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.
2022-2023 National Rankings (offseason)
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:53:03 GMT -5
They have a bunch of decent pitching prospects in the high minors at the moment, but no one other than Bello and maybe Whitlock/Houck (to the extent that they stay in the rotation) who projects to be more than a back-end starter. Of course, the thing with back-end starters is sometimes they end up better than that, so having a bunch of those guys is still valuable. But, without the power of hindsight, I think the group of Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo, Workman set in the ~2013-2014 timeframe blows the current group out of the water, especially in terms of upside. Well, semantics, but I would agree that was a much stronger group of prospects at the time while still maintaining that the current group of young pitchers is better, given that Bello/Whitlock/Houck have already looked good at the major league level in a way that none of that group (other than Barnes and Workman as relievers) ever did. Like, hindsight aside, you'd take Bello right now over Owens at his peak, right? And Whitlock over Webster? Houck over Ranaudo? I think you're underrating how well regarded that 2013-14 crew was because it's really difficult to ignore hindsight. I don't have a BA subscription and so had to do this via quick Googling, and there are always some odd timing/prospect eligibility quirks, but Owens was the 40th best prospect in baseball per BA and Bello topped out at 49. Webster was ranked in the top 100 per BA multiple times and Whitlock has never been ranked (again, due to a prospect eligibility quirk, but I think a legitimate argument can be made that peak Webster > peak Whitlock). Ranaudo was ranked 67th per BA and Houck has never been ranked. And it gets worse from there (peak Barnes, De La Rosa and Workman were much more highly regarded than the Pawtucket crew is currently).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 15:55:01 GMT -5
www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-bottom-10-farm-system-ranking-indictment-teams-entire-plan?cid=Yahoo&partner=ya4nbcsIn the vein of Keith Law's rankings, has anyone seen this gem of an article from Tomase? I don't like Tomase, haven't for years but this may take the cake as one of if not his dumbest articles written. Let's write a whole article crapping all over the Sox and Bloom's plan and use one guys rankings who compared to the other major farm ranking writers/publications is a pretty big outlier. It's either lazy writing and he didn't want to bother checking the other publications or he didn't care and cherry-picked Law's rankings because it fit his narrative of the last year+ to crap all over the Sox and the FO. Writers aren't here to write fair and balanced articles, they're here to get clicks, and this article is going to get clicks.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Feb 2, 2023 15:57:25 GMT -5
Anyone shining a bright light on Keith Law's ranking while having nothing to say about Baseball America or MLB Pipeline is doing whatever it takes to farm attention from people that want to be angry.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Feb 2, 2023 15:57:32 GMT -5
I feel like Tomase has taken one of the biggest "heal turns" in Boston sports media. Felt like he went from informed and rational opinions to "let's get the masses all riled up".
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 2, 2023 16:01:25 GMT -5
www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-bottom-10-farm-system-ranking-indictment-teams-entire-plan?cid=Yahoo&partner=ya4nbcsIn the vein of Keith Law's rankings, has anyone seen this gem of an article from Tomase? I don't like Tomase, haven't for years but this may take the cake as one of if not his dumbest articles written. Let's write a whole article crapping all over the Sox and Bloom's plan and use one guys rankings who compared to the other major farm ranking writers/publications is a pretty big outlier. It's either lazy writing and he didn't want to bother checking the other publications or he didn't care and cherry-picked Law's rankings because it fit his narrative of the last year+ to crap all over the Sox and the FO. Writers aren't here to write fair and balanced articles, they're here to get clicks, and this article is going to get clicks. Fair point, even with my dislike of him my dumbass clicked on it and then brought it to here. Giving him the clicks he wanted. Lesson learned at least until the next time I see a ridiculous headline and click on it like the sucker I can be from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 2, 2023 16:05:03 GMT -5
Well, semantics, but I would agree that was a much stronger group of prospects at the time while still maintaining that the current group of young pitchers is better, given that Bello/Whitlock/Houck have already looked good at the major league level in a way that none of that group (other than Barnes and Workman as relievers) ever did. Like, hindsight aside, you'd take Bello right now over Owens at his peak, right? And Whitlock over Webster? Houck over Ranaudo? I think you're underrating how well regarded that 2013-14 crew was because it's really difficult to ignore hindsight. I don't have a BA subscription and so had to do this via quick Googling, and there are always some odd timing/prospect eligibility quirks, but Owens was the 40th best prospect in baseball per BA and Bello topped out at 49. Webster was ranked in the top 100 per BA multiple times and Whitlock has never been ranked (again, due to a prospect eligibility quirk, but I think a legitimate argument can be made that peak Webster > peak Whitlock). Ranaudo was ranked 67th per BA and Houck has never been ranked. And it gets worse from there (peak Barnes, De La Rosa and Workman were much more highly regarded than the Pawtucket crew is currently). You're using a criterion for prospect strength, though, when the very point I'm making is that the Red Sox current post-prospects are what make the current group stronger. E.g., Bello may have topped out at 49 but I bet he'd be ranked higher than that if he'd pitched a few fewer innings; Whitlock essentially skipped the whole prospect queue and just immediately became successful in the majors; Houck is still kind of TBD but would you place his current floor and ceiling higher or lower than Ranaudo's at any given point? There's also a question of running a stretch of 2-3 years together and comparing that to the single moment of the present.
