ESPN/Keith Law Farm System Ranking - Red Sox 5th

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Manramsclan said:
 
Hey mauf, I haven't heard anything like this. Granted, I've been reading fap pieces in the Globe and elsewhere. Is this just a TINSTAAPP related comment?  He's a first round pick, seems to me that he would at least become a useful bullpen arm. Just interested to hear your thought process.
 
 
I don't have data, but I assume a lot of first-round picks who succeed in A-ball never make an impact in The Show, and I assume that's more true for pitchers than for position players. The odds of Owens amounting to nothing are a lot greater than the odds of JBJ amounting to nothing, and are probably quite a bit greater than the odds of, say, Cecchini amounting to nothing. But as a 6-6 lefty with pedigree who has already missed a ton of bats in the low minors and had a bit of success in AA just after his 21st birthday, Owens has an outside chance of developing into one of the game's best players; no one thinks JBJ, or really even Cecchini, has that kind of upside.
 
Law is putting considerable weight on that outside chance in rating Owens ahead of JBJ and Cecchini, and giving relatively little weight to the chance that each of them will amount to nothing. That's consistent with the way Law says he's evaluating prospects -- I suspect the FO would be more reluctant to part with Owens than any other prospect besides X, precisely because of the non-zero chance that Owens will develop into a star like Clayton Kershaw or David Price. Trading away a prospect who becomes a star like that is bad for one's career and legacy, and teams are consequently more reluctant to take that risk than a purely mathematical risk/reward calculus would suggest they ought to be. But as a fan who is more focused on who is likely to contribute more WAR to the big club during his years of club control, with some discount rate to reflect the fact that a win this year is worth more than a win in five years (who knows, I might be dead then), I would rate JBJ considerably higher, and Owens considerably lower.
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
My point--and obviously I'm not alone in this--is that if Law is right, then the ranking seems too conservative. I mean, are you really saying that there are 52 other prospects out there whose downside -- even interpreting that word in the moderate sense you've argued for -- is a player as good as Bill Mueller or better? Doesn't that seem surprising?
 
EDIT: OK, there's a bad assumption in there, I realize, which is that every player ranked higher than Cecchini must have at least as good a downside. If Cecchini is a low ceiling/high floor kind of player--and it seems that way--then his downside could be Bill Mueller while his upside is only, say, Sal Bando, while maybe a higher-ranked prospect has an upside of George Brett (to stay with the 3B concept) but a downside of vinFernando Tatis, because he has major developmental hurdles that no one can say for sure he'll clear. I get that.
 
 But still, I find the idea of Mueller as a rational-pessismist comp for a #53 guy surprising. YMMV.
Savin Hill, I think you are being to literal, he said BM type of player. Just as any projection is really the middle of a actual range so to is a comp. I've compared Cechinni (and I have watched him play a few times in AA) to a poor man's Wade Boggs. 
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
Unrelated to his comments on Sale, but on the same track, I am very worried about Webster's future and wouldn't consider him in a top 100.  Breaking down his delivery I love everything through the release point (and the resulting pitches), but at his release point he shortens his finish, not bending his back or giving his arm a long deceleration path.  I don't see that holding up as he tries to throw 180+ big league innings a couple years in a row.
 
I'm not sure if the coaches can address it enough for me to put my red flag down, but a high velocity guy with a shortened deceleration arc is really a concern for me and could lead to more value (lower injury risk) as a reliever if he can get his walk rate down.  As a post release adjustment there would be some hope the mechanics could change without altering his stuff, but I don't like his chances of staying healthy if he doesn't change it.
 
Kid T said:
 
In his chat, he was asked who his biggest evaluation miss was and he said it was Sale.  He expanded on that and said it wasn't that he didn't believe in Sale's stuff, but that he didn't think could last as a starter due to injury risk, and would be relegated as a reliever (and on principle, doesn't rate relievers highly).
 
