I love the reports on our farm system. But it is fair to question why we haven't even produced any good relief pitchers in recent years.Originally Posted by Kimmi
I love the reports on our farm system. But it is fair to question why we haven't even produced any good relief pitchers in recent years.
It's always fair to question these things. Questioning is not the same as making a blanket statement that Ben has done an awful job developing the farm, when the facts say otherwise. I think a lot of the pitching question can be explained by draft position and by the idea that the Sox draft the best available player, so they are not necessarily looking to draft pitching.
Sure he gets credit for the good moves, but pitching wins. And this organizations record in signing, acquiring and developing pitchers has been undeniably dreadful for several years. It is the biggest problem in the organization. The fairest evaluation of Ben's building of the organizational talent is that it has been very unbalanced.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
Building the organization through the farm system does not mean that all of the team's farm players have to play on the Sox, or that all of the Sox' young players have to have been drafted and developed by the Sox. Having the pieces to trade for team needs is a huge aspect of building a strong farm system.
Pitching is more important than anything else. He did a poor job drafting of, developing it or using our trade chips to acquire it. He is gone for a reason, not because he had done such a great job.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
Of course it is fair.
I think a lot of it has to do with the draft. The draft is not a crapshoot - Price went #2, Kershaw went #7, Grienke went #6, Strasburg went #1, Beckett went #2. Hell, Andrew Miller went #2. Premium arms don't show up often and get gobbled up.
The Red Sox have clearly tended towards lower risk strategies with earlier picks - position players up the middle (in other words, high caliber athletes) and college arms (who have a solid amount of probability). Prep arms are historically very risky, but alas it is also where you are going to find the star material. I think the risk aversion in the draft is fair game. Now it has allowed the Red Sox to have a remarkable stockpile of middle of the field talent - which is nearly as hard to amass as pitching.
Cubs operated more or less the same way - their stockpile is in position talent ... I think just because of the shortage of arms. Their big coup was straightening out Jake Arrieta, along with landing a quality #2 like Lester clearly.
What the Red Sox have done wrong with pitching imo has been not to be as aggressive converting starters at the farm level (which is really the best way to find bullpen talent). It was clear as day that Webster was really a potential bullpen weapon but too much time was spent thinking he could be a quality starter. Ranaudo and Barnes as starters are a little different - less wipeout stuff. Barnes will be a perfect fine starter for somebody - not amazing, but a capable workhorse sort. The development has been ok, but I do think there is question on the ceiling they have gotten in on that.
The Yankees have had a VERY effective strategy for getting relievers, but it limits our boom or bust prospects. We usually select a couple high velocity arms in the Round 5-10 range who don't have projection as a starter, but have top end reliever potential. And we have hit on a fair amount of those selections. Those are usually the spots where some teams will take higher upside players who might be signability cases or starters. But we take relievers. And it has worked to this point
Hal sucks
It is a fair way to go - and the big arms in Round 5 to 10 are still being drafted as starters (every pitcher is drafted as a starter). But then you determine quickly - does the guy have the third pitch, can the guy hold his velocity. If the answer is no (the answer is usually no) - then to the bullpen, where you don't have to worry about things like that.
The Red Sox if they have erred, is taking high probability starters in those spots - you know, guys with command 88-92, know how to pitch. The ceiling is limited, and the bullpen utility becomes dicier. For a good reliever, you're looking at one or two wipeout pitches, and the other things (great control - still has to be acceptable, third pitch, turning lineup over) are less important.
Last edited by sk7326; 09-30-2015 at 10:11 AM.
Sam Travis continues to hit in the AFL- In the future, first base won't be a problem with him as well as Travis Shaw. The chances of at least one of them making it looks really good. Travis won't give them a lot of power on the corner but it is very likely that he will hit and hit well.
Bottom line - Sam Travis can hit. If Swihart is not catching - if someone wants to reposition him, I would say that he is replacable by better hitters. I like Swihart but if he isn't catching he becomes like a bunch of other prospects - no better no worse.
I am a surprised that no one is commenting on the fact that 3 of our top ten prospects are now pitchers.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/...pects-for-2016
I really like Moncada, Benintendi, and Espinosa. I think they all are good grades. I'm not as high on Devers as everyone else. Still a strong system. Side note I think Cecchini gets claimed, maybe by the A's? Kind of high on Longhi, not saying he's a B or higher guy, but I think he could become better.
Moncada and Benintendi will be moving on up I think. Espinoza is a promising young arm but his age keeps him a long way away. Really just a kid. I like Deevers, Chavis, and Travis. I like the fact that we have 2 potential third baseman ranked that high. It could be an area of need. I also like Kopech's potential. He has made some mistakes along the way. has a live arm.
There is a chance now that Vazquez may be ready earlier than previously expected.
Our top 4 prospects look right now like they could be the real deals. Valued highly by everyone. If the Sox keep them all, we will know how much they are valued in New Engalnd as well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote