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 johnsilver52 on Aug 22, 2013 22:45:35 GMT -5
It's not ideal, but - if any prospect is major league ready with a strong bat but blocked at their ideal position, you may look to use them at another position at least in the short term to improve the team. Obviously that point for Betts is some way off. Under those circumstances, a trade is far better. Otherwise you are reducing the team total value. Moving Mookie to any position other than shortstop would be roughly the equivalent of trading Mookie for a prospect that was the same age but had zero positional experience in a position he doesn't profile well in. Would you trade Mookie for an underpowered corner outfielder with no experience there?* ADD: * Assuming the power doesn't return. One factor is that he's 5'9" not the usual height for corner anything. Remember how valuable Crisp was as a 4th OF in the seasons /06 and 08? Rotating back and forth from backup to starting? PR to steal a base, come in to bunt. Betts could be that guy, only the Sox could maybe get him reps at L/S IF and corner OF positions over the next couple of years and be more valuable and cheaper to keep than Crisp was. Those kind of players don't come around very often and you don't want to give them away in trades, just because the team has a 2b currently locked up for life.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Aug 23, 2013 9:30:04 GMT -5
This kid is starting to show all star type characteristics. Have to imagine he'll be a top 10 spec in our system sooner rather than later. I don't see him being top 10 in the system anytime soon (barring a major trade(s) gutting the system). If that happens (in-addition to), XB, JBJ, Webster, Britton, RDLR, and Workman all losing their prospect eligibility early in 2014, THEN I could potentially see it. He's 24th right now on this site, so I don't think he's necessarily close to Top 10 level in the near future. Not a knock on him, I think he's a fine prospect, there are just a lot of more talented kids in the system ahead of him right now IMO. He's now jumped up to 17....getting closer.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 23, 2013 10:17:54 GMT -5
Under those circumstances, a trade is far better. Otherwise you are reducing the team total value. Moving Mookie to any position other than shortstop would be roughly the equivalent of trading Mookie for a prospect that was the same age but had zero positional experience in a position he doesn't profile well in. Would you trade Mookie for an underpowered corner outfielder with no experience there?* ADD: * Assuming the power doesn't return. One factor is that he's 5'9" not the usual height for corner anything. Remember how valuable Crisp was as a 4th OF in the seasons /06 and 08? Rotating back and forth from backup to starting? PR to steal a base, come in to bunt. Betts could be that guy, only the Sox could maybe get him reps at L/S IF and corner OF positions over the next couple of years and be more valuable and cheaper to keep than Crisp was. Those kind of players don't come around very often and you don't want to give them away in trades, just because the team has a 2b currently locked up for life. I remember Crisp running down that ball and making the last catch in the 07 ALCS. Probably the play I remember most from him. It was a tough catch.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,414
Member is Online
|
Post by ianrs on Aug 23, 2013 10:25:47 GMT -5
Betts really picking it up in August (.377/.455/.571) after a solid, but not great July (.239/.304/.423). His BABIP has even dropped a bit (.322 to .315) in the move from A to A+. K rate has also slightly dipped from 11.8% (A) to 10.1% (A+). Only metric that has significantly decreased is his BB% (from 17.1% in A to 10.1% in A+), but still showing a great batting eye and his performance hasn't suffered at all overall. The number that pops out at me is a .189 ISO from a 20 year old, 5'9 second baseman in A+. Not to mention his incredible stolen base efficiency.
I'm really excited about Betts and never expected him to do what he has thus far. I hope he keeps proving me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 23, 2013 21:29:05 GMT -5
Chuck Norris is scared of Mookie Betts.
5/6, 2-2B, 2 HR, 7 RBI tonight
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 23, 2013 21:36:59 GMT -5
It appears that Zach Mortimer may have uncovered something. Today, after his player of the day performance yesterday, there were 10 walks issued to Salem and Mookie didn't have any of them. He also made an out.
|
|
|
Post by psusox14 on Aug 23, 2013 21:40:09 GMT -5
13 total bases tonight.. Eh sh*t happens
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 23, 2013 23:16:00 GMT -5
Mookie's current line since his promotion to Salem:
42 games 154 AB
.331 / .399 / .565 / .964
17 K / 17 BB
7 HR and 17/17 in stolen base attempts.
Outrageous numbers for any position any age but all the sweeter because he's a second baseman that's three years younger than league average.
