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.
Are the Red Sox looking to move Mookie?
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 22, 2014 11:39:27 GMT -5
It's been gnawing at me for awhile, this sickening feeling that the Red Sox are intent on moving Mookie Betts. So much so, that at the end of the regular season I wrote that we had probably seen Mookie's last game as a Red Sox. Now during this offseason, I've read a lot that had largely assuaged my concern, as so-called insiders (Gammons, Tomase, Keith Law, et al) indicated that the Red Sox's evaluation of Mookie was extremely high, and he was well nigh untouchable. But then there's stuff like this: <quote>A week ago at the general managers’ meetings, Ben Cherington declined to speculate about whether Betts would be on the Opening Day roster or not: “He’s shown in a short amount of time that he has a chance to succeed in the big leagues sooner rather than later. We’re going to put the best team out there we can. If he’s a part of it, he’s a part of it. We’re just going to have to see where we are in spring training.)</quote> from a Macpherson article - not exactly a ringing endorsement. And early in the offseason, I heard a bizarre interview with Cherington where he seemed to openly speculate about what position would be best for Betts *on another team*. It's hard to imagine similar comments with regard to a Bogaerts or even a Middlebrooks, even JBJ. Now I suppose one could see this as a deliberate strategy to keep expectations low given the disaster that 2014 was for so many of the Red Sox young players, but it seems ominous to me. I post this not as a place to debate the merits of a putative Betts trade, since there's been lots of speculation about specific names, etc and of course it all depends, but rather to just get feedback, speculation, etc about how the FO views/values Mookie. Or perhaps I'm just looking for people to talk me off the ledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 22, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -5
If anything, I'm inclined to think it less likely that Betts is traded now than I did midseason, when I thought he was a goner.
It makes perfect sense for him to make a comment about what Betts's best position would be on another team, because his best position is second base and he's not going to play that with the Red Sox.
That said, if they want to trade for a big fish, Betts might have to be the guy they use to get him. Not sure who that would be, but you bet the Phillies and Nats would at least be asking for him in exchange for Hamels or Zimmermann. Doesn't mean they SHOULD move him, but they certainly could.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 22, 2014 11:59:10 GMT -5
You're being paranoid. Applying Kremlinology to a GM's quotes is an exercise in projection-- you're going to see what you want to see, much like a Rorschach Test.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 22, 2014 12:07:34 GMT -5
He gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2014 12:14:28 GMT -5
Maybe we could trade him for Larry Anderson.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Nov 22, 2014 12:18:08 GMT -5
I am really high on Betts. I see him as a 300 hitter with a 400 OBP., who will hit 15-20 homers, while stealing 25 or more bases. He brings quite a skill set for now and in the future. We have a great core of talent and Betts may be our best overall player of them very soon. I doubt he'll be traded.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 22, 2014 12:30:29 GMT -5
By the way, I'm almost certain that Cherington had similar quotes last offseason about how Bogaerts, Bradley, and Middlebrooks weren't guaranteed to be starters/in the majors. It's just too early in the offseason for a GM to be making public comments about who his starters are going to be. It spooks potential FA signings, and this year in particular, you want Craig and Victorino putting as much energy as possible into rehabbing with the aim of winning an outfield spot, which means you don't want to publicly declare that Betts if your starting right fielder, at least not in November.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Nov 22, 2014 12:32:07 GMT -5
Almost any player can be traded in the right deal. Consider the situation with the Sox if they don't sign Lester, Shields or Scherzer, and maybe none of the next tier. What will they do for pitching?
What if then, the Nationals offered Zimmerman straight up for Betts? Of if the Phillies offered Hamels straight up for Betts? Would you do either trade?
Some would. I wouldn't because I think Betts is one of those once or twice in a generation players for whom there is no substitute. He's not the greatest OF, but he'll do right now. I'd like to see him tried at 3B if the Sox don't sign a decent 3B. If something happens to Pedroia, he can take over, and maybe be even better.
He also is the leadoff hitter the Sox desperately need that no other player on the team can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 22, 2014 12:39:40 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2014 12:49:05 GMT -5
They would be stupid to be looking to move him.
I would only trade him if we could get someone like Chris Sale in a sort of re-do similar Hanley/Beckett trade.
