2018 ESPN Prospects Stuff (Sox Related)

[sk7326]

From the Top 100 ... with a system with a lot of graduates, obviously the Sox are thin at the top ...

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/22181590/keith-law-2018-top-100-prospects-nos-50-1-introducing-tomorrow-superstars

 

30. Jason Groome, LHP, Age 19, Last year rank: 20

 

Groome's season couldn't have gone much worse. He started out hurt, tried to pitch through it, gave up a nine-spot in his first start of the year and then went on the shelf for two months. When he did reach the mound, the results were inconsistent, but his stuff has already started to justify his pre-draft projections.

 

The 2016 first-rounder worked at 92-95 as a starter last year and still has a grade-70 curveball as a put-away pitch that he can throw for strikes and even for swings and misses in the zone. He has been working on his changeup -- during some outings it would flash above average and in others it was a nonfactor for him. He also may eventually be a candidate for a cutter, especially if the change doesn't come along all the way.

 

Groome is a lean 6-foot-6 and should put on more muscle as he gets into his 20s, but the priority for him now is conditioning rather than weight training, so he can have a full, healthy 2018 and continue to work on his control and changeup. Few starter prospects can boast a breaking ball like Groome's, and despite all of the missed time, his arm is still healthy, so his upside of a No. 2 starter remains intact.

 

76. Michael Chavis, 3B, Age 22, Last Year Rank: UR

 

Chavis played most of 2016 with a broken finger but didn't disclose the injury to the Red Sox, so his awful performance for low-A Greenville at least had an explanation. Fully healthy in 2017, Chavis exploded for 31 homers between high-A and Double-A while cutting his strikeout rate at both levels and looking a lot more like the player Boston thought it was getting with its first-round pick in 2014.

 

He has big-time pull power, but one key for him last year was working more towards left-center to open up more of the field and make him less vulnerable with two strikes or against soft away pitches.

 

A fringy defender at third, he lacks the agility to be more than a good 45 there and may end up at first base between that and the presence of Rafael Devers ahead of him.

 

Chavis has made up for lost time in a huge way and should start 2018 in Double-A at age 22, still needing some work on his approach, but he's already progressed so far by not trying to kill the ball every time he swings that you can project him as a solid regular with some upside if he keeps his average and OBP up.

[Carpin]

A little surprised to see Groome that high on the list after looking at the BA ranking, but good for you guys. Also Chavis was ranked as the 4th 3B prospects by MLB behind Guerrero (TOR), Senzel (CIN) and Andujar (NYY).

[a700hitter]

From the Top 100 ... with a system with a lot of graduates, obviously the Sox are thin at the top ...

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/22181590/keith-law-2018-top-100-prospects-nos-50-1-introducing-tomorrow-superstars

 

30. Jason Groome, LHP, Age 19, Last year rank: 20

 

 

 

76. Michael Chavis, 3B, Age 22, Last Year Rank: UR

I am running for some anti-anxiety meds.

[Spudboy]

I am running for some anti-anxiety meds.

 

"Thanks Dave".

[sk7326]

Just missed the Top 100

 

Tanner Houck, RHP

 

If Houck shows that he can start, he's a top-100 prospect.

 

There's a lot of question about whether that's the case with him, as he's primarily a two-pitch guy (two-seamer and breaking ball) with some reliever-ish characteristics in his delivery and below-average command. He also dominated a great conference for three years at Missouri, and there's no question about his aggressiveness on the mound or his size and frame.

 

He does need to develop a change-of-pace pitch, and mixing in a four-seamer to up and down with his two fastballs would keep him from getting hit when he tries to use the two-seamer up. I lean slightly reliever on Houck's future, but there are valid reasons the Red Sox think that's wrong.

[moonslav59]

So, we have 3 in the top 101?

[Bellhorn04]

So, we have 3 in the top 101?

 

Yes, that's the spirit!

[Spudboy]

Yes, that's the spirit!

 

What cliff?

[moonslav59]

What cliff?

 

Zero in the top 80.

[Bellhorn04]

Zero in the top 80.

 

2, according to these rankings.

[moonslav59]

2, according to these rankings.

 

True.

 

Zero in BA.

 

1 in the top 75 on this ranking (the pessimist's view).

[Carpin]

True.

 

Zero in BA.

 

1 in the top 75 on this ranking (the pessimist's view).

 

How good is the new wave of Sox prospects? do you think they have enough upside to reach "top prospect" status in the next year?

 

I'm not trying to knock you guys down, just don't know your system very well

[moonslav59]

How good is the new wave of Sox prospects? do you think they have enough upside to reach "top prospect" status in the next year?

 

I'm not trying to knock you guys down, just don't know your system very well

 

Most of our best talent was or is in single A. That makes it hard to judge.

 

Groome, Mata, Brannen and Houck can rise in the rankings with a good year.

 

Ockimey is a bit of a wild card.

 

Chavis could rise with a second strong year in a row.

 

Travis, Shawarayn and Beeks are older and maybe topped out.

