Baseball America Top 100

[notin]

The list is out.

 

Only two Red Sox (Groome and Chavis) in the top 100.

 

None in the top 80..

[mvp 78]

These posts should go here: http://www.talksox.com/forum/forums/17-Red-Sox-Minor-Leagues

[Kimmi]

Red Sox Stats

‏ @redsoxstats

4m4 minutes ago

 

Red Sox Stats Retweeted Ben Badler

 

Sox ranking over the past six year: 6, 2, 5, 4, 14, 24

 

 

Thanks Dave!

[moonslav59]

Red Sox Stats

‏ @redsoxstats

4m4 minutes ago

 

Red Sox Stats Retweeted Ben Badler

 

Sox ranking over the past six year: 6, 2, 5, 4, 14, 24

 

 

Thanks Dave!

 

Sale

 

Pomeranz

 

Kimbrel

 

Thornburg

 

Thanks Ben!

[Kimmi]

Sale

 

Pomeranz

 

Kimbrel

 

Thornburg

 

Thanks Ben!

 

A fellow poster on another site took a shot at Theo (how dare he?) because the Cubs don't have any prospects in the top 100. There are 3 reasons why what Theo has done is okay but what Dombrowski has done is not:

 

1. Theo built that farm so it was his to do with as he saw fit. It was time for his 5 year plan to come to fruition, which it did. Which brings me to reason 2.

2. The Cubbies won a World Series Championship with the trades Theo made. If the Red Sox win a championship in the next 2 years, I'll take back every cliff comment I ever made.

3. Even after the championship, the Cubbies 'window' is longer than ours. They are still set for long enough that they will have their next wave of prospects ready to go when they need them.

[moonslav59]

A fellow poster on another site took a shot at Theo (how dare he?) because the Cubs don't have any prospects in the top 100. There are 3 reasons why what Theo has done is okay but what Dombrowski has done is not:

 

1. Theo built that farm so it was his to do with as he saw fit. It was time for his 5 year plan to come to fruition, which it did. Which brings me to reason 2.

2. The Cubbies won a World Series Championship with the trades Theo made. If the Red Sox win a championship in the next 2 years, I'll take back every cliff comment I ever made.

3. Even after the championship, the Cubbies 'window' is longer than ours. They are still set for long enough that they will have their next wave of prospects ready to go when they need them.

 

What "next wave"?

 

Finishing with great records will keep his draft picks low, the Cubs are limited in international FA signings just like everyone else and they will be facing luxury tax limits like us before too long.

 

Theo built up the farm that produced these current stars under a much different setting than he has now. He had a very hard time rebuilding our farm while we were winning, and the system was easier for big spending teams back then.

 

Can he rebuild the Cubs' farm system while winning? I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited January 31, 2018 by moonslav59

[sk7326]

A fellow poster on another site took a shot at Theo (how dare he?) because the Cubs don't have any prospects in the top 100. There are 3 reasons why what Theo has done is okay but what Dombrowski has done is not:

 

1. Theo built that farm so it was his to do with as he saw fit. It was time for his 5 year plan to come to fruition, which it did. Which brings me to reason 2.

2. The Cubbies won a World Series Championship with the trades Theo made. If the Red Sox win a championship in the next 2 years, I'll take back every cliff comment I ever made.

3. Even after the championship, the Cubbies 'window' is longer than ours. They are still set for long enough that they will have their next wave of prospects ready to go when they need them.

 

The Cubbies won a World Series where they were outs away from being buried - you know better than to judge entirely on the outcome of the tournament.

 

The Red Sox window is no less open - prime guys same age, yada yada ... the gap is just not nearly as big.

 

This stuff happens all the time - teams are bad, they play kids, the kids get better, they have to restock. Since the Red Sox are rich, they have more means to buttress some of the effects, more "calculated risk" than a cliff. For instance, 2014 and 2015 were bad teams - but the Red Sox had lots of reasons to think they would be good. The cliff, such as it is, will be teams where more things have to go right (but not an unreasonable amount of them). If the Red Sox cannot reload, it is because they picked the wrong players.

[Kimmi]

What "next wave"?

 

Finishing with great records will keep his draft picks low, the Cubs are limited in international FA signings just like everyone else and they will be facing luxury tax limits like us before too long.

 

Theo built up the farm that produced these current stars under a much different setting than he has now. He had a very hard time rebuilding our farm while we were winning, and the system was easier for big spending teams back then.

 

Can he rebuild the Cubs' farm system while winning? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

The next wave that is already in their system, but not yet ranked in the top 100. I'm just going by what I've read.

 

And yes, Theo can rebuild the farm system while winning. He is the GOAT.

[Kimmi]

The Cubbies won a World Series where they were outs away from being buried - you know better than to judge entirely on the outcome of the tournament.

 

The Red Sox window is no less open - prime guys same age, yada yada ... the gap is just not nearly as big.

