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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 23, 2013 12:52:07 GMT -5
It could've been a lot worse I guess.
For context the Yankees gave Jeter half that total for 2011-2013.
Hopefully this is the one token long term face of the franchise contract and all long term deals going forward will be to lock up the Xander's and JBJ's.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 19, 2013 23:40:16 GMT -5
The Red Sox have no significant contracts on the books when Pedroia is scheduled to hit free agency. The Red Sox also have a deep farm system and should have a good amount of cheap, controllable talent. Why guarantee anything at this point? Even factoring in inflation and changing economics I can't imagine the Red Sox would be saving more than $2-5m annually even if Pedroia defies Father Time and continues this level of production into his late 30s. I hope this reported offer is overstated, this seems like a goodwill gesture instead of a real baseball decision. It would be disappointing to see the team fall back into this type of activity after this past offseason.
This is the token "I love Pedroia as a player" part. I really do. I wouldn't even bet against him to actually earn the deal and continue to defy logic and expectations. The problem is this deal has minimal upside and assumes a ton of risk...and they'd be assuming that risk ~2.5 years before they'd have to make a decision. That's just not a good way to run a franchise, even giving him special consideration for everything he represents. The Yankees are letting Cano hit the market, they let Rivera hit the market, and they let Jeter hit the market...the Red Sox can allow Pedroia to hit the market, evaluate their options at that point, and if they decide to extend themselves they'll be able to afford him.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 10, 2013 14:40:53 GMT -5
It's really hard to look at Colon's numbers and not suspect he is cheating. He was coming off back to back playing seasons (with injury in between) he had a 4.19 and 4.00 ERA and then he goes to the A's and somehow collects a 3.43 before getting busted for synthetic testosterone and now a 2.69 ERA at 39 and 40! By the same logic i guess you could apply the same for Ortiz but his PED season was almost a decade ago and he can't loose gas on his fastball like a pitcher can I'll give everyone here more reason to look hard at Colon and PED's if they haven't watched many/any of his starts this year. His last gem vs the Pirates? He was STILL hitting 95-96 AFTER the 100 pitch mark.. Yeah.. That broken down Colon, the same guy who was at Boston and barely cracked 93, an occasion 95 was SITTING 95 that entire game vs the Buccos. Yeah if it's that easy get every broken down pitcher on the same stuff. Where is Jose Lima?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 7, 2013 14:48:53 GMT -5
I suspect he'll be back after the all-star break. And by then Drew would be back so same logjam at 3rd/SS for playing time. Love to see him up for these last 8 games so perhaps he can give them a sense of what the options are re: July 31 (or before). Barring an amazing run through July/Aug, I don't think Drew gets a qualifying offer so the "we need the equivalent of a first round/sandwich round draft choice in a trade for him" has been downgraded to, say, a good reliever - unless of course there's a cataclysmic SS injury to another team in the next 3 weeks, in which case it will be trade Drew before he has the cataclysmic injury. But what is he going to prove in 8 games? Last year he proved he can have SSS success in the majors, but with his approach it always seemed unsustainable. He could have a good week or so and it wouldn't really change anything long term. He could mash or he could struggle and it isn't going to be very predictive of what he'll do the rest of the season and moving forward. I'm done with Snyder so I wouldn't mind a call up, but I wouldn't put much if any stock in whatever he does in that time period. I still want Aramis, the guy always goes off in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 7, 2013 14:41:16 GMT -5
They were beaten by Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Howie Kendrick, and Mike Trout. /shrug Talented players do good things. It isn't disgusting, it isn't gutless, it isn't an indictment of a rookie pitcher, it's just some stuff that happens over the course of a baseball season. True enough. But talented pitching beats talented hitting most of the time. As to the second item, when is the last time you have seen the Yankees cough up such a game? I'll wait while you research the matter. Also this is the 3rd or 4th time this has happened to us this year. It is the one area that the Yankees are clearly superior to us. Don't look now but they are about to win their 7th consecutive game with their so-called dregs. Jeter, Granderson and Nunez will help soon...not sure about Aroid. The Yankees have to actually build significant leads in games in order to potentially blow them in the 9th. EDIT: I just saw the Nunez will help soon bit. I hope that's a joke. Definition of a replacement player.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 7, 2013 0:59:01 GMT -5
