Register now to remove this ad

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 171

Thread: 2018 ESPN Prospects Stuff (Sox Related)

  1. #1

    2018 ESPN Prospects Stuff (Sox Related)

    From the Top 100 ... with a system with a lot of graduates, obviously the Sox are thin at the top ...

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/stor...row-superstars

    30. Jason Groome, LHP, Age 19, Last year rank: 20

    Groome's season couldn't have gone much worse. He started out hurt, tried to pitch through it, gave up a nine-spot in his first start of the year and then went on the shelf for two months. When he did reach the mound, the results were inconsistent, but his stuff has already started to justify his pre-draft projections.

    The 2016 first-rounder worked at 92-95 as a starter last year and still has a grade-70 curveball as a put-away pitch that he can throw for strikes and even for swings and misses in the zone. He has been working on his changeup -- during some outings it would flash above average and in others it was a nonfactor for him. He also may eventually be a candidate for a cutter, especially if the change doesn't come along all the way.

    Groome is a lean 6-foot-6 and should put on more muscle as he gets into his 20s, but the priority for him now is conditioning rather than weight training, so he can have a full, healthy 2018 and continue to work on his control and changeup. Few starter prospects can boast a breaking ball like Groome's, and despite all of the missed time, his arm is still healthy, so his upside of a No. 2 starter remains intact.
    76. Michael Chavis, 3B, Age 22, Last Year Rank: UR

    Chavis played most of 2016 with a broken finger but didn't disclose the injury to the Red Sox, so his awful performance for low-A Greenville at least had an explanation. Fully healthy in 2017, Chavis exploded for 31 homers between high-A and Double-A while cutting his strikeout rate at both levels and looking a lot more like the player Boston thought it was getting with its first-round pick in 2014.

    He has big-time pull power, but one key for him last year was working more towards left-center to open up more of the field and make him less vulnerable with two strikes or against soft away pitches.

    A fringy defender at third, he lacks the agility to be more than a good 45 there and may end up at first base between that and the presence of Rafael Devers ahead of him.

    Chavis has made up for lost time in a huge way and should start 2018 in Double-A at age 22, still needing some work on his approach, but he's already progressed so far by not trying to kill the ball every time he swings that you can project him as a solid regular with some upside if he keeps his average and OBP up.

  2. #2
    A little surprised to see Groome that high on the list after looking at the BA ranking, but good for you guys. Also Chavis was ranked as the 4th 3B prospects by MLB behind Guerrero (TOR), Senzel (CIN) and Andujar (NYY).

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    From the Top 100 ... with a system with a lot of graduates, obviously the Sox are thin at the top ...

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/stor...row-superstars

    30. Jason Groome, LHP, Age 19, Last year rank: 20



    76. Michael Chavis, 3B, Age 22, Last Year Rank: UR
    I am running for some anti-anxiety meds.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    [T]he conclusion to be drawn is that there is no practical value in seeking this ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst
    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Unlike hot streaks and clutch, the “Cliff” is a myth. It can’t be defined, and it’s future existence cannot be proved.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    I am running for some anti-anxiety meds.
    "Thanks Dave".
    "Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.


    "It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."

  5. #5
    Just missed the Top 100

    Tanner Houck, RHP

    If Houck shows that he can start, he's a top-100 prospect.

    There's a lot of question about whether that's the case with him, as he's primarily a two-pitch guy (two-seamer and breaking ball) with some reliever-ish characteristics in his delivery and below-average command. He also dominated a great conference for three years at Missouri, and there's no question about his aggressiveness on the mound or his size and frame.

    He does need to develop a change-of-pace pitch, and mixing in a four-seamer to up and down with his two fastballs would keep him from getting hit when he tries to use the two-seamer up. I lean slightly reliever on Houck's future, but there are valid reasons the Red Sox think that's wrong.

  6. #6
    So, we have 3 in the top 101?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    So, we have 3 in the top 101?
    Yes, that's the spirit!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    Yes, that's the spirit!
    What cliff?
    "Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.


    "It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudboy View Post
    What cliff?
    Zero in the top 80.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Zero in the top 80.
    2, according to these rankings.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    2, according to these rankings.
    True.

    Zero in BA.

    1 in the top 75 on this ranking (the pessimist's view).

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    True.

    Zero in BA.

    1 in the top 75 on this ranking (the pessimist's view).
    How good is the new wave of Sox prospects? do you think they have enough upside to reach "top prospect" status in the next year?

    I'm not trying to knock you guys down, just don't know your system very well

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Carpin View Post
    How good is the new wave of Sox prospects? do you think they have enough upside to reach "top prospect" status in the next year?

    I'm not trying to knock you guys down, just don't know your system very well
    Most of our best talent was or is in single A. That makes it hard to judge.

    Groome, Mata, Brannen and Houck can rise in the rankings with a good year.

    Ockimey is a bit of a wild card.

    Chavis could rise with a second strong year in a row.

    Travis, Shawarayn and Beeks are older and maybe topped out.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    So, we have 3 in the top 101?
    Remember, one of the guys who would have been on the list died. 3-4 of the top 100 or so is not terrible considering the number of guys who graduated or were dealt the last 2-3 years.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    Remember, one of the guys who would have been on the list died. 3-4 of the top 100 or so is not terrible considering the number of guys who graduated or were dealt the last 2-3 years.
    Yes, Theo and Ben built the farm up nicely, but as of right now, we have 0 in the top 80 according to BA and 1 in the top 75 by ESPN.

    Recent grads will carry us for a while, but when their prices get higher, we'll need some fresh and inexpensive young players on the roster. How many of our prospects will give us significant value between 2 and 4 years from now?

    This is what is concerning to some of us.
    Last edited by moonslav59; 01-25-2018 at 08:15 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •