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 tonyc on Oct 17, 2014 14:01:53 GMT -5
Given Mookie's tremendous potential, which Eric has statistically projected comparisons for and Klaw has scouted, you simply cannot get sufficient value for him in a trade given also his cost control. Therefore he is untouchable, as Bogaerts should be as well. This is the opposite of Giancarlo, who if entered into the trade market with his established credentials, and off the roof salary will require an over-payment of prospects and finance.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 17, 2014 16:00:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty convinced Mookie isn't going anywhere. Neither is Bogaerts, or Swihart, for that matter. Those three guys have all the appearances of a core of some really, really good teams, solid young up-the-middle offensive talent with decent power. That's classic baseball-team construction.
Of course, without at least one of those guys, you ain't getting Stanton, but I think we can shelve that little dream, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 18, 2014 9:13:26 GMT -5
I moved some Swihart-centric posts to another thread.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Nov 29, 2014 13:12:36 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else,so I thought I'd throw it out there.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding whether Mookie Betts can play SS or 3B, but I think this is really two questions:
1. Can Mookie play SS or 3B well enough to add value playing the position 100 to 150 games a year? Other than the fact that there doesn't appear to be much Mookie can't do on a baseball field there isn't really any evidence he can. I wouldn't be counting on him as the starting SS or 3B if I were the Red Sox (and obviously they're not).
2. Can Mookie play SS or 3B well enough to add value playing the position 10 to 20 games a year. Again, we don't know, but there's not much to lose trying.
I was looking over Major League rosters and was surprised at how many at bats way below average hitters get, even on good teams. Some of these players are weak hitters with great gloves, and some of these are young players teams are investing in. But most of these at bats are going to bench players filling in for injured players or to give other players a day off. A super-utility player who plays all three outfield positions and another 30 to 50 games at 3B, SS, 2B (Pedroia's on my side of 30 now, he could use a few more days off) wouldn't be replacing an average player; he would be replacing at bats currently going to well below average players.
Such a player may be even more valuable than we think.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 29, 2014 15:24:25 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else,so I thought I'd throw it out there. There has been a lot of discussion regarding whether Mookie Betts can play SS or 3B, but I think this is really two questions: 1. Can Mookie play SS or 3B well enough to add value playing the position 100 to 150 games a year? Other than the fact that there doesn't appear to be much Mookie can't do on a baseball field there isn't really any evidence he can. I wouldn't be counting on him as the starting SS or 3B if I were the Red Sox (and obviously they're not). 2. Can Mookie play SS or 3B well enough to add value playing the position 10 to 20 games a year. Again, we don't know, but there's not much to lose trying. I was looking over Major League rosters and was surprised at how many at bats way below average hitters get, even on good teams. Some of these players are weak hitters with great gloves, and some of these are young players teams are investing in. But most of these at bats are going to bench players filling in for injured players or to give other players a day off. A super-utility player who plays all three outfield positions and another 30 to 50 games at 3B, SS, 2B (Pedroia's on my side of 30 now, he could use a few more days off) wouldn't be replacing an average player; he would be replacing at bats currently going to well below average players. Such a player may be even more valuable than we think. Your #2 fits with two of my ideas: do not trade Victorino, and quite possibly trade Holt. The idea is that Mookie is both your regular CF or RF, and your backup infielder. That allows you to keep Victorino, Craig, and Nava. Perhaps Victorino is your regular RF, and Castillo is your 10th man, who plays all three OF positions, playing whenever anyone other than Napoli or Vazquez is out of the lineup. (How you backup Ortiz depends on Hanley's LF defense; if it's good enough, the Nava / Craig platoon would back up Ortiz, rather than having Hanley DH while Castillo plays LF.) Alternately, Castillo is in CF and Betts is in RF, and the Nava / Craig platoon backs up 1B, LF, and DH, while Victorino backs up RF, and (via Mookie moving) CF, 2B, SS, and 3B. You might start the season like that and then give Victorino the regular RF job if he hits well enough. Of course, you could also use Hanley as the backup SS or 3B, but Mookie may well be as good a defender there, and keeping Hanley in LF would allow him to concentrate on learning it. The bottom line is that Mookie has infield skills, and as you point out, they may well be good enough on the left side of the infield to fill a backup role (Holt isn't particularly good there, either). If he can do that, you are getting a lot more value from him, you are getting value from Holt by selling high on him, perhaps to a team that wants him as a regular 2B, and you solve your vexing OF logjam problem (assuming Cespedes is traded for a P). The second bottom line is that the fact that Hanley can also be the backup SS and 3B, and the fact that Jemile Weeks would not at all suck as the backup SS / 3B, means that they can trade Holt this winter with relatively little risk. The worst case scenario is that you discover in ST that Mookie can't play even play an adequate SS and 3B, Hanley is struggling enough to learn LF that also using him at SS and 3B seems like a bad idea, and so you have to trade one of Nava, Craig, or Victorino to make room for Weeks as the backup MI. Well, trading one of Nava, Craig, and Victorino in ST seems like the logical way to solve the OF logjam in any case. And there are people here who have wanted to sell high on Holt anyway, and thus presumably go with someone like Weeks as the backup MI. When your plan C is the equivalent of a best choice combined with some people's pet smart idea, you're not taking on much risk.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 29, 2014 15:27:55 GMT -5
