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-Draft Discussion Thread
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 18, 2016 10:35:05 GMT -5
It's way premature to consider Light, Johnson and Ball misses, and early on Owens and Swihart is a likely success. Even though the strategy works for second and later supplementation, giving up two top picks
seems a heavy penalty. The one favorable aspect of this strategy is if we are to assume excellent finishes for the sox these next two years
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 18, 2016 10:48:35 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that perhaps another reason teams don't utilize this strategy is that it decreases the leverage with agents. Jim Callis suggested that the Redsox will sign their other players and leave a target amount over to offer Groome on a take it or leave it basis. Once someone opens that door, you may lose this ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by hinder1 on Jun 18, 2016 11:21:06 GMT -5
It's way premature to consider Light, Johnson and Ball misses, and early on Owens and Swihart is a likely success. Even though the strategy works for second and later supplementation, giving up two top picks seems a heavy penalty. The one favorable aspect of this strategy is if we are to assume excellent finishes for the sox these next two years Ball was the #7 pick in the draft in 2013 and is still scuffling at A ball. His strikeouts per 9 innings are far too low to ever be an impact pitcher and he walks almost as many as he strikes out. This guy has bust written all over him especially when you consider he was the 7th guy selected in the entire draft. I don't define "success" as maybe a 25 - 40 MLB roster guy who rides the Pawtucket shuttle (Owens & Light and probably Johnson if he ever gets over his anxiety issues). Swihart is hardly a success either. The guy is a lousy defensive catcher who appears to be in the process of being converted to play other positions. His over sold bat is not that impressive when you consider his lack of power and what you would expect in production from say a corner OF, 1B or 3B as I have heard the baseball "draftnicks" claim he could be converted to. Well my opinion is a weak hitting slap hitter who hits say .275 with 5-10 HR's is of no use at 3B, 1B or LF if you want to contend in the AL East. My other point that was not directly addressed is how bad the Epstein-Cherrington-Hazen crew has been at identifying good draft prospects and developing them. The fail rate exceeds 75%. If you have no better than a 1 in 4 chance of the guy becoming useful at the MLB level, why not add 12 extra guys who start the development process 3 years earlier than college guys so you have "more swings at bat". I think your odds are much better with 12 guys than 2 if we are talking about guys being picked in the back half of the 1st round. |
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 18, 2016 11:28:50 GMT -5
The fail rate is 75% so we have a success rate of 25%  ? That would make us the best drafting team in baseball, easily. |
|
|
|
Post by buttclown on Jun 18, 2016 11:49:31 GMT -5
The fail rate is 75% so we have a success rate of 25% ? That would make us the best drafting team in baseball, easily. We've definitely had some frustrating misses recently, but those of us who are feeling down about player pipeline need only look at our friends in New York for a glimpse of what poor drafting actually looks like (although I liked what they did this year). |
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 18, 2016 11:57:18 GMT -5
Brady Bramlett announces on twitter that he's ending his baseball career.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202 
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 18, 2016 12:21:28 GMT -5
I don't define "success" as maybe a 25 - 40 MLB roster guy who rides the Pawtucket shuttle ... My other point that was not directly addressed is how bad the Epstein-Cherrington-Hazen crew has been at identifying good draft prospects and developing them. The fail rate exceeds 75%. If you have no better than a 1 in 4 chance of the guy becoming useful at the MLB level, why not add 12 extra guys who start the development process 3 years earlier than college guys so you have "more swings at bat". I think your odds are much better with 12 guys than 2 if we are talking about guys being picked in the back half of the 1st round. Can you show us some math on that? What are the odds that one of your twelve 2016 later-rounds guys becomes an impact player, as opposed to the two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2018? |
|
|
|
Post by sammo420 on Jun 18, 2016 12:31:49 GMT -5
