View Full Version : Baseball America rates 2006 draft
jimmyclark
11-01-06, 08:19 AM
I did see a copy of the new issue of "Baseball America". They rated the Yankee 2006 draft as #2 among all teams. The Red Sox were rated 1st. Arizona 3rd and the Orioles 4th. Let's hope this is the beginning of some beautiful drafts. The team has strayed in recent years from "high impact" potential guys.
DontHateOnNumber2
11-01-06, 11:14 AM
That's surprising. I don't exactly dive headfirst into researching some of our drafted talent whether they're first or fifty-first rounders but I try to keep up as much as possible with the help of some of the posters on here. Nice to see more people than just us are beginning to appreciate the talent we're growing in the lower levels.
fvck a red sock
11-01-06, 11:23 AM
Do you have the exact write up on it? my buddy a red sox fan doesn't believe me, and he has the write up on boston.com about the redsox beig first so i would like to shut him up.. put him back in third place so to speak :)
GotMelk?
11-01-06, 01:00 PM
We definitely got some solid stuff cookin down in the minors but there's always room for improvement....
jimmyclark
11-01-06, 09:06 PM
Do you have the exact write up on it? my buddy a red sox fan doesn't believe me, and he has the write up on boston.com about the redsox beig first so i would like to shut him up.. put him back in third place so to speak :)
No, I don't have the issue or a subscription. baseball america website is keeping that for its subscribers. I did see the boston.com article and noticed they only talked about the Red Sox being first. Bad job by them. they could have listed the teams (BA only named the top 5. I can't remember who was 5th, an AL team). Not that minor league drafts always pan out but with Bostn/Yankees running 1-2, it seems like the greatest rivalry in sports will continue. Which is all I really ask..just get me to the last week in September in a tight pennant race, anything else is gravy.
puckmaster87
11-02-06, 03:44 AM
I'm surprised they rated the Red Sox first. I think the Yankees by far had the best draft, especially in terms of righthanded pitching. Plenty of steals.
Yankees1962
11-02-06, 04:58 AM
I'm surprised they rated the Red Sox first. I think the Yankees by far had the best draft, especially in terms of righthanded pitching. Plenty of steals.
I'm not, BA has been gushing over the Red Sox draft for months, but I'm actually surprised that they rated the Yankees #2.
If I had to guess, I would think BA would rate the Red Sox in the top 10 minor league systems with the Yankees in the top 15. They might be bold enough to rate the Sox top 5, but most of their top players haven't even played high "A" ball yet.
I'm surprised they rated the Red Sox first. I think the Yankees by far had the best draft, especially in terms of righthanded pitching. Plenty of steals.
Boston had quite a few early picks, more than we did. And they basically signed all their important picks. We lost out on Howell.
spiritof27
11-02-06, 10:47 AM
I'm not, BA has been gushing over the Red Sox draft for months, but I'm actually surprised that they rated the Yankees #2.
If I had to guess, I would think BA would rate the Red Sox in the top 10 minor league systems with the Yankees in the top 15. They might be bold enough to rate the Sox top 5, but most of their top players haven't even played high "A" ball yet.
If they rate the Red Sox higher than our system, they will have gone back on everything they said about the ranking of the Yankees system last year. All we ever heard from the BA camp was how none of our top talent had gotten out of A ball. With the continued success of Hughes and Clippard, not to mention all the young talent we have added - I don't think there's any question at who has the better system. They don't have any talent ready to contribute to the big league team. They graduated most of their major league ready guys. I just don't see it.
smorfus
11-02-06, 11:18 AM
If they rate the Red Sox higher than our system, they will have gone back on everything they said about the ranking of the Yankees system last year. All we ever heard from the BA camp was how none of our top talent had gotten out of A ball. With the continued success of Hughes and Clippard, not to mention all the young talent we have added - I don't think there's any question at who has the better system. They don't have any talent ready to contribute to the big league team. They graduated most of their major league ready guys. I just don't see it.
The only Yankees prospects that did anything last year to prove themselves were Hughes and Clippard. I may be forgetting someone, but the only other prospect to have moderate success above A ball was Brett Gardner. All the other high ceiling prospects in the system are either unproven or still in the lower minors. You can make the case that the Yanks have added alot of young talent, but the Red Sox have been adding talent just as well, if not better than the Yankees.
