MLB.com's top 100 prospects

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    Red Sox
    #56 Will Middlebrooks
    #64 Bryce Brentz
    #76 Xander Bogaerts
    #93 Ryan Lavarnway

    Notable former Red Sox
    #37 Anthony Rizzo
    #50 Casey Kelly

    Surprised to see Brentz rated that high. Also surprised to see no Ranaudo. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    I'd still consider Middlebrooks good trade bait...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    I am surprised Lavarnway is that low.  To me, he is the most likely on that list to help the team in 2012, and maybe in a big way.  I'd take him over Rizzo.

    After last season, Ranaudo's lack of presence on the list is no real surprise to me.  I am also no longer very high on the guy.  But the same could be said about Kelly to an extent.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    Lavarnway has always been undervalued by the scouts & analysts - Lavarnway's offensive numbers compare well against any of the recent highly-touted prospects - Wieters, Posey, Salty, Flowers, Santana.  But before last year and his ridiculous hot streak, he never got a whiff of a top prospects list.  Maybe there's an Ivy league bias going on - I think he'll just continue to out-produce everybody ahead of him on the lists.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from accland. Show accland's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    Where is Iglesias?

    Has he been overrated too when a shortstop is so badly needed?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]Where is Iglesias? Has he been overrated too when a shortstop is so badly needed?
    Posted by accland[/QUOTE]

    A .554 OPS will knock you off these lists in a hurry.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    No Lars Anderson.

    Or Luis Exposito.

    Hmm.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    I'd rate our prospects:
    (I admit I am no expert of these ratings)

    1) Lava
    2) Iggy
    3) Bogaerts
    4) Barnes
    5) Cecchini
    6) Doubront
    7) Middlebrooks
    8) Kalish
    9) Brentz
    10) Ranaudo/Tazawa
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jb12bb. Show jb12bb's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    Bogaerts and Middlebrooks are the top infield prospects and Brentz is the top OF prospects.  You could argue that Lavarnway is major league ready hitting wise but behind the dish he still needs a full year in AAA.

    Starters are a crap shoot since Ranuado took a step back.  Barnes has not seen high competition and Dubront cannot stay healthy.

    It is a big year for RS prospects as the organization needs to look towards the future since some of the teams veterans are getting a little bit older and more expensive.

    Iglesias, Dubront, Lavarnway, Tazawa all need to prove that they are able to stay at the ML level and be significant contributors.

    I would list them in this order
    Lavarnway, Middlebrooks, Bogearts, Brentz and Iglesias as the top five position players.  I would have put Kalish in that group but he has seen to much ML time for him to still be considered a prospect.

    Pitchers, Ranuado, Barnes, Dubront, Alex Wilson and Drake Britton.  I dont consider Tazawa to be a prospect at this stage in his career.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    Tazawa looked very promising before his TJ surgery.  I think he has the potential to be a sleeper this year - maybe even compete for a spot in the rotation.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    I pretty much agree with your lists, jb.  I might put Barnes above Ranaudo, only because Ranaudo took a step or two back in my mind, but Barnes will have to prove he is what all thought he was when he signed.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]No Lars Anderson. Or Luis Exposito. Hmm.
    Posted by summerof67[/QUOTE]

    Lars hasn't been a prospect for a while.  Exposito has been pretty much never been a prospect.

    Hmm.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxu571. Show redsoxu571's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    MLB.com trends towards pure upside...hence why Bogaerts (crazy young and athletic) and Brentz (towering power, correctable but clear holes in his game) are ahead of Lavarnway.

    For comparinson, here's the fairly fresh edition of Baseball America's Rankings (as you can see, this year they put a premium on pedigree, with many of last summer's draftees and other recent high draft picks):
    1. Middlebrooks
    2. Bogaerts
    3. Blake Swihart
    4. Ranaudo
    5. Brentz
    6. Brandon Jacobs
    7. Garin Cecchini
    8. Matt Barnes
    9. Lavarnway
    10. Jackie Bradley

    Some organizations (soxprospects.com comes to mind) place a premium more on results than upside or pedigree...it's very subjective. In fact, the Red Sox have one of the most wide open lists I've seen in a long time. That's why the Sox system is in a fine position despite less at the top...there's so much quality depth.

    That's why everyone is on Middlebrooks...he's close to MLB ready, he has pedigree, athleticism, upside, and results...very much the complete package. As for Lavarnway, we've seen this before...the pedigree and body type are not what the scouts like, and not without good reason..."bad body" types often are good minor leaguers but fail at the MLB level. That doesn't guarantee failure...Youkilis is one of the most glorious examples of how some players just produce no matter how they look, and we can all hope Lavarnway is another.

