PDA

View Full Version : What would YOU offer for Stanton?



AI
08-14-2013, 02:09 PM
Here's my offer (keep in mind that Stanton is arb. eligible after this season, will start to get expensive):


Option #1


Centerpiece(s): Jackie Bradley (Ellsbury re-signed)
Pick 2: Allen Webster, Anthony Ranaudo, Matt Barnes, Rubby de la Rosa
Pick 2 more: Bryce Brentz, Deven Marrero, Keury de la Cruz, Michael Almanzar, Sean Coyle


Option #2


Centerpiece(s): Felix Doubront and Will Middlebrooks
Pick 1: Allen Webster, Anthony Ranaudo, Matt Barnes, Rubby de la Rosa
Pick 2: Bryce Brentz, Keury de la Cruz, Michael Almanzar, Sean Coyle



What would you guys offer?

Nomar
08-14-2013, 02:51 PM
I like your second offer as long as Barnes isn't picked.

RedSoxtober
08-14-2013, 03:47 PM
It's interesting to see this come up again. Some national guys have been wondering similar things and the costs they suggest have come down rather significantly. The reasons for the decline: closer to a big arb pay day that MIA won't pay, big drop in OPS, problematic knees and other issues that have kept him off the field. Yes, he's an incredible offensive talent but the price may be less than what we've presumed based primarily on his first three seasons.

That said, I'd probably go along the lines of Cecchini, Ranaudo, De La Rosa, and Brentz. Add in Coyle or Betts as a kicker if necessary. Make the deal contingent upon him signing a contract ($90M/5yr? -- AAV makes up for two otherwise underpaid seasons via arb).

Lackeyfan41
08-14-2013, 04:09 PM
It's interesting to see this come up again. Some national guys have been wondering similar things and the costs they suggest have come down rather significantly. The reasons for the decline: closer to a big arb pay day that MIA won't pay, big drop in OPS, problematic knees and other issues that have kept him off the field. Yes, he's an incredible offensive talent but the price may be less than what we've presumed based primarily on his first three seasons.

That said, I'd probably go along the lines of Cecchini, Ranaudo, De La Rosa, and Brentz. Add in Coyle or Betts as a kicker if necessary. Make the deal contingent upon him signing a contract ($90M/5yr? -- AAV makes up for two otherwise underpaid seasons via arb).

That would be a good trade for us, but I think some teams would be willing to bend over backwards for Stanton. IE, tell the Marlins to pick whoever they want because they think Stanton will put them over the top.

AI
08-14-2013, 06:04 PM
That would be a good trade for us, but I think some teams would be willing to bend over backwards for Stanton. IE, tell the Marlins to pick whoever they want because they think Stanton will put them over the top.

Few teams would be able to "outbid" us. Depends on how far everybody else is willing to go. Judging by the fact that Stanton is still playing for the Marlins, I don't think any team is or has been desperate enough to give up an extreme package of prospects like most people assume it would take to pry him away from Miami.

Nomar
08-14-2013, 06:13 PM
Not many can outbid us but its plenty possible than a team would be more willing to give it all to Miami for him.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-14-2013, 07:38 PM
James shields landed one of the games top prospects in baseball (Myers). Shields was 30 yrs old with only 2 yrs left on his deal.

Now I would assume Stanton would land quite a bit more than that. My gut feeling is they'd want one of the games better prospects..JBJ/Cecchini are very solid specs, but neither is figured too be a face of a franchise.

I think Xander bogearts would have too be in such a deal...along with possibly 1-2 other top 10 prospects currently in the system.

Call me crazy but I wouldn't even trade Bogearts for Stanton despite Stanton being proven. He'll be entering his ARB yrs, Has injury concerns, and isn't exactly been mashing the ball this season.

flea
08-14-2013, 07:45 PM
Bogarts is where the deal starts, especially considering the Marlins don't plan on trading him. Other teams would pay more still, teams more in need of the bat right now.

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 09:26 PM
Bogarts is where the deal starts, especially considering the Marlins don't plan on trading him. Other teams would pay more still, teams more in need of the bat right now.

No. It's where the deal ends. History proves the premium specs for a single player trade almost always favors the team getting the specs.

No XB and no Cecchini.

Assuming the Sox medical staff can explain his decline/injury status and it's not a problem:

WMB, Brentz, Coyle and 3 pitchers from the farm (our 3rd, 6th, 9th) we protect 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 (as they choose each one we protect the next two we choose)

Take it or leave it.

Nomar
08-14-2013, 09:39 PM
They'd leave that I'd assume

SirHizz
08-14-2013, 11:10 PM
I'd offer nothing since it's almost a certainty that Xander would have to be the centerpiece. No reason for the Marlins to take anything less.

I guess they will be asking for 3 top prospects in the off-season. Someone in the top 10 range (Bogaerts), someone else in the top 50 range, maybe even 2 (Webster/Ranaudo/Owens) or another fringe top 100 prospect like Swihart. No chance such a trade goes down, not with Ben in charge.

