Your Red Sox top prospect lists

[ORS]

Or Johan may have helped the Sox win back to back championships by winning in 2008. We were very close in 2008. Very very close. And let's face it' date=' it has been downhill since 2008. So, even though we didn't get johan and his injury and we didn't get the back to back championships in 2007 and 2008, we are still trying to recover. BTW, none of the trade packages offered for Johan included both Ellsbury and Lester. It was one or the other.[/quote']

Right, the packages offered included one or the other, whereas reports of the request was both. In other words, for the Sox, that would have been the acquistion cost.

 

No guarantees about 2008 either. That was Lester's breakout year. The problem facing the Rays that postseason was that Beckett was ineffective due to injury - not something having Santana over Lester would have fixed.

 

As for Hazelbaker, early in this thread people had him in the Sox top 10 prospect list. The only top 10 list that I could see him making is a stupid names list.

So what if he was in a top-10? The players available to fill out the list had to come from the Sox farm system. Again, every team's top-10 minor league player list is going to have some guys with some serious warts. It's like making a top-10 list of the hottest girls at a Star Trek convention. Sure, there may be a few real gems in there, but consider the selection pool if there are a few you wouldn't poke with your buddy's pole, you know?

 

I mean, that's what this thread is about.....make a list. Discuss your list. The purpose of the thread isn't to find some player who you think will clearly never amount to anything (and you are likely right) and degrade the quality of a team's entire MiLB organization just because he made someone's top-whatever list. No team has a top-10 chock full of blue-chip prospects.

[a700hitter]

Right, the packages offered included one or the other, whereas reports of the request was both. In other words, for the Sox, that would have been the acquistion cost.

 

No guarantees about 2008 either. That was Lester's breakout year. The problem facing the Rays that postseason was that Beckett was ineffective due to injury - not something having Santana over Lester would have fixed.

Santana was pretty awesome in 2008, and we were very close. Lester did lose the final game.

 

 

So what if he was in a top-10? The players available to fill out the list had to come from the Sox farm system. Again, every team's top-10 minor league player list is going to have some guys with some serious warts. It's like making a top-10 list of the hottest girls at a Star Trek convention. Sure, there may be a few real gems in there, but consider the selection pool if there are a few you wouldn't poke with your buddy's pole, you know?

 

I mean, that's what this thread is about.....make a list. Discuss your list. The purpose of the thread isn't to find some player who you think will clearly never amount to anything (and you are likely right) and degrade the quality of a team's entire MiLB organization just because he made someone's top-whatever list. No team has a top-10 chock full of blue-chip prospects.

I wasn't using Hazelmaker to degrade the whole system. Right up front, I stated my opinion that our system has little talent. Hazlebaker, is just a guy with a funny name that I made a remark about. He proves nothing one way or the other, and i wasn't using him in that way.

[example1]

a700, even if they had won in 2008 you would still be banging on them for not having won a playoff game in 3 seasons. You don't provide the Red Sox with much of a grace period for winning it all, as far as I can tell.

 

Santana would be hurt and very expensive, Lester + + would be in MN, and there would still be plenty of fans complaining that they didn't win recently enough.

 

As for the farm system, there is plenty of talent in the system, a lot of it just isn't MLB ready right now. Still, they have guys who are ready to make their first significant impact on the team (i.e., contributing to winning) like Lavarnway, Kalish, Doubront and Wilson. That's 4 players who couldn't help the team last year who should be helping them this year. That's not insignificant. If Iglesias shows anything with the bat you can add his name.

 

The following year there could be more. If Pimentel, Britton, Ranaudo or Barnes pitch like they have in the past then you're looking at 4 potential mid-rotation starters, or valuable trading pieces.

 

The list of offensive pieces in the system is very long and pretty damn solid.

 

I wouldn't s*** on the Sox system so easily.

[example1]

Also, Hazelbaker (despite the silly name) hasn't put up terrible numbers. I bet he'll be a small part of a deal at some point. That's some value. Dude had 110 SB in his last 240 games. That speed (and decent OBP) should count for something eventually.

 

Even if he looked overmatched in spring training.

[User Name]

The guy admittedly doesn't know anything about the system, but he just HAS to spout an opinion. Incredible.

[iortiz]

a700, even if they had won in 2008 you would still be banging on them for not having won a playoff game in 3 seasons. You don't provide the Red Sox with much of a grace period for winning it all, as far as I can tell.

