Sickels: Top 20 Red Sox Prospects for 2014

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
This a free article so if you want to read the scouting blurbs, you can click the link.  Here's the order and a summary from the end of his piece.
 
1) Xander Bogaerts, SS-3B, Grade A
2) Jackie Bradley, OF, Grade B+
3) Garin Cecchini, 3B, Grade B+
4) Henry Owens, LHP, Grade B+
5) Anthony Ranaudo, RHP, Grade B:
6) Mookie Betts, 2B, Grade B
7) Blake Swihart, C, Grade B
8) Allen Webster, RHP, Grade B-
9) Brandon Workman, RHP, Grade B-
10) Matt Barnes, RHP, Grade B-
11) Trey Ball, LHP, Grade B-
12) Drake Britton, LHP, Grade C+
13) Simon Mercedes, RHP, Grade C+
14) Christian Vazquez, C, Grade C+
15) Deven Marrero, SS, Grade C+
16) Bryce Brentz, OF, Grade C+
17) Teddy Stankiewicz, RHP, Grade C+
18) Jamie Callahan, RHP, Grade C+
19) Brian Johnson, LHP, Grade C+
20) Ty Buttrey, RHP, Grade C+
 
OTHER GRADE C+: Jon Denney, C; Manuel Margot, OF; Dan McGrath, LHP.
 
OTHERS: 
Dan Butler, C; Sean Coyle, 2B; Rafael Devers, 3B; Luis Diaz, RHP; Sergio Gomez, RHP; Joe Gunkel, RHP;
Alex Hassan, OF; Dalier Hinojosa, RHP; Cody Kukuk, LHP; Corey Littrell, LHP; Henry Ramos, OF; Wendell Rijo, 2B; Myles Smith, RHP
 
 
 
SUMMARY:

Obviously this is a very deep system, with at least four B+ or better prospects. You have a future All-Star in Bogaerts, and at least four guys who can be major league regulars. There are high-ceiling tools players, and high floor skill players. There’s depth at all levels, with several prospects near the majors but plenty following at the lower levels. There are guys who can hit and guys who can field. There’s everything basically.
 
If you are looking for a flaw, there are no certain top-of-the-rotation starting pitchers, nobody who looks like a Grade A pitching prospect for certain. But you can say that about a lot of teams. Most organizations don’t have a future number one starter. That said, the Red Sox have more pitching depth than most systems, with at least four plausible mid-rotation arms and a bevy of bullpen possibilities. As with the hitters, there’s a good mixture of pitchers ready or almost ready for the majors, but plenty of depth behind them.
 
I keep using the word depth, but it fits
 
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2014/1/1/5264914/boston-red-sox-top-20-prospects-for-2014
 
Sickels describes his methodology in the article and how a C+ prospect is still very good praise.  You have to go well outside of the top 20 to get to your first prospect who is lower than a C+ rating and to the 12th prospect on the list to get lower than a B-.  Incredible.
 
 

Homar

New Member
Aug 9, 2010
94
This makes me positively giddy.  I know that they won't all amount to anything, but the sheer number of them at B or better is just amazing.  I'm going to be able to spend a significant portion of the season in Portland, and hope to see several dozen games.  Going to be a fun, fun summer.  
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
It's also worth noting how many of the B- guys he takes the time to mention were borderline B prospects and might end up there by the time he publishes the book.  Every B- but Ball got serious consideration for a B ranking and he is careful to point out that Ball's B- is only because of a lack of professional innings and that he very well could vault toward the top of the list for next year.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I'm not going to lie, even knowing what I already knew about Vazquez, I'm a little concerned that the Sox were so willing to go with a short term catcher plan based largely on his hopeful development.  None of the scouting people seem to really like him as much as the Sox do themselves.  I'm sure there are many other reasons to not have signed Salty, but I don't think signing him would have been as much of a catching block as SoSH made it out to be.  Hope I'm wrong and Vazquez holds his own in AAA this year.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
smastroyin said:
I'm not going to lie, even knowing what I already knew about Vazquez, I'm a little concerned that the Sox were so willing to go with a short term catcher plan based largely on his hopeful development.  None of the scouting people seem to really like him as much as the Sox do themselves.  I'm sure there are many other reasons to not have signed Salty, but I don't think signing him would have been as much of a catching block as SoSH made it out to be.  Hope I'm wrong and Vazquez holds his own in AAA this year.
 