Anyway, to sidestep this sort of odd comparison between the future value of past prospects and the current value of post-prospects, I would just say that the current group of young major league pitchers is the best they've had since 2011 or so.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 2, 2023 16:10:26 GMT -5
I think you're underrating how well regarded that 2013-14 crew was because it's really difficult to ignore hindsight. I don't have a BA subscription and so had to do this via quick Googling, and there are always some odd timing/prospect eligibility quirks, but Owens was the 40th best prospect in baseball per BA and Bello topped out at 49. Webster was ranked in the top 100 per BA multiple times and Whitlock has never been ranked (again, due to a prospect eligibility quirk, but I think a legitimate argument can be made that peak Webster > peak Whitlock). Ranaudo was ranked 67th per BA and Houck has never been ranked. And it gets worse from there (peak Barnes, De La Rosa and Workman were much more highly regarded than the Pawtucket crew is currently). You're using a criterion for prospect strength, though, when the very point I'm making is that the Red Sox current post-prospects are what make the current group stronger. E.g., Bello may have topped out at 49 but I bet he'd be ranked higher than that if he'd pitched a few fewer innings; Whitlock essentially skipped the whole prospect queue and just immediately became successful in the majors; Houck is still kind of TBD but would you place his current floor and ceiling higher or lower than Ranaudo's at any given point? There's also a question of running a stretch of 2-3 years together and comparing that to the single moment of the present.
Anyway, to sidestep this sort of odd comparison between the future value of past prospects and the current value of post-prospects, I would just say that the current group of young major league pitchers is the best they've had since 2011 or so.
I perhaps am just dreaming this up but if I'm correct I believe at least one publication said if Bello still had prospect status he'd be in the top 25-35 range. Either way watching his starts last year he seemed to have about as good of an "IT" factor as any SP in their first taste of the majors since Buchholz. Let's hope he can build on it.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Feb 2, 2023 16:57:25 GMT -5
I like to ask Law who gets more bang for the buck on there prospects? We have Championships and a lot of these teams would kill for one just one title. He is a borderline fraud. Regardless of opinions on Law, I'm not sure this is the math that should get you there. Here is an idea for Law, why doesnt he go back in time see where he graded such team and see if his prognostigations were close or not. Or take one team he was always throwing roses too I.E. (mfy's) do this exersize with them let's see how good he did. A nice fun excersize.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 2, 2023 16:58:01 GMT -5
I don't think the system should be this low. But I'll echo most when pointing out the real lack of pitching in this farm system. I don't think it's been this bad in a while. Even when Dombrowski was here, you had Houck. However, it doesn't take into account Bello graduating. So the number is slightly worse than what it should be. They don't have a top-tier pitching prospect now that Bello has just graduated, but I think a top 5 of Mata/Walter/Perales/Gonzalez/Murphy has got to be better than Darwinzon/Houck/Groome/Feltman/Mata was in 2019. In general the three years or so after they tradeed Espinoza and Kopech look pretty grim.
Taking a broader view, the young pitching as a whole seems like the strongest its been in quite a few years, with Whitlock, Houck, Bello, and Crawford in addition to the prospects. When was the last time they had that much good young pitching? The Lester/Buchholz/Papelbon years?
