|
Post by wOBA Fett on Apr 15, 2021 21:21:16 GMT -5
If the sox don't love anyone at 4, do you think there is a chance they draft a signability guy with the intent to go over slot in rounds 2 and 3, and scoop up the #5 pick next year? I may be wrong but I thought the rules were if you fail to sign a player in round 1 you lose that slot number in your cap. If that's the case you can't really go over slot in rounds 2 and 3. Looks like that is correct.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,202
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Apr 15, 2021 22:37:17 GMT -5
I’m locked in on Davis and I won’t be convinced to change my mind (but will happily accept pretty much whoever they pick lol)
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Apr 15, 2021 23:25:12 GMT -5
Another fun name at 40... 3B Wes Kath. Since we know all prospect work out this would give us a future infield of Kath, Mayer, Yorke, and Casas. Easy peasy.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 2:07:16 GMT -5
If the sox don't love anyone at 4, do you think there is a chance they draft a signability guy with the intent to go over slot in rounds 2 and 3, and scoop up the #5 pick next year? I may be wrong but I thought the rules were if you fail to sign a player in round 1 you lose that slot number in your cap. If that's the case you can't really go over slot in rounds 2 and 3. Your not wrong. If a player isn’t signed in first 10 rounds the Sox would lose that slot amount in their cap of money. There isn’t really an incentive to do this purposely as you lose money and a slot the next year you draft
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 16, 2021 7:50:47 GMT -5
A top 100 prospect is a can’t miss. Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 16, 2021 8:43:52 GMT -5
A top 100 prospect is a can’t miss. Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect. Lars Anderson. Baseball America #19, 2009.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Apr 16, 2021 10:00:17 GMT -5
Could definitely be hindsight bias, but I recall the loaded 2011 draft (Cole, Bauer, Rendon, Lindor, Baez just in the first 10 picks) being well thought of at the time as well. I don't recall any hype around 2005, and look how that turned out. This was the year I read bought BA draft issue because the Sox had so many early picks. I read all the scouting reports and came away like WOW, there's a lot of good prospects here. I also remember wanting the Sox to draft Buchholz. He dominated in college, had a lot pitches in his arsenal and only issue was the computer theft.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Apr 16, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -5
Another fun name at 40... 3B Wes Kath. Since we know all prospect work out this would give us a future infield of Kath, Mayer, Yorke, and Casas. Easy peasy. Why would they even pitch to him in that situation? smh
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Apr 16, 2021 10:41:27 GMT -5
Right:) opposing pitcher: I’m guessing his two triples and two homers probably wore him out.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 16, 2021 12:25:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Apr 16, 2021 13:44:33 GMT -5
My boy Mayer. Honestly, the top four right now are Leiter, Mayer, Lawlar, and Davis. Would be thrilled with any of them.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:21:38 GMT -5
A top 100 prospect is a can’t miss. Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect. Yes and at some point in time Sox could have traded trey ball for something major. They chose not to. And in doing so trey ball lost value. But he still was a major prospect that carried value be it on their team or in a trade. ( can’t miss)
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 16, 2021 14:25:25 GMT -5
Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect. Yes and at some point in time Sox could have traded trey ball for something major. They chose not to. And in doing so trey ball lost value. But he still was a major prospect that carried value be it on their team or in a trade. ( can’t miss) I don't know about that. I mean I don't remember Ball ever being that effective at any level he played. And I think other teams were aware that the talent pool in that draft wasn't that great so I don't know if it was like, "Wow, we can get Ball, the #7 pick in the draft? We must pounce on a trade". I think the value comes if the guy shows he can pitch well in the minors, at least at some level. Otherwise they're nothing more than throw-ins in a trade, not somebody you're going to make a #2 piece of a trade.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:26:59 GMT -5
Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect. Lars Anderson. Baseball America #19, 2009. I’ll repeat what I said for trey ball. At some point Sox could have traded Lars Anderson for a pretty valuable piece. They chose not to and in turn Anderson lost value. But at some point he held some pretty major value for Sox. Either as a piece for development or a trade chip. That’s same with any prospect in baseball. But some prospects are can’t miss to hold or have value at some point to bring back a nice piece for Sox. Ideally they are a 15 year hall of famer ( beyond rare) but I’m simply looking at established value. Drafting this high will give them a prospect with pretty significant value ( can’t miss). How long that value sticks around is dependent on the player picked, tools he has, sometimes luck, and how they develop or grade him to use in a trade. ( Carl pavano was a can’t miss prospect at one time and they traded him at that value for Pedro. ) I think you misunderstood my wording of can’t miss.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 16, 2021 14:28:07 GMT -5
