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.
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 31, 2012 15:43:49 GMT -5
Sure, the Sox could move Xander to the OF, but they could also try to flip Middlebrooks for another needed piece like a 1B or C. That makes little sense. WMB has all the makings of an all-around above average 3B, and Xander at SS would be Tulowitskian. You wanna mess all that up so we can get a FIRST BASEMAN, which is the easiest position to fill while we have Iglesias OPSing .000?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 31, 2012 16:40:26 GMT -5
Sure, the Sox could move Xander to the OF, but they could also try to flip Middlebrooks for another needed piece like a 1B or C. That makes little sense. WMB has all the makings of an all-around above average 3B, and Xander at SS would be Tulowitskian. You wanna mess all that up so we can get a FIRST BASEMAN, which is the easiest position to fill while we have Iglesias OPSing .000? Agreed. IF WMB gets moved it would be to make room for either Bogaerts or Cechini (who I really like - high OBP, etc) and to fetch some badly needed pitching. Of course that's down the road. The Sox need WBM now and he needs to establish his value.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 31, 2012 18:52:40 GMT -5
I remember Grich was well thought of but wondered whether his GGs were deserved or just related to his fame and offense, and the fact that it's hard to tell from afar that a big man is not quick. A little reading (sorry, too hard to post links from the elliptical trainer) suggests thta the stats bear him up. One guy even suggested that he has a a legitimate claim to have been the best defensive ss ever from ages 23-26. OTOH, he was 6-2, 180 and a lot of the worry about XB involves thinking that he Is soon going to weigh a lot more than 180--and that he may weigh more than that already. I'm someone who watched Grich when he moved out to the West coast and played for the Angels. He was a great defender at second and at short, and just as good a hitter, a fantastic player. He's currently the poster child for the inability of some HoF voters to understand modern metrics and to properly value talent. He's better than half the second baseman in the Hall, and that's an understatement. He starred in an era when those metrics were only starting to be appreciated. His lifetime BA: .266 ... lifetime OBP: . 371. Stop and think about what that means. His lifetime slugging of .424 pushed his OPS to near .800, and he lead the league with .524 in strike-shortened 1981, better than Dwight Evans whom he tied for the home-run lead with 22. So yes, great-hitting bigger guys can play the middle infield. They're not all that rare. I have no idea if Bogaerts can stick at SS. But he wouldn't be the first player by a longshot.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Oct 31, 2012 18:56:23 GMT -5
That makes little sense. WMB has all the makings of an all-around above average 3B, and Xander at SS would be Tulowitskian. You wanna mess all that up so we can get a FIRST BASEMAN, which is the easiest position to fill while we have Iglesias OPSing .000? Agreed. IF WMB gets moved it would be to make room for either Bogaerts or Cechini (who I really like - high OBP, etc) and to fetch some badly needed pitching. Of course that's down the road. The Sox need WBM now and he needs to establish his value. The Sox need more quality players, and trading Middlebrooks make little sense, unless they are able to fill the holes they have all over the field first. Trading Middlebrooks so that Xander can play 3B makes no sense if we are still looking for long term options at the corner OF spots, and 1B. Now if we can fill those holes adequately, and acquire a good arm or two, them that is a different story, but that is a lot to speculate at this point. I think it makes sense to at least consider a future with Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Iglesias all in the lineup, because it may give the Sox the best chance to win going forward.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 31, 2012 20:17:16 GMT -5
Agreed. IF WMB gets moved it would be to make room for either Bogaerts or Cechini (who I really like - high OBP, etc) and to fetch some badly needed pitching. Of course that's down the road. The Sox need WBM now and he needs to establish his value. The Sox need more quality players, and trading Middlebrooks make little sense, unless they are able to fill the holes they have all over the field first. Trading Middlebrooks so that Xander can play 3B makes no sense if we are still looking for long term options at the corner OF spots, and 1B. Now if we can fill those holes adequately, and acquire a good arm or two, them that is a different story, but that is a lot to speculate at this point. I think it makes sense to at least consider a future with Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Iglesias all in the lineup, because it may give the Sox the best chance to win going forward. I wasn't talking about dealing Middlebrooks right now. I'm talking later if 1) Bogaerts projects more to be a 3b and/or 2) Garin Cecchini winds up being better. I do suspect Middlebrooks will be a good player capable of hitting 25 - 30 homers per year and playing good defense, but I also think Cecchini could