Boegarts getting some love

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

     


    Everyone was gaga about Lavarnway and Anderson too.  Some said Andrrson was the next Ted Williams.

    The point?  Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

     

     



    Yes I understand they are prospects and there careers are not set in stone.  But Bogaerts is more MUCH more of a prospect than Anderson ever was....and Lavarnway was never really a top prospect.  He was a top 10 in the Sox system when our system as weaker.

     

     

     

    I cant remember a time the red sox had a prospect who is arguably the most talented baseball player in the minors. Can you?  Let us have our fun and get excited over these guys 




     

    Yaz was expected to be a star...and under tremendous pressure following Ted Williams.  And, he lived up to expectation.  The people who gave the most grief to Yaz early in his career was the press.  We all know the power of the pencil-pushing geeks.  If you pass gas, they'll report it as colon cancer.

    Incidentally, my intent was not to give the impression of a party-pooper.  I think we have great guys in the farm.

    It's a crying shame what happened to Ryan Westmoreland.  I think he would have had a great career. Thankfully, he's still functional.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    The infield could be an all home grown team as early as next year.  Bogaerts 3b, Iggy SS, Pedroia 2b, Middlebrook 1st.  I am sure that would a very good young defensive team.  I for one would love to watch that group for a few years.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to MadMc44's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    I was in attendance April 4, the first game of this years SeaDogs season, the temp was in the 40's; a wind chill that was extreme. Baseball should not have been played . The Trenton Yankees won the game 13-5---Britton pitched 3 Inn. Xman went 0 for 4. Stephen Drew was rehabbing his concussion and was 0 for 3. Drew payed SS and Boggie was the DH.

    He seems like a personable guy and I love his potential. Question---would you trade him straight up for Giancarlo? I'm sure the Marlins would want more but would they take someone with a lot of control--perhaps a second coming of Hanley Ramizez. We have someone to play 3 B--Cecch. Middlebrooks if he's not traded could move to the other corner with Iggy at SS.

    Stanton could be the mainstay in  LF with JBJ in CF and and ShaVic in RF( Brentz the heir apparent).

    Just tossing it out there---he would make that middle of  the order amazing--Ortiz, Nap,  Giancarlo and Salty

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Boegarts is the true definition of "untouchable" at this point.  You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the entire Sox Organization who would consider trading him for Stanton, even straight up.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Think of it this way Xander Bogaerts floor is probably pretty close to an allstar third baseman.  His ceiling (and he hasn't slowed down yet) is the best player in baseball.....for a lot cheaper than Stanton

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly...

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    You're kidding, right?  "Floor" of All Star third baseman?

     

    I haven't seen praise like that since people onthis board referred to Andy Marte as a "Future Hall of Famer".  When is his induction again?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This isn't "Andy Marte" by any stretch.  I have no idea how good he'll be, but he's as "can't miss" as it gets at this point.  I do know for a fact that he is also as "untouchable" as any young player in the game right now.  He's arguably their best all around prospect they've had since Fred Lynn. Scouts are looking for a weakness with this kid and can't seem to find one right now.  Throw in the fact that he's got a terrific work ethic and great head on his shoulders and you can see why he's considered a "franchise  player."  Nothing is guaranteed in this game, but including him in "trade ideas" right now is a waste of time...

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Way back when, I remember listening to a Braves-Pirates game,.when a young rookie named Barry Bonds stepped up to the plate, and the late, great Skip Carey said “There is no such thing as a can’t-miss prospect, but Barry Bonds is as close as it gets.”   If Bonds was not can’t-miss, no one is. 

     

    Shrugging off Marte is easy now.  Especially since Sox fans did not get to know Marte all that well, and really most of their musings with him was more about lamenting the rough first season Crisp had in Boston.

     

    However, are the comparisons so off base numerically?

     

    At age 20 in AA, Bogaerts had a .909 OPS with a 1.45K/BB PA as BA prospect #8

    At age 20 in AA, Marte had a .889 OPS with a 1.81 K/BB as BA prospect #11.

