BA's Top 10 Red Sox Prospects

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
1. Bogaerts
2. Owens
3. Bradley
4. Webster
5. Swihart
6. Cecchini
7. Betts
8. Workman
9. Barnes
10. Ball

Yet as captivating a run as the major league squad offered, the activity beneath that surface proved nearly as compelling. The Red Sox enjoyed a year of striking progress in their farm system, with top prospects taking steps forward in lockstep.

Both shortstop Xander Bogaerts and righthander Brandon Workman assumed significant postseason roles, but behind them, Boston’s top prospects produced a wealth of all-star seasons across levels that suggested the possibility of homegrown depth in the coming years.

The emergence of Bogaerts (with 2012 first-rounder Deven Marrero not far behind) rendered Jose Iglesias expendable at the trade deadline. Third baseman Garin Cecchini led the minors with a .443 on-base percentage, giving the Red Sox a depth of talent on the left side of the infield that few can rival.



It's subscriber content so I'm not including the entire write up or the scouting reports, but needless to say, they love the system.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
I note that the talent is so deep that Christian Vazquez doesn't appear on the list.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Soxprospects.com has Vazquez at #13, Ranaudo at #6, and Workman at #11.  The Soxprospects full top 20:
 
1. SS Bogaerts
2. OF Bradley
3. 3b Cecchini
4. SP Owens
5. SP Barnes
6. SP Ranaudo
7. SP Webster
8. C Swihart
9. SP Ball
10. 2b Betts
11. SP Workman
12. RP Britton
13. C Vazquez
14. OF Margot
15. SP Johnson
16. SP Stankiewicz
17. SS Marrero
18. OF Brentz
19. C Denney
20. 2b Rijo
 
I have to believe Boston's top 13 prospects or so form as fine a top group as virtually any organization in baseball.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
Sprowl said:
I note that the talent is so deep that Christian Vazquez doesn't appear on the list.
 
 
Joshv02 said:
Anthony Ranaudo doesn't appear on that list, and he was #37 at the mid-season review...after which he was promoted to AAA, and had a 2.97 ERA with a 3:1 SO/BB ratio and one HR allowed.  Yet, he checks in at #11. 
 
By the way, the free version is here: http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2014-boston-red-sox-top-10-prospects/
 
Based on their list of top 15 players under 25, Raunaudo, Vasquez, and Margot would have been next on the list.
 
They slot Middlebrooks after Swihart and de la Rosa after Betts:
 
1.       Bogaerts
2.       Owens
3.       JBJ
4.       Webster
5.       Swihart
6.       WMB
7.       Cecchini
8.       Betts
9.       de la Rosa
10.   Workman
11.   Barnes
12.   Ball
13.   Ranaudo
14.   Vasquez
15.   Margot 
 
 

LostinNJ

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
479
I think they're underestimating Cecchini. I know, I know -- doesn't project a lot of power, and there are questions about his glove. But he gets on base. His ability not to make outs makes him a sure bet to thrive in the majors. He reminds me of someone . . . who could it be? Let's see . . . third baseman, great on base skills, not much power, not a great rep as a fielder, not getting a lot of respect . . . 
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
LostinNJ said:
I think they're underestimating Cecchini. I know, I know -- doesn't project a lot of power, and there are questions about his glove. But he gets on base. His ability not to make outs makes him a sure bet to thrive in the majors. He reminds me of someone . . . who could it be? Let's see . . . third baseman, great on base skills, not much power, not a great rep as a fielder, not getting a lot of respect . . .
Agreed. Must be the old ceiling/floor debate between him and Swihart. Cecchini clearly has the higher floor in that I'd be shocked if he doesn't make it to the Bigs, and play regularly. I'm not entirely confident, although pretty confident, yet on Swihart, but if he progresses and reaches his full potential, he could be a real stud. A young defensive-minded catcher who can also hit is more valuable than an on-base machine, ok fielding corner infielder.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The way to think about BA vs other rankings are that BA puts more weight on upside so you will see guys like Swihart ahead of guys like Cecchini.
 