[sk7326]

So, we have 3 in the top 101?

 

Remember, one of the guys who would have been on the list died. 3-4 of the top 100 or so is not terrible considering the number of guys who graduated or were dealt the last 2-3 years.

[moonslav59]

Remember, one of the guys who would have been on the list died. 3-4 of the top 100 or so is not terrible considering the number of guys who graduated or were dealt the last 2-3 years.

 

Yes, Theo and Ben built the farm up nicely, but as of right now, we have 0 in the top 80 according to BA and 1 in the top 75 by ESPN.

 

Recent grads will carry us for a while, but when their prices get higher, we'll need some fresh and inexpensive young players on the roster. How many of our prospects will give us significant value between 2 and 4 years from now?

 

This is what is concerning to some of us.

Edited January 26, 2018 by moonslav59

[sk7326]

Yes, Theo and Ben built the arm up nicely, but as of right now, we have 0 in the top 80 according to BA and 1 in the top 75 by ESPN.

 

Recent grads will carry us for a while, but when their prices get higher, we'll need some fresh and inexpensive young players on the roster. How many of our prospects will give us significant value between 2 and 4 years from now?

 

This is what is concerning to some of us.

 

When the price gets high, you pay some of them - no farm system stays indefinitely stocked. After all the farm exists to serve the big league club - however that happens. Now whether Dombrowski has replenished is a fair question. Right now, the answer is "some". But every system has these cycles - including the Theo years.

 

And - for the most part, Dombrowski's decision involving prospects to deal have been defensible ones - perhaps even correct.

[moonslav59]

When the price gets high, you pay some of them - no farm system stays indefinitely stocked. After all the farm exists to serve the big league club - however that happens. Now whether Dombrowski has replenished is a fair question. Right now, the answer is "some". But every system has these cycles - including the Theo years.

 

And - for the most part, Dombrowski's decision involving prospects to deal have been defensible ones - perhaps even correct.

 

The system was different under Theo's reign and a little different under Ben's.

 

No more swooping in and drafting better players with lower picks due to signability issues with poorer higher picking teams.

 

No more unlimited spending on international free agents.

 

No more stockpiling comp picks.

 

If we keep winning and spending, we will get lower draft picks. We will pay more and more in taxes. We may face penalties, including having our picks lowered further and pool money reduced.

 

There's no guarantee our farm is doomed until we lose more than we win, but it won't be easy. Losing Flores so tragically hurt. Trading so many once highly ranked prospects in such a short period hurt our future badly. I'm not upset by this. I would not have gone so far, but I understand the idea of not playing things halfway.

 

Top prospects traded recently, as ranked by soxprospects.com (highest ranking while here):

 

1 Yoan Moncada

3 Manuel Margot

3 Anderson Espinoza

5 Michael Kopech

7 Luis Basabe

9 Mauricio Dubon

13 Logan Allen

18 Luis Basabe

20 Carlos Asuaje

21 Victor Diaz

24 Josh Pennington

 

Other lessers

3 Cecchini

6 Javier Guerra

9 Nick Longhi

11 Coyle

12 Wendell Rijo

13 Pat Light

30 Aaron Wilkerson

[jacksonianmarch]

The sox have done the two things you cannot do for sustainability. They dealt their top prospects and they didn't replace them with big talent. I think their draft from a year ago was reasonable, but none of the players there are anything more than talent sans production. They drafted Groome in DD's first draft, and while his stuff has carried, his production has not. Nobody has taken the reigns from his first draft or from the 2015 draft and established themselves as top level prospects.

[moonslav59]

The sox have done the two things you cannot do for sustainability. They dealt their top prospects and they didn't replace them with big talent. I think their draft from a year ago was reasonable, but none of the players there are anything more than talent sans production. They drafted Groome in DD's first draft, and while his stuff has carried, his production has not. Nobody has taken the reigns from his first draft or from the 2015 draft and established themselves as top level prospects.

 

In all fairness, Groome was a high school pick and has less than 65 innings pitched in pro ball. His not being a top 20 prospect at this age and point in his career is not necessarily a ding on DD's record.

 

CJ Chatham was the 51st pick in 2016. Not many of those rise to the top 100 in less than 2 years.

 

The 2017 draft is too recent to judge. Sure, some draftees from 2017 made the top 100, but I'm not sure how many lower picks made the list.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic about our picks over the last two years, but your point is well taken. Nobody has jumped out as being something very special in a limited time period. Maybe someone will this season, but I doubt we come anywhere near as strong as our farm was 2-3 years ago for quite some time.

[sk7326]

The system was different under Theo's reign and a little different under Ben's.

 

No more swooping in and drafting better players with lower picks due to signability issues with poorer higher picking teams.

 

No more unlimited spending on international free agents.

 

No more stockpiling comp picks.

 

If we keep winning and spending, we will get lower draft picks. We will pay more and more in taxes. We may face penalties, including having our picks lowered further and pool money reduced.