     

    Marte did stay in AA the full year, and in AAA at age 21, followed up with a .878OPS with a 1.29 K/BB.   He was a BA top 15 three times.  That Marte did turn into such a colossal failure should not be simply rebuked as though it was an obvious outcome.   Prior to 2013, when Bogaerts was ranked number 8 by BA, Marte, by virtue of being a member of the Sox for like 2 weeks while being BA #9, was actually the highest ranked position prospect for the Sox since, well, as far back as I can find (1990).. In this timeframe, the Sox had only had 3 position players ranked as high as 10 (Hanley, Mo Vaughn and Nomar), and their luck with position players in the teens was spotty at best (Ellsbury at 13 worked out.  Lars Anderson at 17 and Jeff McNeeley at 16, not so much.)  Remember when Anderson was a “franchise player and “untouchable”?  No one questioned his status as a star prospect, except me in several long-winded arguments with garyhow on this very board. 

     

    There are certainly players the Sox should move Bogaerts for.  That he should not be dealt straight up for Stanton is laughable, unless you happen to be GM of the Marlins.  Also, if the White Sox insisted on Bogaerts, don’t you think he should be available for Chris Sale?   Sale’s availability is pretty non-existent, even while the ChiSox rebuild, but in their state of flux, Sale does become the subject of rumors.  On the other Stanton’s availability this offseason is extremely likely and I would be disappointed if the Sox bailed solely because Bogaerts was “untouchable.:  (However, I would not be disappointed if the outgoing package was a little too pricey overall.)

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MadMc44's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I was in attendance April 4, the first game of this years SeaDogs season, the temp was in the 40's; a wind chill that was extreme. Baseball should not have been played . The Trenton Yankees won the game 13-5---Britton pitched 3 Inn. Xman went 0 for 4. Stephen Drew was rehabbing his concussion and was 0 for 3. Drew payed SS and Boggie was the DH.

    He seems like a personable guy and I love his potential. Question---would you trade him straight up for Giancarlo? I'm sure the Marlins would want more but would they take someone with a lot of control--perhaps a second coming of Hanley Ramizez. We have someone to play 3 B--Cecch. Middlebrooks if he's not traded could move to the other corner with Iggy at SS.

    Stanton could be the mainstay in  LF with JBJ in CF and and ShaVic in RF( Brentz the heir apparent).

    Just tossing it out there---he would make that middle of  the order amazing--Ortiz, Nap,  Giancarlo and Salty

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Boegarts is the true definition of "untouchable" at this point.  You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the entire Sox Organization who would consider trading him for Stanton, even straight up.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Think of it this way Xander Bogaerts floor is probably pretty close to an allstar third baseman.  His ceiling (and he hasn't slowed down yet) is the best player in baseball.....for a lot cheaper than Stanton

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    You're kidding, right?  "Floor" of All Star third baseman?

     

    I haven't seen praise like that since people onthis board referred to Andy Marte as a "Future Hall of Famer".  When is his induction again?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This isn't "Andy Marte" by any stretch.  I have no idea how good he'll be, but he's as "can't miss" as it gets at this point.  I do know for a fact that he is also as "untouchable" as any young player in the game right now.  He's arguably their best all around prospect they've had since Fred Lynn. Scouts are looking for a weakness with this kid and can't seem to find one right now.  Throw in the fact that he's got a terrific work ethic and great head on his shoulders and you can see why he's considered a "franchise  player."  Nothing is guaranteed in this game, but including him in "trade ideas" right now is a waste of time...

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    Way back when, I remember listening to a Braves-Pirates game,.when a young rookie named Barry Bonds stepped up to the plate, and the late, great Skip Carey said “There is no such thing as a can’t-miss prospect, but Barry Bonds is as close as it gets.”   If Bonds was not can’t-miss, no one is. 

     

    Shrugging off Marte is easy now.  Especially since Sox fans did not get to know Marte all that well, and really most of their musings with him was more about lamenting the rough first season Crisp had in Boston.

     

    However, are the comparisons so off base numerically?

     

    At age 20 in AA, Bogaerts had a .909 OPS with a 1.45K/BB PA as BA prospect #8

    At age 20 in AA, Marte had a .889 OPS with a 1.81 K/BB as BA prospect #11.