Maybe he gets traded, but not to us. I have some other teams in mind...
1. Orioles - seems like they are entertaining the idea of trading Bundy.
2. Texas - assuming they don't win the world series this year. Daniels is not shy of trading away some prospects as we've seen in the Garza-deal. Profar+
3. Cards - enough high quality specs. Martinez+
4. Twins - Sano+
5. D'backs - Skaggs, Davidson

Nomar
08-14-2013, 11:13 PM
Really doubt Sano gets traded or really even discussed.

flea
08-14-2013, 11:19 PM
No. It's where the deal ends. History proves the premium specs for a single player trade almost always favors the team getting the specs.

Questions about where he ends up on defense and the fact that he's not a top-notch ceiling prospect? Don't get me wrong, he looks great, but even the Myers for Shields deal wasn't a one-for-one. Even if you think it was Dayton Moore's stupidity that's just the market for proven major league players - especially young power hitters in this era.

-Lavigne43-
08-15-2013, 12:57 AM
The Shields deal was idiotic, it's not the standard. We got Agon for Kelly and Rizzo, at that time neither of them were anywhere close to the prospect Xander is. Kelly was coming off a dreadful season, and Rizzo was just putting up good numbers. Neither of them would be top 5 in our current system. Xander not a top notch prospect...everyone in the industry would disagree with you. He's the best prospect our systems had since I've followed it. Possibly having to move from SS is not a demerit. It's not like hes someone that has to play 1b, or might have to be a DH.

I guess Xander being at #1 overshadows how good our other top prospects are. JBjr, Cecchini, Owens, Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo all would be the #1 prospect in plenty of our recent past seasons.

We can outbid what most teams would realistically do with Cecchini as the center piece. If the Marlins want more than than that they can choose to wait. With less years of control and his money rising through arbitration he will only lose trade value.

flea
08-15-2013, 01:16 AM
Han Ram was the bigger Sox prospect. A-Gon was gotten for so little because he had one year left on his contract and the Padres knew they couldn't re-sign him. Stanton is under team control for 3 years after this one. That is a huge difference, and part of the reason why Shields netted so much (2 years of control). Plus, the Marlins still hope to re-sign him and they aren't shopping him. They're going to be competitive within 2-3 years - why would they trade their proven slugger for the possibility of another slugger straight up?

AI
08-15-2013, 01:20 AM
Hanley was a bigger prospect than Xander? Lay off the crack-pipe please.

-Lavigne43-
08-15-2013, 01:35 AM
Hanley wasn't. Never performed like Bogaerts. Bogaerts is considered a top 5 prospect in baseball, Hanley never got that high. Bogaerts development is a year ahead of Hanley's too. A lot of Hanley was tools projection, but he had a bad work ethic and bad makeup. Bogaerts has the great tools, the results, a strong work ethic, and great makeup. I've never heard a bad thing about him as a person.

Marlins likely won't want to pay those last years of arbitration where the money really hikes up. Of course Stanton will get a ton. Just because it doesn't include Xander doesn't mean a package including a big chunk of our top ten isn't a ton. Not to diss Shields, but AGon was a much better player when he was traded, one of the very best bats in the game. That was a terrible trade, Shields is very good, but you don't trade a prospect like Myers unless you get one of the elites in return.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 06:37 AM
Questions about where he ends up on defense and the fact that he's not a top-notch ceiling prospect? Don't get me wrong, he looks great, but even the Myers for Shields deal wasn't a one-for-one. Even if you think it was Dayton Moore's stupidity that's just the market for proven major league players - especially young power hitters in this era.

Even if XB is a -10 UZR/150 SS/3B, a guy of his age who has mastered breaking balls as he has that can play at those slots for even 3-4 years is quite rare, and very valuable. In the long run I see him at LF/DH.

Besides, I'm not at all heartened by a guy of Stanton's age (and size) that has sprung so many leaks on the health and batting fronts. If he had gone up from 2011 and not down I'd be far more interested in moving XB for him.

RedSoxtober
08-15-2013, 10:57 AM
Han Ram was the bigger Sox prospect. A-Gon was gotten for so little because he had one year left on his contract and the Padres knew they couldn't re-sign him. Stanton is under team control for 3 years after this one. That is a huge difference, and part of the reason why Shields netted so much (2 years of control). Plus, the Marlins still hope to re-sign him and they aren't shopping him. They're going to be competitive within 2-3 years - why would they trade their proven slugger for the possibility of another slugger straight up?

I can only guess, but I think you're anachronistically projecting his MLB stats back onto his prospect status. Hanely has a career .300/.354/.433 slash in the minors with much of that padded by his performance in Rookie-A Ball as well as some predictably monstrous numbers on rehab assignments. BA had him ranked #19, 39, 10, and 30 before he finally we broke into MLB. The free-fall drops in his rankings had to do with performance drops and big-time immaturity issues. The Sox were very concerned about how (if) he'd be able to handle the pressure of MLB, especially in the BOS crucible. To a certain extent we've seen those concerns proven true with his sulking about a move to 3B, whining during the season, etc

Bogaerts currently sports a .298/.374/.867 line. Unlike HanRam, Bogaerts has performed at every level of the organization with a chance to debut in his age 20 season (Hanley got 2PA at age 21 but really at 22 debuted in part because he was the centerpiece of the Beckett trade). His worst season was an .819 OPS as a 17yr old in the DSL. He finished AA at around .920 and is at .853 in AAA. These numbers dwarf what HanRam did. BA ranked him #58 heading into last year and #8 coming into this season. I think that their mid-season adjustment had him at #4.