DaYanks4Life
11-02-06, 11:18 AM
If they rate the Red Sox higher than our system, they will have gone back on everything they said about the ranking of the Yankees system last year. All we ever heard from the BA camp was how none of our top talent had gotten out of A ball. With the continued success of Hughes and Clippard, not to mention all the young talent we have added - I don't think there's any question at who has the better system. They don't have any talent ready to contribute to the big league team. They graduated most of their major league ready guys. I just don't see it.
Prepare to be disappointed. :(
Yankees1962
11-02-06, 11:52 AM
Prepare to be disappointed. :(
Yup, that about sums it up.
Yankyfan
11-02-06, 12:11 PM
These polls are interesting and things from the start look good but like they say drafts take 5 plus years to get a true grade.
Iknowcool
11-02-06, 12:32 PM
The only Yankees prospects that did anything last year to prove themselves were Hughes and Clippard. I may be forgetting someone, but the only other prospect to have moderate success above A ball was Brett Gardner. All the other high ceiling prospects in the system are either unproven or still in the lower minors. You can make the case that the Yanks have added alot of young talent, but the Red Sox have been adding talent just as well, if not better than the Yankees.
I think JB Cox proved himself at AA.
bmxstreetrider86
11-02-06, 01:04 PM
The only Yankees prospects that did anything last year to prove themselves were Hughes and Clippard. I may be forgetting someone, but the only other prospect to have moderate success above A ball was Brett Gardner. All the other high ceiling prospects in the system are either unproven or still in the lower minors. You can make the case that the Yanks have added alot of young talent, but the Red Sox have been adding talent just as well, if not better than the Yankees.
in agree, but the redsox have 1 player who proved himself above AA (jacoby)- the yankees have 2 top 25 prospects good guys in the middle, and great depth in the lower minors. 5 of bostons top 10 are draftees from THIS YEAR- there is no way the redsox farm system is on the top 10 and little chance its rated higher than the yankees
DaYanks4Life
11-02-06, 01:10 PM
in agree, but the redsox have 1 player who proved himself above AA (jacoby)- the yankees have 2 top 25 prospects good guys in the middle, and great depth in the lower minors. 5 of bostons top 10 are draftees from THIS YEAR- there is no way the redsox farm system is on the top 10 and little chance its rated higher than the yankees
But.......... This is BA were talking about.
bmxstreetrider86
11-02-06, 01:13 PM
But.......... This is BA were talking about.
true, but even former BA member kevin goldstein said the yankees has a better farm system. i mean you never know- but it is going to be hard for jim callis to defend that decision (if he makes it)
DaYanks4Life
11-02-06, 01:17 PM
true, but even former BA member kevin goldstein said the yankees has a better farm system. i mean you never know- but it is going to be hard for jim callis to defend that decision (if he makes it)
Oh, I've seen him defend bad decisions before but personally I don't need BA to tell me the Yanks have a better system and their top prospect lists are purely for entrainment and reference.
spiritof27
11-03-06, 11:30 AM
The only Yankees prospects that did anything last year to prove themselves were Hughes and Clippard. I may be forgetting someone, but the only other prospect to have moderate success above A ball was Brett Gardner. All the other high ceiling prospects in the system are either unproven or still in the lower minors. You can make the case that the Yanks have added alot of young talent, but the Red Sox have been adding talent just as well, if not better than the Yankees.
OK, so that gives us Hughes, Clippard and Gardner having success above AA. And what do the Red Sox have? Zip. So I don't see your argument here.
jeter62375
11-03-06, 12:36 PM
I think JB Cox proved himself at AA.
I agree, I think he's part of the Yankee bullpen by July.
Sox may or may not have had a better draft than the Yanks. While it was going on, I was struck by the fact that it seemed like the Yanks and Sox were getting most of the good players in the draft. The Yanks did significantly better in foreign FA, though, and our system should remain stronger for the foreseeable future.
destiNY
11-03-06, 04:32 PM
The Yanks did significantly better in foreign FA, though, and our system should remain stronger for the foreseeable future.
Which is highly underrated, players like Urena will get recognition soon, which should put us ahead of other systems.
Philip Hughes Fan
11-03-06, 05:32 PM
OK, so that gives us Hughes, Clippard and Gardner having success above AA. And what do the Red Sox have? Zip. So I don't see your argument here.
They have Ellsbury, and I'd love to have him. Of course, I'd much rather have Hughes and Tabata than him...