     

    Marte did stay in AA the full year, and in AAA at age 21, followed up with a .878OPS with a 1.29 K/BB.   He was a BA top 15 three times.  That Marte did turn into such a colossal failure should not be simply rebuked as though it was an obvious outcome.   Prior to 2013, when Bogaerts was ranked number 8 by BA, Marte, by virtue of being a member of the Sox for like 2 weeks while being BA #9, was actually the highest ranked position prospect for the Sox since, well, as far back as I can find (1990).. In this timeframe, the Sox had only had 3 position players ranked as high as 10 (Hanley, Mo Vaughn and Nomar), and their luck with position players in the teens was spotty at best (Ellsbury at 13 worked out.  Lars Anderson at 17 and Jeff McNeeley at 16, not so much.)  Remember when Anderson was a “franchise player and “untouchable”?  No one questioned his status as a star prospect, except me in several long-winded arguments with garyhow on this very board. 

     

    There are certainly players the Sox should move Bogaerts for.  That he should not be dealt straight up for Stanton is laughable, unless you happen to be GM of the Marlins.  Also, if the White Sox insisted on Bogaerts, don’t you think he should be available for Chris Sale?   Sale’s availability is pretty non-existent, even while the ChiSox rebuild, but in their state of flux, Sale does become the subject of rumors.  On the other Stanton’s availability this offseason is extremely likely and I would be disappointed if the Sox bailed solely because Bogaerts was “untouchable.:  (However, I would not be disappointed if the outgoing package was a little too pricey overall.)

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice post, Notin, but I put about as much stock in prospect "rankings" as the paper they are written on, but you're right, Andy Marte was highly touted and highly "ranked" for a while.  The problem is that the guy couldn't hit a curve ball if his life depended on it.  There was a reason why such a highly touted kid was traded twice while he was still young.  I agree that there is no such thing as "can't miss," but this kid is arguably the closest the Sox have had since Lynn.  Lars was highly touted as well, but he wasn't a 5 tool shortstop.  Some people in the Sox organization questioned his passion for the game, something you'll never hear about Boegarts.  Nomar was highly touted, and actually a much better player than expected, but some scouts thought he was pretty "ordinary."  

    I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Boegarts straight up for Stanton (although I wouldn't), I'm saying there's no way the Sox would, whether right or wrong.  Get down to Pawtucket and see the kid play.  Either way, I have a feeling you are going to find out "why" he is considered "untouchable" soon enough.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    I think part of the reason Marte was traded twice at such a young age was also that other teams did actually want him.  He was actually a member of the Sox organization for 7 weeks (I had to look it up), and did not face all that many curveballs in that stretch in December and January.

    I am NOT saying Bogaerts is a bust, but too often fans rave about prospects who then do turn into busts.  Then, rather than take the patient learning approach, they simply annoint the next kid in line as potential Cooperstown material, all the while refusing they never saw the previous busts as anything.  "This kid is no Lars Anderson! That was different!!" Or "This isn't Tony Blanco.  We are taling about a 'five-tool player with major-league superstar potential' here.  No one ever said that about Blanco!

     

    Unless you count Chris Foley, from whom I C&P'd that exact quote.

     

    Rankings are just best guesses, and they really mean nothing unless you know exactly what they are ranking.  BA is the de facto standard, but I prefer Baseball Prospectus, because all they are ranking is "likelihood of player being an MLB regular."  I have no idea what BA goes by, but the fact that they include pre-professional players and aging imports sort of cheapens it for me.

     

    I will say, when looking at BA Top 100, it is probably best to remember the Notin 10-30-30-30 Rule.  It breaks down like this.

     

    10 - The number of players for any top 100 in any year who will be actual MLB All Stars.

     

    30 (First set) The number of players who will be MLB starting position players or SP or maybe closers for the majority of their careers, in addition to the top 10.

     

    30 (Second set) The number who will be bench players and non-closing relievers.

     

    30 (Third set).  This is the number of players who will never establish themselves as anything in MLB, and their careers are usually limited to being a September call-up or injury fill-in.  This is where the AAAA, oft-injured, and busts reside.