    As for Ranaudo, most of you are way off...HE DID EXACTLY AS EXPECTED. He has always been projected as a very safe future middle of the rotation starter with a bit of ace potential, and so he was not expected to blow the opposition away (and he was expected to have to take a while to develop). He has a way to go, but he's over his college health issues and his good body is still a plus. Unfortunately for him, when it comes to these lists, he has a lot of similar prospects around him, and so those who personally like him less will drop him a lot.

    On the other side of the coin, I've been very high on Brentz since the day we drafted him. I wouldn't put him on the to of my Red Sox prospect list, but I have a gut feeling he'll have one of the best future impacts of anyone the Sox have in their system.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    That seems reasonable, especially given that Iglesias, Kalish, and Lavarnway will likely play a big role for us next year, and Tazwa and Doubront might play more minor roles.  My philosophy is one starter and one role player each year.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from proftom2. Show proftom2's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    If prospect is great, really great, they are in the bigs after 1-5 to 2.5 years in minor.  Forget about the forecast after 2.5 years of minor league ball. 2.5 + years means they a good, not great. Everything else is just hype outta a teams PR department.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    That's why everyone is on Middlebrooks...he's close to MLB ready, he has pedigree, athleticism, upside, and results...very much the complete package. As for Lavarnway, we've seen this before...the pedigree and body type are not what the scouts like, and not without good reason..."bad body" types often are good minor leaguers but fail at the MLB level. That doesn't guarantee failure...Youkilis is one of the most glorious examples of how some players just produce no matter how they look, and we can all hope Lavarnway is another.

    Good points, and maybe there is a parallel between Youk and Lava. Lava has produced at every level. Yes, there has been many player like Lava who have fizzled, but I think they have him way under-rated. It's not always all about the "package".
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]MLB.com trends towards pure upside...hence why Bogaerts (crazy young and athletic) and Brentz (towering power, correctable but clear holes in his game) are ahead of Lavarnway. For comparinson, here's the fairly fresh edition of Baseball America's Rankings (as you can see, this year they put a premium on pedigree, with many of last summer's draftees and other recent high draft picks): 1. Middlebrooks 2. Bogaerts 3. Blake Swihart 4. Ranaudo 5. Brentz 6. Brandon Jacobs 7. Garin Cecchini 8. Matt Barnes 9. Lavarnway 10. Jackie Bradley Some organizations (soxprospects.com comes to mind) place a premium more on results than upside or pedigree...it's very subjective. In fact, the Red Sox have one of the most wide open lists I've seen in a long time. That's why the Sox system is in a fine position despite less at the top...there's so much quality depth. That's why everyone is on Middlebrooks...he's close to MLB ready, he has pedigree, athleticism, upside, and results...very much the complete package. As for Lavarnway, we've seen this before...the pedigree and body type are not what the scouts like, and not without good reason..."bad body" types often are good minor leaguers but fail at the MLB level. That doesn't guarantee failure...Youkilis is one of the most glorious examples of how some players just produce no matter how they look, and we can all hope Lavarnway is another. As for Ranaudo, most of you are way off...HE DID EXACTLY AS EXPECTED. He has always been projected as a very safe future middle of the rotation starter with a bit of ace potential, and so he was not expected to blow the opposition away (and he was expected to have to take a while to develop). He has a way to go, but he's over his college health issues and his good body is still a plus. Unfortunately for him, when it comes to these lists, he has a lot of similar prospects around him, and so those who personally like him less will drop him a lot. On the other side of the coin, I've been very high on Brentz since the day we drafted him. I wouldn't put him on the to of my Red Sox prospect list, but I have a gut feeling he'll have one of the best future impacts of anyone the Sox have in their system.
    Posted by redsoxu571[/QUOTE]


    Exactly. The most important part is before wuesitoning the ranking, see if hey explain what they are ranking them for.  Is it liklihood of being an impact players in the majors?  Is is player ceiling?  Do they have any positional criteria?  For example, Basball Prospectus always penalizes pitchers a little and drops them in the rankings, because pitcher is such a hard position to predict....
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects : Exactly. The most important part is before wuesitoning the ranking, see if hey explain what they are ranking them for.  Is it liklihood of being an impact players in the majors?  Is is player ceiling?  Do they have any positional criteria?  For example, Basball Prospectus always penalizes pitchers a little and drops them in the rankings, because pitcher is such a hard position to predict....
    Posted by notin[/QUOTE]

