lol it was a jokeOriginally Posted by scaffolds;275383;
You think that highly of Hansack? I think I would definitely move him down some with Lowrie, Masterson and Cox at least being above him.
lol it was a joke
You think that highly of Hansack? I think I would definitely move him down some with Lowrie, Masterson and Cox at least being above him.
2007 World Series Champs
Potentially Cox should be ranked ahead of Hansack, but there's too many questions on Lowrie or Masterson to be ranked ahead of Hansack.
Scaffolds-
With all due respect. I completely agree that tools and projection should be taken into account when evaluating prospects. But it seems that you dismiss production entirely. Jed Lowrie is currently putting up an OPS that is 150 points higher than Chiang's and has a walk to strikeout ratio that is more than 4X as high. Not to mention that he's doing this two levels higher than Chiang is. Its ludicrous to dismiss this regardless of the hitting mechanics of both players. Once a player gets to the high minors production has got to be paramount. If Jed Lowrie keeps hitting the way he's been hitting, he will have gone a long way towards answering all of the questions about him. How exactly does a guy like him have questions and a guy with a .25 BB/K ratio not have questions?
A few years ago you were famously quoted as saying that Kevin Youkilis would soon be passed by Heirberto Guzman and Chad Spann. Fast foward to today, and Spann can't handle AAA, never mind the majors, and Guzman is out of baseball. Meanwhile Youkilis was the first half MVP for the major league team! As recently as last season you said that Spann should be the 3B over Youkilis, and earlier this season you said that Hinske should start to replace Youkilis as 1B. Meanwhile Hinske can barely hit his weight!
You also said that Dustin Pedroia was like "Mark Loretta". As it turns out, Pedroia is a much better player than Lorretta both offensively and defensively. You were wrong again.
Meanwhile you have championed several players who couldn't even break past AA (Arias, Guzman, Gamble). How can your evaluations be trusted when you are consistantly wrong.
In the end, a scout has to be accountable by the accuracy of his evaluations. In your case your record is quite poor over a substantial time period. When asked about this, you ducked the subject, why? You have even been quite snooty about your position in the game, calling into question the baseball knowledge of those who disagreed with you. Why should we listen to the evaluations of someone who has been wrong as often as you have.
I appreciate your response.
Check out jsingers site:
www.soxprospects.com
according to that site, which I find to be pretty informative, Hansack isnt a top 20, nor should he be cosidering his age.
Usually when players are 29 years old they aren't prospects.
Yet to every rule there are some exceptions and Hansack maybe one of them. Some guys just figure out how to pitch later than others. Hansack especially happened to live in a country that is not heavilly scouted.
You have to like how well he's pitched in AAA this year and that's not easy to do no matter how old you are. He's at least a major league long-man maybe more and if you can do that you are a top 20 prospect.
I agree that saying that he's above a guy who's 23 and has a .900 OPS in AA is a bit outrageous, but consider the source.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote