Boston Red Sox Top 20 Prospects for 2008

by John Sickels on Dec 14, 2007 4:19 PM EST in News

All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change.

Clay Buchholz, RHP, Grade A
Jacoby Ellsbury, OF, Grade A-
Jed Lowrie, SS, Grade A- (too high? I think he's an A- as a shortstop, but a B+ as a second baseman. Will he stick at short?)
Lars Anderson, Grade B+ (a personal favorite, power should blossom)
Michael Bowden, RHP, Grade B
Justin Masterson, RHP, Grade B
Nick Hagadone, LHP, Grade B
Ryan Kalish, OF, Grade B
Will Middlebrooks, 3B-SS, Grade B-
Josh Reddick, OF, Grade B- (overlooked prospect)
Oscar Tejeda, SS, Grade B- (high praise for rookie ball guy)
Aaron Bates, 1B, Grade B- (maybe C+?)
Brandon Moss, OF, Grade C+
Craig Hansen, RHP, Grade C+
Dustin Richardson, LHP, Grade C+ (a personal favorite)
Reid Engel, OF, Grade C+
Yamaico Navarro, Grade C+
Ryan Dent, OF, Grade C+
Zach Daeges, OF, Grade C+ (maybe Grade C given Lancaster)
Bubba Bell, OF, Grade C

Other Grade C guys interchangeable with the ones above include Drake Britton, Caleb Clay, Jeff Corsaletti, Carlos Fernendez Oliva, Devern Hansack, Brock Huntzinger, Kris Johnson, Hunter Jones, George Kottaras, T.J. Large, Che-Hsuan Lin, Adam Mills, Jason Place, Chad Province, Anthony Rizzo, Jon Still, Mark Wagner.

The Red Sox took longer than I thought, as I went back and forth on a lot of these grades. I'm thinking that Bates might be too high at B-, although I do think he is going to hit. I will admit that posting this makes me nervous, as Red Sox fans are increasingly passionate about their farm system. This is a good thing, obviously. . .however some members of Red Sox nation are starting to get obnoxious, acting, I dare say, like Yankees fans. Watch your hubris, guys and gals. The Sox have developed a very strong farm system, but not everyone is a future star here, and I tend to grade conservative.

Of course, full statistics and reports on over 1,000 other players will be in the 2008 Baseball Prospect Book, now available for pre-order. Ships the first Monday in February!

Tweet Comment 115 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

if this is conservative

and they have three A- and above prospects, 5 B or B+ and 4 more B- prospects than this is a fantastic farm system right now.

And Hansen seems like a 16 year old in 8th grade. How can he still be considered a "prospect"?

by Galt on Dec 14, 2007 4:14 PM EST reply actions

comparing

Red Sox
A-, A: 3
B, B+: 5
B-: 4

Reds
A-, A: 3
B, B+: 4
B-: 4

I thought the Reds had the better system. The Rays will likely come out better than the Red Sox. Who else?

Do they really have a top 3 system?

by Galt on Dec 14, 2007 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe top 5

But Jay Bruce would still put the Reds ahead of everyone.

The Red Sox have a lot of nice B types and guys who could be B's soon. Its a deep, deep system.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

You shouldn't let your opinion of a fanbase

affect any grades.

They shouldn't get upset regardless. You were very aggressive with Ellsbury and Lowrie.

Is Hansen still eligible?

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 14, 2007 4:15 PM EST reply actions

yeah

oh, I really don't. I was thinking that they would start screaming that some of the Cs should be Bs or something, lol.

by John Sickels on Dec 14, 2007 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

Absolutely!!!

Free Bubba Bell!! :)

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Dec 14, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

Fanbase

Every fanbase feels/wants they're prospects to be better than they are.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 14, 2007 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

so Jed Lowrie gets a higher grade than Homer huh

I must respectfully and completely disagree.

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 4:18 PM EST reply actions

no soup for you!

if Lowrie has a better career than Homer [barring injuries], ill eat my hat.

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 4:21 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie

I like Lowrie and am a Sox fan. I have no problem putting him above Bailey, who I'm not convinced will ever match results with his stuff, but A- seems a touch optimistic for a guy who had an admittedly great year, but did it after having two ok to poor years in college and the minors (yes, I know his last season was injury plagued). I'd like to see him do it a little longer before I bite on Lowrie as an A-.

by BLumbergh on Dec 14, 2007 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

Optimistic

I think this is a little optimistic for Lowrie. I'm a Sox fan, and I acknowledge that his year at Wilmington, which everybody says was a down year, is actually a very good showing, but I still don't see him as this good.

I think he's a solid above average hitter, even good hitter for middle infield, but his defense at SS is a little questionable.

If he could play third, he might be better offensively than Lowell right now.

As for Bailey. I'd take the position prospect over the pitching prospect any day. I just have a bad feeling about Homer.

by Montreal97 on Dec 14, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

Ugh

How many times has John said that you shouldn't compare position player grades to Pitcher grades?

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 14, 2007 6:15 PM EST up reply actions

Excellent

Wish I'd said it that well. (I know its what I was thinking.)

by Montreal97 on Dec 17, 2007 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

+1

When I saw the Lowrie grade, it immediately jumped out at me. It was surprising... startling... and I immediately scrolled down the page to look at some notable names that were graded lower than him.

Homer
Antonelli
Headley

by jumanjifan01 on Dec 14, 2007 4:21 PM EST up reply actions

Antonelli

Lowrie put up very similar numbers to Antonelli but was a year ahead (one level higher; one year older). Lowrie doesn't have the speed of Antonelli, and while he hit fewer homers, he did have a higher SLG.

And Lowrie is a SS, not a 2B.

Headley was great, but a level below Lowrie at the same age, and playing in a San Antonio. Plus Headley is a 3B who may not even stick there.

Homer, I agree should be higher than B+

by Galt on Dec 14, 2007 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

I'm with you

Lowrie seems WAY too high to me. More of a low B+ or even a high B than a low A-. But it's not my book.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

yeah

I think I'd rate him the same as Bowden.

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

I seem to remember

people having a hissy fit about Pedroia's grade and John stuck with him and called him one of his "favorites." Pedroia's looking like an A these days.

Maybe John is on to something.

Or maybe the $20 check cleared from ALSKOR.

by Sox Puppet on Dec 14, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

+10000001

Lowrie seems way too high. Just a general observation, I noticed that John has handed out alot more A/A- grades than in the past. Personally, I kind of liked how it was before. It should be extremely tough to get an A/A- grade.

by parrot11 on Dec 14, 2007 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

yeah i like it being kind of rare as well

for instance, my handful of A's:
Maybin
Kershaw
Homer
Bruce
Longoria

A-:
Buchholz
Joba
McGee
Rasmus
Price

...and thats it.

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 8:05 PM EST up reply actions

call me a yankee fan

but Joba is a solid grade A:
-control
-dominant performance in more innings and in more situations and against more hitters than Bucholz
-stuff
-command
-losing weight, so not a concern
-sound mechanics
-projects as ace or ace closer

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias)

by bobbymcnally on Dec 14, 2007 8:24 PM EST up reply actions

Star Ace

Let me preface this by saying I'm a Yankee-hater. However, I got to watch a lot of Joba this past summer and I absolutely love the kid. I would hesitate to say he's a star ace in waiting though, because you can't project a guy to develop a third pitch. Right now he's only got two plus pitches (or plus-plus if you want to go that far). His third pitch, as of the last time he was a starter, was below average. You won't find any aces with a below average third pitch.

by ajake57 on Dec 14, 2007 11:11 PM EST up reply actions

Not true

Joba's curveball is an above-average pitch which he didn't use much as a reliever. It's nowhere near as nasty as his slider or fastball, but it is a pitch he can get over for a strike when batters are sitting on the other two pitches. His changeup is probably about average, but he doesn't use it that often (he hasn't really had need to to this point).

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 14, 2007 11:26 PM EST up reply actions

wow..

..he appears to have four pitches, but has only used two. That's impressive.

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/php/combined_tool.php?pit=501955&bat=0&type=-1&result=-1& amp;count=-1&r_spd=1&spd=-1&r_brx=1&brx=-100&r_brz=1&brz=-100&l_b=0

by wcw on Dec 15, 2007 12:32 AM EST up reply actions

I Assume You Haven't Seen Buchholz Pitch

If Clay Buchholz isn't an A prospect, no pitcher is.

I've been watching baseball for 45 years and I'm not willing to name a pitcher whose change and curve were both clearly better.

Watching him in MLB, it was very obvious that his #1 priority in AAA hadn't been simply getting hitters out, but working on his fastball command. If he'd thrown twice as many breaking pitches, he would have been essentially unhittable, but it it would have hampered his development severely.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he won the CY in 2009.

by Eric Van on Dec 15, 2007 5:07 AM EST up reply actions

im not knocking Buchholz

i just gave my top 5 only an A....and the next 5 an A- ... I can't argue with Clay's curve.

by daveh33 on Dec 15, 2007 5:24 PM EST up reply actions

Other than Bruce and Longoria

I think all your other A-s are better than your A's. Id honestly take any of the bottom five above the top 3 on your list... and Im a big Maybin fan.

How can Homer Bailey be an A and all those other pitchers A-s? What's the basis for that. Joba and Clay both have done more than Kershaw and Bailey and have higher upsides. Ill throw McGee in as an A too.

by alskor on Dec 15, 2007 9:10 AM EST up reply actions

Homer, Kershaw, Maybin...

...have A+ ceilings...highest ceilings of anyone... I like their chances of coming close if not eventually fulfilling them.

also, as i said before, i just took my top 5 and gave em A's, and the next five A-

by daveh33 on Dec 15, 2007 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

Homer

I haven't seen enough of him to have any clue as to his ceiling, but Bailey had some serious control issues this year both at the major and minor league levels. Over his minor league career he has roughly a 2.3 K/BB, but even that modicum of control seemed to be slipping this year.

Injured? Overrated? Or normal growing pains? At the very least I'd be hesitant to give him a "no questions" rating.

