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.
Red Sox acquire A. Reed for Callahan, Nogosek and Bautista
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 17:36:11 GMT -5
Ok, but it would be nice to see some of those people finally move up. Mata finally moved up? He's an 18-yr old in the SAL with a half season under his belt. Perry, Schellenger and Scherff? None have pitched yet in the GCL. Schellenger is there as a rehab placement only and the other 2 are HS pitchers who havent thrown and inning yet (and Perry may not due to injury). There is far too often a call for promotions after a month f good stats. Maybe that's Mookie's fault? Or Benni's fault? But it's pretty rare. Give the guys time to play through a slump. Give the other teams time to adjust and see how they adjust. Mata's only 18???
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jul 31, 2017 17:49:25 GMT -5
Mata finally moved up? He's an 18-yr old in the SAL with a half season under his belt. Perry, Schellenger and Scherff? None have pitched yet in the GCL. Schellenger is there as a rehab placement only and the other 2 are HS pitchers who havent thrown and inning yet (and Perry may not due to injury). There is far too often a call for promotions after a month f good stats. Maybe that's Mookie's fault? Or Benni's fault? But it's pretty rare. Give the guys time to play through a slump. Give the other teams time to adjust and see how they adjust. Mata's only 18??? He's barely 18. He was still 17 when the season started.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 31, 2017 18:43:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 21:53:50 GMT -5
A lot of this talk really has no bearing on the Reed trade though. It's a fair point in trades like Kimbrel and Thornburg though. I bet you could have got back another player in those deals if you really wanted to. With the Reed deal I just don't see it. The point is this: in minor leaguers-for-major leaguers trades, Dombrowski has dealt approximately 23 minor leaguers for 9 major leaguers (counting only minor league for major league deals, so no Smith trade, no Buchholz for Tobias, no Longhi for Flores money, no DFA guys for cash). Looking back now, almost all of those were even trades or wins, save for Thornburg (and the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade is kind of its own animal right now). So in a vacuum, yeah, most have been fine. The problem is that at some point the volume catches up with you. It means you need to trade Espinoza for Pomeranz when, say, Logan Allen plus Ax. Basabe maybe gets that deal done. And when they're all 3 or 4 for 1 deals, you're not taking a guy back as a B-piece who might become Brock Holt, to beat my favorite example into the ground yet again. The only Dombrowski trade in which two players have come back is the Smith trade. That's kind of crazy. At some point, the volume can catch up with you. This offseason, if the Red Sox need to trade for anything of value, Chavis is basically their only chip that makes sense to trade, unless they're dealing for a guy that'll make someone else redundant (e.g., a first baseman, so you include Travis). In theory, they shouldn't need much, but that's in theory. It's all about the quality, not quantity. We bring in enough prospects each year that mere volume wouldn't catch up to the team. As long as they trade the right players. So I don't worry about volume like you do. Nevermind we traded from our strength this deadline. We all agreed a bunch of those rule 5 guys had to go. Do you truly believe a team that demanded Espinoza would really take Logan and Basabe instead? Come on that's not even close. I get your point, but like always it's an extreme example. I fully agree about getting an extra piece back in some of the bigger trades. I just don't get why this came up in the Reed trade thread. We didn't give up enough value to expect anyone back. Seems we are bashing a current trade, because of what was done in the past. I would think Chavis is the last player you want to trade this off-season. He is the exact type of power hitter we need. He has improved his K to BB ratio while jumping to AA. If we are worried about depth I don't get trading the one impact bat we have in the minors that could help us next year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 2, 2017 15:13:00 GMT -5
It's all about the quality, not quantity. We bring in enough prospects each year that mere volume wouldn't catch up to the team. As long as they trade the right players. So I don't worry about volume like you do. Nevermind we traded from our strength this deadline. We all agreed a bunch of those rule 5 guys had to go. The team does not bring in enough prospects each year to make up for that kind of volume, no. That's 20 or so guys who'd be in this system's top 30 (or graduated) in less than two years. The Red Sox do not bring in 10 top 30 prospects each year. Part of the reason that Nunez and Reed were the players acquired this trade deadline was because that's about as good as the club could do without tapping into the top of its system. If they'd needed a SP (and we'll see if Fister keeps this up until Price comes back), they would have to have traded at least Chavis, if not Groome. Do you have any links that say the Padres "demanded" Espinoza? I've never seen that anywhere. I think you're assuming because that's the player that was traded that Espinoza was the bare minimum to make the trade work. My point is that I do not make that assumption. Maybe it's not Allen and Basabe that gets it done, but I think there was likely a gap between what would've been sufficient for the Padres to trade Pomeranz and Espinoza, and I think the Red Sox were unable to fit any proposals into that gap, hence the cost being Espinoza. I thought this was clear, but in case it wasn't: I'm fine with this trade. But I'm concerned with the continuing pattern of 3-for-1 and 4-for-1 deals, of which this trade is one, as the continued trading of excess minor league assets could eventually mean you have to overpay when you're lacking a chip that fits the sweet spot of what you need at a given time. That's why I gave the Pomeranz-Espinoza example, which I felt fit the description. Chavis is positionally redundant - if he even really has a position right now - and is the only prospect with top 100-ish value the team should be comfortable moving if the club wants to acquire top talent via trade. I'm not saying they SHOULD trade him. I'm saying he fits the exact kind of player Dombrowski does move when he makes a deal.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 2, 2017 16:14:21 GMT -5
It's all about the quality, not quantity. We bring in enough prospects each year that mere volume wouldn't catch up to the team. As long as they trade the right players. So I don't worry about volume like you do. Nevermind we traded from our strength this deadline. We all agreed a bunch of those rule 5 guys had to go. The team does not bring in enough prospects each year to make up for that kind of volume, no. That's 20 or so guys who'd be in this system's top 30 (or graduated) in less than two years. The Red Sox do not bring in 10 top 30 prospects each year. Part of the reason that Nunez and Reed were the players acquired this trade deadline was because that's about as good as the club could do without tapping into the top of its system. If they'd needed a SP (and we'll see if Fister keeps this up until Price comes back), they would have to have traded at least Chavis, if not Groome. Do you have any links that say the Padres "demanded" Espinoza? I've never seen that anywhere. I think you're assuming because that's the player that was traded that Espinoza was the bare minimum to make the trade work. My point is that I do not make that assumption. Maybe it's not Allen and Basabe that gets it done, but I think there was likely a gap between what would've been sufficient for the Padres to trade Pomeranz and Espinoza, and I think the Red Sox were unable to fit any proposals into that gap, hence the cost being Espinoza. I thought this was clear, but in case it wasn't: I'm fine with this trade. But I'm concerned with the continuing pattern of 3-for-1 and 4-for-1 deals, of which this trade is one, as the continued trading of excess minor league assets could eventually mean you have to overpay when you're lacking a chip that fits the sweet spot of what you need at a given time. That's why I gave the Pomeranz-Espinoza example, which I felt fit the description. Chavis is positionally redundant - if he even really has a position right now - and is the only prospect with top 100-ish value the team should be comfortable moving if the club wants to acquire top talent via trade. I'm not saying they SHOULD trade him. I'm saying he fits the exact kind of player Dombrowski does move when he makes a deal. In a given year you can easily bring in 10 top 30 guys. We already have 9 guys from 2017 and over the next 3-5 years many more will join the top 30. Nevermind it's a mute point because you won't be making all those trades year in and year out. That was the point of getting Kimbrel and Sale, the amount of team control. Also let's not act like every 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 trade is equal. What you can't do is a bunch of Sale or Kimbrel trades each year. It's a lot harder to restock a good top 15, than it is the 15-30 range. You can make a couple of Reed type deals every year and not even come close to hurting the system. Remember we are talking about the Reed deal. Even though everyone keeps trying to make this about every trade DD has made for Red Sox. The Padres did the Pomeranz deal for Espinoza, that's what it took. DD surely would have traded a bunch of lesser players if he could have. Let's not act like our system was gutted at that point. It clearly wasn't. Pomeranz was an all star on a great contract for 2 and 1/3 years. It was going to cost more than spare parts. A bunch of non top 100 guys were never going to equal a top 20 prospect. At that point he had made like one trade, there weren't a ton of guys traded that could have filled in the gaps. I guess I missed how we are set at DH and 1B going forward. Thus Chavis is needed and needed in a very bad way.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 2, 2017 16:50:04 GMT -5
I hadn't realized there were 9 guys added this year, so fair point - that hadn't clicked for me. But if you're going to point out that some will move up, keep in mind others will move down. For every Ben Taylor who becomes a guy, there's an Austin Rei who falls off.