As for the pluses and minuses of signing every draft pick? The commissioner has to sign off on each and every deal. To this date (so far) it's been nothing but a formal thing. Who is to say that if some large market team were to go out and spend.. Just throwing out these numbers.. Say.. 25-30m on a draft, that the previous cursory commish signature could just become improbable on a few occasions, or said team could be setup for retributions in other ways down the line on top of future draft pick losses? Nobody really came close to doing this under the old system where it was only money. I can't see it being done with the new one. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 18, 2016 12:59:11 GMT -5
It's way premature to consider Light, Johnson and Ball misses, and early on Owens and Swihart is a likely success. Even though the strategy works for second and later supplementation, giving up two top picks seems a heavy penalty. The one favorable aspect of this strategy is if we are to assume excellent finishes for the sox these next two years Ball was the #7 pick in the draft in 2013 and is still scuffling at A ball. His strikeouts per 9 innings are far too low to ever be an impact pitcher and he walks almost as many as he strikes out. This guy has bust written all over him especially when you consider he was the 7th guy selected in the entire draft. I don't define "success" as maybe a 25 - 40 MLB roster guy who rides the Pawtucket shuttle (Owens & Light and probably Johnson if he ever gets over his anxiety issues). Swihart is hardly a success either. The guy is a lousy defensive catcher who appears to be in the process of being converted to play other positions. His over sold bat is not that impressive when you consider his lack of power and what you would expect in production from say a corner OF, 1B or 3B as I have heard the baseball "draftnicks" claim he could be converted to. Well my opinion is a weak hitting slap hitter who hits say .275 with 5-10 HR's is of no use at 3B, 1B or LF if you want to contend in the AL East. My other point that was not directly addressed is how bad the Epstein-Cherrington-Hazen crew has been at identifying good draft prospects and developing them. The fail rate exceeds 75%. If you have no better than a 1 in 4 chance of the guy becoming useful at the MLB level, why not add 12 extra guys who start the development process 3 years earlier than college guys so you have "more swings at bat". I think your odds are much better with 12 guys than 2 if we are talking about guys being picked in the back half of the 1st round. I'd love to see you provide some data to back up those claims. Seems to me that the Sox have had a fair amount of success with their drafts in the past 10-12 years, even including the '08-10 black hole. Your perception of how frequently prospects become "successful" (which seems to be first-division starters or better) seems pretty inconsistent with reality. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 18, 2016 13:15:58 GMT -5
It's way premature to consider Light, Johnson and Ball misses, and early on Owens and Swihart is a likely success. Even though the strategy works for second and later supplementation, giving up two top picks seems a heavy penalty. The one favorable aspect of this strategy is if we are to assume excellent finishes for the sox these next two years Ball was the #7 pick in the draft in 2013 and is still scuffling at A ball. His strikeouts per 9 innings are far too low to ever be an impact pitcher and he walks almost as many as he strikes out. This guy has bust written all over him especially when you consider he was the 7th guy selected in the entire draft. I don't define "success" as maybe a 25 - 40 MLB roster guy who rides the Pawtucket shuttle (Owens & Light and probably Johnson if he ever gets over his anxiety issues). Swihart is hardly a success either. The guy is a lousy defensive catcher who appears to be in the process of being converted to play other positions. His over sold bat is not that impressive when you consider his lack of power and what you would expect in production from say a corner OF, 1B or 3B as I have heard the baseball "draftnicks" claim he could be converted to. Well my opinion is a weak hitting slap hitter who hits say .275 with 5-10 HR's is of no use at 3B, 1B or LF if you want to contend in the AL East. My other point that was not directly addressed is how bad the Epstein-Cherrington-Hazen crew has been at identifying good draft prospects and developing them. The fail rate exceeds 75%. If you have no better than a 1 in 4 chance of the guy becoming useful at the MLB level, why not add 12 extra guys who start the development process 3 years earlier than college guys so you have "more swings at bat". I think your odds are much