Redsox Top 10-20 Prospects EOY 2014

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Margot, Devers, JBJ…… good grief this team is absolutely awash with legit, serious, MLB prospects.
 
If only we were an organization that was willing to wait for them all to develop.  I'm going to hate to watch a bunch of them be all-stars for other franchises.
 
(unless such trades bring Boston another WS title or two) 
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
ivanvamp said:
Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Margot, Devers, JBJ…… good grief this team is absolutely awash with legit, serious, MLB prospects.
 
If only we were an organization that was willing to wait for them all to develop.  I'm going to hate to watch a bunch of them be all-stars for other franchises.
 
(unless such trades bring Boston another WS title or two) 
 
I'm not sure this organization isn't willing to wait for them all to develop. When's the last time we traded a really good prospect?
 
In 2014, we traded for prospects.
In 2013, we traded Jose Iglesias who I guess qualifies as a really good prospect, but we all know about his offensive limitations.
In 2012, we traded for prospects.
In 2011, we traded the likes of Tim Federowicz and Steven Fife.
 
Which basically means that since the Adrian Gonzalez trade, the best prospect we've traded is Jose Iglesias, while we've traded for RDLR, Webster, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Edwin Escobar.
 
Also, I came here to point out that Rusney Castillo is on the roster for the Fall Stars Game. I don't know if he's going to play, but it's not like he got hurt yesterday, why would he be on the roster if he can't play?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
judyb said:
Don't a lot of all star game rosters list all the all stars whether they're playing or not?
 
Yeah, but why would they pick a guy who hasn't played in weeks, isn't going to play in the game, isn't going to play in the league after the game, and may not even play winter ball?
 
The whole thing seems weird to me.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
Yeah, but why would they pick a guy who hasn't played in weeks, isn't going to play in the game, isn't going to play in the league after the game, and may not even play winter ball?
 
The whole thing seems weird to me.
It looks like he got hurt on the 20th and was still considered day-to-day when the rosters were announced on the 27th.

I have no idea how they pick the teams, I'd just think it had already been done, if not before he got hurt, then not long after.
 

SoxFanForsyth

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2010
258
ivanvamp said:
Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Margot, Devers, JBJ…… good grief this team is absolutely awash with legit, serious, MLB prospects.
 
If only we were an organization that was willing to wait for them all to develop.  I'm going to hate to watch a bunch of them be all-stars for other franchises.
 
(unless such trades bring Boston another WS title or two) 
 
Well, Castillo, Betts, and Bogaerts are key cogs in the 2015 lineup. Swihart, I've read, is untouchable. I think one of Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson gets dealt this offseason almost certainly. 
 
I think Cherrington is turning the Red Sox toward a "wait for development" type organization, but one that 1) compliments those rookies with high caliber veterans that can help to absorb those lumps and 2) limits the number of rookies being developed in a given year.
 
The Sox were awful last year because they had no offense in the outfield (or at 3B. Or SS. Or C.). If you want to try to break in rookies, you need established veterans to absorb the shortcomings. That was their main mistake this offseason, and one that I think they'll surely learn from. 
 
I can see them throwing guys like Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, and Barnes break in via the bullpen, a la the Cardinals. More of a slowly break in rather than thrown in with the wolves approach.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
No Marrero on either list. So much for that "better than Lindor" nonsense.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
the unfortunate thing for Marrero is that his OPS plummeted upon his promotion to AAA, but that 545 OPS is more in line with the rest of his career than the 804 he put up in Portland.  He has been strong in the AFL so hopefully it is real progress he has made and we can have debates all summer about whether it's better to move Xander to clear room for him or to just trade him.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Eddie Jurak said:
BP's top 10:
 
1. Swihart
2. Owens
3. Margot
4. Rodriguez
5. Devers
6. Chavis
7. Barnes
8. Cecchini
9. Johnson
10. Kopech
 
Its been interesting to watch over the years how BP has moved from Prospect Lists almost completely generated from numbers (MLEs and the like) to the current "scouting dominated" approach.
 
The individual player write-ups are choc-a-bloc full of scoutspeak.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....

touchstone033

New Member
Oct 29, 2007
244
Erie, PA
KingChre said:
 
I understand very well. I would take it the answer to my question would be yes then. Prospects like Kershaw or Felix were examples of the rare 1 or 2 prospects that come up and are considered #1s. I would like to see that definition be a bit more inclusive. I guess its just semantics, but considering there are 30 teams, I would think that more than 2 people would be considered  #1 starters. 
 
Yeah, well, the "#1 starter" definition is fraught with controversy. Typically the label is reserved for those few dominant aces, but I could see the argument for having 28 of 'em.
 
Another one that gets me is the unhelpfully vague "second division starter" label. I guess it means below average, but above replacement level. But then there are usually only about 15 or so "starters" at each position each year (excepting outfield, of course) -- the rest made up of part-time players. So does it mean the bottom half of starters? Which is pretty valuable. Or Bottom half of all players at the position?
 
Anyway, I don't see Rodriguez as a #1 ceiling even if you expand the definition. I think you base the ceiling project on what the player realistically could achieve. Otherwise, everyone's ceiling is first ballot HoFer.