 

There's no guarantee our farm is doomed until we lose more than we win, but it won't be easy. Losing Flores so tragically hurt. Trading so many once highly ranked prospects in such a short period hurt our future badly. I'm not upset by this. I would not have gone so far, but I understand the idea of not playing things halfway.

 

Top prospects traded recently, as ranked by soxprospects.com (highest ranking while here):

 

1 Yoan Moncada

3 Manuel Margot

3 Anderson Espinoza

5 Michael Kopech

7 Luis Basabe

9 Mauricio Dubon

13 Logan Allen

18 Luis Basabe

20 Carlos Asuaje

21 Victor Diaz

24 Josh Pennington

 

Other lessers

3 Cecchini

6 Javier Guerra

9 Nick Longhi

11 Coyle

12 Wendell Rijo

13 Pat Light

30 Aaron Wilkerson

 

All true - which is a bummer. There is - so far - exactly one major league starter from that pile. Dombrowski chose to keep a couple of the kiddos - and so far it has looked like the right answer.

[jacksonianmarch]

In all fairness, you don’t bring in Dave Dombrowski to “finish a rebuild”. You bring him in to immediately turn your team into a winner and forsake the future. The funny thing is, DD was a builder when he was younger, but I anticipate the directive when he signed and his recent MO suggested a rapid turnaround

[Bellhorn04]

In all fairness, you don’t bring in Dave Dombrowski to “finish a rebuild”. You bring him in to immediately turn your team into a winner and forsake the future. The funny thing is, DD was a builder when he was younger, but I anticipate the directive when he signed and his recent MO suggested a rapid turnaround

 

I don't think DD was supposed to 'forsake the future'. My position has been that he had little choice but to trade a lot of prospects to upgrade the pitching staff.

 

To date, DD has done next to nothing in terms of acquiring position players. It's been pitching, pitching, pitching.

 

His legacy as a Red Sox GM still has a little while to play out.

[jacksonianmarch]

If the sox won a title, then his plan worked

[moonslav59]

All true - which is a bummer. There is - so far - exactly one major league starter from that pile. Dombrowski chose to keep a couple of the kiddos - and so far it has looked like the right answer.

 

It's early on judging the players traded away, but Moncada and Margot are both starters. He also traded post-prospect Travis Shaw- a starter.

[moonslav59]

I don't think DD was supposed to 'forsake the future'. My position has been that he had little choice but to trade a lot of prospects to upgrade the pitching staff.

 

To date, DD has done next to nothing in terms of acquiring position players. It's been pitching, pitching, pitching.

 

His legacy as a Red Sox GM still has a little while to play out.

 

Good points.

 

His positional player acquirements and Sox OPS are...

 

.892 Nunez

.773 Young*

.769 Moreland* (only starter wire-to-wire)

.595 R. Davis

.577 A Hill

 

* Only two signed in the winter.

 

[sk7326]

It's early on judging the players traded away, but Moncada and Margot are both starters. He also traded post-prospect Travis Shaw- a starter.

 

Fair point on Shaw - Margot looks like a legit starter ... Moncada has not proven to be replacement level yet, although he probably could be ... again, I think Dombrowski's view is a fair one, that you keep the stars and everything else is fair game ... and the guys he has chosen were the highest ceiling of the bunch.

[sk7326]

Org rankings ... #24 (down from 16) http://insider.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/22197478/keith-law-2018-ranking-all-30-farm-systems

 

To quote one of my favorite cartoon characters, "the system is down, yo." Years of promotions coupled with several big trades have finally tumbled the Red Sox from perennial top-10 status to the bottom third, and there's a lot less certainty among their top 10 than there has been at any point since I started ranking prospects within orgs. Their 2017 draft class was one of the best given where they picked, with three potential first-round talents coming in their first five picks.

[Bellhorn04]

Org rankings ... #24 (down from 16) http://insider.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/22197478/keith-law-2018-ranking-all-30-farm-systems

 

Well, I like the last sentence, anyway!

[sk7326]

Well, I like the last sentence, anyway!

 

Royals were #26 ... again the vestiges of making moves to win 2 pennants in a row. At least if you are going to trade for the big league roster, at least you are stocking a team that plays in October.

[moonslav59]

Fair point on Shaw - Margot looks like a legit starter ... Moncada has not proven to be replacement level yet, although he probably could be ... again, I think Dombrowski's view is a fair one, that you keep the stars and everything else is fair game ... and the guys he has chosen were the highest ceiling of the bunch.

 

Moncada started the last third of the season and posted a +0.9 WAR in 54 games. Prorated to 162, that's 2.9. That's way better than "replacement" level.

 

He's a starter.

 

Again, I'm fine with not playing it halfway, but I'm also not going to deny the long term effects (not that you are).

 

When we traded away almost our whole pitching staff years ago, I was fine with the idea. We were losing those guys anyway. What I disliked about the return we got was that I felt Ben played it "halfway". I felt he should have tried for higher ceiling players rather than established ML players and fully ML ready youngsters.