BA's Top 10 Red Sox Prospects

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
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.
 
Yeah, like I said, Vazquez could easily make that kind of contribution.  But if there's a team out there that thinks he'll add power, and the Red Sox don't, then obviously it might make "Moneyball" sense to make a trade with that team.  You shouldn't just hold on to every player that might be a contributor at the major league level.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
It's hard to believe that  Vazques will add some pop because he isn't that big and his bat speed is mediocre. He has shortened his swing to improve his contact. 
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
Plympton91 said:
 
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:
 
 
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)
The problem is the rate of attrition of prospects is assigned to the group on all prospects on whole, while the Sox pitching prospects have already made it to AA or higher and succeeded while being younger (on whole) than the competition they faced. Therefore, I submit that the numbers of the article while interesting do not apply here, not even close. Most of the Red Sox top pitching prospects will at least have a league average season in MLB as a reliever (or more)  and I'm being conservative to make a point but not overstate it.
 
EDIT: My bad, while I still have problems with the definitions and interpetations of data, clearly I missed some important information and I was wrong about it applying to all prospects. Mea Culpa.
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,742
Charlottesville

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
seantoo said:
The problem is the rate of attrition of prospects is assigned to the group on all prospects on whole, while the Sox pitching prospects have already made it to AA or higher and succeeded while being younger (on whole) than the competition they faced. Therefore, I submit that the numbers of the article while interesting do not apply here, not even close. Most of the Red Sox top pitching prospects will at least have a league average season in MLB as a reliever (or more)  and I'm being conservative to make a point but not overstate it.
 
EDIT: My bad, while I still have problems with the definitions and interpetations of data, clearly I missed some important information and I was wrong about it applying to all prospects. Mea Culpa.
 
The point about level may be a significant one though. There is no level-based breakdown of  the rankings. It seems somewhat intuitive that the instance of "successes" for prospects should increase as they are being evaluated later in their careers at levels closer to the majors. In other words, I'd expect the bust rate for Mookie Betts to be much higher than that of Brandon Workman given their relative proximity to the majors and their relatively similar regard as prospects. Similarly, Barnes is a much surer thing than Ball. If the rankings are reasonable, the younger guys should have a greater likelihood of being stars to offset the increased uncertainty. It would be interesting to know if that is actually true.
 
Another methodological issue with the study is that the cut off for success is averaging 1.5 WAR or greater (I assume this is per-season, since average is used. I skimmed significant sections, so I may have missed the time definition, but I don't know what time period it is being measured over either.) There are several issues with this. First, WAR is a counting stat, so a prospect may be erroneously grouped as a failure instead of a success because of opportunity issues. Players who break in as backups for a few years might end up looking like busts when they are really successes. Additionally, this methodology is going to make it virtually impossible for a reliever to be a success. This creates a significant downward drag on pitcher success rates. Last year, using fWAR because that's what the study uses, exactly 20 relievers hit that cut off. Over the last 3 years, only 10 totaled 4.5 or more WAR. So, by this metric, if you aren't, roughly, a top 10 reliever in baseball, you will be regarded as a bust.
 
For the rest of the thread, here's the link to the actual study so you don't have to click through ESPN to get there.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,299
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 biggest need right now for the Red Sox as an organization is to find someone who will take the place of Ortiz in the middle of the lineup when he retires. I don't think that guy is in the system right now. They should be looking at some prospect-for-prospect swaps with teams that need pitching. Perhaps a target could be C.J. Cron, a 1B prospect in the Angels' system who's sort of blocked by Albert Pujols.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
It's a nice thought, but prospect swaps are very rare. They're probably better off looking for a more proven bat anyway, if/when the time comes to cash in on some depth.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
.274

