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.
|
Post by jmei on Aug 4, 2015 17:39:41 GMT -5
Look last year Portland won what 88 games?....an all-time record. Did that team/management "care" more than this year's team? I suggest that they each cared the same and the same Prime Directive operated. Given that commonality I submit that there is more in play here...i.e. that the talent might not be as strong at the two higher levels as we might have believed 4 months ago. Portland's poor record is easy-- that's just a gap in the system caused by bad drafting and player development. Pawtucket's poor record is not too much more difficult-- it's due to call-ups (Swihart, basically the entire rotation (Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson, Wright), Swihart, Castillo, Bradley, Shaw, Marrero, bunch of relievers), injury (Workman, Brentz, Weeks, Coyle) and underperformance (Cecchini, Coyle, Shaw, Craig). Look at that roster today versus the opening day roster. The difference is night and day.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 4, 2015 17:41:22 GMT -5
If your point is that the stock of players like Cecchini, Coyle, Brentz, Marrero, etc. have declined, and that this is a bad thing for the farm system as a whole, that's a fair point and one I agree with. But that has nothing to do with a culture of winning or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 4, 2015 17:49:33 GMT -5
Is there really any evidence that the Red Sox minor league teams are losing? I mean, sure this year they are. But one year doesn't make a trend. In 2014, as Chris pointed out, they performed quite well overall. in 2013, too, all but 2 affiliates had winning records. In 2012, only 2 of 6 affiliates had winning records, although Salem was 68-69. That's as far as I have gotten so far. You have to show me there's trend of losing. Well let me try again. This year the AAA team is 21 games below .500, the AA team is 29 games below .500, Salem, Greenville & Lowell are hovering around .500. On the surface with our farm system billed as the best or second best, this record would appear to be somewhat disparate absent a hitherto unknown and influencial astrological anomaly. The question begged for me was why that apparent discrepancy? James Dunn provided one answer above. Now I never suggested that the Sox should engage a "culture of winning" (particularly at the expense of prospect development). Maybe other teams 'stack to win' but that doesn't make them stupid or childish either. Different strokes..... Nor do I have to show you any trend. File this year's records under "It is what it is". Again the simple question was "Why"? My bad if I misunderstood what you were questioning. I think James Dunne and jmei both addressed this and I would agree 100% with them.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,774
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 4, 2015 18:05:06 GMT -5
If your point is that the stock of players like Cecchini, Coyle, Brentz, Marrero, etc. have declined, and that this is a bad thing for the farm system as a whole, that's a fair point and one I agree with. But that has nothing to do with a culture of winning or lack thereof. Hey jmei I appreciate your input but for the umpteenth time on here (not to you) I never once engaged the concept of a culture of winning particularly at the expense of Player Dev. So mention of that is getting a bit frustrating. Moreover even those who may endorse that 'culture' to my read have not wanted to impede prospect growth at the expense of a few more wins. So to argue that is, as is so often referred to here... ...a "straw man". I don't think Portland going in was expected to have a very strong team...Still they did ok for the first month or so and then fell off a ledge with cement boots. James Dunn said, as you now have, that that team lacks talent by virtue of poor drafting and/or player development. Fair enough. No question Pawtucket would have been better with the Swiharts at AAA. That has been something of a drain to be sure but most of the guys you mentioned (excluding Swihart) have been very short termers with the Sox. Regression from anticipated performance has been a big factor as you reel off the names. A look at the prospect page shows just that as the Cecchini's of our AAA world have sunk in the rankings.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 4, 2015 18:19:08 GMT -5
Fair point that many of the call-ups have been short-termers, but there have been so many short-termers that, in the aggregate, it takes a toll on the roster. The leader in plate appearances for the PawSox is one Quintin Berry, and the 2nd, 4th and 5th-most IP are Keith Couch, Jess Todd, and Zeke Spruill.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 5, 2015 0:07:15 GMT -5
I have studied more closely the records of last years minors and this years. Portland had absolutely no top 60 prospects on the team a big abhorration and Pawtucket had some prospects that are all underperforming from last year where they played in Portland for the most part. the rest are fill-ins for the roster from Major league busts or players picked up from other teams to make a team. that explains Pawtucket. Portlands star players are in the Majors now or in Pawtucket. Portland now is getting an influx of lower talent and has played better, but they were so far down that it still doesn't look very good. Margot is there now which helps that team. The process I see, with further study, is a good evaluation of players as they move up to the higher levels. the GCL and Lowell teams look like they have some intriguing prospects coming up, but just like the ones before them they will hit the wall at some point. DSL teams are not in the conversation as they are all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 5, 2015 6:39:22 GMT -5
As for Greenville, I'd point out that while their lineup has been prospect heaven (arguably TOO prospect-heavy, if there's such a thing), their pitching staff has, other than Kopech, been pretty weak actually. Their innings pitched leaders are Beeks (4.01), Reilly (4.01), Fernandez (5.67), Fat Dedgar (3.93), Kopech (2.63), and Callahan (6.02). The good arms they have had, like Buttrey, Wilkerson, Jerez, and Shepherd, all got promoted to Salem pretty quickly.
