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 sarasoxer on Feb 4, 2013 18:56:42 GMT -5
If Keith Law ranked our system a lot higher would he go from bad to good?
Sickels has us at 9th, Law at 17th from what I am hearing. Maybe we are somewhere in b/t which would be in the middle of the pack. With our financial muscle used to take advantage of the prior drafting system, I would have expected us, all other things being equal (including scouting and development people), to be a bit higher. Let's not forget that we added some talent via trade. Yes we did graduate a few players but most teams do...and yes this is just one snapshot in time..as there is always some ebb and flow.....but I'll bet the Sox brass is not overly impressed with its stable.
I suspect in this off-season of self-analysis and introspection, assessment of the criteria used to draft players has not escaped the microscope.
I wonder where would Chris Mellon rank us....?
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 4, 2013 19:00:01 GMT -5
Look at the last five drafts before last year's. Because so many players from last year's draft had little or no playing time, they really cannot be assessed. But from 2007-2011, what did the Sox get in terms of major league players, or players close to the majors? Not many. They have gotten Doubront, Iglesias and Bogaerts from international signings. Only Doubront is in the majors, but Bogaerts is viewed by everyone as a coming star. Let's see how he does in AAA. In my mind, Iglesias does not appear to be developing enough as a hitter to be a regular for th Sox.
So just looking at drafts:
2007: Middlebrooks and Rizzo, and Britton. Middlebrooks is the prize for the Sox, but could they ever use Rizzo now! Britton still has promise. No one else from that class appears to be going to make and stay in the majors.
2008: Casey Kelly, Lavarnway and Federowicz appear to be the best from the draft, but none has established himself as a major leaguer. Kelly seems on the verge, however, and I am optimistic about Lavarnway.
2009: Alex Wilson still appears to have a shot, but the number of better RPs on the major league staff may keep him in the minors. It is questionable whether anyone else from that draft will be a major league regular, if in the majors at all.
2010: Brentz, Workman, and possibly Cecchini look like the best possibles from this draft, but they have some ways to go. Ranaudo still may work out, but time is running out.
2011: Barnes and Bradley right now are the standouts from this draft. There are a number of young players who have promise, but are far from the majors.
Someone once said that major league teams try to get one regular out of each draft. Actually, in these times I think at least two really are needed, but it is hard to do. The Sox aren't getting even one.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 4, 2013 19:03:25 GMT -5
3 players in the top 40, 1 who is elite. The system is not bad and definitely is not quite mediocre. thats what I am saying. Our system is most definitely not mediocre, its far from that
|
|
|
Post by aardsmacarta on Feb 4, 2013 19:05:53 GMT -5
Can't agree with dcri. When did the Sox ever have this many legit power arms in the system? From Webster to Barnes to Owens to Britton to Workman to Buttrey and Light and Kukuk, they're just loaded with bat-missing pitching talent in a way I can't remember them ever being. That doesn't even include RDLR and Ranaudo and Wright, Brian Johnson... Brian Rose was never more interesting than any of these guys and he was once our top pitching prospect. You could say the Papelbon-Lester-Sanchez era compares, but beyond those three we had very little back then. The Sox farm system is I think always overrated, and the usual Boston hype is throwing an over-glow on some of our position prospects now, but the pitching talent if anything is under the radar.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 4, 2013 19:13:54 GMT -5
I made some edits in my post. The Sox minor league system has produced some great players on occasion, but not recently. There are prospects in the system with promise, but there always have been. Will the current crop develop? I hope so, but the history is not encouraging.