Back to back performances are going to garner national attention. Given that and the Eric DaVanPort numbers, a year end top 100 is within reach.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 24, 2013 1:11:03 GMT -5
"Outrageous numbers for any position any age but all the sweeter because he's a second baseman that's three years younger than league average."
Yeah, He's telling the Sox FO he also wants to be a 21YO at Portland next year where his AB's mean something, rather than the 2B AB's going to organizational players like Dent/Gibson and Meneses.
Just how many MiLB players has Boston had the last few years put up these kind of numbers? The kid has earned it and they don't have anyone blocking him for sure that they couldn't cut if that is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Aug 24, 2013 1:57:27 GMT -5
Does Mookie Betts remind anyone else of Donnie Sadler? Each was a physically small, African American, middle infielder. Each was drafted by Boston in early to middle rounds and signed for significant bonus $ at the time. Each showed encouraging signs at short season and then at age 20 each had a breakout year at full season A ball - hitting for good average, taking walks, stealing bases, and showing surprising power. People start talking about each as one of the Sox better prospects- however each's position is already occupied by a top player or prospectat a higher level - so the discussion started about moving each around the diamond to find a place for him to play. In Sadler's case that was the high point of the story. Sadler had his big year at A and then the following year moving up to AA his bat showed pronounced signs of decline. By the time he got to AAA his power had disappeared and his K/BB ratio exploded. He did get a few PAs in the majors as a utility man who could play all of the skill positions but it was a far cry from his early promise. There are a few differences too though. Sadler had his huge year in 1995 and was named by Baseball America as the Sox top prospect (ahead of Nomar even). While Betts has been good he only just now broke onto SoxProspects page 1. I would be shocked if BA names Mookie the Sox number one prospect this year. Betts hit for more power and struck out significantly less than Sadler did in his big year. Sadler never really hit well above A ball. Betts played half a year at A and then moved up to A+ where his bat shows no sign of decline (yet). Even so the comparison does temper my enthusiasm some. Yr | Age | Level
| G | PA | AB | R | H | 2b | 3b | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | BAVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | 1995 | 20 | A | 118 | 529 | 438 | 103 | 124 | 25 | 8 | 9 | 55 | 41 | 13 | 79 | 85 | 283 | 397 | 438 | 836 | 2013 | 20 | A/A+ | 118 | 514 | 431 | 89 | 133 | 33 | 4 | 15 | 59 | 35 | 3 | 75 | 57 | 309 | 412 | 508 | 920 |
www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=sadler001donwww.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=betts-000marwww.thebaseballcube.com/prospects/?T=5&Page=Team
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 24, 2013 2:15:21 GMT -5
I happened to hit the browser tab for this forum on the way to checking the affiliates page, and saw that this thread had been bumped. Hmm, said to myself, Betts must have had another good day. Then I saw the final score ... and then the box.
I was going to make a joke about this discussion not having jinxed him, but then I remembered that the reason why that appears to happen is that we are likeliest to discuss players after they've been lucky, even if only it's what I call "neurological luck" rather than luck on the playing field -- the stretch of a week at the plate, or three or four starts, where a player is getting a good night's sleep, has nothing distracting him, etc., or just has his motor cortex neurons firing in synch for unknown reasons, and therefore is at the top of his game temporarily. Reversion to the mean happens with life circumstances and general neurological functioning, too, and that's why players almost always disappoint somewhat after they grab our attention.
But Betts keeps defying the pattern. He's been a slow starter at both levels, which makes his numbers almost silly.
