69 replies to this topic

[nomarshaus]

Sickels' Sox Top 20

1 Ellsbury
2 Buchholz
3 Bowden
4 Hansen
5 L anderson
6 Bard
7 Pedroia
8 Kottaras
9 Masterson
10 B Cox
11 J Place
12 K Johnson
13 Clay
14 Murhpy
15 CFO
16 E Martinez
17 Lowrie
18 Spann
19 Natale
20 Bates


i like this one slightly better than BA's. it seems to be a little more performance based, but surprisingly Anderson is 5th here as well. these lists have me very excited to see what he can do.

Edited by nomarshaus, 11 December 2006 - 04:27 PM.

[ScottT158]

Cox at #10? That's a surprise considering how lights out he was in the College World Series and the numbers that he put up in the minors over the summer. Minus Pedroia, he's the only one in the top 10 who I can really see making a big impact for the Sox some time in 2007. I like Ellsbury, but we have a full outfield right now and his role is pretty much occupied by Coco right now.

[Razor Shines]

Some thoughts:

Regarding Lars Anderson, can anyone remember another recent example of a high school 1B getting this much acclaim? I've never seen him, but this kid must really rake. Looking forward to seeing what he can do (in Greenville?).

With all due respect to John Sickles, his reasoning for downgrading Cox seems sort of weak ("pitchers from Rice scare me").

Good to see Hansen still getting some love. I think we tend to forget that he is not much more than a year removed from the Big East.

Edited by Razor Shines, 11 December 2006 - 04:50 PM.

[ese718xc]

Some thoughts:

Regarding Lars Anderson, can anyone remember another recent example of a high school 1B getting this much acclaim?  I've never seen him, but this kid must really rake.  Looking forward to seeing what he can do (in Greenville?).

With all due respect to John Sickles, his reasoning for downgrading Cox seems sort of weak ("pitchers from Rice scare me").

Good to see Hansen still getting some love.  I think we tend to forget that he is not much more than a year removed from the Big East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sickels has had a man-crush on Anderson for a while now. He actually selected Lars in the first round of his Twins "shadow draft" that he does annually. So it's not surprising that he has him ranked higher than most.

[jsinger121]

Some of my thoughts on his rankings. Cox is too low. He is better than 10th. Natale should not even be in the top 20 as I would have taken Jon Egan or even Chih-Hsien Chiang over him. I am also one who would who would go with Buchholz over Ellsbury.

[Jim Gosger]

I'm going to repost the list with John's comments, since this is freely available.

Minor League Ball

2007 Boston Red Sox Prospects


Jacoby Ellsbury, OF, Grade B+ (not as much power as Damon but otherwise similar)

Clay Buchholz, RHP, Grade B+ (good combination of stuff and command)

Michael Bowden, RHP, Grade B+ (good combination of stuff and command)

Craig Hansen, RHP B+ (I am still optimistic about him but he was rushed)

Lars Anderson, 1B, B  (I love this guy, enormous power potential)

Daniel Bard, RHP, B  (Best stuff in the system but may need more time than other college arms)

Dustin Pedroia, 2B, B (Another personal favorite)

George Kottaras , C, B (Should be ready in 2008, solid player but not terrific)

Justin Masterson, RHP, B  (Underrated ground ball artist with great control)

Bryce Cox, RHP, B- (Great arm but Rice pitchers scare me)

Jason Place, OF, B- (Toolsy outfielder, is he Francoeur or Assadoorian?)

Kris Johnson, LHP, C+ (Good recovery from Tommy John)

Caleb Clay, RHP, C+  (Young raw high school arm)

David Murphy, OF, C+  (Solid fourth outfielder)

Carlos Fernandez-Oliva, OF, C+  (A long way from the majors but good hitting potential)

Edgar Martinez, RHP, C+ (another sound middle relief arm)

Jed Lowrie, INF, C+ (Somewhat disappointing season but controls the zone well)

Chad Spann, 3B, C+ (Joe Randa clone?)