 

Santana would be hurt and very expensive, Lester + + would be in MN, and there would still be plenty of fans complaining that they didn't win recently enough.

 

As for the farm system, there is plenty of talent in the system, a lot of it just isn't MLB ready right now. Still, they have guys who are ready to make their first significant impact on the team (i.e., contributing to winning) like Lavarnway, Kalish, Doubront and Wilson. That's 4 players who couldn't help the team last year who should be helping them this year. That's not insignificant. If Iglesias shows anything with the bat you can add his name.

 

The following year there could be more. If Pimentel, Britton, Ranaudo or Barnes pitch like they have in the past then you're looking at 4 potential mid-rotation starters, or valuable trading pieces.

 

The list of offensive pieces in the system is very long and pretty damn solid.

 

I wouldn't s*** on the Sox system so easily.

 

What is the rank of our whole farm system among the 30 MLB teams, these days? Top 15? If yes, we are arguably solid, otherwise I wouldn't put that adjective to our farm.

[a700hitter]

a700, even if they had won in 2008 you would still be banging on them for not having won a playoff game in 3 seasons. You don't provide the Red Sox with much of a grace period for winning it all, as far as I can tell.

 

Santana would be hurt and very expensive, Lester + + would be in MN, and there would still be plenty of fans complaining that they didn't win recently enough.

 

As for the farm system, there is plenty of talent in the system, a lot of it just isn't MLB ready right now. Still, they have guys who are ready to make their first significant impact on the team (i.e., contributing to winning) like Lavarnway, Kalish, Doubront and Wilson. That's 4 players who couldn't help the team last year who should be helping them this year. That's not insignificant. If Iglesias shows anything with the bat you can add his name.

 

The following year there could be more. If Pimentel, Britton, Ranaudo or Barnes pitch like they have in the past then you're looking at 4 potential mid-rotation starters, or valuable trading pieces.

 

The list of offensive pieces in the system is very long and pretty damn solid.

 

I wouldn't s*** on the Sox system so easily.

The talent in our system is not very highly rated. I'm not the one that rates 'em.

 

Also, telling me how I I would react in a hypothetical situation is irrelevant and obnoxious.

[a700hitter]

Also, Hazelbaker (despite the silly name) hasn't put up terrible numbers. I bet he'll be a small part of a deal at some point. That's some value. Dude had 110 SB in his last 240 games. That speed (and decent OBP) should count for something eventually.

 

Even if he looked overmatched in spring training.

The guy couldn't catch a fly ball. He wasn't just overmatched at bat. I hope he can be included in a trade package. It would be his only value for the Sox.

[Palodios]

Apparently some prospect evaluators are rating Bogaerts above Banuelos in their lists

[example1]

The talent in our system is not very highly rated. I'm not the one that rates 'em.

 

Also, telling me how I I would react in a hypothetical situation is irrelevant and obnoxious.

 

 

You have nearly 30,000 posts. I'm not the only one who can reasonably guess how you would react in particular situations. That's a consequence of stating your views so many times. Sorry you find it obnoxious.

 

As for the system not being highly rated, give it some time. Their lower minors are highly rated, but most prospect ranking systems look toward MLB ready talent first and foremost. They had a ton of high draft picks the past two years.

[a700hitter]

 

You have nearly 30,000 posts. I'm not the only one who can reasonably guess how you would react in particular situations. That's a consequence of stating your views so many times. Sorry you find it obnoxious.

 

As for the system not being highly rated, give it some time. Their lower minors are highly rated, but most prospect ranking systems look toward MLB ready talent first and foremost. They had a ton of high draft picks the past two years.

In over 30, 000 posts (I need to do more with my life:lol:), you and other long termers should realize that I am not a one trick pony. Just because i have a philosophy about the prospects doesn't mean that I'd be giving away the jewels. We just don't have many jewels right now, not at any level. Sure some of the guys at the lower levels might be highly thought of, but there is not many who are big time blue chippers. I am disappointed that after all this time that you still think I am one-dimensional in my views.

