A quick look at what perhaps has led to the current situation

[smastroyin]

I'm not one to just use WAR for an analytical tool, but I thought, hey, just for fun, let's look at cumulative WAR for post-WS drafts by the Red Sox.  This will include all WAR accumulated by the draftee if they were signed by the Red Sox (so, for instance, Brandon Belt and Pedro Alvarez don't count in their respective years) but does not count cup of coffee types.  Not a scientific thing.
 
2005:  48.9 (Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie)
2006:  28.6 (Bard, Masterson, Reddick)  A lot of that value was accumulated with not Red Sox.
2007:  12.7 (WMB, Rizzo) WMB is negative.  All the positive comes from Rizzo, who of course accumulated it elsewhere
2008:  -0.2 (Lavarnway, Vazquez)  Bunch of guys got cups of coffee.  But this draft produced nearly nothing.  Vaz still to be written I guess, let's hope he has a big bounce back from the injury.
2009:  1.7 (Alex Wilson).  Only 4 players in this draft made the majors.  Wilson has been better than Porcello this year, but that's just salt in wound.
2010:  -1.6 (Workman).  Book is not closed on Ranaudo, Cecchini.  Most everyone else is essentially done.  
2011:  5.1 (Betts, JBJ, Swihart, Barnes).  Lot to come from this draft, including Owens future.
2012:  0.  Marrero and Brian Johnson should bring some value.  Rest of class is basically washed out.  I guess Pat Light is young enough that we can hope his Portland blip (only time he's shown anything) can be sustained.
2013:  0.  Too soon obviously, but with Ball looking not great, Stank looking less than that, Jon Denney punking himself out of baseball...really not a lot to look forward to.  
2014:  0.  Way too soon.  Won't even speculate. 
 
I guess the takeaway from this is that despite the $100 MM development machine, the Sox domestic scouting has only produced in fits and starts (2005, 2006, 2011) and a ton of value was traded away.  Obviously there are a bunch of careers yet to take place here, the average guy from the 2010 draft is only 25.  But, from 2007-2009 the Sox basically created zero value for themselves on the field with the draft, though they did get a season and a half of Adrian Gonzalez for Rizzo (and the useless Casey Kelly and more useless Raymond Fuentes).  On the whole, that trade worked out for them but largely because the centerpiece (Kelly) was exceptionally overrated.  And of course San Diego in their wisdom had no patience with Rizzo and gave him back to Theo.  
 
At the end of the day I guess the relevance of this is that it leads into the question of just how good a job Ben C. has been doing, since this was his job before he was GM.  It's unfair of course to exclude amateur signings but not many of those worked out until Iglesias and Bogaerts.  So that would need to be included as well as a comparison to other teams to really assess.  And of course Ben isn't the one who made the AG trade.  He did however trade Reddick.  
 
Anyway, a big problem with the Red Sox right now is that they had to go out and pay for guys in their primes, and this is clearly why.  They essentially punted 4 drafts in a row outside of Rizzo.  And those are the drafts that would give them guys in the 25-30 range.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm not one to just use WAR for an analytical tool, but I thought, hey, just for fun, let's look at cumulative WAR for post-WS drafts by the Red Sox.  This will include all WAR accumulated by the draftee if they were signed by the Red Sox (so, for instance, Brandon Belt and Pedro Alvarez don't count in their respective years) but does not count cup of coffee types.  Not a scientific thing.
 
2005:  48.9 (Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie)
2006:  28.6 (Bard, Masterson, Reddick)  A lot of that value was accumulated with not Red Sox.
2007:  12.7 (WMB, Rizzo) WMB is negative.  All the positive comes from Rizzo, who of course accumulated it elsewhere
2008:  -0.2 (Lavarnway, Vazquez)  Bunch of guys got cups of coffee.  But this draft produced nearly nothing.  Vaz still to be written I guess, let's hope he has a big bounce back from the injury.
2009:  1.7 (Alex Wilson).  Only 4 players in this draft made the majors.  Wilson has been better than Porcello this year, but that's just salt in wound.
2010:  -1.6 (Workman).  Book is not closed on Ranaudo, Cecchini.  Most everyone else is essentially done.  
2011:  5.1 (Betts, JBJ, Swihart, Barnes).  Lot to come from this draft, including Owens future.
2012:  0.  Marrero and Brian Johnson should bring some value.  Rest of class is basically washed out.  I guess Pat Light is young enough that we can hope his Portland blip (only time he's shown anything) can be sustained.
2013:  0.  Too soon obviously, but with Ball looking not great, Stank looking less than that, Jon Denney punking himself out of baseball...really not a lot to look forward to.  
2014:  0.  Way too soon.  Won't even speculate. 
 
I guess the takeaway from this is that despite the $100 MM development machine, the Sox domestic scouting has only produced in fits and starts (2005, 2006, 2011) and a ton of value was traded away.  Obviously there are a bunch of careers yet to take place here, the average guy from the 2010 draft is only 25.  But, from 2007-2009 the Sox basically created zero value for themselves on the field with the draft, though they did get a season and a half of Adrian Gonzalez for Rizzo (and the useless Casey Kelly and more useless Raymond Fuentes).  On the whole, that trade worked out for them but largely because the centerpiece (Kelly) was exceptionally overrated.  And of course San Diego in their wisdom had no patience with Rizzo and gave him back to Theo.  
 
At the end of the day I guess the relevance of this is that it leads into the question of just how good a job Ben C. has been doing, since this was his job before he was GM.  It's unfair of course to exclude amateur signings but not many of those worked out until Iglesias and Bogaerts.  So that would need to be included as well as a comparison to other teams to really assess.  And of course Ben isn't the one who made the AG trade.  He did however trade Reddick.  
 
Anyway, a big problem with the Red Sox right now is that they had to go out and pay for guys in their primes, and this is clearly why.  They essentially punted 4 drafts in a row outside of Rizzo.  And those are the drafts that would give them guys in the 25-30 range.

 
Good stuff.
 
Any reason not to add Matsuzaka, Okajima and Tazawa to the acquisitions?

 

[billy ashley]

A couple quick notes:
 

• I wouldn't call Casey Kelly useless, he was a very good prospect who came undone due to injury
• Outside of Kelly, the 2008 draft was hurt significantly by Ryan Westmoreland's health issues
• More 2008- while I wouldn't expect him to swing the margin too much, Travis Shaw very well could be a very solid bench player
• The trajectory looks terrible because of how good we hit in 2005 but that's not a normal hit rate, we got really lucky that year.
• I know people like to rag on Ball, but he's still athletic with good mechanics he may still be a back end starter in the future
• Of our whiffs, Kolbrin Viteck really hurts, he was a high floor college bat that everyone assumed was a 60 bat who just needed a position; at the time analysts thought getting he, Brentz and Raunado was some sort of coup
• 2010 may give a little value in Henry Ramos who looked like he was turning a corner before the injury bug hit him last year; athletic fourth outfielder type. I guess if you want to be a crazy optimist you could hold out hope for Coyle and Coach being minimal contributors at some point

On balance, I think you have a point in that we had a couple bad drafts and that's hurt our ability to not overextend on contracts. That being said, it's generally not a given that every draft will produce an above average major leaguer. There was a really good piece about the Phillies woes last year and it's central point was that their player development sucked and that's hurt them more than the contracts... let's hope the sox don't become another cautionary tale in that respect. That said the higher end talent in the minors are really exciting right now. 
 
