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 Chris Hatfield on Feb 10, 2023 14:03:48 GMT -5
Regardless, I do think McDaniel bumping Romero over Yorke already is pretty interesting. BA did too. I get it - chance to stick at SS maybe or at least be a better 2B, didn't have a disaster of a 2022. They're close.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 10, 2023 14:18:05 GMT -5
1. He hasn't brought a potential high-impact prospect into the system via trade. Downs is the most obvious flop. I don't blame Bloom for acquiring Downs. Downs was a top prospect when we got him and it didn't work out. That happens a lot because BB talent is so hard to project. But it's frustrating that none of his trade acquisitions have worked out. We got five pieces of cheese for Beni and if you look at where the other guys he has acquired were ranked on this site when we got them and where they are now, you see that they have all dropped, some of them out of sight. At least one of his prospect acquisitions seemed strange at the time and not surprisingly hasn't paid off. That's Binelas. It looked just plain weird when he downgraded an ALCS team to get a guy this site plugged in at 18. It's still TBD on all those guys but Downs though. The trajectory isn't great on Winckowski or Binelas, but Binelas could bounce back, and I still think Winckowski might end up an effective reliever; Hamilton just got protected from the Rule 5 draft so they seem to be reasonably high on him as a potential major league contributor; Wong looks like a major leaguer; and it's much too early to say on Abreu or Valdez (who, frankly, they didn't give up much value to acquire anyway).
I'm waiting one more year before really wanting an explanation for what could really just be taken so far as the luck of the draw.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,946
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Feb 10, 2023 16:38:39 GMT -5
I don't know... a jump from probably the worst systems to one that's somewhere in the 12-15 range -- with upward momentum given how much of the system's talent is concentrated in the low minors and the importance of proximity to most rankings -- seems pretty good to me. Not really sure how you get a substantially better outcome without going into a full-blown teardown, which (to its credit) is not something ownership will entertain. The reasons you cite for being disappointed just don't land for me. You're being hyperbolic about no acquisitions working out (even the Betts deal has had some positives, especially with Wong seeming like a viable big league catcher), the trade deadline has been debated to death and nobody is changing their mind at this point (I'm not sold that either JDM or Eovaldi had national top 100 trade value, even aside from the potential playoff push, and subsidizing them would likely have made getting under the CBT impossible anyway), and the MLB draft is such a crapshoot that slamming a team for passing on a particular player is almost always silly. Regardless, I do think McDaniel bumping Romero over Yorke already is pretty interesting. I don't think it's hyperbolic at all. I tried to be restrained because I fully realize the challenge of identifying and developing players who will be impact players in the ML. In fact, most of the prospects a team acquires in trades are not going to make a big impact, unless you're trading a star. That's why I specifically said I don't blame Bloom for Downs. And while his trades haven't brought in anybody with great promise (Wong is pretty "Eh" to me), he got Whitlock (and from the MFYs no less!) in the Rule 5 draft. And Mayer and Mikey Romero are looking like solid picks and Yorke might bounce back too. I also like Blaze and Roman Anthony but it's way too early to declare victory on any of these guys. On getting under the LTT, Eo had ~$6 million left on his deal and JDM had ~$7. There was plenty of opportunity there to get under the threshold.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Feb 10, 2023 17:45:11 GMT -5
Well, I guess I can't pin down what you're criticizing Bloom for, then. If it's that he hasn't brought in a prospect via trade with high-end potential, that's just categorically false given Downs' stock at the time of the trade. If it's that he hasn't brought in a prospect via trade (rather than rule 5, IFA, or draft) that's had a big impact, that just seems like a both a narrow and premature criticism.
As for getting under the threshold, you specifically said that Bloom could have subsidized JDM and Eovaldi in order to get better prospects. They couldn't have eaten any significant portion of either contract and gotten under. Maybe it would have been worthwhile to stay over in exchange for a good prospect, but I still just don't think the market was there.
I guess I'm just saying that I don't think the system could be a whole lot better at this point without either a run of really good luck on the prospect front or outright tanking at the major league level.