Let's say Swihart has a 10% chance of being a star, a 20% chance of being an above average starter, a 35% chance of being a starter, a 50% chance of some major league career, and a 50% chance he doesn't make it.
Cecchini may have be 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 25% but BA would rank Swihart higher just based on the star potential.
 
This is a large part of what Swihart is also so far ahead of Vazquez, I would think.
 
To tell the truth though, while there is a lot of depth, I think from 4-12 or so you could also put the names in a hat and pull them out, they are all so close to each other.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
LostinNJ said:
I think they're underestimating Cecchini. I know, I know -- doesn't project a lot of power, and there are questions about his glove. But he gets on base. His ability not to make outs makes him a sure bet to thrive in the majors. He reminds me of someone . . . who could it be? Let's see . . . third baseman, great on base skills, not much power, not a great rep as a fielder, not getting a lot of respect . . . 
He was #41 at midseason, and Speier indicatd that there is a very good chance he'll be a top 100 prospect before 2014.  I'd suspect that the Red Sox have as many as 7 top 75 prospects, with another 3-4 in the 76-125 range.  (Again, Ranaudo is at #11 and he was a #37 at midseason - though Speier indicated that the drop was b/c of his inability to miss bats.)
 
Being #6 in a system where 7 guys are reasonably likely of being top 100 prospects seems like a solid place to be.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
In his chat on the Sox system yesterday, Speier said that the plan with Betts in 2014 is to get him time all over the diamond and hopefully turn him into another Zobrist (as we've been suggesting since he blew up this year).
 
Also said that new bonus baby Rafael Devers dazzled at Fall Instrux and may have more offensive upside than anyone in the system not named Xander.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
Jed Zeppelin said:
In his chat on the Sox system yesterday, Speier said that the plan with Betts in 2014 is to get him time all over the diamond and hopefully turn him into another Zobrist (as we've been suggesting since he blew up this year).
 
Also said that new bonus baby Rafael Devers dazzled at Fall Instrux and may have more offensive upside than anyone in the system not named Xander.
 
Thanks - the bit on Devers made a grey and snowy day a lot sunnier!
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
LostinNJ said:
I think they're underestimating Cecchini. I know, I know -- doesn't project a lot of power, and there are questions about his glove. But he gets on base. His ability not to make outs makes him a sure bet to thrive in the majors. He reminds me of someone . . . who could it be? Let's see . . . third baseman, great on base skills, not much power, not a great rep as a fielder, not getting a lot of respect . . . 
I'm with you here and even if he ends up a poor man's version of the chicken man that would be just fine too.
 

LostinNJ

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
479
I was thinking of Boggs, but it's helpful to note that we have other examples in team history. Lansford, of course, was not our prospect, but Youkilis is a great example of a guy whose demonstrated skills were undervalued by the industry.
 

The Tax Man

really digs the Beatles
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2009
735
Mansfield, MA
I was thinking Bill Mueller as the guy with good OBP, not much power, and was underrated.  Although Mueller's defense was at least solid and he did have a decent rep as a fielder. 
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I was 1000% sure you meant Bagwell.

Bagwell Age 22(AA) 333/422/457
Boggs Age 21(AA) 325/420/377
Youkilis. Age 23(A/AA) 310/436/424
Cecchini Age 22(A/AA) 322/443/471

The key here is to not trade Cecchini for one month of a middle reliever.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Phew... i was worried he was talking about Scott Cooper!
Anyhow, it's exciting that a defending WS champion has this much talent in the minors.  Of that top 10, we will graduate 3 of them in 2014 (and possibly Webster) but it looks like the "next wave" could keep the system in the upper tier compared to the rest of MLB.
"$100 million player development machine" indeed
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
steveluck7 said:
Phew... i was worried he was talking about Scott Cooper!
Anyhow, it's exciting that a defending WS champion has this much talent in the minors.  Of that top 10, we will graduate 3 of them in 2014 (and possibly Webster) but it looks like the "next wave" could keep the system in the upper tier compared to the rest of MLB.
"$100 million player development machine" indeed
That 2-time All Star Scott Cooper to you. 
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
steveluck7 said:
Phew... i was worried he was talking about Scott Cooper!
...
 
