Top 100 prospects...

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Is 9 in the top 96 a record

    I think Workman, Ranaudo, and maybe vazquez were close to the top 100.

    de la Rosa just lost his prospect status and might have been top 100 had he pitched a little less last year.

    Gott like the longterm outlook.

    To be precise, Rubby de la Rosa lost his prospect status* way back in 2011 when the righthander pitched 60.2 innings for the Dodgers.

    * defined by MLB.com Prospect Watch and most other sources as a pitcher who has 50 or fewer innings at the MLB level

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for setting me straight, hill. Rubby was on the soxprospects.com list last year, so I assumed he still met "prospect status".

    [/QUOTE]

    Soxprospects has been known to (and admittedly so) that they even bend their own rules on prospect eligibility from time to time. 

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Workman lost his eligibility.

     Scouts don't really believe in Christain Vasquezs bat.  There are some that do, I'm sure if those people had more of a say that he would be top 100. 

    I think he could break some mid season 100 lists if he hits in AAA.  

    Ranaudo I'm not shocked about, I still think he's going to be a good player though. 

     

    With only 41.2 innings at the MLB level, does Brandon Workman still have prospect status?

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/workmbr01.shtml

    Looking at the 2013 Red Sox transactions, Workman may have barely accumulated 45 days of active service on a 25-man roster, thereby losing his prospect status:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/transactions/_/name/bos/boston-red-sox

    If so, Jose Iglesias and Workman were the only Red Sox prospects from a year ago to lose their prospect status in 2013. That lack of attrition boosted the Red Sox in the Top 100 rankings. The Seattle farm system, which generally was rated ahead of the Boston system year ago, lost the prospect status of eight players last season. Those young players remain under team control for six years, but do not show up on this year's prospect lists.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, this is why I think 25 and under lists may be a better gauge of a teams future than it's top prospect list.

    The Sox still have a plethora of young talent with big ceilings that could break their way into the system next year as well.  They have a great player development program and have really emphasized the farm over the last several years.  I don't expect them to have a top 3 system every year, but I suspect they will be in the upper 15 more often than not. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Why doesn't anyone ever create a list like that?

    Under 25

    Under 23

    Under 1 year of ML experience

    Under 25 and under 1 year of ML service time

     

    hill's point is valid. Is the Sox longterm future that much brighter than Seattle's soley because 8 of Seattle's players recently lost prospect status?

    Here is a llst of the best Sox players by age staring at 25:

    40 Man Roster Only

    25: Doubront, Lavarnway, Hassan, Holt

    24: Middlebrooks, Workman, Britton, de la Rosa, Brentz

    23: Bradley, Webster, Ranaudo

    22: Cecchini, Vazquez

    20: Bogaerts

    Non-40 Man Roster (ordered by soxprospects.com rankings)

    24: Ranaudo (7), N Ramirez (30)

    23: Barnes (6), Vazquez (13), Marrero (17), Johnson (18)

    22: Coyle (25), de la Cruz (36)

    21: Owens (3), Swihart (5), Betts (10), Mercedes (23), L Diaz (26), Smith (33)

           Litrell (34), Ramos (35)

    20: Stankiewicz (15), Buttrey (24), Kukuk (31), Gomez (37)

    19: Ball (11), Margot (14), Callahan (22), Denney (32), McGrath (38), Lin (39)

    18: Rijo (19), Longhi (40)

    17: Devers (21)

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cecchini only really has his hit tool as being carrying tool...

    What about 165 SBs is just 350 minor league games?

    Isn't that a "carrying tool"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Speed is a tool but is in no way a carrying tool unless you have Billy Hamilton speed.  Cecchini has below average speed, but great baseball instincts, and gets good jumps.  He will swipe some bags at the big league level, but I don't think he will be a big threat on the base paths. He ran alot in greenville, and everyone runs in that league.  A smart base runner with great instincts has just as much of an advantage as a guy with blazing speed against low A catchers.

    I think the fact that he gets great reads and jumps from his instincts says a lot about him and is something to like....but to call that a carrying tool IMHO I would not. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Very good points, but he did have 26 SBs last year in 147 games. If he can steal 20 in MLB over a full season, I'd call it a "carrying tool", but maybe we just have a different interpretation of what that means. It certainly is an asset that improves his overall offensive skill value, since great baserunning is more than just SBs.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    hill's point is valid. Is the Sox longterm future that much brighter than Seattle's soley because 8 of Seattle's players recently lost prospect status?

    But I would note that the Red Sox farm system generally outperformed the Mariner system last year and that a career-threatening shoulder surgery has dropped lefthander Danny Hultzen from most prospect lists after Baseball America ranked the Seattle farmhand No. 29 a year ago.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    hill's point is valid. Is the Sox longterm future that much brighter than Seattle's soley because 8 of Seattle's players recently lost prospect status?

