SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Where are they now?: The former Sox thread
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 19, 2017 14:13:05 GMT -5
He was the #1 prospect in Baseball. So I expected a lot, that's not unreasonable. His stock has dropped, as he has a major strikeout issue. Last year if you asked everyone what Moncada would do in his first 42 games, everyone would have had him with better numbers. Including yourself. Aug 10th .213 .377 .377 .754 Sept 9th .179 .319 .330 .649 Sept 17th .227 .343 .409 .752 He has had a good 8 game stretch. Let's see how he does long-term. He has done this before. Last 8 games he has 9 strikeouts. While an improvement, it's still horrible. Still a very good young player, but he certainly doesn't look like that super elite guy he did a year ago. I don't know how you can feel better about him now compared to a year ago. Because he's actually having MLB success, and progressively improving. His ceiling hasn't changed. His floor has risen. It's pretty basic to me. I think you're extrapolating your own reasoning to presuming others think the same way, which isn't true. The best counterexample I can give is Byron Buxton. He set his floor as a 2-3 WAR defensive genius. His ceiling never changed, but maybe the likelihood of reaching it *appeared* to. But until a guy gets 1000 MLB PAs, as Ted Williams said, there's no sense in passing judgement. Now Buxton is breaking out, right at that threshold. JBJ did the same. Any attribution of early struggles on Moncada's part to a sign of fatal flaws and reduced ceiling is, at this point, an illusion. His floor has risen? I don't agree with that. Nevermind we are talking a few games here. This is like the Marcus Smart guys going crazy after a big game. Then you hear nothing from them for 20 games till his next big game. The same thing has happend ever time Margot had a hot stretch. He has a .6 fwar, I just don't see how that raises his floor. If you buy the BR numbers I can see it, but I don't. I always thought his floor was 2-3 war. I have never said anything about his ceiling, just his current value. They just aren't the same thing. The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. Everyone keeps bringing up Buxton and it makes zero sense. Do you really think Buxton value didn't decline over the last 3 years? Do you think Bradley's value didn't go down? Swihart is another perfect example. His ceiling is the same, but his value has tanked.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 19, 2017 14:37:32 GMT -5
We've had this discussion a million times, but it's sample sizes. Defensive stats just look silly when you're talking about a small portion of a season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 19, 2017 15:00:19 GMT -5
The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. That's not the standard. It's never been the standard. If it's your standard, cool, but you post it as if it's some universal truth in this matter-of-fact way that is really infuriating. There's a difference between being the best prospect and the prospect most ready to contribute. If you think Byron Buxton's value went down and then back up, whatever. Most of us have a conception of value that isn't "how is he playing right now." These aren't power rankings, they are long-term value assessments. If you want to be hyper-sensitive about that sort of thing, have fun! But don't tell us that we should do the same and that we're wrong for not doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 19, 2017 15:51:36 GMT -5
The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. That's not the standard. It's never been the standard. If it's your standard, cool, but you post it as if it's some universal truth in this matter-of-fact way that is really infuriating. There's a difference between being the best prospect and the prospect most ready to contribute. If you think Byron Buxton's value went down and then back up, whatever. Most of us have a conception of value that isn't "how is he playing right now." These aren't power rankings, they are long-term value assessments. If you want to be hyper-sensitive about that sort of thing, have fun! But don't tell us that we should do the same and that we're wrong for not doing so. You're making stuff up, UMass, that makes no sense. Look at this guy over his first two years: .230/.324/.386 - that's Dwight Evans as at 20 & 21 years old. That didn't exactly crush his value, did it? Please try to keep to the facts and to projections based on facts. Please don't pull stuff out of thin air as you try to make your points. It's almost impossible to know what his career path will look like. That's up to him and how he uses the eye-opening athleticism.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 20, 2017 0:35:04 GMT -5