.319

.428

.746
Do you know he hit .746 in Texas league? Do you really believe he could replace David Ortiz? I know he has great raw power but his plate discipline is really bad. He is already 23 years old as well. I rather believe Cecchini will learn how to pull the ball and lift it than Cron will refine his plate discipline enough to be a middle order bat.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
I sure as hell expect Xander to bat better than CJ Cron. I would be shocked if he's not our cleanup hitter within two years.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I agree that Bogaerts should develop into a middle-of-the-order bat, but ideally you'd have two bats of that quality hitting 3 and 4, and a third that is just below their quality hitting fifth. In a best case scenario, Middlebrooks and in an even longer-shot scenario, Brentz, can be the guy hitting 5th. But unless Cecchini really explodes power wise and can play a different position than Middlebrooks, getting that other guy is going to require a trade.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The Red Sox just won a World Series with a 662 plate appearances in the 5 spot by a combination of Jonny Gomes (88 PA, .804 OPS), Mike Carp (66 PA, .885 OPS), Daniel Nava (105 PA, .831 OPS), Jarrod Saltalamacchia (38 PA, .804 OPS) and Mike Napoli (365 PA, .842 OPS) with Dustin Pedroia and his .787 OPS getting 666 plate appearances hitting 3rd.  As has been pointed out in other threads, in an extremely OBP heavy lineup, the need for power is lessened.  If Bogearts can become something similar to Papi with the bat (still a question, obviously) and they continue to target high OBP players to fill in around him, they will be fine.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
If Bogaerts should develop into a middle-of-the-order bat, you don't need to worry about another big bat. It isn't difficult to find very good bat at DH, 1B, and LF. Billy Butler could be a good option at DH. There are lots of aging players whose defense is bad but still can hit with power. There is some chance Cecchini will learn to hit for power. Then he would be ideal No 3 type of hitter.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I love Bogaerts and certainly with his swing and the power he's shown he has a very high ceiling, but having a SS that hits like papi is Alex Rodriguez territory. I'm just saying let's not get to far ahead of ourselves.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Plympton91 said:
 
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.  
 
Obviously this would help but there is likely possibility that the final determination of which prospects succeed and which fail has nothing to do with baseball-measurable factors.  It could be physical (injuries); psychological (the ability to deal with failure); external (perhaps some external event) or just quite simply fate.
 
I only mention this because there has been a long-standing discussion about how best to implement a "100 million player development machine."  The dilemma is that teams as successful as the Red Sox often don't have the ability to let a prospect work through initial failure.  It could take  prospect a season (or more) to adjust to the bigs.  OTOH, if you don't allow a prospect to fail and keep plugging holes with veterans, you just block your prospect's development.
 
From all indications, the current Red Sox management seems committed to letting prospects play, even if that means costing them multiple wins in a season.  Given the expansion to 2 WC teams, that will be less likely to keep a team out of the playoffs, but IMO, it takes a particularly secure GM to do this.
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
And ARod, while a generational talent, isn't even really ARod...

If Bogaerts is an average glove at SS, he doesn't need to hit nearly as well as Ortiz to be worth 8 wins.

If he can hit cleanup effectively at any point while still at short, he is in Trout type territory for value.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Niastri said:
And ARod, while a generational talent, isn't even really ARod...

If Bogaerts is an average glove at SS, he doesn't need to hit nearly as well as Ortiz to be worth 8 wins.

If he can hit cleanup effectively at any point while still at short, he is in Trout type territory for value.
 
This may be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. First of all, Trout territory is 10 wins, not 8. And, pretty much no one ever gets there, including most Hall of Famers. Second, for Bogaerts to get to 8 win territory, he needs to be better than an effective cleanup hitter. He needs to be a top 5 offensive player in the game while playing average defense and being an average baserunner.
 
To illustrate, Troy Tulowitzki, who is clearly an effective cleanup hitter, is an average baserunner, and is an above average defensive shortstop, has never eclipsed 6 fWAR in a season in his career. And, even if you pretend that he is a 650-700 PA player instead of a 550-600 player, that just adds an extra win per season, as a rough estimate, which still has him falling short of your 8 win standard. 
 
Or, to further illustrate the greatness that is Mike Trout, in the history of baseball, Mike Trout's first 2 seasons rank 41st (tie) and 50th on the all time list for highest single season fWAR. Of those top 50 seasons, 22 of them were produced by Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Williams. Mike Trout seasons are incredibly rare and almost everyone to put up a single Mike Trout caliber season is in the inner circle of the Hall of Fame.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Yeah, the "replace David Ortiz" bit was a bit over the top and sloppy.  Apologies.  I was more thinking a mid to high .800's OPS.  Another Mike Napoli, if you will.  He posted an .842 OPS with a 129 wRC+.  If Bogaerts can get there with the bat by the time Papi retires, the offense will be fine.  Still far from a guarantee, but not as daunting a task.
 
In other words, they don't need to replace Papi, they just need Xander to come within sniffing distance of his ceiling offensively.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
JakeRae said:
 
This may be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. First of all, Trout territory is 10 wins, not 8. And, pretty much no one ever gets there, including most Hall of Famers. Second, for Bogaerts to get to 8 win territory, he needs to be better than an effective cleanup hitter. He needs to be a top 5 offensive player in the game while playing average defense and being an average baserunner.
 
