|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 2, 2015 7:20:01 GMT -5
Stanton is a great player, but he's also drastically overrated. Just among outfielders, he's the fourth best hitter of his generation, and he plays less defense than the other three guys. Bogaerts is not that far behind him. Actually none of them are great defenders; Obviously Trout is a *multi*-generational talent. I'd take Stanton over McCutcheon, ceteris paribus. Harper? Before this year, your claim would have been absurd. I don't know; I'd still prefer Stanton, but that's not defensible based solely on the statistical evidence They're not great defenders, they're just better than Stanton, with much more speed in the case of Trout and McCutchen. And despite people having some sort of allergic reaction to admitting it, Harper has always been better than Stanton on a pure talent level.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 2, 2015 9:00:00 GMT -5
Bogaerts looks very tired to me....
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Oct 2, 2015 9:11:58 GMT -5
Bogaerts looks very tired to me.... Cue the big game
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 2, 2015 9:25:32 GMT -5
In a related tangent, is there a more frightening injury/contract situation than Stanton's lingering wrist issues from his broken hamate bone? Good lord, if I'm the Marlins, even though many, many players have gotten over a hamate break, I'd be terrified. I actually wouldn't worry about the hamate specifically, it's such a common thing and I can't think of a player who hasn't come back from one. But that contract is terrifying. Stanton has at least stolen a handful of bases in recent memory so he's not a total old player skills guy, but he's still a lot closer to Adam Dunn than he is to Carlos Beltran, with an extensive injury history, and he's owed $25m a year until he's 38. Yeah, it's not the hamate so much as the slow recovery combined with that incredible contract. I guess I'd walk around terrified all the time if I were them.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 2, 2015 13:06:56 GMT -5
If Bogaerts for Stanton straight-up would do it then it was a no-brainer before this season. Right now, I'm glad they didn't make the deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2015 14:31:26 GMT -5
If Bogaerts for Stanton straight-up would do it then it was a no-brainer before this season. Right now, I'm glad they didn't make the deal. In 4 of Stanton's 6 seasons, he had less fWAR than Xander this year. And obviously it wouldn't have been a 1 for 1 deal. They probably left out the part about how Mookie, Swihart and Owens had to be included too. And then there is the salary that is about 60 times higher to factor in there, which would take away from the rest of the team and the issue of finding a suitable shortstop and other positions to replace whoever else that was included in the team who is now and will be contributing for 5-6 seasons. It's pretty hard to figure out a scenario where they are better off making that deal. Maybe if they took Cecchini, Ranaudo and Coyle instead of Betts, Owens and Swihart. And that would have still given us a huge hole at SS to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 2, 2015 14:40:52 GMT -5
Bogaerts looks very tired to me.... Cue the big game Cue the end of the season. He deserves a long rest....from a long season. Lately the ball is limping off the bat. Trying to get to 200 hits or the batting title, if a factor, may be draining as well.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Oct 2, 2015 18:01:49 GMT -5
If Bogaerts for Stanton straight-up would do it then it was a no-brainer before this season. Right now, I'm glad they didn't make the deal. It seems to me that Bogaerts for Stanton is something the Red Sox wouldn't want to do because it would create a big hole as short. A more interesting scenario is to speculate on Bogaerts for one of the other good young shortstops. Bogaerts for Lindor? As much as I like Bogarts, I would be tempted to do that one. Bogaerts for Russell? For Correa? How about for the Dodger's Seager? There are so many good young shortstops right now. It is similar to the days of Nomar, Jeter, Arod, and Tejada. Just saying, as much as I like Bogaerts, I am not at all sure he is the best (or even second best) of the group. Time will tell I suppose.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Oct 2, 2015 19:20:51 GMT -5
You do realize Lindor is hitting way over his head right? I'll take Bogaerts over Lindor for sure. Correa also may be hitting over his power norm, and isn't good defensively at the moment, likely ever considering his stature. He's getting HOF hype already. Way too premature in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bogaerts is more valuable than Correa, but I think they're comparable and I think both are better than Lindor long term.
Also pretty OT, but I think it's stupid that ESPN has hyped Correa into the ROY when it should be Lindor by a decent margin.
|
|
|
Post by pokeefe363 on Oct 2, 2015 20:28:00 GMT -5
Bogaerts was 3rd in WAR this year among SS at the age of 22 with clear potential for more power. Seager, Correa, and Bogaerts are all interchangeable in my mind. Each does certain things better than the others.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 3, 2015 0:49:41 GMT -5
I induced this exact scenario and posted about it earlier this year in these forums. And I feel that it wasn't serendipitous - without knowing who else the Red Sox would have had to include (WMB?) - it was a colossal error on the part of BC. Stanton is a generational talent; Bogaerts isn't close to that At age 23 Stanton had a career high 5.5 bWAR, and Xander has 4.7. That's excluding baserunning (haven't been able to set up access to BP yet on my new machine; hopefully tomorrow). That's not close? And Xander closes more than half of that gap with baserunning. He has 0.4 WAR running the bases on hits and outs. At some point in the future, b-ref is very likely to include this, and that makes it 5.4 to 5.0 or 5.1.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 3, 2015 4:36:53 GMT -5
Stanton also did that in 123 games which you conveniently ignore.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2015 7:47:21 GMT -5
Stanton also did that in 123 games which you conveniently ignore. Health is a skill.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Oct 3, 2015 9:44:07 GMT -5
Stanton also did that in 123 games which you conveniently ignore. Health is a skill. Actually health is more like a tool than a skill although there is some level of work and preparation that can effect health. But some people are just naturally more resilient or resistant to injury and that fact should not be discounted out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2015 9:49:49 GMT -5
Stanton also did that in 123 games which you conveniently ignore. That's his 3rd highest games played total out of 6 seasons, which I'm guessing is also being ignored.
|
|