2010 hurts in retrospect because of how good it looked at the time and how many picks we had in the top 50. 

 

[moondog80]

What's the standard?  I assume that even smart teams have years where the draft produces very little, but how often should it happen?    Three years in a row does seem like a lot, but what do I know?  What should a team picking where the Sox picked, with the Sox' resources to go over slot when that was allowed, be doing?
 
I realize you don't have these answers at hand, just pointing out that it's difficult to form a valid opinion without some context.

 

[jasail]

Thanks for this. I made the same argument a while back. I didn't use WAR, which really drives the point home. I think Xander and Taz are the only guys acquired from 2006 - 2010 that are on the 25-man roster and under team control. That's a lot a bare years (either by missing or trading assets) and the results are a reliance on sub-optimal players. The Sox organization admits this through their actions. Look at who they acquired for pitching over the last 12 months - guys who are under team control and in their "prime" years. Unfortunately, teams aren't really looking to get rid of talented cost controlled players in their late 20s. So, nearly all players who are available at this time are guys that are about to get expensive, guys that aren't very good and guys that can't or haven't put it together and the Sox pulled the hat trick (e.g., Porcello, Kelly, Miley). 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

It could be interesting to include international signings in this analysis. I can't do that, but I can condense some names from the web:
 
2005: Cesar Cabral, Jose Alvarez, Yamiaco Navarro, Chih-Hsien Chiang, Chi-Hsiang Huang
2006: Engel Beltre, Stolmy Pimental, Hideki Okajima, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Che-Hsuan Lin, Oscar Tejeda, Michael Lennox, Randy Consuegra
2007: Michael Almanzar, Rafael Espinoza, Roman Mendez, Jose Garcia, Boss Moanaroa 
2008: Oscar Perez, Juan Ugas, William Cuevas, Luis Diaz, Junichi Tazawa, Keury De La Cruz
2009: Jose Vinicio, Raul Alcantara, Mario Alcantara, Iago Januairo, Jair Bogaerts, Xander Bogaerts, Jose Iglesias, Jorge Padron, Robert Del Rosario, Carlos Pinales,David Sopilka
2010: Adalberto Ibarra, Juan Carlos Linares, Deiner Lopez, Edwar Garcia, Aneury Tavarez, Alixon Suarez, Aneudis Peralta, Jeffry Fernandez, German Tavarez, Jonathon Aro
2011: Raymel Flores, Manuel Margot, Dioscar Romero, Randy Perez, Jervis Torrealba, Carlos Garcia, Victor Ramirez, Keivan Heras, Yankory Pimentel, Enfember Martinez, Daniel McGrath, Simon Mercedes, Pablo Urena, Tzu-Wei Lin, Luis Ramos, Javier Rodriguez, Heri Quevedo
2012: Jose Almonte, Javier Guerra, Wendell Rijo, Dedgar Jimenez, Alexander Basabe, Alejandro Basabe, Geson Bautista
2013: Rafael Devers, Enmanuel De Jesus, Jhonathan Diaz, Yoan Aybar, Dalier Hinojosa
2014: Anderson Espinoza, Christopher Acosta, Roniel Raudes, Jhosmar Cortez, Elwin Tejada, Junior Espinoza, Marino Campana, Hermerson Serven, Rusney Castillo, Willis Figueroa, Yoan Moncada

 

[SydneySox]

Yeah, ts incomplete if you don't add internationals to that list.

Wither Iglesias, for instance, who unarguably delivered both a World Series AND the exit of Eric Van with his departure.

Or, obviously, Xander.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Nice post. The 2010 draft really killed us because the RS basically signed six first-roundish picks and got little out of them. (Which is an excuse to re-post Cuzitt's good piece on the draft: http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/revisiting-the-2010-draft/). According to Cuzitt, the RS were aggressive in what turned out to be a not great draft year, but that draft was supposed to be the foundation for years to come.

To me, the bottom line is that the Red Sox weren't really able to develop any homegrown position players between Ellsbury and X/Mookie) or starting pitching since Buchholz. That means to many players to acquire. And while Ben hit on a good portion, they all occurred in one year (or so it seems).

 

[Toe Nash]

I guess the other part of this is that they have always tried to compete, so they haven't done a full veterans for prospects rebuild and when they have traded veterans they have often dealt them for other veterans or traded the prospects they got for older players soon after. So, they haven't acquired prospects outside of the draft either, and the ones they have have been crummy (except EdRod).
 
Off the top of my head:
Punto deal: acquired Webster and de la Rosa, both were soon traded for Miley
Middlebrooks for Hanigan
Lester for Cespedes, then for Porcello
Lackey for Kelly and Craig
Miller for EdRod
S Drew for K Johnson (salary dump)
Peavy for Hembree and E Escobar
 
Also, they DIDN'T trade Uehara last year, or Napoli, who may have had value to a contender, because they thought they would need them this year.
 
Not really judging this strategy or any of the deals (although I definitely was calling for them to deal Koji as I think he would have gotten something solid back) but it's an important part of the story. Had they given up on contention in 2015 their moves last year would have looked much different and may have ended up better in the long-term. Of course, it does come back to the poor drafting that left them without prime players.

 

[threecy]

Might also be interesting to track the ownership's entire tenure, which would further elevate the decline in domestic development (ie Pedroia/Papelbon/Lester).

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Might also be interesting to track the ownership's entire tenure, which would further elevate the decline in domestic development (ie Pedroia/Papelbon/Lester).

 
It might be more accurate to describe that group as a spike in development. It's hard to develop major league players and that run of farm success was a rare thing.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

To follow up, taking a look at the soxprospects.com top 20 from September 2005 really brings into focus how abnormally good that period was for the Sox. Maybe it was because of old CBA where big money teams were able to get top of the draft talents lower in the first round (or late in the draft) or maybe it is a question of the quality of scouting. It's probably a bit of both, but take a look at this.
 
Jonathan Papelbon 23.9
Jon Lester 34.4
Anibal Sanchez 24.1
Hanley Ramirez 36.2
Craig Hansen -1.9
Manny Delcarmen 3.8
Dustin Pedroia 44.5
Kelly Shoppach 8.1
Brandon Moss 4.9
David Pauley 1.1
David Muphy 10.6
Luis Soto N/A
Jacoby Ellsbury 26.0
Jed Lowrie 8.8
Abe Alvarez -0.3
Ryan Phillips N/A
Clay Buchholz 15.2
Mike Rozier N/A
Edgar Martinez N/A
Alejandro Machado 0.2
 
If we're compiling total career earned WAR (used B-R) from groups of prospects, this top 20 is probably going to end up in the all time great farm system snap shots discussion. That's only 4 players who didn't crack the majors and of the 16 who did, only 2 with negative WARs. All told that's 239.6 WAR that has come out of one top 20 list. I don't have time right now, but it would definitely be interesting to see how smas' list looks including IFA's and going back to 2002.
 