Jeff Natale, 2B, C+  (who the hell is this guy? .950 career OPS out of a 5-8 body)

Aaron Bates, 1B, C+  (Interesting power bat from '06 draft)

Others of Note: Jeff Corsaletti, OF; Jordan Craft, RHP; Felix Doubront, LHP; Jon Egan, C; Devern Hansack, RHP; Tommy Hottovy, LHP; Kyle Jackson, RHP; Ryan Kalish, OF; Brandon Moss; OF; Kris Negron, SS: Josh Papelbon, RHP, Dustin Richardson, LHP; Mike Rozier, LHP; Mark Wagner, C; Ty Weeden, C.
The Red Sox in One Sentence: The huge windfall of the 2006 draft recharged this system quickly.

There is a lot to like here, including a nice assortment of power arms and hitters with both polish and upside.

ALL GRADES ARE PRELIMINARY. If you hate a grade, feel free to make a case for me to change it, though remember that cases phrased respectfully using logic and facts are more likely to be viewed positively than those featuring insults and invective.

There is a lot of slack in the B-/C+/C range and players may move up and down depending on how my thinking progresses. Feel free to make comments, point out sleepers I may have missed, etc. Note that there is only a limited amount of space in the book, and the max I can do is 35-36 players per team.

And, as always, there is the helpful reminder to Buy My Book, which will lay out reports for all these guys (and more) in detail.

[ellsworthsdip]

Cox at #10?  That's a surprise considering how lights out he was in the College World Series and the numbers that he put up in the minors over the summer.  Minus Pedroia, he's the only one in the top 10 who I can really see making a big impact for the Sox some time in 2007.  I like Ellsbury, but we have a full outfield right now and his role is pretty much occupied by Coco right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could Coco get traded? Ellsbury seems fairly ready though I agree that Cox and Pedroia are the 2 closest. Hanson probably will get called up fairly soon too...

[The Glove]

Could Coco get traded? Ellsbury seems fairly ready though I agree that Cox and Pedroia are the 2 closest. Hanson probably will get called up fairly soon too...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there's no need to trade Coco until Ellsbury establishes himself at AAA (which I expect he will do). And given the issues this team has had w/injuries the last few years, Ellsbury may get a chance to play without Coco being traded.

That said, I do expect Ellsbury to eventually facilitate Coco's departure via trade. Just not right now.

[papi's bat boy 2004]

Some of my thoughts on his rankings. Cox is too low. He is better than 10th. Natale should not even be in the top 20 as I would have taken Jon Egan or even Chih-Hsien Chiang over him. I am also one who would who would go with Buchholz over Ellsbury.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not the least bit surprised Ellsbury is rated first.

Admittedly, I've seen much more of Ellsbury than Buchholz, but Jacoby is the real deal. The ball just jumps off of his bat, and his base running skills are incredible for his age / experience level.

I know it is only the CL, but he was clearly a man among boys in Wilmington. I'm looking forward to watching him rocket through the system. With the Sox for a taste in 2008 and a permanent fixture in CF for 2009.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Admittedly, I've seen much more of Ellsbury than Buchholz, but Jacoby is the real deal. The ball just jumps off of his bat, and his base running skills are incredible for his age / experience level.

He was only 41 / 58 in SB attempts last year, a 71% success rate for A-AA ball doesn't sound that good to me. Is there an explanation for this? I recall something at one point that helped explain this- but can't recall it.

[papi's bat boy 2004]

He was only 41 / 58 in SB attempts last year, a 71% success rate for A-AA ball doesn't sound that good to me. Is there an explanation for this? I recall something at one point that helped explain this- but can't recall it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My base running reference was not about his SB success. It is more about taking the extra base. Particularly at Wilmington, you'd see players turn a double into a single. Ellsbury uses his speed to get that extra base. Quite a few triples that never would have been for other players.

Is he slated for Pawtucket this year?

[Razor Shines]

Is he slated for Pawtucket this year?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would think so. Given that A ) he'll be 24 next September, at which point he will officially be "old" for the Eastern League, and B ) he played well enough in 50 AA games last season (821 OPS, 1:1 K/BB ratio, stellar defense), I don't see how another year in Portland will really help his development.

Edited by Razor Shines, 12 December 2006 - 09:23 AM.