The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. That's not the standard. It's never been the standard. If it's your standard, cool, but you post it as if it's some universal truth in this matter-of-fact way that is really infuriating. There's a difference between being the best prospect and the prospect most ready to contribute. If you think Byron Buxton's value went down and then back up, whatever. Most of us have a conception of value that isn't "how is he playing right now." These aren't power rankings, they are long-term value assessments. If you want to be hyper-sensitive about that sort of thing, have fun! But don't tell us that we should do the same and that we're wrong for not doing so. I think you have it wrong. That's your standard and that of other Mods and users. I would describe it as more of an old school type view. We live in a day and age of were we judge players daily and weekly. We have tons of prospects updates based off current play. We get ranking to begin year, mid-season and end of year based off play. We live in a time were we rank players trade value yearly just like power rankings. www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/02/mlb-trade-value-rankings-part-1That shows Buxton's value going down due to his play. It's not just my opinion. The whole reason top prospects are so valuable is 6 years of cheap team control. The longer a player takes to develop the less value a team gets. If it takes 3 years service team to develop all 3 dirt cheap non-arbitration years are gone. Betts will give Red Sox more value than Buxton even if there ceiling is the same for example. So I don't get how that's not the standard. Never have once said what anyone should do. Moncada is currently ranked 31, which shows how high expectations are. He's ranked above Sanchez and his 4.9 war, Eaton and his 6.2 war and great contract, Garry Sanchez and his 3 war in 53 games and Martinez and his 5.4 war.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 20, 2017 0:49:01 GMT -5
That's not the standard. It's never been the standard. If it's your standard, cool, but you post it as if it's some universal truth in this matter-of-fact way that is really infuriating. There's a difference between being the best prospect and the prospect most ready to contribute. If you think Byron Buxton's value went down and then back up, whatever. Most of us have a conception of value that isn't "how is he playing right now." These aren't power rankings, they are long-term value assessments. If you want to be hyper-sensitive about that sort of thing, have fun! But don't tell us that we should do the same and that we're wrong for not doing so. You're making stuff up, UMass, that makes no sense. Look at this guy over his first two years: .230/.324/.386 - that's Dwight Evans as at 20 & 21 years old. That didn't exactly crush his value, did it? Please try to keep to the facts and to projections based on facts. Please don't pull stuff out of thin air as you try to make your points. It's almost impossible to know what his career path will look like. That's up to him and how he uses the eye-opening athleticism. I'm not making anything up. You get less cheap great years while they develop the longer it takes. I'm talking about value to team, not a players long-term career. Buxton and Betts will give there teams different values even if they have the same ceilings, because Betts was great from day 1. Buxton took more time to develop.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 20, 2017 7:05:45 GMT -5
That's not the standard. It's never been the standard. If it's your standard, cool, but you post it as if it's some universal truth in this matter-of-fact way that is really infuriating. There's a difference between being the best prospect and the prospect most ready to contribute. If you think Byron Buxton's value went down and then back up, whatever. Most of us have a conception of value that isn't "how is he playing right now." These aren't power rankings, they are long-term value assessments. If you want to be hyper-sensitive about that sort of thing, have fun! But don't tell us that we should do the same and that we're wrong for not doing so. I think you have it wrong. That's your standard and that of other Mods and users. I would describe it as more of an old school type view. We live in a day and age of were we judge players daily and weekly. We have tons of prospects updates based off current play. We get ranking to begin year, mid-season and end of year based off play. We live in a time were we rank players trade value yearly just like power rankings. www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/02/mlb-trade-value-rankings-part-1
