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 James Dunne on Nov 15, 2023 12:44:31 GMT -5
Prospect rankings do not take into account roster status (rule 5 eligibility, options etc). For what it's worth, they're actually a large consideration. Part of why Mata is so low is because his roster situation is so untenable. That's an extreme example - usually it's a much more marginal thing - but we do take it into account.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 12:46:13 GMT -5
Prospect rankings do not take into account roster status (rule 5 eligibility, options etc). A #20 prospect who is three years away from being Rule 5 eligible has value. A #20 prospect that requires you to devote scarce roster space to him probably doesn't This is like... Enmanuel Valdez? David Hamilton? Or where Abreu was three months ago, if you want to limit it to guys who hadn't debuted in MLB yet. Or where Crawford was before he debuted.
Guys worth protecting, is what I'm saying.
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Nov 15, 2023 13:13:33 GMT -5
Prospect rankings do not take into account roster status (rule 5 eligibility, options etc). A #20 prospect who is three years away from being Rule 5 eligible has value. A #20 prospect that requires you to devote scarce roster space to him probably doesn't This is like... Enmanuel Valdez? David Hamilton? Or where Abreu was three months ago, if you want to limit it to guys who hadn't debuted in MLB yet. Or where Crawford was before he debuted.
Guys worth protecting, is what I'm saying.
The big difference is that those guys have real major league tools and it appears the Worcester edition of Shane Drohan, at least, does not. I don’t think you can compare Drohan to guys like Crawford and Abreu who were great in AAA and made their MLB debuts to end their final seasons before they had to be protected. If Drohan had a 3.05 FIP in Worcester like Crawford did, he’d probably be on the 40-man right now!
|
|
|
Post by bos834 on Nov 15, 2023 13:44:53 GMT -5
Who is more likely to be selected, Penrod or Drohan? Which at this point would be viewed as a bigger loss?
Penrod seems to have "helium" but is only recently removed from being out of affiliated baseball. A D2 player who has only recently excelled in the low minors, but had a solid AFL showing. He is older but still seems to be a bit of the unknown. Would it hurt a team like the A's in the long run to select him, find out he isn't as good as they imagined, and send him back ala Politi?
Drohan seems to be trending in the opposite direction, but recently had success at a level that Penrod has yet to reach. Do his major struggles at the AAA level indicate he's reached his peak?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 13:49:05 GMT -5
This is like... Enmanuel Valdez? David Hamilton? Or where Abreu was three months ago, if you want to limit it to guys who hadn't debuted in MLB yet. Or where Crawford was before he debuted.
Guys worth protecting, is what I'm saying.
The big difference is that those guys have real major league tools and it appears the Worcester edition of Shane Drohan, at least, does not. I don’t think you can compare Drohan to guys like Crawford and Abreu who were great in AAA and made their MLB debuts to end their final seasons before they had to be protected. If Drohan had a 3.05 FIP in Worcester like Crawford did, he’d probably be on the 40-man right now! Then why is he ranked higher than goes guy are/were?
Here is Drohan's scouting summary at noted Red Sox prospects website soxprospects dot com: This summary describes an obviously valuable asset (complete with major league tools). This was presumably written at his peak in the spring, before his AAA struggles. The riddle to me is how he could fall so far from what is described here after only 89 IP at AAA. If this is how he looked as recently as this spring, I would think there'd be a sort of penumbra of potential still there, and you'd think a pitching wiz like Breslow or Bailey might want to see if he could regain that promising form.