.150 / .343 / .263 (24 G, 105 PA, 4/5 to 5/5) .355 / .453 / .563 (52 G, 235 PA, 5/7 to 7/7 and promotion) .235 / .284 / .412 (19 G, 75 PA, 7/9 to 7/29) .407 / .485 / .686 (23 G, 99 PA, 7/30 to 8/23)
In theory you could trade him in a year or two to a team that needs a 2B and has an equally good and equally MLB-ready blocked OF prospect, but those are much rarer than blocked infield prospects, because the conversions between OF positions are easier, and right now, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's a shortage of good outfielders. The Wil Myers deal, and rumors about Stanton and Cespedes notwithstanding, it's going to be very hard to trade for a good young OFer, which is one of the reasons I think that re-signing Ellsbury has to be a major priority.
Moving a 2B to an OF corner is exactly the same, in terms of lost offensive value, as moving a 3B to 1B -- 11.5 R/150. That's pretty substantial. However, you're likely to recover some of that by improved defense.
I like the idea of Betts learning all the skill positions. Trivia question (answer below): which 5'10" 2B-by-trade once put up 15.6 bWAR over a three-season stretch without ever starting more than 61 games in a season at any one position?
You could use Betts as the starting LF but have him double as the backup MI, and then have that bench spot taken by an OF/1B type. So when your 3B, SS, or 2B was out, you'd be putting a potent bat into the lineup instead of a Ciriaco or Holt-level one. That would recover a good chunk of the lost value, and if you suffered a major injury at 2B or 3B, you'd be in hugely better shape.
I know that this is the wrong place to say I think he ranks 13th in the system (15th at worst), including De La Rosa who should really be a post-prospect, so I'll save that for a detailed ranking and analysis when the season is over.
Answer: Tony Phillips, who, by the way, was a nothing prospect, with no power and little apparent speed.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 24, 2013 8:16:07 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I love this theoretical (but plausible) scenario of Betts reaching his ceiling and playing multiple positions to find himself a roster spot. But if he keeps moving up that learning curve and is putting up similar numbers at higher levels next year then he's really going to seem some national attention. Couldn't we also make the argument that he could be used to swap for a top outfield prospect, or packaged up for some pitching? If he adds more value as a full time starting 2nd baseman then that may be the case.
Like I said, I love the ideal of a player with so much positional versatility and offense that he gets 400 at-bats a year as a "bench type" I guess I'm just wondering which might be more valuable. If he did become "that player" it also leaves room on the roster at other positions (can never have enough pitching). And could he even have plus defense at other positions as well? but I suspect that if he keeps developing the way he does and is regarded as a MLB starting 2nd baseman in a year or two then he might hold more value playing on another team. Of course a lot can happen in two years so this may be a bit premature.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Aug 24, 2013 8:52:56 GMT -5
First off, I love Dustin Pedroia. As a 5 foot 7 former center fielder with an all star glove, a minor league bat and a very Johnny Damonesque arm I am always rooting for the "midgets" and no one plays the game any better (in terms of heart, desire and truth) than Pedroia who is borderline HOF imo. But because of his style he is one slide into first (really needs to cut that out) or one take out while on the pivot away from a career altering or ending injury. He's also now 30 and those nagging injuries mount up and heal more slowly - note his power drain likely caused by his thumb injury.
With it likely that Jacoby Ellsbury is gone next year to be replaced by JBJ, the Sox gain some D and lose some speed. Now it's way early, but Betts appears to have the POTENTIAL to replace the speed and be the insurance to provide excellent up the middle D that Pedroia gives with maybe something approaching 85-90% of DP's offense. Betts is young and at least a couple of years away and it just seems to me the Sox would be very foolish to think about moving him for an outfielder or a pitcher (given the depth of pitching developing on the farm) unless you are talking in a package for a YOUNG and proven top of the line MLB player.
In my former life we had a saying that "you don't sell lottery tickets" and right now Mookie Betts is beginning to look like the kind of ticket you just might want to keep around.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 24, 2013 9:13:23 GMT -5
Hence "a lot can happen in two years" and we all know A LOT can happen in two years. I'm just speculating on what may come 2-3 years down the road and how he develops can have a HUGE impact on that. I also don't think moving a blocked prospect for an organizational weakness is foolish (for the record I'd want YOUNG pitching or hitting). But I'm not trying nor do I want to steer this conversation into trade proposals so I apologize. Until then I'm just enjoying watching this kid develop.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Aug 24, 2013 9:41:02 GMT -5
Our 2011 draft class is just stupid good.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 24, 2013 9:51:47 GMT -5
Hence "a lot can happen in two years" and we all know A LOT can happen in two years. I'm just speculating on what may come 2-3 years down the road and how he develops can have a HUGE impact on that. I also don't think moving a blocked prospect for an organizational weakness is foolish (for the record I'd want YOUNG pitching or hitting). But I'm not trying nor do I want to steer this conversation into trade proposals so I apologize. Until then I'm just enjoying watching this kid develop. Not to advocate this, but there's always the "sell high" rationale in opposition. In a perfect World, you want to keep the Dustin Pedroias and sell the Lars Andersons at their peak value. Right now, Betts may be forcing himself toward a conundrum like this. Other current prospects in various stages of this conundrum: Middlebrooks, Owens, Ranaudo, Britton, Brentz (WMB and Brentz are perhaps already past their freshness date)
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Aug 24, 2013 10:26:29 GMT -5
Skipped..... Moving a 2B to an OF corner is exactly the same, in terms of lost offensive value, as moving a 3B to 1B -- 11.5 R/150. That's pretty substantial. However, you're likely to recover some of that by improved defense. ......Skipped I understand the theoretical concept and the idea that if you didn't have to field a lesser offensive player for a position you could potentially find a player that can play at or above the offensive level for that position. But if you are trading a 2B player for a OF player with equivalent offensive production vs you are moving said 2B player to an OF position and he continues to put up the same stats, what offensive value will you lose? Since that "other" player may not be available in all cases I wonder the practical value of this "loss of offensive value" theory. Can any one point me to a link that talks about it in a practical sense?
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Aug 24, 2013 11:09:05 GMT -5
Our 2011 draft class is just stupid good. The 2010-2013 drafts were spectacular compared to Jason McLeod's last draft in 2009.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,968
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 24, 2013 11:10:27 GMT -5
Does Mookie Betts remind anyone else of Donnie Sadler? ... There are a few differences too though. Sadler had his huge year in 1995 and was named by Baseball America as the Sox top prospect (ahead of Nomar even). While Betts has been good he only just now broke onto SoxProspects page 1. I would be shocked if BA names Mookie the Sox number one prospect this year..... Sadler had a great arm and cartoon-like speed and seemed to have the potential to be a superb Pokey-Reese-type SS--enough to have him rank much higher than a similarly diminutive 2b. Duke thought he could be the answer at 21 to the major league hole in CF with just a little work, and I always thought that mucking around with him in that way (even popping him up to Boston for a head-turning look at Fenway) helped screw up his development. The Michigan Battle Cats of 95-97 had just a ton of players who looked like they would be great or good but were not (or not for us, e.g, R. Betancourt): Sadler, Chamblee, Coleman, Liniak, Sapp, Veras, Barnes, Lomasney, Hillenbrand, Paxton Crawford, Pavano, Rose, Pena, Kinney, Reitsma, Duchscherer.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Aug 24, 2013 11:18:54 GMT -5
I love the Donnie Sadler comparison. Donnie had what I call single A pitch recognition with great skills. I hope Betts has a better eye, which I think he does. Betts in two to three years could bring a lot of value to the Red Sox. Dustin will need a few days off at 2b where he could sit or DH. In fact Betts could be a super utility players for us at first before finding a permanent position. With his talent there is always a spot for such a player. I hope he keeps progressing next year like this year. If he does he'll be in our top ten next year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 24, 2013 11:20:59 GMT -5
Skipped..... Moving a 2B to an OF corner is exactly the same, in terms of lost offensive value, as moving a 3B to 1B -- 11.5 R/150. That's pretty substantial. However, you're likely to recover some of that by improved defense. ......Skipped I understand the theoretical concept and the idea that if you didn't have to field a lesser offensive player for a position you could potentially find a player that can play at or above the offensive level for that position. But if you are trading a 2B player for a OF player with equivalent offensive production vs you are moving said 2B player to an OF position and he continues to put up the same stats, what offensive value will you lose? Since that "other" player may not be available in all cases I wonder the practical value of this "loss of offensive value" theory. Can any one point me to a link that talks about it in a practical sense? I think you are misunderstanding the concept. You wouldn't trade Mookie for an outfielder with equivalent offensive production, you would trade Mookie for an outfielder with equivalent offensive production relative to the position. Simplifying, all other factors equal, if Mookie was projected to be a 10% better than average hitting second baseman, you would hypothetically trade for an outfielder that was a 10% better than average hitting outfielder. The average outfielder hits better than the average second baseman. Let's look at the other side of the picture to see why another team would do that. If hypothetically, the Sox don't sign Salty and if the catching prospects all failed, in two years, we could easily need a catcher. If we still had Petey being Petey, wouldn't it make sense to trade Mookie for a catcher that was a 10% better hitter than the average catcher even if the catcher wasn't as good a hitter as Mookie ?? Remember, all other things being equal.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 24, 2013 14:07:48 GMT -5
I'm thinking that if you took a player, named him player X, gave him the tools as described in Mookie's scouting report and gave him the skills as derived from his stats (specifically, batting eye, plate discipline, base running & pitch recognition) that a case could easily be made for a 7 ceiling and borderline 8, not 6 as Mookie is currently rated.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Aug 24, 2013 14:31:57 GMT -5
I'm thinking that if you took a player, named him player X, gave him the tools as described in Mookie's scouting report and gave him the skills as derived from his stats (specifically, batting eye, plate discipline, base running & pitch recognition) that a case could easily be made for a 7 ceiling and borderline 8, not 6 as Mookie is currently rated. I think that projecting talent is an imperfect science. You can project guys on raw talent, and physical projection but you never truly know how that guy will move up the learning curve and if he is capable of pushing and expanding the parameters of his inherent talent. Some players end up being so much more than they appear to be at a younger age and perhaps MOOKIE is that guy. But for me he is going to have to continue to show what he has this year in the upper minors before we start considering him a significantly higher talent than he is now. So far so good....but he needs to continue this into next year. The way I look at it, if he's nothing more than good UIF then he may have an important role on this team in the future as a back up defender and speedy guy off the bench with some gap power. If he continues this eyes opening breakout and he is more than we ever expected of him....then his value is only going to get higher. Either way you look at it, it makes more sense to hold onto him and see how he progresses. Although I wouldn't be surprised if in 1.5 to 2 years from now over in the trade proposal forum we are talking about swapping this guy with another team. But a lot can happen from now to then, he could flame out, or DP could get eaten by a shark thus opening up the job for MOOKIE.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 24, 2013 14:44:53 GMT -5
Your talking about the probability of obtaining a ceiling vs his current level. I'm talking about the ceiling itself. I am aware that his current level of development make obtaining his ceiling a low probability likelihood, nonetheless, those tools and skills are a combination that could easily be that of a guy that makes an all star team or even be a perennial all star.
I didn't say his current level is that, nor would I until after he's in the majors. There's clearly a very long road ahead that's going to have lots of bumps and pot holes. The odds that he even makes the majors is far smaller than the odds that he doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 24, 2013 19:50:31 GMT -5
So far we've got him changing position like you change your underwear, traded off multiple times, and a perennial all-star. Might be good to keep expectations in check. Even the equivalency projections are based on a very small sample size. Remember this is A+, no more no less, and streaks, including very hot streaks come and go. It's easy to find players who kill at that level and who experience real growing pains moving forward. Betts has met and exceeded expectations so far, let's leave it at that for now. He's got a very long way to go to be ready for any sort of ML action.
One test, for me, will be how he reacts as pitchers decide to work him off the plate given how zoned in he is. If his OBP rises even as the average drops a little that's a very good sign.
|
|
|