[Palodios]

In over 30' date=' 000 posts (I need to do more with my life:lol:), you and other long termers should realize that I am not a one trick pony. Just because i have a philosophy about the prospects doesn't mean that I'd be giving away the jewels. We just don't have many jewels right now, not at any level. Sure some of the guys at the lower levels might be highly thought of, but there is not many who are big time blue chippers. I am disappointed that after all this time that you still think I am one-dimensional in my views. [/quote']

 

Which Red Sox prospects have you seen, and considered them near untouchable in a trade? Don't take that as a dig, I'm just curious.

[a700hitter]

Which Red Sox prospects have you seen' date=' and considered them near untouchable in a trade? Don't take that as a dig, I'm just curious.[/quote']The untouchable prospect is extremely rare. I can't remember an untouchable Sox prospect since Mo Vaughn or Clemens. That being said, there have been a number of guys since who I thought were legitimate blue chippers who should only be traded for legit established major league stars: among those would have been Ellsbury, Buchholz, Papelbon, and Lester. Is this relevant to anything?

[Palodios]

The untouchable prospect is extremely rare. I can't remember an untouchable Sox prospect since Mo Vaughn or Clemens. That being said' date=' there have been a number of guys since who I thought were legitimate blue chippers who should only be traded for legit established major league stars: among those would have been Ellsbury, Buchholz, Papelbon, and Lester. Is this relevant to anything?[/quote']

 

Not particularly, you've been a Red Sox fan a long time and I was just curious:lol:

[a700hitter]

Not particularly' date=' you've been a Red Sox fan a long time and I was just curious:lol:[/quote']If you want to go way back, I was eagerly looking forward to Dwight Evans and Rice coming to the bigs. Big time blue chippers. Untouchable.

[example1]

In over 30' date=' 000 posts (I need to do more with my life:lol:), you and other long termers should realize that I am not a one trick pony. Just because i have a philosophy about the prospects doesn't mean that I'd be giving away the jewels. We just don't have many jewels right now, not at any level. Sure some of the guys at the lower levels might be highly thought of, but there is not many who are big time blue chippers. I am disappointed that after all this time that you still think I am one-dimensional in my views. [/quote']

 

What defines a "blue chipper" for you?

 

a) Yearly MVP caliber

Yearly All-Star caliber

c) Occasional All-Star caliber

d) above average MLB regular

e) average MLB regular

f) part-time role player

g) scrub

h) none of the above

[ORS]

The guy admittedly doesn't know anything about the system' date=' but he just HAS to spout an opinion. Incredible.[/quote']

And then he goes on to call others obnoxious when it's pretty clear that his "contributions" to the thread were intended to be obnoxious.

[a700hitter]

What defines a "blue chipper" for you?

 

a) Yearly MVP caliber

Yearly All-Star caliber

c) Occasional All-Star caliber

d) above average MLB regular

e) average MLB regular

f) part-time role player

g) scrub

h) none of the above

I never thought of applying so many levels of accomplishment to prospects. A can't miss star prospect could probably end up in the top 3 categories-- you would hope.

[a700hitter]

And then he goes on to call others obnoxious when it's pretty clear that his "contributions" to the thread were intended to be obnoxious.

Good baseball discussion.

[example1]

I suspect that most people who are thinking about dealing prospects do think about them on that many levels (probably more).

 

An MLB regular player who gets 2-3 WAR a year under the team's control is quite valuable. I think the Sox have a number of players who probably project to be at least that level, possibly higher.

[a700hitter]

I suspect that most people who are thinking about dealing prospects do think about them on that many levels (probably more).

 

An MLB regular player who gets 2-3 WAR a year under the team's control is quite valuable. I think the Sox have a number of players who probably project to be at least that level, possibly higher.

I'm a fan. I do this for fun. I don't dive too deep on their stats. I pretty much go by what the experts (who supposedly do that analysis) say about them. Right now, our system is not getting great grades.

[ORS]

Good baseball discussion.

Right up there with commentary about Hazelbaker's name.

[a700hitter]

Right up there with commentary about Hazelbaker's name.

The difference being that the discussion about Hazelbaker was a discussion about a baseball player and his ability. Your discussion with a formerly banned poster was about me. It had nothing to do with baseball. :thumbdown

 

Unfortunately, through other posters quotes, I get to see that the formerly banned poster keeps taking potshots at me despite the fact that he knows I have him on ignore and I will not engage him. He is a cowardly internet bully.

[User Name]

Says the ignore-using pussy.