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

I really just dont see it

I own a Homer Bailey signed ball, but there is no way I can buy an argument that his ceiling is higher than Buchholz.

by alskor on Dec 15, 2007 10:39 PM EST up reply actions

looking back on his stats

I dont remember his BB/K ratio in AA being so good...so i guess thats something i forgot... he's a fine prospect for sure... but an A? i dont know

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 4:26 PM EST reply actions

lowrie

Yeah, I dunno about that one. Might go with B+. But if he really CAN play shortstop, with a bat like that...

by John Sickels on Dec 14, 2007 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

I see your point, but aside form this year

...he really doesn't jump out at you... At least, I never hear scouts giving him the rave reviews typical of an 'A'-type prospect...

he kinda reminds me of Votto in that he had a pretty down year, and was forgotten a bit, and then bouncd back with the bat...which is fine...but a little inconsistent without getting the rave eviews that the more toolsy players get even while struggling

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

A-

My impression of Lowrie up until now has been that he's a player with a very good chance at becoming a solid regular -- high floor, moderate ceiling.

Now, another impression I've been operating under is that guys who get "A" grades have a good chance at becoming star or superstar caliber players.

If that's the case and Lowrie really does have that kind of ceiling then what's taking the Twins so long?

You can't leave us hanging here, John! Fill in the blanks for us... please.

by jumanjifan01 on Dec 14, 2007 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Lowrie

You said "aside from his year, he really doesn't jump out at you", but what other years are there to look at??

He was drafted in 2005 and put up a line of 328/429/448 in 200 at bats, a pretty nice average and very good discipline, and passable power for someone going from metal bats to wood bats

2006 he hurt his ankle during spring training and it effected him all year long

Then this year he puts up a .910 OPS in AA and a .860 OPS in AAA, neither of which were batting average dependent.

Additionally, all of BA's chats regarding Lowrie indicated he was showing enough range to stick at shortstop, surprising a lot of people who probably didn't take his ankle injury into account last year

So all in all, you've got a middle infielder (likely SS) with a 13.4% career walk rate and .100 career IsoD, with a 165/186 BB/K rate (excellent), as well as 68 extra-base hits in 497 AB's (13.7% XBH%), who has had success in the high minors

If you want to argue whether an A- or a B+ is right for him, I'll listen. But I think Lowrie has been one of the most underrated prospects both on this site and in the prospect community in general.

He's got a wonderful blend of ability, likeliness to reach his ceiling, value via position, and batting-average independent skills (I feel like I'm talking about a good wine...)

by Jgaztambide on Dec 14, 2007 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

i was just referring to 06

...thanks for the insight though... i wasnt aware he suffered through a hurt ankle for the year...

by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Great post.

by Zero Gs on Dec 14, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions

Thoughts

I think Lowrie is high... He's had a couple years where he didnt hit enough... Id like to see one more solid year before I buy A-.

I would also probably downgrade a few guys a half grade below him... Reddick, Bates, Bell I suppose...

I might upgrade Bowden, Masterson and maybe Kalish...

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 4:29 PM EST reply actions

Since When is 2/3 "a couple"?

First year: short season, tremendous.
Second year: awful April, ankle injury, tremendous finish.
Third year: awful April, tremendous thereafter.

He's apparently a slow starter but he has never failed to put up eye-popping numbers when healthy.

by Eric Van on Dec 15, 2007 4:42 AM EST up reply actions

Bard?

Is there no more hope for Daniel Bard?

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Dec 14, 2007 4:30 PM EST reply actions

Looked great in Hawaii

but walked a lot of guys.

Big year for him coming up

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions

Bard should be on the list

Maybe even as a C+ He has shown flashes of a turnaround, and the potential is hard to ignore. As you said yourself John, because he is so raw it would take him more time than most college products to develop, but he can be great in time, though I see his future as a set-up man.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 14, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

Nah

No control of secondary pitches, poor control of fastball. no command.

Just another guy with electric stuff that hasnt put it together yet and may never.

Id give him a C- until he shows me a full year of something useful.

Ton of talent... but he cant break this list. If he was a Tigers minor leaguer he'd be top 15... or more probably traded already.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

An A- only if he sticks at SS

He hit .300/.350/.506 in AAA against a park adjusted league average or .262/.328/.395, following up .297/.410/.502 against a lague average of .263/.330/.399.

He was also excellent in 2005, though granted, that was in low A.

For comparison, he's a better prospect than Brandon Wood at this point - certainly more of a sure thing, if with less upside. His AA and AAA numbers are far better than Wood's, especially relative to league. An A- is a little bit aggressive, but if he sticks at short, it's not unreasonable.

by joe c on Dec 14, 2007 4:31 PM EST reply actions

He's really not better than Wood

He just doesn't have the power. If you could choose between Troy Glaus at SS (with better defense) and Dustin Pedroia at SS, I'd go for Glaus, despite the average and strikeouts. I don't think those are perfect comparisons for Wood and Lowrie, respectively, but I still think it's close enough for the comp to be valid. Lowrie might have a higher floor, but Wood's ceiling can't be ignored, and I still think he should be an A-.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 14, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

Pedroia....

I would take him over Glaus because of defensive and strikeouts. I think 2-hitters are severely underappreciated in baseball. They make great contact to help a speedy lead-off guy move the bases well (via hits and sacrifices. Also hit-and-runs). They also get on base at an above average rate so they can score in front of your mashers.