The Red Sox have given every indication, up to and including a $90m contract, that they don't see Mookie as a left side infielder. It's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 29, 2014 15:32:36 GMT -5
It takes time to learn how to field two positions that Mookie hasn't played in years (or ever, in the case of 3B), time that would be better spent learning the outfield and adjusting to major-league-caliber pitching. In theory, it would be great if every player learned how to play every defensive position he had the physical tools to handle at a decent level, but that doesn't happen because teaching guys new positions is difficult and time-consuming. Guys like Brock Holt are the extreme exceptions, and there's a reason that there aren't more than a half-dozen guys in the league who can credibly play all of SS/2B/3B as well as the outfield.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 29, 2014 17:12:34 GMT -5
I think it would be a mistake to try to play Betts in multiple positions. It's not that he can't play them, it is just likely to diminish his ability to concentrate on his greatest skill - hitting.
I think he should be settled into RF and the lead-off position and allowed to do his thing. I think he will hit over .300 this year with maybe 15 HRs and 30-40 SBs. And that's just the beginning. He will be as good, or better, than Ellsbury.
It just doesn't make sense to alter his concentration by having him switching focus on multiple positions.
Also, it isn't really necessary. The Sox have filled out their starting lineup, and all that is left is to settle the bench, and reduce the number of outfielders on the 25-man roster.
Management energies now should be devoted to fixing the pitching, without giving up either Betts or Bogaerts or Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonstah on Nov 29, 2014 17:57:59 GMT -5
Not loving the Sandoval and Ramirez signings, as we clearly should have focused on rebuilding and developing our talent this year. I'm not going to be pleased if this little spending spree results in Betts being dealt or having his development messed up.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Dec 1, 2014 12:08:47 GMT -5
So I've seen/heard this "Mookie has an erratic arm" meme a couple of times recently, and you can be sure that the purveyors have absolutely no first-hand knowledge to make such a claim. Is there any legitimacy to the claim? I'm sure there are multiple posters here who have actually seen him play infield in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Dec 1, 2014 13:36:02 GMT -5
Not loving the Sandoval and Ramirez signings, as we clearly should have focused on rebuilding and developing our talent this year. I'm not going to be pleased if this little spending spree results in Betts being dealt or having his development messed up. What's not to love? Betts isn't going anywhere, and the deal doesn't compel them to trade any of the kids. The Sox ventured into the unknown last year and gave starting jobs to kids. The vets failed and kids struggled and the season was a failure. I don't see Sox leadership accepting any question marks this year, not with what they've already assembled. Hanley and Pablo allow them to continue developing these kids at multiple positions. At best, that may enhance their chances of getting time in Boston, at worst it increases their worth in future trades. They also increase the depth chart on the squad. The Sox are at least 3 levels deep with ML average or better players at almost every position. Bill James has spoken often about playing time in position and I think it's a much bigger variable than many of us believe. The Sox now have the depth at most every position to compete in the marathon of a season.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Dec 1, 2014 13:40:35 GMT -5
So I've seen/heard this "Mookie has an erratic arm" meme a couple of times recently, and you can be sure that the purveyors have absolutely no first-hand knowledge to make such a claim. Is there any legitimacy to the claim? I'm sure there are multiple posters here who have actually seen him play infield in the minors. Granted it's not a big sample, but I've witnessed him make a fair amount imperfect throws to first while playing second base. The strength itself seems plenty serviceable for a shortstop, but the accuracy was off the mark a bit, although not crazily wild or anything. I was a huge advocate for the Sox trying him out at shortstop or third base, as I didn't think there'd be much to loose, but at this point, that ship has sailed. We now have a solid third baseman entrenched for next few years, and all indications are that Bogaerts isn't going anywhere, and the Sox certainly aren't shifting his position any time soon. You also have to give credence to the idea that the Sox had similar thoughts as us about where to work Mookie in, and, using superior information, decided to pass on such an experiment. Really, at this point, it's probably best that we give the Mookie-to-SS talks a breather.
