some top guys.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jun 16, 2014 13:11:04 GMT -5
Why should there be? Holding the Red Sox to their own standards is quite reasonable, especially when you consider the wealth of the organization and the ticket prices it charges. The Red Sox have the highest average ticket prices in baseball. The goal of the Red Sox front office is to win the World Series every year. That is the standard they set for themselves. Should we consider them a complete failure every year they fail to do so? Should we have threads blasting the front office as "all hype" every year they don't win it all? By the way, ticket prices are set by supply and demand. If the Boston area had fewer rabid Red Sox fans, prices would be cheaper. The success of the farm system has even pretty much no direct effect on ticket prices. That's never been the goal. I believe Henry believes the Sox should follow the Braves philosophy of just getting into the playoffs. The randomness of playoff baseball makes it too difficult to expect frequent championships.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jun 16, 2014 13:13:06 GMT -5
I'm just telling what Buckley says Theo wanted. Can you give us a link to were Buckley says whatever he says? Just the minimal amount of work to set the thread up, since you don't want to defend the claim but instead want to rely on what you are telling us Buckley said he heard from someone else. This is the thread on a website, josh, not a Court hearing. I saw it and heard it. That's going to have to be enough for you. Whether its reasonable, I really don't know. But I have to believe Theo thoroughly researched it and believed it was reasonable. Why would Buckley lie about this?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2014 13:17:27 GMT -5
I'm just telling what Buckley says Theo wanted. Can you give us a link to were Buckley says whatever he says? Just the minimal amount of work to set the thread up, since you don't want to defend the claim but instead want to rely on what you are telling us Buckley said he heard from someone else. Just an POI from anyone who knows. Obviously there are many sports shows and commentary that are on the radio or television and not available on the internet. You can't provide a link to those. Can these not be discussed on the message board? And a question for you Josh. Do you really think a poster would make up something Steve Buckley of all people said? If not, then why do you need a link?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 16, 2014 13:29:19 GMT -5
Just an POI from anyone who knows. Obviously there are many sports shows and commentary that are on the radio or television and not available on the internet. You can't provide a link to those. Can these not be discussed on the message board? People can discuss anything they want in any place that people will let them... that isn't the point. I don't actually see what your point is. I asked a question; if he can't provide a link he can't provide a link. I don't know what "can" or "cannot" discuss has to do with it. And a question for you Josh. Do you really think a poster would make up something Steve Buckley of all people said? If not, then why do you need a link? However, the poster said "Buckley knows more about baseball than you do and he said that Theo said..." When asked if to defend that standard, however, he simply reverted to "Buckley said it, not me." In order to then have a conversation about what Buckley said, I'd like to see the context and the surrounding quote. Do I think he is making it up? I don't care, actually. People, however, misquote or mishear things all the time. Or they report it perfectly well. In any case, if the question is parsing what Buckley said -- and not oilcansman said, as oicansman insists -- I'd like to actually hear what he said, which is easiest from a link. Frankly, I find Buckley a moderately interesting read, and if he actually is dishing out interesting stories about what Theo said or didn't say, I'd rather read (or hear) that.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 16, 2014 13:33:40 GMT -5
This is the thread on a website, josh, not a Court hearing. I saw it and heard it. That's going to have to be enough for you. Right. You have no obligation to provide any information whatsoever. You set your own standard for how much effort you actually want to put into things, and everyone who reads things decides for themselves if that is enough or not. Your choice. That is the beauty of the internet (and critical thinking): we can see arguments laid out, rather than merely listen to people speak.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 13:34:56 GMT -5