NOW YOU PEOPLE STOP POSTING??!!!! UGHHHHHHHHH
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 6, 2013 13:13:35 GMT -5
"Callis tweets that Boston will "definitely" spend up to its slot totals and may also go into the tax penalty space up to the point of sacrificing a draft choice. " Sounds like he's saying they won't spend to the point where they'd sacrifice picks for next year (they'll spend up to the 5% overage penalty, not blow past it). I think it's been well established why the Red Sox aren't going to lose picks next year to sign this class.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jul 3, 2013 22:24:25 GMT -5
Another big win! This team has heart. Now if Baltimore would actually lose a game. Freakin' Chris Davis and his 32 HRs and 83 RBIs. Has anyone ever had 100 RBIs by the All-Star break because he is just ridiculous right now. I know Juan Gonzalez did it once, I think in 1998. I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened since.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 30, 2013 21:46:05 GMT -5
The "gang banger" stuff seems like a lot of BS from the Fox News types, it's all centered around one picture of him throwing up gang signs in all red when he was in HS. TONS of suburban HS kids do that in facebook pictures trying to look cool and project an image that are complete posers. All this stuff about Hernandez seems to be a lot of revisionist history. Sure, he had a questionable background...but compared to a Aqib Talib or many other players it certainly wasn't some abnormally high risk scenario on paper. Police have a difficult enough time solving murders with tons of evidence, the Patriots can't be expected to project who is going to murder in the future. My last sentence sounds sarcastic, but reading the local media the past week you'd think the Patriots aided and embedded a known Al-Qaeda terrorist. If Hernandez was this openly crazy individual you'd think at least one of these media members would've caught onto something.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 30, 2013 13:53:43 GMT -5
LOL at Cafardo calling for the Red Sox to resign Ellsbury. He's so, so bad at his job. I agree, mostly. I mean I totally agree about Cafardo. I'm really interested to see Ellsbury's second half. In 2011 his power surge really got into full effect in the second half, with 23 of his homers coming after July 1. IF a similar type of situation were to occur this year, it would solidify the idea that Ells would be a really hard guy to replace. I'm not clear on who our corner outfielders are going forward. I'm not sold on Brentz at all. Let's say he ends the year with 763 PA, puts up a slash line of .328/.375/.535 from here til the end. That gives him an OPS of .306/.366/.473/.839 for the year. It's wishful thinking, but not out of the realm of possibilities especially considering his second half numbers in 2011. With his speed and range, moving over to left field probably, I think it would be really hard not to try to work out a contract. That is not an easy bat to replace. Granted, not really a discussion worth having unless he actually does pick it up in the second half. 2011 was a huge outlier season so projecting numbers based on anything from that season probably isn't the best approach. For his career Ellsbury has been fairly consistent pre-All Star break vs. post-All Star break despite 2011 and his 07 call up year when he put up huge numbers in a SSS. He's received a bit of a power bump, but nothing that would make me comfortable with projecting anything close to .535 the rest of the way. Career stats: Pre All Star break: .294/.354/.415 Post All Star break: .300/.346/.463
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 27, 2013 7:55:39 GMT -5
I can't get behind Swihart flying under the radar. On this forum he certainly doesn't. If anything he was overrated early, as many new guys are. Such as Ball over Owens? Now they are back to ack and virtually equally rated but why slide the guy with zero track record ahead of the guy with some. Ball is very raw too.Catchers and short stops tend to be overrated du to the "premium position" designation we give them. In my opinion too much emphasis is put on that. It should be given value, but not as much as some give it. What track record do you speak of? The only difference I see in track record is Henry's success in A ball, which you have repeatedly said carries little to no significance when projecting players. I'm sure there's a reasonable argument for Owens over Ball (I'm not going to be the one to make it), but it's pretty tough to argue slotting them 7th & 8th is "wrong", or that Henry's short run in A ball puts him in a different tier of risk or projection. Ball was a better prospect when he was drafted, is more athletic, and isn't that far behind Owens development wise despite being about 2 years younger (at least I think ~2 years, too lazy to look up). Slotting them back to back is right to me, getting worked up about the bottom order of a top 10 risk is pointless anyways since it's just a snapshot in time.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 26, 2013 21:19:45 GMT -5