Also Pedroia doesn't stick needles in his ass lol.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Dec 14, 2007 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie's 2006

FWIW, adjusting for league and park, Lowrie's disappointing 2006 was still good for a 106 OPS+.

by joe c on Dec 14, 2007 4:32 PM EST reply actions

John, Im curious

Do you think Hagadone will be a releiver or starter?

I have my concerns.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 4:35 PM EST reply actions

Hagadone

He has two plus/above average pitches now and said that he was making significant strides with his chengeup. If he can get the change to be an average offering, which seems reasonable, I see no reason why he wouldn't be a starter.

by BLumbergh on Dec 14, 2007 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

if Lowrie is an A-....

Then Bill Smith should PULL THE TRIGGER on the Santana deal... Not sure which version I prefer(Lester/Crisp or Ellsbury) but either one would be a good haul. If Ellsbury is chosen, you have 2 A- prospects and a B... this fits a good return...

by dbimberg on Dec 14, 2007 4:48 PM EST reply actions

should say...

I thought the A- was high on Lowrie

by dbimberg on Dec 14, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

Kottaras

I know Kottaras had poor total season totals, but his 2nd half was outstanding... batting .318/.389/.582. His catching skills will never wow anyone, but his bat has been solid throughout his minor league career, and he might well have a shot to be a viable alternative to replace Varitek by 2009. If he gets off to a good start in 2008, he could well be a nice chip to have on a team without a catcher for the future. I'm not saying he's Johnny Bench, but since catchers who get on base are scarce, a poor half season is no reason to give up on the man. Just keep an eye out for him.
JAS

by jasvlm on Dec 14, 2007 4:57 PM EST reply actions

I also noticed

Navarro has no position listed... INF?

Where's he going to end up? I know he's a little young to say much about. He bulked up over last winter and although he has a penchant for flashy plays he's not a great defensive SS. That leads me to believe he'll end up at 2B or 3B. If its third he hasnt shown me enough to indicate he can hit enough to progress there. Kind of like a mini-Lowrie two years back.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 5:06 PM EST reply actions

thought

I think Ellsbury and Lowrie should be both rated as B+'s.

Aren't A's meant for star players? I can't see neither of those players becoming stars outside Red Sox Nation.

by npurcell on Dec 14, 2007 5:14 PM EST reply actions

Kenny Lofton's been a star all over the country

by Sox Puppet on Dec 14, 2007 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie's MLE Comps

Miguel Tejada, Michael Young, Jose Reyes all had about the same EqA as Lowrie's Davenport Translations. And you can't see him being a star?

BTW, the whole thing about him needing to stay at SS is plain wrong; the difference between the average offense at 2B and SS these days is like LF vs. RF.

by Eric Van on Dec 15, 2007 4:46 AM EST up reply actions

Why you be hatin'

on us Yankees fans homeboy?

haha jk but lowrie at A-?? i don't think so--its not like hes being demanded in potential Johan Santana even when the Twins need a shortstop. I think B+, as he isn't above Homer but isn't below him, either.

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias)

by bobbymcnally on Dec 14, 2007 5:16 PM EST reply actions

Is this sarcasm...?

You do know he is a major piece in the Johan talks and right now essentially represents the difference between the Sox and Yanks offers(the Hughes offer that may be off the table at least)?

The Twins are very much looking at him for SS or 3B.

Again, though, I agree... should be a B+. Its close though... a solid hitting April and May in 2008 and he'd sell me on A-...

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

Seriously...

If its sarcasm and I missed it... my bad...

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

I think it's more like overloaded sarcasm

so it's tough to find the point.

by Galt on Dec 14, 2007 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

That;s what I thought...

Sorry

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

also

surprisingly low on Moss, Kottaras, Hansen, and Bard. I can understand Hansen, Bard, and even Kottaras, but what about Moss?

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias)

by bobbymcnally on Dec 14, 2007 5:18 PM EST reply actions

Moss

Moss is pretty much viewed as a 4th OF/fringe starter at this point, FWIW. He's rumored to be competing for Hinske's old role (backup 1B/OF) in ST.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 14, 2007 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

Thats been the view

but he's really raised his profile this last year. He could feasibly start somewhere in MLB in a corner OF. Im not exactly big on him though. Fringy corner guy with good def, so-so tools, subpar power and a good eye. Lots of teams would like to have him despite that. He's ready or very close.

As for the 4th OFer role... that's never gonna happen. I know its being bandied about the net and theoretically he could give you what Hinske did, but in reality the Sox much prefer to let him continue his development as an everyday player rather than stunt him by putting him on the MLB bench.

4th OFer is likely Kielty with Moss in AAA to start. Could help down the stretch.

just my take...

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

Ceiling

Well, he could feasibly start for an < 85-win team...that's always been the case. I guess I don't really see how he raised his profile last year. Strikeouts became even more of a problem, though he maintained a solid BA thanks to an extremely high BABIP. Didn't take a huge step forward with his rates, though he saw a slight boost in slugging, which one would imagine is mostly thanks to getting out of the EL. For his value to really take a step forward, one would imagine he would need to be viewed as a potentially above-average regular. I don't really see the evidence for this, either in terms of inquiries about him or in his track record. 4th OF who if everything breaks right can put together a few average years as a regular.