To illustrate, Troy Tulowitzki, who is clearly an effective cleanup hitter, is an average baserunner, and is an above average defensive shortstop, has never eclipsed 6 fWAR in a season in his career. And, even if you pretend that he is a 650-700 PA player instead of a 550-600 player, that just adds an extra win per season, as a rough estimate, which still has him falling short of your 8 win standard. 
 
Or, to further illustrate the greatness that is Mike Trout, in the history of baseball, Mike Trout's first 2 seasons rank 41st (tie) and 50th on the all time list for highest single season fWAR. Of those top 50 seasons, 22 of them were produced by Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Williams. Mike Trout seasons are incredibly rare and almost everyone to put up a single Mike Trout caliber season is in the inner circle of the Hall of Fame.
 
He did say Mike Trout territory not "As good as".  Not that it is a huge deal, but let's see how close.  Using fangraphs, David Ortiz last season put up 35.3 Batting Runs.  Let's assume that Bogaerts does that for the sake of this exercise and is exactly average at everything else, playing shortstop in 2013 (which just makes the contextual adjustments easier)
 
So, he gets 35.3 Batting Runs, 0 baserunning, 0 fielding, and 7.5 for being a shortstop.  Add in 2.7 runs for the league and 17.1 for replacement level (these assume he only gets as many PA's as Ortiz did), and he's at 62.6 RAR, which would be about 6.8 WAR in the 2013 AL.  Give him another 100 PA at similar rates and he gets 41.2 BR, 3.2 for league, 20 for replacement level and now he's at  71.9 RAR, about 7.8 WAR.
 
So Niastri's point is a bit wrong.  If Xander could find 1-2 runs in baserunning and 10 or so in fielding, then he would get closer to the Trout neighborhood.  But even if he doesn't do that and is "merely" a 6-7 WAR player, you're still talking about a top 5 player in the league.  
 

Niastri

Member
SoSH Member
JakeRae said:
 
This may be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. First of all, Trout territory is 10 wins, not 8. And, pretty much no one ever gets there, including most Hall of Famers. Second, for Bogaerts to get to 8 win territory, he needs to be better than an effective cleanup hitter. He needs to be a top 5 offensive player in the game while playing average defense and being an average baserunner.
 
To illustrate, Troy Tulowitzki, who is clearly an effective cleanup hitter, is an average baserunner, and is an above average defensive shortstop, has never eclipsed 6 fWAR in a season in his career. And, even if you pretend that he is a 650-700 PA player instead of a 550-600 player, that just adds an extra win per season, as a rough estimate, which still has him falling short of your 8 win standard. 
 
Or, to further illustrate the greatness that is Mike Trout, in the history of baseball, Mike Trout's first 2 seasons rank 41st (tie) and 50th on the all time list for highest single season fWAR. Of those top 50 seasons, 22 of them were produced by Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Williams. Mike Trout seasons are incredibly rare and almost everyone to put up a single Mike Trout caliber season is in the inner circle of the Hall of Fame.
One thing about SoSH is that hyperbole is rarely allowed to pass :)

I stand corrected.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Yeah, the "replace David Ortiz" bit was a bit over the top and sloppy.  Apologies.  I was more thinking a mid to high .800's OPS.  Another Mike Napoli, if you will.  He posted an .842 OPS with a 129 wRC+.  If Bogaerts can get there with the bat by the time Papi retires, the offense will be fine.  Still far from a guarantee, but not as daunting a task.
 
In other words, they don't need to replace Papi, they just need Xander to come within sniffing distance of his ceiling offensively.
Yeah, exactly, and Bogaerts doesn't have to put up Papi numbers to have a Papi-like effect on the overall lineup. If Bogaerts hits at a well-above average clip for a SS (which he should do easily) and they get a pretty good DH (not too hard to find) they'll be just fine.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Listening to MLB radio and working a bit this AM. Callis was just asked if he had a sleeper prospect, across baseball, who could break out this year. His answer, Henry Owens, who he predicted could possibly make it to the bigs this season. His swing and miss stuff make him possibly the top LHP prospect in ml ball. He said he is potentially equal or better than Heaney of the Marlins.
 

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Don't know that it's worth a separate thread, but BP has its 10 posted. Good to see the right call in one respect, in that Vazquez is finally a Top 10 prospect with them.

