Eduardo Escobar featured on MILB.com

[Jordan4life_2007]

Right now he's a kid who just homered and went 3-for-4 with a stolen base and two runs scored against among the best AA competition out there.

Tyler Flowers: the end

[Jordan4life_2007]

So the question becomes..should we sell high on the kid this offseason? Kinda like DLS? A lot of you seem to think he is playing above his capabilities right now.

Except we didn't sell high. We overpaid and have nothing to show for it. And Escobar's bat wouldn't allow us to sell high anyway.

[Balta1701]

So the question becomes..should we sell high on the kid this offseason? Kinda like DLS? A lot of you seem to think he is playing above his capabilities right now.

Like was said above...he's still a guy who is young, didn't hit all that well at single A ball, and is only performing in the AFL. Just like almost any guy at A ball, if someone offers you a legit piece in exchange for him, you jump at the deal and if he turns into a star, you hope you're happy with the guy you got.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

C.J. Retherford says hi.

 

And Brent Morel would like to kindly point out how he won the batting title there last year, and went on to dominate the minors this year.

[Jordan4life_2007]

And Brent Morel would like to kindly point out how he won the batting title there last year, and went on to dominate the minors this year.

Dominate? Damn. What would u call what Mike Stanton did?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Dominate? Damn. What would u call what Mike Stanton did?

 

Mike Stanton dominated too, so what's your point?

[bigruss]

Mike Stanton dominated too, so what's your point?

LOL really?

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

LOL really?

 

........ *crickets*

[bigruss]

........ *crickets*

.313 .442 .729 1.171

 

vs.

 

.322 .359 .480 .839

 

Ummm...yea, one dominated, and one played well.

[Jerksticks]

Except we didn't sell high. We overpaid and have nothing to show for it. And Escobar's bat wouldn't allow us to sell high anyway.

 

Ehh but he's a good shortstop which gives him some life as a prospect, wouldn't ya think? I'm just thinking with a good AFL performance someone might be enticed like we were with Bust Flowers a few years back.

 

With a good AFL maybe he becomes one more guy we can use to actually SWEETEN a package for the bat we so desperately need.

 

Cincy needs a SS....

[NorthSideSox72]

C.J. Retherford says hi.

 

A prospect who is the exact opposite of Escobar in almost every way says hi?

 

Like was said above...he's still a guy who is young, didn't hit all that well at single A ball, and is only performing in the AFL. Just like almost any guy at A ball, if someone offers you a legit piece in exchange for him, you jump at the deal and if he turns into a star, you hope you're happy with the guy you got.

 

Yeah, trading him now doesn't seem to have much point. He's going to have fairly low trade value at this point. If he goes out next year at age 22 and improves even further with the bat in AA/AAA, then maybe.

 

I mean, I like his potential, but he's not a big trade chip at this point.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Mike Stanton dominated too, so what's your point?

My point is I can't talk to some of y'all about our minor leaguers. Then I'll say something and a mod will threaten to suspend me. On what planet did Brent f***ing Morel dominate?

[NorthSideSox72]

My point is I can't talk to some of y'all about our minor leaguers. Then I'll say something and a mod will threaten to suspend me. On what planet did Brent f***ing Morel dominate?

LOL, no one is going to suspend you for talking about prospects. People may react strongly to you because you make everything out to be the end of the world, the worst of the worst, or some other extreme. You just seem so bitter that you can't see anything other than doooooooooooooom, and therefore everything Sox is terrible in your estimation. You'd think the Sox were the Pirates or something.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

LOL, no one is going to suspend you for talking about prospects. People may react strongly to you because you make everything out to be the end of the world, the worst of the worst, or some other extreme. You just seem so bitter that you can't see anything other than doooooooooooooom, and therefore everything Sox is terrible in your estimation. You'd think the Sox were the Pirates or something.

And that's not even true. I'm not even in the top 10 around here when it comes to negativity. But I can't stand homerism and the residue from 2005 has all but vanished. I don't like the current position or direction my favorite team is in.

[southsider2k5]

And that's not even true. I'm not even in the top 10 around here when it comes to negativity. But I can't stand homerism and the residue from 2005 has all but vanished. I don't like the current position or direction my favorite team is in.

 

You didn't used to be, but you have shot up the prospect charts this year like Escobar out of nowhere.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

.313 .442 .729 1.171

 

vs.