 

This stuff happens all the time - teams are bad, they play kids, the kids get better, they have to restock. Since the Red Sox are rich, they have more means to buttress some of the effects, more "calculated risk" than a cliff. For instance, 2014 and 2015 were bad teams - but the Red Sox had lots of reasons to think they would be good. The cliff, such as it is, will be teams where more things have to go right (but not an unreasonable amount of them). If the Red Sox cannot reload, it is because they picked the wrong players.

 

I understand that winning or losing in the World Series is a toss up. It's one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of the 'win now' philosophy. A team can be all in and come away with nothing. However, since winning the WS is the ultimate goal, if a team does win the championship, then IMO, the moves made, including depletion of the farm system, are justified.

 

I agree that the Sox can reload, but until it happens, the cliff exists.

[Bellhorn04]

I understand that winning or losing in the World Series is a toss up. It's one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of the 'win now' philosophy. A team can be all in and come away with nothing. However, since winning the WS is the ultimate goal, if a team does win the championship, then IMO, the moves made, including depletion of the farm system, are justified.

 

So that would mean the entire justification or lack of justification of your team-building approach depends on luck.

[sk7326]

I understand that winning or losing in the World Series is a toss up. It's one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of the 'win now' philosophy. A team can be all in and come away with nothing. However, since winning the WS is the ultimate goal, if a team does win the championship, then IMO, the moves made, including depletion of the farm system, are justified.

 

I agree that the Sox can reload, but until it happens, the cliff exists.

 

Oh I disagree there - I mean the Cubs put a ton of chips on the table in 2016, because they knew they had a great team ... and those players deserved the best possible swing at a title. Even if it didn't work - it was the right thing to do. Life is precious, and you have to pounce on opportunities.

 

This is not a defense of "Bagwell for Andersen" moves which were just a poor use of resources.

 

The Sox built this team the right way - it is hard to have an issue with using blocked minor leaguers and lower level pitchers to try to fill in some gaps. It is on Henry to prioritize finding kids for the next generation (and to open up the checkbook for the stars of today when appropriate).

[jacksonianmarch]

I wouldn't use the term "blocked kids". Kopech and Espinosa weren't blocked. When you dealt Margot, you didn't know if Bradley was for real or not. Also, Beni had just been drafted, so there was still an open OF slot. Moncada could have slotted over to 3b or pushed Xander to 3b. Shaw would have started for you last year. There wasn't a single prospect dealt that couldn't have been fit onto your squad.

[moonslav59]

I wouldn't use the term "blocked kids". Kopech and Espinosa weren't blocked. When you dealt Margot, you didn't know if Bradley was for real or not. Also, Beni had just been drafted, so there was still an open OF slot. Moncada could have slotted over to 3b or pushed Xander to 3b. Shaw would have started for you last year. There wasn't a single prospect dealt that couldn't have been fit onto your squad.

 

Very true, or they could have held longer and been traded for some of these bargain deals made this winter.

[sk7326]

I wouldn't use the term "blocked kids". Kopech and Espinosa weren't blocked. When you dealt Margot, you didn't know if Bradley was for real or not. Also, Beni had just been drafted, so there was still an open OF slot. Moncada could have slotted over to 3b or pushed Xander to 3b. Shaw would have started for you last year. There wasn't a single prospect dealt that couldn't have been fit onto your squad.

 

Kinda sorta - if Dombrowski showed up, did his analysis of the farm, identified Benintendi and Devers as the keepers and decided everything else was better sourced by the major league team, at least within the time frame which matters here. Espinoza and Kopech were ultimately dealt because they were pitchers, and come with an inherently much wider range of outcomes than position players. I was not a fan of the Pomeranz trade, but the idea of seeing a toolsy single-A pitcher with a wiry frame and saying "there's a lot of risk there" is pretty defensible.

 

Moncada they looked at him in 2016 and clearly decided he was not the best 3B prospect in the org - so time to use him to get Sale.

[sk7326]

Very true, or they could have held longer and been traded for some of these bargain deals made this winter.

 

Yes, I am sure if Dombrowski knew that the Marlins would be sold and their owner and GM were willing to sell off All-Star players for sacks of potatoes and magic beans, he probably holds these guys a bit longer.

[mvp 78]

Kinda sorta - if Dombrowski showed up, did his analysis of the farm, identified Benintendi and Devers as the keepers and decided everything else was better sourced by the major league team, at least within the time frame which matters here. Espinoza and Kopech were ultimately dealt because they were pitchers, and come with an inherently much wider range of outcomes than position players. I was not a fan of the Pomeranz trade, but the idea of seeing a toolsy single-A pitcher with a wiry frame and saying "there's a lot of risk there" is pretty defensible.

 

Moncada they looked at him in 2016 and clearly decided he was not the best 3B prospect in the org - so time to use him to get Sale.

 

As we have already seen with Espinoza...

[Kimmi]

Oh I disagree there - I mean the Cubs put a ton of chips on the table in 2016, because they knew they had a great team ... and those players deserved the best possible swing at a title. Even if it didn't work - it was the right thing to do. Life is precious, and you have to pounce on opportunities.

 

This is not a defense of "Bagwell for Andersen" moves which were just a poor use of resources.