     

    Once you realize the top 100 most highly regarded prosepcts break down this way, it really does change the opinion of the rankings.  Really, if you look at the top 100 for any year and categorize the players, you get a similar breakdown.  And the numbers of their rankings seem to have very little bearing on what group they will eventually fall in to. 

     

    Although players ranked in the Top Ten of BA more than twice do have a greater chance of being a bust than a success, for some odd reason...

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    Scouting is not a perfect science and we are constant reminded of their nconsitencys but it's fun.  While it's plausible Bogaerts could have a below average MLB career there is no doubt he is very talented young man with possibly an amazing career ahead of him.  

     

    FWIW he's currently ranked higher than just about anyone we've mentioned #4 to #2 depending on whose list you want to reference. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    I think part of the reason Marte was traded twice at such a young age was also that other teams did actually want him.  He was actually a member of the Sox organization for 7 weeks (I had to look it up), and did not face all that many curveballs in that stretch in December and January.

    I am NOT saying Bogaerts is a bust, but too often fans rave about prospects who then do turn into busts.  Then, rather than take the patient learning approach, they simply annoint the next kid in line as potential Cooperstown material, all the while refusing they never saw the previous busts as anything.  "This kid is no Lars Anderson! That was different!!" Or "This isn't Tony Blanco.  We are taling about a 'five-tool player with major-league superstar potential' here.  No one ever said that about Blanco!

     

    Unless you count Chris Foley, from whom I C&P'd that exact quote.

     

    Rankings are just best guesses, and they really mean nothing unless you know exactly what they are ranking.  BA is the de facto standard, but I prefer Baseball Prospectus, because all they are ranking is "likelihood of player being an MLB regular."  I have no idea what BA goes by, but the fact that they include pre-professional players and aging imports sort of cheapens it for me.

     

    I will say, when looking at BA Top 100, it is probably best to remember the Notin 10-30-30-30 Rule.  It breaks down like this.

     

    10 - The number of players for any top 100 in any year who will be actual MLB All Stars.

     

    30 (First set) The number of players who will be MLB starting position players or SP or maybe closers for the majority of their careers, in addition to the top 10.

     

    30 (Second set) The number who will be bench players and non-closing relievers.

     

    30 (Third set).  This is the number of players who will never establish themselves as anything in MLB, and their careers are usually limited to being a September call-up or injury fill-in.  This is where the AAAA, oft-injured, and busts reside.

     

    Once you realize the top 100 most highly regarded prosepcts break down this way, it really does change the opinion of the rankings.  Really, if you look at the top 100 for any year and categorize the players, you get a similar breakdown.  And the numbers of their rankings seem to have very little bearing on what group they will eventually fall in to. 

     

    Although players ranked in the Top Ten of BA more than twice do have a greater chance of being a bust than a success, for some odd reason...

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     



    Again, nice post, Notin, but maybe, just maybe, some Sox scouts had seen Marte play before that fateful "December and January."  As I mentioned, I'm not saying the kid is "can't miss," but none of these other highly touted kids you mention had the entire physical/mental package that this kid does.  I'm not going to break down each one you mention, as I see your point, but I'm just stating that people on this board continually throw his name out there in trades when he is not going anywhere anytime soon.  Time will tell...

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from chickenandboose. Show chickenandboose's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    8 year deal for 50-60m with team options, Ben, make it happen.

     

    Boggy you're the future.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There are certainly players the Sox should move Bogaerts for.  That he should not be dealt straight up for Stanton is laughable, unless you happen to be GM of the Marlins.  Also, if the White Sox insisted on Bogaerts, don’t you think he should be available for Chris Sale?   Sale’s availability is pretty non-existent, even while the ChiSox rebuild, but in their state of flux, Sale does become the subject of rumors.  On the other Stanton’s availability this offseason is extremely likely and I would be disappointed if the Sox bailed solely because Bogaerts was “untouchable.:  (However, I would not be disappointed if the outgoing package was a little too pricey overall.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    On paper, you are 100% correct Notin. Bogaerts has less value then Stanton and maybe even Sale. However, these players are not so seperate in value that I would use laughable in turning down a trade of either of these guys for Bogaerts.

