FredLynn

I think those ranking numbers are pretty accurate. Perhaps once some of the guys in AA mature, if they mature, we will improve our position. Its particularly concerning that we don't have pitchers who are in a good position.

None of the rankings place them in the upper eschelon.

Several of us think he is a refugee from Sawxheads. He drinks too much and isn't particularly insightful. Eventually we drove him out.

PM me then. I think its CP.

You think its CP? Could be.

LOL...as much as we agree on most things ELK, I have to disagree on this one. Cherington was given nothing to work with. I doubt he was even calling many of the shots. Since there was no choice called "Incomplete", even for the preseason, I had to give him a generous C. You cannot make bricks without straw, as my ancestors once said.

And you copied it here because.......?

That is a good assessment. We have a large number of guys with potential at the lower levels. Most will fall by the wayside. Now back to the original reason this discussion started, which is that Ben Cherington cannot be faulted for not scoring us a good SP because 1. Henry wouldn't pay for one and 2. We do not have the kind of farm system that can afford to surrender 3 or 4 prospects for such a player. Our strength is in numbers of players and we just can't trade the guys who constitute our top level away-unless its a steal.

It doesn't matter what the REASON is that we are ranked in the middle third of farm systems in baseball; the fact of the matter is that that is where we stand. And there are very valid reasons for it. Let me explain it to you this way: if a baseball comes through your front window, does it matter that the reason it came through the front window is that the neighbor's kid threw it at your window? No. The window is broken regardless of how it got broken. The fact is that our farm system is ranked in the middle third by nearly all people who put out those rankings, regardless of how we got there.

Can I call you Moe? Or would you prefer Mr Moe...

Sickels also ranked us in the middle third: 1) Toronto Blue Jays: Eight B+ prospects with ridiculous depth behind them. 2) San Diego Padres: Incredible depth after the winter trades pushes this system almost to the top. 3) Texas Rangers: Continues to churn out talent, with much more percolating at the lower levels. I do not give the Rangers farm system credit for Yu Darvish. They would rank number one if I gave them credit for Darvish, but in my mind that is unfair to the other teams: I see him as a major league free agent, not a prospect. 4) Seattle Mariners: Jesus Montero plus three elite pitching prospects and others who can improve. 5) St. Louis Cardinals: They don't get talked about as much as other teams, but they have a Grade A prospect in Shelby Miller and a lot of pitching depth behind him. I think this system is underrated. 6) Kansas City Royals: They slipped from last year's top spot, showing the volatility of pitching prospects, but heavy investments in draft and foreign players should continue to show dividends. 7) Tampa Bay Rays: Impact depth behind Matt Moore has slipped but this is still a robust organization. 8) Atlanta Braves: Lots of pitching at the top, but they need more hitters. 9) Arizona Diamondbacks: Another system with lots of pitching but not much hitting, even more extreme than Atlanta. 10) Oakland Athletics: Trades helped this system a lot, would have ranked much lower otherwise. 11) Boston Red Sox: Large group of B- types who can improve. Hitting stronger than pitching at this point.

I found ranking systems that put us at 11, 14, and 18. Someone else here found one that put us at 10. Pretty consistently middle of the pack. Can you find as many that say we rank above #10? If not, with all due respect, I will believe those guys who get paid to rank the farm systems.

Gosh Mr Wizard, is that what you really think? Pardon me while I take a minute to genuflect in your presence.......:harhar:

You keep bashing the "mediocrity" of the farm, but i don't quite think you're focusing on the real status of the Red Sox farm system. It's not a lack of talent that the system suffers from. Thats EXACTLY what we suffer from. Its why we are ranked anywhere from 10th to 18th by all the sources I could find. If we had more TALENT we would be ranked higher. The SP problem is one that I am sure our FO is aware of. I am also sure that they made every effort to obtain a good SP with a package of midlevel prospects, which is really all we have-guys with an upside who are nowhere near ML ready. As I said, sure, we have the players to pull off a trade, but what it would take to get a good SP would excessively further degrade what is already a mediocre farm system. I don't think we can afford to sink any lower than where we are now. Maybe if some of these guys come along in their development we can swing a trade that makes sense. Right now it didn't happen, and there is probably a very good reason for it. Other GMs are not going to just give away good SP.

Thats better than calling some posters here "stooges". Now we can discuss the issues. I probably misspoke. The intent was to convey my opinion that we cannot afford to trade away the number of prospects it would take to secure a good SP, our primary need, without severely raping our already mediocre farm system. We do have some prospects, obviously, but none who are really going to be able to contribute any time soon. If I am a GM, I would prefer guys who have played in AAA and played well as part of the package as opposed to guys who have 100 ABs in AAA or haven't even made it there yet.

You are missing the point again. We cannot afford to surrender Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Jacobs, and Ranaudo for ANYONE. There are simply too few guys left behind them. If the chances of a "near ready" top prospect making an impact in the majors is, for example, 50%, the chance for a prospect who is in AA ball is far less. So we need a lot more of them in order to get a couple of guys who will eventually make it up in a meaningful way. Thats why our farm system is ranked as ordinary by every source I could find. We trade away four (or three) of them for a single guy like Floyd and we dramatically reduce the quality of our already mediocre farm system. As regards the Gonzalez trade, Rizzo and Kelly were hardly in the class of Middlebrooks (who hit .161 at AAA last year) et al. Rizzo has already played in the majors, and Kelly is not far behind, most likely. No GM is just going to give away a good SP for a couple of guys with "an upside". It will take a large package of them or fewer of the kind of prospects we no longer possess.

I am sure they ARE available for trade-if we can find a sucker deal. In order to obtain a good SP we would have to surrender many of our top prospects, realistically. Thats not a smart thing to do. No GM is going to swap a Vitek for a good SP straight up; it would take at least three of our top guys to swing that. We just don't have the depth to do that.

Which one are you?

Why would we remove top prospects from the equation? Could that be because ours do not measure up to the top prospects in the farm systems of the top 10 ML teams? I would rather have minor league prospects, especially PITCHING prospects (of which we have very few who are likely to sniff our roster), than middle of the pack guys with a so-called "upside". That category of prospect described Lars Anderson, Felix Doubront, and Michael Bowden not too long ago. Guys that are closer to being able to contribute are certainly preferable than what we have in our farm system. Thats why our farm system is ranked as very ordinary compared to the top tier. And getting back to my original point, its a reason Cherington didn't have the goods to make a deal for a prime SP, along with the owners reluctance to open wide their wallets. Its why we are where we are today.

If we are dealing with reality, those players are not going to be packaged in a deal for anyone. Sure, if we gave away our top 10 prospects for a good SP, we could get one. My point is that with the guys we have in the minor leagues WHO ARE AVAILABLE, we aren't going to be able to get what we need. All of us regurgitate information provided by others, unless YOU have been scouting the prospects yourself. Have you? As for the overall depth of our farm system, we have NO ONE who is not already here who is ML ready. That means we have lots of maybe's who may or may not pan out. The overall rankings ranged from 10th to 18th-middle of the pack. Unfortunately, that IS a fact. Thats where we are right now.

Actually, I do. I showed you recently some ratings of our farm system that proved that we are no better than middle of the pack. We do not have enough depth to surrender the few guys we have left. Sure, if we completed the rape that Epstein began we might get people listening-maybe. You think thats a good idea? Or do you think its smarter to keep the few real prospects we have left that MIGHT some day make the majors (none are near ready; Lavarnway is already here) as our current GM has done?