I have a strong feeling that he ends up as the best hitter on the team in the next few years. It's not horrible to "find a position" for him just because he might lose defensive value.
|
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Nov 22, 2014 12:55:48 GMT -5
You're being paranoid. Applying Kremlinology to a GM's quotes is an exercise in projection-- you're going to see what you want to see, much like a Rorschach Test. Ha. I like that - you're quite right about there being a bit of Kremlinology about the whole thing (although you couldn't be more wrong about me seeing what I want to see - quite the opposite). It's a bit silly I know, but being a sports fan is silly by definition |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 22, 2014 13:10:05 GMT -5
You're being paranoid. Applying Kremlinology to a GM's quotes is an exercise in projection-- you're going to see what you want to see, much like a Rorschach Test. Ha. I like that - you're quite right about there being a bit of Kremlinology about the whole thing (although you couldn't be more wrong about me seeing what I want to see - quite the opposite). It's a bit silly I know, but being a sports fan is silly by definition The Id works in mysterious ways, my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 22, 2014 13:30:54 GMT -5
They would be stupid to be looking to move him. I would only trade him if we could get someone like Chris Sale in a sort of re-do similar Hanley/Beckett trade. I have a strong feeling that he ends up as the best hitter on the team in the next few years. It's not horrible to "find a position" for him just because he might lose defensive value. I presume you mean there's a bag-o-ball third baseman coming with Sales. |
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 22, 2014 13:35:58 GMT -5
I hope to God we don't move Betts. He is the only one I feel comfortable if Petey gets hurt to take his spot. If Holt can play 3b why can't Betts get a shot at it. Just because he had trouble at SS. Just something to think about. This kid has to much talent. If we move him we have to see this kid play in another uniform for the next 12 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 22, 2014 13:50:15 GMT -5
Hawk Harrelson? is that you? |
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 22, 2014 21:01:26 GMT -5
I still think betts, bogey and swihart are the only three untouchables in the organization.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 22, 2014 21:59:35 GMT -5
I still think betts, bogey and swihart Keith Couch are is the only three untouchable s in the organization. FTFY (bigger work than I originally thought). |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 23, 2014 7:24:19 GMT -5
I still think betts, bogey and swihart are the only three untouchables in the organization. Margot, Swihart, Devers, Rodriguez, Betts, Bogaerts stay. Pick 4 of the rest of our minor league top 10 for Hamels |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 23, 2014 7:26:37 GMT -5
Hawk Harrelson? is that you? Off topic but....Hawk is uncommonly difficult to listen to.....second only to Suzyn Waldman "Oh my goodness gracious"/John Sterling "You know Suzyn...that's the thing about baseball...." |
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Nov 23, 2014 9:08:03 GMT -5
No, I don't think the Sox are in any way shopping Betts - though I'm certain the first names out of the mouths of other GMs when trade talks are going on are "Bogaerts and Betts". So don't get to crazy over hearing from some beat reporter "the Padres asked for Bogaerts and Betts in a hypothetical deal for Tyson Ross" (or pick any other team and player you'd like). After Cherington is done laughing, he'd then suggest a similarly (but less so) inane counter offer of Marrero and Rijo and we'd go from there.
The writer I choose to focus on the most as I think he's the best in the city (of Boston) is Alex Speier and he's said multiple times on the Hot Stove Show (and I'm sure on Twitter, in print, etc) that Bogaerts, Betts and Swihart are the "untouchables" in the system, and I for one believe him.
Don't get me wrong, everyone is open in the right deal so if the Giants called up and said "Bumgarner for Betts" of course you do it, but that isn't happening.
To Cherington's quote, that's more geared toward if Betts will open the season in Boston or in Pawtucket. He's going to come to spring training with the chance (but not the certainty) to make the team. If he performs like he did last season, he's going to be up here, leading off, and starting in RF. If not, he's going to be about 60 miles down i95, leading off and playing RF in Pawtucket.
The "best" thing to happen for the Red Sox is Betts starting off in Pawtucket. That is because in that scenario you've had Castillo, Victorino, Craig and Nava all have had very good springs, demonstrate health, and being the all-star level players that they've been in the past (the middle two, obviously), so you let Betts continue to work on playing RF in the minors as he learns it. Since I find it highly unlikely those all happen, then you're most likely to see Betts - RF listed first on the Red Sox line up card on opening day.
*Assumption there that we have signed a 3b and that Cespedes is traded for pitching. Just making clear why I only mentioned Castillo, Victorino, Craig and Nava as outfielders.
|
|
|