Anyway, sorry for veering a bit off-topic, y'all. I'll leave it at that and allow Tears the final word if they want it.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,946
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Feb 10, 2023 22:32:57 GMT -5
Well, I guess I can't pin down what you're criticizing Bloom for, then. If it's that he hasn't brought in a prospect via trade with high-end potential, that's just categorically false given Downs' stock at the time of the trade. If it's that he hasn't brought in a prospect via trade (rather than rule 5, IFA, or draft) that's had a big impact, that just seems like a both a narrow and premature criticism. As for getting under the threshold, you specifically said that Bloom could have subsidized JDM and Eovaldi in order to get better prospects. They couldn't have eaten any significant portion of either contract and gotten under. Maybe it would have been worthwhile to stay over in exchange for a good prospect, but I still just don't think the market was there. I guess I'm just saying that I don't think the system could be a whole lot better at this point without either a run of really good luck on the prospect front or outright tanking at the major league level. Anyway, sorry for veering a bit off-topic, y'all. I'll leave it at that and allow Tears the final word if they want it. Maybe a few final words, but not a lot. I didn't mean that Bloom has never traded for a prospect who was highly rated at the time he was acquired. I meant none of his prospect trade acquisitions are rated as having high-end potential now. I should have been clearer about that in that one sentence. Downs was obviously highly regarded and I think most of us, including me, thought he was a decent centerpiece return for Mookie. My main point was that I think some people give Bloom too much credit for lifting the system to average-ish in three years. And I think one reason it's not better is because he hasn't brought anyone in who is presently considered a potential impact ML'er. It's been frustrating to see so many prospects they acquire start up here in the SP rankings and then tumble down there in those rankings. On getting under the tax, JDM and Eo had ~$13M combined coming to them between the trade deadline and the end of the season. The Red Sox ended up $4.5M over the LTT. They could have subsidized and still had room to sneak under $230M. That's just math. We'll never know what they could have gotten for those two guys but we know for sure that exceeding the LTT diminished the value of the two comp picks and cost them money to spend in the coming draft. And I repeat: Kudos to Bloom for pulling down the MFY's Fruit of the Looms by getting Whitlock and a few of his picks offer reasons for optimism.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Feb 13, 2023 9:33:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 13, 2023 9:37:14 GMT -5
My biggest surprise was Mason Auer
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Feb 13, 2023 9:39:44 GMT -5
My biggest surprise was Mason Auer Hopefully they fix that typo. The download spreadsheet is correct though 🤷🏾♂️
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 13, 2023 9:44:12 GMT -5
My biggest surprise was Mason Auer Hopefully they fix that typo. The download spreadsheet is correct though 🤷🏾♂️ I messaged them on twitter, also requested they bump Mayer up to a 60
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 13, 2023 10:16:35 GMT -5
Hopefully they fix that typo. The download spreadsheet is correct though 🤷🏾♂️ I messaged them on twitter, also requested they bump Mayer up to a 60 Lol, which they apparently did? Seems legit.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Feb 13, 2023 10:17:59 GMT -5
Did anyone else spend at least 5 minutes checking out the rankings and rosters for a Mason Auer?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 13, 2023 10:20:49 GMT -5
I messaged them on twitter, also requested they bump Mayer up to a 60 Lol, which they apparently did? Seems legit. Oh wait, maybe I was looking at his 2022 haha, I didn't see that giany bolded number next to his name
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Feb 13, 2023 10:22:16 GMT -5
Lol, which they apparently did? Seems legit. Oh wait, maybe I was looking at his 2022 haha, I didn't see that giany bolded number next to his name Yeah. They had him at 60 initially, but I appreciate your passion!