I disagree to an extent. Remember when Groome was drafted, he was a steal and was looked at as having sky high potential. Houck was also looked at as being pretty good. I think better than anyone they had now in terms of potential. Again, the farm ranking clearly doesn't take into account the young arms in the majors where as you said is probably the most exciting part of the 2023 MLB squad.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 2, 2023 18:15:15 GMT -5
They don't have a top-tier pitching prospect now that Bello has just graduated, but I think a top 5 of Mata/Walter/Perales/Gonzalez/Murphy has got to be better than Darwinzon/Houck/Groome/Feltman/Mata was in 2019. In general the three years or so after they tradeed Espinoza and Kopech look pretty grim.
Taking a broader view, the young pitching as a whole seems like the strongest its been in quite a few years, with Whitlock, Houck, Bello, and Crawford in addition to the prospects. When was the last time they had that much good young pitching? The Lester/Buchholz/Papelbon years?
I disagree to an extent. Remember when Groome was drafted, he was a steal and was looked at as having sky high potential. Houck was also looked at as being pretty good. I think better than anyone they had now in terms of potential. Again, the farm ranking clearly doesn't take into account the young arms in the majors where as you said is probably the most exciting part of the 2023 MLB squad. To this point and scottysmalls' question on the last page... Houck debuted at #5, then he bounced around between 3 and 10 through the leanest years in the system's recent history, and he was back to #5 for his last pre-graduation ranking. Certainly I don't ever remember him getting as much buzz as Bello or even Mata. (For one thing, Mata ranked above Houck from mid-2019 until his Tommy John in 2021.) Maybe the folks who actually do the rankings could weigh in - where would ca. 2018-2020 Houck rank in the current system? I'm guessing around the Walter/Perales level?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 2, 2023 19:07:21 GMT -5
I disagree to an extent. Remember when Groome was drafted, he was a steal and was looked at as having sky high potential. Houck was also looked at as being pretty good. I think better than anyone they had now in terms of potential. Again, the farm ranking clearly doesn't take into account the young arms in the majors where as you said is probably the most exciting part of the 2023 MLB squad. To this point and scottysmalls' question on the last page... Houck debuted at #5, then he bounced around between 3 and 10 through the leanest years in the system's recent history, and he was back to #5 for his last pre-graduation ranking. Certainly I don't ever remember him getting as much buzz as Bello or even Mata. (For one thing, Mata ranked above Houck from mid-2019 until his Tommy John in 2021.) Maybe the folks who actually do the rankings could weigh in - where would ca. 2018-2020 Houck rank in the current system? I'm guessing around the Walter/Perales level? Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easily accessible database of SoxProspects.com historical prospect grades, but Eric Logenhagen and Kiley McDaniel at Fangraphs ranked Houck as a 40+ in January 2019, as a 40 in December 2019 and as a 45 in January 2021. Assuming translatability of the 20/80 scouting scale from FG to SP, that's around where Mata (45), Walter (45), Perales (40) and Murphy (40) are graded now by SP.com.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 2, 2023 19:14:43 GMT -5
To this point and scottysmalls' question on the last page... Houck debuted at #5, then he bounced around between 3 and 10 through the leanest years in the system's recent history, and he was back to #5 for his last pre-graduation ranking. Certainly I don't ever remember him getting as much buzz as Bello or even Mata. (For one thing, Mata ranked above Houck from mid-2019 until his Tommy John in 2021.) Maybe the folks who actually do the rankings could weigh in - where would ca. 2018-2020 Houck rank in the current system? I'm guessing around the Walter/Perales level? Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easily accessible database of SoxProspects.com historical prospect grades, but Eric Logenhagen and Kiley McDaniel at Fangraphs ranked Houck as a 40+ in January 2019, as a 40 in December 2019 and as a 45 in January 2021. Assuming translatability of the 20/80 scouting scale from FG to SP, that's around where Mata (45), Walter (45), Perales (40) and Murphy (40) are graded now by SP.com. If you use the always entertaining Wayback Machine, you can navigate old Soxprospects pages. It's a few extra steps, but not overly difficult. Here's august 2019, where Houck is a 4.5 web.archive.org/web/20190821190754/https://soxprospects.com/Bonus post from Oct 2003, the furthest back you can go. web.archive.org/web/20031007003410/http://www.soxprospects.com/
|
|
|
Post by bosox904 on Feb 2, 2023 20:04:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Feb 2, 2023 23:06:51 GMT -5
I’ll be honest and of course just my opinion.