    Lets start by saying I am pretty high on both those players, but they do have their flaws and question marks. As for Bogaerts, BA has him ranked 4th currently. I personally rank him 1st, which is one reason I think its a lot closer then you or others might think.

    Would you have turned down the value of a Trout-Stanton trade a couple of years ago if you were the Angels? What about Harper-Stanton? What about Weiters-Stanton 3-4 years ago? Or Price-Stanton? Or the value of Price a few years ago for Sale today? In other words, a 5-8 prospect for Stanton is laughable. But the NUMBER ONE or maybe number 2 prospect for Stanton doesn't seem quite so crazy to me. There is a big difference in value between 5-8 and a top 2 guy.

    A lot depends on the prospects and the knowledge of who that prospect really is. Do you know what his age is for sure? What about his health. His work ethic. His ability to stay at his position. His attitude. His throwing motion if he is a pitcher. Amy Adams informed me of the importance of hitting the curve. Tricky little nuances that often determine a players real long term value. Just as an example, I hated Jesus Montero because I was very confident he wouldn't stay at catcher. Yet he was ranked in the top 5 by BA twice. Another repeat top 5 guy was Colby Rasmus. Turns out not only can he not hit a curve, but he is a jerk to boot.

    So what will keep Bogaerts from being even a better player then Stanton? The big question seems to be can he stay at SS. His scouting reports continue to improve in this area. Interestingly, if you compare his defensive stats this year at AAA, they are slightly better then the greatest SS who has ever been conceived, Jose Iglesias. Small sample of course, but a nice sign that his double plays turned and range factor is even in the neighborhood.

    I also am excited about the glowing reports about his personality lately. I saw in the futures game after he slid home and returned to the dug out that he was greeted with the biggest, most joyful celebration of team mates since Billy Jones hit the only home run in my little league all season. It seems his team mates loved Xander.

    As for Sale, why would the White Sox trade him unless there are concerns that they have? My guess is that its his throwing motion and arm health.

    As for Stanton, he has already begun to look like a behemoth in the out field that might be a bit injury prone. And with only 3.5 years left of control, his value isn't what it was even a year ago. And he loses value everyday.

    Stanton has more value though. You, me and Dave Cameron agree. Atleast until Bogaerts shows he can stay at SS and puts up a 850 OPS in the big leagues. Then, he becomes twice as valuable as Stanton because of position, control and money. The question is how confident we are of that happening. Lets say I am more confident then Andy Marte and less confident then Bryce Harper.

    Even though Bogaerts is worth less then Stanton, not sure I don't prefer the gamble in waiting on Bogaerts. I would on the other hand give the Marlins Webster, Barnes and De La Rosa. I would have thrown in more at the start of the season too, but like I said, Stanton is losing value as time goes by and his OPS of .790 is a bit of a negative.

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    Ranking Bogaerts as the number one prospect is ot a stretch, but are you looking at the ceiling or the floor?

    BP, for example, ranks by the floor.  BA apparently mixes and matches.  This is why they love Profar.  Profar MIGHT become a superstar shortstop, but at the very least they know he will be a GOOD starting shortstop.  Ditto Lindor.  The floor is also why Sano always ranks so highly as well.  If you like the ceiling, the consensus appears to have Buxton as the top guy.  The problem with guys like Buxton and Oscar Tavares is, that if they do not hit, what do you have?  With, say, Sano, you still have a solid 3B, and probably one with decent power.  His floor is Will Middlebrooks.

     

    The floor is why Bradley always ranks so highly.  Even if he never learns to hit MLB pitching, he could have a full career as a defensive CF with a very disciplined approach at the plate.  Bradley's ceiling is not so high as others like Buxton.  He does not hit for power.  And while he has some speed, he is not a base stealing threat, or has never shown any inclination to be one.  His floor is bascially Darryl Hamilton.   His ceiling might be as high as Kirby Puckett, if he ever develops more power.  His likely MLB comparable is up for debate, but I could see a Denard Span-esque career for Bradley.

     

    Bogaerts is a gamble with alot of upside, and likes to erase questions.  But his floor, as was stated earlier in this thread, is absolutely NOT "all star third baseman."   He could certainly be a lesser playerthan that.