better with 12 guys than 2 if we are talking about guys being picked in the back half of the 1st round. "And Jackie Bradley is one of the worst hitters in the majors! Total bust!" - hinder1, 12 months ago, presumably. Not that Swihart, Owens, Johnson, etc are all going to have a breakout as dramatic as Bradley, but we're talking about players who A) have already made it to the majors and B) are still young enough and talented enough that it's completely realistic for any of them to have long MLB careers. That's the type of thing you want in your system, and you're throwing them out as examples of how the Red Sox have FAILED to draft well? Quite the opposite, my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 18, 2016 13:21:05 GMT -5
As for the pluses and minuses of signing every draft pick? The commissioner has to sign off on each and every deal. To this date (so far) it's been nothing but a formal thing. Who is to say that if some large market team were to go out and spend.. Just throwing out these numbers.. Say.. 25-30m on a draft, that the previous cursory commish signature could just become improbable on a few occasions, or said team could be setup for retributions in other ways down the line on top of future draft pick losses? Nobody really came close to doing this under the old system where it was only money. I can't see it being done with the new one. Exactly. And far more top players would fall to the later rounds in the old system. |
|
|
|
Post by The Duck on Jun 18, 2016 13:34:24 GMT -5
I think there is some merit to the idea. Say we signed the 4 high schoolers:
29 Cam Shepherd
30 Tyler Fitzgerald
31 Christian Jones
32 Jeff Belge
Wouldn't that give a better chance of quality down the road than 2 hopefully late picks the next 2 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 18, 2016 14:01:06 GMT -5
I think there is some merit to the idea. Say we signed the 4 high schoolers: 29 Cam Shepherd 30 Tyler Fitzgerald 31 Christian Jones 32 Jeff Belge Wouldn't that give a better chance of quality down the road than 2 hopefully late picks the next 2 years? Two top 20* guys are worth a lot more than those four. None of them were top 100 guys according to PG and only Belge was according to BA and MLB. I could see a scenario where this would make sense: you know you're going to be investing heavily in free agency the next two years and you plan ahead of the draft to spend big. But it would be a disaster to do it after you've just spent several top ten picks on senior signs and players you knew would get done below slot. |
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jun 18, 2016 14:05:35 GMT -5
Even if this was an optimal strategy, others would start doing thus eliminating its viability.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 639
|
Post by alnipper on Jun 18, 2016 15:45:07 GMT -5
I liked bramlett. I hope we sign him still.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 18, 2016 17:36:15 GMT -5
Ryan Hannable @ryanhannable
Source: Red Sox 2nd-round pick CJ Chatham will report to Ft. Myers to rehab thumb that turned out broken. Happened in regional 2 weeks ago.
Ryan Hannable @ryanhannable
Chatham is expected to be in Fort Myers for 2-3 weeks before joining Lowell.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 18, 2016 17:36:16 GMT -5
“@ryanhannable: Source: Red Sox 2nd-round pick CJ Chatham will report to Ft. Myers to rehab thumb that turned out broken. Happened in regional 2 weeks ago.”
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jun 18, 2016 18:21:02 GMT -5
I liked bramlett. I hope we sign him still. Surprising as the week before I believe he posted on twitter that he thanked the Sox and was ready to get to work. |
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 18, 2016 19:27:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 18, 2016 19:59:37 GMT -5
Ryan Hannable @ryanhannable Source: Red Sox 2nd-round pick CJ Chatham will report to Ft. Myers to rehab thumb that turned out broken. Happened in regional 2 weeks ago. Ryan Hannable @ryanhannable Chatham is expected to be in Fort Myers for 2-3 weeks before joining Lowell. Not that bad |
|
|
|
Post by hinder1 on Jun 18, 2016 20:08:24 GMT -5
