MLB.com loves the Red Sox

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Cecchini ranked at #6 prospect at 3B by MLB:
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=2b
 
So far, the Sox are mighty well represented:
 
C:  Swihart #5
1B: Shaw #8
2B:  Betts #3
3B:  Cecchini #6
SS:  Bogaerts #1
LHP:  Owens #2
RHP: 
 
The OF get posted tomorrow and you wouldn't expect a top tenner there... but that's some remarkable representation so far!
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Mugsys Jock said:
Cecchini ranked at #6 prospect at 3B by MLB:
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=2b
 
So far, the Sox are mighty well represented:
 
C:  Swihart #5
1B: Shaw #8
2B:  Betts #3
3B:  Cecchini #6
SS:  Bogaerts #1
LHP:  Owens #2
RHP: 
 
The OF get posted tomorrow and you wouldn't expect a top tenner there... but that's some remarkable representation so far!
1B is just a wasteland right now if Travis Shaw is the 8th best prospect in entire the minor leagues. I realize that guys get played elsewhere and moved to first later but still...
 

Brianish

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2008
5,556
Mugsys Jock said:
Cecchini ranked at #6 prospect at 3B by MLB:
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=2b
 
So far, the Sox are mighty well represented:
 
C:  Swihart #5
1B: Shaw #8
2B:  Betts #3
3B:  Cecchini #6
SS:  Bogaerts #1
LHP:  Owens #2
RHP: 
 
The OF get posted tomorrow and you wouldn't expect a top tenner there... but that's some remarkable representation so far!
 
We've also got the #9 spot for LHP. 
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Brianish said:
 
We've also got the #9 spot for LHP. 
 
C:  Swihart #5
1B: Shaw #8
2B:  Betts #3
3B:  Cecchini #6
SS:  Bogaerts #1
LHP:  Owens #2, Ball #9
RHP: 
 
[D'oh!]
 
[And it's a sign of my confidence/brain disease that I already think of JBJ as post-prospect... but clearly he'll tick a box when the OF ratings come out.]
 
The funny thing is while the Sox may not have place a RHP in the MLB Top Ten, that's probably the position you'd consider the most stacked in the organization with multiple high-quality prospects, including in the high minors.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
If he qualifies by MLB.com's criteria, I wouldn't be surprised to see Webster show up.  And if Ball made it onto the list of lefties, it's not impossible we'll see Barnes on the RHP list.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
LogansDad said:
Is it wrong that I am terribly excited for the next ten years?
 
I have myself so geared up for the next fifteen years of Xander Bogaerts awesomesauce it's not even funny.
 
I mean, sometime this year, Xander Bogaerts is going to hit one off Tanaka that lands in the Sea of Tranquility and I'm going to explode laughing.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
7,929
Monument, CO
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
1B is just a wasteland right now if Travis Shaw is the 8th best prospect in entire the minor leagues. I realize that guys get played elsewhere and moved to first later but still...
Is there a reason they have not moved Cecchini to first base?  It seems like they have a whole at first in the minors and everything I have read put him as an average fielder at 3rd.  Is this a case of letting him stay at 3rd until he proves he cannot do it?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Just a bit outside said:
Is there a reason they have not moved Cecchini to first base?  It seems like they have a whole at first in the minors and everything I have read put him as an average fielder at 3rd.  Is this a case of letting him stay at 3rd until he proves he cannot do it?
 
You keep him at the harder position as long as you can because there's really no reason not to.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
LogansDad said:
Is it wrong that I am terribly excited for the next ten years?
 
I'm in my mid-40s, and the current configuration of the Boston Red Sox organization gives me the most hope for sustained excellence that I can ever remember.  For crying out loud, they're the freaking defending World Series Champions, they have one of the very best prospects in all of baseball (Bogaerts), their farm system is just oozing with talented players at various levels at nearly every position, they have very good ownership and a very smart GM, and one of the best managers in the game.  Plus, should they need it, they have deep pockets.  
 