[HighHeat]

I'm not the least bit surprised Ellsbury is rated first.

Admittedly, I've seen much more of Ellsbury than Buchholz, but Jacoby is the real deal.  The ball just jumps off of his bat, and his base running skills are incredible for his age / experience level.

I know it is only the CL, but he was clearly a man among boys in Wilmington. I'm looking forward to watching him rocket through the system. With the Sox for a taste in 2008 and a permanent fixture in CF for 2009.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're being far too conservative in your projection. I expect that he'll have at least a cup of coffee in September, and he may very well have the opportunity to win the starting CF job in '08. If Ellsbury is in fact ready, that will free up the Sox to move Coco and fill another need (hopefully coming off a more successful season where he has increased value).

I'll bet AAA doesn't slow him down at all. Jacoby is an excellent player with a plus makeup...very solid kid.

With all due respect to Buchholz, Ellsbury should definitely rank as our #1 overall prospect, IMO.

Edit: Maine Today reported a couple of weeks ago that Ellsbury will start '07 in Pawtucket.

Outfielders Brandon Moss and Jacoby Ellsbury will be in Pawtucket.

Link

Edited by HighHeat, 12 December 2006 - 11:23 AM.

[Quintanariffic]

He was only 41 / 58 in SB attempts last year, a 71% success rate for A-AA ball doesn't sound that good to me. Is there an explanation for this? I recall something at one point that helped explain this- but can't recall it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rudy -

Your memory is correct. Many, if not most, of those CS were actually cases where he was picked off 1B. Obviously the result is the same and you don't want that happening. That said, IIRC he was doing a lot of work on his technique and the Sox weren't concerned with these pick offs b/c they were in the context of certain developmental goals. My guess is that his success rate when he actually was trying to steal was far higher. One of the other ml mavens might be able to add more insight here, but that's the gyst of it.

Make sense?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Yep- that was it. Makes sense to me, it may actually help him. It's one of those things you don't really think about- you see a mediocre SB percentage but the number of attempts and the non-SB baserunning is probably more important right now. If he can steal a bag when they know he's going, well those can be important as we all know.

Can't wait to see what this guy does this year. Would love to see some more power, but he is still young. My skepticism of Hanley and subsequent performance makes me think about these guys a lot differently. Hanley never had hit more than 8 HR in a season; then hits 17 for the Marlins last year. Goes from a 720 OPS in AA, to 838 in AAA, oops I mean the NL.

Baseball's a funny game!

[papi's bat boy 2004]

Yep- that was it. Makes sense to me, it may actually help him. It's one of those things you don't really think about- you see a mediocre SB percentage but the number of attempts and the non-SB baserunning is probably more important right now. If he can steal a bag when they know he's going, well those can be important as we all know.

Can't wait to see what this guy does this year. Would love to see some more power, but he is still young. My skepticism of Hanley and subsequent performance makes me think about these guys a lot differently. Hanley never had hit more than 8 HR in a season; then hits 17 for the Marlins last year. Goes from a 720 OPS in AA, to 838 in AAA, oops I mean the NL.

Baseball's a funny game!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anyone know where you can get hit charts for minor leaguers? I remember Ellsbury as having quite a bit of gap power (there is a rather high wall in the OF in Wilmington). I'd be curious to see if some of those hits would get out in other parks.

He may get a bit stronger, but probably not too much given his age.

I hope HH is right and my 09 projection is too conservative. I'd like to see him in CF on opening day 2008.

[ngruz25]

My base running reference was not about his SB success. It is more about taking the extra base. Particularly at Wilmington, you'd see players turn a double into a single. Ellsbury uses his speed to get that extra base. Quite a few triples that never would have been for other players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have an ever smaller sample size to go from (5 games maybe?), but what I saw of Jacoby in Portland was pretty impressive. Like you said, he moves around the bases extremely well. He's one of those guys that creates scoring opportunities by taking the extra base, something that doesn't happen enough in Boston. Station to station baseball is boooooring.

[asphyxiation]

Am I the only one here that sways from the general consensus that Buchholz should be ranked higher than Bowden. Statistically speaking, they are very similar and also seem to showcase the same array of pitches.