I don't define "success" as maybe a 25 - 40 MLB roster guy who rides the Pawtucket shuttle ... My other point that was not directly addressed is how bad the Epstein-Cherrington-Hazen crew has been at identifying good draft prospects and developing them. The fail rate exceeds 75%. If you have no better than a 1 in 4 chance of the guy becoming useful at the MLB level, why not add 12 extra guys who start the development process 3 years earlier than college guys so you have "more swings at bat". I think your odds are much better with 12 guys than 2 if we are talking about guys being picked in the back half of the 1st round. Can you show us some math on that? What are the odds that one of your twelve 2016 later-rounds guys becomes an impact player, as opposed to the two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2018? How can you possibly calculate odds on the future success of guys not yet signed? We can only look back at what past performance has been. I listed 19 guys who have been drafted #1 by the Red Sox none of them are impact or star players. A few have been bit players but I would have expected much more given the investment. If you want to talk 2011, I think right now the jury is still out. JBJ has been solid for roughly 1/2 a year between his August 2015 numbers and the first 2.5 months of this year. That is hardly a definitive success as he has had just as much time where he struggled to hit .220. I'm hopeful he becomes a reliable star but it is still too early. If we used this same standard to apply to Will Middlebrooks, he would have been an HOF after his first call-up. Obviously you need to produce over time to be a success. On the drafting in general, just look at the current team. The only drafted players are Vazquez (9th 2008), Pedroia (2nd 2004), JBJ (1st 2011), Shaw (9th), Barnes (1st 2011), Buchholz (1st 2005), Betts (5th 2005) before you consider guys on the DL or shuttling between Pawtucket. better than 2/3 of their roster comes from other sources besides drafting. They have bought good prospects as amateur IFA's (Bogaerts, H. Ramirez, Tazawa) they sign plenty of MLB free agents (Ortiz, Young, Price, Koji, Lane) or MLB trades (Holt, Rutledge, Ross, Porcello, Wright, Hembree, Hanigan, EROD). The bottom line is that the Red Sox have not drafted well at all despite having the ability to pay large signing bonuses under the old system for most of that time, and frequently having multiple 1st rounders and compensation picks. Quite frankly you could make a good argument that they should sign a veteran MLB type A free agent every year and forfeit the #1 pick based on how badly they have squandered most of them over the last 10 year period (note:I'm not including the last two years because we really don't know enough yet about how they will turn out). Based on the track record the Sox get just as many if not more of their players in the mid rounds as with 1st rounders. That is why I say they would be better off with more quantity than one or two guys in the 20 range. You still have to pick the right guys. For reference I will note that the "more swings at the bat philosophy" is exactly the one the N.E. Patriots have used for years. They constantly infuriate football draftnicks by trading backwards for more picks. They seem to have done fairly well with that strategy! |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 18, 2016 20:30:10 GMT -5
Two top 20* guys are worth a lot more than those four. None of them were top 100 guys according to PG and only Belge was according to BA and MLB. I could see a scenario where this would make sense: you know you're going to be investing heavily in free agency the next two years and you plan ahead of the draft to spend big. But it would be a disaster to do it after you've just spent several top ten picks on senior signs and players you knew would get done below slot. Keep in mind that if Boston were to do this strategy, they would likely have forgone senior signs in rounds 7-10 and drafted more signability guys. It's not fair to compare two top 20 picks to the four players mentioned as it would probably be the two top 20 picks vs. those four players and probably a few others. In other words, there's a difference between going into the draft planning on blowing away the bonus pools, and having a "regular" draft strategy and then deciding afterwards to blow by the bonus limits. That changes the scales in my opinion, especially when you factor the implication on signing free agents. I feel that there is an unwritten rule preventing this, but if I were in charge it would be tempting. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 18, 2016 20:34:36 GMT -5