So while you could look and talk about how they had 8 all-stars on one hand, on the other, 6 of the 8 were in the lineup and two were catchers who wouldn't be in the lineup at the same time, while one of the pitchers was a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by vasoxfan on Aug 5, 2015 8:20:17 GMT -5
I can see the argument being made for organizational records being poor this year - a fair point. But I do think it's unwise to overlook individuals on some of those teams. While each minor league team appears to suffer from talent deficiency (there may be vitamins for that) each team has individual talents that collectively will assemble in Boston (Devers, Margot, Moncada, etc). It does appear the amount of talent is low, but no reason to give up the ship. fixing the Sox is not going to be an easy task IMO. I know that there will be some here that will scoff at my suggestions, but when Theo first came to the organization, his first idea was to build the farm system into a winning formula after so many years of losing teams in the minors so the players would know what winning was all about. He was successful in that undertaking and it brought many winning teams to Boston. Look at the farm now. Pawtucket and Portland are very low in the standings with Salem and greenville just above 500 and Lowell, which started out fantastic, slipping under 500 now. The only teams performing well are the GCL and DSL2 which are very low minors. It goes to show that as the players go up there is a drop-off in talent going forward. Losing begets losing and Theo filled in where necessary to keep teams on a winning path. I don't see any of that now. I know some will say it isn't the team necessarily that is important, but that the individual players be developed going forward. That is valid to some extent as the minors shouldn't be looked at for championship teams every year with movement of players up and down changing the landscape, but I can't help but feel that the losing part is detrimental to the development of players. Just my thoughts on the subject. Sling the arrows now. No arrows from me. I agree with you and probably go a step further. Maybe the Sox push guys ahead faster than other organizations and this leads to poor team records or maybe we don't add "organizational guys" enough to help out...don't know....but if not and if we truly have a lot of talent in the minors, then the rest of our squads must be horrible. I was excited when I saw Pawtucket take off and be regarded as perhaps the best minor league team in baseball, excited when I saw Salem and Greenville do so well starting out and excited when I saw Lowell at 10-1. All those teams have since tanked. I have not totaled our won/loss records but I suspect that we are below the organizational Mendoza line....perhaps a 44% winning record...much like the parent club. I would be interested to see what each stateside club has done starting May 1. I am guessing that the results would be shocking to most. My point is that at some juncture records do reflect overall talent at respective levels.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 5, 2015 8:41:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess that's the point I was trying to get at. If you're trying to evaluate the quality of the farm system, the best way of doing so would be to evaluate the quality of the top prospects in the system. Looking at the W/L records of the affiliates seems like an unnecessarily roundabout way of trying to answer that question. Just look at the players themselves. While some (notably Cecchini, Escobar, and Coyle, all of whom ranked in the Opening Day top 20) have struggled, other have thrived and pushed themselves into the top 20 (Espinoza, Light, Dubon, Hernandez, Longhi), which seems fairly typical.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,774
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 5, 2015 10:40:35 GMT -5
It's hard not to have frustration creep in with the way the ML team has performed. As Chris noted recently, the top ten in our system is perhaps as good as at any time in the past. That gives some rays of hope...even though many are years away. What we do b/t now and then to keep the dauber up...well, we have to wait and see.
That said, I can't get too excited about many below that top ten. Some certainly will come forward, some that faded this year may resurrect and, of course, some that look like studs today will morph into 'remember him'?
The next outstanding pitching prospect seems to be in the GCL...and that is discouraging for a team that infrequently is able to draft/develop this particular area. Johnson & Owens are the best we've had since Buch....but at this point don't project to top of the rotation guys.