Mookie hates being in the dugout.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 24, 2013 13:07:35 GMT -5
I don't remember the Dent pick being dissed at the time. There was quite the upside back then, he just never developed the way everyone hoped. Grandal and Tepesch were the ones who bugged me, funny thing is Grandal was a defense-first catcher. Wow am I the first to acknowledge this masterpiece avatar? Well done sir.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 17, 2013 12:23:15 GMT -5
I'm glad that they got Denney locked up. His top priority obviously was to be playing baseball and worry about the money later and that's a good sign. The idea that he is somehow less talented because he slipped to the 3rd rd is silly. Teams passed on him because of the vibes being put out by Denney's people, not based on talent. The fact that he slipped isn't the reason why he settled for less then anticipated (still overslot). The reason he signed cheaply was that the money was sufficient and he wanted to get playing. If it was simply about the money he could have played hardball and pushed negotiations to the deadline. It's a good sign. Also the idea that a player like Boldt will sign for less then he wants because others are signing cheaply is wrong. People go to college for all sorts of reason's like education, college experience, to get laid by some college chicks. Not to mention some of these prospects come from wealthy families, they might not need the money that badly . Not everyone is depending on their signing bonus. I prefer Longhi over Sheffield... Sheffield just seems like a nest of hornets to me. He's injured and could be hard to deal with even on top of that. Also take into account that his uncle (Who's his agent) was the biggest douche to walk the earth and a Steroid user. Sheffield is rife with problems, I don't want him using HGH to rehab his TJ surgery in the Red Sox system. He's more trouble than he's worth. If you don't think old Gary is in his ear about everything you're wrong.[/b] Seriously? Wow.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2013 17:50:09 GMT -5
When player value cannot be optimized positionally, often it makes sense to trade the player. As Beasley proposed I believe. If we can get appropriate value for whoever is traded I'm all for it. But it needs to optimize team needs even more than the player. I agree with this. If they (Iggy and X) were hypothetically forced to be on the same diamond for the next 5 years and guaranteed to be healthy for the duration sure, it would be a no brainer. I'm just not ready to go "all in" on Iglesias for the future with his total track record at this point. Xander isn't ready to take a full time gig right now, so Iglesias will get more opportunities. There's a good chance that if Iglesias keeps hitting and shows this is a turning point rather than a SSS fluke, which is what it would take to earn the starting job moving forward, other teams would notice too...and that's a damn valuable property to have. At the start of the season all of our ideal scenarios were having Iglesias raise his stock while Xander continued to raise his, and so far that's exactly what happened. EDIT: @matt I could totally be overrating the impact of switching Bogaerts around, that's entirely fair. I guess I'm more reluctant to play with his position due to all the early skepticism that he wouldn't be able to stick long term. Now that's he's made real progress and hasn't showed signs of losing range/mobility or filling out to an absurd level I'm really reluctant to tempt fate. There's a good chance he could play 3B for a year, Iglesias could regress, and then Bogaerts could jump back over to SS and not miss a beat. My nightmare scenario is having Bogaerts play 3B for one season, find out Iglesias isn't a true first division starter, move Bogaerts back, and then find out he's regressed defensively without the continued reps and is forced to move him back yet again. That's just the Boston fan in me I guess, being afraid of the worst possible outcome. Everything Xander's shown so far suggests he can handle just about anything, and he's made adjustments at every level.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2013 17:30:06 GMT -5
I don't see Iglesias's floor at .250/.300 OBP though, and that's why he's not an exceptional player even with generational defense. I'd be surprised if he could maintain that level of play over the course of a full season right now. ZIPS has him at that number, and with his current BB% & K% it certainly seems possible, but it's entirely based on this short sample run being a true turning point in his career. I know he looks great in 25 games or whatever this year, but he looked equally terrible last year in the same sample size. I just don't think his entire production (defense, baserunning, and hitting) will produce enough value to make him a rare talent. So who cares if that unexceptional production comes in average production across the board or comes with great defensive value while being an offensive liability? Sometimes I feel like his total value is overrated because that one aspect of his game is so exceptional and so many fans philosophically want a "defensive first" shortstop just for the sake of having one.