Regarding Scott Cooper...he hit 45 doubles as a 20 year-old in high-A at a time when the buzz was that doubles were a good measure of future power for young minor leaguers. And, gee, in 1989, who was BBA's number one prospect on the Red Sox? Oh, look at 1990.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
Wow, the late 90s was a barren time for the farm system.  You could make an argument that the 98-2000 top 10 lists produced two decent major leaguers- Trot and Adam Everett.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Ohka and Hillenbrand were decent for a while.  1985 was a mess though, Steve Lyons and his 1.9 career WAR leading the way.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
moondog80 said:
Ohka and Hillenbrand were decent for a while.  1985 was a mess though, Steve Lyons and his 1.9 career WAR leading the way.
 
Hillenbrand was not decent for a while. He was shitty his entire career and occasionally got lucky.
 
That we were able to get Kim for him was amazing.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
From 2002-2005 Hillenbrand was 294/334/460 over 2479 plate appearances.  It was a crazy offense era so his OPS+  was only 103, but that's plenty decent from a cost-controlled guy.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Merkle's Boner said:
Wow, the late 90s was a barren time for the farm system.  You could make an argument that the 98-2000 top 10 lists produced two decent major leaguers- Trot and Adam Everett.
 
What you say is true, but the system had just graduated a franchise player in Garciaparra and sent some decent pitching prospects out the door for Martinez. That context changes the picture somewhat. 
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Alex Speier, did a minor details podcast with Jim Callis talking about the Sox top 10.
 
He had the players grouped this way:
 
#1. Bogaerts - no explanation necessary.
 
#2/3. Owens and Bradley - he gave Owens the nod based on a ceiling of a top #2 starter.  Callis would have rated Bradley higher on the basis of defense/OBP/some pop.  Callis described Bradley as a better defender than Ellsbury right now, with the potential for better OBP and power than Ellsbury.  Callis also descrined Owens as "The Most Unhittable LHP in the Minors", but noted that he sits 90-91 with the fastball which is not elite.
 
#4/5/6/7. Webster/Swihart/Cecchini/Betts.  Speier put Webster 4th because he, unlike anyone else the Sox have in the minors, has ace-level stuff, although he may never reach the level.  Callis described Swihart as "The Buster Posey Starter Kit".  Speier considers Betts to have better tools than Cecchini, but rated Cecchini higher based on his hit tool and makeup.  Callis would have had Cecchini at #4.
 
#8/9/10/11/12. Barnes/Workman/Ball/Ranaudo/Vazquez. Workman lost his rookie status due to service time but did not pitch enough innings or relief appearances to to lose BA prospect status. Callis and Speier both compared Barnes to Michael Wacha, in that his best pitches were fastball and changeup, while the curve needed work.  Ball made it as an upside play - higher ceiling than Owens, possible future ace.  Ranaudo or Vazquez would have filled out the top 10 had Workman not been eligible.
 
Manuel Margot was top 15, Stankiewicz was the only other 2013 draftee to make the top 30, Rafael Devers also made the top 30, and Sean Coyle got #31.    
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
Eddie Jurak said:
Alex Speier, did a minor details podcast with Jim Callis talking about the Sox top 10.
...
Callis and Speier both compared Barnes to Michael Wacha, in that his best pitches were fastball and changeup, while the curve needed work.    
 
This is an interesting comment, since it is the first time I remember him receiving praise for anything but the fastball. If he really has upgraded his changeup to a legitimate complementary pitch, that is an important step forward for Barnes.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
Eddie Jurak said:
Alex Speier, did a minor details podcast with Jim Callis talking about the Sox top 10.
 
He had the players grouped this way:
 
#1. Bogaerts - no explanation necessary.
 
#2/3. Owens and Bradley - he gave Owens the nod based on a ceiling of a top #2 starter.  Callis would have rated Bradley higher on the basis of defense/OBP/some pop.  Callis described Bradley as a better defender than Ellsbury right now, with the potential for better OBP and power than Ellsbury.  Callis also descrined Owens as "The Most Unhittable LHP in the Minors", but noted that he sits 90-91 with the fastball which is not elite.
 