Also, I disagree that Moss as the 2008 4th OF will "never happen". Unless the Sox for some reason think he's a starting OF for the team in 2009, there's nothing left to groom him for. Trade him, or integrate him into the team now. It's his age 24 season, after all - even if he uncharacteristically put up a monster year at AAA this season playing full-time, do you think he's really going to be a hot target as a 25 year old next winter?

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 14, 2007 8:08 PM EST up reply actions

Not about grooming him

Its about keeping him ready to play in case of an injury.

The Red Sox have been pretty consistent in not using young players to fill bench roles, even when they had a ready made option. It will almost certainly be Kielty, though, from what Ive heard.

I guess you were higher on Moss than I was going into last year than, b/c he still had to prove to me he could keep those rates going after that awful year. I certainly didnt see him as a guy who could be a starter at corner OF for any MLB team going into the 06 season, now I could see it...

by alskor on Dec 15, 2007 9:17 AM EST up reply actions

Moss

Well, I've never really been a big fan of him...aside from the apparently fluke '04 season, his last three years, while showing a little bit of improvement, just don't look all that different to me, that's all. Looks like he has the same strengths and limitations to me, which is what I was referring to with my comments. I don't really think his 2005 was awful unless you're straight up comparing it to the '04 campaign, because if that's true than he's had three pretty awful seasons in a row in my eyes.

As far as the bench idea goes, I think that's a fair assertion you're making, actually. The idea was that - especially if he picks up a 1B glove - he becomes the primary backup when 1B/3B/LF/CF/RF/DH need a day off. With Francona's style, that amounts to enough playing time that the difference between six starts a week in AAA and four in MLB might not be a huge gap. But this scenario has come up before, and aside from Wily Mo (whom they didn't have a choice with), you're right that this regime has just kept their young guys in AAA.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 15, 2007 10:20 AM EST up reply actions

Lowrie and Bates

I'm a Red Sox fan, but I can't justify putting Lowrie as high as an A- rating. His makeup is terrific, but he doesn't have the exceptional bat control of Pedroia or the defensive prowess to be a no-doubt shortstop.

Hard to get a read on Aaron Bates. Playing in a launching pad in a hitters league, he put up some nice numbers -- with a ridiculous home/road split. I don't think he has shown enough to be a B prospect, not at first base.

The others seem about right. Lars Anderson needs to show some power this year, but that isn't a concern YET.

by Valentine on Dec 14, 2007 5:49 PM EST reply actions

Bates

I like Bates, and I can't quite put my finger on why (aside from owning him in a deep keeper league). .198/.348/.429 at Portland is one of the absolute strangest lines I've ever seen. He isn't young, but isn't old, and has some pretty solid plate discipline. I know this is isn't a totally fair comparison, but I've always gotten a feeling of Kevin Youkilis lite with him.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 14, 2007 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

B+

I don't see Lowrie in the A level. He seems like a very solid major leaguer but not a star level player.

by GoldenSpikes24 on Dec 14, 2007 5:56 PM EST reply actions

Breslow and Carter

I'm new at this. Are Craig Breslow and Chris Carter not very good prospects?

by J Michael Neal on Dec 14, 2007 6:36 PM EST reply actions

Both kind of old

for prospects. Could be useful soon.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

carter

I should probably put Carter in.

by John Sickels on Dec 14, 2007 7:05 PM EST reply actions

C guys

Excellent work, and I know no listing will please everyone, but I thought I'd put in my two cents anyway.

I do think the rating for Bates is a little high, if only because I think you can draw a line under the first 11 guys, all of whom have a chance to become starting players in the bigs (although some are still very far away) and Bates at 12, who is a 24-yr. old right-handed hitting first baseman who has yet to hit at AA, and thus pretty marginal at this point.
I'm rather surprised you put guys like Zach Daeges and Bubba Bell, who seem like long shots to have any kind of major league career, in the top 20, but left out someone like Kris Johnson, who at the very least has yet to fail (gotta take those Lancaster numbers with a big grain of salt in BOTH directions).
Why do you have Ryan Dent rated so low? I know he hasn't played enough to show anything yet, but the Sox thought highly enough of him to use their second pick on him.

by yamanin on Dec 14, 2007 8:03 PM EST reply actions

Bates

I think low B- / high C+ is appropriate for him, but "24 and yet to hit at AA" is a little unfair. He's 23 for now, so next year if he STILL hasn't hit at AA during his age 24 season, that comment would be more fitting. Even in his very brief AA stint this year, he was surprisingly productive once you look past that .198 BA. .348/.429 is pretty useful production, though you obviously want to see more out of an older 1B prospect, even if those numbers were compiled in the EL.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 14, 2007 8:12 PM EST up reply actions

Totally and absolutely +1

I want to avoid being too critical because I appreciate the work but Zach Daeges as a C+ is absurd. He's a college senior that put up gaudy numbers in the Cal league at age 23+. He doesn't have a position and has likely reached his ceiling. If you've seen him play at all you'd realize pretty quickly he is just above an organizational player.

I'm a bit disappointed in the grades on this list, I think you played to the crowd a bit, so to speak.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Dec 14, 2007 10:53 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie

Many want to compare Lowire to Pedroia, but from a stat perspective, they are not similar. Pedroia had his AA/AAA year in his age 21 season, then spent all of his age 22 season in AAA. Lowrie spent his age 23 season in AA/AAA and will likely spend his age 24 season in AAA. That's two years older than Pedroia for the level.