Bowden, however, had a 1.50 GO/AO compared to Buchholz's 1.13 GO/AO. Now, of course, this merely counts the outs recorded, but I prefer the guy with the higher groundball tendencies given everything else is equal.

Also, Bowden is a year+ younger than Buchholz.

[amfox1]

Am I the only one here that sways from the general consensus that Buchholz should be ranked higher than Bowden. Statistically speaking, they are very similar and also seem to showcase the same array of pitches.

Bowden, however, had a 1.50 GO/AO compared to Buchholz's 1.13 GO/AO. Now, of course, this merely counts the outs recorded, but I prefer the guy with the higher groundball tendencies given everything else is equal.

Also, Bowden is a year+ younger than Buchholz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my year-end prospect list, I had Bowden at 3 and I am an Idiot at 4 (Ellsbury and Pedroia being 1 and 2).

[asphyxiation]

In my year-end prospect list, I had Bowden at 3 and I am an Idiot at 4 (Ellsbury and Pedroia being 1 and 2).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Were your reasons similar to mine? Have you seen them in person, is there much of a difference in their stuff?

[amfox1]

Were your reasons similar to mine? Have you seen them in person, is there much of a difference in their stuff?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have not seen either of them in person. I have listened to a number of games of each. There is not a great deal of difference in their stuff and both can be overpowering.

Bowden - low-90s fastball, 12-6 hard breaking curve, tight slider, plus circle changeup

Buchholz - low-to-mid 90s four-seam fastball, two-seam fastball, slider, plus curveball and circle change

Bowden is nearly two years younger than Buchholz. I would say that Buchholz is a slightly higher upside than Bowden but Bowden is ahead of Buchholz in terms of developmental years.

Buchholz should jump to Portland but could pitch in Lancaster to begin 2007. Bowden will pitch in Lancaster in 2007.

[bowiac]

I think the differential between the two of them comes because Buchholz is perceived to have slightly better stuff, which seems to be in line with what BA is saying. Furthermore, while the samples are really small here, Buchholz was overpowering in a limited stint at high A, while Bowden didn't really get a shot to show anything. Without Buchholz' time at high A, I think there would be more people rating Bowden ahead, or at least even.

[dnramo]

Bowden, however, had a 1.50 GO/AO compared to Buchholz's 1.13 GO/AO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know where you got those numbers, but if you just pulled them off the box score pages at milb.com (or got them from someone who did that) they're worthless. You have to go through the logs to get a reasonably accurate G/F ratio, assuming anything there is reliable at all.

[Buckner's Boots]

...IIRC he was doing a lot of work on his technique and the Sox weren't concerned with these pick offs b/c they were in the context of certain developmental goals.  My guess is that his success rate when he actually was trying to steal was far higher.  One of the other ml mavens might be able to add more insight here, but that's the gyst of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is really exciting to see the system developing these particular skills. Jacoby has the tools to be a real impact player "on both sides of the ball", to steal a football phrase. I honestly don't recall a recent Red Sox prospect with his skill set...Donnie Sadler? He had the speed, but not the on base skills to utilize it. My favorite recent comparison is Brett Butler, and I don't think it is a stretch.

[asphyxiation]

I don't know where you got those numbers, but if you just pulled them off the box score pages at milb.com (or got them from someone who did that) they're worthless. You have to go through the logs to get a reasonably accurate G/F ratio, assuming anything there is reliable at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did pull them off of milb.com as I wasn't really aware of any sort of discrepancy. If what you're saying is true, and it turns out that there isn't much of a difference in their groundball tendencies, I'd probably reverse my opinion.

[dnramo]

I did pull them off of milb.com as I wasn't really aware of any sort of discrepancy. If what you're saying is true, and it turns out that there isn't much of a difference in their groundball tendencies, I'd probably reverse my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can check it out for yourself. The logs are still up.