I don't think Buttrey, Johnson, Light and Kukuk have played enough yet to be properly assessed. Britton has considerable promise not yet developed. I didn't include Webster because he wasn't drafted, but he is very promising.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 20:03:32 GMT -5
If Keith Law ranked our system a lot higher would he go from bad to good? No. This is just another example of Keith Law putting out a piece, which, in my opinion, has numerous flaws. I also pointed out in my initial post that he has the Marlins too low and the Yankees too high (the Yankees in their storied history have many times actually had a top ten farm system, this just is not one those times).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 4, 2013 20:05:09 GMT -5
I made some edits in my post. The Sox minor league system has produced some great players on occasion, but not recently. There are prospects in the system with promise, but there always have been. Will the current crop develop? I hope so, but the history is not encouraging. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/building-through-the-draft-best-of-the-best/Also, Middlebrooks, Doubront and Tazawa all had successful 2012 rookie seasons. The Red Sox do a very good job developing talent. Not every draft class can go as well as 2005, and the Sox have had some misses, but the idea that the Red Sox don't do a good job developing players just doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 20:10:16 GMT -5
Look at the last five drafts before last year's. Because so many players from last year's draft had little or no playing time, they really cannot be assessed. But from 2007-2011, what did the Sox get in terms of major league players, or players close to the majors? Not many. They have gotten Doubront, Iglesias and Bogaerts from international signings. Only Doubront is in the majors, but Bogaerts is viewed by everyone as a coming star. Let's see how he does in AAA. In my mind, Iglesias does not appear to be developing enough as a hitter to be a regular for th Sox. So just looking at drafts: 2007: Middlebrooks and Rizzo, and Britton. Middlebrooks is the prize for the Sox, but could they ever use Rizzo now! Britton still has promise. No one else from that class appears to be going to make and stay in the majors. 2008: Casey Kelly, Lavarnway and Federowicz appear to be the best from the draft, but none has established himself as a major leaguer. Kelly seems on the verge, however, and I am optimistic about Lavarnway. 2009: Alex Wilson still appears to have a shot, but the number of better RPs on the major league staff may keep him in the minors. It is questionable whether anyone else from that draft will be a major league regular, if in the majors at all. 2010: Brentz, Workman, and possibly Cecchini look like the best possibles from this draft, but they have some ways to go. Ranaudo still may work out, but time is running out. 2011: Barnes and Bradley right now are the standouts from this draft. There are a number of young players who have promise, but are far from the majors. Someone once said that major league teams try to get one regular out of each draft. Actually, in these times I think at least two really are needed, but it is hard to do. The Sox aren't getting even one. Well looking at the players you listed, they got two from 2007 (Rizzo and Middlebrooks) one from 2008 (in Casey Kelly), and zero from 2009. 2010 and 2011 are probably too earlier to evaluate. So they are averaging one per draft, which is what you say they want. The decisions about trading two of the three, is separate from the drafting ability.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 4, 2013 20:39:05 GMT -5
I honestly just think it's a problem of expectations. The Red Sox spoiled prospect watchers with the college guys they drafted in the early rounds in 2004-06. Those prospects-- Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie, Bard, Masterson-- have had solid-to-elite careers so far, and the "hit rate" on draft picks in those years was unusually high (with only Hansen and Place as real busts). Couple that with a handful of other very good home-grown players that helped the Red Sox win the 2007 World Series (Papelbon, Lester, Youkilis, Delcarmen, etc.) and fans who only became prospect-watchers around that time (myself included) got an unrealistic picture of how powerful a team-building tool the draft can be.
Honestly, I think the draft is a red herring and that international free agency was the real culprit. With the old CBA, there was no reason the Red Sox couldn't have devoted a serious chunk of cash to cultivating a Latin American scouting and development powerhouse. Yeah, they hit on a few guys (Hanley, Anibal Sanchez, Doubront), but there were also busts galore (Almanzar, Ibarra, Linares, Padron, Sumoza, Galvez). Hopefully, the latest crop of IFAs peculating through the system (Vinicio, Margot, Mercedes, Lin, Montas, Suarez) includes a few breakout stars.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 4, 2013 20:50:43 GMT -5
If Keith Law ranked our system a lot higher would he go from bad to good? No. This is just another example of Keith Law putting out a piece, which, in my opinion, has numerous flaws. I also pointed out in my initial post that he has the Marlins too low and the Yankees too high (the Yankees in their storied history have many times actually had a top ten farm system, this just is not one those times). This is not necessarily etched-in-stone fact is it?.. but rather just your opinion, right? There are so many of us on this site that are so much more deserving of dimwit, spread-too-thin Klaws' big bucks! Damn the Fates! I think that we Sox fans are so loyal to the team that we can easily lose objectivity. That is true of all teams/their fans. We don't like it and take it personally when someone offends our sensibilities about our ball-club, minor league system or management. It's like a family don't-cha know? We can criticize the team across the board.....and with gusto......but woe to someone outside the circle who dares cross that line.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 4, 2013 21:39:00 GMT -5
Can't agree with dcri. When did the Sox ever have this many legit power arms in the system? From Webster to Barnes to Owens to Britton to Workman to Buttrey and Light and Kukuk, they're just loaded with bat-missing pitching talent in a way I can't remember them ever being. That doesn't even include RDLR and Ranaudo and Wright, Brian Johnson... Brian Rose was never more interesting than any of these guys and he was once our top pitching prospect. You could say the Papelbon-Lester-Sanchez era compares, but beyond those three we had very little back then. The Sox farm system is I think always overrated, and the usual Boston hype is throwing an over-glow on some of our position prospects now, but the pitching talent if anything is under the radar. I couldn't disagree more. The past few years the Sox have have power arms in the lower minors; they just haven't developed many of them. A lot of the guys didn't even turn out to be power arms, because they were "projectable frames" that never added the velocity that was expected. Every year, we could list a laundry list of guys like you just did and talk about how exciting they could be. I know, because I did it every year. Got tired of it and wised up and stopped really getting excited about a pitching prospect until he performs at AA. Until a guy does well at AA, it's not worth getting too gidy about him. If anything Britton is probably counter to your point and Stolmy is another good example of someone who we got excited about too early. The problem is hindsight is 20-20 and your excitment on this players is as a group so when most of them flame out you'll trick yourself into thinking you weren't high on them to begin with. Be very careful, getting excited about Henry Owens. He pitched in LOW A last year and didn't have particularly good results. There are reasons to be encouraged, but until you see him actually perform with results in AA or higher; I advise everyone temper your expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Feb 4, 2013 21:55:32 GMT -5
I wonder where would Chris Mellon rank us....? Somewhere in the 10-15 range. I've been leaning 11 or 12, but haven't dove into all of the systems as of yet. I think Top 10 is an overrating and beyond Top 15 is selling the system short, especially with 4 potential above-average-to-better major leaguers at the front.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 5, 2013 1:08:18 GMT -5
Sox have a top 10 farm system by any other ranking I've seen this offseason.
