Top 50 Red Sox Prospects of the Last 50 Years

[mabrowndog]

In what ought to be a really great read and impetus for great debate and discussion, Chad Finn is launching this series today over at Boston.com. He'll be profiling them in five groups of 10 each.
 
This morning, he introduces the project with this piece, where he lays down his evaluation guidelines and sources, and presents a cavalcade of prospects who didn't crack his list.
 
Really looking forward to this.
 

 
There were many great joys in pulling together this project, which I began working on during any downtime of more than moment or two pretty much after I devoured this initial piece of ah-ha inspiration: David Schoenfield's terrific 2011 piece for ESPN on the 50 best prospects of the draft era.
 
But there was no greater joy than digging through the Boston Globe archives -- especially the treasure trove of photos and clips still to be found in the ancient subterranean library at the far end of the newsroom -- to find insightful early references to players who were in consideration for this list.
 
The byline on these stories, even as seasons turned to decades and one-time prospects became big-league veterans if they were so fortunate -- was the name Peter Gammons, and perhaps even more often than you would imagine. A debt of gratitude is owed to him from this address, not just for inspiring me with my dad and the daily newspaper as the conduits, but for what he and how wrote.

 

 
In sorting out the rankings of our 50, of deciding between, say, Bruce Hurst and Jon Lester, or Butch Hobson and Ted Cox, I kept the process simple, like Schoenfield did for his list four years ago. I tried to imagine how prospects from the days before the Internet and Baseball America would be perceived today with all of the information and resources we now have.
 
How good they became is a small part of the consideration. How good they seemed like they might become is a bigger part. Tools mattered, of course. So did production, but the variables of league and age were factored in. Strikeout-to-walk ratio played a huge role in judging young pitchers. On-base percentage, not always valued in the see-the-ball, hit-the-ball '70s, was a strong consideration for evaluating batters. There's no doubt that Wade Boggs, he of the .335/.437/.460 slash line for the 1981 PawSox, would be far better appreciated during his ascent nowadays.
 
Strength of the organization at the time some prospects were evaluated also mattered. A No. 1-rated prospect such as Seung Song from the Dan Duquette Era of Farm System Neglect did not come close to making this list. 

 
Among those missing the cut:
 

 
Former No. 1-ranked Red Sox prospects according to Baseball America's annual ratings: Lars Anderson (2009), Dernell Stenson (rest in peace -- I really tried to include him), Donnie Sadler (ranked ahead of Nomar in 1996), Andy Marte (2006), Seung Song (2002), Steve Lomasney (2000), Daisuke Matsuzaka (2007, shouldn't have been called a prospect based on his success as professional in Japan), Will Middlebrooks (2012), and Jose Iglesias (2011).

 
 

 

[DJnVa]

Looking forward to it.
 
I was rereading the ESPN article--can you IMAGINE the splooging if we saw this out of a Sox prospect:
 

 As a 20-year-old, he hit .358/.472/.503, with an incredible 107/35 BB/K ratio plus 105 stolen bases.
 

 
Lenny Dykstra. Good God.

 

[Marceline]

50-41 is up. 
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/04/50-41.html

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Wow, loving this series.
 
Am reminded of how shamelessly Gammo used to pimp Red Sox prospects.  Am very much looking forward to Rey Quinones...

 

[mabrowndog]

Chad's writing and presentation is exceeding my already-lofty expectations, and the numerous quoted snippets of Gammons' columns from a bygone age are making me feel like a little kid again. The Otis Foster entry was gold.
 
Can't wait to see where Jeff Ledbetter ends up, assuming he even cracks the list. Considering he came of age in the pre-internet/cable TV era, few Red Sox prospects have ever been as highly touted and hyped before playing a single game for this franchise, and few have been such enormous flops relative to expectations.

 

[DJnVa]

Good stuff.
 
Not a huge deal, but in case Chad sees this--there are two #41s on the list--Bill Lee and Luis Alvarado and no #42.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Great stuff.  Looking forward to Frankie Rodriguez, who was going to pitch AND play SS for the Sox.
 
I do not recall Gus Burgess, however.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/04/40-31.html
 
Numbers 40-31.  This is a great series if for nothing else it details the real stories behind so many SOSH-names.  Up today include Lahoud, GHoff, and the inimitable Dick Pole.

 

[DJnVa]

I'm thinking this should be moved to the main board for more visibility. Lots of people don't visit this forum.

 

[mabrowndog]

To be fair, Cuzittt and the dopes have been trying to encourage more participation and visibility here in the minor league forum, and posted to that effect earlier this month. That's one of the reasons I started this thread here (along with its obvious topical relevance), with a redirect from Chad's thread in the media forum.
 