#4/5/6/7. Webster/Swihart/Cecchini/Betts.  Speier put Webster 4th because he, unlike anyone else the Sox have in the minors, has ace-level stuff, although he may never reach the level.  Callis described Swihart as "The Buster Posey Starter Kit".  Speier considers Betts to have better tools than Cecchini, but rated Cecchini higher based on his hit tool and makeup.  Callis would have had Cecchini at #4.
 
#8/9/10/11/12. Barnes/Workman/Ball/Ranaudo/Vazquez. Workman lost his rookie status due to service time but did not pitch enough innings or relief appearances to to lose BA prospect status. Callis and Speier both compared Barnes to Michael Wacha, in that his best pitches were fastball and changeup, while the curve needed work.  Ball made it as an upside play - higher ceiling than Owens, possible future ace.  Ranaudo or Vazquez would have filled out the top 10 had Workman not been eligible.
 
Manuel Margot was top 15, Stankiewicz was the only other 2013 draftee to make the top 30, Rafael Devers also made the top 30, and Sean Coyle got #31.    
 
Highly recommend this podcast to anyone interested in listening. The conversations about Bradley, Betts, Swihart, and Webster specifically were very informative to me. Didn't know the scouting reports on Betts v. Cecchini from AFL were so skewed in Betts favor. Didn't know about how Posey was evaluated before drafted. And really walked away feeling confident about Bradley's defense -- better than Ellsbury, right now.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I'm curious to know what folks here think is the best way to utilize this seemingly embarrassment of riches in terms of prospects.  We know that not all of them will pan out.  We don't know how many will, or which ones will.  Should the Sox just keep them all and make the most of the ones that DO pan out, and live with some that don't?  Or should they judiciously trade some of them (hopefully the ones they have the highest degree of confidence WON'T pan out) for other things?  What's the best use of these resources?
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
NickEsasky said:
That 2-time All Star Scott Cooper to you. 
Which was merely a reflection of how shitty the team was back then. I think most Sox fans felt Scott Cooper was not even a solid player never mind an ALL-Star. Mo Vaughn was squeezed out at a star filled firstbase position, and every team had to have a representative  so Copper by default was picked. He was consistently mediocre and never showed any flashes during those 2 years of being anything more than just that, mediocre. I felt back then that that was his upside.
 
Cecchini led all of minor league baseball in OBP last year, he's not a fluke he's legit and should be ranked in that upper tier of prospects with Owens and Bradley albeit #3.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Just looking over Cecchini's numbers….his OBP skills really are phenomenal.
 
2011 (A-):  .298/.398/.500/.898
2012 (A):  .305/.394/.433/.837
2013 (A+, AA):  .322/.443/.471/.915
 
Career:  .312/.417/.404/.825
 
Pretty incredible.  Good speed too:  86 stolen bases in 1023 career AB, which would mean about 45 or so in a typical 550 at-bat season.  Probably wouldn't get that many in the majors, but he's almost a perfect #2 hitter.  Huge OBP skills, puts the ball in play a ton, can run. 
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
ivanvamp said:
I'm curious to know what folks here think is the best way to utilize this seemingly embarrassment of riches in terms of prospects.  We know that not all of them will pan out.  We don't know how many will, or which ones will.  Should the Sox just keep them all and make the most of the ones that DO pan out, and live with some that don't?  Or should they judiciously trade some of them (hopefully the ones they have the highest degree of confidence WON'T pan out) for other things?  What's the best use of these resources?
 
For obvious reasons, I'm pretty turned off to the idea of trading three top ten prospects for one player (or something similar). I would only be interested in a young, cost-controlled player where the risk is lowered because he doesn't have a $20+ mil/year contract in his immediate future. You trade three prospects and maybe three out of six top guys that are left don't pan out and suddenly that depth is gone. And as you mention, pitching depth can disappear easily enough on its own between guys moving to the pen, guys getting hurt, and guys hitting a wall and never getting over it (See: every Yankee pitching prospect of the last decade). None of the ml pitchers are banging down the door quite yet, so there's still time to wait and see how things take shape over the next season or so.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Eddie Jurak said:
He's an average runner, though. Most of those steals won't translate to the majors.
 