I would guess that where major league talent comes from ebbs and flows between drafted players and those signed abroad over the years and at the end of the day what really matters is how your farm system as a whole is producing talent. If the draft has become weak in general, that's obviously an issue, but it's just one piece of the puzzle, and given the strength of the 2011 draft class, I don't think we can be too confident in condemning the domestic scouting crew just yet.
 
I'd also point out that the Sox haven't had a problem adding talent to the system through the draft, they've just traded away a number of those players, which can also fall on domestic scouting. Of course, you have to give talent to get talent, so I'm not sure I'd say trading away future major league players is automatically a failure. We'd all love to have Rizzo at first, but he did help bring back an enormously talented player in Gonzalez. The 2014 and 2015 drafts look promising as well, but as smas pointed out, it's too early to make any real guesses about those.

 

[smastroyin]

Everything people are saying is true.
 
but I guess at the end of the day, this is an illustration of the road to hell.  On the one hand, it's nice to think that you can have scouts that figure out how to draft lower than the top ten picks and add talent to the team, or that you can go to international signings where you can leverage spending to make up for your inability to get top tier domestic talent.  But, given that the Sox are getting very little value from in-prime players this year (almost none from hitters, and the pitcher value mostly comes from Buchholz), I think we can say that they had a bit of gap without parsing out the international data fully or by looking at other teams.  I mean, to be honest what I was really expecting from my post were more snarky "duh captain obvious" retorts, not "you aren't looking at the whole picture" retorts.  Regardless, if you can't count on your development system to give you these players, then where do you turn?  Most teams turn to FA, but the Sox have been trying to do a thing where they are more frugal in FA or are going with "deep depth" instead of "high value tied into single player" methodologies.
 
I guess this ties up in an overall theme that I think it is natural for there to be ebbs and flows in talent, and what has taken the Sox into the pit they are now is trying to overcome those and trying to compete year in and year out.  For instance the 2009-2011 era where perhaps they would have been better off keeping their talent instead of trying to make incremental runs.  It's hard to say any single decision is wrong or that they shouldn't have done things like the VMart trade (which I still really like), but it does illustrate how those decisions start to affect downstream organizational stability.  Theo at least seemed to understand that (or convinced his superiors, whatever) and was willing to give market contracts to players in their late primes to make up for the fact the gaps in cost controlled players (or take advantage of the ones they did have in order to pay others).  Obviously this also takes a toll - without the Punto trade who knows where the Red Sox would be (maybe better in 2015, but certainly worse in 2013)) and you can also argue that 2011 was not really the right time for them to make that gigantic splash (obviously hindsight is our friend, but simply re-signing Beltre and letting Nava take LF would certainly have not affected the team too much in the negative, and they would still have Rizzo and a lot of money).  
 
Similarly, this year was probably one to take stock of assets and figure them out (instead of the month or two they did last year after they gave up) rather than trying to piece together a team of misfit toys, largely because they came into the year with only a couple of veterans in their prime (Pedroia, Buchholz).  They did an admirable job of trying to get guys to fill out the team who were in their 20s, but of course there are questions about the choices they actually made.  I know Snod will follow up with (yet) another apologist point about the individual decisions and how they made sense at the time, etc. and I am happy to admit that there was no way to see the trainwreck this season would be.  But, at the end of the day, you have to get premium talent somewhere.  Signing the B list FAs only works if you have A list guys in their primes (2013 was a result of the B listers outperforming PLUS getting good results from a very solid core of guys in their primes).
 
Regardless, the post is meant as a snapshot.  It's really hard to compete when you do not have in prime players performing at high levels.  Maybe it doesn't condemn anyone but in my mind it does condemn the plan for this year since their best veterans were post-prime or late prime and there weren't enough of them to build a solid foundation.  So, taking soooo many risks at such a high cost was probably not appropriate.  
 
But let me go off-tangent a bit, and this is unfortunately directed at you, Snod.
 
People criticize the off-season and it's "every move made sense, it just didn't work out."
People criticize the major league scouting and it's "but the metrics looked good"
People criticize the development team and it's "yeah but Mookie and Xander!"
People criticize the manager and it's "what can the manager really do."
 
Somewhere between all of these things not being wrong the Sox are playing sub .450 ball for the last 250 games while spending a shitton of money.  This doesn't mean there is a witch hunt or that people need to be fired and there needs to be some huge upheaval, but I think it is reasonable to talk about what went right and wrong, whether the entire organization has a strategy and executes it, and what they could possibly do better going forward.
 
If we aren't allowed to criticize that, and it's all just luck of the draw, then why are we even here?  Shut down the .com, shut down the forum, it's all over, we'll go back to rolling dice while Branch Rickey rolls in his grave.

 

[smastroyin]

Another thing that Snod's list really gets to.  Value in the development system comes from high performance players.
 
In other words, there may be almost no value to trying to find "high floor" type prospects in the upper rounds of the draft.  They burn out at the same rate as high variance players and they don't give you the upside when they do make it.  Of course, they do often make good trade bait.  In this way, a Trey Ball pick is far more defensible than a Kolbrin Vitek, for instance.
 
I guess that's a "future thing to look at" more than a real point.  My kingdom for the time I used to have to spend on these things.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I was poking around google this morning, read the three below articles, and realized something. 
 
1.) from 10/25/2011:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/26028424/
 
2.) from 3/10/2013: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2013/03/10/assistant-general-manager-mike-hazen-driven-help-get-red-sox-track/r8LWpItM6e1EqSlE3paiQO/story.html
 
3.) from 8/1/2014: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/08/01/mike-hazen-on-dc-other-offers-red-sox-fielded-were-prospect-related-deals/
 
 
 
My realization was this: Mike Hazen's almost 6-year tenure as farm director (2/2006 - 10/2011) coincides precisely to the starting and ending points of smastroyin's "fallow period" during which the Red Sox' US amateur draft acquisitions produced next-to-nothing for the MLB club (Lester, Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Lowrie were all pre-2006 signees).
 
Furthermore,  the most productive assets acquired from the US amateur drafts during Hazen's tenure (Masterson, Reddick, Rizzo, and Miguel Gonzalez as a Rule 5 draftee) all provided the vast majority of their MLB value after being traded away for "established MLB players" who had been developed by other organizations. Or as in the case of Miguel Gonzalez, having been simply released.
 
I think the entire FO "brain trust" must go in full, by October if not earlier. Housecleaning must all three of Cherington, Baird, and Hazen all together. Correlation may not equal causation, but from a results-based standpoint, Hazen has to be included with THE HEAD OF ALLARD BAIRD as part of the problem, too.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But let me go off-tangent a bit, and this is unfortunately directed at you, Snod.
 