While they each hit 13 HRs in their AA/AAA season, on top of being two years younger, Pedrioa struck out half as much. Pedroia was also able to mantain his K% and BB% in AAA, while Lowrie's slacked over those 160 ABs, depite being two years older.

In my rankings, I've got Lowrie ranked behind Ellsbury, Reddick, and Anderson and on par with Place and Carter. Not only do I think A- is too high of a grade, if you gave Lowrie a B+ I'd argue that too. He's a straight B at best, possibly a B-.

by rwperu34 on Dec 14, 2007 9:59 PM EST reply actions

thank you

for having the guts to say what i wanted to but didn't have the guts to say! enjoy the bashing from red sox fans!

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias)

by bobbymcnally on Dec 14, 2007 10:01 PM EST up reply actions

Not to mention

Pedroia is a very good defender at his position, and Lowrie is not a good shortstop.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 14, 2007 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie

I've never felt the urge to compare Lowrie to Pedroia (other than to point out differences), but may I compare him to Chase Headley? Less power this year, but then the positional expectations at shortstop are lower than at third base. Otherwise a similar pattern of offense and advancement. Or perhaps I should suggest he is a younger Brendan Harris with better defense?

Hard to take you seriously if you rank him on par with Place (who hasn't shown anything yet) and Carter (who has little or no defensive value).

by Valentine on Dec 14, 2007 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

Re: age

I think the Lowrie grade is too aggressive even though I've been high on him since his Sophomore year at Stanford. That said, I think the age differences your listing are exaggerated.

Lowrie is only 1 year & 4 months behind Pedroia's age. It's just the funky baseball age calender that flips on July 1 that makes them get 'labeled' two years apart.

When you are doing aggregate analysis of many comparable players it's important for them to all have labels or the process becomes unwieldy. But when your just comparing two guys head to head, I don't see any reason why someone who is much closer to being only a year behind (16 mos), should be portrayed as 2 years behind.

by McLovin on Dec 15, 2007 1:01 AM EST up reply actions

lowrie

Lowrie on a par with Place? I can buy that I've overrated Lowire at A-, but Place is all tools, ZERO performance, and I am extremely skeptical that he will ever hit. I think he's Ryan Harvey (the Cubs OF).

by John Sickels on Dec 14, 2007 10:11 PM EST reply actions

Place

I think my grading is more of an indictment against Lowrie than it is parise for the other two. I'm just not as impressed with Lowrie's stats, and have heard more negative scouting reports than I have positive.

I put a pretty big weight on ceiling but may have Place overrated. This may be true of all of the A-ball guys. I should have mentioned that I'm a third of the way through my rough draft:)

As for his performance, Place was young for his level with decent power (ie more than Anderson) but a ton of Ks. He makes up for it a little with walks and a lot with tools, but maybe I should have Place as a 6.5 instead of a 7.0.

As for Chris Carter, he's an MLB ready 4A slugger. Right now I see Lowrie as an AAA ready 4A shortstop.

by rwperu34 on Dec 14, 2007 10:52 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie AAAA shortstop?

Still think you are selling his 2007 line short. Brendan Harris ain't a star, but he ain't a AAAA player either. At least he wouldn't be if he could play competent defense at either middle infield position.

No way is Lowrie an A- prospect, but B+ isn't that much of a stretch (depending on which scouting reports you believe on his defense) and B seems a floor based on his proven performance. Don't see how you can go any lower than that without calling his 2007 line a fluke?

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 2:16 AM EST up reply actions

If Lowrie is AAAA

then over half the SSs in MLB are AAAA or AAA b/c he could outperform them now, regardless of what you think of his ceiling.

by alskor on Dec 15, 2007 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

Not hard to put up better #s than

Julio Lugo
.237 .294 .349

by Sox Puppet on Dec 15, 2007 3:13 PM EST up reply actions

Here's One Good Reason

There is one place where SS hit better than 2B: Planet Bizarro.

That SS is the weaker hitting position is so fundamental and simple a fact that asserting the opposite is like stating that gray is darker than black.

by Eric Van on Dec 15, 2007 4:54 AM EST up reply actions

Completely and totally wrong

Sorry, but you are WAY off on this one. 2B and SS have been roughly equal in offense. Take a look at this at The Hardball Times:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/historical-hitting-by-position/

For those of you not clicking the link, here is an excerpt:

Let's start by taking a look at how players at each position performed last season, denoted in runs versus average per 162 games:

Catchers: -8
First basemen: +13
Second basemen: -5
Third basemen: +6
Shortstops: -5
Left fielders: +8
Center fielders: +2
Right fielders: +7
Designated hitters: +13

As you can see, 2B and SS are equal. Over the past 20 years or so, SS was typically lighter on the offense, but last season and more recently in general, they have been about the same.

by sabernar on Dec 15, 2007 8:33 AM EST up reply actions

Nope

The funny thing is that I am continually arguing on this board and elsewhere that the difference between 2B and SS is very small (like that between RF and LF) and that guys like Pedroia and Lowrie who may have to move from SS to 2B are being unfairly downgraded in prospect rankings. No one would ever say a guy is A- if he can stay in RF but B+ if he has to move to LF.