Can you provide an example of any farm system which has produced one "quality starter" per year since 2008? I have down four by my count who did it between 2008 and 2013. They would be the Braves, Rays, Reds and Cards. The A's were next and would have made it had I included Cespedes. So that certainly seems like an achievable goal. I tried to double-check this. My own subjective thoughts below: Braves 2008: ?? (Gregor Blanco?) 2009: Hanson, Prado 2010: Heyward, Venters 2011: Kimbrel, Beachy, Freeman 2012: Simmons, Medlen, Minor 2013: Teheran, Chris Johnson?, Evan Gattis? 2014: Alex Wood? Rays 2008: Longoria 2009: Price, Zobrist 2010: ?? (Jaso? Joyce?) 2011: Jennings, Hellickson? Niemann? 2012: Moore, Cobb, McGee 2013: Myers, Archer 2014: Odorizzi? Reds 2008: Votto, Cueto, Volquez? 2009: ?? (Stubbs?) 2010: Bruce, Bailey, Wood?, Leake? 2011: ?? 2012: Frazier, Chapman, Cozart? 2013: Cingrani 2014: Hamilton? Cardinals 2008: ?? (Schumaker?) 2009: Ramus 2010: Freese, Garcia? 2011: Jay, Craig 2012: Carpenter, Lynn 2013: Rosenthal, Miller, Wacha, Adams? 2014: Wong? Red Sox 2008: Ellsbury, Masterson, Buchholz 2009: Bard 2010: Lowrie? 2011: Reddick? 2012: Tazawa, Doubront?, Middlebrooks? 2013: Iglesias? Nava? 2014: Bogaerts, Bradley? Workman/RDLR? The Red Sox don't come out of this looking great (especially w/r/t developing stars), but they aren't all that far off from these other farm systems (which were among the most productive in the league during this time period).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2014 14:05:18 GMT -5
This is more of a groundrules question than anything else. I know the site wants to stay away from "my friend told me X in a bar" type discussions. But "I heard Alex Spier say on the Sox radio broadcast tonight.....". Is a little different.
[/quote]I'd like to actually hear what he said, which is easiest from a link.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2014 14:19:03 GMT -5
jmei I took 2008 to 2013. Admittedly the threshold is kind of subjective but if you make it to 6 players you make the cut. Originally I used having a player with at least one ROY vote as a threshold and got to Rays, Braves, and Cards. But it turns out that's kind of silly as Doubront, wouldn't make the list.
I didn't give credit to teams who really developed for someone else. Masterson and Lowrie I wouldn't give to the Sox because they really met the threshold with other teams. So yes it's clear that they system has developed some good players who help teams win, but the problem is that Masterson, Lowrie, Buccholz, Ellsbury, Doubront, Reddick, Moss, Rizzo, and Bard have given the Red Sox very little this year and the Sox currently have only Matt Barnes, Michael Kopech, and Henry Owens to show for that group.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 14:39:21 GMT -5
I think it's definitely a very achievable goal for a farm system to average one good young player developed per year over some amount of time, and agree that one of the problems this year is that the young talent on the team has not produced as we had hoped (think Buchholz, Doubront, Bradley, Middlebrooks).
But it's unrealistic to expect at least one guy every year, who has to be a "quality starter" (defined as such that guys like Masterson and Reddick don't count), and any fallow period means the whole farm system is systemically overhyped. No farm system in the league has achieved that level of production, not even the aforementioned ones.
|
|
|
Post by quasar on Jun 16, 2014 14:43:32 GMT -5
Red Sox 2008: Ellsbury, Masterson, Buchholz 2009: Bard 2010: Lowrie? 2011: Reddick? 2012: Tazawa, Doubront?, Middlebrooks? 2013: Iglesias? Nava? 2014: Bogaerts, Bradley? Workman/RDLR? The Red Sox don't come out of this looking great (especially w/r/t developing stars), but they aren't all that far off from these other farm systems (which were among the most productive in the league during this time period). Adding the MFY into this table would be fun to see. Not that I didn't appreciate what you did include, because I did.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2014 14:56:24 GMT -5
That's a bit of a straw man.
The standard laid out was
The word "quality" was never used.
To me that would include any player who was a closer or top setup man, any starting pitcher, and any position player that had above replacement level performance. That's a reasonable standard certainly.
Probably a better indication would be how much quality your system provides with some adjustment for how many players it takes you to get there. Say it takes 35 WAR to be a good team. How much of that should come from your farm system? I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of at least half for a team like the resources of the Red Sox. So you are talking about something in the neighborhood of 3-5 WAR per year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 15:01:35 GMT -5
The poster mentioned earlier in the thread that guys like Masterson and Reddick and Lowrie and Iglesias didn't count. ADD: I agree with the rest of your post, though, and think the "how many wins do you need to come from prospects" way of conceptualizing it is a very good one. By that standard, a guy like Bogaerts alone should be enough, as long as the rest of the roster does its job (which, to date, it hasn't).