 

.322 .359 .480 .839

 

Ummm...yea, one dominated, and one played well.

 

I don't know how the hell this turned into Morel vs. Stanton, or how only 1 player can be described as dominant. Is only the best player "dominant" and the rest are just "good"?? Makes no sense. Just because they both dominated in the minors doesn't mean they are equal.

[NorthSideSox72]

And that's not even true. I'm not even in the top 10 around here when it comes to negativity. But I can't stand homerism and the residue from 2005 has all but vanished. I don't like the current position or direction my favorite team is in.

I'm not overly fond of it either, but that doesn't make me think that everything Sox is terrible. This is a club that is in better position than a lot of other ones in baseball, and hopefully the team will spend a little more money in the right places to make them better. This is a team that won 88 games, and in my view, was a DH and a reliable closer away from being a 90's-win team. That doesn't sound like anything disastrous to me.

 

So I guess I'm willing to be happy about some prospects we do have in a fairly weak system, and not just dismiss them as useless because I'm bitter.

 

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

My point is I can't talk to some of y'all about our minor leaguers. Then I'll say something and a mod will threaten to suspend me. On what planet did Brent f***ing Morel dominate?

 

My point is that Brent Morel was hailed as "all defense" non-prospect. Then he went to the AFL, dominated offensively, and then next year in the minors, continued to dominate offensively. Point being that his AFL success carried over to the next season, and now Morel is a legit prospect in baseball.

 

Just because it's the AFL does not mean a player who succeeded won't succeed in the following season....

 

case in point, Brent Morel.

 

So take your Mike Stanton references elsewhere because he is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

[bigruss]

I don't know how the hell this turned into Morel vs. Stanton, or how only 1 player can be described as dominant. Is only the best player "dominant" and the rest are just "good"?? Makes no sense. Just because they both dominated in the minors doesn't mean they are equal.

There is a difference between domination and a player who did well. If you can't see that than I don't know what to say. There are multiple players who dominated, Stanton being one of them. Then there are guys like Morel who played well, but in no way did he dominate (good average and decent power, but that doesn't mean he dominated at all).

[bigruss]

My point is that Brent Morel was hailed as "all defense" non-prospect. Then he went to the AFL, dominated offensively, and then next year in the minors, continued to dominate offensively. Point being that his AFL success carried over to the next season, and now Morel is a legit prospect in baseball.

 

Just because it's the AFL does not mean a player who succeeded won't succeed in the following season....

 

case in point, Brent Morel.

 

So take your Mike Stanton references elsewhere because he is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Just because you dominate in the AFL doesn't mean it will carryover.

 

Case in point, Flowers, Retherford, etc.

 

The AFL has almost always been a hitting dominant league, as most star pitching prospect aren't sent there.

[gatnom]

A prospect who is the exact opposite of Escobar in almost every way says hi?

 

Just saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on small sample sizes in the AFL, especially the offensive numbers.

[bigruss]

You didn't used to be, but you have shot up the prospect charts this year like Escobar out of nowhere.

Being realistic and pointing out flaws of the organization and how they need to change in areas or it will come back to haunt them and providing evidence of why seems very different than the numerous posters who just say "this.team.is.dead."

 

It's been known for years that KW neglected the draft and player development, and it's haunted him for years. The organization has improved in those aspects, but how much and was it soon enough to sustain this team going forward? All very valid concerns IMO.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on small sample sizes in the AFL, especially the offensive numbers.

Definitely true. A full AFL session is better than a few games, but even that should be taken with a grain of salt. Its good to see, but nothing earth-shattering.

 

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

There is a difference between domination and a player who did well. If you can't see that than I don't know what to say. There are multiple players who dominated, Stanton being one of them. Then there are guys like Morel who played well, but in no way did he dominate (good average and decent power, but that doesn't mean he dominated at all).

 

All you are arguing at this point is semantics. Choose whatever adjective you really want to describe success, and the point still stands that he was "successful" in the AFL, and "successful" in the minors the following year.

[bigruss]

All you are arguing at this point is semantics. Choose whatever adjective you really want to describe success, and the point still stands that he was "successful" in the AFL, and "successful" in the minors the following year.

If you think successful = dominant than why even bother talking about a player's performance?