Is it likely that they are banking more on the projected development of Swihart than Vazquez? Swihart seems to have the better all-around game on offense and defense. If so, the team might need an additional one-year bridge to 2016, in which a Pierzynski equivalent is the main catcher, while Vazquez, Ross or equivalent is the primary backup.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
smastroyin said:
I'm not going to lie, even knowing what I already knew about Vazquez, I'm a little concerned that the Sox were so willing to go with a short term catcher plan based largely on his hopeful development.  None of the scouting people seem to really like him as much as the Sox do themselves.  I'm sure there are many other reasons to not have signed Salty, but I don't think signing him would have been as much of a catching block as SoSH made it out to be.  Hope I'm wrong and Vazquez holds his own in AAA this year.
I think Sickels is a smart guy, but I wouldn't call him a "scouting person," and don't put as much stock in his evaluations as I do in BA's or Law's. A few weeks ago Law called Vazquez "a plus-plus defender with high contact rates who might end up an above-average regular," which seems to be pretty close to how the Red Sox view him. Given how important catcher defense is, I'm happy to have a guy like that as a baseline going into 2015.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Sprowl said:
 
Is it likely that they are banking more on the projected development of Swihart than Vazquez? Swihart seems to have the better all-around game on offense and defense. If so, the team might need an additional one-year bridge to 2016, in which a Pierzynski equivalent is the main catcher, while Vazquez, Ross or equivalent is the primary backup.
 
Agreed. I don't think going with AJ over Salty put too much pressure on Vazquez at all.  Barring injuries, 2014 is looking fine. Down the road, it seems Swihart is even more likely to be the catcher of the future.
 
In addition, it's not Salty versus only Vazquez/Swihart after 2014.  There will be other FA and trade options if need be.  Not having Salty just means if the kids don't work out, or develop slowly, the FO has to address the situation again in the near future.  I don't think they are worried about being able to find someone they value in the same range as Salty (i.e. not that highly) for a reasonable price.
 

triptych

New Member
Jun 7, 2013
15
Homar said:
This makes me positively giddy.  I know that they won't all amount to anything, but the sheer number of them at B or better is just amazing.  I'm going to be able to spend a significant portion of the season in Portland, and hope to see several dozen games.  Going to be a fun, fun summer.  
When this first came out, I thought the same, but I went back to look at Sickels track record. Looking at the last 10 years (2014 included), all but two of the Red Sox prospects that he rated as B or better have had some success as a MLer or are still in the running. Buchholz, Ellsbury, Ramirez, Sanchez, Lester, Masterson, Reddick, Papelbon, Pedroia, Moss, Kottaras, Bard, & Bowden have all had some success as MLers. Although I'm borderline on Bowden between success or still trying (103 games, 0.3 WAR). Iglesias, Britton, Kalish, Hagadone, Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, Webster, Bogaerts, Bradley, Anderson, & Kelly have all had at least a call up and are still in the running. Hansen & Westmoreland I classify as not succeeding. Ranaudo, Cecchini, Jacobs, Owens, Betts, Swihart, & Barnes haven't had a call up but are still in the running. That's it. 34 B or better rattings. 14 Success. 2 Not Succeeding. 18 unresolved.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Counting Westmoreland as "not succeeding" is sort of silly as far as grading someone's prospect evaluation. 
 
