Who are your four untouchable prospects?

Pick 'em!

  • Trey Ball

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Matt Barnes

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Mookie Betts

    Votes: 284 97.6%
  • Xander Bogaerts

    Votes: 253 86.9%
  • Jackie Bradley, Jr.

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Garin Cecchini

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • Sean Coyle

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Rafael Devers

    Votes: 76 26.1%
  • Edwin Escobar

    Votes: 11 3.8%
  • Brian Johnson

    Votes: 4 1.4%
  • Manuel Margot

    Votes: 37 12.7%
  • Deven Marrero

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Henry Owens

    Votes: 90 30.9%
  • Noe Ramirez

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Henry Ramos

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eduardo Rodriguez

    Votes: 61 21.0%
  • Travis Shaw

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Blake Swihart

    Votes: 260 89.3%
  • Christian Vazquez

    Votes: 38 13.1%
  • Other - Identify

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Total voters
    291

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Theo was quoted as saying "good hitters don't reach free agency any more" and for that reason, hitters fill my list.
 
Betts - Bogaerts - Swihart - Vazquez
 
It was very hard to leave Margot and Devers off the list, but it's about Boston.  While those kids are still far away, they would be 5 and 6 on my list.
 
I love our young pitchers and see them providing great value very soon, but as we saw this year, a staff can be assembled most years.
 

Again2004

New Member
Jan 9, 2007
207
Mookie 'The freak' Betts is clearly the best by far. Next three are all hitters. Xander Bogaerts, Blake Swihart, and Manuel Margot. Book it. Margot will be a stud prospect soon with his outstanding defense, blazing speed, and quick bat. 
 

SoxVindaloo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 20, 2003
979
Titletown of the Aughts
I went, like many, with Betts, Xander, Swihart, and Devers. Dever's power potential nips EdRod and Margot.
 
Xander is in a strange crossroads this year. It seems like he showed enough, especially with his late season surge, to preserve his value.
It will be really interesting if cannot handle short defensively this year, but his hit tool retains its value. On the Red Sox his position shift options remain very limited (1B?) unless Hanley becomes the 1st baseman in 16.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Anyone who has given up on xander is a fool. He was excellent in two parts of the season as a very young rookie. Nothing he did last year should have significantly lowered your view of him. He was moved position and not 100% healthy but before and after that he was was sick. If he had hit like he did at the start and end of the season he would be probably behind trout as the most valuable young player in baseball.

I live Betts. I ran his adopt a prospect thread. He's awesome. But he will have an adjustment phase on the bigs. Xander may already have done that.

It's not a big gap between them, and you can argue either way without being foolish but people who are over him are nuts. Crazy.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, and Vazquez.
 
100% agree with LondonSox's post above on X.  I think he and Betts are nearly interchangeable at #1 and 1A on this list.  
 
Swihart is now the best prospect in the system, based on projection and proximity to the bigs.  He's really the only untouchable pure prospect, for me.
Vazquez, however, is already doing it in the bigs.  I see his hitting rounding out to the .750ish OPS of his last two seasons of high minors ball - which would put him in the top half of MLB catchers at the plate.  He's only 20 months older than Swihart, who probably needs a full year at AAA.  I hear his defense is also ok.
 
Margot would be next on the list, but I see him as a step down from these guys based on not having reached Portland yet.  I hope he spends the majority of 2015 there, rockets up all the prospect lists, and firmly replaces WMB as my binky (with better results, hopefully).  Devers is too far away for me to consider for this exercise.
 
I missed the majority of the 2014 season due to work, but fell in love with the Owens dream in 2013.  His K rate is drool-worthy and the reduction in walks this season is encouraging.  But I don't see him or EdRod as a future ace, making them unworthy of an "untouchable" designation.  Also, TINSTAAPP.  Aside:  It wasn't until reading this thread that I realized Rodriguez is actually younger than Owens.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
LondonSox said:
Anyone who has given up on xander is a fool. He was excellent in two parts of the season as a very young rookie. Nothing he did last year should have significantly lowered your view of him. He was moved position and not 100% healthy but before and after that he was was sick. If he had hit like he did at the start and end of the season he would be probably behind trout as the most valuable young player in baseball.