Most of the draft picks become "organizational fodder", comprise 20 + on each team and our fodder may not be as good as "their" fodder.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 5, 2015 10:42:51 GMT -5
As for Greenville, I'd point out that while their lineup has been prospect heaven (arguably TOO prospect-heavy, if there's such a thing), their pitching staff has, other than Kopech, been pretty weak actually. Their innings pitched leaders are Beeks (4.01), Reilly (4.01), Fernandez (5.67), Fat Dedgar (3.93), Kopech (2.63), and Callahan (6.02). The good arms they have had, like Buttrey, Wilkerson, Jerez, and Shepherd, all got promoted to Salem pretty quickly. So while you could look and talk about how they had 8 all-stars on one hand, on the other, 6 of the 8 were in the lineup and two were catchers who wouldn't be in the lineup at the same time, while one of the pitchers was a reliever. The problem with Greenville is that they have so many prospects they can't find the room to play them consistently. One will have to sit and the other will play. It holds a player back somewhat in his development I would guess. Chavis and Devers are a prime example of this.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 5, 2015 10:53:20 GMT -5
I have a question unrelated to the "culture of winning". When a player disappears from the lineup for a period of time and then shows up a couple of weeks later does that mean that the coaches are working on flaws with his hitting or fielding or in the case of a pitcher his mechanics being completely out of whack? Case in point Jagger Rusconi.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 5, 2015 11:27:29 GMT -5
I have a question unrelated to the "culture of winning". When a player disappears from the lineup for a period of time and then shows up a couple of weeks later does that mean that the coaches are working on flaws with his hitting or fielding or in the case of a pitcher his mechanics being completely out of whack? Case in point Jagger Rusconi. Could be a number of things - it could be strength training (shoulder/pitcher), it could be a revamp of hitting/fielding/pitching mechanics, it could be disciplinary or it could be injury-related. Mostly, this occurs in the rookie levels. If it is at Greenville or higher, it is likely to be injury-related, rather than any of the other choices.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 5, 2015 11:46:09 GMT -5
I have a question unrelated to the "culture of winning". When a player disappears from the lineup for a period of time and then shows up a couple of weeks later does that mean that the coaches are working on flaws with his hitting or fielding or in the case of a pitcher his mechanics being completely out of whack? Case in point Jagger Rusconi. Could be a number of things - it could be strength training (shoulder/pitcher), it could be a revamp of hitting/fielding/pitching mechanics, it could be disciplinary or it could be injury-related. Mostly, this occurs in the rookie levels. If it is at Greenville or higher, it is likely to be injury-related, rather than any of the other choices. Usually if it is injury related, it is shown somewhere that a player is injured. I do notice it more on the rookie levels where there is no explanation of why the player disappeared for a time. My guess is they are working on player mechanics and disciplinary reasons is a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 6, 2015 10:50:23 GMT -5
Could be a number of things - it could be strength training (shoulder/pitcher), it could be a revamp of hitting/fielding/pitching mechanics, it could be disciplinary or it could be injury-related. Mostly, this occurs in the rookie levels. If it is at Greenville or higher, it is likely to be injury-related, rather than any of the other choices. Usually if it is injury related, it is shown somewhere that a player is injured. I do notice it more on the rookie levels where there is no explanation of why the player disappeared for a time. My guess is they are working on player mechanics and disciplinary reasons is a valid point. There's no media at the rookie levels, so there's no information coming out either way. Plus on a 35-man roster, a guy missing a game or two means far less than it would on a 25-man roster. Also, as for the development point you make above with Greenville, I disagree that anyone's development there has been hampered. Devers has been developing just fine, and Chavis would probably be having the problems he's having whether or not he was playing third base 6 out of 7 games. Obviously, it's less-than-ideal, but it's not like they're playing twice a week and they're not even coming to the park the other five days.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 10, 2015 18:55:48 GMT -5
I would like to point out that who in their right mind would want to go and see a Pawtucket game when the other team scores a run and the game is just about over. they have exactly 1 actual prospect in the starting lineup. If you cn't put at least a competitive product on the field then why support it. It is no fun seeing a team average a run a game at best. Portland is almost as bad, but have some prospects to watch. they are 30+ games under 500. I am glad that Pawtucket has gotten Carlos Rivero as he will make a big difference. this is very poor planning on the big club. How many go to the games. I am curious.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2015 7:07:31 GMT -5
I would like to point out that who in their right mind would want to go and see a Pawtucket game when the other team scores a run and the game is just about over. they have exactly 1 actual prospect in the starting lineup. If you cn't put at least a competitive product on the field then why support it. It is no fun seeing a team average a run a game at best. Portland is almost as bad, but have some prospects to watch. they are 30+ games under 500. I am glad that Pawtucket has gotten Carlos Rivero as he will make a big difference. this is very poor planning on the big club. How many go to the games. I am curious. I would want to go see them lose 14-1 every game if they have enough major league prospects. I really don't give a damn whatsoever about winning. I live right near where the Durham Bulls play and rarely go because they almost never have real prospects and continually fill the roster with players who will never be good enough for the majors.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 11, 2015 7:48:19 GMT -5
I don't think it matters at all, but it is funny how highly Pawtucket was thought of preseason compared to have they have actually fared (for a variety of reasons). Who's underperformed more, Pawtucket or Bonst?