He has a rare vascular malformation in his brain, completely unrelated to baseball, which ended his career before it started.  Was Sickels supposed to be able to predict that?
 
On the flip side, I'll go out way out on a limb and call Lars Anderson a failure. 
 

triptych

New Member
Jun 7, 2013
15
radsoxfan said:
Counting Westmoreland as "not succeeding" is sort of silly as far as grading someone's prospect evaluation. 
 
He has a rare vascular malformation in his brain, completely unrelated to baseball, which ended his career before it started.  Was Sickels supposed to be able to predict that?
 
On the flip side, I'll go out way out on a limb and call Lars Anderson a failure. 
I chose "not succeeding" as opposed to "failing" specifically because it indicates the absence of a positive result rather than the presence of a negative result. I agree that Anderson looks like he has peaked and isn't going anywhere, but there are many individuals that have made it after similar travails, so I'll not say the door isn't closed yet, just closing. Nevertheless, whether or not Anderson fails isn't going to change the main dynamic, which is that Sickel's B and above Red Sox prospects have a pretty high success rate.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
triptych said:
I chose "not succeeding" as opposed to "failing" specifically because it indicates the absence of a positive result rather than the presence of a negative result. I agree that Anderson looks like he has peaked and isn't going anywhere, but there are many individuals that have made it after similar travails, so I'll not say the door isn't closed yet, just closing. Nevertheless, whether or not Anderson fails isn't going to change the main dynamic, which is that Sickel's B and above Red Sox prospects have a pretty high success rate.
 
You're the one who used the term "failure" at the end of your post.  You can pick the term, I don't care.  I'll put Anderson in whatever group you choose to pick as the "bad" outcome.
 
Regardless, my main point was that including Westmoreland in your numbers, however you chose to label them, is ridiculous.
 
I agree with your overall point that Red Sox B prospects and above have faired well generally speaking.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Isn"t Lars out of baseball after being cut by the Palesox and 10 other teams last year or did he resurface?

And Bowden is less of a failure than Lars.
 

triptych

New Member
Jun 7, 2013
15
bosox79 said:
Isn"t Lars out of baseball after being cut by the Palesox and 10 other teams last year or did he resurface?

And Bowden is less of a failure than Lars.
 
Since he was active in 2013, I didn't categorize Anderson as a closed book. I labeled Bowden as having had some success but noted that I was borderline on calling him still trying. Bowden and Anderson basically occupy the opposite extremes of still trying. Bowden on the edge of success and Anderson on the edge of failure. I opted for the more positive point of view for each of them.
 
radsoxfan. Your point is well taken. I failed to note the use of "failure" in the summary when I decided to go with "not succeding" in the earlier text.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
My point was (and is) that the SoSH perspective of "they don't want to sign Salty because he will block the development of their young catching" is wrong and there must be something else there, because signing Salty for three years was probably not going to block anyone.  In order for the SoSH theory to be true, they would need to think that Vazquez or Swihart is either closer to the majors than most catching prospects with their pedigrees are, or they are just going to suck up having a black hole with the bat as catcher for a year or two, in favor of defense.  
 
Whatever you think of Vazquez or Swihart's chances, it seems pretty clear that noone around baseball thinks they are ready for a job in 2014, that there is some risk whether they will be ready for 2015, and therefore the succession plan with Salty would not have been very hard unless one of them made huge strides, and the worst case scenario being "we have too much catching" doesn't seem that bad when the price for Salty was less than $10 million per year.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
smastroyin said:
My point was (and is) that the SoSH perspective of "they don't want to sign Salty because he will block the development of their young catching" is wrong and there must be something else there, because signing Salty for three years was probably not going to block anyone.  In order for the SoSH theory to be true, they would need to think that Vazquez or Swihart is either closer to the majors than most catching prospects with their pedigrees are, or they are just going to suck up having a black hole with the bat as catcher for a year or two, in favor of defense.  
 