But the numbers n 2006 were just a 1-year fluke. Here's RC/27 (2B vs. SS); they're adjusted, not absolute, but the difference is accurate.

4.32 vs. 4.25
4.50 vs. 4.23
4.42 vs. 4.20
4.70 vs. 4.28
4.38 vs. 4.36
4.68 vs. 4.41

The average difference is about 0.20 of RC/27, or 3.5 runs per 162 games. The OP asserted that SS hit better than 2B, which has never been true and never will be.

by Eric Van on Dec 15, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

My take

I would have downgraded Lowrie, Navarro and Daeges a notch and upgraded Lin, Dent and all the straight B's.

by nheck on Dec 14, 2007 10:42 PM EST reply actions

Simple

Hitters are apples, Pitchers are oranges. Both are fruit (baseball players) but they do completely different things.
You say comparing the two is nonsense? Alright, then please, enlighten us as to how you can compare the two in a fair way.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 14, 2007 11:07 PM EST reply actions

You must be new

John DOESN'T produce a top 100 list. He has two separate top 50 lists, one for hitters and one for pitchers.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 12:16 AM EST up reply actions

Lowrie, Brown, etc

I saw Lowrie in a Sox spring training game two years ago and loved his live bat. He's got to fit in the big leagues somewhere.

The Sox seem to be big on Dusty Brown as another "catcher of the future". I'd still rather see them get Buck from KC.

Bell and Baker are interesting, not sold on Bowden yet.

by Cagey on Dec 14, 2007 11:40 PM EST reply actions

Buck

Why on earth would KC trade Buck right now (unless GMDM is completely overwhelmed, of course), especially when their two best catching prospects are in rookie ball?

by doublestix on Dec 15, 2007 12:28 AM EST up reply actions

Adam Mills

Digging the Adam Mills love but still looking for more of it.

I just have a question about Lowrie:
What is the driving force behind his rank being higher at short than at second?

I would think his defense plays better at second than at short, making him more valuable, but I was curious as to what you thought.

www.moundtalk.com Scouting Reports, Prospects and more...

by kschellenger on Dec 15, 2007 12:17 AM EST reply actions

Chad Spann

I was wondering what your thoughts were on Chad Spann? I would say that he will be a solid major league backup with the ability to play all of the corners and I would give him a grade C. Also, I think Moss is closer to B- than a C+ although I'm sure his strikeout rate is what pushed him to the lower grade.

by Andrew Thurmond on Dec 15, 2007 2:41 AM EST reply actions

Oscar Tejeda = B-

not bad for a guy coming out of rookie ball. Does he really stick at SS? If so who will be like?

Ceilling=
Low End=

The Reds are finally making a move!

by Rupe34 on Dec 15, 2007 7:06 AM EST reply actions

Tejeda will stick

The scouting reports I've seen express great confidence that Tejeda is a "true" shortstop prospect.

Far too early to guess as to his ceiling. His floor is the same as any rookie-ball prospect -- very good chance that he'll never sniff the majors.

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

Lowrie

If Lowrie gets an A-, can't German Duran (who plays 2nd) get a B+? Both played full seasons at High A last year and both played at AA this year, though Lowrie did play a good amount at AAA. They are about the same age (Duran is about 4 months younger). Here are their numbers the past 2 years.

Lowrie:
2006 .262/.352/.374/.726
2007 .298/.393/.503/.896

Duran:
2006 .284/.331/.446/.778
2007 .300/.352/.525/.877

Lowrie walks better than Duran but Duran has 19 more homeruns over the past 2 years and 19 more stolen bases.

I don't think Duran should be a B+ I guess I just don't see how Lowrie is an A-, or a even B+ for that matter. I guess there is something that you see in him that you like that numbers wouldn't tell you.

Also if Lowrie is an A-, I don't see how Chris Davis wouldn't be an A-. The only guy who hit more home runs than Davis last season is now playing in Japan, and it was Davis' first full pro season. His final line was.298/.347..598.945
. His stikeouts were a killer though I guess, and it seems he is likely to move from 3rd to 1st or RF.

Again I guess my bigger beef is with Lowrie being an A- than these 2 players being underscored.

by groundingout @ Minor League Ball on Dec 15, 2007 7:11 AM EST reply actions

bad comparison

Duran plays in much more of a hitter's league, and he doesn't walk nearly as much as Lowrie does.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 15, 2007 11:22 AM EST up reply actions

Minor league stats

The California League is a bad joke (as Red Sox fans have found out this year). That 2006 performance for Duran isn't nearly as strong as the raw line makes it look.

Also, I think Lowrie has a better idea of the strike zone than either of these guys (and that is Lowrie's weakness, not his strength).

You might check out the CHONE projections for these guys to give you some sense of where they stand today? Doesn't tell you about their upside, but it may help you translate those minor league lines into sensible MLEs.

