It's exiting to see all the attention on the propsects ... I know it's the right week at Fenway, but it's a refreshing thing to see all the same.

  I know propsects are still prospects, but after any number of years we had to stick up for our prospects as sort of "oh yeah, well I like ours better" and stick out our chests in Red Sox bravado ... all the while having a real nagging sense that the farm wasn't producing good reason for hope.

  I am recalling a loooonnng history of this reality, remembering the days when the Orioles had a system that was so good their AAA squad in Rochester was probably good enough to beat several MLB teams (those years under Earl Weaver, give or take ...), and the Yanqui system that produced the "Core Four" and more - yup, they signed big name FAs, but they seemed to have a decent pipeline as well.  Of course, the Rays have had a farm system full of arms ...

  Anyway, while some manage to wage a war of negativity against the present FO - old habits die hard - we can be glad for the careful way they have protected and restocked the farm with truly admirable and exciting prospects.

  After the debacle that was last year, I find this, the immediate and close to near future as exciting.

The Red Sox have always had a problem producing and keeping young pitchers. Many of our greats have come from other organizations, Pedro, Schilling, Tiant , ( even Beckett , who was great it 2007).

I used to follow the Bruins ( back when hockey was worth it), and they had a similar problem with goalies. The few good ones they had always came from elsewhere, Cheevers, Gilbert, Peeters, Lemelin, Moog. When they did actuallt draft a talented goalie they would go on and have success elsewhere, Bernie Parent, Danny Bouchard , Bill Ranford.

The Red Sox need to draft , develope and keep some quality pitching. John Lester could easily have been given up on, but I give them credit for having faith that he will bounce back. Another lefthander that became a steady successful pitcher , John Tudor , was dealt away and became the ace for St. Louis Cardinals.

Oakland has a terrific track record for producing good young pitching. This team emphasizes pitching and they have a keen eye for talent in that area. Instead of throwing millions at has-been pitchers like Smoltz, Wells , Dumpster and similar useless pitchers, they would be better off hiring some decent scouts and coaches to imitate what Oakland does.

Unlike Oakland, the Red Sox have the money to keep these guys once they mature into MLB top tier pitchers. I would prefer this startegy to picking damaged goods off the scrap heap, which seems to be the logic used with our brilliant front office spin doctors.

Actually, I was never all that envious of the O's or the Yankees other than the fact that they always seemed to have better luck with pitchers than we did. The Red Sox farm system has had more than it's share of successes over the years. Carl Yastrzemski, George Scott, Tony Conigliaro, Reggie Smith, Jim Lonborg, Sparky Lyle, Cecil Cooper, Carlton Fisk, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Bob Stanley, Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Rich Gedman, Bruce Hurst, Ellis Burks, Nomar, and Trot Nixon to name a few. There are a few hall of famers in that list if I'm not mistaken.

Only 4 HOF, not counting Clemens who should be , but won't.

Cecil Cooper had all of his success for Milwaukee.

Another young talent Boston gave up on too soon.

Bob Stanley, I wouldn't put in that category, he wasn't all that great....he should have been the goat in 86, instead of poor Billy Buckner.

Burks never really panned out.

In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

Like I said, a few.

In response to carnie's comment:

Bobby Ojeda, Bill Lee, Rico Petrocelli....more I'm sure

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Rick Miller, Glenn Hoffman, Rick Burleson, John Tudor, Ken Brett, the list goes on.

In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

I concur with the focus on pitching and have mentioned it in other threads.  I find it interesting that certain teams seem to consistantly find pitching.  Oakland, Montreal/Nats, Seattle and TB ... to a lesser degree Cleveland, KC ... but I am not even trying to act like I know that for sure. 

 

 

In response to carnie's comment:

I love the memories of guys you mention, Carnie ... but I was certainly influenced by the record that the O's had in the 60's and 70's ... but we fell into a gulch for a while.  If we didn't get Manny, Papi, Pedro, Beckett, and Schilling by trade or FA ... I don't think 2004 or 2007 happens.

I also recognize that free agency was not a reality during the '60s, which made our farm system a true necessity. 

 

Red Sox all-time (drafted) team:

• C - Fisk
• 1B - Bagwell
• 2B - Pedroia
• 3B - Boggs
• SS - Ramirez
• LF - Rice
• CF - Lynn
• RF - Evans
• SP - Clemens, Schilling, Hurst, Tudor, Lester
• CL - Papelbon

Is that our best?  Can any team beat it for quality and/or breadth?