That shows Buxton's value going down due to his play. It's not just my opinion. Buxton went from 43rd before 2015, to 46th before 2016, to 44th before 2017. So his value basically was unchanged for three years, despite his struggles at the major league level (particularly with strikeouts). Moncada went 3 for 4 last night. WRC+ up to 110. His fangraphs WAR (the one lower on him), projected over 150 games, is up to 2.8. If you're B-Ref and more bullish? 4.5. EDIT: So if you believe the metrics that are "down" on him, then he's been about as good on a per-game basis as Javier Baez and Dee Gordon - making Moncada already a first-division regular at 22-years old.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 22, 2017 15:41:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 23, 2017 16:40:17 GMT -5
Because he's actually having MLB success, and progressively improving. His ceiling hasn't changed. His floor has risen. It's pretty basic to me. I think you're extrapolating your own reasoning to presuming others think the same way, which isn't true. The best counterexample I can give is Byron Buxton. He set his floor as a 2-3 WAR defensive genius. His ceiling never changed, but maybe the likelihood of reaching it *appeared* to. But until a guy gets 1000 MLB PAs, as Ted Williams said, there's no sense in passing judgement. Now Buxton is breaking out, right at that threshold. JBJ did the same. Any attribution of early struggles on Moncada's part to a sign of fatal flaws and reduced ceiling is, at this point, an illusion. His floor has risen? I don't agree with that. Nevermind we are talking a few games here. This is like the Marcus Smart guys going crazy after a big game. Then you hear nothing from them for 20 games till his next big game. The same thing has happend ever time Margot had a hot stretch. He has a .6 fwar, I just don't see how that raises his floor. If you buy the BR numbers I can see it, but I don't. I always thought his floor was 2-3 war. I have never said anything about his ceiling, just his current value. They just aren't the same thing. The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. Everyone keeps bringing up Buxton and it makes zero sense. Do you really think Buxton value didn't decline over the last 3 years? Do you think Bradley's value didn't go down? Swihart is another perfect example. His ceiling is the same, but his value has tanked. Re: Moncada, it depends on the question of "value in whose eyes?" Yours, yes, it's dropped. The industry itself? Probably not at all, and it actually may have gone up, since his floor before was complete bust, and now he's proven he can be at least average even if he never resolves his K issues. I'm pretty sure this was the same view the industry took on Buxton. As for Swihart, that's a weak comparison, as his "loss of value" is related to a severe injury, significant lost development time, and an age well past ideal (he's now 25, versus say, 23). Moncada hasn't struggled for remotely long enough to see any drop in value. It's probably even gone up a bit, if it's changed at all. It's been my observation that elite-level prospects like him (or Buxton) who come up at a young age have a lot more leeway to struggle (as Buxton did) before people start rethinking their valuations (at least, beyond minor fluctuation) than, say, a JBJ or Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 23, 2017 16:49:07 GMT -5
Because he's actually having MLB success, and progressively improving. His ceiling hasn't changed. His floor has risen. It's pretty basic to me. I think you're extrapolating your own reasoning to presuming others think the same way, which isn't true. The best counterexample I can give is Byron Buxton. He set his floor as a 2-3 WAR defensive genius. His ceiling never changed, but maybe the likelihood of reaching it *appeared* to. But until a guy gets 1000 MLB PAs, as Ted Williams said, there's no sense in passing judgement. Now Buxton is breaking out, right at that threshold. JBJ did the same. Any attribution of early struggles on Moncada's part to a sign of fatal flaws and reduced ceiling is, at this point, an illusion. His floor has risen? I don't agree with that. Nevermind we are talking a few games here. This is like the Marcus Smart guys going crazy after a big game. Then you hear nothing from them for 20 games till his next big game. The same thing has happend ever time Margot had a hot stretch. He has a .6 fwar, I just don't see how that raises his floor. If you buy the BR numbers I can see it, but I don't. I always thought his floor was 2-3 war. I have never said anything about his ceiling, just his current value. They just aren't the same thing. The longer a player takes to develop the lower his value gets. Everyone keeps bringing up Buxton and it makes zero sense. Do you really think Buxton value didn't decline over the last 3 years? Do you think Bradley's value didn't go down? Swihart is another perfect example. His ceiling is the same, but his value has tanked. FWIW, you mentioned Margot. He's at 2.6 fWAR, or solid-average. At age 22. He's been better by fWAR than Benintendi. His ceiling remains lower, but his odds of reaching his ceiling have probably gone up, and he's established basically a guaranteed floor of full-time CF. His overall value has improved. It has nothing to do with hit or cold streaks; quite the opposite, its cumulative performance and performance trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Sept 23, 2017 18:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 26, 2017 22:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Sept 28, 2017 18:10:21 GMT -5