Both kids were considered somewhat suspect defensive SS for whom the bat more than made up for any defensive deficiencies. HanRam's defense declined as he climbed the ladder, perhaps in part because of his immaturity (believing he was too good to be where he was, poor relationship with teammates). Xander has been the opposite. His defense has improved to the point that those who initially doubted that he'd be able to stay at SS no longer do so. In fact, at the future's game he came off the field and asked reporters their opinions about his DEFENSE rather than his impressive offensive performance. That kind of perspective on the game is one that HanRam never had and is one reason why he's pushed into elite prospect territory that the Red Sox have not had since maybe Clemens.

flea
08-15-2013, 12:14 PM
Hanley was a top 10 prospect and had an incredible ceiling. Both were big prospects and parsing them is silly.


Even if XB is a -10 UZR/150 SS/3B, a guy of his age who has mastered breaking balls as he has that can play at those slots for even 3-4 years is quite rare, and very valuable. In the long run I see him at LF/DH.

Besides, I'm not at all heartened by a guy of Stanton's age (and size) that has sprung so many leaks on the health and batting fronts. If he had gone up from 2011 and not down I'd be far more interested in moving XB for him.

You're right, which is why keeping Bogaerts makes all the sense in the world for the Red Sox. They'll have 6 years of power (hopefully at 3rd) and if it doesn't work out the team is already good anyway. The Marlins are building around Stanton, they aren't interested in tearing things down and building around something else. Bogaerts isn't an uber-prospect because he's not a can't miss and there are questions about ultimate celing. With Hanley there were never questions about ceiling - everyone knew he was athletic and gifted enough to play at shortstop so long as he put in the effort.

todu82
08-15-2013, 12:49 PM
From the Red Sox it would be Allen Webster, Felix Doubront, Jackie Bradley and Ryan Lavarnaway.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 12:50 PM
Hanley was a top 10 prospect and had an incredible ceiling. Both were big prospects and parsing them is silly.

HR did have maturity issues, and wasn't as accomplished at XB's age. This is the perfect topic for parsing them relative to their own situation and each other.

flea
08-15-2013, 01:00 PM
Fine, but it seems like Red Sox fans have a vested interest in acting like one top 10 prospect is so much better than another top 10 prospect. In projection, there's no real difference other than Hanley could always stick at short and probably didn't have quite as much power projection. But Hanley had an elite hit tool, whereas Bogaerts will be lucky if his hit tool ends up average down the line.

Pittz
08-15-2013, 02:05 PM
Fine, but it seems like Red Sox fans have a vested interest in acting like one top 10 prospect is so much better than another top 10 prospect. In projection, there's no real difference other than Hanley could always stick at short and probably didn't have quite as much power projection. But Hanley had an elite hit tool, whereas Bogaerts will be lucky if his hit tool ends up average down the line.

Lolwut?

Nomar
08-15-2013, 02:21 PM
Fine, but it seems like Red Sox fans have a vested interest in acting like one top 10 prospect is so much better than another top 10 prospect. In projection, there's no real difference other than Hanley could always stick at short and probably didn't have quite as much power projection. But Hanley had an elite hit tool, whereas Bogaerts will be lucky if his hit tool ends up average down the line.

He projects as a .300+ hitter according to BP and Sickels earlier this year. Hanley was also never a top 5 spec like Bogaerts. You're misinformed here, but he's a least as valuable as any prospect other than Buxton.

But it's about the fit not just Bogaerts' trade value. Bogaerts makes more sense to keep than give up in a package for another big bat.

flea
08-15-2013, 02:28 PM
He projects as a .300+ hitter according to BP and Sickels earlier this year. Hanley was also never a top 5 spec like Bogaerts. You're misinformed here, but he's a least as valuable as any prospect other than Buxton.

Some evaluators have amended their scouting reports after this season because they don't want to miss on a kid with talent like his. Could he be a Miguel Cabrera hitter? Sure, but it's very unlikely. His bat doesn't tend to spend a lot of time in the zone it seems and his strike zone awareness isn't special. I think this is a case of scouts being prisoners of the moment and being awed at the beauty and power of his swing - that and not wanting to miss.

Parsing top 5 from top 10 prospect is mindless and pointless. Andy Marte was ahead of Hanley when he was top 10, and he had a similar profile as Bogaerts. If you're in the top 10, or hell the top 25, most likely you're about as good as everyone else there unless you're a Mike Trout. Guys get into the top prospect rungs in various ways too - high floor or high ceiling. Bogaerts is very much the high ceiling variety, not one of the rare high ceiling/high floor ones.

