Page 54 of 175
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 5:36 pm
by numbers
The Red Sox farm system is really overrated. Rarely do one of their "untouchables" amount to anything in the major leagues.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 5:36 pm
by philpritchard
Coach wrote:I could have reworded that to sound less annoying.
Don't worry about it, I completely understand where you're coming from. I just have a lot more experience with the whole "meaningless baseball" thing.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 5:44 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:The Red Sox farm system is really overrated. Rarely do one of their "untouchables" amount to anything in the major leagues.
Players not panning out in the past doesn't really impact the players they have in the system now, though.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 5:54 pm
by Norah
Remember when Buckles was too good to give up for Doc?
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:00 pm
by philpritchard
cutuphalfdead wrote:Remember when Buckles was too good to give up for Doc?
It's always funny to look back on trades/non-trades like that. I remember when the rumour was that the Jays turned down the Giants offer of Lincecum for Alex Rios.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:05 pm
by Coach
philpritchard wrote:Coach wrote:I could have reworded that to sound less annoying.
Don't worry about it, I completely understand where you're coming from. I just have a lot more experience with the whole "meaningless baseball" thing.
As a kid I remember a ton of disappointing Sox seasons in the 80s and 90s. So, I hear ya.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:29 pm
by numbers
philpritchard wrote:numbers wrote:The Red Sox farm system is really overrated. Rarely do one of their "untouchables" amount to anything in the major leagues.
Players not panning out in the past doesn't really impact the players they have in the system now, though.
Well, other then the trend of their prospects being highly overvalued. There's no reason to think that stopped after last year.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:30 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:philpritchard wrote:numbers wrote:The Red Sox farm system is really overrated. Rarely do one of their "untouchables" amount to anything in the major leagues.
Players not panning out in the past doesn't really impact the players they have in the system now, though.
Well, other then the trend of their prospects being highly overvalued. There's no reason to think that stopped after last year.
I don't think that means they're being overvalued. It's not like scouts have some kind of bias towards Red Sox prospects. If anything, it suggests the Sox have player development issues that are preventing their players from reaching their full potential.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:34 pm
by numbers
philpritchard wrote:numbers wrote:philpritchard wrote:numbers wrote:The Red Sox farm system is really overrated. Rarely do one of their "untouchables" amount to anything in the major leagues.
Players not panning out in the past doesn't really impact the players they have in the system now, though.
Well, other then the trend of their prospects being highly overvalued. There's no reason to think that stopped after last year.
I don't think that means they're being overvalued. It's not like scouts have some kind of bias towards Red Sox prospects. If anything, it suggests the Sox have player development issues that are preventing their players from reaching their full potential.
Good point. One thing that excites me about Eduardo Rodriguez is that he ISNT a product of their system.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 6:40 pm
by philpritchard
Betts seems to be working out nicely.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 7:20 pm
by Norah
I'm with phil when it comes to Sox prospects. It's not that we overvalue them, it's that we fuck them up.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 7:24 pm
by numbers
cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm with phil when it comes to Sox prospects. It's not that we overvalue them, it's that we fuck them up.
You're telling me Lars Anderson wasnt overvalued?
Edit: I do agree with Phil's point about there being something wrong with their developmental, though.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 7:50 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:You're telling me Lars Anderson wasnt overvalued?
I'm not a scout so I can't really say, but given Anderson's ridiculous numbers his first couple years after being drafted... yeah, it seems reasonable to think he was a top prospect.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 7:58 pm
by numbers
Wasn't Anderson's big year a product of the stadium he was playing in? I'm not positive, but I remember hearing that when he topped out at AAA.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 8:09 pm
by philpritchard
numbers wrote:Wasn't Anderson's big year a product of the stadium he was playing in? I'm not positive, but I remember hearing that when he topped out at AAA.
In 2008, he was top ten in his league in wRC+ (which adjusts for stadium, etc.) at 145 and was younger than everyone ahead of him on the least. He moved up to AA and had a wRC+ of 162, good for third in the league despite now being significantly younger than everyone else on the leaderboard.
It's not much of a surprise he shot up prospect lists in 2009.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 9:20 pm
by Simple Torture
philpritchard wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:Remember when Buckles was too good to give up for Doc?
It's always funny to look back on trades/non-trades like that. I remember when the rumour was that the Jays turned down the Giants offer of Lincecum for Alex Rios.
I feel like the Sox are still in the black when it comes to prospects-not-working-out vs. trading them karma from the Tek/Lowe and Pedro trades.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 10:22 pm
by numbers
Yeah, but Bagwell.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 10:27 pm
by Simple Torture
True, but I feel like those two trades swung us in the other direction, considering.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 10:28 pm
by numbers
The Slocumb trade was indeed a major coup. I've always felt Duquette didn't get nearly enough credit for the 2004 WS.
Re: Boston Red Sox Thread
Posted: Tue June 02, 2015 10:42 pm
by elliseamos
MattA75 wrote:elliseamos wrote:I'm just confused at this point.
3 years ago, year one AB (After Bobby), it was "character and chemistry" as the formula. The world series gave the organization's approach legitimacy.
Last year, it was supposed to be more of the same formula, but it failed miserably as a hand full of guys were asked to produce too soon.
Then came this offseason, where it seemed like they completely abandoned their talking points from the prior two years and went after the names rather than the needs, almost as if they over thought what they're trying to do.
I feel like I'm left watching a team that would fit better in the mid to late 90s, than anything we've seen over the last 10 years (which somehow produced 3 world series, mind you)
Hanley fit a need in so much as he was a right handed power bat who could hit cleanup (or third), but we really didn't have a place on the field for him...but there was no need to pay Sandoval what we did, especially when we could've probably traded for Donaldson or found a one year stopgap and not suffered much if any decline from what we've gotten out of that position since Lowell's better years
so why not spend that money on lester and keep cespedes? I'm fine with the move to get sandoval. I still think craig and kelly can be productive members of this team, and I'm really unsure why they didn't bring salty back for pennies on the dollar after hanigan and vasquez got hurt. If clubhouse is important, why peirzinski (sp?) a year ago and Hanley this year?