I too don't see any way the Red Sox system is ranked higher than ours. They had a great draft, but so did we, and they traded/graduated a lot of their top prospects from last year. From what I've seen, it looks like they did a good job too in the international market, but they didn't get anyone comparable to Montero.
So yeah...I just don't see it, and I seriously doubt BA does either.
puckmaster87
11-03-06, 06:17 PM
I agree, I think he's part of the Yankee bullpen by July.
Maybe if he gains some consistency, but from what I saw he hasn't been too consistent.
spiritof27
11-03-06, 06:28 PM
They have Ellsbury, and I'd love to have him. Of course, I'd much rather have Hughes and Tabata than him...
I too don't see any way the Red Sox system is ranked higher than ours. They had a great draft, but so did we, and they traded/graduated a lot of their top prospects from last year. From what I've seen, it looks like they did a good job too in the international market, but they didn't get anyone comparable to Montero.
So yeah...I just don't see it, and I seriously doubt BA does either.
Gardner and Ellsbury are comparable players. I'll take Gardner (but really just because he's already ours - they are close.)
spyglass
11-03-06, 06:40 PM
Gardner and Ellsbury are comparable players. I'll take Gardner (but really just because he's already ours - they are close.)
Really? I didn't know they were comparable. I thought Ellsbury was fairly highly touted, and that Gardner projected as a 4th OF. Shows how much I know, lol ;)
Philip Hughes Fan
11-03-06, 08:41 PM
Gardner and Ellsbury are comparable players. I'll take Gardner (but really just because he's already ours - they are close.)
You're looking at them through very thick pinstriped glasses if you think they're comparable. They may be a similar type of player, but Ellsbury is much, much better.
bmxstreetrider86
11-03-06, 08:45 PM
You're looking at them through very thick pinstriped glasses if you think they're comparable. They may be a similar type of player, but Ellsbury is much, much better.
he is not much much better- he simply has more power- thats the only difference between the two
Philip Hughes Fan
11-03-06, 08:47 PM
he is not much much better- he simply has more power- thats the only difference between the two
It's a very important difference, and Ellsbury has shown far more contact skills thus far than Gardner, which scares me a ton when you're talking about a guy that doesn't hit for power.
bmxstreetrider86
11-03-06, 08:52 PM
It's a very important difference, and Ellsbury has shown far more contact skills thus far than Gardner, which scares me a ton when you're talking about a guy that doesn't hit for power.
yea but gardner walked more(leading to the obvious question of who took more pitches). i agree that power is a big deal, but i have no faith ellsbury will be another damon like everyone else wants him to be
Philip Hughes Fan
11-03-06, 08:54 PM
yea but gardner walked more(leading to the obvious question of who took more pitches). i agree that power is a big deal, but i have no faith ellsbury will be another damon like everyone else wants him to be
I think anybody expecting him to be that good is incredibly foolish, but I can't believe anyone (not you obviously) would take Gardner over him.
bmxstreetrider86
11-03-06, 08:59 PM
I think anybody expecting him to be that good is incredibly foolish, but I can't believe anyone (not you obviously) would take Gardner over him.
i certainly think is more ellsbury more of a prospect than gardner is. also there were alot of people comparing him to damon. even a poor mans damon isnt really a great player
spiritof27
11-04-06, 09:55 AM
I think anybody expecting him to be that good is incredibly foolish, but I can't believe anyone (not you obviously) would take Gardner over him.
I admitted in my post that I was being a homer in taking Gardner over Ellsbury. But as it has been pointed out, Ellsbury has shown more power while Gardner has shown better discipline. I don't think Ellsbury's major league career while be that much better than Gardner's.
Huktonfonix
11-04-06, 12:21 PM
he is not much much better- he simply has more power- thats the only difference between the two
About the only difference between a young Gary Sheffield and Melky Cabrera is that Sheff has more power. I'd say there's a fairly significant difference in talent there, wouldn't you?
bmxstreetrider86
11-04-06, 12:51 PM
About the only difference between a young Gary Sheffield and Melky Cabrera is that Sheff has more power. I'd say there's a fairly significant difference in talent there, wouldn't you?
well thats a nice limb to go out on, except the difference between shef and melky is a lot of power, and the difference between ellsbury and gardner is not so much
ellsbury- 17 2B- 8 3B- 7HR- .425 slg
gardner- 16 2B- 8 3B- 0HR- .370 slg
now factor in that gardner played in the 2 most offensive-suppressing leagues in minor league baseball in 2 parks that are extreme pitchers parks. is there that big a difference in thier power that you could compare it to shef v. melky? dont think so
MaximMan121
11-04-06, 01:12 PM
.055 points of slugging is significant. To call it anything else would be silly. I love Melky, we all love Melky, he's a yank and Ellsbury is a Red Sock---but Ellsbury is better, there's no arguing it.