Perhaps putting another thread on the main board merely announcing the topic along with a link in here would advertise it sufficiently, especially since it's only going to run for two or three more days over at Chad's place.
 
Anyway, here's part three with #s 30-21.
 
EDIT - Man, I'd forgotten what an irrepressible force Phil Plantier was going to be.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Really enjoying this, and now I don't have to buy Bill Lee's book!
 
 
Edit:  and I'm surprised we've never had a poster named Rob Woodward's Nuts

 

[SydneySox]

This is a great series. Great work.

 

[RG33]

Great stuff! I was pleased to see Kevin Morton and Eric Hetzle mentioned in the 41-30 list, as those were the first two guys that popped in my head when I read post #1. As others have said, reading the old Gammons briefs brings back the glory days of rushing to the front door at 6am on a Sunday morning so I could get the Sports page before my brother and my Dad got their hands on it.

 

[brandonchristensen]

This is awesome!

 

[Chad Finn]

Thanks, guys. Was a little nervous what the board would think of it because of the wealth of knowledge around here about all of these guys. Glad to answer any questions about specific players or whatever. Had a really hard time with Pedroia -- he had the production *and* the tools in retrospect, but there were so many skeptics because of his big swing and small stature. Probably have Bagwell too high based on the power projections when he was in New Britain. And Sam Horn is pretty high because, dammit, he's Sam Horn. Anyway, thanks for reading it. It was a lot of fun. May be doing a segment with Gammons on Speier's show in the next week or two.

 

[mabrowndog]

Chad, my only criticism is that you didn't make it a Top 300 series. I'm quite bothered that there won't be any more write-ups beyond the work week.
 
By the way, over the offseason there was discussion in this year's BA Top 30 thread about whether the current crop of Red Sox prospects as a group might represent the deepest system in the club's history. There's certainly a case to be made for that, and 2007 was also rightfully mentioned. I opined on a slightly earlier crop. Among them: "32 future major leaguers, 10 of them All-Stars and 2 HOFers. Plus 2 Gold Glove winners".
 
It was a fun exercise, somewhat along the lines of what you researched, though nowhere near as exhaustive or well-presented. I haven't looked forward to a sportswriting series this much in ages.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I'm still waiting for Rey Quinones!

So are the Red Sox.

Thanks, Chad... Great idea, and really we'll done

 

[Granite Sox]

 
Numbers 40-31.  This is a great series if for nothing else it details the real stories behind so many SOSH-names.  Up today include Lahoud, GHoff, and the inimitable Dick Pole.

Hello.

A great walk down memory lane. I don't remember Gus Burgess, either...

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Great stuff! I was pleased to see Kevin Morton and Eric Hetzle mentioned in the 41-30 list, as those were the first two guys that popped in my head when I read post #1. As others have said, reading the old Gammons briefs brings back the glory days of rushing to the front door at 6am on a Sunday morning so I could get the Sports page before my brother and my Dad got their hands on it.

 
Pre-internet, I used to scout through bookstores in the various cities I was in to see who would have the Sunday Boston Globe so I could "browse" Gammo's Sunday notes.  It was a little easier when Lexis came out, but they often missed columns.
 
Someone should do a list of top prospects based on Gammons hype.  That would be an interesting list.
 
Haven't been able to get to the columns yet but am looking forward to reading them.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Fabulous Chad.  In terms of can't miss prospects, I predict Clemens, Rice, Nomar as the top three.  I shall wait.
 
It would be interesting to see how these prospects would be rated if we were to somehow Pecota their minor league numbers to get a sense of what we "should" have thought.  I recall the hype for Luis Alvarado -- the MVP of the International League who caused the Red Sox to move Petrocelli to third base.  Did he just not make it, like some prospects do not, or were our expectations due to a misreading of the facts at hand?  Not sure.
 
Also glad to see both of the players from whom I derived my handle already on the board.  (In real life, I am Mark Armour.)

 

[Chad Finn]

Alvarado is an interesting one. Had him at 41, I think. Reputed to be a superb defender, won the IL MVP as a 20-year-old. But didn't have a lot of pop, and that 25 BB/83 K ratio surely didn't raise eyebrows then like it would now. His slash-line that MVP year wasn't spectacular, either -- .292/.324/.394.

 

 

 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Yes, that is sort of my point.  People were more excited about Alvarado than Boggs (who had to win multiple batting titles before being given a shot, and then only after Dave Stapleton got hurt in 1982).  No way a team would hand Alvarado a starting job based on an empty batting average in Triple-A.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Great stuff, Chad. Really looking forward to the upcoming articles.

And Lahoud, I think it was Lansford's injury that opened up a spot for Biggs, not Stapleton.