Trey Ball was a Top 100 prospect. Yes and at some point in time Sox could have traded trey ball for something major. They chose not to. And in doing so trey ball lost value. But he still was a major prospect that carried value be it on their team or in a trade. ( can’t miss) This is your by now signature move in which you make a false claim ("A top 100 prospect is a can’t miss"), get corrected, and then make a different claim ("could have traded ... for something major"), as though you were not 100% wrong the first time. You think we don't notice this?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 16, 2021 14:29:38 GMT -5
Lars Anderson. Baseball America #19, 2009. I’ll repeat what I said for trey ball. At some point Sox could have traded Lars Anderson for a pretty valuable piece. They chose not to and in turn Anderson lost value. But at some point he held some pretty major value for Sox. Either as a piece for development or a trade chip. That’s same with any prospect in baseball. But some prospects are can’t miss to hold or have value at some point to bring back a nice piece for Sox. Ideally they are a 15 year hall of famer ( beyond rare) but I’m simply looking at established value. Drafting this high will give them a prospect with pretty significant value ( can’t miss). How long that value sticks around is dependent on the player picked, tools he has, sometimes luck, and how they develop or grade him to use in a trade. ( Carl pavano was a can’t miss prospect at one time and they traded him at that value for Pedro. ) I think you misunderstood my wording of can’t miss. Lars did have one promising year in the minors I believe? I don't think that Ball could even say that. And actually Lars did have some trade value and did return something of value - Steven Wright who gave the Sox an all-star first half in 2016 and some effective starts and relief appearances in 2018. So they did get something of value for Lars Anderson, given what he actually accomplished in the minors. I doubt Ball could have even gotten you a knuckleballer like Wright.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:32:09 GMT -5
Yes and at some point in time Sox could have traded trey ball for something major. They chose not to. And in doing so trey ball lost value. But he still was a major prospect that carried value be it on their team or in a trade. ( can’t miss) I don't know about that. I mean I don't remember Ball ever being that effective at any level he played. And I think other teams were aware that the talent pool in that draft wasn't that great so I don't know if it was like, "Wow, we can get Ball, the #7 pick in the draft? We must pounce on a trade". I think the value comes if the guy shows he can pitch well in the minors, at least at some level. Otherwise they're nothing more than throw-ins in a trade, not somebody you're going to make a #2 piece of a trade. Agree to disagree. Top 100 prospects are headliners for many major trades today. In fact most major trades if you have one top 100 prospect in it you are getting a stud. Just how game has changed. Or front offices have
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 16, 2021 14:34:45 GMT -5
Lars Anderson. Baseball America #19, 2009. I’ll repeat what I said for trey ball. At some point Sox could have traded Lars Anderson for a pretty valuable piece. They chose not to and in turn Anderson lost value. But at some point he held some pretty major value for Sox. Either as a piece for development or a trade chip. That’s same with any prospect in baseball. But some prospects are can’t miss to hold or have value at some point to bring back a nice piece for Sox. Ideally they are a 15 year hall of famer ( beyond rare) but I’m simply looking at established value. Drafting this high will give them a prospect with pretty significant value ( can’t miss). How long that value sticks around is dependent on the player picked, tools he has, sometimes luck, and how they develop or grade him to use in a trade. ( Carl pavano was a can’t miss prospect at one time and they traded him at that value for Pedro. ) I think you misunderstood my wording of can’t miss. I guess I took can’t miss to mean “can’t miss” — the way most people use can’t miss to mean, like, alway hits. If Steph Curry “can’t miss,” he is hitting baskets. This definition seems like “can’t miss” also includes Steph Curry is on the bench or it is June and he’s at the beach, so he can’t miss because who knows? You are basically saying all top picks by the nature of their top-pickedness are “can’t miss” for having the value of a top pick at least until the time they are exposed as not actually being able to play. This, in turn, means teams blow it by not a) keeping the guys who CAN play or b) picking the peak paper-value moment to sell. So the Sox really should have gotten a LOT after 2012 for 3 1st rounders in Marrero, Johnson, and Light. But instead, they waited too long and didn’t get nearly the value can’t-miss prospects should get?
