Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

    Just the body type. He could be 6'4-5 when its all said and done. Also looks like he would have to work a little harder than most to keep trim.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Thanks.



    I really think Bogaerts' best long term fit in Boston is in RF, and I've been saying this for months. He's athletic enought to cover the ground out there and he has a very good arm. Our farm system is currently loaded with SS prospects besides just Iggy and Bogaerts. There's also the fact that Bogaerts' bat would play very well in the OF.

     

     




    If he does end up in the OF, I think LF might be a better fit. Although ive never seen him play the OF at all.

     

    Why LF? It seems to me that an arm that good would be wasted in left.


     




     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    Just his body type. he could still grow another inch or 2 and his body type looks to be the kind that would have to work a bit harder than most to stay trim.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    That and they have guys like Brentz who already have more exp in RF. Brentz also has a very good arm too.

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    That and they have guys like Brentz who already have more exp in RF. Brentz also has a very good arm too.


    So do Bradley, Linares and Kalish. Not to mention Lin. None of those guys has Bogaerts' bat though. My thinking on Bogaerts in the OF is that LF is probably the least important position out there defensively. And I'd like to see him playing a position where defense really matters. That being said, if Iglesias can play up his value and we could make a decent trade for him, I'm all for keeping Bogaerts at SS, at least until one of the guys in the lower levels of the minors is ready.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    To say someone was "exposed" based on a one game sample size exposes you as a fraud

    Only a mental midget would be unable to comprehend that Brentz is exposed as a fraud when he's being puffed up by Southpaux as a long term career MLB starter in the OF. When his career ends up as nothing more than most seasons as a platoon/bench type of MLB career, you'll be claiming the standard lie of claiming I said he'd never make it on a MLB roster.

     

    I have never said Brentz is a sure bet to be anything more than a platoon OF'er. You way too often assume that because someone is critical of your methodolgy, they disagree with everything you say or hold the exact opposite view as yours.

    While I do hold out hope that Brentz may become a fine ML player, I do not make rash assumptions based on one bad game "on the big stage".

    That was what I was adressing. Please try to keep up.

    I place Brentz slightly above where I placed Kalish 2 years ago. That is, a lot of hope, but nothing to get overly excited about, whereas you were annointing Kalish the next great Sox CF'er based on a marginally decent first few weeks in ML baseball. I don't here you mentioneing Kalish much anymore. I don't wonder why. 

    Anyone who was so stupid as to offer Tim Wastefield 2 million, then 1 million, then three quarters of a million for 2012, where there was no market for the fat bum, is exposed as the fraud who has the audacity to claim "realistic" post total puffing drivel.

    Anyone who keeps feeling the need to bring up our 6th starter and back-up catcher from 2011 over and over again is divetrting from his own miscalculations, like Bard as starter, Nick Johnson over Beltre, Bern Sheets, Lowell to platoon with Papi, Papi should be sent to the minors on a fake rehab assignment, etc...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    Any thoughts on Brandon Jacobs and Keury de la Cruz?

     

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to carnie's comment:

    I don't really understand why our friends on soxprospects continue to rate Linares so low. All he's done is hit right around .300 with some serious pop and excellent outfield defense. Maybe it's his age, but at least he made it into the top 30 this year. My guess is that Linares really opens some eyes in ST next year. I'd like to see Gomez get a shot at 1B next year with Shaw moving up to Pawtucket at some point.



    His age. He's 28. Isn't that reason enough?

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to RedsoxProspects's comment:

    I hope Bogaerts stays at SS. I'd leave him there until he absolutely proves he can't stay. He just turned 20 and is athletic. I think we should give him 2-3 more years there to see if he can cut it. If he does stay we would potentially have an all star capable SS which would be real nice for a change.  We need premium guys at premium positions. I'm still hopeful.

     


    Really? If he's ready, he comes up. Castro came up at 19, Machado 20, Trout 20, on and on. If he's ready, why wait?