People criticize the off-season and it's "every move made sense, it just didn't work out."
People criticize the major league scouting and it's "but the metrics looked good"
People criticize the development team and it's "yeah but Mookie and Xander!"
People criticize the manager and it's "what can the manager really do."
 
Somewhere between all of these things not being wrong the Sox are playing sub .450 ball for the last 250 games while spending a shitton of money.  This doesn't mean there is a witch hunt or that people need to be fired and there needs to be some huge upheaval, but I think it is reasonable to talk about what went right and wrong, whether the entire organization has a strategy and executes it, and what they could possibly do better going forward.
 
If we aren't allowed to criticize that, and it's all just luck of the draw, then why are we even here?  Shut down the .com, shut down the forum, it's all over, we'll go back to rolling dice while Branch Rickey rolls in his grave.

 
No reason to call it unfortunate for you to address me directly. I tend to have a more positive outlook than most posters, and that's fine to point out. Lately I've been mostly focused on the backlash against the off season additions, but I've never said they aren't worth criticizing. I just tend to buck back against the position that they never made sense in the first place. I was never that excited about Panda. In fact, I was against it early on. I kept listing Hanley to third, Donaldson and Headley as things I'd rather see happen before they actually signed him. He's played poorly, but I don't think it's incorrect to point out that no one saw him playing *this* badly. It's worth criticizing, but I don't think you can make a credible argument that it was a terrible move at the time he was signed without the benefit of hindsight, and that just isn't that interesting to me. I also don't think it's fair to write him off as sunk cost yet. He has up and down years and has dealt with a couple of injuries this year. He could very well have a solid season next year, or even finish strong this year. Criticism is fine. Extreme, post hoc positions that rely entirely on hindsight are uninteresting and unproductive, IMO. I'm just using Panda as an example here, I don't intend to get into it about him here as well. There's a thread for that already.
 
As for the major league scouts/metrics, I don't see why it's a problem to point out that there are statistical indications that players may well improve going forward. Yes, they are playing like shit the last season and a half. That doesn't mean there aren't reasons to be optimistic about bounce backs or growth going forward. Is it okay to point out the downside but not to point out the potential upside? This board would get very boring if only the downside was okay to discuss. This season is depressing enough. If all we'll get to read here is "This team sucks." "This front office is garbage." and "They are years away from being competitive" I think many of us would be likely to slit our wrists before we get to September. Baseball is supposed to be fun and hope springs eternal... especially in the spring.
 
The criticism of the development team rings very hollow to me, though. The fact that they've developed Xander and Mookie (and Swihart), and apparently fixed Eduardo are big data points in that evaluation. They also currently have the the best farm system in the game according to MLB.com and ESPN. I don't really see how the development team can be considered anything but a positive at this point, but hey, that's why the board exists in the first place. People disagree and discussions happen.
 
The manager stuff I don't really get into much. I think the "Worst tactical manager in the game" stuff is over the top, but I'm not really a Farrell apologist. I think there are indications he does some stuff very well, even if I have to concede that he never really appears all that great from the dugout, but I don't think the Sox would be shooting themselves in the foot to fire him at the end of the year.
 
The final point you make is one I don't think is fair, though. I've never told anyone they aren't allowed to have negative opinions. Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as telling people they aren't allowed to think what they think. I think this is a problem well beyond the borders of SoSH, but it's like we've forgotten how to disagree. If someone doesn't throw a +1 at our posts we tend to take it personally or as "There is only one acceptable way to think about this!" when the reality is that a difference of opinion is nothing more than a difference of opinion. Yes, we post to persuade but the whole concept of "exchanging ideas" seems to be lost. It's about winning arguments and I'm not sure who to blame for that, but we all do it.
 
So criticize the organization all you want. I will never say that it shouldn't be allowed. I might disagree with some aspects of that criticism, some very strongly, but please don't ever take that to mean I think you or anyone else should stop posting. If I think someone should stop posting, I'll tell them I think they should stop posting.
 
This was a very long post, and I apologize for that, but I thought it warranted a thorough response. I'll step back and let the thread do its thing now.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

And to expand on the US drafts listing, Tazawa, Iglesias, and Bogaerts are the only players to have been acquired on the international market before the 2011 signing period, were developed in-house in the minor leagues, and who have made a significant contribution at the MLB level.

 

[smastroyin]

Yeah, the international thing is strange anyway.  Clearly a guy like Dice-K or Castillo is not a peer with a draftee.  Nor is he a peer with Tazawa or Bogaerts.  I consider them more like major league FAs than products of a development system.
 
For guys the system truly develops, the timeframe has to be a bit different because international signees are also not really peers with draftees, as they are most often 2-5 years younger.  So the comparable timeframe has to be adjusted.
 
Again, if I had a lot more time, a more detailed look would be in order, as well as a comparison to other teams.  But my intuitive guess is that hardly any team manages to be competitive without either "overspending" on FA or having years of high draft picks.  Yes, it is not piecing together the entire puzzle to ignore international guys, but for instance, of the top 30 position players by wOBA only 5 were IFA, and one of those is Jose Abreu who fits more with the Dice-K group.  For pitchers, of the top 30 starters by FIP, only 3 were IFA.  That's not to say IFA isn't a good source for talent, but it's not close to half the picture or anything like that.
 
Snod, thanks for the thoughtful response.  I will apologize for a one-line type response to it.  Most of what you are saying is true when looking at details.  But baseball, which can be sublime in its simplicity (hence why we have so many nice ways to model it) is also not so simple as to be a sequential chain of details.  There are links back and forth, there are interactions between decisions.  Point being, it can be easy to lose the forest for the trees.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I don't have time right now, but it would definitely be interesting to see how smas' list looks including IFA's and going back to 2002.

It's kind of been done already. Here is a post that judges farm systems from 2003-2012 - http://www.brewcrewball.com/2015/6/8/8733041/2015-mlb-draft-brewers-among-best-at-drafting-from-2003-2012 - and the Red Sox were #1. I also recently saw a article about developing value from 2010 to 2014 - I can't find it again but I'm still looking - and IIRC, that article had the Red Sox first for developing major league players, although almost all of the value came from players who were not playing for the Red Sox.

edit: the article from 2014 is here: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/which-teams-are-hitting-and-missing-in-mlb-draft-060314. It turns out the RS and the Reds were second and first in drafting between 2010-14 when analyzed by major league WARP.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I was poking around google this morning, read the three below articles, and realized something. 
 
1.) from 10/25/2011:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/26028424/
 
2.) from 3/10/2013: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2013/03/10/assistant-general-manager-mike-hazen-driven-help-get-red-sox-track/r8LWpItM6e1EqSlE3paiQO/story.html
 
3.) from 8/1/2014: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/08/01/mike-hazen-on-dc-other-offers-red-sox-fielded-were-prospect-related-deals/
 
 
 
My realization was this: Mike Hazen's almost 6-year tenure as farm director (2/2006 - 10/2011) coincides precisely to the starting and ending points of smastroyin's "fallow period" during which the Red Sox' US amateur draft acquisitions produced next-to-nothing for the MLB club (Lester, Papelbon, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Lowrie were all pre-2006 signees).
 