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 13, 2023 10:24:47 GMT -5
Lol, which they apparently did? Seems legit. Oh wait, maybe I was looking at his 2022 haha, I didn't see that giany bolded number next to his name Yeah I was gonna say I doubt they'd edit Mayer's grade before taking Auer out of the list entirely (which they've now done)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 13, 2023 11:59:50 GMT -5
It really does illustrate the pros and cons of all of these outlets doing top 100 lists and/or org rankings. Pros: you will definitely get clicks and "engagement." Cons: even if you largely copy other lists, you will inevitably get stuff wrong that will get you yelled at (but maybe that's a pro; see point 1 above).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 13, 2023 16:16:45 GMT -5
It really does illustrate the pros and cons of all of these outlets doing top 100 lists and/or org rankings. Pros: you will definitely get clicks and "engagement." Cons: even if you largely copy other lists, you will inevitably get stuff wrong that will get you yelled at (but maybe that's a pro; see point 1 above). Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 13, 2023 16:49:38 GMT -5
It really does illustrate the pros and cons of all of these outlets doing top 100 lists and/or org rankings. Pros: you will definitely get clicks and "engagement." Cons: even if you largely copy other lists, you will inevitably get stuff wrong that will get you yelled at (but maybe that's a pro; see point 1 above). Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait. They literally included a player who is not part of the Red Sox organization in the Red Sox top prospects list. I don't know how to describe that other than calling it "wrong." More broadly, I don't have an issue with having a contrary point of view backed up by direct or indirect scouting looks or analysis. It's stuff like outdated information (particularly carryovers from last year's list), forgetting to include certain prospects (which happens just about every year), etc.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 13, 2023 19:22:20 GMT -5
Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait. They literally included a player who is not part of the Red Sox organization in the Red Sox top prospects list. I don't know how to describe that other than calling it "wrong." More broadly, I don't have an issue with having a contrary point of view backed up by direct or indirect scouting looks or analysis. It's stuff like outdated information (particularly carryovers from last year's list), forgetting to include certain prospects (which happens just about every year), etc. I'm more inclined to believe that was a typo or clerical error rather than a wrong thought process. There are no perfect people. Sometimes (often) we get lost in the incredibly minor details which takes away from the value of the lists. That's the wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Feb 13, 2023 19:37:08 GMT -5
Look, nothing is going to stop me from rolling my eyes at a Triston Casas report that says "His defense at first base is fringy, and he could conceivably wind up as a designated hitter down the line"
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 13, 2023 19:40:24 GMT -5
Look, nothing is going to stop me from rolling my eyes at a Triston Casas report that says "His defense at first base is fringy, and he could conceivably wind up as a designated hitter down the line" And that kind of discussion is the right here.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 13, 2023 21:30:56 GMT -5
Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait. They literally included a player who is not part of the Red Sox organization in the Red Sox top prospects list. I don't know how to describe that other than calling it "wrong." More broadly, I don't have an issue with having a contrary point of view backed up by direct or indirect scouting looks or analysis. It's stuff like outdated information (particularly carryovers from last year's list), forgetting to include certain prospects (which happens just about every year), etc. I didn't realize you were referring to that instance specifically - clearly you're right and that is wrong/incorrect. I've only noticed, or read mentioned, of a couple of those which were previously discussed. Your previous post sounded like you were referring to a more broad reference. From my perspective, there are plenty of places that already copy/paste info, so I'd much rather see a contrary report than one that agrees on all facets with what I've already read. Different looks at different times through different eyes should lead to different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 14, 2023 7:21:19 GMT -5
Look, nothing is going to stop me from rolling my eyes at a Triston Casas report that says "His defense at first base is fringy, and he could conceivably wind up as a designated hitter down the line" What if it's contradicted earlier in the report though? Balances it, right? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 14, 2023 8:48:19 GMT -5
Given the subjective nature of these lists, wrong seems like the incorrect word. If they fully copy-paste, it would match other publications, would that be getting it right? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with other lists as long as they can back it up. We can greatly disagree with some of these lists, but the group-think/copy-paste seems to be as much an issue as the disagreement/click-bait. They literally included a player who is not part of the Red Sox organization in the Red Sox top prospects list. I don't know how to describe that other than calling it "wrong." More broadly, I don't have an issue with having a contrary point of view backed up by direct or indirect scouting looks or analysis. It's stuff like outdated information (particularly carryovers from last year's list), forgetting to include certain prospects (which happens just about every year), etc. Perhaps its foresight and Bloom hasn't announced the deal yet.....