Drew is a veteran, but what does that mean exactly, other than some unwritten rule of how to handle ballplayers? The Red Sox have way more invested in Bogaerts than they do in Drew, and it's not like Drew's accrued his veteran status here...he's a mercenary looking for a long term deal after playing in our hitter friendly confines. And yeah he doesn't have experience at 3B, but the experience Bogaerts has now isn't enough to make it a different situation.
If the Red Sox were serious about moving Bogaerts to fit Iglesias in the short term (and possibly long term), they would either force him to learn at the MLB level (like Machado) or start the switch soon at AAA. I really don't like the idea of breaking him in at a position he doesn't have a lot of reps at, and I hate the idea of giving him less reps at shortstop in the short term when he's been making strides the last two years. By the time he gets used to 3B there's a good chance Iglesias turns back into a pumpkin or gets hurt yet again. There's a real opportunity cost by not putting Bogaerts in position to be the most valuable player he can be.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2013 16:42:39 GMT -5
If Xander keeps proving he can stay at SS he's the SS. A bat like that at a premium position is too valuable.[/quote ]Not a fan of this argument. Just because he could play shortstop - which would maximize his market value - doesn't mean he needs to because of it. He's going to be with our organization for years to come before we worry about other teams competing for his services. Point is, if we have Iglesias and Bogaerts on our major league roster, Iggy is certainly going to be the shortstop. If he fails collapses offensively to the point where he shouldn't be a starting player, Bogaerts can always shift back.
See the Mike Trout / Peter Bourjos situation in LAA, for example. Many people want Trout to be the full time center fielder because he's an incredibly valuable all around player, and his ability to play center field would maximize his player value year. Yet, Mike Scioscia is currently making the best decision to keep Trout in LF when Bourjos is playing, because Bourjos is a better fielder there. It's really about maximizing value to the team, not the player. Bogaerts would be one of the youngest players in the MLB, assuming switching him to a new position (with the possibility of switching him back later) wouldn't impact his development at all is tough for me to accept. When he comes to the big club I'd rather he just focused on hitting rather than learning a new position. I realize Machado has made it look easy, but I don't think that's the best path, nor do I think Iglesias is worth the risk/trouble. The Red Sox shouldn't construct the roster to accommodate Iglesias' skills, they should look to build the roster around Bogaerts. Iglesias has one great tool but as an overall player he isn't some rare talent...Bogaerts is. I realize Drew has always played shortstop and the Red Sox probably have a handshake deal with Boras, but they aren't even willing to move him off the position as a one year rental to maximize Iglesias' value. Why would they screw with Bogaerts at all? If Iglesias keeps hitting for the rest of the year the Red Sox should consider themselves lucky and look to sell high during the offseason. I'd agree the short term best roster construction would be to play Iggy at shortstop, it just shouldn't be the only consideration as roster options change frequently... players slump, prospects emerge, veterans can be acquired from other organizations. All these players are assets and commodities, they aren't locked into any of these guys long term. I'd look to put the pieces you know you want to build with in their proper position and then sort in the role players after. I'd rather give up marginal short term value to plan for the next 5+ seasons rather than change things on the fly because Iglesias finally hit for 25 games in a row. I'd be worried if Bogaerts moved off the position for a year he might be more encouraged to bulk up as range wouldn't be as important, and without the continued reps he'd never be able to make the transition back. Perhaps I'm overstating it, and to be fair I've never been a believer in Iglesias as anything more than a role player.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 12, 2013 13:48:32 GMT -5
If you want to end up with a Sano(jury still out I know) or Cabrera you have to take the risk. The team is not going to be set back by missing on a 2M+ dollar player. I would much rather see them spend 3M+ on Sano that 2m on Vinicio or Lin.