Can you show us some math on that? What are the odds that one of your twelve 2016 later-rounds guys becomes an impact player, as opposed to the two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2018? How can you possibly calculate odds on the future success of guys not yet signed? We can only look back at what past performance has been. I listed 19 guys who have been drafted #1 by the Red Sox none of them are impact or star players. A few have been bit players but I would have expected much more given the investment. If you want to talk 2011, I think right now the jury is still out. JBJ has been solid for roughly 1/2 a year between his August 2015 numbers and the first 2.5 months of this year. That is hardly a definitive success as he has had just as much time where he struggled to hit .220. I'm hopeful he becomes a reliable star but it is still too early. If we used this same standard to apply to Will Middlebrooks, he would have been an HOF after his first call-up. Obviously you need to produce over time to be a success. On the drafting in general, just look at the current team. The only drafted players are Vazquez (9th 2008), Pedroia (2nd 2004), JBJ (1st 2011), Shaw (9th), Barnes (1st 2011), Buchholz (1st 2005), Betts (5th 2005) before you consider guys on the DL or shuttling between Pawtucket. better than 2/3 of their roster comes from other sources besides drafting. They have bought good prospects as amateur IFA's (Bogaerts, H. Ramirez, Tazawa) they sign plenty of MLB free agents (Ortiz, Young, Price, Koji, Lane) or MLB trades (Holt, Rutledge, Ross, Porcello, Wright, Hembree, Hanigan, EROD). The bottom line is that the Red Sox have not drafted well at all despite having the ability to pay large signing bonuses under the old system for most of that time, and frequently having multiple 1st rounders and compensation picks. Quite frankly you could make a good argument that they should sign a veteran MLB type A free agent every year and forfeit the #1 pick based on how badly they have squandered most of them over the last 10 year period (note:I'm not including the last two years because we really don't know enough yet about how they will turn out). Based on the track record the Sox get just as many if not more of their players in the mid rounds as with 1st rounders. That is why I say they would be better off with more quantity than one or two guys in the 20 range. You still have to pick the right guys. For reference I will note that the "more swings at the bat philosophy" is exactly the one the N.E. Patriots have used for years. They constantly infuriate football draftnicks by trading backwards for more picks. They seem to have done fairly well with that strategy! Wow....theres so much to respond to here. Maybe someone else has the energy. The only thing I'll say is that the only way you should be analyzing the Red Sox drafting success is in the context of the entire league. In other words, how well or poorly have the Sox done compared to other teams. You haven't done this at all, and I imagine if you try, you will see how absurd this argument is. |
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jun 18, 2016 21:00:29 GMT -5
This isn't really a team vs. team analysis, but here is some perspective on the hit/miss rate of early draft choices.
In the year 2000, of the first 50 picks, only 26 made the major leagues. And I'm sure that not all of them had great career average stats or played in enough games to accumulate decent totals. Here are the same totals for the following years. Note that the #1 pick is different than the #50 pick, but still, it's clear that plenty of first round picks fail.
2000: 26
2001: 30
2002: 32
2003: 35
2004: 37
2005: 38
2006: 35
2007: 32
2008: 40
2009: 35
2010: 27
Now compare that with how Boston has done over that span. I stopped at 2010 only because it may or may not be enough time to fairly judge that draft class.
2000: Phil Dumatrait 1/1
2001: N/A signing Manny Ramirez
2002: N/A signing Johnny Damon
2003: David Murphy/Matt Murton 2/2
2004: N/A signing Keith Foulke
2005: Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, Michael Bowden 5/5
2006: Jason Place, Daniel Bard, Kris Johnson, Caleb Clay 2/4
2007: Nick Hagadone, Ryan Dent 1/2
2008: Casey Kelly, Bryan Price (needs a black dot next to his name on the draft history page for the record) 2/2
2009: Reymound Fuentes 1/1
2010: Kolbrin Vitek, Bryce Brentz, Anthony Ranaudo 2/3
Just cause
2011: Matt Barnes, Blake Swihart, Henry Owens, Jackie Bradley Jr. 4/4
Total % of Red Sox first round picks to make it to the majors from 2000-2011: 20/24 or 5/6 Add in that the Sox typically pick at the end of the first round and I'm even more amazed.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Jun 18, 2016 22:28:20 GMT -5
I just happened to watch Arizona-Miami in College World Series Bracket game recently. I wasn't impressed by Bob Dalbec's 2 bats. He striked out by chasing two strikes in high upper & wide out of strike zone. Then, he ground out to SS in next bat. I missed his earlier at bats.
Based on I watched him batting twice, I think the FO should not offer him more than $350K from Round 4 (Slot $501,300). I don't really excited by him as the Red Sox 3B prospect if he signs with the RS. He's free swinger. Sorry to tell you negative about him. I don't know what's the factor for the FO to draft him.
|
|
|
?