 

The Sox built this team the right way - it is hard to have an issue with using blocked minor leaguers and lower level pitchers to try to fill in some gaps. It is on Henry to prioritize finding kids for the next generation (and to open up the checkbook for the stars of today when appropriate).

 

My point is this: If given the choice between having monster team for 3 years, then potentially being out of contention for the next 3 years, or of having a contending team year in an year out, I'm going with the latter. How much greater is the monster team's probability of winning the World Series over the contending team. Is it a big enough difference to go for broke? IMO, it's not.

 

If Dombrowski keeps us in contention after 2020, then I will readily admit how wrong I was.

[moonslav59]

It's hard to imagine us being totally out of contention for 3 years, if we are right below the luxury tax from 2020 to 2022.

 

It's easy to imagine us not being a top contender from 2021 to 2022 or 2023, but I doubt we finish 4th or 5th for 2 out of 3 seasons, let alone all 3.

 

We will struggle to fill the roster with quality, inexpensive players, but the budget should keep us fairly competitive (make the playoffs 1 out of those 3 years?).

 

I'm hoping we get some surprises from the farm, but I'm not overly optimistic.

[Kimmi]

It's hard to imagine us being totally out of contention for 3 years, if we are right below the luxury tax from 2020 to 2022.

 

It's easy to imagine us not being a top contender from 2021 to 2022 or 2023, but I doubt we finish 4th or 5th for 2 out of 3 seasons, let alone all 3.

 

We will struggle to fill the roster with quality, inexpensive players, but the budget should keep us fairly competitive (make the playoffs 1 out of those 3 years?).

 

I'm hoping we get some surprises from the farm, but I'm not overly optimistic.

 

I'm not saying that we'll necessarily finish in last place (or even 4th), but rather that we will not be expected to make the postseason for those seasons. It might not be for 3 years, but then again, it might be.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not saying that we'll necessarily finish in last place (or even 4th), but rather that we will not be expected to make the postseason for those seasons. It might not be for 3 years, but then again, it might be.

 

Or not.

[moonslav59]

Kinda sorta - if Dombrowski showed up, did his analysis of the farm, identified Benintendi and Devers as the keepers and decided everything else was better sourced by the major league team, at least within the time frame which matters here. Espinoza and Kopech were ultimately dealt because they were pitchers, and come with an inherently much wider range of outcomes than position players. I was not a fan of the Pomeranz trade, but the idea of seeing a toolsy single-A pitcher with a wiry frame and saying "there's a lot of risk there" is pretty defensible.

 

Moncada they looked at him in 2016 and clearly decided he was not the best 3B prospect in the org - so time to use him to get Sale.

 

Probably. Maybe DD really wanted Moncada over Devers, but the CWS insisted on Moncada.

 

Or not.

[Kimmi]

Or not.

 

LOL Touche'.

[Kimmi]

Probably. Maybe DD really wanted Moncada over Devers, but the CWS insisted on Moncada.

 

Or not.

 

I agree. It does appear that Dombrowski made the right choice on who to keep, but maybe it really wasn't his choice.

[Larry Cook]

Very important year coming up for groome. He needs to pitch to his potential while putting his father’s issues behind him. A very tall order.

 

His stuff is really good and his curveball is a plus pitch. How does that translate starting in April?

 

Is he pitches to his ability, he could be in Portland by August. (Hopefully with matta)

[jacksonianmarch]

Groome will be 19 for most of the 2018 season and has a max of 55IP in a season to this point. My anticipation is he will have an innings cap around 100-110. It will be hard for him to traverse A and A+ ball with that innings cap.

[moonslav59]

Very important year coming up for groome. He needs to pitch to his potential while putting his father’s issues behind him. A very tall order.

 

His stuff is really good and his curveball is a plus pitch. How does that translate starting in April?

 

Is he pitches to his ability, he could be in Portland by August. (Hopefully with matta)

 

Mata is 18 and Groome is 19.

 

soxprospects.com has Mata starting the season in high-A ball (Salem) and Groome starting the season in low-A (Greenville).

 

I guess it's possible one or both end the season in Portland, but I'm not sure if that should be the measure used to judge their 2018 success.

 

Both have high ceilings. soxprospects.com gives Groome a 3-7 scale and Mata a 3-6 scale.

 

BTW, Tanner Houck, 21, starts the year in Greenville, according to soxprospects.com. His scale is also listed at 3-6.

[Bellhorn04]

Mata is 18 and Groome is 19.

 

Sometimes I overlook just how young some of these prospects are. Especially when it feels like we've been talking about them for a long time.

[mvp 78]

If Groome just pitches for a full season, it would be a success to me.

[Larry Cook]

I saw matta pitch a couple games last season. His stuff does not scream like groome’s but sometimes when you stand next to a super bright light like groome, talent evaluators tend to be blinded to just how good your stuff is. And that is why I am very high in matta’s potential as a #3 or #4 starter.

 

Did not see houck pitch in pro ball last year, but saw him a couple times in college. Best bet for him is he is our future closer.