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
Law buried the Sox system last year. The Sox were ranked behind the MFY last year. The MFY system was ranked 10th. Imagine that. The MFY major league team got virtually no help from the farm system last year and they desperately needed it. We all know what the Sox system contributed last year. It's one man's opinion and one year's data point but Law really lost a lot of credibility with me last year. He is a tireless self promoter, so he has that going for him.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
He works hard and is an entertaining writer. I don't get the hate.

The sox system took a big step forward this year, the best Advancement year I can remember. Every top prospect did fine, or advanced rapidly, some guys took a leap from almost nowhere (Mookie for example).

The yanks meanwhile had major injuries to a number of top prospects and it was a horrendous season for their farm.

I didn't agree last year but it wasn't crazy.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
ShaneTrot said:
Law buried the Sox system last year. The Sox were ranked behind the MFY last year. The MFY system was ranked 10th. Imagine that. The MFY major league team got virtually no help from the farm system last year and they desperately needed it. We all know what the Sox system contributed last year. It's one man's opinion and one year's data point but Law really lost a lot of credibility with me last year. He is a tireless self promoter, so he has that going for him.
Given the rapid improvement of Red Sox minor leaguers not on the radar last year (like Betts), the seasons had by prospects moving up the ladder, and the MFY's not having guys break out, key guys getting injured, and not excel at higher levels I think it's entirely reasonable given his emphasis on upside. I might have quibbled with his exact placements last year, but when your high upside prospects stall and/or get injured then you should get downgraded. Injuries aren't really predictable, so I think he gets a pass on that.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
He did bury this system last year. Consensus was that it's top 5~10 then you can't say it was below average. But he did. While I respect him as an evaluator his ranking is too unreasonable. 
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Er he ranked them 17 last year and eg BP ranked them 16
 
So I assume you rage equally against BP then? (Yanks were also higher in BP than Sox last year, though lower than Keith Law)
 

billy ashley

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,228
Washington DC
Yeah, I think 17 was too low last season, but some folks here seem to be taking for granted how well 2013 went for the organization.
 
Of the top 20 in April, according to soxprospects, you could argue that only Marrero (11), De La Cruz (17), and Vinicio (18) saw significant decline to their perceived value. I'd argue that Marrero doesn't count as he's still a prospect, and De La Cruz shouldn't count, because very few people took his power surge in Greenville seriously. If want to stretch, maybe you could argue Brentz too, but 2013 Brentz doesn't seem that different from 2012 Brentz, only a year older.
 
Add to that, the insane year Betts had. Ranaudo's resurgence as a legitimate top 100 candidate,  Henry Owens increase in exposure and Cecchini going from a guy with some national exposure to arguably a top 50 prospect, and you've got one hell of a year. *
 
I think if anything, I think Law and BP's ranks of Boston's system last year demonstrates how malleable such a list is from year to year. Had Xander had an adjustment year, or Owens gotten hurt, we'd probably not be sitting in the top 5 right now.
 
*What's truly crazy to me, is how successful the org was, beyond the top 20. Guys like Coyle, Ramos, Diaz, Callahan, Ramirez, and McGrath all gave sox fans reasons to be intrigued.
 

TheGoldenGreek33

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 21, 2007
1,934
Papelbon's Poutine said:
So if not from his 7 inning over 5 games how do you suppose Law came to that conclusion?
 
Quickly and without sufficient evidence. This is a guy that has been known to write off prospects after seeing them in person one time.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
TheGoldenGreek33 said:
 
Quickly and without sufficient evidence. This is a guy that has been known to write off prospects after seeing them in person one time.
That's much more likely than he talked to other scouts who had differing opinions.
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
TheGoldenGreek33 said:
 
Quickly and without sufficient evidence. This is a guy that has been known to write off prospects after seeing them in person one time.
 