Since I'm now curious, the current SP Top 30 by year acquired, for shiggles (note these were all draftees or IFAs - highest guy acquired in a trade is Tobias at 38):
2017: 9 2016: 5 2015: 2 2014: 6 2013: 4 2012: 3 2011: 0 2010: 1
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 2, 2017 18:09:04 GMT -5
Absolutely. That's why I don't mind trading some top 30 guys early. You can get peak value for them, before they fall off. DD does this very well and doesn't seem to make many mistakes.
Now 2017 is a very deep group. I will admit, it's not a normal year. I could see as many as 20 players being ranked top 30 at some point. In the end 5 to 10 might help the major league team, probably closer to 5. So trading a bunch at peak value makes sense. You just need to trade the right ones. Something DD seems to be great at.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 2, 2017 18:19:02 GMT -5
Well then again, a big reason why we added 9 guys to the Top 30 this year is because our depth was considerably diminished BECAUSE of the Dombrowski trades. Velazquez, Netzer, and Schellenger are unlikely to made a top 30 that also includes some combination of Moncada, Espinoza, Kopech, Dubon, Logan Allen, Asuaje, Basabe, Longhi, Anderson, Callahan, and Nogosek.
I'm not trying to say Dombrowski shouldn't have made those trades...I'm just saying this is a bit of misleading year to use as an example of how many Top 30 prospects we should add via the draft and IFA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 2, 2017 18:46:38 GMT -5
This is kind of silly. If Dave traded all of the top 30, they'd probably add 20 top 30 prospects the next year. Top 30 is relative year to year.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 2, 2017 19:09:51 GMT -5
This is kind of silly. If Dave traded all of the top 30, they'd probably add 20 top 30 prospects the next year. Top 30 is relative year to year. Correct and the quality of one top 30 for one year doesn't normally equal the quality of the top 30 for the next year.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 3, 2017 7:09:51 GMT -5
The point is this: in minor leaguers-for-major leaguers trades, Dombrowski has dealt approximately 23 minor leaguers for 9 major leaguers (counting only minor league for major league deals, so no Smith trade, no Buchholz for Tobias, no Longhi for Flores money, no DFA guys for cash). Looking back now, almost all of those were even trades or wins, save for Thornburg (and the Pomeranz-Espinoza trade is kind of its own animal right now). So in a vacuum, yeah, most have been fine. The problem is that at some point the volume catches up with you. It means you need to trade Espinoza for Pomeranz when, say, Logan Allen plus Ax. Basabe maybe gets that deal done. And when they're all 3 or 4 for 1 deals, you're not taking a guy back as a B-piece who might become Brock Holt, to beat my favorite example into the ground yet again. The only Dombrowski trade in which two players have come back is the Smith trade. That's kind of crazy. At some point, the volume can catch up with you. This offseason, if the Red Sox need to trade for anything of value, Chavis is basically their only chip that makes sense to trade, unless they're dealing for a guy that'll make someone else redundant (e.g., a first baseman, so you include Travis). In theory, they shouldn't need much, but that's in theory. It's all about the quality, not quantity. We bring in enough prospects each year that mere volume wouldn't catch up to the team. As long as they trade the right players. So I don't worry about volume like you do. Nevermind we traded from our strength this deadline. We all agreed a bunch of those rule 5 guys had to go. Do you truly believe a team that demanded Espinoza would really take Logan and Basabe instead? Come on that's not even close. I get your point, but like always it's an extreme example. I fully agree about getting an extra piece back in some of the bigger trades. I just don't get why this came up in the Reed trade thread. We didn't give up enough value to expect anyone back. Seems we are bashing a current trade, because of what was done in the past. I would think Chavis is the last player you want to trade this off-season. He is the exact type of power hitter we need. He has improved his K to BB ratio while jumping to AA. If we are worried about depth I don't get trading the one impact bat we have in the minors that could help us next year. Chavis to me is very perplexing. Power impact bat with high swing and miss rate. Hunts fastballs and seems to struggle with off speed. AAA and big league pitchers throw better breaking balls that do not hang. Fringe at best defender. Where do you play him? Is the bat going to be enough to overcome his short comings in the field? His market value right now is very high. Maybe the time to sell this winter. I think Dave and the gang will look at Chavis versus a dalbec and see what they think and can they keep both. I do not think the sox would bring him up as strictly a DH. A power bat is a very obvious need, both this year and next. How Dave chooses to fill that need will be very interesting. it would not surprise me to see fill that need using Chavis in the trade.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 3, 2017 7:22:34 GMT -5