wind up being an on-base machine, play good defense, and have decent speed and be perhaps an even better all-around player. Middlebrooks might be a .265 hitter with a .300 OBP because of lousy plate discipline. Cecchini might be a .350 OBP kind of guy, albeit with less power. If that's the case and the Sox need front-line pitching, then perhaps WMB might be a trade option, kind of like Shea Hillenbrand was 9 years ago when the Sox had Bill Mueller. Of course right now and going forward, either Bogaerts runs with the SS job and the Sox have one of the top hitting SS in baseball with WMB at 3b, or Iglesias proves just adept enough at the bat to the point where his defense is so superior he's an above average SS candidate, WMB flourishes at 3b, and Bogaerts, struggling at SS, winds up in a corner OF position - which is an area the Sox are not particularly deep in the minor leagues. Then Cecchini becomes trade bait (or WMB) down the road. I do have a question for those who specialize in talent evaluation here. Given Cecchini's quickness, and that he had played SS at one time, is Cecchini the kind of guy who can eventually become a 2b if Pedroia should decline in a few years?
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Oct 31, 2012 21:57:52 GMT -5
Cecchini isn't overly athletic and is too big for 2B. Also he has injury history.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 31, 2012 22:28:12 GMT -5
Cecchini isn't overly athletic and is too big for 2B. Also he has injury history. Are you implying that Cecchini's injuries are problematic? He tore his ACL in HS, thus the drop in his draft position. After he healed, he played 32 games in Lowell before having his wrist broken, an injuiry that hits many athletes over the course of their careers. If you think Garin's first injury could hamper his performance going forward, how do you explain 51 stolen bases this year? I do agree that his build does not make him a candidate for 2B, but his injuries should not be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Oct 31, 2012 22:39:42 GMT -5
His injury history isn't specifically concerning. But it may imply he could be injury prone. See Jed Lowrie and Ryan Kalish. So I think we had better be careful with dealing with him.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 31, 2012 22:56:33 GMT -5
Here is a brief write up on Cechini from Fangraphs. Mike Newman ranked his top 3B. He mentions 2B. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/newmans-own-best-third-baseman-of-2012/5. Garin Cecchini, Boston Red Sox Without question, Garin Cecchini had a productive season in Greenville of the South Atlantic League. Supporters will point to 46 extra base hits and 51 stolen bases and call me crazy for not ranking Cecchini in the top-3. In all honesty, they have a point on paper. Of course statistics are just a piece of the puzzle. In person, Cecchini scouts more like a tweener who whose skills would fit beautifully at second base. After looking for comparable big leaguers, I wonder if Daniel Murphy with more speed is fair.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 31, 2012 23:52:14 GMT -5
Well its good to know somebody thinks Garin can play a good 2B. As far as the injuries go a torn acl and a broken wrist (which happened when he got hit by a pitch right) aren't injury prone injuries. Stuff like hamstring pulls and back issues that because they happen once tend to happen again and again are injury prone injuries. The others are just sport related injuries which happen to every athlete.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Nov 1, 2012 5:54:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by futurefenwaystars on Nov 2, 2012 11:16:41 GMT -5
I don't understand why the Red Sox would be interested in trading any of Bogaerts, Iglesias, Cecchini, or Middlebrooks. If all four prove to be Major League-caliber players, Iglesias could stay at short, and Middlebrooks could either stay at Third or play First and Cecchini and Bogaerts could play 3B, 1B, or corner OF. Although this "problem" is likely to be at least 2-3 years away, given that Cecchini has only reached Low-A at this point.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Nov 2, 2012 11:56:51 GMT -5
Yea im surprised by all the talk of moving prospects who are "blocked", whether on the Sox or talking of getting a guy like Andrus from TEX because of Profar. Very rarely can a player only fit 1 position, and usually these types of situations sort themselves out. You keep players at the position where they are at thier most valuable until you have no choice. Why move Bogaerts off of SS until he shows he's one of the worst feilding SS's? Why trade Middlebrooks or Cecchini because of Bogaerts maybe moving to 3rd? You should try to promote as many possible prospects to the majors because it is very cheap, and gives you years of controlling the players contract. The Sox should build the best 1-9 lineup, and then figure out where to plug them in defensively. If that means Cecchini at 2B or Middlebrooks at 1st, then who cares as long as the team wins games.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 2, 2012 12:23:12 GMT -5
Players should be played where their value is maximized; a player significantly out of his optimal position is worth more in trade than he is to his current team.