     

    As for trading a number one prospect, would you trade Profar for Stanton or Sale?  how about a few other past number ones or twos?  Delmon Young?  Jay Bruce? Alex Gordon?

     

    BJ Upton?

     

    BJ Upton (BA #2 in 2004) is a prime example of what could go wrong.  He was a better hitter than Bogaderts in the minors, and at younger ages.  He posted a .930OPS in AAA at age 19.   He was in the majors before he turned 20.  DEfensively, he was always a question mark, although eventually he seemed to find a nitch in CF.  But his calling card was offense, and while he has not always been as incompetent as this year, he certainly is not an elite hitter.

     

    So if Bogaerts can stick at SS, but his offense is BJ Upton level - a distinct possibility, and far less than the .850 OPS - where is his value?

     

    As for Stanton, yes his .790 OPS is discouraging.  So is the lineup that surrounds him.  In fact, the lineup that has always surroudned him has been pathetic.  Yet the guy seems to find a way.  And 3.5 years left is NOT a deterrent; that is a selling point.  Really, how many of Bogaerts first 6 years to you expect to be highly productive?  Not everyone is Bryce Harper and steps right in hitting.  Many already have forgotten how bland Mike Trout looked in 2011.

     

    However, if the Sox could get Stanton without giving up Bogaerts, I do like that idea best of all.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    FWIW I did retract my statement and point out that "allstar 3bman" is likely more of a projection. His floor is a fringe MLB player or a career minor leaguer; but that is truly everyone's floor.

     

    But good post! People do rank prospects differently as some weight floor, ceiling, and proximity to the majors differently.  A prospect can never be a sure thing until they are actually in the majors doing it.  But this can't come without saying Bogaerts is the most intriguing prospect we've had in a long time who has a good shot at being an allstar.

    Not all #1 prospects are created equal.  Bogaerts is the highest ceiling guy I've seen in a long time and the fact that hes one step away fromeThe majors at 20 speaks volumes. I remember when everyone was excited about Anderson but even he never got the same love Bogearts did.  Also Lars Anderson was #1 when the system was relatively weak.  Bogaerts is getting #2-#4 rankings nationally while Lars got a #19 at his height.  Which some thought was a stretch at that time.  Soxprospects thought he nationally overrated.

    Yes .....prospects will break your heart but Xander is a kid worth breaking your heart over. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love


    Soxprospects.com loved Lars Anderson.

     

    They used to have an MLB Comparable on their player profiles.  For Anderson, they listed Justin Morneau as his comparable, and this was pre-concussion Morneau.

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to notin's comment:


    Soxprospects.com loved Lars Anderson.

     

    They used to have an MLB Comparable on their player profiles.  For Anderson, they listed Justin Morneau as his comparable, and this was pre-concussion Morneau.

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein



    Yes but they thought the national ranking was too high and they got rid of the comps because they thought it distorted people's views of a prospects status.  Which saddened me because I like comps, even they I understand why they can be unfair.  But yes my point is Lars Anderson was never the prospect Xander Bogaerts is.

     

    Oh if you listen to the last podcast on Soxprospects.com they mention the Lars Anderson over ranking.  Although it might actually be one of the last ones.  If you don't already listen to their podcasts you should......as should everyone. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to notin's comment:

    Ranking Bogaerts as the number one prospect is ot a stretch, but are you looking at the ceiling or the floor?

     




    I try to take everything into account and rank by both ceiling and floor. Why are you so low on Bogaerts floor btw? I think he is a safe bet to be a quality 3rd baseman at least based on defensive improvements, a lack of red flags, rapid offensive improvment and proximity to the majors. As long as we know he is 20 and doesn't get some health issue, he seems to have the floor of a top 10 3rd basemen to me. A David Freese, Ryan Zimmerman type. What would keep him from obtaining this level?

    Of course anything is possible and he could come up short of those low end expectations. But its also possible that Giancarlo decides to quit baseball to open a restaurant in the north of Italy focussing on his specialy, meatballs. Neither are very likely though.

    I agree with all your comments involving Profar-Buxton-Sano-Taveras-Lindor. And when comparing all of these players and their whole package, I have come to the homer conclusion that Bogaerts is the best prospect.