Whatever you think of Vazquez or Swihart's chances, it seems pretty clear that noone around baseball thinks they are ready for a job in 2014, that there is some risk whether they will be ready for 2015, and therefore the succession plan with Salty would not have been very hard unless one of them made huge strides, and the worst case scenario being "we have too much catching" doesn't seem that bad when the price for Salty was less than $10 million per year.
 
If that's the general consensus on SoSH (and it very well may be), I think it's incorrect, or at least not completely accurate.  
 
It's possible that Salty could have been blocking Vazquez in year 2 of his deal, and Swihart in year 3. I think that while these were certainly minor considerations, they were secondary to the fact that the FO didn't particularly care if they had Salty on board or not.  
 
If he came back on their terms, fine.  If not, they were clearly OK with that.  They are banking on the young guys in the sense that it would be nice if one or both of them continue to develop.  But the downside of them flaming out is simply not very great, at least when you consider Salty as the insurance plan.  
 
If they regress, they're forced to re-enter the catching market in 2015 and/or 2016.  I don't think the FO thinks it will be hard to find a 1-2 win catcher with decent defense if they need to.  There is only real downside if Salty is a 3+ win guy and improves his D going forward.  They're betting the under on that one, and so would I.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Of course any blocking assumes he would be untradabe. Which on a deal like he got with any kind of performance seems a bit unlikely.
Yeah if he falls off a cliff and sucks that's not good but that seems unlikely and you are replacing him with a rookie for the minimum so the downside is pretty limited.
Could salty on a decent 1-2 year deal not be moved? I would say almost certainly.

Which suggests they either think he could perform badly or that they just didn't want him. Or of course that someone in the minors could be ready even sooner.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
It's important to keep in mind that Vazquez is exactly the sort of player that scouts underestimate. He has a weak draft pedigree (9th round pick, $80,000 signing bonus). He is undersized at 5'9". He lacks power and power projection. And, all of that means that even if he plays to his potential, he's unlikely to be anything more than an above average MLB player, which makes him pretty unexciting to the scouting world, that tends to look first to the potential to be great. However, he has solid contact skills that he has been improving, a great batting eye, and, by all accounts, tremendous defensive skills. I can easily see him being Ryan Hanigan but as a full time player. That's almost certainly a better player than Salty, provided that the defensive aspect is true. And, while he's certainly not ready for 2014, a full season at AAA, with a brief call-up or two as injuries inevitably strike our 37 year old catchers, could place him as more than ready to step into a split-time or more MLB role for 2015. 
 
Also, why does anyone think that Salty will have trade value in a year if he regresses to his 2011/2012 self? He is coming off a career year. It seems improbable that, if his performance returns to his old levels, he would have trade value in a year. MLB clearly does not value Salty very highly. Since we know his bat is good for the position, the likely supposition is that those with access to more sophisticated tools for analyzing catcher defense think that he's really bad at defense and that this is worth more than UZR and other defensive metrics account for. He would also be poorly suited to being on the roster as a young catcher is broken in since his status as a well-payed veteran starter would make it a major clubhouse problem to try to reduce his role and have him split time. 
 

Kid T

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
793
San Francisco
bosox79 said:
Isn"t Lars out of baseball after being cut by the Palesox and 10 other teams last year or did he resurface?

And Bowden is less of a failure than Lars.
Bowden signed a contract to play for the Seibu Lions next year so I don't think he's much less a failure. 
 

triptych

New Member
Jun 7, 2013
15
Kid T said:
Bowden signed a contract to play for the Seibu Lions next year so I don't think he's much less a failure. 
I'd say a reliever that gets 103 games, a 107 era-, and 0.3 WAR doesn't look all that successful. But, I'd also say he's quite a bit more successful than a 1B-man that only gets 56 PAs, a wOBA of .222 and -0.3 WAR. Granted, when compared against the full panoply of players, its insignificant, but when looking at the narrow band of success/no success, its clearly better.