One way to answer the riddle is to say that the Red Sox thought less of him than this even when he was devouring AA; in which case I'd be curious to know why, and that in itself becomes the riddle. But I don't think you can say the solution to the riddle is that a prospect ranked #20 or so is just not that valuable.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 15, 2023 13:49:27 GMT -5
Kristian Robinson hit well in A-ball (.288/.407/.538) as a 22yo before being promoted to high-A then double-A. Missed 3 years due to legal/visa issues (more info below). In 206 ABs between the 3 levels he had 13 HRs and 22 SBs. One of the highest ceiling guys I've seen on these lists. www.mlb.com/prospects/dbacks/kristian-robinson-677565
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2023 13:52:10 GMT -5
Prospect rankings do not take into account roster status (rule 5 eligibility, options etc). A #20 prospect who is three years away from being Rule 5 eligible has value. A #20 prospect that requires you to devote scarce roster space to him probably doesn't This is like... Enmanuel Valdez? David Hamilton? Or where Abreu was three months ago, if you want to limit it to guys who hadn't debuted in MLB yet. Or where Crawford was before he debuted. Guys worth protecting, is what I'm saying.
Or Brandon Walter who looked very ordinary this season. Or Jeter Downs who barely made it a full year. Or Hudson Potts and Jeisson Rosario who didn't even make it to AAA with this organization. Those latter 3 took up 40-man space and the team got absolutely nothing in return. That's the danger.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 14:10:03 GMT -5
This is like... Enmanuel Valdez? David Hamilton? Or where Abreu was three months ago, if you want to limit it to guys who hadn't debuted in MLB yet. Or where Crawford was before he debuted. Guys worth protecting, is what I'm saying.
Or Brandon Walter who looked very ordinary this season. Or Jeter Downs who barely made it a full year. Or Hudson Potts and Jeisson Rosario who didn't even make it to AAA with this organization. Those latter 3 took up 40-man space and the team got absolutely nothing in return. That's the danger. But *they in fact protected those guys* is the point. What I'm saying is that a #15-20 prospect who had a glowing scouting report as recently as this spring is the kind of guy you protect. Of course there's risk in putting him on the 40, but there was also risk in the other direction when the Yankees left Garrett Whilock unprotected...
I'm not saying they committed a sin here or anything. It's just that pretty much the only reason given here for why he was left unprotected is that he sucked for 89 innings in AAA, and given the broader context that doesn't strike me as a sufficient explanation. (You did mention a velocity drop and Oregon Norm mentioned something physically wrong with him, so I don't know, maybe they're convinced he's a Tommy Johner waiting to happen...)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2023 14:14:16 GMT -5
Hypothetically, if Perales had been left off the 40-man and not been picked, then he'd probably have a slightly higher trade value. However, the reason he was added is that he's very good and was likely to be picked - so his ranking isn't really affected because of the fact his roster status is a reflection of his good-at-baseball-ness. It's when a player stagnates while burning up options that it really starts to become an issue where it affects the player's value. I don't know, maybe they're convinced he's a Tommy Johner waiting to happen...) Under the category of perverse incentives, the roster games that teams are able to play with injured guys makes it even more imperative to add someone who is hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2023 14:26:28 GMT -5
Or Brandon Walter who looked very ordinary this season. Or Jeter Downs who barely made it a full year. Or Hudson Potts and Jeisson Rosario who didn't even make it to AAA with this organization. Those latter 3 took up 40-man space and the team got absolutely nothing in return. That's the danger. But *they in fact protected those guys* is the point. What I'm saying is that a #15-20 prospect who had a glowing scouting report as recently as this spring is the kind of guy you protect. Of course there's risk in putting him on the 40, but there was also risk in the other direction when the Yankees left Garrett Whilock unprotected... I'm not saying they committed a sin here or anything. It's just that pretty much the only reason given here for why he was left unprotected is that he sucked for 89 innings in AAA, and given the broader context that doesn't strike me as a sufficient explanation. (You did mention a velocity drop and Oregon Norm mentioned something physically wrong with him, so I don't know, maybe they're convinced he's a Tommy Johner waiting to happen...)
