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.
The Big Bad Mookie Betts Thread
|
Post by oilcansman on Apr 16, 2014 9:16:55 GMT -5
Mookie could be part of a package the lands Stanton at the end of next season or a top of the rotation starter. Peddy's blocking Mookie. If Mookie could play ss or 3b for the sox he'd be there now because of the Peddy factor. If they see his future in OF now's the time to move him.
Sox aren't going to reduce Mookie's trade value by moving him away from middle of the diamond. Since there's a dearth of power in the Sox system it makes sense to use Mookie to fill the future Ortiz void. Other than Owens, who still isn't a sure thing, I don't see a top of the rotation starter in the minor league system. Since Lester has a pretty good chance at leaving in free agency, that could be a major issue soon.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 16, 2014 11:03:14 GMT -5
I'm going to agree, Betts has a very slim chance of making the mlb team this year, and that chance is in September. I also don't think burning a 40 man spot is wise if you were expecting it to be short stint and Brock Holt is in AAA.
For me I would like to see one of two paths for Betts. Either be moved to SS or developed into a Ben Zobrist type player, who could handle 2B, SS, and 3B and not kill us if he gets some starts in the OF. I think trading him would be a dumb move, as most teams would want to discount the one year sample size as much as possible and value him lower.
Here's my question for the board. What is next for Mookie? What does he have to do this year to move him from a fringe 100 prospect to a top 25? What is he doing wrong, what does he need to work on, what can he do better? I really don't get to watch him much, but from reports/highlights he seems to have it all.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2014 11:12:37 GMT -5
He just has to keep producing like he did last year. In particular, if he continues to show that the power is legit, he could easily vault up into that first or second tier of prospects. Scouts are already pretty bullish on his batspeed, plate discipline, and athleticism, but a few of the offseason scouting reports doubted whether the power is sustainable (indeed, Betts himself admitted the power kind of came out of nowhere).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 16, 2014 12:42:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so quick to try to move Betts, even in a deal for Stanton (and as much as I really, really like Stanton he seems to be talked about as if he were a young Manny Ramirez, but he's not). This might sound strange, but I have very little desire to risk top prospects such as Betts, Cecchini, and Owens for Stanton. I think Stanton will eventually put up consistently excellent production (he will win some HR titles and hit 35 - 45 HRs in his peak seasons) as time goes on, but I wouldn't risk those guys to see if that happens. I would risk a draft pick and a lot of money on him though.
The thing is that I think Mookie Betts can be very valuable on the Red Sox, whether he's playing SS or more likely a corner OF spot. Watching the Red Sox leadoff hitters struggle I think eventually Mookie can solve that issue. He'd be a high OBP kind of guy WITH speed. Watching the Red Sox struggle to score runs it's not lost on me that they're missing 70 SB and speed on the bases with the loss of Ellsbury and with Victorino on the DL. The current Red Sox are pretty slow and sludgy on the bases this year and it's harder for the Sox to score with just two singles than it was last year. They could reall use Betts' skills set.
Add to that what Cecchini brings (high OBP and like Betts, ability to wear down a pitcher) and what Owens could bring to the rotation I wouldn't give that up for a few years of Stanton.
However once those guys are up in the majors and are starting to hit their stride, I can't think of another free agent I'd rather sign to drive those guys in than Stanton, especially given how risky pitchers are.
|
|
|
Post by mrnewengland on Apr 16, 2014 13:13:09 GMT -5
I seem to remember Youkilis going directly from AA to MLB and not playing in AAA until after he was sent down.
I have done no research to back this up so I am basing this on my terrible memory.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Apr 16, 2014 13:28:07 GMT -5
I seem to remember Youkilis going directly from AA to MLB and not playing in AAA until after he was sent down. I have done no research to back this up so I am basing this on my terrible memory. Youk began the 2004 season in AAA before being called up to the bigs for the first time on May 14.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 16, 2014 13:46:41 GMT -5
Josh Reddick was called up directly from Portland in 2009 (but not till July 31, and I think he had ended 2008 there as well). There were a couple of relievers (Bard?) as well at some point iirc.
Also, the Sox have been more willing to put talented but less polished players at Pawtucket the last couple of years. Part of that is having the top of the system stacked, and the 40-man filled with more prospects as well. There may also be an element of the Eastern League not being quite as strong as it was for a while, so the Sox feel that the final development needs to be in AAA (and the majors).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 16, 2014 14:03:24 GMT -5
The Red Sox also called Reddick up far, far before he was ready, and he was a total disaster. He ended up burning an option too young and the Red Sox sold low on him. So Reddick might not be the best example to throw out there if you are pro-Betts.