I don't know about stolen bases, but I would say his running is somewhat better than average based on several games in which I have seen him play. He had some problems with better left-handers this year but he also had a marked improvement, overall, against lefties after his 2012 season. I liked his work at third base, too.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Eddie Jurak said:
He's an average runner, though. Most of those steals won't translate to the majors.
 
Which is fine.  If he can be a 15-20 sb guy in the majors, that's perfectly acceptable as a #2 hitter.  If he truly was a 45 sb kind of guy, he'd be perfect for leadoff.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Jed Zeppelin said:
 
For obvious reasons, I'm pretty turned off to the idea of trading three top ten prospects for one player (or something similar). I would only be interested in a young, cost-controlled player where the risk is lowered because he doesn't have a $20+ mil/year contract in his immediate future. You trade three prospects and maybe three out of six top guys that are left don't pan out and suddenly that depth is gone. And as you mention, pitching depth can disappear easily enough on its own between guys moving to the pen, guys getting hurt, and guys hitting a wall and never getting over it (See: every Yankee pitching prospect of the last decade). None of the ml pitchers are banging down the door quite yet, so there's still time to wait and see how things take shape over the next season or so.
 
Of course, trading prospects is a risky proposition.  Sometimes you deal a few away and land a Pedro Martinez (ok, that's a once-in-a-lifetime acquisition) or a Josh Beckett, but other times you deal away a Jeff Bagwell for a Larry Andersen.  But these guys are currency.  The trick is knowing the wisest way to use that currency.
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
ivanvamp said:
I'm curious to know what folks here think is the best way to utilize this seemingly embarrassment of riches in terms of prospects.  We know that not all of them will pan out.  We don't know how many will, or which ones will.  Should the Sox just keep them all and make the most of the ones that DO pan out, and live with some that don't?  Or should they judiciously trade some of them (hopefully the ones they have the highest degree of confidence WON'T pan out) for other things?  What's the best use of these resources?
 
The best use of the generous resource of pitching (9 of the top 16 prospects according to Soxprospects are pitchers) we have is to use our strength to cover our weaknesses. And of the 9 top pitching prospects the 6th (Workman) & 7th (Britton) have already had limited Major league success which only underscores how good this group is. And of the top 8 only 2 are starting below Pawtucket this year and one of those two are the highest rated in the group, Owens who is slated to start at Portland. The farm is not only filthy deep in pitching but it's close enough to have pig pen's dust choke you, good grief. This much talent this close ( all within 2 years) to playing in Boston would present it's own challenges if Boston was in full rebuild mode never mind a team that plans on contending yearly. Some of the talent should and will be traded, therefore we have to evaluate how to make the most out of our redundant resources. You could create a package to target a player of Stanton's calibre but wether he's available or not is questionable. The Sox seem to be letting 'deep depth' be a guide, that way you never rely to much on a few key players so when the injuries arrive, and they will, the team is better prepared to endure the high [SIZE=10.5pt]attrition rate that occurs during the marathon that is the regular season.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]This leads to the approach first mentioned using our abundance to cover our weakenesses and a[/SIZE]s good as our farm system is it has some weaknesses, mainly OF and 1B. For all the other positions we have at least 1 top prospect that is either starting the season with Boston or is within a year or two from arriving on the scene. 1B is not a position I'm as concerned about as there is usually at least mediocre MLB free agents available on any given year so we can usually sign a solid free agent there if needed. Jackie Bradey Jr, is our starting CF'er for the 2014 season and after him the prospect watch drops off a cliff.  Wether that's due to age,  (http://soxprospects.com/players/margot-manuel.htm is still so far away and needs so much development that this egg is not worth counting, not yet anyway, or fringy pitch recognition skills, Bryce Brentz, may never be a regular player for a contending team. He reminds me somewhat of J.Reddick. The team could use an infusion of 1 or better yet 2, AA or higher top 10-ish prospects in it's system. Chips at the MLB level could possibly land you 1, but our pitching prospects would likely be needed to land another. The team right now only has 2 starting pitchers and 1 relief pitcher signed through 2015 so there will be some opening to fill. However the talk of extending Lester seems to be legitimate. Should that occur the team would have Lester, Doubront and club options for Buchholz penned as starters beyond 2015. Within a year this team will trade at least 1 or 2 of their top pitching propsects, let's hope they cover all their bases and land a top OF prospect and/or a very good young OF with at least a few years of team contol left.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
See, I don't think the question is, "what do you do with all these prospects?" I think you play them in the big leagues. The system is light on power hitters (just like every other team) and outfielders (unlike every other team) but other than that, you just fill major league holes when necessary with these players.
 