The team does not bring in enough prospects each year to make up for that kind of volume, no. That's 20 or so guys who'd be in this system's top 30 (or graduated) in less than two years. The Red Sox do not bring in 10 top 30 prospects each year. Part of the reason that Nunez and Reed were the players acquired this trade deadline was because that's about as good as the club could do without tapping into the top of its system. If they'd needed a SP (and we'll see if Fister keeps this up until Price comes back), they would have to have traded at least Chavis, if not Groome. Do you have any links that say the Padres "demanded" Espinoza? I've never seen that anywhere. I think you're assuming because that's the player that was traded that Espinoza was the bare minimum to make the trade work. My point is that I do not make that assumption. Maybe it's not Allen and Basabe that gets it done, but I think there was likely a gap between what would've been sufficient for the Padres to trade Pomeranz and Espinoza, and I think the Red Sox were unable to fit any proposals into that gap, hence the cost being Espinoza. I thought this was clear, but in case it wasn't: I'm fine with this trade. But I'm concerned with the continuing pattern of 3-for-1 and 4-for-1 deals, of which this trade is one, as the continued trading of excess minor league assets could eventually mean you have to overpay when you're lacking a chip that fits the sweet spot of what you need at a given time. That's why I gave the Pomeranz-Espinoza example, which I felt fit the description. Chavis is positionally redundant - if he even really has a position right now - and is the only prospect with top 100-ish value the team should be comfortable moving if the club wants to acquire top talent via trade. I'm not saying they SHOULD trade him. I'm saying he fits the exact kind of player Dombrowski does move when he makes a deal. In a given year you can easily bring in 10 top 30 guys. We already have 9 guys from 2017 and over the next 3-5 years many more will join the top 30. Nevermind it's a mute point because you won't be making all those trades year in and year out. That was the point of getting Kimbrel and Sale, the amount of team control. Also let's not act like every 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 trade is equal. What you can't do is a bunch of Sale or Kimbrel trades each year. It's a lot harder to restock a good top 15, than it is the 15-30 range. You can make a couple of Reed type deals every year and not even come close to hurting the system. Remember we are talking about the Reed deal. Even though everyone keeps trying to make this about every trade DD has made for Red Sox. The Padres did the Pomeranz deal for Espinoza, that's what it took. DD surely would have traded a bunch of lesser players if he could have. Let's not act like our system was gutted at that point. It clearly wasn't. Pomeranz was an all star on a great contract for 2 and 1/3 years. It was going to cost more than spare parts. A bunch of non top 100 guys were never going to equal a top 20 prospect. At that point he had made like one trade, there weren't a ton of guys traded that could have filled in the gaps. I guess I missed how we are set at DH and 1B going forward. Thus Chavis is needed and needed in a very bad way. No way do I see the sox playing chavis at the big league level at 1st. Too small. 1st base is a very key defensive position. That's why Moreland plays, because he can help cover for a lot with the infielders. Chavis is also not that good a infielder.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 3, 2017 11:19:52 GMT -5