I don’t think too much of Mata because I think he just amounts to a bullpen piece
I really don’t think much of Walter who will turn 27 in September and is just now sniffing AAA
So for me as far a prospects go the pitching is barren. I am Excited for Perales but he is a long ways off from the majors
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 2, 2023 23:14:49 GMT -5
I’ll be honest and of course just my opinion. I don’t think too much of Mata because I think he just amounts to a bullpen piece I really don’t think much of Walter who will turn 27 in September and is just now sniffing AAA So for me as far a prospects go the pitching is barren. I am Excited for Perales but he is a long ways off from the majors Opinions aside on particular pitchers, the pitching being somewhat barren is not problematic relative to Boston for a few years because Bello, Houck, Whitlock. I would much rather have a farm that fills in Boston nicely than a farm that's highly ranked.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 3, 2023 7:30:54 GMT -5
I’ll be honest and of course just my opinion. I don’t think too much of Mata because I think he just amounts to a bullpen piece I really don’t think much of Walter who will turn 27 in September and is just now sniffing AAA So for me as far a prospects go the pitching is barren. I am Excited for Perales but he is a long ways off from the majors Mata might end up in the pen, but that's not a given. But if he does, he'll be a high leverage reliever. Walter is 26, not 27 - and so what? Let's say he impresses in a few opportunities this summer/fall and is in the rotation next year. Sox would have him under control for his age 27 to 32 seasons - his prime year - at low cost. I see no issues with his age if he can be a starter.
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Feb 3, 2023 8:03:39 GMT -5
Kiley McDaniel has the Sox at #14: 14. Boston Red Sox ($196.5 million)
Last year: 16th, $209.5 million Top-100 prospects: 3 The top of the system -- Marcelo Mayer and Triston Casas -- did what was expected and continued moving up the list. Beyond that, last season was a mixed bag for Red Sox prospects. Here's what happened to prospects Nos. 3-11, in order: Nick Yorke was downgraded due to a tough season in which he was a bit unlucky with outcomes, Jarren Duran graduated but still hasn't found much big league success, Jeter Downs went to the Nationals on waivers, Gilberto Jimenez and Wilkelman Gonzalez went unpicked in the Rule 5 draft after up-and-down seasons, Jay Groome was traded to the Padres in the Eric Hosmer salary dump, Ronaldo Hernandez was outrighted off of the 40-man roster, Chris Murphy was fine but nothing more in the upper minors, and Noah Song was selected in the Rule 5 draft by the Phillies. While that stretch of the list wasn't very good, there were a handful of breakout campaigns (Miguel Bleis, Ceddanne Rafaela, Blaze Jordan, Eddinson Paulino) of players who now move into that range in the team rankings along with some players added in the draft (Mikey Romero, Roman Anthony, Cutter Coffey) who also belong up there. Given how things are going at the big league level, the Red Sox need a strong next wave of players coming behind Casas and Mayer. More steps forward from this group are crucial. www.espn.com/mlb/insider/insider/story/_/id/35490490/top-30-mlb-farm-systems-prospects-list-2023-kiley-mcdaniel
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 3, 2023 8:35:01 GMT -5
I certainly do not disagree with anything McDaniel is pointing out in that write-up. It seems a fair assessment.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 3, 2023 8:52:39 GMT -5
I could care less about rankings. Law is basically docking them for having horrible pitching in his opinion. Everyone has their own way of ranking guys and even if you don't agree with him it makes sense. A balanced system is certainly the ideal system.
Yet I'd point to the DD systems as proof that rankings suck, nevermind the results of the system DD was given.
As to the Tomase piece I think it has some merit. The guys hitting the majors starting year 4 are DD guys. For all of his wheeling and dealing, going after prospects close to majors the results so far are horrible. The biggest worry being can Bloom actually identify talent in high A to AA? Given his model that's a legit worry.
I certainly don't agree with the 5 years starts now, prospects take time and Bloom has leaned towards HS players. Which I actually like. I also am a big fan of going positional players more because they are safer. That being said Bloom has to start getting some high end starting pitching prospects either in the draft or international market.