I think a better question is, "where do you spend your money?" All of those big contracts given out this offseason were desperation contracts -- Ellsbury/Beltran, Cano, Nolasco/Hughes. Those were desperation overpays from teams who didn't have players to fill huge holes. A better question is, if you don't have as many holes to fill, what do you do with the cash? Especially with the new spending regulations on the draft and all international markets, including Japanese posting fees.
 
Do you pray that Trout or Kershaw hit the market? Do you try to absorb overpriced contracts from teams like Kemp & the Dodgers? 
 
If you get creative, you could see a lineup in the near future that features:
 
C: Swihart (or another homegrown option)
1B: Cecchini
2B: Pedroia
SS: Bogaerts
3B: Middlebrooks (or Betts? could he transition? does he have the arm?)
RF: 
CF: Bradley
LF: 
 
(If there's one thing I'd be comfortable buying on the free agent market, it'd be a power or on-base bat like a Cruz, Choo, etc. so this actually works in the Sox favor)
 
SP1: Lester (re-signed)
SP2: Owens
SP3: Barnes
SP4: Webster
SP5: Ranaudo
 
Not all of those pitchers are going to stick in the rotation, so maybe you fill one or two holes through trades or free agency.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,078
Concord, NH
ivanvamp said:
I'm curious to know what folks here think is the best way to utilize this seemingly embarrassment of riches in terms of prospects.  We know that not all of them will pan out.  We don't know how many will, or which ones will.  Should the Sox just keep them all and make the most of the ones that DO pan out, and live with some that don't?  Or should they judiciously trade some of them (hopefully the ones they have the highest degree of confidence WON'T pan out) for other things?  What's the best use of these resources?
 
Basically, you just keep on churning out these golden eggs until a situation change requires you to make a move.
 
The best part about having this embarrassment of riches is that it makes any Boston prospects more valuable just because they're Boston prospects (seriously, like a quarter of the major league talent out there came through this system right now. This might be a minor exaggeration). All of these articles marveling over the Sox's success just keeps adding to the mystique. It puts the Sox in this amazing position to spend prospects and money only when needed which, with smart management should keep this team in top tier contention every year for the next decade or two. 
 
Just because the system is deep doesn't mean there's any kind of emergency logjam. It does, however, allow the Sox to make any moves deemed necessary to keep contending. If July rolls around and the Sox need outfield offense, they could clear out a few #15-5 ranked prospects for Stanton without completely gutting the system. If the bullpen gets the injury bug, you can trade one or two for some help. In the meantime, you can show off all of these prospects in the majors while filling in holes with cheap internal options. 
 
Or you can just Ellsbury everyone. Keep Xander around while he's cheap and productive for a few years then let him collect his payday with the Cubs or something, while filling in that loss with internal options. 
 
This team is the class of baseball right now. They have the money and the prospects. The entire organization appears to be competent and on the same page. They are a place where free agents should WANT to play because they should be in the thick of things for years to come. And that 100 million dollar player development machine is the root of it all. It's like the baseball talent version of a money tree. What do you do with it? You pick off what you need to get what you need while keeping the tree as healthy as possible so it keeps providing you with more talent. 
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
OttoC said:
 
Regarding Scott Cooper...he hit 45 doubles as a 20 year-old in high-A at a time when the buzz was that doubles were a good measure of future power for young minor leaguers. And, gee, in 1989, who was BBA's number one prospect on the Red Sox? Oh, look at 1990.
I thought the thought was any 25 YO who hits alot of doubles with a relative low amount of HR's will translate some of that power into HR's the following season. That helped me win a fantasy league in guessing Goldschmidt was about to break out last year.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
seantoo said:
I thought the thought was any 25 YO who hits alot of doubles with a relative low amount of HR's will translate some of that power into HR's the following season. That helped me win a fantasy league in guessing Goldschmidt was about to break out last year.
 