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    Any thoughts on Brandon Jacobs and Keury de la Cruz?


    Jacobs was starting to show some signs of turning into a pretty decent baseball player before he broke his hamate bone (I think). de la Cruz looked pretty good this year too, but Greenville is a long way from Boston. The guys I'll have my eye on in the lower minors next year are Deven Marrerro and Henry Owens.

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to ADG's comment:

    Really? If he's ready, he comes up. Castro came up at 19, Machado 20, Trout 20, on and on. If he's ready, why wait?


    Tony Conigliaro was also 19 when he came straight up from A ball. We are going to need Bogaerts' bat in Boston sooner than later.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    Any thoughts on Brandon Jacobs and Keury de la Cruz?

     




    Both are still a work in progress at the lower levels.

    Jacobs has high power ceiling once he gets better pitch recognition, but not much defensively. LF at Fenway would be it or DH.

    de la Cruz..same with pitch recognition, but plays a solid defense. Line drive hitter.

    Both are still young and still improving. At least 2-3 years away.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    This coming from the same guy that called Jackie Bradley Jr. a pipe dream in April is not that surprising

    Jackie Bradley, Jr. is hometwon for me. I've been one of his biggest advoates as a career MLB starter for many years. The quote you are referring to was "this April" for Bradley. In fact, Bradley has the talent to be a long term starting MLB Of'er for many years.



    So there was a different TrotterNixon who came onto the thread where we were discuusing JBJ and his CWS MVP and said talking about Bradley was a pipe dream, and that we should be talking about  J Upton? Or was it Matt Kemp? I forget which bandwagon you were on back then. It certainly wasn't Bradley's though. BTW I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you love Hank.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:

    Talking about Bradley, Jr. as a replacement for J. Upton is a pipe dream. Talking about Bradley, Jr. in April as a replacement for J. Upton is also a pipe dream.

    I wasn't on a Kemp Bandwagon. I was on the reality that the Red Sox needed to trade for Kemp way back in 2010 when they could have had him while the Dodgers were unstable on the ownership status. Since Kemp left, J. Upton is the next best profile that the Red Sox have paid for in not doing anytying about obtaining since Manny aged out.

    You have always been on the Ellspuff bandwagon, even though he's not going to be around much longer. Bradley, Jr. should be his replacment, which will mean the Red Sox will be getting a better overall player who won't have to do much to have a better work history

    So was Johnny Pesky. Yet you continue to use Pesky as your avatar while calling Ellsbury juvenile names. Do you even know the meaning of irony? And I guess it will always be crickets from you on Hank.


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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd put de la Rosa at #7 or 8 and Sands at #17 tops until he proves it's not a PCL thing.




    Sands was hitting up a storm at Triple A in 2011 when he was brought up to the Dodgers, but that miserable team kept jerking him in and out of the lineup because they were determined to show that Loneybaloney could hit for power sooner or later and get his average into the 300's.  So Sands was in and out of the lineup and eventually sent back down.  He did ok this year but he should have been kept in the Majors last season.  It's the same thing the Red Sox seem to do to their  young players---"more seasoning" which is a crock.  Jerry Sands could be given a shot either in left field or first base next year.  He has good right handed power and could be effective in Fenway Park, but this time and on this team  there must be no bums like Loney holding him back from making a bid for a regular job at first base if they decide to try him there.

     

    I live in the LA area and have seen how the Bums operate; we are starting to operate like them and that is why we are currently in the toilet.

     

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

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects's comment:

    I hope Bogaerts stays at SS. I'd leave him there until he absolutely proves he can't stay. He just turned 20 and is athletic. I think we should give him 2-3 more years there to see if he can cut it. If he does stay we would potentially have an all star capable SS which would be real nice for a change.  We need premium guys at premium positions. I'm still hopeful.

     


    Really? If he's ready, he comes up. Castro came up at 19, Machado 20, Trout 20, on and on. If he's ready, why wait?