Also fair to knock how he's handled the loss of a bunch of top 20 to top 30 guys starting with Groome at the deadline. Now maybe this is him actually being good at identifying talent and those guys will all suck. We'll see and I truly hope it's just that. Now I would have preferred he handled things differently, yet if this is him showing he can identify talent, I call live with it. That's crazy important to his model of team building.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 3, 2023 9:17:19 GMT -5
www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/red-sox-bottom-10-farm-system-ranking-indictment-teams-entire-plan?cid=Yahoo&partner=ya4nbcsIn the vein of Keith Law's rankings, has anyone seen this gem of an article from Tomase? I don't like Tomase, haven't for years but this may take the cake as one of if not his dumbest articles written. Let's write a whole article crapping all over the Sox and Bloom's plan and use one guys rankings who compared to the other major farm ranking writers/publications is a pretty big outlier. It's either lazy writing and he didn't want to bother checking the other publications or he didn't care and cherry-picked Law's rankings because it fit his narrative of the last year+ to crap all over the Sox and the FO. Writers aren't here to write fair and balanced articles, they're here to get clicks, and this article is going to get clicks. This is true across the news spectrum, boys and girls. And has been that way for decades. It’s just that, since clicks replaced circulation (around 2005/06), they just aren’t even pretending to be “balanced.” In fact, we’re circling back to the 19th/early 20th century news/sports/etc. when every outlet openly declared their biases. At that time, you could buy three or four newspapers or magazines covering different biases, and more or less figure out what the truth was by reading them all. I mean, just get over it and tell us where you stand in general. Oh, wait, that would eliminate Clickbait…
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 3, 2023 9:56:08 GMT -5
I’ll be honest and of course just my opinion. I don’t think too much of Mata because I think he just amounts to a bullpen piece I really don’t think much of Walter who will turn 27 in September and is just now sniffing AAA So for me as far a prospects go the pitching is barren. I am Excited for Perales but he is a long ways off from the majors Mata might end up in the pen, but that's not a given. But if he does, he'll be a high leverage reliever. Walter is 26, not 27 - and so what? Let's say he impresses in a few opportunities this summer/fall and is in the rotation next year. Sox would have him under control for his age 27 to 32 seasons - his prime year - at low cost. I see no issues with his age if he can be a starter. Famously, Jason Varitek wasn't a full-time starter until he was 27. You nail it, if they're getting his best years at a cheap rate, who cares how old he is. Hell, if defies all logic and is a weapon once his contract runs up, he shouldn't be too expensive to retain at that point
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 3, 2023 9:59:55 GMT -5
Anyone shining a bright light on Keith Law's ranking while having nothing to say about Baseball America or MLB Pipeline is doing whatever it takes to farm attention from people that want to be angry. Did the MLB Pipeline rank orgs yet?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 3, 2023 10:14:57 GMT -5
I’ll be honest and of course just my opinion. I don’t think too much of Mata because I think he just amounts to a bullpen piece I really don’t think much of Walter who will turn 27 in September and is just now sniffing AAA So for me as far a prospects go the pitching is barren. I am Excited for Perales but he is a long ways off from the majors Dismissing Walter because of his age is kinda ignoring his entire path to becoming a relevant prospect in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by bellhorndingers21 on Feb 3, 2023 10:32:26 GMT -5
Let me know when Tomase acknowledges this McDaniel article.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 3, 2023 10:52:42 GMT -5
Late to the party, so not really saying anything that others haven't said already but:
- To have 4 of the top 100 including a prospect in the top 10, and yet being ranked #23 overall would suggest we have some of the worst depth in the system. Thats absurd. Our depth was trimmed a little this offseason between the Rule 5 draft and DFAs, but the amount of interest in those players lost is also a positive indicator of strong depth. I happen to think 5-20 and even 5-30 in our system look very strong, even if its skewed strongly toward hitters. So anyways, I'm in agreement that Law's overall ranking is absurd, but even more annoying than that was the response by Tomase and even Tony Mazz yesterday. I guess I expect nothing less from them now though.
- Part of the reason why the strength our pitching prospects in the system right now is below average is because we've graduated 5 pitching prospects in the past two years -- Houck, Whitlock, Bello, Crawford, & Winckowski. That's a good thing and a much better pitching prospect graduation rate than we've had in a long time! Getting MLB contributions from our homegrown (counting prospects acquired while in minors) pitchers is the number one goal, so if we're doing a better job at that, then that's a win overall. Also, I project Walter as a starter but I wouldn't quibble too much with Law's assessment that we don't have pitching prospects who project to a starter role.
|
|
|