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

One season

I just have a hard time seeing how 1 really good season nets someone an A- rating.

by DownFromNJ on Dec 15, 2007 1:26 PM EST reply actions

One season

Have you looked at his college stats? He was a Triple Crown winner in the Pac-10 as a sophomore. Lowrie is a teriffic prospect. Look at all those doubles this year. Maybe that's what you're not seeing.

by HumboltThunderbolt on Dec 15, 2007 2:01 PM EST up reply actions

Well

He's had three pro seasons. His first was very good, his second was weak, but also injury marred, and his third was very good.
So it's not a matter of one season, his track record in the minors and college ball is very good.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Well

I'm not saying that he's a bad prospect. I think that he's a low B+. He was one of the best in the nation as a college sophomore, and was good as a junior, though nothing special. His pro career before 2007 was solid, but nothing special. He broke out in a big way in 2007 - with no funky BABIP effects or anything - but its still one season at age 23. I'm just asking for some healthy skepticism.

by DownFromNJ on Dec 15, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

+1

The guy above me is spot on. A- is hard for me to give for a 23 year-old in AA and AAA who is not a good defender or a 5-tool player. I would consider an A- player to be in the top 30 or so prospects, and I wouldn't put Lowrie at that level.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 15, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

I think we are all agreed that A- is too high for Lowrie. Still doesn't justify some of the criticisms that have been leveled at him. He's a strong B on the numbers, a B+ if you either favor the scouts who think he will be passable at shortstop or give him a bonus for his "makeup".

Comparisons to Chris Carter, OTOH, are unfounded. Wouldn't be surprised if Lowrie outplays Carter on offense.

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

What you said

Was... "I just have a hard time seeing how 1 really good season nets someone an A- rating."
One, it's happened before and they've deserved it.
Two, Lowrie has had more than one really good season.
Three, what's a potential top 10 SS in the MLB worth for a grade? Because that's what Lowrie's ceiling is. An .800 or better OPS is far from out of the question for him. There is little doubt around his bat. His defense has been in doubt and there's a wide range of opinions on that right now, though they're trending towards the positive now that he's over his ankle injury.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 5:18 PM EST up reply actions

A-

I thought A- was too high, but looking at his Portland splits, taking away his first awful month, his OPS for May, June, July was 1.018, .977, .948. In august in AAA, his OPS was .920. He did have a rough April and a rough first 22 at bats in July in AAA and a rough final 11 at bats and finally a rough AFL. Maybe I am cheating with my selections, but his May, June, July and August numbers are roughly a .950 OPS, with a large portion of that OBP making it even more productive. Hanley Ramirez (another questionable defensive SS) led the majors with a OPS of .948. Lowrie is an A- for sure. (I am relatively sure of the facts, but the math was mostly done in my head; just a disclaimer)

by wir963 on Dec 15, 2007 6:34 PM EST reply actions

Selective

I think you're being a little too selective in what parts you look at. Hot and cold spells are part of baseball. That said, Lowrie is still an A- in my book, for the reasons mentioned further up.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 7:35 PM EST up reply actions

High Standards

Plenty of prospects have the potential to become above-average starting players. I just have trouble considering them A or even A- prospects until that level of success is clearly projectable. Lowrie isn't THAT different from Chase Headley, another B+ prospect. Don't see how either can be an A- prospect until there is more of a consensus on their defensive ability. (Headley is less valuable as an outfielder if he makes that switch.)

Offensively, I worry about his strikeout rate as well as his tendency to run hot and cold. Answering either of these questions would also boost him to an A- grade.

by Valentine on Dec 15, 2007 8:30 PM EST up reply actions

Well

As I understand it, Headley and Lowrie have similar offensive capabilities. Headley had a better season at AA, but he was also playing in a better hitters' league. I don't have the league #'s for this season so I can't check the exact stats on it. Lowrie, however, is a SS where such offensive output is at more of a premium, while Headley is a 3b.
If Lowrie switches to 3b, then his value certainly declines but right now he looks like a top 10 offensive SS with average defense. IMO, top 10 offense at a premium position is an A- player.

As for Lowrie's K rate... he K'd 91 times in 497 AB's between AA and AAA whereas headley K'd 114 times in 437 AB's at AA. Lowrie also has a Better k/bb ratio. (Lowrie even had more BB's than K's in AA, something Headly wasn't close on).

Running a little cold to start with at a new level in the minors is going to happen with prospects and that's what happened with Lowrie. It took him time to adjust to AA, and then to adjust to AAA. It's pretty understandable and is far from something I would worry about.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

Cold Start

Also, Lowrie started in the season in Portland where many of their games were cancelled or at least played in the snow, which couldn't have helped.

by wir963 on Dec 15, 2007 11:17 PM EST up reply actions

They're Good Comps

Lowrie's 3 weeks older and they went 45th and 66th in the draft.

Headley's MLE EqA was .280, Lowrie's was .276, but you'd add .014 if he stays at SS and .010 if he moves to 2B to adjust for position. Lowrie had the better college pedigree and slipped a bit to 45 while Headley at 66 was a bit aggressive, Lowrie's been a better hitter for his position, and has had significant success at AAA while Headley was never promoted (except for a rough cup of coffee in the show). So there's certainly an argument for separating them.

The fact that Headley's bat is considered acceptable for LF tells you just how good a hitting middle INF Lowrie has been.

by Eric Van on Dec 16, 2007 2:02 AM EST up reply actions