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 18, 2023 11:14:26 GMT -5
I just listened to the Athletic's podcast with Stephen Nesbitt and Keith Law that recap's Law's system rankings. So for all you who hate or discount Law, avert thine eyes. For the rest, two things that stuck out:
- Why the Dodgers are so successful even though they draft so far down in the first round, or even are excluded from the first round and get the draft money cap hit nearly every year. He said that Friedman has done two big things that are relatively low cost: 1) At every level, he's hired more scouts (including more MLB scouts) and player development people. 2) He's integrated every area thoroughly. So, for example: if they see fringe MLB player - pitcher or position player - who analytics says he just needs to do X more and Y less, they send the player development people to go see the player with the scouts (and watch video) and then ask: "Do you think you can fix this guy? If so how, and how quickly?" They also used the same integrated approach when scouting draftable players and international amateurs. He said this is not hard and other teams may catch on soon, but when so many teams went to more video scouting and video analysis, the Dodgers have done that and increased in-person scouting and player development. They pay these people well (relative to the other teams) and so they get high retention.
- Why did he rank the Red Sox so low? You can listen for yourself (at about the 30:00 min mark). He said the four Sox guys in his Top 100 are good, but only 1-2 profile as potential All Stars. After that there's Yorke who may or may not bounce back but has bad defense so has to get on base a ton. Beyond that he said he's not seeing anything outstanding, though some guys may rise and surprise. His big hit was he sees the Sox as still very poor in pitching. Said don't draft pitchers well and they don't develop them well (like, say, Cleveland), and this has been going on for years. He sees most of their best pitching prospects as ultimately relievers or as 5/6s at best. The only guy he says who looks like an actual potential mid-rotation starter or better is Parales who he says is "four to five years from that. But he could also be four to five years from being out of baseball and working a day job because, with pitchers that young and that far out you never know."
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 18, 2023 11:48:37 GMT -5
I just listened to the Athletic's podcast with Stephen Nesbitt and Keith Law that recap's Law's system rankings. So for all you who hate or discount Law, avert thine eyes. For the rest, two things that stuck out: - Why the Dodgers are so successful even though they draft so far down in the first round, or even are excluded from the first round and get the draft money cap hit nearly every year. He said that Friedman has done two big things that are relatively low cost: 1) At every level, he's hired more scouts (including more MLB scouts) and player development people. 2) He's integrated every area thoroughly. So, for example: if they see fringe MLB player - pitcher or position player - who analytics says he just needs to do X more and Y less, they send the player development people to go see the player with the scouts (and watch video) and then ask: "Do you think you can fix this guy? If so how, and how quickly?" They also used the same integrated approach when scouting draftable players and international amateurs. He said this is not hard and other teams may catch on soon, but when so many teams went to more video scouting and video analysis, the Dodgers have done that and increased in-person scouting and player development. They pay these people well (relative to the other teams) and so they get high retention. - Why did he rank the Red Sox so low? You can listen for yourself (at about the 30:00 min mark). He said the four Sox guys in his Top 100 are good, but only 1-2 profile as potential All Stars. After that there's Yorke who may or may not bounce back but has bad defense so has to get on base a ton. Beyond that he said he's not seeing anything outstanding, though some guys may rise and surprise. His big hit was he sees the Sox as still very poor in pitching. Said don't draft pitchers well and they don't develop them well (like, say, Cleveland), and this has been going on for years. He sees most of their best pitching prospects as ultimately relievers or as 5/6s at best. The only guy he says who looks like an actual potential mid-rotation starter or better is Parales who he says is "four to five years from that. But he could also be four to five years from being out of baseball and working a day job because, with pitchers that young and that far out you never know." FWIW His logic yet again makes no sense
|
|
|