[mdubord]

This is really exciting to see the system developing these particular skills.  Jacoby has the tools to be a real impact player "on both sides of the ball", to steal a football phrase.  I honestly don't recall a recent Red Sox prospect with his skill set...Donnie Sadler?  He had the speed, but not the on base skills to utilize it.  My favorite recent comparison is Brett Butler, and I don't think it is a stretch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what do we make of the relatively low grades that sickels is handing out here? BA giving the sox minor league teams system of the year seems to be implicitly if not explicitly critiqued here.

[asphyxiation]

You can check it out for yourself. The logs are still up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I took it upon myself to check out what minorleaguesplits.com said (let me know now if they're disputed widely, too).

According to my calculations, and I'm certainly no statistician:

Buchholz:

GO/AO: 1.875
GB/FB: 1.59


Bowden:

GO/AO: 2.36
GB/FB: 1.85


It seems to confirm my reasoning earlier. It seems Buchholz wasn't quite the flyball pitcher it seemed before and Bowden looks even nicer.

[Razor Shines]

It's a shame John didn't wait a few days before publishing this list. It would have had a bit more of a sheen to it with "Matsuzaka - A" at the top.

[Cuzittt]

It's a shame John didn't wait a few days before publishing this list. It would have had a bit more of a sheen to it with "Matsuzaka - A" at the top.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You assume Sickels would have considered Matsuzaka a prospect. I'm not sure if he would have. I know I won't be considering Daisuke a prospect when I make my Top 20 list.

-Brandon

[Razor Shines]

Point taken. I just checked Sickles' Prospect Handbook from last season, and he did not consider Seattle's Kenji Johjima a prospect, which suggests that he would have also excluded Matsuzaka this year.

[jsinger121]

Off the top of my head the only site that I know considers Matsuzaka a prospect is Baseball America and they have already said he will be the #1 prospect in baseball if he signed.

Edited by jsinger121, 13 December 2006 - 07:28 PM.

[bowiac]

what do we make of the relatively low grades that sickels is handing out here?  BA giving the sox minor league teams system of the year seems to be implicitly if not explicitly critiqued here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What now? BA named the Red Sox as having system of the year?

I don't think Sickels actually disagrees significantly from BA about these guys.

[asphyxiation]

what do we make of the relatively low grades that sickels is handing out here?  BA giving the sox minor league teams system of the year seems to be implicitly if not explicitly critiqued here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm with bowiac, please provide a link for this, because I'm highly certain our farm system would not be ranked above those like the Dodgers, Diamondbacks, and Rays.

[LondonSox]

Well does system of the year mean top ranked now?

I'd argue that two very highly rated drafts in a row, a lot of successful promotions and developments and a willingness to spend on the system unike any other team. System of the year, why not- manager of the year isn't ALWAYS the manager with the best record for example. It's the best job done.

[Razor Shines]

I'm with bowiac, please provide a link for this, because I'm highly certain our farm system would not be ranked above those like the Dodgers, Diamondbacks, and Rays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm guessing he was referring to BA's rating of the Sox 2006 draft. (Not the system as a whole). IIRC, they did give the Sox top honors there.

The minor league talent of LA, AZ, and others still trumps the Sox, however, I wonder how the organizations would rank in low minors only (A+ and down)? I'm guessing the Sox might be in the top 5 there.

[amarshal2]

I took it upon myself to check out what minorleaguesplits.com said (let me know now if they're disputed widely, too).

According to my calculations, and I'm certainly no statistician:

Buchholz:

GO/AO: 1.875
GB/FB: 1.59
Bowden:

GO/AO: 2.36
GB/FB: 1.85
It seems to confirm my reasoning earlier. It seems Buchholz wasn't quite the flyball pitcher it seemed before and Bowden looks even nicer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer groundball percentage which is also available at minorleaguesplits.com (and they usually do the math for you if you hold your mouse over groundballs). They are probably the best public resource for this type of thing so I wouldn't worry about the site being "disputed widely."

Cumulative ground ball percentage:
Buchholz: 44.2%
Bowden: 50.5%

Both of those numbers are at least in the "acceptable" range. Bowden's is probably solidly above average. You'd have to ask Temple to put up one of his league comparison charts if you want more specifics. As he has demonstrated before the real groundball stars in the system are Bryce Cox and Justin Masterson.