The Red Sox have had a much different approach with pitchers. Bard, Buchholz, Hansen, Abe Alvarez, Masterson, and probably others who I can't think of off the top of my head all had fairly short stays before making their major league debut.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Apr 16, 2014 14:10:13 GMT -5
The Red Sox also called Reddick up far, far before he was ready, and he was a total disaster. He ended up burning an option too young and the Red Sox sold low on him. So Reddick might not be the best example to throw out there if you are pro-Betts. The Red Sox have had a much different approach with pitchers. Bard, Buchholz, Hansen, Abe Alvarez, Masterson, and probably others who I can't think of off the top of my head all had fairly short stays before making their major league debut. Didn't Hillenbrand make it out of AA or was he in his 2nd year?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 16, 2014 14:11:26 GMT -5
Reddick was called up to Portland in July 2008. He was called up to Boston just over a year later in July 2009.
Hillenbrand was promoted to Double-A during the 1999 season and debuted in the majors on opening day in 2001. And he was under the previous regime anyway - I'm more interested in the approach of the Epsterington Era.
And again, this is only position players. I think the calculus for pitchers is different, like James references.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 16, 2014 14:25:42 GMT -5
The Red Sox also called Reddick up far, far before he was ready, and he was a total disaster. He ended up burning an option too young and the Red Sox sold low on him. So Reddick might not be the best example to throw out there if you are pro-Betts. The Red Sox have had a much different approach with pitchers. Bard, Buchholz, Hansen, Abe Alvarez, Masterson, and probably others who I can't think of off the top of my head all had fairly short stays before making their major league debut. I don't think you can say Reddick wasn't ready after about a month long sample size at that point of games (see Pedroia, Dustin, 2006). I think they had a need, and they figured it wouldn't set him back to call him up. In reality, he's been the same guy in Oakland that he was here, so I think it's more about undervaluing his power (in relationship to patience) than selling low (at a time when everyone was wary of making any deal with Theo). Also, to be clear, I am not an advocate of promoting Betts to Boston at this time, though I wish I could be.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Apr 16, 2014 16:26:55 GMT -5
I don't think you can say Reddick wasn't ready after about a month long sample size at that point of games (see Pedroia, Dustin, 2006). I think they had a need, and they figured it wouldn't set him back to call him up. In reality, he's been the same guy in Oakland that he was here, so I think it's more about undervaluing his power (in relationship to patience) than selling low (at a time when everyone was wary of making any deal with Theo). Also, to be clear, I am not an advocate of promoting Betts to Boston at this time, though I wish I could be. I think theo was good with building the player development system and knowing the strengths of his players and possibly holding the line (mostly) with player (re)signings. I didn't think he was that effective with trades. Always thought he had to overpay to get what he wanted compared to other GM's for trades.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Apr 17, 2014 9:35:11 GMT -5
If someone has time (I DEFINITELY don't, but I don't think it's as hard as it sounds), it would be interesting to see if anyone has done Double-A debut and MLB debut within a calendar year. Bogaerts, for example, came up just short, debuting in AA on 8/9/12 and in MLB on 8/20/13. The takeaway, however, from the fact that this regime has literally never promoted a player to Boston in the year that he makes his Double-A debut is significant in that, while it's not necessarily completely unrealistic for Betts to make it to the majors this year, it's improbable enough that predicting it to happen is kind of silly. .... EDIT: Jackie Bradley, duh. Ok, maybe that first part isn't as rare as I thought. I think there's a two-edged point here - one, that it almost never happens, and so I agree it's foolish to expect it -- but two, that Betts' results over the past year have been so extroardinary that it's foolish to bet against it, unless you have money to lose. (And a third, which you mention, that the initial ML results may not be great.) Personally, I'm not a betting man! Realistically, the biggest hurdle for Betts reaching the majors this season is not in excelling at AA and AAA, which is entirely plausible, but the dreary business of 40-man roster spots, options, and the arbitration clock.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 17, 2014 13:41:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so quick to try to move Betts, even in a deal for Stanton (and as much as I really, really like Stanton he seems to be talked about as if he were a young Manny Ramirez, but he's not). This might sound strange, but I have very little desire to risk top prospects such as Betts, Cecchini, and Owens for Stanton. I think Stanton will eventually put up consistently excellent production (he will win some HR titles and hit 35 - 45 HRs in his peak seasons) as time goes on, but I wouldn't risk those guys to see if that happens. I would risk a draft pick and a lot of money on him though. I agree with this. I used to be high on Stanton, but I think he may not turn out to be as great as expected. He has a build that usually results in injuries, especially a little later. Players his size usually have shorter careers than more average sized players. He already has had some injuries. His future probably is not in the OF but at 1B or DH. He could be another Ortiz if he can keep healthy. Betts appears to have the possibility of being one of those once in a generation players and I would hold off a while before considering trading him. After reading the excellent piece today on Cecchini and Vasquez, I wouldn't consider trading either of them, either, but I would move Cecchini to 1B at the earliest opportunity. If he naturally moves to his right much better than to his left, then he's going to be a better 1B than 3B.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 17, 2014 15:05:28 GMT -5
Betts looks like he is cruising to a top 25 BA prospect level already. All he needs to do is come close to what he has done over the past year. He is extremely toolsy and they are big on tools.