SS Xander Bogaerts
CF Jackie Bradley, Jr.
3B Garin Cecchini
RHP Matt Barnes
LHP Henry Owens
RHP Allen Webster
C Blake Swihart
2B Mookie Betts
C Christian Vazquez
LHP Trey Ball
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
someoneanywhere said:
Don't know that it's worth a separate thread, but BP has its 10 posted. Good to see the right call in one respect, in that Vazquez is finally a Top 10 prospect with them.

SS Xander Bogaerts
CF Jackie Bradley, Jr.
3B Garin Cecchini
RHP Matt Barnes
LHP Henry Owens
RHP Allen Webster
C Blake Swihart
2B Mookie Betts
C Christian Vazquez
LHP Trey Ball
 
I think BP is based more on tools than performance ( which is fine).  
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
I saw Vazquez catch several games last season and one thing I recall was the number of pitches he failed to handle. Looking up his season's stats, I found that he was charged with 23 passed balls, a number that by itself would have tied him for 4th place among teams in the Eastern League. He also made 10 errors and the club's pitchers were charged with 87 wild pitches for the season (tied for 2nd). There is no breakdown on this with bb-ref data without going through each box score and Portland did use other catchers, so some undoubtedly occurred when Vazquez was not in the game. However, balls in the dirt that get by the catcher are counted as wild pitches; balls in the dirt that are stopped by the catcher are counted as balls. In other words, good catchers can cut down on team's wild pitches. Did Vazquez? Based on the passed balls, I wonder.
 
He doesn't have any power at the plate. He did have 27 doubles and 18 HR in 2011, his second trip through the Fenway replica at Greenville. But 2/3-rds of his doubles and 2/3-rds of his HRs were hit on the road. In other words, I'm not overly-excited yet with his prospects.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I've heard a wide range of opinions about Vazquez. At best, strong defensive catcher who will not be useless with the bat. At worst, I've heard that he has a great arm and gets rid of the ball very quickly, but the rest of his defensive skills don't measure up.
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
Joshv02 said:
Sentences I never thought I'd read 5 years ago.
 
Well, I think Chris Mellen, formerly of soxprospects.com, is at BP now.  Mellen seems to care very little about stats and is definitely a tools based evaluator.  
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
SaveBooFerriss said:
 
Well, I think Chris Mellen, formerly of soxprospects.com, is at BP now.  Mellen seems to care very little about stats and is definitely a tools based evaluator.  
Same with Parks, etc.  The entire site has a different focus, and this especially true in the prospect evaluation.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
 
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 . . .
 
Shea Hillenbrand?
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
OttoC said:
I saw Vazquez catch several games last season and one thing I recall was the number of pitches he failed to handle. Looking up his season's stats, I found that he was charged with 23 passed balls, a number that by itself would have tied him for 4th place among teams in the Eastern League. He also made 10 errors and the club's pitchers were charged with 87 wild pitches for the season (tied for 2nd). There is no breakdown on this with bb-ref data without going through each box score and Portland did use other catchers, so some undoubtedly occurred when Vazquez was not in the game. However, balls in the dirt that get by the catcher are counted as wild pitches; balls in the dirt that are stopped by the catcher are counted as balls. In other words, good catchers can cut down on team's wild pitches. Did Vazquez? Based on the passed balls, I wonder.
 
He doesn't have any power at the plate. He did have 27 doubles and 18 HR in 2011, his second trip through the Fenway replica at Greenville. But 2/3-rds of his doubles and 2/3-rds of his HRs were hit on the road. In other words, I'm not overly-excited yet with his prospects.
Ottoc,FWIW,  I saw him catch two games in Manchester and was not overly impressed with his defense either, maybe he was just having a bad day. Reports raved about his arm but I saw 2 steals in 2 attempts with one of the throws in the dirt about 5 feet in front of the base and at least a passed ball to.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
someoneanywhere said:
Rather than post belligerence or snark, I will only say this to you guys who are down on Vazquez, or unimpressed: save your posts. 
 