Furthermore,  the most productive assets acquired from the US amateur drafts during Hazen's tenure (Masterson, Reddick, Rizzo, and Miguel Gonzalez as a Rule 5 draftee) all provided the vast majority of their MLB value after being traded away for "established MLB players" who had been developed by other organizations. Or as in the case of Miguel Gonzalez, having been simply released.
 
I think the entire FO "brain trust" must go in full, by October if not earlier. Housecleaning must all three of Cherington, Baird, and Hazen all together. Correlation may not equal causation, but from a results-based standpoint, Hazen has to be included with THE HEAD OF ALLARD BAIRD as part of the problem, too.

 
Theo's gorilla suit resignation was at end of 2005, and if we believe that there were org structure and role changes as a result (as has been reported) that corresponds with this decline as well.   Correlation is not necessarily causation, though...

 

[smastroyin]

It's kind of been done already. Here is a post that judges farm systems from 2003-2012 - http://www.brewcrewball.com/2015/6/8/8733041/2015-mlb-draft-brewers-among-best-at-drafting-from-2003-2012 - and the Red Sox were #1. I also recently saw a article about developing value from 2010 to 2014 - I can't find it again but I'm still looking - and IIRC, that article had the Red Sox first for developing major league players, although almost all of the value came from players who were not playing for the Red Sox.

edit: the article from 2014 is here: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/which-teams-are-hitting-and-missing-in-mlb-draft-060314. It turns out the RS and the Reds were second and first in drafting between 2010-14 when analyzed by major league WARP.

 
Yeah, but going back that far misses my point.  I'm talking about the present team.  Much of that draft value fueled the 2007-2013 teams.  That's super great but not relevant much to the current position of the 2015 team.  As well, it does include guys who did not sign.
 
The bulk of the Red Sox draft WAR comes from (10+ WAR players), value accumulated with Sox in Bold, 2015 value to Sox (including trade) in italics
 
2002:  Lester (33.2, 30.7, -0.7 (Porcello)) 31 years old, on the Cubs.  Plus 1.3 of Cespedes last year.
2003:  Papelbon (24.2, 16.2, 0) 34 years old, on the Nats.  
2004:  Pedroia (44.5, 44.5, 1.4) 31 years old
2005:  Ellsbury (26.0, 18.1, 0) 31 years old, on the Yankees, Buchholz (15.2, 15.2, 2.3) 30 years old, still here
2006:  Reddick (15.0, 1.6, 0) 28 years old, but on the A's.  Belt (11.3, 0, 0), 26 years old, but not signed by the Red Sox.
2007:  Rizzo (14.3, 0, 0.9(giving full credit to Rizzo for ending up with Miley, which isn't accurate in any sense)) 25 years old, but on the Cubs.  
 
So, 183.7, 111.1, 3.9
 
So, I mean, obvious man making the same obvious point again, but filling in the gaps when the team had Lester/Papelbon/Pedroia/Ellsbury/Buchholz playing at a high level was a lot easier and big reason they won 90+ games year after year.
 
On a side note, the Sox are also super good at finding high school catchers.  On top of Swihart and Vazquez they drafted but did not sign Yan Gomes, Yasmani Grandal, and Jason Castro.  Maybe they should just get in that business and trade C prospects for others.*
 
* - this is a joke, not a serious idea

 

[jscola85]

Rizzo I can't feel bad about because we got fair value for him.  Reddick is the one that really smarts.  It was a totally unnecessary move and having him around likely prevents a whole host of other misadventures in free agency the team has done in order to shore up organizational holes in the outfield.  Trading a kid with 4+ years of team control who had proven he could succeed at the MLB level in Boston for an injury-prone reliever has turned out to be one of the bigger failures by Cherington.

 

[AbbyNoho]

In some ways, it seems like that trade was a reaction to missing out on Teixeira, in the same way that Castillo was signed because they didn't land Abreu

 
I agree the Gonzalez trade was a poor one, but with regards to the Castillo comment there is nothing to back this up beyond your own bias against the team. You simply have no possible way of knowing this and it is asinine to imply that you do.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

In hindsight, the Gonzalez trade was a big mistake. Rizzo was an average first basemen immediately, and became Gonzalez's equal within a few years. They traded a lot to get Gonzalez; and gave him a free agent type contract immediately. In some ways, it seems like that trade was a reaction to missing out on Teixeira, in the same way that Castillo was signed because they didn't land Abreu. I was certainly for the Gonzalez trade at the time, but it wasn't a great move. Moves like the Bailey and Melancon deals suggest the Sox focused way too much on what the guys they traded away couldn't do and not what they could. In recent history, I think the Sox have been far too pessimistic about their own players and optimistic about others.

 
I don't know. In the abstract it was a mistake, perhaps. In terms of WAR/$ or whatever. But given where the rest of the roster was, isn't there something to be said for the "time value" of having Gonzalez in the present over Rizzo in the future? That team was largely in its prime or about to move on, the proverbial iron was hot.
Crawford was a poor investment of resources, sure. But I have a hard time looking at the Rizzo trade as one you don't make.

 

[jscola85]

Rizzo was a very good prospect but he's achieving at about the best possible outcome from even his most optimistic scouting reports.  AGon was and remains an excellent player and was well worth it.  This seems like lamenting in 2008 that Hanley became a star after using him to acquire Beckett.  Just because Gonzalez then had to be shipped out to break free from Carl Crawford doesn't mean the deal to acquire him was not sound.

 

[twothousandone]

In hindsight, the Gonzalez trade was a big mistake.

Because prospects always turn into excellent major leaguers? That's that hindsight problem. In 2011, BA had Eric Hosmer at #8, Freddie Freeman at #17. Is Hosmer for Gonzalez a bad deal? Freeman? Rizzo has performed at the top end of expectations. But Gonzalez doesn't suck. Why was it a mistake, in hindsight?
 

On a side note, the Sox are also super good at finding high school catchers.

is it equally accurate to say the Sox have drafted a relative handful of catching prospects who have ended up as decent major leaguers? Are the Sox good at it? Or were the people doing the scouting good at it? Or was it luck?  Sample sizes matter, don't they?

 

[smastroyin]

 
is it equally accurate to say the Sox have drafted a relative handful of catching prospects who have ended up as decent major leaguers? Are the Sox good at it? Or were the people doing the scouting good at it? Or was it luck?  Sample sizes matter, don't they?

 
Thanks for the lesson, professor, but it was a damn joke based on the fact that 4 of 30 current major league starting catchers were drafted by the Red Sox (and some people love Vaz as well).
 
I love when people assume I'm stupid.  It's really great.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The Gonzalez trade was driven by two main issues, and it addressed them both.

First, acquiring Gonzalez provided the Sox with someone worthy of succession planning for Ortiz as a #3 LHH with a good swing for Fenway.