I understand that they found Xander using the spread the bonus around strategy but finding a guy like Xander is like wining the lottery.I'm fine with their approach and its something they've had relative success with, have they impacted the bigs yet? no but we'll see what happens with Xander and their signings haven't completely bombed yet. Beltre has reached AAA in another org and still has a chance to make it. Stolmy has found life hard at the AA/AAA level but he's battling. With Latin American signings you have to have great scouts on the ground it is volume more than anything because many many guys will fail, after all its 16 y/o we are talking about here. Regardless of that if a guy like Sano, Soler etc. comes along we have to be in on that even with the risks involve. Its not gonna negatively affect the franchise all that much long term. Who knows who is a Sano, Soler type? Thats why you need great connections and scouts on the ground to determine that. The biggest investment on a international hitter they've made was Almanzar(yes Vinicio and Lin got more but that was more for their defensive tools than the bat) and I remember that year reports were that the class was a bit down. Thats the type of year I wouldn't be spending a big bonus on one guy. BTW I don't believe they shy away form some guys because of money, its because of what they look for in scouting. They seem to like guys with good hit tools and defensive value. Almost all the guys that have signed for big money the last few years are all bat with questionable hit tools and defensive tools. They don't go after that type of players. If there comes along a guy who hits all their bells I don't think they shy away because of money. Getting a guy like Cabrera is also like winning the lottery though. Cabrera represents the absolute best case scenario for throwing all your money at one guy, just like Xander represents the best case scenario for spreading around your resources and diversifying. All of these players have a huge range of outcomes and top bonus guys don't have a great success rate either. I can understand the concept of spreading around the pool on multiple intriguing "lottery tickets" because the top bonus guys aren't THAT much more likely to give the big club substantial value. Ultimately it should be treated on a case by case basis for each yearly class, and they should adapt their strategy to fit that class.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 11, 2013 23:56:39 GMT -5
Think back to some of the playoffs when the Sox were blown out. It happened because their pitching was not very good. It also happened because the other teams had better pitching. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The Sox teams that won the World Series in 2004 and 2007 had terrific starting pitching, as well as very good bullpens. That's what it takes. This team doesn't have strong starting pitching now, and the bullpen is starting to look a little worn. And, of course, there isn't a top-flight closer. The last time the Red Sox made the playoffs they scored 1 run in the first two games before Papelbon blew the final game. The next time they had a shot at the playoffs Papelbon blew the game and ended the season. Closers are extremely overrated in the postseason and having a great one doesn't guarantee anything...Rivera is on a tier by himself yet melted down in spectacular fashion in two different postseasons, it happens to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 10, 2013 17:43:56 GMT -5
If they don't sign Denney and lose his slot, that also lowers the 5% overage potential right? Losing his slot money will drop the total pool so the 5% overage potential would drop a bit as well.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 7, 2013 22:24:04 GMT -5
No, makes me think the opposite actually and I'm not sure what the rest of your post even means two sport athletes are at least athletes. In other words physically gifted in some way. All prospects are pretty much a crap shoot. Do you remember Mark Prior? He was the second coming of Christ with a fastball and he flopped. Two sport athletes lottery tickets just like any other athlete. Sooner or later one of those lottery tickets has to win. Make more sense now? He got hurt, humans get hurt. BIG difference between flopping/busting and simply getting hurt. He shouldn't be in this conversation at all.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 7, 2013 17:05:18 GMT -5
I just understand how so many people can follow the draft into the 9th+ round but not bother to read even a brief explanation of the rules...or bother to read any of the explanations. People have explained the dynamic way too many times already.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 4, 2013 19:22:23 GMT -5
I'll take Eck over Remy any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 30, 2013 19:07:12 GMT -5