Edited by amarshal2, 14 December 2006 - 10:09 AM.

[mdubord]

I'm guessing he was referring to BA's rating of the Sox 2006 draft. (Not the system as a whole).  IIRC, they did give the Sox top honors there.

The minor league talent of LA, AZ, and others still trumps the Sox, however, I wonder how the organizations would rank in low minors only (A+ and down)?  I'm guessing the Sox might be in the top 5 there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my other post got eaten! ok, you're totally right. i did confuse the BA draft rankings with the system rankings and that's why i was so confused. my apologies to all.

i'd like to see a low minors ranking as well, but don't you think that a ranking of the low minors levels would be characterized by high variance and would therefore have less predictive value than individual prospect rankings?

[djhb20]

By the way, the Dodgers are the organization of the year.

[Eric Van]

what do we make of the relatively low grades that sickels is handing out here?  BA giving the sox minor league teams system of the year seems to be implicitly if not explicitly critiqued here.

Sickels is a tough grader. These are excellent grades for him.

He has now posted 19 top 20 lists. Here's where the Sox rank:

Number of A prospects (0): Tied for 6th.

Number and Quality of A- or better prospects (0): Tied for 13th.

He's given out 5 A and 14 A- grades to the 19 clubs. Our lack of anyone elite is not news.

Number and Quality of B+ or better prospects (4): 5th (Ari, Min, Col, Htn are tied for 1st).

Number and Quality of B or better prospects (9): 2nd to Col.

Number and Quality of B- or better prospects (11): 5th after Col, Cle, Ari, Min.

We are in the top 25% of systems for depth.

Edited by Eric Van, 19 December 2006 - 03:57 PM.

[LondonSox]

Which I think is because how many are so recently drafted, there are only 1 or 2 As at drafting each year, if any.

By next year we have so much potential to have As, I'd argue Anderson, Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury and potentially even Bard, Cox, Masterson, Johnson (if he gives As to bullpen arms).

This is a huge year or two for development, in a couple years we could have a great core of a homemade bullpen and great starter depth, or we could be crying into our C prospects.

I do think that our recent development of prospects has been very solid. The success rate of the guys hitting the majors has been mightily impressive, it will be interesting to see if this continues.

[PooNani]

I think you're underestimating how often he gives out A's and A-

I could see the following having a shot at it at some point if things go right

Daniel Bard
Jason Place
Caleb Clay
Lars Anderson
Clay Buchholz
Beltre/Tejada

[stupifiedfool]

I think you're underestimating how often he gives out A's and A-

I could see the following having a shot at it at some point if things go right

Daniel Bard
Jason Place
Caleb Clay
Lars Anderson
Clay Buchholz
Beltre/Tejada

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if caleb clay has A potential shouldnt michael bowden? it seems to me as though those 2 are basically of the same mold except for bowden didnt get hurt his first year. the players on your list other than buchholz would need probably more than a year of pretty stellar play to get an A. if buchholz has another season like last year he would probably get an A. bard and anderson are probably closest after that but we have nothing to gauge them on other than potential.

[PooNani]

Yeah that's true. Sickels usually reserves the A's for the elite guys, and Bowden is supposed to be more of a #2-#3 which is obviously valuable but more of a B+ or maybe A-, Clay there isnt much to go by except him having easy velocity in the low 90s

[ellsworthsdip]

I'm guessing he was referring to BA's rating of the Sox 2006 draft. (Not the system as a whole).  IIRC, they did give the Sox top honors there.

The minor league talent of LA, AZ, and others still trumps the Sox, however, I wonder how the organizations would rank in low minors only (A+ and down)?  I'm guessing the Sox might be in the top 5 there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yah, maybe. Red Sox invested a whole lot of money in prospects this past offseason. What does that mean though? Remember Mike Rozier, Jed Lowry, David Murphy, Charles Egan, Brandon Moss....These people were supposed to be special. I doubt any of them will start in the major leauges.....Last year The Rays were ranked behind the sox in minor league talent. This was after the Beckett trade. Now The Rays, who were probably ranked 14 or 15th have far and away the most stacked system from 3a to rookie league in all the major leagues. This is according to BA.
I'll get excited if Clay, Place, Masterson, Johnson, Anderson do something decent next year and reach high single A or if Bowden works on his delivery and proves to be a workhorse and if Buckholtz can lift the velocity on his fastball so it averages 93 mph and have a more effective breaking ball.