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:35:50 GMT -5
Yes and at some point in time Sox could have traded trey ball for something major. They chose not to. And in doing so trey ball lost value. But he still was a major prospect that carried value be it on their team or in a trade. ( can’t miss) This is your by now signature move in which you make a false claim ("A top 100 prospect is a can’t miss"), get corrected, and then make a different claim ("could have traded ... for something major"), as though you were not 100% wrong the first time. You think we don't notice this? So you think you know what I meant by can’t miss prospect? Gotcha. Dang sure wish I had your intelligence to be able to read a blog and understand what a person interprets as can’t miss. The whole point of prospects is to have value. If you have been following baseball you know players can’t be developed or traded. If you don’t know that.... well now you do. Can’t miss is value of a player bringing something back to the team. But hey. Why don’t you tell me what I mean or am thinking next time also.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:37:44 GMT -5
I’ll repeat what I said for trey ball. At some point Sox could have traded Lars Anderson for a pretty valuable piece. They chose not to and in turn Anderson lost value. But at some point he held some pretty major value for Sox. Either as a piece for development or a trade chip. That’s same with any prospect in baseball. But some prospects are can’t miss to hold or have value at some point to bring back a nice piece for Sox. Ideally they are a 15 year hall of famer ( beyond rare) but I’m simply looking at established value. Drafting this high will give them a prospect with pretty significant value ( can’t miss). How long that value sticks around is dependent on the player picked, tools he has, sometimes luck, and how they develop or grade him to use in a trade. ( Carl pavano was a can’t miss prospect at one time and they traded him at that value for Pedro. ) I think you misunderstood my wording of can’t miss. Lars did have one promising year in the minors I believe? I don't think that Ball could even say that. And actually Lars did have some trade value and did return something of value - Steven Wright who gave the Sox an all-star first half in 2016 and some effective starts and relief appearances in 2018. So they did get something of value for Lars Anderson, given what he actually accomplished in the minors. I doubt Ball could have even gotten you a knuckleballer like Wright. Again agree to disagree. If you don’t think a top 100 prospect fetched some nice players in trade now a days then well just watch the transactions. They aren’t traded for peanuts UNLESS they are no longer a top 100 prospect
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 16, 2021 14:37:51 GMT -5
There was never a time when the Red Sox could/would have traded Trey Ball for a significant piece.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 16, 2021 14:39:01 GMT -5
I don't know about that. I mean I don't remember Ball ever being that effective at any level he played. And I think other teams were aware that the talent pool in that draft wasn't that great so I don't know if it was like, "Wow, we can get Ball, the #7 pick in the draft? We must pounce on a trade". I think the value comes if the guy shows he can pitch well in the minors, at least at some level. Otherwise they're nothing more than throw-ins in a trade, not somebody you're going to make a #2 piece of a trade. Agree to disagree. Top 100 prospects are headliners for many major trades today. In fact most major trades if you have one top 100 prospect in it you are getting a stud. Just how game has changed. Or front offices have I don't think a back-end Top 100 who flops badly is worth a heckuva lot in a trade by himself. He's probably the 3rd or 4th piece of a deal. I think Top 100 who actually play well or good enough to look like they're progressing are the ones who get you the value.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 16, 2021 14:41:17 GMT -5
There was never a time when the Red Sox could/would have traded Trey Ball for a significant piece. It depends on your definition of “significant piece,” in much the same way as it depends on your definition of “can’t miss.” Or “replacement player” for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:44:52 GMT -5
I’ll repeat what I said for trey ball. At some point Sox could have traded Lars Anderson for a pretty valuable piece. They chose not to and in turn Anderson lost value. But at some point he held some pretty major value for Sox. Either as a piece for development or a trade chip. That’s same with any prospect in baseball. But some prospects are can’t miss to hold or have value at some point to bring back a nice piece for Sox. Ideally they are a 15 year hall of famer ( beyond rare) but I’m simply looking at established value. Drafting this high will give them a prospect with pretty significant value ( can’t miss). How long that value sticks around is dependent on the player picked, tools he has, sometimes luck, and how they develop or grade him to use in a trade. ( Carl pavano was a can’t miss prospect at one time and they traded him at that value for Pedro. ) I think you misunderstood my wording of can’t miss. I guess I took can’t miss to mean “can’t miss” — the way most people use can’t miss to mean, like, alway hits. If Steph Curry “can’t miss,” he is hitting baskets. This definition seems like “can’t miss” also includes Steph Curry is on the bench or it is June and he’s at the beach, so he can’t miss because who knows? You are basically saying all top picks by the nature of their top-pickedness are “can’t miss” for having the value of a top pick at least until the time they are exposed as not actually being able to play. This, in turn, means teams blow it by not a) keeping the guys who CAN play or b) picking the peak paper-value moment to sell. So the Sox really should have gotten a LOT after 2012 for 3 1st rounders in Marrero, Johnson, and Light. But instead, they waited too long and didn’t get nearly the value can’t-miss prospects should get? The game of baseball and in it prospects is ever changing. What a player does this year is nothing compared to what he might do next year. ( not for all players but many many). Marrero, Johnson, and light were never top 100 prospects that I know of. I’m saying at pick 4 we have chance of a top 100 prospect which is as can’t miss as you will get at acquiring a player who definitely can bring you back value for your team. And significant value at that. Now if they keep said player or trade him or when minimizes or maximizes that value. ( quite frankly it’s the dombrowski way of thinking). Will Sox get a player who is a 10 year vet? Who knows. ( I feel certain types of prospects help get more of those than others). But will Sox get a player with major value immediately. Heck yes they will. Could they package that player and obtain a major player in trade next year or this year in off season. I believe absolutely!! Will they. Gosh I hope we draft better than that... personally. But can’t miss value in that prospect picked at #4 pick. My gosh yes!! Proof. ( kelenic fetched cano and at the time a top closer in the game). He was headliner in that deal.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Apr 16, 2021 14:46:25 GMT -5
There was never a time when the Red Sox could/would have traded Trey Ball for a significant piece. You don’t know that nor do I. But I bet when he was a top 100 prospect he could have brought something back of value
|
|