 

[soxfan121]

Had a really hard time with Pedroia -- he had the production *and* the tools in retrospect, but there were so many skeptics because of his big swing and small stature. 

 
The battles here about Pedroia were epic, specifically whether he could play SS at the major league level. Having been on the wrong side of that issue, I remember AZBlue (who had seen him a lot in college) being adamant he would be a fantastic 2b but would be overmatched at SS.  
 
For a very long time I had (IIRC) a Cuzittt quote to the effect of: "Went to Portland to see this Pedroia guy but they pulled a 12 year old out the stands and let him play instead. He went 3-4 with a double." 

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Yes, you are right.  Boggs replaced Lansford while Lansford was out, then road the bench again when Lansford returned a month later.  On August 28, with Stapleton hitting .257 and Boggs .358 in half-time work, Houk finally gave Boggs the first base job the rest of the year.  Then they traded Lansford after the season.
 
FWIW, I saw Pedroia play in college when they came up to play Oregon State.  I saw a scout sitting behind the plate and I asked him who I should watch for ASU (who I knew nothing about).  He said Pedroia (who was at SS) was the whole team.  Ellsbury was playing for OSU, of course.

 

[AlNipper49]

Given how we skew here (and the Beane stuff) I'd say that Youkilis was the most anticipated prospect to arrive into Boston since SoSH has been around. The threads back then were epic, we basically spent an entire season discussing him.

 

[bluefenderstrat]

I'm happy to have a reason to visit Boston.com in its new TMZ-Huffpo inspired layout. Great work as always, Chad.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Fabulous Chad.  In terms of can't miss prospects, I predict Clemens, Rice, Nomar as the top three.  I shall wait..)

I'll guess Hanley, Clemens, Lynn

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I'll guess Hanley, Clemens, Lynn

Edit. With Rce and Xander rounding out the Top 5

 

[Chad Finn]

Well, keep in mind that on David Schoenfield's overall list that I referenced in the intro, he had two Red Sox in his all-time draft-era Top 50: Evans and Rice. And I'm not sure he had them in the right order.

 

[drtooth]

#30-21
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/04/20-11.html

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

The early-mid 1970s was a period when the Red Sox farm system was spitting out All-Stars every year.  As I was a kid then, it created an outsized view of what prospects were likely to do.
 
They especially spit out position players.  Jim Rice was called up in August 1974 and put in the lineup in the middle of the pennant race.  He had destroyed the International League.  Lynn was called up in September (evidence that he was not *quite* as prized).  When Lynn raked the last few weeks of the season, it was clear that both players would be on the '75 team.
 
There was a cartoon in either the Globe or Herald in March 1975 depicting their great young outfield -- Fred Lynn (LF), Rick Miller (CF), Jim Rice (RF).  Evans had come up in late 1972, but there was nowhere near the anticipation as there was for Lynn and (especially) Rice.  He was considered a defensive star who might hit a little.  Rick Miller was pretty much the same, and probably ahead of Evans because he was a CF.  In 1973 Evans was given the RF job in the spring but could not hold it -- Miller ended up playing a lot more than Evans did.
 
Evans was 20 when he came up, and he had a lot of competition in the Red Sox outfield.  But I do not believe his prospect status was remotely comparable to Lynn or Rice two years later.  (Other than the fact that the Globe always hyped up all their prospects -- happily for the young me.)  He might have been slightly ahead of Miller and Beniquez at first, but one batting slump and he was behind both. 

 

[DJnVa]

#30-21
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/04/20-11.html

 
You're link is 20-11, but you say 30-21 in post.
 
FIX IT!!! FIX IT NOW!!!

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

My man Rey checks in at #18!
 
I think the reason Gammons compared Quinones to Frank Robinson wasn't that they looked similar, but they had similar stances -- upright with a modest hunch of the shoulders, and holding the bat in front of them relatively perpendicular to the ground -- not back as far over the rear shoulder as much as is conventional.  Totally relaxed, until the ball approached.
 

 
I could swear I read a Gammons column once where he said Quinones hit like Frank Robinson and fielded like Luis Aparicio.  Maybe it was different columns that just bled together in my college-aged mind.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Good to see Frankie there, and a nice quote from Todd Frohwirth!
 
 
And for my friend Mugsy
 

 

[Chad Finn]

I did find a couple of references where Jackie Gutierrez was compared to Aparicio. The raves for Quinones were mostly about his bat. Another thing I noticed along the way: Ted Williams was quick to praise a lot of prospects. He loved Quinones. Imagine how cool that must have been to have Ted Williams say nice things about your baseball skills.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I did find a couple of references where Jackie Gutierrez was compared to Aparicio. The raves for Quinones were mostly about his bat. Another thing I noticed along the way: Ted Williams was quick to praise a lot of prospects. He loved Quinones. Imagine how cool that must have been to have Ted Williams say nice things about your baseball skills.