    It's also why a hitter has to force me to pick him.  Until you're otherwise forced to, pick pitchers in BB and defense in FB.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]I pretty much agree with your lists, jb.  I might put Barnes above Ranaudo, only because Ranaudo took a step or two back in my mind, but Barnes will have to prove he is what all thought he was when he signed.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    I think pitching wise, Henry Owens is going to be real good. He's at least a few years out, but he's a talented LHP, and he's only 19. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]MLB.com trends towards pure upside...hence why Bogaerts (crazy young and athletic) and Brentz (towering power, correctable but clear holes in his game) are ahead of Lavarnway. For comparinson, here's the fairly fresh edition of Baseball America's Rankings (as you can see, this year they put a premium on pedigree, with many of last summer's draftees and other recent high draft picks): 1. Middlebrooks 2. Bogaerts 3. Blake Swihart 4. Ranaudo 5. Brentz 6. Brandon Jacobs 7. Garin Cecchini 8. Matt Barnes 9. Lavarnway 10. Jackie Bradley Some organizations (soxprospects.com comes to mind) place a premium more on results than upside or pedigree...it's very subjective. In fact, the Red Sox have one of the most wide open lists I've seen in a long time. That's why the Sox system is in a fine position despite less at the top...there's so much quality depth. That's why everyone is on Middlebrooks...he's close to MLB ready, he has pedigree, athleticism, upside, and results...very much the complete package. As for Lavarnway, we've seen this before...the pedigree and body type are not what the scouts like, and not without good reason..."bad body" types often are good minor leaguers but fail at the MLB level. That doesn't guarantee failure...Youkilis is one of the most glorious examples of how some players just produce no matter how they look, and we can all hope Lavarnway is another. As for Ranaudo, most of you are way off...HE DID EXACTLY AS EXPECTED. He has always been projected as a very safe future middle of the rotation starter with a bit of ace potential, and so he was not expected to blow the opposition away (and he was expected to have to take a while to develop). He has a way to go, but he's over his college health issues and his good body is still a plus. Unfortunately for him, when it comes to these lists, he has a lot of similar prospects around him, and so those who personally like him less will drop him a lot. On the other side of the coin, I've been very high on Brentz since the day we drafted him. I wouldn't put him on the to of my Red Sox prospect list, but I have a gut feeling he'll have one of the best future impacts of anyone the Sox have in their system.
    Posted by redsoxu571[/QUOTE]

    For some reason, Bradley reminds me of a more likeable Torii Hunter. Excellent CF, less power, but could hit for a higher average. I was really happy with last year's draft.  Blake Swihart too.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    We have quite a few young promising prospects. The deep draft last year helped and we get an extra pick this year too.

    18
    Kukuk
    Vinicio
    Montas

    19 
    Bogaerts
    owens
    Swihart
    Ramos
    Jerez
    Weems
    Betts
    Spalding
    Good
    L. Diaz

    20
    Coyle
    Cecchini
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    That, and a decision to draft and sign a higher percentage of high school players.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    3 top 40 picks this year is definitely nice. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    I like the way our farm system is set up. Our closest to MLB ready players happen to be at our high need areas or soon-to-be vacated positions next winter or the winter of 2014, and longer-away players at areas we won't need help in a while.

    SS: Bogaerts, Iggy, Vinicio
    3B: Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Cecchini, Coyle, Vitek
    C: Lavarnway (DH), Swihart, Exposito, Vazquez, Weems
    P: Doubront, AWilson, Ranaudo, Barnes, Tazawa, Britton, Pimental
           Owens, Kukuk, Workman, Montas, Ramirez, Couch
    OF: Kalish, Brentz, Jacobs, Bradley, Hassan, Lin, Linares, Ramos
           Hazelbaker, , Perkins
    2B: Tejada, Bogaerts, Coyle
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects

    In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: MLB.com's top 100 prospects : For some reason, Bradley reminds me of a more likeable Torii Hunter. Excellent CF, less power, but could hit for a higher average. I was really happy with last year's draft.  Blake Swihart too.
    Posted by Skadude22[/QUOTE]

    Then Jackie Bradley Junior must be excreting massive spore clouds of charm from multiple orefices all day long.  As much I think people overvalue the Massively Overrated Torii Hunter as a player, he is one heckuva pleasant, likable, honest and upfront human being in every TV spot I have seen him do.  And that omnipresent smile does not hurt his image either...
     

Share