Second, it provided the Sox with a gold-glove caliber 1B who had proven more durable than Youkilis.

The trade accomplished both things, though the Sox' plan A had obviously been to sign Teixeira. Even with Rizzo's success I still think it was a good trade.

I absolutely do agree the Sox have proven too pessimistic about their own players, in that they seem to look at what their unproven guys "can't" do, while what other teams' established players "can" do appears to set the basis for trade costs and FA contract valuations.

[EDIT 2:] In hindsight, the Sox should have made the trade for Gonzalez, signed Beltre for 3B, and traded Youkilis, Kalish, Pimentel, and Ranaudo to KC for Alex Gordon, Zach Greinke, and Aaron Crow. (smart phone, my ass...)

 

[Doctor G]

Should the team reevaluate their offensive approach in light of the production at the major league level as well as at AAA.
Reading this article from last spring are we behind the trend http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/03/31/mlb-hitting-offense-shifts-pitching/70743132/

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Yeah, but going back that far misses my point.  I'm talking about the present team.  Much of that draft value fueled the 2007-2013 teams.  That's super great but not relevant much to the current position of the 2015 team.  As well, it does include guys who did not sign.
 

 
I only went back to 2002 because Snod mentioned it.  I agree that it doesn't have much to do with the current state of affairs.
 
OTOH, when I was looking at why the Red Sox hadn't been able to develop any players recently, I thought it was because they hadn't drafted well.  As it turns out, it doesn't seem like that's true - it seems that the Red Sox have comparatively drafted or signed guys in an above average/good/very good manner.  And I think the key to why the RS have gotten to this place lies in this statement that you made:
 

I guess this ties up in an overall theme that I think it is natural for there to be ebbs and flows in talent, and what has taken the Sox into the pit they are now is trying to overcome those and trying to compete year in and year out. 

 
Since the new draft and international player signing system have been implemented, and the fact that teams are flush with money and locking up the players they really want, I've been really interested in the last couple of years about how the RS are going to build their teams going forward.  Without really studying it, I would think that teams with high draft picks over a several year period are going to have a huge advantage over the other teams (with the possible exception of teams like the Dodgers and MFY who don't seem to be bothered by the dead money that comes with premium free agents). 
 
So personally, the last two seasons don't really bother me - I'd rather see the Red Sox have a terrible record than be mired at the .500 level for multiple seasons.
 
Other than draft order, the new system seems to make talent acquisition pretty level (I'm skeptical that any one team has a discernible edge in drafting and developing players).  If that's correct, then I think your ebb and flow model is accurate and we (and the front office) should get used to multiple years of suck between periods of success.
 
Unless, of course, the RS can figure out something else that will give them a competitive advantage.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
I only went back to 2002 because Snod mentioned it.  I agree that it doesn't have much to do with the current state of affairs.
 
OTOH, when I was looking at why the Red Sox hadn't been able to develop any players recently, I thought it was because they hadn't drafted well.  As it turns out, it doesn't seem like that's true - it seems that the Red Sox have comparatively drafted or signed guys in an above average/good/very good manner.  And I think the key to why the RS have gotten to this place lies in this statement that you made:
 
 
Since the new draft and international player signing system have been implemented, and the fact that teams are flush with money and locking up the players they really want, I've been really interested in the last couple of years about how the RS are going to build their teams going forward.  Without really studying it, I would think that teams with high draft picks over a several year period are going to have a huge advantage over the other teams (with the possible exception of teams like the Dodgers and MFY who don't seem to be bothered by the dead money that comes with premium free agents). 
 
So personally, the last two seasons don't really bother me - I'd rather see the Red Sox have a terrible record than be mired at the .500 level for multiple seasons.
 
Other than draft order, the new system seems to make talent acquisition pretty level (I'm skeptical that any one team has a discernible edge in drafting and developing players).  If that's correct, then I think your ebb and flow model is accurate and we (and the front office) should get used to multiple years of suck between periods of success.
 
Unless, of course, the RS can figure out something else that will give them a competitive advantage.

Since the rules have changed to prohibit rampant over-slot bonuses, the Red Sox have clearly shifted their attention from the US amateur draft to acquiring prime prospects from the international market. The ridiculous amount of money paid Castillo and Moncada is merely the obvious example.

However, I've also started to think the Sox were markedly below average at drafting and development during Hazen's tenure as farm director. Not sure why, of course. But the Sox hit on a remarkably small subset of the players signed during 2007-2010. And that was during the period the Sox were able to throw money around like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

Aside from the first 1-5 picks, give or take, in the first round, a focus on draft order seems way overblown to me. In a system where Mike Trout can be drafted 25th, and Giancarlo Stanton taken 76th, no team really has a right to complain.

 

[Drek717]

Because prospects always turn into excellent major leaguers? That's that hindsight problem. In 2011, BA had Eric Hosmer at #8, Freddie Freeman at #17. Is Hosmer for Gonzalez a bad deal? Freeman? Rizzo has performed at the top end of expectations. But Gonzalez doesn't suck. Why was it a mistake, in hindsight?
 

The Gonzalez deal was a mistake from the jump and it required zero hindsight to know that.
 
Kevin Youkilis was a top 10 MVP vote recipient in 2008 and 2009.  His OPS+ went up in 2010 but he played in ~30 fewer games.
 
Adrian Beltre exploded in Boston and got a free agent contract comparable to what JD Drew got several years before.
 
Instead of maintaining the status quo of a gold glove >.900 OPS player at each of the corners the FO decided to get cute and shipped their two best prospects out of town so they could give Gonzalez a contract with an AAV nearly equal to what those other two guys made together, for far more years, and in the process forcing Youkilis to shift up the defensive spectrum at age 32.  He still managed 122 games while playing primarily in 2011.
 
So they replaced Adrian Beltre with the less defensively valuable, more expensive, and offensively comparable Gonzalez while significantly increasing wear and tear on Youk, risking a potential rapid decline which did actually come to pass.
 
I think it is well within the realms of reality to suggest that if the Sox had instead resigned Beltre to the same deal he got from Texas (which he probably would have taken since this was the known quantity) Youkilis would have seen several more years of good production before breaking down at 1B, Rizzo would have established himself in the minors as the heir apparent, and 1B would have seen an ideal transition.  We would now be wringing our hands over Cecchini's struggles in AAA as we would have been expecting him to replace Beltre imminently, but we'd now have Devers, Chavis, and Moncada as future options to hedge our bets.  The FO would also have saved about $7M annually and had far less long term commitments, so maybe instead of committing the $15M a year to Lackey they ended up doing after losing out on Holliday they pony up the extra $2M per year and place Matt Holliday in LF for the long term.  Maybe not having that massive long term deal of Gonzalez' sees the FO approve more aggressive bidding on Aroldis Chapman.
 
Who knows, but suggesting the Gonzalez trade is only bad in hindsight isn't accurate.

 

[OCD SS]

Rizzo was the prospect I hated to loose in that deal, but very few people around here that wanted to pay for Beltre's mid-30's, especially as they were looking at a player with a free-swinging offensive profile who's offensive production could take a big drop if his ability to make contact declined (as one would expect with age).

Texeira would also have moved Youk to 3B, and the other factor to consider is the draft picks they got for him in the last hi-spending draft (JBJ and Swihart ?)

 

[williams_482]

The Gonzalez deal was a mistake from the jump and it required zero hindsight to know that.
 
Kevin Youkilis was a top 10 MVP vote recipient in 2008 and 2009.  His OPS+ went up in 2010 but he played in ~30 fewer games.
 
Adrian Beltre exploded in Boston and got a free agent contract comparable to what JD Drew got several years before.
 
Instead of maintaining the status quo of a gold glove >.900 OPS player at each of the corners the FO decided to get cute and shipped their two best prospects out of town so they could give Gonzalez a contract with an AAV nearly equal to what those other two guys made together, for far more years, and in the process forcing Youkilis to shift up the defensive spectrum at age 32.  He still managed 122 games while playing primarily in 2011.
 
So they replaced Adrian Beltre with the less defensively valuable, more expensive, and offensively comparable Gonzalez while significantly increasing wear and tear on Youk, risking a potential rapid decline which did actually come to pass.
 
I think it is well within the realms of reality to suggest that if the Sox had instead resigned Beltre to the same deal he got from Texas (which he probably would have taken since this was the known quantity) Youkilis would have seen several more years of good production before breaking down at 1B, Rizzo would have established himself in the minors as the heir apparent, and 1B would have seen an ideal transition.  We would now be wringing our hands over Cecchini's struggles in AAA as we would have been expecting him to replace Beltre imminently, but we'd now have Devers, Chavis, and Moncada as future options to hedge our bets.  The FO would also have saved about $7M annually and had far less long term commitments, so maybe instead of committing the $15M a year to Lackey they ended up doing after losing out on Holliday they pony up the extra $2M per year and place Matt Holliday in LF for the long term.  Maybe not having that massive long term deal of Gonzalez' sees the FO approve more aggressive bidding on Aroldis Chapman.
 
Who knows, but suggesting the Gonzalez trade is only bad in hindsight isn't accurate.

It's worth noting that in addition to Rizzio doing about as well as anyone could have possibly expected of him, Beltre turned out to be one of the most cost effective "big ticket" free agent signings in recent history. I don't think even Eric Van was that optimistic about him. 
 
None the less, I have to agree with this post. I didn't think much of the Gonzalez trade, which seemed more about acquiring a "big bat" than actually upgrading the team. We paid two top prospects and an extra $60M over two more years to pick up a player who had been worth only 0.9 more fWAR over the past 3 years, and although Beltre was two years older both players were of an age where decline was to be expected. 

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

It's hardly certain that Youkilis's breakdown only came because he moved to 3b. He was always a max effort, hard-charging guy, which you love when it works and regret when it doesn't (see: Pedroia). He also had exactly the kind of profile you'd expect for a rapid decline: marginal athlete, late bloomer, old player skills at a young age, etc.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

The Gonzalez deal was also a massive success in the sense that acquiring an underpaid talent with a year of control allowed the team to sign him to an under-market deal a year before he hit FA. The surplus value in that deal was the only reason they were able to shed the Crawford and Beckett deals.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The Gonzalez deal was also a massive success in the sense that acquiring an underpaid talent with a year of control allowed the team to sign him to an under-market deal a year before he hit FA. The surplus value in that deal was the only reason they were able to shed the Crawford and Beckett deals.

Gonzales' first year at $6.2MM freed up a ton of money for the 2011 club to make other upgrades.

Sure it's a shame that cash was thereafter used to sign Crawford, Lackey, and Jenks instead of Beltre, Pavano, and Koji for less than half as much. However, the upshot is the Sox clearly had money to "improve the team" freed up by paying well below market rates for 1B in 2011, and used it.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Gonzales' first year at $6.2MM freed up a ton of money for the 2011 club to make other upgrades.

Sure it's a shame that cash was thereafter used to sign Crawford, Lackey, and Jenks instead of Beltre, Pavano, and Koji for less than half as much. However, the upshot is the Sox clearly had money to "improve the team" freed up by paying well below market rates for 1B in 2011, and used it.

 
FTFY.  Lackey was signed prior to the 2010 season.  His salary was on the books before Gonzalez ever put on a Red Sox uniform.  The Red Sox didn't sign Pavano or any other starting pitcher prior to the 2011 season because they had Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, and Matsuzaka locked up at least through 2012, Wakefield still hanging around, and reclamation project Andrew Miller waiting in the wings (he made 12 starts in 2011).  That abundance of starting pitching is why they felt they had the cash to sign Carl Crawford and extend Gonzalez when they did.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
FTFY.  Lackey was signed prior to the 2010 season.  His salary was on the books before Gonzalez ever put on a Red Sox uniform.  The Red Sox didn't sign Pavano or any other starting pitcher prior to the 2011 season because they had Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, and Matsuzaka locked up at least through 2012, Wakefield still hanging around, and reclamation project Andrew Miller waiting in the wings (he made 12 starts in 2011).  That abundance of starting pitching is why they felt they had the cash to sign Carl Crawford and extend Gonzalez when they did.

You're right of course, though for some reason I have no recollection of Lackey pitching in 2010. That whole year is just defined for me by Beltre, VMart, and all injuries to Youkilis and Pedroia.

Maybe it's because he was so darn bad the next year, when he was trying to gut through the season on an elbow that was already shredded, that I forgot about his first season as a Sox.

 

[Troy O'Lovely]

One thing that jumps out from the excellent research above is that Clay Buchholz was the last starter we brought through the minors on that list.  Felix Doubront should also count, as he was a starter for two years, but absent him there's no one.  I'll even give Workman an incomplete as if he were healthy this year there's no reason to think they may not have given him another tryout.
My big question is whether this is a failure in scouting or developing?  It just seems unlikely that in all of our highly rated minor league systems, including some guys I've seen succeed in Pawtucket myself, we can't even get someone to give us Wade Miley-level production.  That's not a dig on Miley; it's just to point out that we haven't even developed a pitcher to give us basically league-average 4th starter level production for 200 innings.  In my opinion if we're looking into drafting issues shouldn't we also look into our minor league coaching/development?  We have educated outside sources looking extremely positively at our minor leagues and yet we can't translate that into starting pitching.

 

[WenZink]

One thing that jumps out from the excellent research above is that Clay Buchholz was the last starter we brought through the minors on that list.  Felix Doubront should also count, as he was a starter for two years, but absent him there's no one.  I'll even give Workman an incomplete as if he were healthy this year there's no reason to think they may not have given him another tryout.
My big question is whether this is a failure in scouting or developing?  It just seems unlikely that in all of our highly rated minor league systems, including some guys I've seen succeed in Pawtucket myself, we can't even get someone to give us Wade Miley-level production.  That's not a dig on Miley; it's just to point out that we haven't even developed a pitcher to give us basically league-average 4th starter level production for 200 innings.  In my opinion if we're looking into drafting issues shouldn't we also look into our minor league coaching/development?  We have educated outside sources looking extremely positively at our minor leagues and yet we can't translate that into starting pitching.