    But I would note that the Red Sox farm system generally outperformed the Mariner system last year and that a career-threatening shoulder surgery has dropped lefthander Danny Hultzen from most prospect lists after Baseball America ranked the Seattle farmhand No. 29 a year ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Plus we will be adding some good draft picks this year due to extra picks gained by losing Ellsbury and one more by possibly Drew. We may gain one next year from Peavy.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    hill's point is valid. Is the Sox longterm future that much brighter than Seattle's soley because 8 of Seattle's players recently lost prospect status?

    But I would note that the Red Sox farm system generally outperformed the Mariner system last year and that a career-threatening shoulder surgery has dropped lefthander Danny Hultzen from most prospect lists after Baseball America ranked the Seattle farmhand No. 29 a year ago.

    [/QUOTE]

    Plus we will be adding some good draft picks this year due to extra picks gained by losing Ellsbury and one more by possibly Drew. We may gain one next year from Peavy.

    [/QUOTE]

    which hopefully the Yankees sign Drew, and he regresses back to what he did the last few years before us and the MFY don't pick until the 3rd round. 

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    Based on my point system I showed before here is how the top 5 teams would total. I think they are all well above any other teams.....

     

    Red Sox-525
    Cubs-453
    Twins-449
    Astros-438
    Pirates-360

     

    The Red Sox have a great minor league system right now.

     

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Based on my point system I showed before here is how the top 5 teams would total. I think they are all well above any other teams.....

     

    Red Sox-525
    Cubs-453
    Twins-449
    Astros-438
    Pirates-360

     

    The Red Sox have a great minor league system right now.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a pretty good margin.

    If Ranaudo, Vazquez and maybe Britton, Margot, and Stankiwicz and a few others are close to #100, we may be even farther out in front of the others than your point system indicates.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Based on my point system I showed before here is how the top 5 teams would total. I think they are all well above any other teams.....

     

    Red Sox-525
    Cubs-453
    Twins-449
    Astros-438
    Pirates-360

     

    The Red Sox have a great minor league system right now.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a pretty good margin.

    If Ranaudo, Vazquez and maybe Britton, Margot, and Stankiwicz and a few others are close to #100, we may be even farther out in front of the others than your point system indicates.

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree. Although the one down point is I think MLB.com over rates our guys just a touch. Especially Webster and Owens. I think this will be the highest point differential of any of the ranking sites. Baseball America may give us more top 100 players[probably not], but I expect lower rankings when they do get ranked in the top 100.

    On the plus side, our players are closer to the bigs then the Cubs, Twins and Astro's guys. We could have a ton of guys on the team by August.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    We win the world series and have a ton of money coming off the books in contracts in the next 2 years and have the  # 2 farm in baseball plus more picks in next year's draft than just about any team. Life is Good!

    Really. the Redsox and Dodgers are probably positioned better than any other teams going forward. The Dodgers have a good team plus a good farm and more money than anyone in baseball.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthomas43. Show mthomas43's posts

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    I think Webster needs to show he belongs in the bigs this year or it wont be long until he goes from prospect to suspect.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We win the world series and have a ton of money coming off the books in contracts in the next 2 years and have the  # 2 farm in baseball plus more picks in next year's draft than just about any team. Life is Good!

    Really. the Redsox and Dodgers are probably positioned better than any other teams going forward. The Dodgers have a good team plus a good farm and more money than anyone in baseball.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still think we have the #1 farm, and we will be adding to it with this next draft.

    Bogey and JBJ will probably lose their prospect status this year, but our future looks bright!

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to mthomas43's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Webster needs to show he belongs in the bigs this year or it wont be long until he goes from prospect to suspect.

    [/QUOTE]

    It may take more than a year, but you are right about him losing his high rankings, if he fails to impress  this year.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    I just got my Baseball Prospectus today.  They do not have Webster, Betts or Ball in their Top 101.  They think Webster needs another year in AAA but will be basically a good MLB starter.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to fizsh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I just got my Baseball Prospectus today.  They do not have Webster, Betts or Ball in their Top 101.  They think Webster needs another year in AAA but will be basically a good MLB starter.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which Sox players do they have and at what numbers?

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    Bogaerts (2)

    Bradley Jr (23)

    Cecchini (51)

    Barnes (64)

    Owens (69)

    Swihart (73)

     

     

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    I can certainly understand Webster being on the list. With his "stuff", he's got Ace potential. His only issue, as most of us know, is command. These rankings have a lot to do with potential and how close they are to actually helping the big club. If Webster finds his command, he should be, without a doubt, a #1/"Ace"

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to fizsh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bogaerts (2)

    Bradley Jr (23)

    Cecchini (51)

    Barnes (64)

    Owens (69)

    Swihart (73)

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks.