    The Upton's and the Young's....ahh.....this is my point precisely. Xander is not like them. Listening to Rick Sutcliffe rave about the man that Xander is, is why I hesitate to trade him. How smart he came across. Speaks 4 languages. Asked all the right questions. Was ready for the big leagues now according to Sutcliffe. The Youngs and Uptons were largely done growing as players at 21. Everything makes me think Xander will not be done improving at 21. He is not a lazy, stupid, stubborn headed prima donna like those guys.

    Bruce and Gordon I am very high on as players. Gordon has been a much better player then Stanton the last few years according to WAR. 7 years of cheap control of those guys vs. 3.5 more expensive years for Stanton? Gordon is going to have over 20 WAR by the time his 7 years of control would have been up. Whats the odds that Stanton has 20 WAR the next 3.5 years? Hmmmm, yes, still prefer Stanton like you. WAR shmore. But its close with Gordon.

    Some top ranked guys have more value then Stanton. Some have less. And then there is the "others".

    For me, the best comparison to Bogaerts in the majors is Manny Machado. Bogaerts had better stats then Machado in the minors, while progressing in a somewhat similar age fashion. Both are tall SS's that might need to move to 3rd base. Similar K/BB's. Similar speed. Xander with more power and Machado with better D. And according to Dave Cameron, Machado has solidly more value then Stanton today.

    I agree that the first season of an even great player ussually isn't very good. However, by the 2nd year, most are pretty freakin good. Also, you mention 6 years, but its more like 6.9 years with the way the system works. Also remember the importance of the first 3.9 years basically being for free. Stanton will start costing some money beginning next year. Xander will be free his first 4 seasons.

    Again, I am in agreement that on paper, Stanton has more value and would be worth more then Bogaerts in trade. But that doesn't necessairly mean you make that trade. For example, going back over the BA history, I couldn't find one single top 2 prospect that was traded by  their original team going all the way back to 1990. Let alone players with off the chart makeup. Top 2 prospects just are not traded it seems until they bust first or succeed at the bigs with the original team. Of course, according to BA Bogaerts is currently only a top 4 prospect.Embarassed

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    In response to notin's comment:

    The floor is why Bradley always ranks so highly.  Even if he never learns to hit MLB pitching, he could have a full career as a defensive CF with a very disciplined approach at the plate.  Bradley's ceiling is not so high as others like Buxton.  He does not hit for power.  And while he has some speed, he is not a base stealing threat, or has never shown any inclination to be one.  His floor is bascially Darryl Hamilton.   His ceiling might be as high as Kirby Puckett, if he ever develops more power.  His likely MLB comparable is up for debate, but I could see a Denard Span-esque career for Bradley.

     



    On a side note, I think JBJ has a lot more power then you give him credit for. He was 2nd in homers as a freshman at S.C. Lead the team in homers as a soph. Was on a pace to lead the team in homers as a jr, but injuries limited his games. And that team won 2 national titles.

    In the minors, he has an ISo of .186. This season in AAA, per 600 AB's, he is on a pace for 24 homers, 9 triples and 57 doubles, with an ISo of .245. Span and Hamilton? I hope not. Kirby Puckett is my comp, with more patience but a lot less hit tool. He might need a better homer park then Fenway to hit 200 career homers though.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    Jbj won't be a masher but I think he will hit some home runs.  Even if he hits only ten I think he would have enough extra base hits and walks to be a high OPS guy......but what do I know.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Boegarts getting some love

    More love from Edes:

    BOSTON -- He's coming.

     

    Today, tomorrow, the weekend, in a week or two, the Red Sox aren't saying.

     

    But he's coming.

     

    The only people who think the third-base platoon of Brock Holt and Brandon Snyder is anything but a placeholder are the same folks who believed manager John Farrell when he said he replaced Jose Iglesias in the ninth inning with Snyder on Tuesday night because he wanted to get Snyder on the field.

     

    Xander Bogaerts  

     

    Which is to say, no one.