Not saying that they're right or wrong, but Law is definitely an outlier here.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 5, 2013 2:32:36 GMT -5
First of all, look at the thread title. This isn't about past drafts, traded prospects, failed draft picks, or an inability to nurture talent. It's about Law's perception of the current state of the system.
Also, if there's no formula for this sort of thing, then why is there a number tacked on to the front of the team's name? That number implies that there are criteria to sort the teams - a formula. Otherwise, don't bother. It's easy enough to go into rich detail about the system and to provide a good read without that ordering.
Law is entitled to his opinion and he's paid to produce it, after all. I've got my own opinion, naturally. I think Bradley will make multiple All Star teams, and that the Sox could very well have four, maybe five players reach the majors this year alone. If those rookies look as good a last year's crop I'll see it as big success. One more thing. It's easy to revisit this in the future. Maybe we should plan to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2013 3:23:51 GMT -5
If Keith Law ranked our system a lot higher would he go from bad to good? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 5, 2013 9:18:59 GMT -5
So just looking at drafts: 2007: Middlebrooks and Rizzo, and Britton. Middlebrooks is the prize for the Sox, but could they ever use Rizzo now! Britton still has promise. No one else from that class appears to be going to make and stay in the majors. 3 players from this draft likely being at least bench/bullpen players for a handful of season.2008: Casey Kelly, Lavarnway and Federowicz appear to be the best from the draft, but none has established himself as a major leaguer. Kelly seems on the verge, however, and I am optimistic about Lavarnway. 2 backup catchers and a mid-rotation starter. Additionally, Christian Vazquez and Travis Shaw have legitimate chances to be contributors to ML teams.2009: Alex Wilson still appears to have a shot, but the number of better RPs on the major league staff may keep him in the minors. It is questionable whether anyone else from that draft will be a major league regular, if in the majors at all. Hazelbaker, Hassan are likely 4th/5th outfielders. Jacobs is unfairly discounted because of a hamate recovery last season; he has as good of a chance as anyone in this system to be a solid starting OF.2010: Brentz, Workman, and possibly Cecchini look like the best possibles from this draft, but they have some ways to go. Ranaudo still may work out, but time is running out. The drafts from '10, '11 and '12 are too early to tell; you're just assuming that 2 college players and 1 tweener are all that will emerge. Also don't count out players like Ranaudo, Couch, Hernandez, etc. yet.2011: Barnes and Bradley right now are the standouts from this draft. There are a number of young players who have promise, but are far from the majors. I don't disagree with your premise, I just find fault with it. There are many players who should contribute on ML teams, several of whom will be regulars or stars. If the goal is to develop 1 regular each season then the Sox from 2007-2009 have 4 current MLers, 4 more on the 40 man and a several more who will be added or in the majors in the next 1-2 seasons. Comparing that to the Cardinals for example, who have 2013's consensus top system. 2007: Colby Rasmus. 2008: Rasmus and does Brett Wallace still count? 2009: Finally, Shelby Miller is on the scene. The point being that even the best system in the league had a much worse stretch during the same period than the Sox did. The Cardinals are seeing their equivalent to the Sox '04-'05-'06 drafts.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 5, 2013 9:39:27 GMT -5
There is no formula - none at all. A formula measures things that are quantifiable and requires data to be plugged in to spit out a set result. Rankings are an art form. Done more by feel based on ones knowledge than anything else. One person may think having a high number of potential Star players with little depth or major league ready talent is way more valuable than a system that lacks that but has a lot of depth and close to the majors talent. Two people could rank those teams with a huge variance. If people are properly informed on these systems then there should be a good variance from number to number. It's an opinion on something that has no rules of what is more important than not.