    I expected 8 (Webster & Ranaudo or maybe Betts or Ball). My guess is those 4 would probably be close to #101.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seannybboi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    #1 prospect getting 100 pts and #2 getting 99 and so on, Sox ranked 2nd 3 pts behind Astros.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with that system.  That is saying that the #1 ranked prospect is 100 times better than the #100 guy.  Buxton could be infinitely better if he's an MVP and the 100th guy never gets past triple A....or he could end up being just 20% better than him.

    It's an arbitrary system for sure.  But in a world where the reality is some of these guys will go bust....I'll take depth and strength in numbers any day.

    Having the #1 guy plus the most guys ranked means a lot. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That cuts both ways.  #1 is not 100x better than #100, but I also would not trade a #1 and #100 for a #50 & #51.  And I think a #1 is more than 10% better than a #10.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to JoseLaguna's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can see why our farm system is presently rated #1. Has the FO mentioned yet who will be on the Portland and Pawtucket rosters this coming season?

    [/QUOTE]

    Not that I know of, but here is what soxprospects.com projects (I moved Workman & Sizemore to AAA, since they have 27 guys on the Sox roster):

         Pawtucket   Portland

    SP Webster        Owens

    SP Workman      M Pena

    SP Ranaudo        Johnson

    SP Barnes           Augliera

    SP Wright           Couch

    SP Hinojosa      

    RP de la Rosa      Ramirez

    RP Britton            Kurcz 

    RP Wilson            Balcom-Miller

    RP Hernandez     M Price

    RP Layne             Celestino

    RP Ely                  M Ott

    RP Watanabe      Younginer

    RP Villareal/J Valdez/J Kehrt/Otake/D Diaz/P Ruiz

    C   Vazquez         Swihart

         Butler             Spring

    1B Snyder           T Shaw

    2B McCoy            M Betts

    3B Cecchini         C Rivero

    SS Holt                Marrero

    LF Hassan           de la Cruz

    CF Sizemore       H Ramos

    RF Brentz            P Hissey

    DH Lava              S Coyle

    UT Meneses        D Gibson/N Natoli

    OF Linares          Wilkerson

    OF J Henry         Vitek/M Johnson

     

    Some notable Salem players that may make the jump to AA:

    SP Luis Diaz & Cody Kukuk and SS Jose Vinicio

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    The fact that almost 10% of the top 100 is PHENOMINAL!!  A few shockers for me is that Webster and JBJ are above Cecchini.  Cecchini has improved at every level he has played while JBJ regressed last year, as did Webster. 

    I don't think he regressed much.  He had an excellent season in AAA.  He was overmatched in his first appearance with the RS, but his 2nd stint was okay.

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to JoseLaguna's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You can see why our farm system is presently rated #1. Has the FO mentioned yet who will be on the Portland and Pawtucket rosters this coming season?

    [/QUOTE]

    They have not announced them yet, but soxprospects has them projected.

    http://soxprospects.com/2014.htm

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seannybboi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    #1 prospect getting 100 pts and #2 getting 99 and so on, Sox ranked 2nd 3 pts behind Astros.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't agree with that system.  That is saying that the #1 ranked prospect is 100 times better than the #100 guy.  Buxton could be infinitely better if he's an MVP and the 100th guy never gets past triple A....or he could end up being just 20% better than him.

    It's an arbitrary system for sure.  But in a world where the reality is some of these guys will go bust....I'll take depth and strength in numbers any day.

    Having the #1 guy plus the most guys ranked means a lot. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That cuts both ways.  #1 is not 100x better than #100, but I also would not trade a #1 and #100 for a #50 & #51.  And I think a #1 is more than 10% better than a #10.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good points, I don't think it's linear at all either

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

    Re: Top 100 prospects...

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The fact that almost 10% of the top 100 is PHENOMINAL!!  A few shockers for me is that Webster and JBJ are above Cecchini.  Cecchini has improved at every level he has played while JBJ regressed last year, as did Webster. 

    I don't think he regressed much.  He had an excellent season in AAA.  He was overmatched in his first appearance with the RS, but his 2nd stint was okay.

    [/QUOTE]

    JBJ saw his prospect status rise in every prospect ranking body I can think of.  If JBJ started 2013 in double A and saw his numbers drop THAT would be a regression.

    Struggling in 100 MLB at bats with only 200 above single A then settling into a good season in Triple A is not a fair way to define regression, or judge JBJ.  Even starting this year is aggressive.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share