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 11, 2015 13:47:33 GMT -5
I would like to point out that who in their right mind would want to go and see a Pawtucket game when the other team scores a run and the game is just about over. they have exactly 1 actual prospect in the starting lineup. If you cn't put at least a competitive product on the field then why support it. It is no fun seeing a team average a run a game at best. Portland is almost as bad, but have some prospects to watch. they are 30+ games under 500. I am glad that Pawtucket has gotten Carlos Rivero as he will make a big difference. this is very poor planning on the big club. How many go to the games. I am curious. I would want to go see them lose 14-1 every game if they have enough major league prospects. I really don't give a damn whatsoever about winning. I live right near where the Durham Bulls play and rarely go because they almost never have real prospects and continually fill the roster with players who will never be good enough for the majors. (If they have enough major league prospects). they are made up of mostly major league depth players and some underperforming previously highly rated prospects and Allan Craig. That is all. Doesn't make a very exciting team to watch play. Lucchino taking over the team should be a big help.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Aug 11, 2015 13:51:25 GMT -5
I don't think it matters at all, but it is funny how highly Pawtucket was thought of preseason compared to have they have actually fared (for a variety of reasons). Who's underperformed more, Pawtucket or Bonst? Boston...They have Major League players that should be playing better. Pawtucket is just a pipeline to Boston and players are up and down there. All Pawtucket's main starters are in Boston now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 11, 2015 14:05:39 GMT -5
I would want to go see them lose 14-1 every game if they have enough major league prospects. I really don't give a damn whatsoever about winning. I live right near where the Durham Bulls play and rarely go because they almost never have real prospects and continually fill the roster with players who will never be good enough for the majors. (If they have enough major league prospects). they are made up of mostly major league depth players and some underperforming previously highly rated prospects and Allan Craig. That is all. Doesn't make a very exciting team to watch play. Lucchino taking over the team should be a big help. The owners of the Pawtucket Red Sox have no say in what players are on the field. That's all the Red Sox organization, not the minor league club's job.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2015 14:20:49 GMT -5
I would want to go see them lose 14-1 every game if they have enough major league prospects. I really don't give a damn whatsoever about winning. I live right near where the Durham Bulls play and rarely go because they almost never have real prospects and continually fill the roster with players who will never be good enough for the majors. (If they have enough major league prospects). they are made up of mostly major league depth players and some underperforming previously highly rated prospects and Allan Craig. That is all. Doesn't make a very exciting team to watch play. Lucchino taking over the team should be a big help. And again, I'd only be interested in watching them if they have enough major league prospects. I don't care about whether they win or not.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Aug 11, 2015 14:36:03 GMT -5
Hopefully Lucchino will spend big to bring some star power to Pawtucket so we can cultivate our culture of winning. Sign Mike Hessman to a 5-year deal and go from there.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 11, 2015 14:52:54 GMT -5
When I was a kid the Buffalo Bisons were a locally owned (I think publicly-owned) AAA team that was an affiliate of Philadelphia, but also had some of their own players on the roster. There were a number of minor league teams owned and operated semi-independently like the Bisons. They would make trades and sign free agents every season. They did play to win and the Bisons had good attendance.
I remember one time when the Phillies called up one of the players under contract to Buffalo and not owned by the Phillies. I think it was Luke Easter, a power-hitting 1B who happened to be the best player on the team. Of course, Easter went, but the team, and many locals, raised hell. Eventually, he was sent back to Buffalo and he played under contract to the Bisons for several more years.
While there still are many privately owned minor league teams, some of which have become fairly lucrative, I don't know of any now that acquire any of their own players.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2015 15:03:35 GMT -5
When I was a kid the Buffalo Bisons were a locally owned (I think publicly-owned) AAA team that was an affiliate of Philadelphia, but also had some of their own players on the roster. There were a number of minor league teams owned and operated semi-independently like the Bisons. They would make trades and sign free agents every season. They did play to win and the Bisons had good attendance. I remember one time when the Phillies called up one of the players under contract to Buffalo and not owned by the Phillies. I think it was Luke Easter, a power-hitting 1B who happened to be the best player on the team. Of course, Easter went, but the team, and many locals, raised hell. Eventually, he was sent back to Buffalo and he played under contract to the Bisons for several more years.While there still are many privately owned minor league teams, some of which have become fairly lucrative, I don't know of any now that acquire any of their own players. That's so damn selfish of the locals. I'd be happy he made the majors.
|
|
|