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Apr 13, 2015 9:03:48 GMT -5
Pretty cool article by Jerry Crasnick on Mookie today. Nothing really new for SP.com types, but some fun insight into his family, which is jammed packed with athletes, his ultra competitiveness, and superior athletic ability. Few quotes from teammates and other players around the league as well. ESPN.com
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Apr 14, 2015 7:08:25 GMT -5
Isn't it great to have a lead off hitter once again! Remember last year when it was thought that the lead off spot could be productive if manned by the likes of Nava, Gomes, Sizemore, Bradley, Victorino. And how long it took to finally settle in on Holt. Of course by then the team was out of it. The Big Bad Mookie Betts just might end up being this years Team MVP
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Apr 14, 2015 9:06:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Apr 14, 2015 9:22:51 GMT -5
in my opinion it reads as if Cafardo is saying this has been his position all along. I get the impression that Cafardo doesn't really have a position, he just writes stuff as he goes.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 14, 2015 11:55:13 GMT -5
I'd agree Mike, that's the implicit read on the column. Hard to know what to think at this point. He's been insistent that Hamels was necessary, and the first quote is a not so subtle suggestion that Betts would be the piece needed to do it. The second seems to be a tacit admission that it wasn't such a good idea, but without any acknowledgement of how he'd lobbied for just that. I'd call it back pedaling, except there's no "back" to pedal back too, not in that column.
I think one of the issues with Cafardo is that he doesn't seem to have much familiarity with the minor league system. There were many potential gets for the Phillies that didn't include Betts, Swihhart, or Owens, yet those possibilities were never broached. That sort of analysis would have put his reporting at a higher level. It would also have given his readers a better understanding of how deep the Sox are in position players in the lower minors, and in AAA pitching.
The effect is to make him out as a fairly harsh critic of the FO, but one who may not carry much weight given that shallow knowledge base.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 14, 2015 12:14:01 GMT -5
Just devil's advocate here but I think Nick would probably argue that the above paragraph does not necessarily translate to, "I would trade Betts for Hamels." It's quite possible he wrote that or said it somewhere else, I wouldn't know as I wouldn't read a word he writes unless it's a trade rumor or something.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 14, 2015 12:14:13 GMT -5
In all fairness, I don't think anyone on this site has ever accused Cafardo of temperance, foresight, sense, or accountability. His approach to evaluating situations is clearly emotional, reactionary, and under-informed, which is basically perfect for sports writing since his target demographic has similar traits. I'm pretty sure that knowledgable fans only read his articles for comic relief.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,405
|
Post by ianrs on Apr 14, 2015 13:21:59 GMT -5
Of course Cafardo backtracks without admitting it. No surprise there.
Its really funny to go back to the first pages of this thread to see the Mookie doubters and the cautious optimism. His rise truly was meteoric, at the time of the thread creation he was ranked behind Kolbrin Vitek on SP. We were all skeptics at some point, but Cafardo is very late to the Mookie train.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,809
|
Post by wcp3 on Apr 14, 2015 13:39:34 GMT -5
I give you guys lots of credit for grinding your way through Cafardo articles. That's not an easy thing to do.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Apr 14, 2015 15:11:22 GMT -5
Of course Cafardo backtracks without admitting it. No surprise there. Its really funny to go back to the first pages of this thread to see the Mookie doubters and the cautious optimism. His rise truly was meteoric, at the time of the thread creation he was ranked behind Kolbrin Vitek on SP. We were all skeptics at some point, but Cafardo is very late to the Mookie train. Yes, I was doing that too earlier today. It's fun to read now ... unless you were a doubter then and have no sense of humor now! :-) The thread is less than 5 weeks short of it's 2nd birthday. We should have a party for it next month.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 14, 2015 15:21:18 GMT -5
Only way I would read a Cafardo article is if it got me an additional free one from Speier.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 14, 2015 15:39:28 GMT -5
Mookie is tied for the MLB lead in DRS, with 4. (There are no UZR numbers yet.)
And lest you think that a sample of 62 innings is meaningless, the guy he's tied with is Andrelton Simmons (who has played 63 innings).
4 DRS in 62 innings is +87 R/150. There will be regression to the mean. But he's going to end up plus.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 14, 2015 16:04:49 GMT -5
So you are saying he'll be somewhere between,+.1 and 87?
What the heck, I'm willing to agree with that.
|
|
|