AI
08-15-2013, 02:42 PM
Lolwut?

My thoughts exactly.

Nomar
08-15-2013, 02:45 PM
Some evaluators have amended their scouting reports after this season because they don't want to miss on a kid with talent like his. Could he be a Miguel Cabrera hitter? Sure, but it's very unlikely. His bat doesn't tend to spend a lot of time in the zone it seems and his strike zone awareness isn't special. I think this is a case of scouts being prisoners of the moment and being awed at the beauty and power of his swing - that and not wanting to miss.

Parsing top 5 from top 10 prospect is mindless and pointless. Andy Marte was ahead of Hanley when he was top 10, and he had a similar profile as Bogaerts. If you're in the top 10, or hell the top 25, most likely you're about as good as everyone else there unless you're a Mike Trout. Guys get into the top prospect rungs in various ways too - high floor or high ceiling. Bogaerts is very much the high ceiling variety, not one of the rare high ceiling/high floor ones.

He's walking 13% of the time in AAA at 20, his strike zone awareness was only in question when he got called up to AA last year and walked only 1 time but he was crushing the ball then. His floor is reasonably high at this point for the time he can stay at SS. You seem to be kind of low on him, which is completely fine. I too would consider him high ceiling low floor if I had to pick one today.

I'm interested to see just how much power he develops. His HR totals aren't amazing but he's never stayed at a level long enough to start really launching because he's always gotten the promotion. He's also been really young at every stop so who knows how much power hell have ~4 years from now when he's completely adjusted. He's shown pretty good power already and look at what our friend Hanley did without showing much at all in game in the minors.

flea
08-15-2013, 02:49 PM
I'm not low on him, I'd love to have him on my team. I think he's going to be very good because he has an asset that is underrepresented in MLB now - power. I just don't think he's going to hit for average and power like Cabrera or Beltre. Walk rates trending upward are nice, but honestly AAA BB% doesn't mean a whole lot. Seems he's been better with minor league breaking stuff, but again it's difficult to project that since that's the major difference between minor league pitching and major league pitching - the off-speed stuff. Guys with mid 90s heat seem to grow on trees these days.

Crucis
08-15-2013, 02:59 PM
I'm interested to see just how much power he develops. His HR totals aren't amazing but he's never stayed at a level long enough to start really launching because he's always gotten the promotion. He's also been really young at every stop so who knows how much power hell have ~4 years from now when he's completely adjusted. He's shown pretty good power already and look at what our friend Hanley did without showing much at all in game in the minors.

Not only as he develops as a player, but as XB physically matures and starts adding some more weight and muscle. Who knows what kind of power XB could develop by the time he's 23, 24, 25 yo.

Not to stretch a point too egregiously, but IIRC, Hank Aaron started out as a shortstop and I imagine that he wasn't too physically large or powerful at that time. I'm not saying that XB could turn into Hank Aaron. But it's hardly unknown for young players with power potential to really grow into that potential as they start approaching their mid-20's and their bodies mature.

AI
08-15-2013, 03:05 PM
I'm not low on him, I'd love to have him on my team. I think he's going to be very good because he has an asset that is underrepresented in MLB now - power. I just don't think he's going to hit for average and power like Cabrera or Beltre. Walk rates trending upward are nice, but honestly AAA BB% doesn't mean a whole lot. Seems he's been better with minor league breaking stuff, but again it's difficult to project that since that's the major difference between minor league pitching and major league pitching - the off-speed stuff. Guys with mid 90s heat seem to grow on trees these days.

Dude you are way off base. Power is the last tool to develop and the fact that Xander, who is only 20 years old so there's still some room for physical growth, has already flashed "plus power" is beyond encouraging when projecting what the final product may end up looking like. As for this hit tool (high average) thing you continue to mention, it's ridiculous how wrong you are. Xander's best current tool is his hit tool due to his plus-plus bat speed. Ever since he made his Low-A debut, which at the time was seen as a very aggressive promotion, scouts have been raving about XB's offensive polish and how advanced a hitter he is for his age.

The only thing negative I've ever seen about Xander was whether or not he'd be able to stick at SS and as Lav pointed out before, he's done everything he's been asked to and now everybody (even Law who was the least bullish on him) has come out and said that they see him sticking at the position.

Hanley was a good prospect but nowhere near the level that Xander is at currently both in tools and makeup. I think you are reading WAY too much into "Well they are both offensive SS's and highly ranked prospects".

Nomar
08-15-2013, 03:07 PM
Not only as he develops as a player, but as XB physically matures and starts adding some more weight and muscle. Who knows what kind of power XB could develop by the time he's 23, 24, 25 yo.

Not to stretch a point too egregiously, but IIRC, Hank Aaron started out as a shortstop and I imagine that he wasn't too physically large or powerful at that time. I'm not saying that XB could turn into Hank Aaron. But it's hardly unknown for young players with power potential to really grow into that potential as they start approaching their mid-20's and their bodies mature.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking as well, but hypothetically if he could put up a couple big HR seasons at SS he'd be an absolute monster a monster in that time period.