Barring some catastrophe (which can happen, mind you), we are in for a tremendous next ten years of Red Sox baseball.  And this is coming off what was perhaps the best ten years of Red Sox baseball in organizational history.  
 
So no, it's not wrong for you to be just a little excited.
 

Ramon AC

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2002
3,234
What?
Things looked pretty good after 2007, too. Lester, Buchholz, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Delcarmen, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkilis were all 28 or younger that year. Not mention Lowrie, Masterson, Hagadone, and Lars in the minors. The post-WS articles all talked about how Boston was set up for a long run of success with an up and coming core.
 
Things don't always turn out as planned, and it's almost guaranteed that some of the current excitement will turn into disappointment. 
 
That said, I love wishcasting Cecchini as a 3B Mark Grace.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Well in the years following 2007, the Sox lost in game 7 of the ALCS in 2008, went to the playoffs again in 2009, won 89 and 90 games in 2010-11, barely missing out on the playoffs in 2011, and then had that godawful stinker of a 2012 season before rebounding in 2013.  So in the six years following 2007, they won a WS, lost in the ALCS, went to the playoffs, had two good but not great years, and one horrendous season.
 
I certainly wish for better than that, but on the whole, that's not a bad six-year stretch.
 

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Ramon AC said:
Things looked pretty good after 2007, too. Lester, Buchholz, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Delcarmen, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkilis were all 28 or younger that year. Not mention Lowrie, Masterson, Hagadone, and Lars in the minors. The post-WS articles all talked about how Boston was set up for a long run of success with an up and coming core.
 
Things don't always turn out as planned, and it's almost guaranteed that some of the current excitement will turn into disappointment. 
 
That said, I love wishcasting Cecchini as a 3B Mark Grace.
You might not have to. If MIddlebrooks is still around when Cecchini is ready, it's an even bet that GC, and not WMB, moves across the diamond.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
The MLB.com top 100 is currently being revealed on MLB Network.  So far we've got...
 
#96 - Trey Ball
#86 - Matt Barnes
#62 - Mookie Betts
#61 - Blake Swihart
#57 - Garin Cecchini
#46 - Allen Webster
#33 - Jackie Bradley
#30 - Henry Owens
#2  - Xander Bogaerts
 
9 prospects in the top 100.  Damn.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
Hendu for Kutch said:
The MLB.com top 100 is currently being revealed on MLB Network.  So far we've got...
 
#96 - Trey Ball
#86 - Matt Barnes
#62 - Mookie Betts
#61 - Blake Swihart
#57 - Garin Cecchini
#46 - Allen Webster
#33 - Jackie Bradley
#30 - Henry Owens
 
#?? - Xander Bogaerts
 
9 prospects in the top 100.  Damn.
Xander Bogaerts #2
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I'll work on updating that spreadsheet this weekend, but damn that is a nice showing.  4 top 50 and 7 top 75 prospects.
 
Edit: MLB.com does a rating system where they give 100 points for number 1, 99 for 2, 98 for 3, ect and the Red Sox came in at 2nd of all the MLB teams , just 3 points behind the Astros.  Houston had 439, Boston had 436 and the next team, the Cubs had 393.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I'll work on updating that spreadsheet this weekend, but damn that is a nice showing.  4 top 50 and 7 top 75 prospects.
 
Edit: MLB.com does a rating system where they give 100 points for number 1, 99 for 2, 98 for 3, ect and the Red Sox came in at 2nd of all the MLB teams , just 3 points behind the Astros.  Houston had 439, Boston had 436 and the next team, the Cubs had 393.
 
Should they be ranked linearly?
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
780
OttoC said:
 
Should they be ranked linearly?
 
