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.
Baseball America League Top 20
|
Post by edwardcc on Oct 2, 2014 9:12:54 GMT -5
Honestly, how did Margot only end up the 9th best prospect? He put up a 286/355/449 line with 10 HR and 39 SBs with about a 12% K rate at age 20 (just turned 20 in Sept) in a little more than 400 PA. I haven't gone over the list in detail but I doubt seriously that there are 8 guys with a better tools, production and age mix. SALLY 9. Manuel Margot 17. Wendell Rijo
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 2, 2014 10:05:29 GMT -5
Here's the article itself (free, but registration required). Margot's blurb doesn't shed any light on why he was ranked below Meadows, Dahl, and Judge. He did hit worse than all three, but he's also the second youngest out of that group and is likely the best defender and baserunner (though Dahl is no slouch in those departments, either). It's probably just that those four form one tier (maybe Meadows is slightly ahead of the others), and you have to order them somehow.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 2, 2014 10:10:21 GMT -5
Not defending the positioning but it's certainly defensible, the Sally was actually a pretty stacked league. Top 10 are all excellent prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 2, 2014 10:39:39 GMT -5
Yeah in a 14-team league, no shame in Margot being 9th there. That top 12, really, is pretty stacked as far as league lists go.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 2, 2014 14:35:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 2, 2014 20:07:31 GMT -5
Ah, season's over, time to start speculating how many Sox are in the Top 100! If you assume Margot's in there, and then Swihart's of course a lock, and I'd call foul if Devers wasn't on, too. And I think the three lefties (Owens, Johnson, and Rodriguez) all have good shots; I'd think any of them got robbed if they weren't on, and Owens is a lock. That's probably it, though, maybe Ranaudo or Barnes sneaks in, or Chavis if a couple guys at BA are really into him. So, I'd say most likely 4-6, with Devers and Johnson being possibly left off in some worst-case scenario, although I'd go crazy if either were. Mookie would've made another for sure, but alas ... Ah, totally forgot Castillo's eligible, so make that 5-7 Sox on the list.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 2, 2014 21:20:55 GMT -5
Ah, season's over, time to start speculating how many Sox are in the Top 100! If you assume Margot's in there, and then Swihart's of course a lock, and I'd call foul if Devers wasn't on, too. And I think the three lefties (Owens, Johnson, and Rodriguez) all have good shots; I'd think any of them got robbed if they weren't on, and Owens is a lock. That's probably it, though, maybe Ranaudo or Barnes sneaks in, or Chavis if a couple guys at BA are really into him. So, I'd say most likely 4-6, with Devers and Johnson being possibly left off in some worst-case scenario, although I'd go crazy if either were. Mookie would've made another for sure, but alas ... Ah, totally forgot Castillo's eligible, so make that 5-7 Sox on the list. Swihart, Owens, Devers, and Margot are locks. Castillo is highly probable. Rodriguez, Barnes and Johnson have a shot, but I'd bet against the last two (although Johnson is my I think he's going to be better than people think guy).
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 2, 2014 21:49:48 GMT -5
I'd be surprise if Devers makes it. They have been very conservative with international guys, unless it's someone like Sano who was seen as a generational talent as an amateur.
He has plenty of things going for him though so who know, maybe they surprise me; not that I need to see his name on a list though. He is a lock to make some of their staffer list.