And I'm confident he'll have a good batting average Flea. He's a complete hitter not unlike Beltre at all. And if he doesn't hit at Beltre's average, it's almost a given he'll walk more. Of course that's saying if he is what he looks to be.

flea
08-15-2013, 03:07 PM
I don't know if all of that or just part is directed at me, but I'm well aware that power manifests later than other tools. I said that's the major reason I like him. His hit tool, on the other hand, has been the biggest question mark of his bat. I could understand you saying that this year has convinced you he's the next Cabrera, but it seems you're willfully ignoring the weakest part of his swing.

Crucis
08-15-2013, 03:08 PM
I'm not low on him, I'd love to have him on my team. I think he's going to be very good because he has an asset that is underrepresented in MLB now - power. I just don't think he's going to hit for average and power like Cabrera or Beltre. Walk rates trending upward are nice, but honestly AAA BB% doesn't mean a whole lot. Seems he's been better with minor league breaking stuff, but again it's difficult to project that since that's the major difference between minor league pitching and major league pitching - the off-speed stuff. Guys with mid 90s heat seem to grow on trees these days.

Flea, I think that the real point that XB's BB%'s make is that he's already a patient hitter. It's too early to say that he'd carry over the same BB% rate into the majors, but I think that it's not a stretch to say that a patient hitter in the minors certainly should remain a patient hitter when he reaches the majors.

As for whether he'll produce like Cabrera or Beltre, that's probably too high a standard (particularly comparing him to the great Miggy) at this point. But it's also not unknown for players to really blossom once they reach the majors. IIRC, wasn't Nomar's excellence slightly unexpected? That is, weren't his minor league numbers not nearly as good as what he ended up doing, particularly in his first 5 years or so? (And of course, there's always the potential for the reverse ... the super minor league hitter who just can't cut it in the majors.)

I guess that I think that people shouldn't be anointing Xander as the second coming of Hank Aaron or Ted Williams just yet. And that's not meant as a put down towards XB. Let's just let him develop without heaping with such high expectations that there's nowhere to go but down.

flea
08-15-2013, 03:15 PM
His approach and walk rate are what I count on him refining to be a quality hitter. You either need that or a good hit tool to pair with your power - otherwise you're Mark Reynolds or worse (Delmon Young).

AI
08-15-2013, 03:18 PM
His approach and walk rate are what I count on him refining to be a quality hitter. You either need that or a good hit tool to pair with your power - otherwise you're Mark Reynolds or worse (Delmon Young).

Are you just talking without doing any research? It certainly looks like it.

The one thing that I have always noticed and it's extremely encouraging, is that after every promotion Xander might struggle at first with a certain aspect of his game but he adjusts so damn fast and proceeds to completely dominate. For example: After last years promotion to AA he had good results in a SSS but the strikeouts were a concern going forward. What does he do? He cuts down on his K's and puts up a 13.5 BB% in route to a .407 OBP.

Those walks and patient approach has translated to AAA where he currently has a 10.4 BB% and a 16.3 K%. This is a kid who adjusts quickly and has an idea of how pitchers might attack him, what he's doing at the plate and he executes. Some hitters have that, some don't (see: Will Middlebrooks).

Nomar
08-15-2013, 03:19 PM
His approach and walk rate are what I count on him refining to be a quality hitter. You either need that or a good hit tool to pair with your power - otherwise you're Mark Reynolds or worse (Delmon Young).

He has high averages his whole way through the minors, a great walk rate this year, and if anything his in game power is behind those two areas at the moment. He will never be Mark Reynolds or Delmon Young. He won't strike out that or walk that little. Where are you drawing these impressions of him from?

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa550735&position=SS

flea
08-15-2013, 03:26 PM
What? I wasn't comparing him to either of those players. I was simply saying that power alone won't make you good major league hitter, and then I was saying that Bogaerts's approach is what will make him good along with that power instead of his hit tool.

And of course I've done research, I try to follow most good prospects. You're quoting me his high minor league batting averages as if that's what he'll do in the Majors. First of all, his BABIPs are high enough in the minors to suggest regression at the major league level - especially when he loses foot speed. So it's not like he's spraying line drives all over the place (he's about league average in LD rates). Plus, I actually pay attention to scout reports and watch his swing. He's a power hitter, and there are major reasons why, for most hitters, power and average are mutually exclusive. Could he be an exception like Beltre, Vlad, or Cabrera? Absolutley, but he's not really shown anything that makes you predict that yet.

Nomar
08-15-2013, 03:54 PM
What? I wasn't comparing him to either of those players. I was simply saying that power alone won't make you good major league hitter, and then I was saying that Bogaerts's approach is what will make him good along with that power instead of his hit tool.