It's all about the quality, not quantity. We bring in enough prospects each year that mere volume wouldn't catch up to the team. As long as they trade the right players. So I don't worry about volume like you do. Nevermind we traded from our strength this deadline. We all agreed a bunch of those rule 5 guys had to go. Do you truly believe a team that demanded Espinoza would really take Logan and Basabe instead? Come on that's not even close. I get your point, but like always it's an extreme example. I fully agree about getting an extra piece back in some of the bigger trades. I just don't get why this came up in the Reed trade thread. We didn't give up enough value to expect anyone back. Seems we are bashing a current trade, because of what was done in the past. I would think Chavis is the last player you want to trade this off-season. He is the exact type of power hitter we need. He has improved his K to BB ratio while jumping to AA. If we are worried about depth I don't get trading the one impact bat we have in the minors that could help us next year. Chavis to me is very perplexing. Power impact bat with high swing and miss rate. Hunts fastballs and seems to struggle with off speed. AAA and big league pitchers throw better breaking balls that do not hang. Fringe at best defender. Where do you play him? Is the bat going to be enough to overcome his short comings in the field? His market value right now is very high. Maybe the time to sell this winter. I think Dave and the gang will look at Chavis versus a dalbec and see what they think and can they keep both. I do not think the sox would bring him up as strictly a DH. A power bat is a very obvious need, both this year and next. How Dave chooses to fill that need will be very interesting. it would not surprise me to see fill that need using Chavis in the trade. He has cut down his strikeout rate and increased his walk rate in AA. For example Moncada strikeouts went up when he hit AA. So I don't have this huge worry that more advanced pitching is going to kill him. AA is the first real test for players. Pitchers in AA can throw off speed pitches. You seem to not understand the quality of AA. There a reason why teams will call up players doing well in AA and skip AAA. His bat is legit. One of the better power bats to come through our system in a long time. No offense not this doesn't come down to Chavis vs. Dalbec. It's not even close, Chavis is 10 miles a head of Dalbec right now. I really don't care that you don't think he will be called up to be the DH. It could certainly happen. In a way it makes sense. You get bats like Chavis into your lineups any way you can! The only way Chavis is trade bait is if you sign a Martinez type player. Then what are you trading him for ? 1B/DH is this teams only big need next year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 3, 2017 11:38:13 GMT -5
In a given year you can easily bring in 10 top 30 guys. We already have 9 guys from 2017 and over the next 3-5 years many more will join the top 30. Nevermind it's a mute point because you won't be making all those trades year in and year out. That was the point of getting Kimbrel and Sale, the amount of team control. Also let's not act like every 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 trade is equal. What you can't do is a bunch of Sale or Kimbrel trades each year. It's a lot harder to restock a good top 15, than it is the 15-30 range. You can make a couple of Reed type deals every year and not even come close to hurting the system. Remember we are talking about the Reed deal. Even though everyone keeps trying to make this about every trade DD has made for Red Sox. The Padres did the Pomeranz deal for Espinoza, that's what it took. DD surely would have traded a bunch of lesser players if he could have. Let's not act like our system was gutted at that point. It clearly wasn't. Pomeranz was an all star on a great contract for 2 and 1/3 years. It was going to cost more than spare parts. A bunch of non top 100 guys were never going to equal a top 20 prospect. At that point he had made like one trade, there weren't a ton of guys traded that could have filled in the gaps. I guess I missed how we are set at DH and 1B going forward. Thus Chavis is needed and needed in a very bad way. No way do I see the sox playing chavis at the big league level at 1st. Too small. 1st base is a very key defensive position. That's why Moreland plays, because he can help cover for a lot with the infielders. Chavis is also not that good a infielder. Well guess what? The Red Sox are having him learn 1B. They don't agree with you. Nevermind 1B isn't a key defensive position, those are catcher, SS, CF and 3B. 1B is about the least important defensive position there is. We played Hanley there for a whole Year, did it kill our team? Nevermind at this point he has played only 3B basically for us. You have no clue how he would play 1B. He could easily be an average 1B, no one knows till we see him play it. Per this site he has the raw tools to be average at 3B, played SS in high school, along with OF. So it's not like he doesn't have the tools needed play 1B. He's not some slow footed player , that can't catch, run or more well. He has been injured and it's really limited his development time in the field. Moving him off third sure seems like getting him ready to play in the Majors. With Devers at third he needs a new position and 1B is open next year !