I understand people get off on seeing a high number for the Sox but the number doesn't change what they are. As always this seems like a make or break year for the system. Last year was great overall, but it was the first year in a couple that the system seemed to take a step forward. Need to string 2 or 3 of those together to get back to where they need to be. Will be a great year to follow( Or a depressing one!)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 5, 2013 10:43:31 GMT -5
anyone mind telling us which Red sox made Keith Law's top 100 prospect list?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 5, 2013 11:15:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 5, 2013 11:18:37 GMT -5
Wow. I mean when I saw his comment saying that Xander will stick at shortstop, I thought, that pretty much makes him a no doubt top 10 guy, top 5 if you really love him, but it's still cool to see. First time any of our position player prospects have been ranked in anyone's top 5 since Hanley, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 5, 2013 11:22:56 GMT -5
Buchholz made a few top 5s when he was coming up. BA ranked him 4th in the 2008 preseason rankings, which I think is the highest ranking a Red Sox player has ever received on BA's lists (the highest Hanley got was 10th in 2005).
|
|
|
Post by nysoxfan on Feb 5, 2013 11:30:47 GMT -5
I'm going back and forth on this. I dislike the idea of saying arguing about it is pointless, though, I know that for sure; if you don't like it, don't go onto a prospect-devoted baseball website before spring training and into a post about a Klaw system rankings, what else would we be doing here checking in to say: "great job, Keith, keep up the good work!"
One issue i think that folks really have is the rank-order of things, and part of that I'd guess is related to the lack of grades. Without a number/letter associated we can't really tell from Keith's one sentence how much thought he put into order if all things considered relatively close.
I do totally hear the gripe about the Marlins, although i chalk most of this up to the fact that Klaw seems like someone who would post here we shouldn't argue about it, probably thinks trying to rank all team's systems is somewhat of a silly endeavor given all the factors, underlying variance in definitions/criteria, etc.
Also, I'm not the biggest fan in the world of going down this wormhole, BUT, you can't say that the sox can't draft and they're even worse at managing a minor league system because they traded away those guys for MLB players that didnt' work out, but then that Webster and RDLR aren't part of the system (i know Rubby for service time, fine), because they talent literally transferred from Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes, to the MLB guys, back to Rubby/Webtster/Sands/etc and yes while Kelly/Rizzo is a good combo (with Rizzo being the clear prize) . Net-net not a bad haul to get 2 top 100 talent-level pitching prospects that are both power throwing starters with some serious promise of being better than #4 starters or very good high leverage bullpen arms, while also dumping about $250 mil that wasn't all result of the original trade (crawford signing could have crippled this team for a few years, the value of prospect costs to get out from under shouldn't be any indictment of cherrington's ability to trade, that's a resume positive for him IMO).
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 5, 2013 11:42:45 GMT -5
My only problem with Law is when gets annoyed at people who ask him why he's higher or lower on a certain guy than BA, BP, etc. I'm not saying it's his obligation to follow every other prospect writer closely, but it's just disingenuous to pretend that you're totally unaware that you vary greatly from the industry on a certain guy. And then I hear him on podcasts with Callis, Goldstien, etc and he has no problem saying "Well I'm a lot higher on so-and-so and here's why."
Just a minor quibble. I think he does great work for the most part. And he's a much needed voice in the media when it comes to anything else baseball related.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2013 11:49:24 GMT -5
Buchholz made a few top 5s when he was coming up. BA ranked him 4th in the 2008 preseason rankings, which I think is the highest ranking a Red Sox player has ever received on BA's lists (the highest Hanley got was 10th in 2005). Daisuke was their #1 in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 5, 2013 12:40:58 GMT -5
There is no formula - none at all. A formula measures things that are quantifiable and requires data to be plugged in to spit out a set result. Rankings are an art form... You missed my message, though you did get my point, and I'm going to be an ass about this. Just as you point out, you can only quantify if you calculate, otherwise you should qualify - give the qualities of the system you're analyzing. So stay the hell away from absolute numbers. They're meaningless expect for generating the sort of churn that's got us a few pages into this thread - so far. Much better to give a range, as Mellen has. That estimate realistically incorporates Mellen's uncertainty, and it's from someone who, quite honestly, I trust more than Law at this point for the obvious reason that he does his homework, a huge amount of it. This falls into the general category of innumeracy and we just had a shining example this past election. Nate Silver, who does know a bit about quantifying, was quite willing to put money on the line behind his picks. That was even as the innumerates were using who knows what "art form" to scream out how wrong he was. Obviously the implications for a national election are a little more dire should that ridiculous buzz take hold than they are for something a little less important such as prospect rankings. But the implications are the same. We all get dumber instead of smarter by chewing on the rancid fat of meaningless quantification. OK, I'm done.
|
|
|