[David Laurila]

Remember Mike Rozier, Jed Lowry, David Murphy, Charles Egan, Brandon Moss....and if Buckholtz can lift the velocity on his fastball so it averages 93 mph and have a more effective breaking ball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Red Sox have not drafted anyone named "Jed Lowry" or "Charles Egan," so no, none of us will remember them.

As for Buchholz's breaking ball, his curve is rated as the best in the system and some people feel his slider and change are at least as good, if not better.

Next.

[ichirob4ichiro]

The one thing that stuck out the most each time I saw Jacoby this past year was that he still looks as if he is a boy among men as far as physical make up is concerned. I know he was 22, now 23, but I would have guessed more around 17. They list him as 185, but looks 175-tops soaking wet.

The comparisons with Damon are understandable; their stats from ages 19-22 are almost identical, though Damon’s sample size is considerably larger (600-games [2304 Abs] to Jacoby’s 331-games [1424 ABs]). For these years they seem to be extremely similar batters, and more so similar speedy runners-- as stated by everyone’ stereotypical prospect report (both with %77 steal success rate [Jacoby’s 131/170, and Damon’s 184/237] while both hover around %25-%28 of hits leading to extra bases). Though a good portion of these steals came in college, it seems as though Jacoby has a greater tendency to steal. I saw him about 15 times this past summer and it each time he was on base he was looking to the next base, more aggressive than the Boston-era Damon, not to mention a breath-taking defender.

The knock on Jacoby is that he lacks the power Damon had in Boston, however it took Damon till age 25 (his 2nd full-season w/the Royals) to hit more than 8 homers, and that is also comparing it to Jacoby’s very small sample of professional AB’s.

It just seems as though this knock on Jacoby for saying that he has no real power is missing a key any real sort of solid justification. No one really alludes to the very real possibility that the strength to hit 15-20 out of the park in 500+ AB’s might be just around the corner with a little more weight, time and maturing just as it was for the 22 year-old Damon. Maybe someone else could add more to this, like the physical similarities with Jacoby and Damon from Damon’s early years, or the likely-hood of Jacoby becoming stronger sooner-than-later.

[Quintanariffic]

Yah, maybe. Red Sox invested a whole lot of money in prospects this past offseason. What does that mean though? Remember Mike Rozier, Jed Lowry, David Murphy, Charles Egan, Brandon Moss....These people were supposed to be special.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Besides your awful spelling, you've got your facts wrong.

Mike rozier was supposed to be special? He was a consensus 3rd round talent that got paid a 1st round bonus b/c of his football leverage and the Sox loack of a 1st rounder that year.

Neither Lowrie nor Egan was ever projected as "special" either. As for Moss - he was an 8th round draft pick who received roughly slot money. Where do you get this stuff from?

[jp]

Yah, maybe. Red Sox invested a whole lot of money in prospects this past offseason. What does that mean though? Remember Mike Rozier, Jed Lowry, David Murphy, Charles Egan, Brandon Moss....These people were supposed to be special. I doubt any of them will start in the major leauges.....

Personally, while I have pretty much written off Rozier and I have some doubts about Lowrie, I think Murphy will be at least a 4th OF in the majors and could be more. Also, Moss has the potential to be a starting RF - how he performs next year will be the key. Finally, Jon Egan showed a ton of potential last year and I think it is way too early to give up on him - although, to be fair, from your post it sounds like you may have been referring to a relative of his named "Charles".

[Vtknowitall]

I agree generally, but I have much higher hopes for Jed Lowrie. I think he is going to be a starting second baseman with some good hitting. He was disappointing in Wilmington, but he tore up the New York Penn League. In his later college career and in the NYPL, he hit above .300 with an OBP over .400. His OPS was .877 in the NYPL. He can play short or second with his arm, but he stacks up better at second.