Why? I'm not down on Vazquez or unimpressed -- I haven't seen him play. While omitting the belligerence and snark is helpful, the rest of the post tells me nothing at all about why you think those posts should be saved.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Sprowl, someoneanywhere has also seen Vazquez play and I believe he assessed his defensive skills highly. Along the lines of the first post in the thread linked below. He's telling the posters to hold off posting as they're going to embarrass themselves with the low assessments. Someone's as locked in as anyone on this site when it comes to predicting future stars.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/78964-christian-vazquez/#entry4872445
 

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I am not sure what more I can say, or needs to be said, that I haven't said consistently and constantly for four years, since I first saw him as a 19-year-old in Greenvllle. I appreciate this forum a ton, and too much to get invested in my own opinion, but: the guy is on the 40-man. And he's there for a reason: because the Sox know that had they not protected him he would have been poached in the Rule 5, and they wouldn't have gotten him back. And that's merely a bureaucratic way of saying that, defensively, he could be on someone's big-league roster right now. (The bat is a work in progress, but, as I've said repeatedly, I think it will be there. And bear in mind that it is one reason why catchers are late-developers, as anyone watching Salty can tell you.) 
 
Way, way too much is going on in minor-league ballgames to assess a catcher's skills and potential by so-called -- so-called in part because you have no idea who is scoring the game -- wild pitches or passed balls or bad throws or stolen bases. A lot of that stuff has nothing at all to do with the catcher: zero. I will tell you that as a seam-headed observer, as a player, and as a coach who works with pro ballplayers. An example: have any of you ever caught a big-league velocity fastball? Let me tell you, until you have, you have no idea. If you set inside, and your pitcher cranks one at 95 that moves on planes but misses by a foot or more -- which of course is common in the minors -- you are going to be chasing it to the backstop. Period. I don't care how good you are. And let's not even talk breaking balls. Rich Hill threw to him -- a big leaguer with command, not a minor leaguer learning control -- and Rich Hill couldn't stop raving about him. What does that tell you?
 
It's no offense to anyone, and not meant to be, and the last thing I want to sound like is a know-it-all jerk. But if we are going to evaluate, let's try to do it with a little more understanding of what we're seeing. And perhaps it would be wiser in us to give a little more credit to what the Red Sox organization is seeing. They signed AJP for one year. Ross is up after this year. What does that tell you? 
 
EDIT: Thanks, Montana. Had I seen yours before I spleened out I probably would have just held my tongue, since I think I just embarrassed myself. But having posted it, I'll live with it and take my lumps. I appreciate you, brother. 
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
someoneanywhere said:
I am not sure what more I can say, or needs to be said, that I haven't said consistently and constantly for four years, since I first saw him as a 19-year-old in Greenvllle. I appreciate this forum a ton, and too much to get invested in my own opinion, but: the guy is on the 40-man. And he's there for a reason: because the Sox know that had they not protected him he would have been poached in the Rule 5, and they wouldn't have gotten him back. And that's merely a bureaucratic way of saying that, defensively, he could be on someone's big-league roster right now. (The bat is a work in progress, but, as I've said repeatedly, I think it will be there. And bear in mind that it is one reason why catchers are late-developers, as anyone watching Salty can tell you.) 
 
Way, way too much is going on in minor-league ballgames to assess a catcher's skills and potential by so-called -- so-called in part because you have no idea who is scoring the game -- wild pitches or passed balls or bad throws or stolen bases. A lot of that stuff has nothing at all to do with the catcher: zero. I will tell you that as a seam-headed observer, as a player, and as a coach who works with pro ballplayers. An example: have any of you ever caught a big-league velocity fastball? Let me tell you, until you have, you have no idea. If you set inside, and your pitcher cranks one at 95 that moves on planes but misses by a foot or more -- which of course is common in the minors -- you are going to be chasing it to the backstop. Period. I don't care how good you are. And let's not even talk breaking balls. Rich Hill threw to him -- a big leaguer with command, not a minor leaguer learning control -- and Rich Hill couldn't stop raving about him. What does that tell you?
 
It's no offense to anyone, and not meant to be, and the last thing I want to sound like is a know-it-all jerk. But if we are going to evaluate, let's try to do it with a little more understanding of what we're seeing. And perhaps it would be wiser in us to give a little more credit to what the Red Sox organization is seeing. They signed AJP for one year. Ross is up after this year. What does that tell you? 
 
EDIT: Thanks, Montana. Had I seen yours before I spleened out I probably would have just held my tongue, since I think I just embarrassed myself. But having posted it, I'll live with it and take my lumps. I appreciate you, brother. 
 
Thanks. I wasn't trying to bust your chops, just to understand your argument within the context of this thread. I wasn't aware of your past evaluation of Vazquez, or might have confused it for someone else's anywhere - it's a rather anonymous username :rolleyes: .
 
Having two aged catchers for only one year tells me that the Red Sox are comfortable with the organization's depth at catcher, but not necessarily about their relative evaluations of Vazquez, Swihart and Butler.