It's a very simple principle, and let's use Middlebrooks as an example:
Let's say he's a .750 OPS third baseman with good defense. That's a good player - at third base. Assume Xander comes up and fits best at third, and there's an opening at first base. Here's your choice:
a) move WMB to first base b) trade WMB for equal value - say, an .850 OPS first baseman the same age and contract status
Do you think the Red Sox would be better off with an .850 OPS first baseman or a .750 OPS first baseman? A or B, B or A? If you say C: put Xander at first base, you're missing the point, think it over again.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 2, 2012 12:24:59 GMT -5
I don't understand why the Red Sox would be interested in trading any of Bogaerts, Iglesias, Cecchini, or Middlebrooks. If all four prove to be Major League-caliber players, Iglesias could stay at short, and Middlebrooks could either stay at Third or play First and Cecchini and Bogaerts could play 3B, 1B, or corner OF. Although this "problem" is likely to be at least 2-3 years away, given that Cecchini has only reached Low-A at this point. I mean, does anyone look at the Rangers right now and go "Profar, Beltre, Andrus, Kinsler AND Olt? That team is screwed!"? Too many good young players is the situation you want, not something you try to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Nov 5, 2012 13:10:44 GMT -5
Players should be played where their value is maximized; a player significantly out of his optimal position is worth more in trade than he is to his current team. It's a very simple principle, and let's use Middlebrooks as an example: Let's say he's a .750 OPS third baseman with good defense. That's a good player - at third base. Assume Xander comes up and fits best at third, and there's an opening at first base. Here's your choice: a) move WMB to first base b) trade WMB for equal value - say, an .850 OPS first baseman the same age and contract status Do you think the Red Sox would be better off with an .850 OPS first baseman or a .750 OPS first baseman? A or B, B or A? If you say C: put Xander at first base, you're missing the point, think it over again. i think it should be built like the moneyball A's. You have 1-9 hitters, and what position they play is relatively meaningless. Now i'm not saying put Ortiz at SS, but I would rather have Middlebrooks at 1B with a .750 OPS and avg defense BUT have him under cheap team control for years, than try to trade him just because Bogaerts is playing 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 5, 2012 13:47:06 GMT -5
Players should be played where their value is maximized; a player significantly out of his optimal position is worth more in trade than he is to his current team. It's a very simple principle, and let's use Middlebrooks as an example: Let's say he's a .750 OPS third baseman with good defense. That's a good player - at third base. Assume Xander comes up and fits best at third, and there's an opening at first base. Here's your choice: a) move WMB to first base b) trade WMB for equal value - say, an .850 OPS first baseman the same age and contract status Do you think the Red Sox would be better off with an .850 OPS first baseman or a .750 OPS first baseman? A or B, B or A? If you say C: put Xander at first base, you're missing the point, think it over again. i think it should be built like the moneyball A's. You have 1-9 hitters, and what position they play is relatively meaningless. Now i'm not saying put Ortiz at SS, but I would rather have Middlebrooks at 1B with a .750 OPS and avg defense BUT have him under cheap team control for years, than try to trade him just because Bogaerts is playing 3rd. No thanks. If Middlebrooks put up those numbers as a 1b (and 3b wasn't an option because of Bogaerts), I'd deal WMB for pitching help and I'd rather search around for an inexpensive 1b that can top those numbers, and I suspect I wouldn't have to look too far, as I would think eventually Travis Shaw can top those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 5, 2012 14:39:43 GMT -5
Not accusing anyone, but the talk of Middlebrooks blocking Cecchini etc. is pretty stupid. Cecchini is maybe my favorite prospect (just look at the avatar), but the fact of the matter is that he is still projected to start 2013 in high-A, so he's far off from the MLB level. Obviously Garin would make a pretty good defensive third baseman with descent speed and great ability to get on base, but you have to remember that a lot of his prospect value is contingent on his power developing as he fills out. Garin is 2-3 seasons away from potentially making the bigs, so IMO wait those 2-3 years to see how he fills out and best case scenario we have a Texas Rangers esque "problem" on our hands.