    Right ADG.  The files of Major League teams is rife with players who were kept down a season or two too long and either got hurt (Kalish on our team) or regressed.  When a player is ready, he is ready and should be brought up.  I hold that Boegy should be kept as shortstop.  To put him in the outfield might hold back another good outfielder who can hit while we have a very weak hitting shortstop whose fielding cannot compensate for their poor and ineffective hitting.  Get every bat you can into the lineup because we should all know by now that every year even the best of lineups usually have two or three, sometimes four, players having off years.  I just do not think Iglesias is going to hit nearly enough to hold down a regular position.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    The files of Major League teams is rife with players who were kept down a season or two too long and either got hurt (Kalish on our team) or regressed.  When a player is ready, he is ready and should be brought up.

     

    1) It's hard to know what would have been in these cases.

    2) There are probably an equal amount of cases where players were brought up too soon (not so much with the Sox).

     

    I remember when Jim Rice got his chance at age 22 and di so very well, I wondered how he would have done at 21 or even 20. Then again, maybe it would have hurt. Who knows. He had had a .970+ OPS in 1973 and 1974 in AA & AAA.  Did they bring him up just at the right time? I tend to think it didn't matter when they brought him up: he would have evenbtually succeeded. He may have done well enough in '73 and '74 to make it worth it, but might it have messed him up if he failed? (I think not, but who knows?)

    I remember they brought up Fred Lynn the same year (1975) and he was 23. He won the MVP and ROY, but then declined for 2 years before improving for the next 2 up to his best seasoin ever in 1979. Did we bring him up at "just the right time?" He came from USC and then had less than 700 minor league PAs before the call up. He had a better ML OPS than his minor league OPS (.859) in 4 of his 6 years with the Boston Red Sox. I think they called this one just right, but we will never know.

    Then there is Dwight Evans, who came up at an earlier age than both Rice & Lynn (age 21). He was already a great fielder and that had a lot to do with it. He had shown an improvement in his minor league OPS over his first 4 years. His final OPS was .891 (AAA). His .393 career minor league OBP was a hint at things to come, but it did take him over 2 years to have an ML OBP of over .335. His first 2 seasons had himn at about  a .740 OPS. He also dipped to .755 in 1976, before becomming an OBP machine. It took him that long to start showing nice power as well. Had he satyed in the minors, woulkd he have matured faster? Slower? We will never know, but I think these guys probably came up at just the right time. If we could go back and change anything, probably bringing up Rice a year earlier would be my choice.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    If Bogaerts is ready, no matter his age, you promote him. who gives a dam n about age and arb years of control. If the kid is ready to play MLB, then he deserves that chance.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    If Bogaerts is ready, no matter his age, you promote him. who gives a dam n about age and arb years of control. If the kid is ready to play MLB, then he deserves that chance.




    I agree age is meaningless, but control is very important.  Think of it like this:


    If the limit for Super 2 status was June 10, would you bring a player up on June 9, losing a full year of control for the sake of 1 game?  That would be idiotic so I'm sure you wouldn't do that.  One week?  Still an overwhelming No in my book.  One month?  Or the first ten weeks of the season?  Maybe, depends on need and player readiness.  But in this era I can't understand how someone can dismiss it.  Then  again, teams do not dismiss it, just a small number of laymen do.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    If Bogaerts is ready, no matter his age, you promote him. who gives a dam n about age and arb years of control. If the kid is ready to play MLB, then he deserves that chance.




    I agree age is meaningless, but control is very important.  Think of it like this:


    If the limit for Super 2 status was June 10, would you bring a player up on June 9, losing a full year of control for the sake of 1 game?  That would be idiotic so I'm sure you wouldn't do that.  One week?  Still an overwhelming No in my book.  One month?  Or the first ten weeks of the season?  Maybe, depends on need and player readiness.  But in this era I can't understand how someone can dismiss it.  Then  again, teams do not dismiss it, just a small number of laymen do.