[ORS]

The difference being that the discussion about Hazelbaker was a discussion about a baseball player and his ability. Your discussion with a formerly banned poster was about me. It had nothing to do with baseball. :thumbdown

 

Unfortunately, through other posters quotes, I get to see that the formerly banned poster keeps taking potshots at me despite the fact that he knows I have him on ignore and I will not engage him. He is a cowardly internet bully.

There is no difference. You fall back onto the lame, "Nice baseball discussion", every time the impact of your smartass comments run their course. You are perfectly fine having the tenor of the coversation drift away from the intended purpose of this board, but only as long as it is on your terms, which is kind of hypocritical.

[iortiz]

There is no difference. You fall back onto the lame' date=' "Nice baseball discussion", every time the impact of your smartass comments run their course. You are perfectly fine having the tenor of the coversation drift away from the intended purpose of this board, but only as long as it is on your terms, which is kind of hypocritical.[/quote']

 

Sorry ORS, but there is a difference.

 

If you read carefully, he always talks about baseball. He could be right or wrong, just like you or me. We'll never know. Nobody holds the entire true. Even if we support some things with stats. In the end this is all about criteria. The discussion can get intense, but he doesn't insult other posters, and that my friend is a huuuuge difference.

[a700hitter]

There is no difference. You fall back onto the lame' date=' "Nice baseball discussion", every time the impact of your smartass comments run their course. You are perfectly fine having the tenor of the coversation drift away from the intended purpose of this board, but only as long as it is on your terms, which is kind of hypocritical.[/quote']We were discussing the current crop of prospects. You entered the thread and made it about me by bringing in the Johan Santana non-trade from 4 years ago. Look back at the thread. You derailed it. Santana and 4 years ago had nothing to do with this discussion. It was just your usual enter the thread and take a shot at me pattern. It's old and boring and it derails threads. Then you decide to throw in with Dutchy/Dipre to just level criticism at me without any baseball substance or content. All of my posts discussed baseball, but you don't see the distinction between a baseball discussion and targeted criticism of a poster. You need to get a grip and grow up. The fact that you are on the same page with the poster who holds the TalkSox record for banning should be a red flag about your behavior. I made no smart ass comment about any poster in the thread until now.

[User Name]

The romance is extremely beautiful, i must say.

[ORS]

We were discussing the current crop of prospects. You entered the thread and made it about me by bringing in the Johan Santana non-trade from 4 years ago. Look back at the thread. You derailed it. Santana and 4 years ago had nothing to do with this discussion. It was just your usual enter the thread and take a shot at me pattern. It's old and boring and it derails threads. Then you decide to throw in with Dutchy/Dipre to just level criticism at me without any baseball substance or content. All of my posts discussed baseball' date=' but you don't see the distinction between a baseball discussion and targeted criticism of a poster. You need to get a grip and grow up. The fact that you are on the same page with the poster who holds the TalkSox record for banning should be a red flag about your behavior. I made no smart ass comment about any poster in the thread until now.[/quote']

Read it again. I did not take a shot at you. You shared your philosophy, your hard/fast rule regarding a prospect's ultimate worth to the team, and I provided an example that demonstrated it's not always an ideal course of action. That's it. Quit playing the part of victim here.

 

Then you went on to call someone obnoxious for his behavior.....which I found ironic/hypocritical and stated as such....get this....just like you did. Whatever line it is you think I'm toeing, just know that you are right there along with me.

 

You want to know what has derailed this thread? Your original comment. It in no way added to stated pupose for this thread and took it off on a predictable tangent. It was a drive-by sniping of the thread. Sorry you don't like it when you get called out on it.

[ORS]

Sorry ORS, but there is a difference.

 

If you read carefully, he always talks about baseball. He could be right or wrong, just like you or me. We'll never know. Nobody holds the entire true. Even if we support some things with stats. In the end this is all about criteria. The discussion can get intense, but he doesn't insult other posters, and that my friend is a huuuuge difference.

Where have I insulted him? If it's the "obnoxious", then why does he get a free pass from you for when he did it?

 

He finds it obnoxious when someone tells him how he thinks, and he has a point. Strawmen are annoying, although ex1 does have some ground to stand on here, since after 30k posts, a700 has kind of defined his prevailing philosophy quite well. I find it obnoxious when someone snipes a thread regarding a subject they pay little attention to. He shared his opinion, I shared mine.

 

Only one of us is playing the victim card here.