I live Betts. I ran his adopt a prospect thread. He's awesome. But he will have an adjustment phase on the bigs. Xander may already have done that.

It's not a big gap between them, and you can argue either way without being foolish but people who are over him are nuts. Crazy.
what was the illness that Bogaerts had. I don't recall reading about this.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Doctor G said:
what was the illness that Bogaerts had. I don't recall reading about this.
I completely agree with London on this that to write off Xander or even just seriously downgrade one's expectations of him would be silly.  The degree to which this is going on in the fan base is nuts and makes us look like mfy fans who demand immediate results or call for a player to be banished.  As of June 3, he was hitting .304/.395/.464.  After Sept. 1 he hit .313/.317/.490.  Yes, this conveniently leaves out three bad months but he hit well after the bad months.   I thought his fielding got a little better at short as the year went on and still have hope that Brian Butterfield can turn him into a decent Ripken/Trammel style fielder.
 
As to what injuries Xander dealt with in 2014, here's a list of notes from Rotoworld baseball:
May 24, hamstring cramp
June 15,16, missed a couple games with an unspecified illness
Aug. 24, concussion from being hit by pitch from Felix Hernandez(out a week)
Sept. 23, neck issue
Sept. 28, sat with a hamstring issue
 

SoxVindaloo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 20, 2003
979
Titletown of the Aughts
I totally agree about Xander and his being very young and too promising to write off or downgrade in any way.
What I was wondering about was whether a bad year defensively at SS does anything to change the perspective about him. Not from the mouth breathers but from places like BP.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I voted for the standard B/B/S and added Devers, but honestly I wouldn't trade Margot either and Vasquez is more or less untouchable as the starting C for 2015 anyway (once Swihart is up and acclimated to MLB pitching I see him as a bit more expendable). The new rules make MLB a young man's game, so being able to add a steady stream of impact talent is one of the best ways to maintain a continuously competitive ML squad. I went for Devers over Margot for the power, which the Sox have in much shorter supply in the system; I could see him moving to 1B and being a very good defender with the bat still playing.

I'm much less taken with the pitching crop: Owens, ERod & Johnson look like #3 starter types, and I'd slit Barnes & workman in the 'pen, so I'm much more willing to package them with lesser positional talents (like Checcini) to upgrade to a better pitcher.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I picked Bogaerts and Betts as my first two, but I think it is a disservice to the Red Sox leverage to call them prospects. Looking at the whole picture, Bogaerts has put up a league average line for a SS over a full season in the majors before the age of 21 and showed enough defensively to stick there. Betts has similarly lost his rookie eligibility, while excelling offensively even as he was learning a new position. No way I'd let a trading partner get away with calling them prospects. These guys have proven they aren't Jackie Bradley.

My other two were Owens and Rodriguez, because I don't think you can afford to give up anyone with even as little as a 10-15% chance of being a top 25 starter in MLB. The cost of acquiring such a rare talent in trade or free agency is ridiculous and so I'd hoard any possible opportunity to get one from the farm.

That put me at the poll limit, but because I don't count Betts and Bogaerts, I'd add Swihart and Devers to my list. These two seem like they have the highest upside you can have in a prospect (as do betts and Bogaerts). In particular, Devers would be ahead of Swihart for me, because of his level would be nowhere near valued rationally in a trade. They'd almost surely be selling low. I'd love to see a study, but from 30 years of following the minors, Players with his pedigree that excel in rookie ball at that age rarely flame out in low A, and a successful Greenville season will add exponentially to his trade value. I'd loathe giving up Swihart, but he likely would be fully valued and I have a fair degree of confidence in Vazquez being well above average as well.

As hinted in that last sentence, I don't actually define untouchable as strictly untouchable. However, to give up even one of these guys, I'd need to be getting back at least 3 years of below market control from a prime aged perennial all star at a position of need with the rest of the organizational depth remaining intact.