     

    Of course not. If he was the best option coming out of ST, then I would start him. If it was a situation where I had to wait one day or week to avoid losing a year, I would do that.

     




     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    If Bogaerts is ready, no matter his age, you promote him. who gives a dam n about age and arb years of control. If the kid is ready to play MLB, then he deserves that chance.




    I agree age is meaningless, but control is very important.  Think of it like this:


    If the limit for Super 2 status was June 10, would you bring a player up on June 9, losing a full year of control for the sake of 1 game?  That would be idiotic so I'm sure you wouldn't do that.  One week?  Still an overwhelming No in my book.  One month?  Or the first ten weeks of the season?  Maybe, depends on need and player readiness.  But in this era I can't understand how someone can dismiss it.  Then  again, teams do not dismiss it, just a small number of laymen do.

     

    Of course not. If he was the best option coming out of ST, then I would start him. If it was a situation where I had to wait one day or week to avoid losing a year, I would do that.

     




    Our only disagreement might be on how long to wait, I might be more patient than most but could imagine starting a player from OD if they looked ready, the team had a need and the team had potential.  For example, Lynn & Rice in '75.

    Some people - not you - are so impatient, so short term, so infatuated with youth and so ignorant of the realities of modern baseball they can't understand that swapping 1 game to 10 weeks of a rookie this season means an extra year of service at the minimum salary in 3 years time....that could mean the team could afford an extra SP (like Kuroda) when last winter we couldn't.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    If Bogaerts is ready, no matter his age, you promote him. who gives a dam n about age and arb years of control. If the kid is ready to play MLB, then he deserves that chance.




    I agree age is meaningless, but control is very important.  Think of it like this:


    If the limit for Super 2 status was June 10, would you bring a player up on June 9, losing a full year of control for the sake of 1 game?  That would be idiotic so I'm sure you wouldn't do that.  One week?  Still an overwhelming No in my book.  One month?  Or the first ten weeks of the season?  Maybe, depends on need and player readiness.  But in this era I can't understand how someone can dismiss it.  Then  again, teams do not dismiss it, just a small number of laymen do.

     

    Of course not. If he was the best option coming out of ST, then I would start him. If it was a situation where I had to wait one day or week to avoid losing a year, I would do that.

     




    Our only disagreement might be on how long to wait, I might be more patient than most but could imagine starting a player from OD if they looked ready, the team had a need and the team had potential.  For example, Lynn & Rice in '75.

    Some people - not you - are so impatient, so short term, so infatuated with youth and so ignorant of the realities of modern baseball they can't understand that swapping 1 game to 10 weeks of a rookie this season means an extra year of service at the minimum salary in 3 years time....that could mean the team could afford an extra SP (like Kuroda) when last winter we couldn't.

     




    Im from the patient group. If it makes sense then do it. I was willing to hold out for Middlebrooks at 3b because of that reason this year. Although he was clearly ready, I could have waited but I wasnt upest with their choice to keep him on the team.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    I would not bring up Bogaerts on opening day 2013, even if he is hitting .500 in ST. We are not going to win it in 2013, unless we spend often & heavily on FAs and trades, which is unlikely. Getting 10 more weeks out of Bogaerts in the spring of 2013 (opening day to June 10th) is not worth losing a year in the prime of his career on the back end.

    2014 might be another story all together.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Sox Prospects New Top Prospects List

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I would not bring up Bogaerts on opening day 2013, even if he is hitting .500 in ST. We are not going to win it in 2013, unless we spend often & heavily on FAs and trades, which is unlikely. Getting 10 more weeks out of Bogaerts in the spring of 2013 (opening day to June 10th) is not worth losing a year in the prime of his career on the back end.

    2014 might be another story all together.




    Honestly, I would lean more in this direction too. Id like to see if Iggy can develop some offense first. Bogaerts will more than likely be in AAA sometime during the season and could possibly get a call-up late in the year...

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share