And of course I've done research, I try to follow most good prospects. You're quoting me his high minor league batting averages as if that's what he'll do in the Majors. First of all, his BABIPs are high enough in the minors to suggest regression at the major league level - especially when he loses foot speed. So it's not like he's spraying line drives all over the place (he's about league average in LD rates). Plus, I actually pay attention to scout reports and watch his swing. He's a power hitter, and there are major reasons why, for most hitters, power and average are mutually exclusive. Could he be an exception like Beltre, Vlad, or Cabrera? Absolutley, but he's not really shown anything that makes you predict that yet.

So the scouting reports that you've read are baseless? Because there are plenty projecting him to hit for average. His AAA BABIP isn't unsustainable and when h slows down he's going to have more pop by that point to counteract any drop in BABIP. His speed isn't doing him favors now anyway. You're acting like he's going to be a .250 hitter when he has a good shot at hitting a lot better than that. He's 20 years old. Power isn't his only above average tool. If he is what you were describing him to be he wouldn't be as well regarded of a prospect as he is. If you can show me a prospect report that projects him to have trouble hitting for an average, I'd want to see it. Nobody thinks he's Miguel Cabrera, but he isn't Asdrubal Cabrera either....

flea
08-15-2013, 04:04 PM
So the scouting reports that you've read are baseless? Because there are plenty projecting him to hit for average. His AAA BABIP isn't unsustainable and when h slows down he's going to have more pop by that point to counteract any drop in BABIP. His speed isn't doing him favors now anyway. You're acting like he's going to be a .250 hitter when he has a good shot at hitting a lot better than that. He's 20 years old. Power isn't his only above average tool. If he is what you were describing him to be he wouldn't be as well regarded of a prospect as he is. If you can show me a prospect report that projects him to have trouble hitting for an average, I'd want to see it. Nobody thinks he's Miguel Cabrera, but he isn't Asdrubal Cabrera either....

Nah I just disagree with them. Media publications tend to hype prospects that perform right before call-up and discount those that don't perform as well as they had. I could be wrong, anyone could be that's why they're prospects and it's fun. I also never said power was only above average tool, I said it's his best. A 35-40 home run hitter that can play a decent third base? Depending on how long you do it that's the basis for a HOF career. Asdrubal Cabrera is an unfair comparison, but if Bogaerts's floor is something around AC that's still very good, and worthy of top 10 prospect lists (not saying I think his is, and it's certainly not his ceiling).

Nomar
08-15-2013, 04:07 PM
Nah I just disagree with them. Media publications tend to hype prospects that perform right before call-up and discount those that don't perform as well as they had. I could be wrong, anyone could be that's why they're prospects and it's fun. I also never said power was only above average tool, I said it's his best. A 35-40 home run hitter that can play a decent third base? Depending on how long you do it that's the basis for a HOF career. Asdrubal Cabrera is an unfair comparison, but if Bogaerts's floor is something around AC that's still very good, and worthy of top 10 prospect lists (not saying I think his is, and it's certainly not his ceiling).

Hard to escape hype in Boston, but he was top 5 before he even got to AAA so i don't think its unjustified really. You aren't completely off-base so your opinion on him is fine by me. I actually think you're higher on his power and lower on his hit tool than me. We'll see man, I'm excited to find out as you'd probably guess.

RedSoxtober
08-15-2013, 04:09 PM
I'm not low on him, I'd love to have him on my team. I think he's going to be very good because he has an asset that is underrepresented in MLB now - power. I just don't think he's going to hit for average and power like Cabrera or Beltre. Walk rates trending upward are nice, but honestly AAA BB% doesn't mean a whole lot. Seems he's been better with minor league breaking stuff, but again it's difficult to project that since that's the major difference between minor league pitching and major league pitching - the off-speed stuff. Guys with mid 90s heat seem to grow on trees these days.
They also tend to flame out in AA if they don't have anything but mid-90s heat. Regardless, I'd love to see some current, negative scouting reports on him. Please share. I find the idea that scouts have revised their opinion just to keep from missing on a kid to be a bit... well, let's say convenient to your argument. It's really not possible that they changed their minds because of his development?

flea
08-15-2013, 04:29 PM
First, the only point with the live arms was to say most kids in the upper levels of the minors can hit fastballs. It's the breaking stuff that's always the big question.

Second, BP's scouting report mentions how he's quick to the ball but the bat doesn't stay on a plane long in the zone. That makes sense for a guy hitting for power, but cuts down on ability to adjust and hit for average. Here's footage from earlier in 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H4XFBFNqR0) and here's from 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xguZPJ5yw). They look like the same swing to me, quick through the zone and not on an even plane. That's not the kind of swing associated with elite hit tools. It's a power hitter's swing.

MiamiBoy77
08-15-2013, 07:35 PM
honestly id give up anyone not named Xander Bogaerts. Id give up to 5 players.

Put Stanton at 1B. Knee problems go away

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 09:43 PM
First, the only point with the live arms was to say most kids in the upper levels of the minors can hit fastballs. It's the breaking stuff that's always the big question.