And continue to write them off after they maintain success.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
maufman said:
I don't have data, but I assume a lot of first-round picks who succeed in A-ball never make an impact in The Show, and I assume that's more true for pitchers than for position players. The odds of Owens amounting to nothing are a lot greater than the odds of JBJ amounting to nothing, and are probably quite a bit greater than the odds of, say, Cecchini amounting to nothing. But as a 6-6 lefty with pedigree who has already missed a ton of bats in the low minors and had a bit of success in AA just after his 21st birthday, Owens has an outside chance of developing into one of the game's best players; no one thinks JBJ, or really even Cecchini, has that kind of upside.

Law is putting considerable weight on that outside chance in rating Owens ahead of JBJ and Cecchini, and giving relatively little weight to the chance that each of them will amount to nothing. That's consistent with the way Law says he's evaluating prospects -- I suspect the FO would be more reluctant to part with Owens than any other prospect besides X, precisely because of the non-zero chance that Owens will develop into a star like Clayton Kershaw or David Price. Trading away a prospect who becomes a star like that is bad for one's career and legacy, and teams are consequently more reluctant to take that risk than a purely mathematical risk/reward calculus would suggest they ought to be. But as a fan who is more focused on who is likely to contribute more WAR to the big club during his years of club control, with some discount rate to reflect the fact that a win this year is worth more than a win in five years (who knows, I might be dead then), I would rate JBJ considerably higher, and Owens considerably lower.
Let's just take out the names and pin this one to the top of every prospect debate thread going forward, k?
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
maufman said:
 
I don't have data, but I assume a lot of first-round picks who succeed in A-ball never make an impact in The Show, and I assume that's more true for pitchers than for position players. The odds of Owens amounting to nothing are a lot greater than the odds of JBJ amounting to nothing, and are probably quite a bit greater than the odds of, say, Cecchini amounting to nothing. But as a 6-6 lefty with pedigree who has already missed a ton of bats in the low minors and had a bit of success in AA just after his 21st birthday, Owens has an outside chance of developing into one of the game's best players; no one thinks JBJ, or really even Cecchini, has that kind of upside.
 
Law is putting considerable weight on that outside chance in rating Owens ahead of JBJ and Cecchini, and giving relatively little weight to the chance that each of them will amount to nothing. That's consistent with the way Law says he's evaluating prospects -- I suspect the FO would be more reluctant to part with Owens than any other prospect besides X, precisely because of the non-zero chance that Owens will develop into a star like Clayton Kershaw or David Price. Trading away a prospect who becomes a star like that is bad for one's career and legacy, and teams are consequently more reluctant to take that risk than a purely mathematical risk/reward calculus would suggest they ought to be. But as a fan who is more focused on who is likely to contribute more WAR to the big club during his years of club control, with some discount rate to reflect the fact that a win this year is worth more than a win in five years (who knows, I might be dead then), I would rate JBJ considerably higher, and Owens considerably lower.
Maybe I'm being too charitable to the Red Sox FO relative to message board posters, but I think you're being too hard on them here. First, I'm not so sure "a purely mathematical risk/reward calculus" would put Owens behind JBJ and Cecchini. Is the realistic "better than nothing" downside you're projecting for JBJ/Cecchini (I'm assuming it's ending up as a AAAA guy or something?) really that much better than the downside for Owens (blowing his arm out? Steve Blass disease?). There's also a good chance that Owens can be a useful contributor even if he doesn't hit his upside--backend starters and top-end bullpen arms are valuable commodities. I also doubt very much that the Red Sox would not put a huge discount factor on wins projected for 5 years from now vs. wins next season.
 
Edit: I mean, presumably Cherington had a pretty big hand in the moves to deal Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett and Hanley Ramirez, no?
 

Hoplite

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
1,116
Papelbon's Poutine said:
GG33 and hoplite you want to back that up a bit?
 