Well it's not just 89 AAA innings. Based on his pre-2023 track record, he was a borderline case for addition. They left a top 20 prospect in Wikelman Gonzalez unprotected last year and he didn't get picked (although it was close). Good gamble. I'm sure there are other examples I don't have time to go find right now.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,083
|
Post by cdj on Nov 15, 2023 14:31:51 GMT -5
Or Brandon Walter who looked very ordinary this season. Or Jeter Downs who barely made it a full year. Or Hudson Potts and Jeisson Rosario who didn't even make it to AAA with this organization. Those latter 3 took up 40-man space and the team got absolutely nothing in return. That's the danger. But *they in fact protected those guys* is the point. What I'm saying is that a #15-20 prospect who had a glowing scouting report as recently as this spring is the kind of guy you protect. Of course there's risk in putting him on the 40, but there was also risk in the other direction when the Yankees left Garrett Whilock unprotected...
I'm not saying they committed a sin here or anything. It's just that pretty much the only reason given here for why he was left unprotected is that he sucked for 89 innings in AAA, and given the broader context that doesn't strike me as a sufficient explanation. (You did mention a velocity drop and Oregon Norm mentioned something physically wrong with him, so I don't know, maybe they're convinced he's a Tommy Johner waiting to happen...)
They were a far less deep org when they protected those guys tho and I think that should be noted. The rankings also mean different things year to year just as the roster situation and subsequent 40 man decisions are going to be different year to year. I bet Drohan is kept if he was due up back in 2020. We’re just a different system now- much deeper- and the big league team will be trying to compete too, so the 40 man spots mean a lot
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 14:44:35 GMT -5
But *they in fact protected those guys* is the point. What I'm saying is that a #15-20 prospect who had a glowing scouting report as recently as this spring is the kind of guy you protect. Of course there's risk in putting him on the 40, but there was also risk in the other direction when the Yankees left Garrett Whilock unprotected... I'm not saying they committed a sin here or anything. It's just that pretty much the only reason given here for why he was left unprotected is that he sucked for 89 innings in AAA, and given the broader context that doesn't strike me as a sufficient explanation. (You did mention a velocity drop and Oregon Norm mentioned something physically wrong with him, so I don't know, maybe they're convinced he's a Tommy Johner waiting to happen...)
Well it's not just 89 AAA innings. Based on his pre-2023 track record, he was a borderline case for addition. They left a top 20 prospect in Wikelman Gonzalez unprotected last year and he didn't get picked (although it was close). Good gamble. I'm sure there are other examples I don't have time to go find right now. Gonzalez had barely made it to Greenville at that point. Is there an example of a top-20 prospect in AAA being left unprotected?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 15, 2023 14:55:08 GMT -5
Well it's not just 89 AAA innings. Based on his pre-2023 track record, he was a borderline case for addition. They left a top 20 prospect in Wikelman Gonzalez unprotected last year and he didn't get picked (although it was close). Good gamble. I'm sure there are other examples I don't have time to go find right now. Gonzalez had barely made it to Greenville at that point. Is there an example of a top-20 prospect in AAA being left unprotected? Ward was 23rd last year on SP and 15th by MLB Pipeline according to a quick google search.
|
|
chaimtime
Veteran
Posts: 785
Member is Online
|
Post by chaimtime on Nov 15, 2023 15:02:09 GMT -5
The big difference is that those guys have real major league tools and it appears the Worcester edition of Shane Drohan, at least, does not. I don’t think you can compare Drohan to guys like Crawford and Abreu who were great in AAA and made their MLB debuts to end their final seasons before they had to be protected. If Drohan had a 3.05 FIP in Worcester like Crawford did, he’d probably be on the 40-man right now! Then why is he ranked higher than goes guy are/were?
Here is Drohan's scouting summary at noted Red Sox prospects website soxprospects dot com: This summary describes an obviously valuable asset (complete with major league tools). This was presumably written at his peak in the spring, before his AAA struggles. The riddle to me is how he could fall so far from what is described here after only 89 IP at AAA. If this is how he looked as recently as this spring, I would think there'd be a sort of penumbra of potential still there, and you'd think a pitching wiz like Breslow or Bailey might want to see if he could regain that promising form.
One way to answer the riddle is to say that the Red Sox thought less of him than this even when he was devouring AA; in which case I'd be curious to know why, and that in itself becomes the riddle. But I don't think you can say the solution to the riddle is that a prospect ranked #20 or so is just not that valuable.
