|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 25, 2014 15:37:24 GMT -5
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again. Who wants to see a Craig resurgence if it means Mookie is in AAA? Because that's really the only way it happens. Me. More good players please. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2014 8:29:51 GMT -5
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again. Who wants to see a Craig resurgence if it means Mookie is in AAA? Because that's really the only way it happens. Me. More good players please. Perhaps I should have worded it "Who wants to see Craig attempt a resurgence if it means Mookie is in AAA?" |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 26, 2014 8:37:09 GMT -5
If Craig is healthy, he's a weapon. If they can't get anything for him, then I'd rather see that to rebuild his value for a trade than to dump him for nothing. If he plays well for a couple months his value sky rockets with that salary and he can be moved for something good.
I still haven't figured out if Castillo could start the year in AAA? Again, don't think they ever would but interested to know the real options.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 9:21:09 GMT -5
Mookie is likely to be a significantly better player than Castillo, so if one of them gets optioned, it's likely to be Rusney. The only reason to option Mookie instead is to keep his service time low, but the Red Sox have typically not played service time games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 26, 2014 9:24:58 GMT -5
but the Red Sox have typically not played service time games. Eh, Felix Doubront and Manny Delcarmen, who both missed Super Two status by days, disagree. Also, they absolutely would have played said game with Jackie Bradley in 2013 even if his performance had merited staying in the majors. I think it's more that they just haven't had glaring needs while an obvious fix destroys Triple-A the way other teams have (e.g., Polanco with the Pirates having a major hole in the outfield to fill). |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 9:32:16 GMT -5
For marginal guys, sure. But they've never kept a guy who projects to be an impact player down in the minors when it means making the major league team worse or hurting the prospect's development. They could easily have optioned Xander last year, or not had Bradley around on Opening Day 2013, or kept Betts in the minors last year, but they didn't do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 26, 2014 11:50:49 GMT -5
For marginal guys, sure. But they've never kept a guy who projects to be an impact player down in the minors when it means making the major league team worse or hurting the prospect's development. They could easily have optioned Xander last year, or not had Bradley around on Opening Day 2013, or kept Betts in the minors last year, but they didn't do so. Well, on those, a) with Xander, optioning a guy is much different than delaying when he first comes up for good, b) Bradley was going back to Pawtucket when Ortiz was healthy no matter how well he played, and he was staying in the minors until they had an extra year of control before coming back up. Remember how we all had the date calculated?, and c) this applies to Bogaerts too, but when a guy is ready at the end of the year, it's much, much harder to keep them down just to manipulate service time. Delaying from April 3 to Mid may is just so much different from delaying from mid-July to mid-May the next year. That said, I'll cut against my own argument with what I think are some better examples in Dustin Pedroia and Clay Buchholz, who were handed jobs out of spring training, so I'll concede the point. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2014 12:04:17 GMT -5
No matter how many outfielders the Red Sox have on the team, Mookie Betts belongs in the starting lineup, not in AAA.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,532
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 26, 2014 14:54:39 GMT -5
No matter how many outfielders the Red Sox have on the team, Mookie Betts belongs in the starting lineup, not in AAA. This. If Craig's reemergence should scare anyone it's Castillo. There's a decent chance Mookie is the all around best player on this team as soon as 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 26, 2014 19:37:56 GMT -5
Why can't Craig be optioned to AAA to get his 4+ ABs a game in? It seems like a win/win, save for the personal inconvenience to Craig. Clearly everyone on the board wants Craig to bounce back even if it's only to increase his trade value.
Oh yeah, 2116 should have a vacancy at 1st and maybe DH
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 26, 2014 20:10:54 GMT -5
This trade has not been very good. I think they'd reverse this in a second right now.
|
|