1966, John B. Hynes Auditorium, Camping and Fishing show (or whatever it was called), Ted told me that my throwing form (I had an imaginary ball) looked great.  Then he left for a Chesterfield

 

[WenZink]

1966, John B. Hynes Auditorium, Camping and Fishing show (or whatever it was called), Ted told me that my throwing form (I had an imaginary ball) looked great.  Then he left for a Chesterfield

At a 1960's Father-and-son Kiwanis dinner, guest speaker Jackie Jensen heaped praise on my imaginary swing (copied after the 1958 AL MVP, himself) and his exact words were "stick with it, sky's the limit.".  13 years later, my college team played against the California squad, managed by Jensen.  I went 0-4 with 2 Ks, 5 LOB.  A very small part of me says the s.o.b. set me up.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Top 10 is now up!
 
And do Chad a favor.  Click through, don't post spoilers here for at least a few hours, ok?

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Wonderful job Chad. What a pipeline they had in the 1970s. Incredible.

 

[brandonchristensen]

One thing I love about this series are the pictures they have for each player.

 

[Chad Finn]

Thanks, Brandon. Dug them out of the Globe archives myself. I was amazed to find at least one decent picture of everyone.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Great list.  I'm sorry Oil Can Boyd didn't make it.
 
I personally thought Jeff Suppan was a better prospect than Brian Rose, but it's certainly arguable.  I can only imagine the threads if SOSH had been around in 1996 - when the Sox had Suppan, Rose, Pavano, Yount, Munro, and Reitsma in the system.
 
Wonder what Cole Liniak is up these days?  Another Gammo favourite.

 

[Chad Finn]

Thanks. I think Rose was around No. 47 and Suppan 37 if I remember correctly. Had Aaron Sele much higher originally -- he was in the late-30s range as well.

 

[AlNipper49]

Tremendous series

I would be remiss at pointing out that you missed Nipper -- at the time he and Clemens had a Lester/Papelbon thing going on (timing-wise). Clemens was the obvious stud but Nipper was the clear #2 with lots of excitement around him. It may be a case of being overshadowed or being hurt then subsequently shipped off (in a package for a marquee stud closer) but I thought for sure that he'd land higher than the Brian Rose types.

 

[snowmanny]

Top 10 is now up!
 
And do Chad a favor.  Click through, don't post spoilers here for at least a few hours, ok?

 
I won't spoil it, but I will say that when I first saw this thread that there was someone that I strongly believed should be in the top 5 that wasn't going to be in the top 5.
And in fact he is number 5.  This was a ton of fun and really well done

 

[SumnerH]

Tremendous series

I would be remiss at pointing out that you missed Nipper -- at the time he and Clemens had a Lester/Papelbon thing going on (timing-wise). Clemens was the obvious stud but Nipper was the clear #2 with lots of excitement around him. It may be a case of being overshadowed or being hurt then subsequently shipped off (in a package for a marquee stud closer) but I thought for sure that he'd land higher than the Brian Rose types.

I find the Lester/Papelbon comparison interesting because to me Lester/Sanchez were so deeply tied together as prospects (I actually thought Sanchez was the better prospect; I suck at evaluating minor leaguers. I also took Bowden over Buchholz, thought Hanley would wash out, and love Henry Owens).

 

[Chad Finn]

Your namesake was an interesting one, Nip. Definitely thought seriously about him. Had a fantastic year in at Winter Haven in '81 as a 21-year-old -- 1.70 ERA in 212 innings. But his K-rate after that wasn't great, and his stuff wouldn't have had scouts drooling. The earliest Baseball America Red Sox top 10 is from '83, and it has Nipper as the No. 10 prospect. Seems about right.
 
I'm sure you guys have seen this, but it's the BA top 10s for the Sox from '83-'03. Some of those late-'90s names will make you cringe.

 

[jacklamabe65]

Fabulous, Chad - I agree with virtually all of your prospects. Rob Snow, the world turns its lonely eyes to you.

 

[SydneySox]

Hey Chad - that's a great series. I think one the great strengths of the article is its approachability. Not everyone chooses to spend as much time on baseball as some on here, but I've been able to share that with several of my friends down here who like the Red Sox but have never grown up in the US. We only really started getting excellent casual access 15 years ago when the internet started to become a real thing so most of these names are simply ones they've heard or seen referenced without the context. It's interesting for them to see put the hype of someone like Xander up against that of those great names of long ago.