I would assume he’s ranked that high because if he can get back to what he was at AA then he’s back to being a valuable asset. Like you said, that scouting report is one of a valuable prospect! It was also written before the wheels fell off. If every report I’d heard or read on him since then wasnt along the lines of “something’s wrong and it doesn’t seem to be getting better” then I’d be more worried, but the stuff is just not the same. I think the real answer to your riddle is pretty simple—it’s not that a top-20ish prospect isn’t that valuable, it’s that a spot on the 40-man roster is extremely valuable, probably more valuable than a lot of us treat it. And again, the bet they’re making here isn’t really that he’s not gonna get picked, it’s that he’s not gonna be good enough to warrant a 40-man spot. It’s obviously not ideal to lose guys in the Rule 5 draft but that’s just the nature of the business. You can’t protect everyone, and sometimes you have to take a risk and hope a guy sneaks through. And again, there’s a pretty compelling argument that not protecting him gives them the best chance of holding on to him. Protecting him just to DFA him in March (or earlier!) would be pretty atrocious roster management.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 414
|
Post by badfishnbc on Nov 15, 2023 15:11:03 GMT -5
There is such cognitive dissonance in this discussion. Our farm system, according to the the universe of "experts," has such a paucity of pitching that some believe warrants being ranked the 16th team in baseball. Meanwhile, the premise of much of this discussion is that other teams are clamoring to grab our unprotected pitchers, specifically one pitcher whose AAA results are appalling.
I think a more compelling discussion would be whether we're going to lose Castro or Bonaci.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 15:12:13 GMT -5
Gonzalez had barely made it to Greenville at that point. Is there an example of a top-20 prospect in AAA being left unprotected? Ward was 23rd last year on SP and 15th by MLB Pipeline according to a quick google search. He hadn't made it to AAA. In fact he'd pitched only 41 innings at AA, and fewer than 60 total from 2020-2022. The Tommy John thing made that one a lot more understandable to me (despite it sending half this board into a sustained apoplexy).
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 15, 2023 15:15:01 GMT -5
Ward was 23rd last year on SP and 15th by MLB Pipeline according to a quick google search. He hadn't made it to AAA. In fact he'd pitched only 41 innings at AA, and fewer than 60 total from 2020-2022. The Tommy John thing made that one a lot more understandable to me (despite it sending half this board into a sustained apoplexy). Wow totally misremembered that and thought he had been in AAA already, fair enough. Anyways I agree this is a more surprising non-protection. Still in the camp of never get up in arms about these rule 5 choices until we see how they play out. Though I enjoyed watching all the Song drama last year
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 15, 2023 15:19:09 GMT -5
There is such cognitive dissonance in this discussion. Our farm system, according to the the universe of "experts," has such a paucity of pitching that some believe warrants being ranked the 16th team in baseball. Meanwhile, the premise of much of this discussion is that other teams are clamoring to grab our unprotected pitchers, specifically one pitcher whose AAA results are appalling. I think a more compelling discussion would be whether we're going to lose Castro or Bonaci. I know it happens occasionally, but it's pretty rare for a guy to be taken who hasn't yet made it to AA, right? And Castro doesn't strike me as such an exceptional prospect that he'd break the mold. Plus how would a team even stash him for a full season? You wouldn't even use him as a pinch runner or defensive replacement - he'd be sheer deadweight.
As for Bonaci, I can't imagine his apparent violation of the domestic abuse policy is going to make him a more desirable commodity.