He did rank ahead of the #2 overall pick but they have said in the past that the league lists are different than their other lists.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 2, 2014 22:03:15 GMT -5
I wrote about this after/during the GCL championship games.. Those 2 HR's he jacked out to both R/C and the other to dead R/F were NOT cheapies. he hammered them. He also did a nice job of covering up for Dever's lack of range at 3b in game 3 while playing SS. Would have liked to seen more games of course, but he "slid" almost around the position and did a fine job. Can't say the same for Devers though. Does devers move to first next season ? No, he stays at the hot corner to perfect his skills. Then, in 2017 he takes over from The Panda.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Oct 2, 2014 23:21:53 GMT -5
Does devers move to first next season ? No, he stays at the hot corner to perfect his skills. Then, in 2017 he takes over from The Panda. Highly doubtful that's who he takes over for
|
|
|
Post by aussiesox on Oct 3, 2014 2:56:19 GMT -5
I'll be very surprised if Devers doesn't crack it, Gary Sanchez got up to #30 at the same age, although he plays a premium defensive position (though not incredibly well) and seen a late season promotion to short season A ball... Baseball America is clearly pretty high on Devers though.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 3, 2014 9:40:31 GMT -5
I'd be surprise if Devers makes it. They have been very conservative with international guys, unless it's someone like Sano who was seen as a generational talent as an amateur. He has plenty of things going for him though so who know, maybe they surprise me; not that I need to see his name on a list though. He is a lock to make some of their staffer list. He did rank ahead of the #2 overall pick but they have said in the past that the league lists are different than their other lists. Devers is a shoo-in for the top 100, imo. From our list, I'm thinking the top 6 make it, the top 4 being no-doubters, and any of the top 10 could sneak in.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 3, 2014 10:27:51 GMT -5
I'd be surprise if Devers makes it. They have been very conservative with international guys, unless it's someone like Sano who was seen as a generational talent as an amateur. He has plenty of things going for him though so who know, maybe they surprise me; not that I need to see his name on a list though. He is a lock to make some of their staffer list. He did rank ahead of the #2 overall pick but they have said in the past that the league lists are different than their other lists. Devers is a shoo-in for the top 100, imo. From our list, I'm thinking the top 6 make it, the top 4 being no-doubters, and any of the top 10 could sneak in. Yep, I agree with the caveat that now that I've thought more about it I'd be REALLY surprised if Rodriguez didn't make it after the way he pitched after the trade and being on the top 100 going into this year; I think he's maybe even more of a shoo-in as Devers. Johnson I wouldn't be quite as shocked if he's left off, though I'd be annoyed. Plus, of course, Rusney ... I'd put money down on 7 Sox in the top 100. I think they won't put any of the 7-10 guys on there with the depth of the system ... I suspect there's a human reaction once you get too many guys from one team on the list. In a lesser system, one of those guys might make it.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 3, 2014 10:51:54 GMT -5
Too bad Mookie won't be eligible...I'd rather see where he would be placed than find out how Castillo ranks against guys in A and AA ball.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Oct 3, 2014 12:16:03 GMT -5
Too bad Mookie won't be eligible...I'd rather see where he would be placed than find out how Castillo ranks against guys in A and AA ball. You'd have to think somewhere in the 5-10 range
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 3, 2014 12:18:15 GMT -5
Too bad Mookie won't be eligible...I'd rather see where he would be placed than find out how Castillo ranks against guys in A and AA ball. Midseason he was top 10/15-ish material, and only Baez graduated from that strata. I'm not sure anyone in this year's draft will jump into that group, so you can assume he'd be up there still.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 14:21:34 GMT -5
I'd guess that Betts would be in the Russell/Lindor tier (so the 5-7 range). Plays the less valuable position, but is MLB-ready and has consistently produced really well in the upper minors. Slightly lower ceiling, but higher floor.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 3, 2014 18:39:23 GMT -5
Too bad Mookie won't be eligible...I'd rather see where he would be placed than find out how Castillo ranks against guys in A and AA ball. Midseason he was top 10/15-ish material, and only Baez graduated from that strata. I'm not sure anyone in this year's draft will jump into that group, so you can assume he'd be up there still. That sounds about right. I think I'd have Rodon and Alex Jackson in my Top 20 but it would certainly be tough to rank either above Betts.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 3, 2014 19:31:12 GMT -5
I'd guess that Betts would be in the Russell/Lindor tier (so the 5-7 range). Plays the less valuable position, but is MLB-ready and has consistently produced really well in the upper minors. Slightly lower ceiling, but higher floor. I can't see mookie in the 5 to 7 range, but I definitely think 10 to 15. Plus I think mookie will have a decent year for us next year, if they play him everyday.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Oct 3, 2014 19:36:27 GMT -5
I'd rather have Mookie than Lindor if positional need wasn't taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 8, 2014 10:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 8, 2014 10:59:14 GMT -5
Not surprising at all. FWIW, Margot and Johnson didn't play enough to qualify.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 8, 2014 11:31:39 GMT -5
Braden Shipley, an option at #7 in 2013, comes in 4th in the league.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 8, 2014 12:07:32 GMT -5
Braden Shipley, an option at #7 in 2013, comes in 4th in the league. You mean the California League.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 8, 2014 13:28:26 GMT -5
Not surprising at all. FWIW, Margot and Johnson didn't play enough to qualify. Do we promote the best from high a to double a too quick?
|
|
|