     

    Farrell wasn't at liberty to announce the trade of Iglesias to the Detroit Tigers in a three-way deal with the Chicago White Sox that has Jake Peavy coming to Boston, so he stretched the truth a little. It wasn't so much that he wanted to get Snyder on the field than to get Iglesias off it. We understand.

     

    Just like we understand that Farrell will under no circumstance show any disrespect to a couple of part-timers like Snyder and Holt, both of whom have helped the Sox win games this year.

     

    But Farrell's reluctance to state what is becoming increasingly obvious doesn't change the fact that he's coming. You don't trade your everyday third baseman, then pass on acquiring an available veteran like Michael Young at the deadline, unless there is conviction within your organization that you have someone waiting in the wings, prepared to make an impact.

     

    In the meantime, if you need to say that Holt is here because he can also play shortstop and Snyder, a minor league free agent, remains because he is out of options and you don't want to risk losing him on waivers, we'll let it slide.

     

    Because he's coming.

     

    Is he ready?

     

    Let's turn the question around, and ask, who's to say he's not?

     

    Manny Machado was 19 when the Orioles called him up to the big leagues late last summer. He had played 109 games at the Double-A level, none in Triple-A, at the time he was promoted. He helped the Orioles win a playoff spot down the stretch last year, and is an MVP candidate in 2013.

     

    Yasiel Puig, 22, had played 63 games in the minors, only 40 at a level as high as Double-A, when he was brought up by the Dodgers. He has been the best story in baseball, helping transform a deadbeat last-place team into an NL West front-runner.

     

    There are 18 position players 22 or younger in the big leagues. Some have names you see nightly in the highlight clips. Mike Trout. Bryce Harper. Wil Myers. Puig. Machado.

     

    How times have changed: In 1964, when 19-year-old Tony Conigliaro announced his arrival with a home run in his first Fenway Park at-bat, there were 67 position players 22 or younger in the big leagues. That's with just 20 teams, just two-thirds of the 30 teams in existence today.

     

    It was a young man's game then, and there has always been room for the most promising of the kids, be it a 19-year-old Tony C. or 20-year-olds Bobby Doerr and Ted Williams, a 21-year-old Yaz and a 21-year-old Dwight Evans.

     

    And there will be room for him, too, when he comes, because that's how much the Red Sox think of him. Sometimes you have to stop nurturing, and let them loose.

     

    "He's in the discussion," Farrell acknowledged Wednesday. "But the fact is, he's still a nonroster [player] and we wanted to preserve a spot in the event that something else happened. We're just letting the dust settle right now."

     

    There was no other move. The dust has settled. He's coming.

     

     

     

    "That doesn't suggest that his move or his recall or purchase of his contract is imminent," Farrell insisted. "But he's done a good job and he's played third of late, trying to get some exposure there. We're just trying to cover everything we can do in Pawtucket if in fact he's the guy, which right now he is not, but that's just normal preparation and the development."

     

    General manager Ben Cherington edged a little closer to the truth.

     

    "I think when you get to Triple-A, there's no such thing as a prospect," he said. "You're part of the major league depth, you're part of the major league roster. So anybody down there could be up here the next day, if anything happens."

     

    Something big has happened. Iglesias is in Detroit. He is coming. Will Middlebrooks will be disappointed, perhaps profoundly so, because he wants to return, and it appears the Red Sox remain unconvinced he is ready to do so. But they held onto him at the trading deadline, and by all accounts, he is still viewed as an important part of the Sox future.

     

    But today, tomorrow, the weekend, in a week or two, 20-year-old Xander Bogaerts, face of the Sox future, is coming. He played on a global stage this spring in the World Baseball Classic. He had two hits in the showcase All-Star Futures game. Promoted from Portland to Pawtucket, he has hit more home runs in Triple-A (8) than Double-A (6), 14 in all, in 99 games this season. He has an .864 OPS in Pawtucket, and over his last 10 games is batting .371 with a 1.035 OPS.

     

    The Sox showed faith in a young Jackie Bradley Jr. They did the same in Iglesias. Now is the time to do the same for Bogaerts.

     

    He's coming. Unfinished? Sure. He's played only a handful of games at third base. Overmatched? If so, it won't be for long. And it's certainly worth bringing him here to find out.

     

Share