 

 

 

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

I'd go with

C - Fisk

1B - George Scott

2B - Bobby Doerr

SS - Nomar

3B - Boggs

RF - Williams (He came up as a right fielder)

CF - Tris Speaker

LF - Yaz

DH - Rice

Rotation

Clemens, Hurst, Babe Ruth, Jim Lonborg, Lester

Swing Man

Bob Stanley

Closer

Pap

That's a Hall of famer at every position but SS and 1B in the everyday lineup. The Sox had hall of famers that played those positions (Doerr, Foxx) but the Sox weren't their original teams. I'm sure the Yankees could match that and probably the Dodgers, but it's pretty good.

bagwell was a huge juicer

In response to carnie's comment:

Mine was for players that were drafted by the Sox, Carnie.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

I was going with players whose original MLB team was the Red Sox. To me buying a guy's contract from a minor league team is much the same as drafting them.

In response to carnie's comment:

Then I'd drop Yaz, move Ruth to RF, Williams to LF and put Parnell in the rotation.  Parnell was easily the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher we've developed.  And Radatz sees Stanley in the rear view mirror. 

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Ruth won 2 games as a pitcher in the 1918 World Series, and was easily the Red Sox' most dominant pitcher before his sale to the Yanks. I'd probably replace Hurst with Parnell now that you mention him and leave Ruth in the rotation as he was a pitcher with the Sox. And you have a fair point about Radatz over Stanley. I just always liked Stanley.

In response to carnie's comment:

Mine was for players that were drafted by the Sox, Carnie.

[/QUOTE]

I was going with players whose original MLB team was the Red Sox. To me buying a guy's contract from a minor league team is much the same as drafting them.

[/QUOTE]

Then I'd drop Yaz, move Ruth to RF, Williams to LF and put Parnell in the rotation.  Parnell was easily the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher we've developed.  And Radatz sees Stanley in the rear view mirror. 

[/QUOTE]


Ruth won 2 games as a pitcher in the 1918 World Series, and was easily the Red Sox' most dominant pitcher before his sale to the Yanks. I'd probably replace Hurst with Parnell now that you mention him and leave Ruth in the rotation as he was a pitcher with the Sox. And you have a fair point about Radatz over Stanley. I just always liked Stanley.

[/QUOTE]

It's actually simple because Yaz was far superior to Hurst and Ruth gives us the flexibility to keep him.  Stanley might make a 25-man roster for his similar flexibility.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Mine was for players that were drafted by the Sox, Carnie.

[/QUOTE]

 

Loved your picks. However, Hanley Ramirez was not drafted by anybody.  Might want to change your criteria or pick Nomar.

In response to BMav's comment:

 

Loved your picks. However, Hanley Ramirez was not drafted by anybody.  Might want to change your criteria or pick Nomar.

[/QUOTE]

Nomar it is, thanks.  Forgot about HanRam.  The reason I picked drafted is it levels out some of the money issues so is more org-based though you could make the case some int'l signings are just good scouting e.g. Tazawa.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Nomar it is, thanks.  Forgot about HanRam.  The reason I picked drafted is it levels out some of the money issues so is more org-based though you could make the case some int'l signings are just good scouting e.g. Tazawa.

[/QUOTE]

And Bogaerts.

Nice thread Yaz. We need something cheery these days.

I'm glad we kept our kids too, but only wish the moves we did make were geared towards helpingz us in 2014 and 2015 and not just being "bridge players".

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Thanks Moon ... not to mention some prety good trips down memory lane  :o)

 

    Congrats to all, enjoyed it all.   Geo's comment on Bagwell was sour but it may have been sarcastic ... otherwise a pleasure.

 

GO SOX!

My favorite Drafted Red Sox team of all time? All of them. But then again, Ive always hated hired guns! There is something about loving a loser that makes it better when they win!

Thanks Moon ... not to mention some prety good trips down memory lane  :o)

Always enjoy your posts, yaz. Keep 'em coming.

I understand Promises point about "hired guns" being less appealing to me as a Sox fan, but I really enjoyed watching Manny's plate approach (relaxed intesity), and I still think watching Pedro pitch has been the highlight of my being a Sox fan (with Tiant being a close second and I'm still trying to scrub Clemens from my memory). 

In response to moonslav59's comment:

We were lucky to get such GEMS! Unfortunately I have a hard time removing the bad ones.