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 3, 2017 13:15:21 GMT -5
If Chavis is your 1B next year you have a 100% homegrown defense in the field. All guys who are, or were top 10 prospects at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Aug 3, 2017 14:39:39 GMT -5
If Chavis is your 1B next year you have a 100% homegrown defense in the field. All guys who are, or were top 10 prospects at some point. You're going to have a homegrown literally everywhere assuming Hanley DHs and Vazquez is the main catcher. That would be quite amazing.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 3, 2017 22:23:03 GMT -5
Will we ever have a homegrown starting rotation?
We have serious pieces in groomes and matta.
Can we develop them properly?
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 3, 2017 23:41:11 GMT -5
Will we ever have a homegrown starting rotation? We have serious pieces in groomes and matta. Can we develop them properly? Nope. Does anyone?
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 4, 2017 7:40:59 GMT -5
Chavis to me is very perplexing. Power impact bat with high swing and miss rate. Hunts fastballs and seems to struggle with off speed. AAA and big league pitchers throw better breaking balls that do not hang. Fringe at best defender. Where do you play him? Is the bat going to be enough to overcome his short comings in the field? His market value right now is very high. Maybe the time to sell this winter. I think Dave and the gang will look at Chavis versus a dalbec and see what they think and can they keep both. I do not think the sox would bring him up as strictly a DH. A power bat is a very obvious need, both this year and next. How Dave chooses to fill that need will be very interesting. it would not surprise me to see fill that need using Chavis in the trade. He has cut down his strikeout rate and increased his walk rate in AA. For example Moncada strikeouts went up when he hit AA. So I don't have this huge worry that more advanced pitching is going to kill him. AA is the first real test for players. Pitchers in AA can throw off speed pitches. You seem to not understand the quality of AA. There a reason why teams will call up players doing well in AA and skip AAA. His bat is legit. One of the better power bats to come through our system in a long time. No offense not this doesn't come down to Chavis vs. Dalbec. It's not even close, Chavis is 10 miles a head of Dalbec right now. I really don't care that you don't think he will be called up to be the DH. It could certainly happen. In a way it makes sense. You get bats like Chavis into your lineups any way you can! The only way Chavis is trade bait is if you sign a Martinez type player. Then what are you trading him for ? 1B/DH is this teams only big need next year. WOW! getting pretty rowdy here. I DO understand the quality of AA pitching. But, at that level pitchers are still working on second and third pitches. Usually breaking stuff. It appears that with one healthy season in the system that chavis has shown that he has a power bat. The sox need a power bat so he will get a LONG look and chance to develop. I used dalbec's name as an example of the eval process that DD will go through before making any trades. If he thinks he has a fall back position to cover for chavis in the system he is more likely to make a trade. If he does not he keeps him. Does not have to be dalbec as the fall back position. Not calling him up as a DH is MY OPINION. Just like you have your opinions. Maybe in September they give him a shot. But that impacts the 40 man roster. I have no idea what DD would trade him for, if he trades him at all. The obvious need is a power bat. Here again playing first base is a possibility and if he can play it well enough to get his bat in the lineup then I am fine with that. Based on what I know, having played there, 1st base is not as easy as you may think. Again MY OPINION. I think the sox are looking at as much flexibility long term as possible. I do not think the sox will look at someone only DH'ing especially at his age, hanley is a little different.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 4, 2017 7:52:17 GMT -5