Most likely not.  If I needed to score the ranks I would be inclined to use some sort of step function on the rank.  I wouldn't expect that to be right either, as the size of the steps (number of players in a group) may change year to year.  Maybe a clustering algo over the scouting-scores, and then step function over those clusters?  But who wants to do that work, when all it can really do is lower our rank :)
 
Does SOSH agree with the ranking of the sox players?  Is webster debatably a better prospect than cecchini?  I didn't see anything from webster, in his cup of coffee, that gives me confidence he can cross over to the majors and be successful for a prolonged period of time.  It seems he still has significant work to do.  
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
tbrown_01923 said:
Is webster debatably a better prospect than cecchini?  I didn't see anything from webster, in his cup of coffee, that gives me confidence he can cross over to the majors and be successful for a prolonged period of time.  It seems he still has significant work to do.  
If he didn't have significant work to do, he wouldn't be pegged for AAA. Still, Webster has the stuff to get a lot of swings and misses while Cecchini is probably going to be a mediocre fielding third baseman or an underpowered first baseman or outfielder.
 
I can see Webster ranking more highly.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Rasputin said:
I mean, sometime this year, Xander Bogaerts is going to hit one off Tanaka that lands in the Sea of Tranquility and I'm going to explode laughing.
 
Perhaps a thin mint?  Just a little thin mint.
 
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
tbrown_01923 said:
 
Most likely not.  If I needed to score the ranks I would be inclined to use some sort of step function on the rank.  I wouldn't expect that to be right either, as the size of the steps (number of players in a group) may change year to year.  Maybe a clustering algo over the scouting-scores, and then step function over those clusters?  But who wants to do that work, when all it can really do is lower our rank :)
 
Does SOSH agree with the ranking of the sox players?  Is webster debatably a better prospect than cecchini?  I didn't see anything from webster, in his cup of coffee, that gives me confidence he can cross over to the majors and be successful for a prolonged period of time.  It seems he still has significant work to do.  
 
Really, you didn't see effortless 94-95 mph with sink and a devastating changeup? Webster has a long way to go with command, but if he can become even average in that area, there's a lot of reason to believe he could be a successful big league pitcher. He already took strides in that regard in 2013, so evaluating him based on 30 MLB innings seems a little unfair to me.
 
That being said, I consider Cecchini a better prospect than he is. Obviously, not as high a ceiling, but a significantly higher floor is enough to put Garin over the top for me. 
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,757
Yeah Cecchini jumps out at me as the guy who seems to be low.  I guess it ends up being the old floor/ceiling argument, but Garin just seems to be a very likely .290/.360/.450 guy based on the fact that he has hit and walked everywhere he's been.  I wonder how many of those are in the Top 100.  
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
ivanvamp said:
I'm in my mid-40s, and the current configuration of the Boston Red Sox organization gives me the most hope for sustained excellence that I can ever remember. 
 
I've got a few years on you so this is probably a little before your memory banks, but 1972 may well have been the most stacked system in franchise history for prospects. However you cited one important difference: 2014 finds the Red Sox atop the baseball world. Even though the '72 club fell just a half-game shy of the postseason (thanks largely to the strike-induced unbalanced schedule), Boston had been in 4 years of doldrums since the '67 pennant, and the Sox were desperate for their youngsters to fill the voids. As the list shows, many of them did so successfully, and were at the epicenter of the '75 pennant drive.
 
Another big difference: 2013 finds the Sox with far more pitching depth, whereas most of 1972's talent was on offense. The best pitchers they did have (Curtis & McGlothen, along with Mike Garman) were eventually sent packing in the Reggie Cleveland deal in December '73.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
I missed that the first time.  That is great.  And of course in 1973 they drafted Fred Lynn, who would win one MVP (but should have won two.)
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
In '73 they also had an outfield that consisted of Tommy Harper (54 SB, .774 OPS), Reggie Smith (.913 OPS in 115 games) and Yaz (.870 OPS, AS). Imagine what Ben or Theo could have done with the team in the mid-70's. Edit: I was wrong. A 21 year old Dwight Evans played 119 games in the OF that year and Rick Miller appeared in 143 games himself. Yaz was already mostly playing first.