If Garin does reach his ceiling, maybe .290/.360/.500 with 15-20 HR's and 15-20 SB's (correct me if i'm wrong), then he's a top 50 prospect, and w/o a doubt more valuable than Middlebrooks. But if his power doesn't develop, and he goes down the Lars Anderson path, is he more valuable than WMB? I don't believe so. I don't think there's any rush to trade him, especially for a 1B, so let him develop and hopefully we have a "good problem" on our hands in 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Nov 5, 2012 15:33:47 GMT -5
Why do so many posters talk about Middlebrooks as if he is a finished product. WMB has improved in each of his professional seasons, he flew through the AA level playing only 96 games in Portland, and then topped that by needing only 40 games in AAA before making the jump to Boston. With less than a full season of games played above the A ball level, one would think Middlebrooks would have struggled facing MLB pitching, but an .835 OPS is hardly a struggle, and while some argue that his plate discipline will catch up with him, I'd argue back, that pitchers made some adjustments on Will last year, and he figured out what they were doing and made the adjustments he had to in order to overcome. WMB has very little experience at upper levels, and I believe he can continue to get better as he plays and continues to learn, I see no reason he can't maintain or improve upon his rookie OPS.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Nov 5, 2012 15:43:09 GMT -5
It's great to have a wealth of prospects, but it's not ideal that 3 of them might wind up being best at 3b. When Nomar came up he was obviously special and needed to be the SS, but Valentin was also a great all-around SS who resisted the move to 3b or 2b, was not ideal at either, and at the time there was, oddly enough, no demand for him on the trade market (I remember thinking it was bad luck that the demand for SS was weak, while the demand for fireballers "in the twilight of his career" like Clemens was very strong). The problem went away when he got hurt. But it was a problem.
P.s I saw Cecchini play and run and I think described him as "fleet" meaning quite fast in a straight line once he gets going. I would think RF rather than 2b, but 2b is not impossible. But he needs more professional experience and more distance in time from his knee injury.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2012 16:01:00 GMT -5
This discussion is at least one calendar year too early. Bogaerts won't be pushing for a full-time major league spot until September at the earliest and Cecchini is probably another two years from being in the conversation. There are just so many variables that are not settled yet that are crucial to this decision-- how does Bogaerts fill out? How is his defense at SS progressing? Does Middlebrooks improve his plate discipline? How might injuries change the picture? I know it's the offseason and things are dull, but you can't possibly have a genuinely intelligent discussion about whether 3B is "blocked" at this time-- there's too much in the air.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 19, 2012 18:27:17 GMT -5
Feel good picture of the day
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 19, 2012 22:44:12 GMT -5
Great stuff. That' looks like it's a long way from Portland, Maine...
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 20, 2012 5:38:29 GMT -5
This discussion is at least one calendar year too early. Bogaerts won't be pushing for a full-time major league spot until September at the earliest Maybe
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 20, 2012 14:35:01 GMT -5
I really think Middlebrooks is penciled in as the starting 3rd baseman for 2013 if he is healthy.
But there is no guarantee that he just picks up where he left off before his injury last season. If anything pitchers will pitch him differently tro start the year off and he will need to adjust.
|
|
|