Second, BP's scouting report mentions how he's quick to the ball but the bat doesn't stay on a plane long in the zone. That makes sense for a guy hitting for power, but cuts down on ability to adjust and hit for average. Here's footage from earlier in 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H4XFBFNqR0) and here's from 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xguZPJ5yw). They look like the same swing to me, quick through the zone and not on an even plane. That's not the kind of swing associated with elite hit tools. It's a power hitter's swing.

About 2 weeks ago I posted that my son (D2 player) knows a young scout (Nats) that said XB was having a lot of trouble with breaking balls early this season after ST. He saw him again about 4 weeks ago and said that his recognition and adjustment to breaking balls is now among the best in the Minors, and far above any other hitters his age.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-16-2013, 12:06 AM
The Shields deal was idiotic, it's not the standard. We got Agon for Kelly and Rizzo, at that time neither of them were anywhere close to the prospect Xander is. Kelly was coming off a dreadful season, and Rizzo was just putting up good numbers. Neither of them would be top 5 in our current system.

Numbers are not everything when projecting prospects. I think your underrated what Kelly was.

He was ranked #24 in the MLB after the '09 season and ranked #31 in the MLB after the '10 season..

Bradley after the '12 season was ranked #31 and I believe mid season had him mid 20's.

If 2010 version of Kelly was in this system, safe bet he would be 3rd IMO and pretty close too Bradley.

I don't even think Bradley should be ranked where he is..For a prospect that high i'd expect a higher ceiling. I think his floor is relatively high...Just don't ever seeing him being much above average.

RedSoxtober
08-16-2013, 10:18 AM
James shields landed one of the games top prospects in baseball (Myers). Shields was 30 yrs old with only 2 yrs left on his deal.

Now I would assume Stanton would land quite a bit more than that. My gut feeling is they'd want one of the games better prospects..JBJ/Cecchini are very solid specs, but neither is figured too be a face of a franchise.

I think Xander bogearts would have too be in such a deal...along with possibly 1-2 other top 10 prospects currently in the system.

Call me crazy but I wouldn't even trade Bogearts for Stanton despite Stanton being proven. He'll be entering his ARB yrs, Has injury concerns, and isn't exactly been mashing the ball this season.
It's important to factor in that the deal was not exclusively for Shields. Wade Davis was in the deal as well and there was hope that change in scenery would get him back to the pitcher he was when he debuted. The other factor is desperation; the Royals felt that this was their shot to be the 2013 version of the 2012 Orioles -- rising prospects meeting pitching from the outside to get them to the playoffs for the first time in decades.


Numbers are not everything when projecting prospects. I think your underrated what Kelly was.

He was ranked #24 in the MLB after the '09 season and ranked #31 in the MLB after the '10 season..

Bradley after the '12 season was ranked #31 and I believe mid season had him mid 20's.

If 2010 version of Kelly was in this system, safe bet he would be 3rd IMO and pretty close too Bradley.

I don't even think Bradley should be ranked where he is..For a prospect that high i'd expect a higher ceiling. I think his floor is relatively high...Just don't ever seeing him being much above average.

Kelly was overhyped because of his great start -- basically the same thing as Barnes except that Kelly did it out of HS rather than college. He was supposedly at the top of the pitching heap based on 'advanced feel' for pitching with three pitches that projected as plus pitches. But he also began to lose control of his FB as he matured physically and increased velocity. That's part of the 2010 package.

ERA can be deceiving for MiLB pitchers mainly because the ability of their teammates to make plays is not the same as a MLB lineup. But you cannot entirely dismiss them either. Kelly went from unhittable (95IP/65H) to very blasť (95IP/118H). That nearly 2x jump can't be entirely blamed on bad fielding. Consider also things entirely in his control: 95IP/74K/16BB to 95IP/81K/35BB. His HR/9 jumped as well.

One of the reasons that I soured on his was that he had a terrible pattern of outings in 2010. He'd get rocked every third start like clockwork. Control was so-so, opponents hammered his offerings, and he was often out of the game before the end of the 4th inning.

All that is part of the 2010 Casey Kelly. Put him in amid the current crop and I'd guess that he'd fall near the bottom of the top 10; 2010 was the disappointing version of Ranaudo who is ahead of Ball based on his big rebound year and it's worse than the somewhat disappointing season from Barnes (based mostly on early season stuff). I'd guess that he'd fit at 9 or 10 depending on whether you wanted to but him ahead of Barnes or behind; I'd put him lower because Barnes seems to have made in-season adjustments at AA that Kelly did not. (Yes, he made some but not in-season).

Bos_Sports4Life
08-16-2013, 02:39 PM
It's important to factor in that the deal was not exclusively for Shields. Wade Davis was in the deal as well and there was hope that change in scenery would get him back to the pitcher he was when he debuted. The other factor is desperation; the Royals felt that this was their shot to be the 2013 version of the 2012 Orioles -- rising prospects meeting pitching from the outside to get them to the playoffs for the first time in decades.

imo a bat like Stanton assuming hes traded by the offseason will either fetch a truly elite prospect (Such as XB) and maybe a kicker (a guy in the #150-#175 range too help sweeten the pot OR a trio of prospects in that #40-#60 range..Or atleast 2 in that range and a 3rd cracking the top 100.