You've made a lot of claims in your post for which you haven't presented a basis or evidence. Though your post focuses mostly on football let's briefly review the other sports. In Hockey drafted players are often 18 or 19 years old. Though there is a hockey minor league most of the top drafted players go straight to the NHL. Tyler Seguin would have gone to Greenville if he was drafted by the Red Sox, but drafted by the Bruins, he went to the NHL. In the case of basketball, players used to routinely play in the NBA straight out of high school and there is little doubt that they could today. The greatest high school player in a generation, Bryce Harper, needed at least a year in the minors before performing in the majors. The greatest basketball player in a generation, LeBron James, was an NBA star straight out of high school. Football players aren't eligible for the NFL until they have completed three years of college football or are at a certain age. To assume that most football players who are ineligible to play in the NFL at age 19 or 20 would be a huge logical leap in my opinion and one that isn't supported by any evidence. You further state that the NCAA provides players with instruction and development opportunities that make them able to play in the NFL by the end of their junior year and that this instruction is superior to the instruction given to college baseball players. There is no evidence that this is true either, or is there a basis given. I think it depends on the position for both the MLB Player and the NFL Player but I don't think there is any evidence or basis for this statement either. You lost me where we jump completely off my counterpoints and started to focus on hockey and basketball instead. Look, the NFL systematically doesn't let high school players or even recent high school graduates become draft eligible. To say it's "not supported by any evidence" would suggest the most successful league in North America systematically blocks these players for baseless reasons. If these kids were ready to play and contribute at a high level (i.e. NCAA football wasn't necessary for their development) the NFL would allow it, they clearly don't believe this is the case. The burden of proof is on YOU challenging the status quo to explain why this isn't necessary and reasonably project something unprecedented, which would be a kid straight out of high school lining up against an NFL opponent. I'd say basic common sense would suggest a 19 year old or 20 year old isn't at his physical peak, and to match an underdeveloped kid against the Terrell Suggs of the world would be grossly negligent (bring up a generational Bo Jackson outlier if you want to be difficult). Also, there are very few high schools that have NFL style offenses and the mental aspects of the game for most of the positions would be an absurd transition. Sure, it takes a while to develop a change up...but how many quarterbacks ever could pick up an NFL offense in one shortened offseason straight out of high school? It's a huge transition for skill position and defensive guys as well, it's strategically a different game than literally any organized football league with the only comparison being NCAA football. It's baseless for you to suggest it's a baseless practice until you present some type of argument. You claim there's no evidence the NCAA develops football players better for the NFL than baseball does for the MLB I'm kinda baffled at what you might consider as evidence. They have superior facilities, bigger scouting staffs, bigger coaching staffs, more detailed offseason plans, basically tons of extra available resources at their disposal. There isn't any perfect metric to gauge coaching, but you can look at their previous work in the sport and their salary as some type of determining factor. As you said, players routinely jump from the NCAA straight to the NFL and make an instant impact, this almost never happens in baseball. How does that not count for something? You seemingly dismiss this fact and chalk it up to baseball being the harder sport to learn, as football is easier to get by on pure athleticism, as if you don't have to master the sport. You repeatedly ask for evidence for my claims so please present evidence of how the average high school football player could jump into the NFL without playing in a college program. Consider his amateur competition and system and compare it to the NFL. There is a huge learning curve in football that you are completely dismissing, it sounds ignorant. "Learning the change up" is so much more arbitrary than learning a complex NFL offense or perfecting a route tree. Many NFL guys come from a league the SEC and still take 3 years to develop into an NFL starter. Like what are we even talking about here? The NFL is really hard too, baseball isn't some special wizardry that is superior to all other leagues.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 30, 2013 13:46:16 GMT -5
There also many examples of guys tearing up A ball and making it big. You have to rank the guys somehow. I get that it can have more meaning in AA++, but you can't ignore what he;s doing in A ball, especially if you consider the peripherals/sabermetrics and scouting reports. All these things point to a very good Cecchini. IS he a top 25 player? I have no clue. Exactly. Dismissing any A ball prospect just because they have a wider range of outcomes is overly conservative and lazy. It's not like production at AA guarantees a can't miss prospect either. Cecchini was a quality talent all the way back before he was drafted. To take an extreme example, Buxton hasn't proven himself at an advanced level either, but leaving him off the list just because he's early in his development would be dumb. We get it, the further a prospect advances through the system while producing makes him an easier projection, that's not an original thought. But they still count, and you have to factor their higher bust possibility with their upside, just like we do with every prospect.
|
|
|