meh, it's ok for athletes to express opinions that go against the grain
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2017 23:18:35 GMT -5
meh, it's ok for athletes to express opinions that go against the grain against the grain = not a good look. Yes it's his right but that nacho thing got good press all over the internet. Sometimes it's better to just shut up. An old expression (butchered),Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and prove it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 29, 2017 7:57:13 GMT -5
If it's true that Lackey's retiring then maybe Lester is trying out for his role as baseball's favorite curmudgeon.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Sept 29, 2017 18:19:43 GMT -5
meh, it's ok for athletes to express opinions that go against the grain against the grain = not a good look. Yes it's his right but that nacho thing got good press all over the internet. Sometimes it's better to just shut up. An old expression (butchered),Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and prove it. Lester looks less foolish than the press in this instance tbh
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 29, 2017 18:59:42 GMT -5
meh, it's ok for athletes to express opinions that go against the grain against the grain = not a good look. Yes it's his right but that nacho thing got good press all over the internet. Sometimes it's better to just shut up. An old expression (butchered),Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and prove it. For me, against the grain means someone is a real person and not just going through life doing what everyone expects them to do like a robot. There are way too many people who submit themselves to going with the grain.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 30, 2017 8:30:45 GMT -5
Top batting average on the Arizona team, .327 (SSS-49 AB) belongs to Jeremy Hazelbaker. Also in their stats but I don't know if he is on their current roster is Rey Fuentes.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 1, 2017 6:45:03 GMT -5
against the grain = not a good look. Yes it's his right but that nacho thing got good press all over the internet. Sometimes it's better to just shut up. An old expression (butchered),Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and prove it. For me, against the grain means someone is a real person and not just going through life doing what everyone expects them to do like a robot. There are way too many people who submit themselves to going with the grain. For me he looks like someone being petty because his team mate is getting a lot of attention.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 2, 2017 11:14:37 GMT -5
Top batting average on the Arizona team, .327 (SSS-49 AB) belongs to Jeremy Hazelbaker. Also in their stats but I don't know if he is on their current roster is Rey Fuentes. I know you aren't wistfully wondering about what might have been, but to use a infamous Red Sox quote, "But where would we play him?"
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 2, 2017 12:35:23 GMT -5
Top batting average on the Arizona team, .327 (SSS-49 AB) belongs to Jeremy Hazelbaker. Also in their stats but I don't know if he is on their current roster is Rey Fuentes. I know you aren't wistfully wondering about what might have been, but to use a infamous Red Sox quote, "But where would we play him?" I remember that 1990 quote from Lou Gorman re: Willie McGee when they had the outfield set with Greenwell, Burks, and Brunansky with Evans as the DH. The question was answered five years later when Dan Duquette brought Willie McGee in to platoon with a young Troy O'Leary.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 5, 2017 8:50:06 GMT -5
Top batting average on the Arizona team, .327 (SSS-49 AB) belongs to Jeremy Hazelbaker. Also in their stats but I don't know if he is on their current roster is Rey Fuentes. Fuentes did make the playoff roster as backup outfielder for Arizona. It's kind of amazing that he's still just 26 - that draft feels like a different lifetime. Hazelbaker was not on the playoff roster.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 11, 2017 14:20:19 GMT -5
Will Middlebrooks cleared waivers and was outrighted by the Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 20, 2017 16:00:23 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 20:17:47 GMT -5
Former Red Sox 3rd base Will Middlebrooks signs minor league deal with the Phillies
|
|
|