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Nov 15, 2023 15:27:11 GMT -5
Kristian Robinson hit well in A-ball (.288/.407/.538) as a 22yo before being promoted to high-A then double-A. Missed 3 years due to legal/visa issues (more info below). In 206 ABs between the 3 levels he had 13 HRs and 22 SBs. One of the highest ceiling guys I've seen on these lists. www.mlb.com/prospects/dbacks/kristian-robinson-677565He’s definitely amongst the highest ceiling Rule 5 guys, along with McCray from SF…i think they both have enough defensive chops that you could theoretically get some usage but they both have strikeout and contact issues and were mostly in High A This year. I think Hudson Haskins from the orioles makes a lot of sense in terms of being able to stick and develop while being a 4th outfielder…just a little further along, right handed bat who can handle center, fast, decent pop that seems to be coming along and can draw some walks.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,083
|
Post by cdj on Nov 15, 2023 15:42:04 GMT -5
There is such cognitive dissonance in this discussion. Our farm system, according to the the universe of "experts," has such a paucity of pitching that some believe warrants being ranked the 16th team in baseball. Meanwhile, the premise of much of this discussion is that other teams are clamoring to grab our unprotected pitchers, specifically one pitcher whose AAA results are appalling. I think a more compelling discussion would be whether we're going to lose Castro or Bonaci. Nobody is picking Brainer, I can tell you that much Castro is the guy I’d be most worried about but he’s so far away i can’t see him sticking
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,083
|
Post by cdj on Nov 15, 2023 15:44:06 GMT -5
There is such cognitive dissonance in this discussion. Our farm system, according to the the universe of "experts," has such a paucity of pitching that some believe warrants being ranked the 16th team in baseball. Meanwhile, the premise of much of this discussion is that other teams are clamoring to grab our unprotected pitchers, specifically one pitcher whose AAA results are appalling. I think a more compelling discussion would be whether we're going to lose Castro or Bonaci. I know it happens occasionally, but it's pretty rare for a guy to be taken who hasn't yet made it to AA, right? And Castro doesn't strike me as such an exceptional prospect that he'd break the mold. Plus how would a team even stash him for a full season? You wouldn't even use him as a pinch runner or defensive replacement - he'd be sheer deadweight.
As for Bonaci, I can't imagine his apparent violation of the domestic abuse policy is going to make him a more desirable commodity.
Akil Baddoo is probably the most successful recent example of somebody in the Castro mold doing well after being plucked in the rule 5. It’s uncommon to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 15, 2023 15:52:38 GMT -5
I was also surprised he was left off the 40 man, but it could be a simple as they like their chances to upgrade in the rule 5. Just a quick glance at some of the players available, I see a few I would trade Drohan for. Matt Sauer, RHP is one I could see possibly helping right away. Dodgers OF prospect Jose Ramos is another that looks promising but not sure he could stick all season. RH power bat and a cannon, but a lot of swing and miss. However, Dodgers fan are worried.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 15, 2023 16:55:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 15, 2023 17:58:11 GMT -5
I think the real answer to your riddle is pretty simple—it’s not that a top-20ish prospect isn’t that valuable, it’s that a spot on the 40-man roster is extremely valuable, probably more valuable than a lot of us treat it. And again, the bet they’re making here isn’t really that he’s not gonna get picked, it’s that he’s not gonna be good enough to warrant a 40-man spot. It’s obviously not ideal to lose guys in the Rule 5 draft but that’s just the nature of the business. You can’t protect everyone, and sometimes you have to take a risk and hope a guy sneaks through. The way I look at it, the opportunity cost for a 40 man roster spot is about .25 WAR a year, and a 26 man roster spot is another .25 WAR. Those numbers are just made up, but it helps to turn all costs into one currency and I think those estimates match team behavior pretty well. If you have an empty roster spot, you should be generating positive WAR with it by filling it the best guys you can get for cheap/free. I don't mean a steady .25 WAR from every spot every year, like Luis Perales will give you 0 in 2024, possibly 0 ever but maybe you get lucky and its eventually 10. For thinking about Rule 5 protection decisions, you also need to factor in the % chance you retain them if they're unprotected. So you'd want (opportunity cost) divided by (unprotected retain %) and then you get your breakeven point for how many wins you need to expect the player to generate in the majors in order to protect them.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,083
|
Post by cdj on Nov 15, 2023 18:02:22 GMT -5
Kohl Franklin is the highest ranked Cubs pitcher left unprotected
|
|
|