 
Yes, I agree that's been the biggest failing, although we should first evaluate the progress of Rodriguez, Johnson and Owens before giving Cherington a failing grade.  Felix Doubront is an interesting case, btw.  From all accounts, he showed a poor work ethic from the start.  The Sox had him in their organization since he was 17.  Given their advantage in understanding the person, why wasn't Doubront traded when his value was high?
 
I look at what Jerry Dipoto did in his 3.5 years in Anaheim in building a starting rotation for the future.  He worked for a meddling owner who insisted on signing Pujols and Hamilton to ridiculous contracts, taking away any payroll flexibility.  And the Angels had a miserable farm system, so there was little to trade.  Yet Dipoto ended up getting Santiago and Tyler Skaggs in a 3-way trade, in which they gave up Mark Trumbo (at the peak of his trade value.)  Then last winter, Dipoto snagged highly-rated Andrew Heaney from the Dodgers, in exchange for the last year of Howie Kendrick's contract.  And in a smaller deal, he moved backup catcher, Hank Conger to the Astros for Nick Tropeano.  That's a great return of potential pitching depth for very little given up, and a net-minus in salary obligations.
 
Dipoto may be "persona non grata" because of his walkout maneuver, but I'd like to see the Sox bring him back to the organization.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

One thing that jumps out from the excellent research above is that Clay Buchholz was the last starter we brought through the minors on that list.  Felix Doubront should also count, as he was a starter for two years, but absent him there's no one.  I'll even give Workman an incomplete as if he were healthy this year there's no reason to think they may not have given him another tryout.
My big question is whether this is a failure in scouting or developing?  It just seems unlikely that in all of our highly rated minor league systems, including some guys I've seen succeed in Pawtucket myself, we can't even get someone to give us Wade Miley-level production.  That's not a dig on Miley; it's just to point out that we haven't even developed a pitcher to give us basically league-average 4th starter level production for 200 innings.  In my opinion if we're looking into drafting issues shouldn't we also look into our minor league coaching/development?  We have educated outside sources looking extremely positively at our minor leagues and yet we can't translate that into starting pitching.

 
The Sox drafted and developed Justin Masterson through AAA, but he pitched for the Indians.
 
The Sox developed Rule 5 pick Miguel Gonzalez from AA-AAA, but he pitched for the Orioles.
 
Including Doubront, that makes three relatively credible MLB starters the Sox have developed in the years between Buchholz and Rodriguez. 
 
That's not great by any standard, but it's actually not nearly as bad as none.  Except, of course, for the fact that two were pitching for other teams instead of the Red Sox, and the third only had two-and-a-half years as a Sox starter before he was traded, too.

 

 

[jtn46]

Rodriguez isn't a point for Cherington or the Sox from a player development standpoint, the Orioles did 90% of the job developing him. He was a great pickup for which Cherington deserves kudos, of course.

 

[Super Nomario]

The Sox developed Rule 5 pick Miguel Gonzalez from AA-AAA, but he pitched for the Orioles.

"Develop" is a stretch here. Gonzalez wasn't with the Red Sox when he was young (he was 26 when they got him), nor when he was good - he had a 5ish ERA with the Sox and only broke out after going to the Orioles.

 

[WenZink]

Rodriguez isn't a point for Cherington or the Sox from a player development standpoint, the Orioles did 90% of the job developing him. He was a great pickup for which Cherington deserves kudos, of course.

 
Wasn't Rodriguez going through a "slump" last summer when he was traded to the Sox organization.  And, where the Orioles had pushed EdRo to have more separation with his change, the Sox told him to just stick with what he had.  Also worked with him on his curve.

 

[alwyn96]

Red Sox Baseball America Farm System ratings:
 
2002 #28
2003 #27
2004 #23
2005 #21
2006 #8
2007 #9
2008 #2
2009 #13 
2010 #5
2011 #17
2012 #9
2013 #6
2014 #2
2015 #2
 
The Red Sox have dramatically improved their farm system lately. Of course, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not sure any key player on the 2004 team was actually drafted by the Red Sox. 
 
EDIT: Well Schilling, duh. Although I guess he was really more acquired in trade. 

 

[alwyn96]

In comparison, the St Louis Cardinals:
 
2002 #30
2003 #28
2004 #28
2005 #30
2006 #21
2007 #23
2008 #16
2009 #8
2010 #29
2011 #24
2012 #10
2013 #1
2014 #7
2015 #16
 
The Cards do seem to have a better time transitioning their prospects to MLB, though. Carpenter wasn't thought that highly of as a prospect but really turned into a star. Wong's been solid, and Lynn/Wacha/Martinez/Rosenthal seemed pretty excellent right out of the gate. Miller, too, although St Louis probably made a mistake in trading him to Atlanta. 

 

[Sampo Gida]

The Gonzalez deal was also a massive success in the sense that acquiring an underpaid talent with a year of control allowed the team to sign him to an under-market deal a year before he hit FA. The surplus value in that deal was the only reason they were able to shed the Crawford and Beckett deals.

 
It was a short term success though, since they gave up Anthony Rizzo to acquire him.  The same scout that was responsible for Gonzalez getting signed by the Marlins said at the time Rizzo reminded him of Gonzalez.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=edes_gordon&id=6110724
 
Rizzo put up a 116 OPS+ in his first year in 2012 while Agon put up a 117 OPS+.  The rest is history.  Even with Adrians bounce back year this year Rizzo has been the better player and is much cheaper than even Napoli and controlled through 2021

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

"Develop" is a stretch here. Gonzalez wasn't with the Red Sox when he was young (he was 26 when they got him), nor when he was good - he had a 5ish ERA with the Sox and only broke out after going to the Orioles.

I disagree. Gonzalez was a late sign. Almost all his pre-injury development in A-ball with the Angels was as a reliever (ages 21-23). Then he sat out his entire age 24 and 25 seasons with injury. Boston thereafter developed him with his "new" arm post-TJ surgery as a starter.

The Sox weren't responsible for all his development, but they did teach him how to be a starter. Or, perhaps the Sox system taught him how not to be a starter...like has happened with most all the team's other pitching prospects.

I suppose we'll have to wait for the.memoirs.

 

[ji oh]

Red Sox Baseball America Farm System ratings:
 
2002 #28
2003 #27
2004 #23
2005 #21
2006 #8
2007 #9
2008 #2
2009 #13 
2010 #5
2011 #17
2012 #9
2013 #6
2014 #2
2015 #2
 
The Red Sox have dramatically improved their farm system lately. Of course, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm not sure any key player on the 2004 team was actually drafted by the Red Sox. 
 
EDIT: Well Schilling, duh. Although I guess he was really more acquired in trade. 

 
Trott Nixon only played in 1/3 of the games but hit well, played good D, and had a good WS.