No way do I see the sox playing chavis at the big league level at 1st. Too small. 1st base is a very key defensive position. That's why Moreland plays, because he can help cover for a lot with the infielders. Chavis is also not that good a infielder. Well guess what? The Red Sox are having him learn 1B. They don't agree with you. Nevermind 1B isn't a key defensive position, those are catcher, SS, CF and 3B. 1B is about the least important defensive position there is. We played Hanley there for a whole Year, did it kill our team? Nevermind at this point he has played only 3B basically for us. You have no clue how he would play 1B. He could easily be an average 1B, no one knows till we see him play it. Per this site he has the raw tools to be average at 3B, played SS in high school, along with OF. So it's not like he doesn't have the tools needed play 1B. He's not some slow footed player , that can't catch, run or more well. He has been injured and it's really limited his development time in the field. Moving him off third sure seems like getting him ready to play in the Majors. With Devers at third he needs a new position and 1B is open next year ! The sox are smart and looking at all possible options where he could possibly play and get his bat in the lineup. I have read where they have also talked about him playing some left field. Your opinion of what the least important defensive position on the field is been taken under consideration. Maybe he develops into a gold glove 1st baseman. It is worth a try. Time will tell. And your OPINIONS are your OPINIONS. We all not do not have to agree with them, just like you obviously do not agree with all mine.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 4, 2017 7:54:45 GMT -5
Will we ever have a homegrown starting rotation? We have serious pieces in groomes and matta. Can we develop them properly? Nope. Does anyone? Yeah....it's just really hard to develop pitchers. There are so many variables, their stuff, how their body will develop, how they will mentally develop, staying healthy, having the patience to let a guy fail in an MLB rotation etc etc etc. You can do everything right and talented pitchers can still bust. This is why I believe the Red Sox inability to develop starting pitching is at least partially due to just chance. Who knows, maybe in 6 years we will all be talking about how awesome Mata, Groome, and Scherff are but all our position players are taking the WMB route.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Aug 4, 2017 8:32:58 GMT -5
We've strayed pretty far from any discussion of the Reed trade here. If there is any further discussion of Chavis or the state of pitching in our system, please find the appropriate threads for those postings. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 4, 2017 8:34:42 GMT -5
No way do I see the sox playing chavis at the big league level at 1st. Too small. 1st base is a very key defensive position. That's why Moreland plays, because he can help cover for a lot with the infielders. Chavis is also not that good a infielder. Well guess what? The Red Sox are having him learn 1B. They don't agree with you. Nevermind 1B isn't a key defensive position, those are catcher, SS, CF and 3B. 1B is about the least important defensive position there is. We played Hanley there for a whole Year, did it kill our team? Nevermind at this point he has played only 3B basically for us. You have no clue how he would play 1B. He could easily be an average 1B, no one knows till we see him play it. Per this site he has the raw tools to be average at 3B, played SS in high school, along with OF. So it's not like he doesn't have the tools needed play 1B. He's not some slow footed player , that can't catch, run or more well. He has been injured and it's really limited his development time in the field. Moving him off third sure seems like getting him ready to play in the Majors. With Devers at third he needs a new position and 1B is open next year ! Where did you see that the Sox are "having him learn 1B" ?
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 238
|
Post by pd on Aug 4, 2017 9:12:27 GMT -5
Nice outing for Reed last night, 3 ground outs.
|
|
|