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 16, 2014 15:32:20 GMT -5
But of course that is completely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 16, 2014 15:53:37 GMT -5
Why should there be? Holding the Red Sox to their own standards is quite reasonable, especially when you consider the wealth of the organization and the ticket prices it charges. The Red Sox have the highest average ticket prices in baseball. They also have the 4th fewest seats available. Making the silly assumption that every team sells out all of their games, the Red Sox should make $162,137,426.22 off of ticket prices every year which ranks second behind the Yankees ($207,282,653.10). [calculated using internet findings of average ticket prices].
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 16, 2014 16:19:08 GMT -5
How well have the Red Sox done in the Major League draft? An Analysis of the years 1995-2012
Numbers do not include the draft classes of 2013 and 2014
Total number of drafted players signed to contracts: 449 (average per year of 25) Number of signed players still in Red Sox organization: 65 (14.5%) Number of signed players in minors who have not appeared in a major league game: 55 Number of players to appear in a major league game: 74 (16.5%) Number to appear in a major league game with the Red Sox: 33 (7.4%) Number to become starters with the Red Sox: 15 (3.3%) Number to become starters with another team: 23 (5.1%) Number of Red Sox First Round, or First Picks: 42 Number of first round or first picks to make the majors: 20 (47.6%) Number of first round or first picks to become starters in the majors: 16 (38.1%)
Players signed by the Red Sox who became regulars (SPs. RPs, or starters at a position) with the Red Sox:
Shea Hillenbrand Casey Fossum Manny Delcarmen Kevin Youkilis John Lester Jonathan Papelbon Dustin Pedroia Jacoby Ellsbury Clay Buchholz Daniel Bard Justin Masterson Ryan Kalish Will Middlebrooks Brandon Workman Jackie Bradley Jr.
Players signed by the Red Sox who became regulars with another team:
Chris Reitsma Justin Duchscherer Travis Harper David Eckstein Adam Everett Mike Maroth Josh Hancock Lenny Di Nardo Lew Ford Phil Dumatrait Freddy Sanchez Kelly Shopach Brandon Moss David Murphy Matt Murton Cla Meredith R.J. Swindle Jed Lowrie Josh Reddick Nick Hagedone Anthony Rizzo Ryan Pressly Casey Kelly
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 16, 2014 17:29:07 GMT -5
bighead: The problem is you take yourself a bit to seriously. I was just reporting what Steve Buckley said and then offered an opinion. Unlike you, Buckley has actually spoken to Theo and been reporting on the sox for 20 years. You have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of anything involving the the Red Sox minor leagues. In addition, you have zero credentials that suggest you know anything about player development. Why would you run Buckley down when its clear he has far more information than you? You really need to get off your hands and knees and look at things critically rather than from the perspective of a minor league yahoo. The Red Sox may have a very good farm system- time will tell- but there are serious questions that need to be asked. I am a fan and hope things work out but please look at the current team and explain how such a vaunted player development machine can have such a horrific outfield? Yeah, you really have not much of an argument when you start lobbing insults... Yahoo huh? How did I rundown Buckley? By calling him by a nickname I've seem multiple writers/blogger use? That was a vicious put down... Essentially all I have said as I said before, show something,..anything quantifiable other than unverifiable quote to support your assertion that the "mediocrity of the Sox system has come home to roost". Is this critical thinking or throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks? How is the system solely responsible for the outfield? Roster building is always a mesh of player development, trades and signings. Anybody who can tell you that they can develop minor league talent to address ML roster needs seamlessly as they occur is pulling your leg. Instead of measuring the Sox system against fanciful measures of success...how about you show us how they measure to actual, real world MLB organizations? - Yahoo
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 17, 2014 7:55:11 GMT -5
But of course that is completely ridiculous. Yeah, what's the argument? That the system looks bad if we ignore a bunch of good-to-excellent players it produced? I maintain that this entire thread boils down to "the Red Sox are bad and I'm cranky about it". No coherent or relevant argument about the farm system is being made.
|
|
|