Over the course of a season, assuming 600 PA, Ellsbury will take 33 more bases. 10 runs roughly equals a win, but I'm not sure how many runs 33 bases would equal. Someone with a better working knowledge of that should probably comment. I'd bet Ellsbury will be worth a extra win per season over Gardner--but that's a rough guestimate.
That said....that's a lot less than the difference between Sheffield and Melky.
I think Melky is slightly younger than Ellsbury and has already proved some thing in the big leagues.
bmxstreetrider86
11-04-06, 02:31 PM
.055 points of slugging is significant. To call it anything else would be silly. I love Melky, we all love Melky, he's a yank and Ellsbury is a Red Sock---but Ellsbury is better, there's no arguing it.
Over the course of a season, assuming 600 PA, Ellsbury will take 33 more bases. 10 runs roughly equals a win, but I'm not sure how many runs 33 bases would equal. Someone with a better working knowledge of that should probably comment. I'd bet Ellsbury will be worth a extra win per season over Gardner--but that's a rough guestimate.
That said....that's a lot less than the difference between Sheffield and Melky.
that was my point- if you go back to my original post i said ellsbury is the better prospect without a doubt, but comparing ellsbury and gardners difference in power to sheff and melky's is absolutly absurd- it could be as large as .200 points in ISOslg.in favor of shef.
just for devils advocate though: since you were using your projection for thier difference in power you have to add in gardners OBP advantage and his SB superiority
SB- JE-47/17-73%
BG-58/12-83%
not counting PO for either (ellsbury was picked off often)
ISOobp- JE- .79
BG- .97
GG defense for both
if those 33 bases mean ~ only 1 more win, then gardners OBP edge and SB proficency make up for those 33 extra bases. the difference (in wins) is likely >1 win.
paully-o
11-04-06, 02:40 PM
.055 points of slugging is significant. To call it anything else would be silly. I love Melky, we all love Melky, he's a yank and Ellsbury is a Red Sock---but Ellsbury is better, there's no arguing it.
Over the course of a season, assuming 600 PA, Ellsbury will take 33 more bases. 10 runs roughly equals a win, but I'm not sure how many runs 33 bases would equal. Someone with a better working knowledge of that should probably comment. I'd bet Ellsbury will be worth a extra win per season over Gardner--but that's a rough guestimate.
That said....that's a lot less than the difference between Sheffield and Melky.
whether or not Ellsbury has more slugging pct. or hits more home runs, the Yankees need a guy who can get on base in any way (e.g. bunt, walk, infield base hit, error because of his speed, etc...), cause havoc on the bases, and steal a run. The Yankees have enough power to take them to the post season. However, as we have seen recently, that does not necessarily translate in the post season. We need a guy who, even if we use as a pinch runner (think Dave Roberts) can score that one elusive run.
Philip Hughes Fan
11-04-06, 04:05 PM
I think the difference between Ellsbury and Garnder will be big, not necessarily because Ellsbury will be a star, but because I'm still not convinced Gardner will be anything more than a good 4th OFer.
bmxstreetrider86
11-04-06, 05:40 PM
I think the difference between Ellsbury and Garnder will be big, not necessarily because Ellsbury will be a star, but because I'm still not convinced Gardner will be anything more than a good 4th OFer.
agreed. i just dont think gardner is going to hit enough. if they had simliar averages in the majors, however, they would be very close in terms of actual production
Maybe if he gains some consistency, but from what I saw he hasn't been too consistent.
After JUne 4th, he gave up runs in only three of his appearances, one being bad - 5 runs in one inning. Then he went off to the olympics in mid August.
How good were you expecting?:D
Tex_Pettite
11-04-06, 10:36 PM
Red Sox draft was ranked first this year? Didn't BA rank them #2 last year?
albo4lyfe
11-05-06, 02:09 AM
Red Sox draft was ranked first this year? Didn't BA rank them #2 last year?
Yes, after the Marlins in 05 I believe. The last 2 years the Sox have had an abundance of 1st round picks(+ supp. picks) so they were pretty much expected to have very good drafts.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0