That's not how I remember it but I took a look at the 2013 season for the various minor-league classifications and MLB, comparing the rate of doubles per game and the rate of home runs per game. As can be seen from the accompanying chart, the rate of doubles is fairly flat as you go up the line in classification while the slope of the rate of home runs is about 4.3 times that of the doubles rate. The progression of classifications goes from left to right (Rookie/Short-A/Low-A/High-A/AA/AAA/MLB).
 
The Pioneer League (2.00 2B per game, 0.75 HR per game) helps push the Rookie leagues' composite up while 2B per game in the Southern League pushes the AA doubles rate down.
 
The point of this exercise is to show that as players get older (more experienced), they seem to start hitting more home runs. There is also the matter that at the lower levels, many of the players are just there to provide a framework for the best to develop. As you move up in classification, there are fewer placeholders and more competition.

 

 
It might be interesting to do this for a wide range of seasons but I do not have time right now.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
ivanvamp said:
I'm curious to know what folks here think is the best way to utilize this seemingly embarrassment of riches in terms of prospects.  We know that not all of them will pan out.  We don't know how many will, or which ones will.  Should the Sox just keep them all and make the most of the ones that DO pan out, and live with some that don't?  Or should they judiciously trade some of them (hopefully the ones they have the highest degree of confidence WON'T pan out) for other things?  What's the best use of these resources?
 
There's an interesting espn.com article referencing two studies about how often someone in the top 100 Prospects list becomes a successful major leaguer:
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43074/a-study-on-success-rate-of-prospects
 
The takeaway:
 
Three out of every four pitching prospects fail and two out of every three hitting prospects fail. About 70% of all prospects fail. The difference between hitting and pitching prospects has decreased but is still reasonably large.
 
To me, this means you have to be just as "value conscious" in using the currency of prospects as you are in the free agent market.  You need to be proactively developing proprietary techniques to determine which prospects are overvalued and which ones are undervalued just like you are with defense and other SABR stuff.   For my two cents, I think Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, plus maybe Betts, are probably undervalued right now, while many of the rest of the players on that list are in a bit of a bubble stage.  That's not to say I think they'll fail or not be useful, just that their trade value may exceed the value they have to the Red Sox.  The biggest bubbles I think are Ranaudo (injury history, only one solid age-appropriate season in the pros) and Vazquez (unless he shows more power, he'll just be Ryan Hannigan)
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Plympton91 said:
To me, this means you have to be just as "value conscious" in using the currency of prospects as you are in the free agent market.  You need to be proactively developing proprietary techniques to determine which prospects are overvalued and which ones are undervalued just like you are with defense and other SABR stuff.   For my two cents, I think Bogaerts, Cecchini, and Owens, plus maybe Betts, are probably undervalued right now, while many of the rest of the players on that list are in a bit of a bubble stage.  That's not to say I think they'll fail or not be useful, just that their trade value may exceed the value they have to the Red Sox.  The biggest bubbles I think are Ranaudo (injury history, only one solid age-appropriate season in the pros) and Vazquez (unless he shows more power, he'll just be Ryan Hannigan)
Hannigan actually ranks as a "success" in this study's formula, although just barely. If the Reds had played him more, though, he probably would be a clear success. I think Vazquez has little chance of stardom but actually has a quite high chance of similar "success" in the majors, simply because all he needs is high quality defense and a good batting eye to be a useful player at the catcher position. The power, which probably won't come, is gravy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post though. It would be interesting to see which attributes among this prospect population were most correlated with success. I'm guessing plate discipline is huge.
 

Chainsaw318

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2006
1,902
Burned . . . Blacklisted
Highly recommend this podcast to anyone interested in listening. The conversations about Bradley, Betts, Swihart, and Webster specifically were very informative to me. Didn't know the scouting reports on Betts v. Cecchini from AFL were so skewed in Betts favor. Didn't know about how Posey was evaluated before drafted. And really walked away feeling confident about Bradley's defense -- better than Ellsbury, right now.


I want to add to the chorus thus this was a really informative podcast. The repeated comparisons of Swihart to Posey made me giddy, even if it was in the context of tools, not necessarily projection.