In a package of 3 or less players with no other top 10 prospects, I'd give up Owens or Rodriguez for 5 years of Hamels. I might be tempted to give up any one of the non-Bs in a similar package for 3 years of Strasburg, and I would give up even Betts for 3 years of Bryce Harper. But that's what you'd have to be talking, which is as close as you get to untouchable.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Plympton91 said:
My other two were Owens and Rodriguez, because I don't think you can afford to give up anyone with even as little as a 10-15% chance of being a top 25 starter in MLB. The cost of acquiring such a rare talent in trade or free agency is ridiculous and so I'd hoard any possible opportunity to get one from the farm.
I think I am going to disagree with this part. Yes, #1 starters cost a lot in free agency. But part of that is the reality that young hitters rarely reach free agency anymore and any given free agent market has fewer prime players available. Hitting is infinitely more valuable in the post steroid/amphetamine era. And demedicated hitters decline rapidly. To be brutally frank, I think the further we get into this era the more we'll find that front line pitchers age better than hitters, so I would always value hitters over pitching. And as such I'm against trading hitters for pitchers, or at the least insisting that if the other guy wants a hitter for their front line starter that's all they get. Obviously you would make an exception for someone like Sale, depending on cost (when Oakland gave up that king's ransom for Shark I was actually disappointed Boston hadn't got their first with Lester).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Aren't injuries for pitchers at all time highs? I think people forget just how much PEDs helped Clemens, Gagne and other pitchers.

I think what we'll find out is the gap between a great hitter and an average one is greater than the gap between a great pitcher and an average one.

I should look closer at the math rather than assume how it works, but if the difference between a 150 era+ pitcher and a 100 era+ pitcher is worth like 15-20 runs over the course of a season while the difference between a 150 OPS+ hitter is worth 25-30 runs, then elite hitting is more valuable.

Is it possible a replacent level pitcher is more valuable than replacement level hitters, because due to the scoring enviroment, they are closer to average? League era is 4.50, replacement pitcher has era of 5.40. .9 runs a game. League era is 3.50. Replacement pitcher has era of 4.20. .7 runs a game, even though % wise nothing changed. That's 20 runs over 200 innings "lost" in value because the base average is now lower.

I guess it would probably all even out, I'd just put money on a Manny Ramirez being affected by it less than pitchers or league average hitters. If the scoring enviroment declined 10%, I'd guess an elite hitter only declines 5% and gains value in the process. I'm probably wrong, but throwing it out there.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I'm just not trading Manny for a pitcher is all I'm saying. Especially not an over 30 pitcher like Hamels. Trading ten years of plus hitting for three years of plus pitching in a run starved environment seems the definition of counterproductive.

EDIT: and to forestall the obvious for anyone looking to jump, I used Manny as he was your example. Obviously the odds of Swihart ever being half as good are low.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
nighthob said:
I'm just not trading Manny for a pitcher is all I'm saying. Especially not an over 30 pitcher like Hamels. Trading ten years of plus hitting for three years of plus pitching in a run starved environment seems the definition of counterproductive.

EDIT: and to forestall the obvious for anyone looking to jump, I used Manny as he was your example. Obviously the odds of Swihart ever being half as good are low.
 
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. They don't have 10 years of control of Swihart or any other player that is likely to come up in trade talks, so that number is meaningless. Similarly, Hamels is under control for five seasons, not three. I have no idea where these numbers have come from. They would be giving up 6 years of control of Swihart (or whichever prospect you build a deal around) for five years of Hamels at about market rate, or perhaps a little below if the market for staring pitchers continues to escalate.
 
I'm not paying that price (Swihart), but it's infinitely more reasonable than giving up 10 years of control of Swihart or a similar prospect for three years of control of Hamels... which doesn't actually exist.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
They technically have nine years of control of Swihart, given that he has three options.  Of course that means he is not contributing on a major league level for those years.