Chris Sale was already referenced upthread. Law basically said Sale's mechanics were a mess and he didn't have a quality breaking ball. Sale dominated in relief role in 2011, and showed a very good slider. The White Sox then announced that Sale was moving to the rotation and Law continued to say that he didn't have a role as a future major league starter.
 
 
Do you like Chris Sale's move to the rotation and where do you see him as a future starter?
Klaw (1:35 PM) No, I don't.
 
He was also wrong about Paul Goldschmidt, and when in May 2013 Law was asked if he was wrong about Goldschmidt (after 154 games at the major league level mind you), Law responded "one month of performance can't prove any point."
 
http://www.azsnakepit.com/2013/5/18/4342540/paul-goldschmidt-diamondbacks
 
I'm sure I could find some more examples when I get home from work.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
 
Edit: I mean, presumably Cherington had a pretty big hand in the moves to deal Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett and Hanley Ramirez, no?
 
I suspect Cherington had a role in the FO's insistence that the Marlins take Sanchez rather than Lester. I wouldn't assume that an Assistant GM who focused on the farm system would have a major role in the organization's strategic decision to trade its top position-player prospect for an ace SP who was (iirc) two years away from free agency.
 
And I think the floor for a guy like JBJ who is no worse than league-average defensively in CF (and likely distinctly above average) and isn't a total train wreck at the plate is pretty high. Cecchini is a different story -- I'm bullish, but there's definitely still a non-zero chance he pulls a Lars Anderson on us.
 
Edit: Wait, did the Beckett deal go down during the winter of the gorilla suit? If so, maybe the assumption that BC was intimately involved is justified.
 

ArttyG12

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
100
Hoplite said:
 
Chris Sale was already referenced upthread. Law basically said Sale's mechanics were a mess and he didn't have a quality breaking ball. Sale dominated in relief role in 2011, and showed a very good slider. The White Sox then announced that Sale was moving to the rotation and Law continued to say that he didn't have a role as a future major league starter.
 
 
He was also wrong about Paul Goldschmidt, and when in May 2013 Law was asked if he was wrong about Goldschmidt (after 154 games at the major league level mind you), Law responded "one month of performance can't prove any point."
 
http://www.azsnakepit.com/2013/5/18/4342540/paul-goldschmidt-diamondbacks
 
I'm sure I could find some more examples when I get home from work.
 
 
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/post/_/id/1297/players-whove-exceeded-my-expectations
 
Goldschmidt has become one of the top 10 position players in the NL and could easily end up atop an MVP ballot in the near future.
 
Could you explain how he's "continuing to write him off after maintaining success" while simultaneously publishing that?
 
Or how he could continue to write off Sale despite having him 3rd for AL Cy Young? http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/post?id=1464
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
I dunno, Law sticks to his guns, I can respect that. I'm increasingly skeptical about his scouting acumen, but he seems to have very good sources, and does a pretty nice job of explaining his opinions on stuff.
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
For those of you who are wondering why Webster missed his top 100 prospects list, Law placed him on the "Prospects Who Just Missed the Top 100"
 


Allen Webster, RHP | Boston Red Sox
Top 2013 level: Majors
Webster still shows lots of pluses -- mid-90s velocity, good sink and a swing-and-miss changeup -- but he's also shown two big minuses that knocked him from a top-100 spot last year. One is that he still doesn't have a consistently average breaking ball, with a slider ahead of his curve, but neither there yet as a strong second pitch. The other is command; for a guy who can really sink the ball, Webster pitches up in the zone with his fastball far too often, and big league hitters were more than happy to show him the error of his ways during his brief stint in Boston (8.60 ERA in 30 1/3 innings).
He turns 24 this month and could still develop into a No. 3 starter, but the more years that go by and he doesn't find that third pitch or improve his fastball command, the more likely it is that he ends up falling short.
 
link: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10383592/allen-webster-dj-peterson-prospects-just-missed-top-100-mlb
 
Also appearing on this list that might be of interest: Casey Kelly (SD) and J.R. Murphy (NYY)