Edit: I can see him having solid doubles power and the ability to get on base and make things happen. He could be an excellent #1 or 2 slot hitter. Leadoff guys are valuable as well as being a middle infielder. He's probably better defensively at SS than Lowrie was and he has had a decent career so far as a SS, but I don't see him at SS or he would be there already.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 17, 2014 18:31:06 GMT -5
Is that all he needs to do? He just needs to continue to destroy opposing teams in every way possible while playing in AA and. AAA
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Apr 19, 2014 19:17:42 GMT -5
Well Betts' "slump"(2 for 7)is over, he's 3 for 3 so far tonight with 2 runs scored. He needs to face Henry Owens and the winner gets to go to Pawtucket. Never mind, he was just called out on strikes on a 3-2 pitch (not quite as egregious as calling a third strike on Teddy Ballgame, but clearly someone needs to give blue an eye test.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Apr 19, 2014 20:14:52 GMT -5
now are you happy? (9th)
|
|
|
Post by gosox1 on Apr 19, 2014 22:55:55 GMT -5
Hate to say goodbye to mookie but everyday and 2x in Sunday I throw him in for Stanton. No brainer. Stanton has always been a player waiting to explode. He's showing it this year. Bye mookie
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 20, 2014 2:38:04 GMT -5
Hate to say goodbye to mookie but everyday and 2x in Sunday I throw him in for Stanton. No brainer. Stanton has always been a player waiting to explode. He's showing it this year. Bye mookie The one question I have about Stanton, the same one that's been mentioned, is the physical profile. Baseball history is littered with players who have that profile and who fall off a cliff at a relatively young age. Dale Murphy is the poster child for the type, but there are dozens of examples. I'd be a little cautious about trading half the farm system, which is about what it will take.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 20, 2014 3:09:12 GMT -5
Everyone has an opinion, here's mine. To me, Stanton and Heyward profile similarly, have somewhat similar histories and are basically in the same situation with their teams in terms of likelihood to be traded. (Heyward is signed but only through his arbitration years). Stanton is off to a hot start and Heyward is off to a Nava-like start.
There are two distinct risks with trading for either. First, the risk of the prospects you trade. The second risk comes with the contract that you would have to give either for trade to be made. To me, both players have albatross contract potential because neither has both the power and the hit tool and neither has plate discipline.
For long term planning, if we're looking at a position crunch, I'd rather wait a year and go for the bigger prize, McCutchen. I doubt if the Pirates are going to be able to afford him either. Yes, it will take more prospects but on the other hand, the prospects we would have used to go for Stanton or Heyward should also be worth one year's development more.
ADD: And it wouldn't necessarily include Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 20, 2014 3:22:15 GMT -5
Last year's team showed that a group of solid overall players can absolutely dominate. I would break the bank for 1-2 star players but overall do that in free agency on a selective basis, not trade 2-3 cost controlled potential starters like Cechinni, Betts and Swihart. So far Betts has put up Ellsbury type AA numbers. He is potentially a very special player.That is the kind of guy the team should try to keep because he is a potential star. Let's face it, he probably already has passed Swihart, Cechinni, JBJ on the prospect chart. That could change of course but as of right now, he is our untouchable. EDIT: Just for kicks, compare the mookster with Ellsbury at the A and AA levels. Overall, Mookie is younger, with better numbers, including even better SB numbers. And so far his power numbers are much better, www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=ellsbu001jacHe profiles as plus offense, plus defense and plus baserunner. His current wRC+ is an ungodly 213. Mookie's comp is potentially better than Ellsbury's according to the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Apr 20, 2014 3:54:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 20, 2014 8:12:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Apr 20, 2014 9:49:07 GMT -5
Hate to say goodbye to mookie but everyday and 2x in Sunday I throw him in for Stanton. No brainer. Stanton has always been a player waiting to explode. He's showing it this year. Bye mookie And what has Stanton done? Oh is he the one that hits the LONG Home runs? Do they count as 2 or 3 runs or just 1? Does he play great defense? Is he always healthy? Wait I know, is that the guy that averages over a K per game lifetime? So his approach is to swing as hard as hell and hope I make contact? Look Stanton is a HR hitter and that's it, he is no OBP machine a la Dunn or an RBI machine. He is a good young power hitter. There's no need for the Red Sox to sell the farm for someone who will most likely win a Body Building championship over an MVP. Yes I know he plays in Florida and he has no help and he is only 24 yrs. old (25 in November) but I rather wait, lose a pick and lots of cash (free agency) than give up on someone as good as Mookie or anyone else for that matter.
|
|
|