Now im not saying I would do it..Or even that its smart. But Teams will look at is as a rate opportunity too lock up a player under the age of 25 who has shown flashes of a huge amount of power.

My best guess is, SOMEONE will pony up.





Kelly was overhyped because of his great start -- basically the same thing as Barnes except that Kelly did it out of HS rather than college. He was supposedly at the top of the pitching heap based on 'advanced feel' for pitching with three pitches that projected as plus pitches. But he also began to lose control of his FB as he matured physically and increased velocity. That's part of the 2010 package.

Im not really disagreeing with the fact he was over hyped. But from what ive seen scouts were still pretty high on him after the '10 season...Enough so where he'd still be near the top of the list if the '10 version of Kelly was in the farm.


ERA can be deceiving for MiLB pitchers mainly because the ability of their teammates to make plays is not the same as a MLB lineup. But you cannot entirely dismiss them either. Kelly went from unhittable (95IP/65H) to very blasť (95IP/118H). That nearly 2x jump can't be entirely blamed on bad fielding. Consider also things entirely in his control: 95IP/74K/16BB to 95IP/81K/35BB. His HR/9 jumped as well.

Im not dismissing it because I don't like the stat, I was just pointing out Stats are not the end all too be all when projecting a prospects future. If it was? Me and you could be a scout.

Scouts still saw the tools and overall potential after the '10 season, enough so where he didn't seem too drop a huge amount in the rankings..from what ive seen anyways.

-Lavigne43-
08-16-2013, 03:15 PM
Not going to get into Kelly because RSt already did. JBjr doesn't have a low ceiling. High OBP, plus defense at CF? I think people underestimate how valuable that is. His realistic ceiling is basically Pedroia offense in CF.

Crucis
08-16-2013, 03:29 PM
Not going to get into Kelly because RSt already did. JBjr doesn't have a low ceiling. High OBP, plus defense at CF? I think people underestimate how valuable that is. His realistic ceiling is basically Pedroia offense in CF.

I can't speak to "ceilings" or "floors". But I think that you're right about high OBP and plus defense in CF. CF is one of those premium "up the middle" positions where plus defense brings greater value. And if JBJr could hit .280-.300 with a "high OBP" and hit 10-15 or so HR's a year and play stellar defense in CF, that sounds pretty valuable to me, particularly if the Sox are going to let Ellsbury walk and need to backfill the CF position.

RedSoxtober
08-16-2013, 03:29 PM
imo a bat like Stanton assuming hes traded by the offseason will either fetch a truly elite prospect (Such as XB) and maybe a kicker (a guy in the #150-#175 range too help sweeten the pot OR a trio of prospects in that #40-#60 range..Or atleast 2 in that range and a 3rd cracking the top 100.
I'm only cautioning against a direct comparison with Shields/Myers because the deal was much larger than the headliners and there were other factors at play. MIA, for example, has proven FAR more stingy than their intrastate cousins to the north. They also have some interesting MOs: MIA tends to deal any star before they get expensive in arb while TBR has a strong track record of developing pitching and dealing them shortly before FA.

That said, I still disagree with your assessment. Any elite talent that MIA obtains will be in the very same situation as Stanton within three or four years. Getting back a big time talent like that has only a short-term impact as a result. Instead they'd be much better served getting multiple guys in the MLB top 50-150 range who'll turn in strong performances but not push the salary scale quite as quickly. That's why I'm suggesting several guys in that category rather than XB; they give MIA a chance to actually build some sustained success rather than a hope of a name to fill seats.

FLA may hold him one more year. That'd make sense for two reasons. First, they've got almost no payroll (in fact, MLB probably gives them more in revenue sharing than they pay in player salaries) so they can afford the first-time arb number he'll get. Second, he's been a bit off this year and they'd probably like to see a stronger (injury-free?) season to boost his value.


Im not really disagreeing with the fact he was over hyped. But from what ive seen scouts were still pretty high on him after the '10 season...Enough so where he'd still be near the top of the list if the '10 version of Kelly was in the farm.
BA dropped him from #31 to #76 following his 2010 performance so I don't think the scouts were quite as convinced about his potential as you suggest. I'll stick with him being fringe top-10 in the current system. That's partly because of his performance and partly because our system, especially the top 10, is so strong.

Norieaga
08-17-2013, 10:31 AM
I would trade a lot for Stanton. He's a very young power hitter who's generally among the best in the league. Prospects are prospects, Stanton is proven. Also, I look at our current team and I wonder where our next big slugger will come from. Ortiz is getting older, Napoli has cooled off a ton, and the rest of our team isn't full of .500+ sluggers. A guy like Pedroia is an amazing hitter even if he never hits more than 15 HR's, for example. So, I don't know. I've just been used to having elite power, call me spoiled because of the Manny-Ortiz era.

BCpatsox18
08-17-2013, 12:24 PM
Bradley, Barnes, ranaudo, marrero, and a lottery ticket I.E. McGrath/Gomez/Ramos