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 Chris Hatfield on Jan 11, 2016 11:54:22 GMT -5
Span just signed a three year slightly over 30 mil deal. If a center fielder who's always hurt with no power gets that, sox should try to extend Mookie ASAP. He'll make less than Rusney Castillo during that time. Not sure that's an overpay for a guy who's a 3- or 4-win player when healthy.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 11, 2016 19:12:02 GMT -5
Span just signed a three year slightly over 30 mil deal. If a center fielder who's always hurt with no power gets that, sox should try to extend Mookie ASAP. He'll make less than Rusney Castillo during that time. Not sure that's an overpay for a guy who's a 3- or 4-win player when healthy. I clearly failed to make my point, Span is good, Mookie is better, Rusney shouldn't be in the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 13, 2016 9:25:06 GMT -5
With all the talk about signing XB/Mookie long term, I was just thinking about Elvis Andrus a few years ago when Texas signed him to that long extension, I think 15 mil per till age 34. They probably felt the same about him as we do about our guys. There are already whispers that they are regretting this. I'm all for extending Mookie & XB, I just don't think it's a slam dunk.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 13, 2016 10:52:06 GMT -5
Not saying we shouldn't try to extend him, but Mookie is exactly the kind of player who gets vastly underpaid in arbitration. Something to take into account.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,018
|
Post by nomar on Jan 13, 2016 10:54:25 GMT -5
Elvis Andrus is more like JBJ than Bogaerts and Betts.
I'd extend Betts now and wouldn't worry about him. Andrus was a good glove first player. Mookie is a star.
Bogaerts still has work to do offensively before I throw him a ton of money. If his BABIP normalizes and he doesn't make adjustments in his approach/mechanics to get on base and hit for power, he could end up being a lost at the plate like 2014. His offensive ceiling is miles higher than Andrus' ever was though.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 13, 2016 12:37:37 GMT -5
Elvis Andrus is more like JBJ than Bogaerts and Betts. I'd extend Betts now and wouldn't worry about him. Andrus was a good glove first player. Mookie is a star. Bogaerts still has work to do offensively before I throw him a ton of money. If his BABIP normalizes and he doesn't make adjustments in his approach/mechanics to get on base and hit for power, he could end up being a lost at the plate like 2014. His offensive ceiling is miles higher than Andrus' ever was though. What you are saying may be spot on. If so, why does Texas give an 8/118 extension to Andrus. They must have also saw his "ceiling" as fairly high as well. I can't see us giving 8/118 to JBJ anytime soon. I agree with Betts as I don't see much regression there, but then again, I'm not a GM. That being said, I'd give Betts that contract all day.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,000
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 13, 2016 18:42:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 13, 2016 22:01:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. Moose hunting, huh? Gardenhire isn't managing the Twins any longer. He might just be the ticket. Betts is an explorer.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jan 14, 2016 0:30:44 GMT -5
To me, the Rangers were looking at the value of Andrus's defense and wanting that glove as the foundation of their defense for a long time. Given all their run prevention issues historically, can you blame them? Andrus's numbers are dropping but he also have some indication of a lot more OOZ balls which he has converted into outs. Overall, his range is still near league leading. Maybe he was a little unlucky overall last year, both offensively and defensively. I think he ends up worth that contract.
I'd extend Mookie if the deal is at all reasonable but I wouldn't extend Bogaerts unless it's team friendly. I do think he will be real solid but he's not as sure a bet as Betts to me.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 3:11:32 GMT -5
Numbers are only a indicator for me, it has no bearing of what a player is going to do from one year to the next. Like for example if a player is capable of hitting 20 homeruns but we shouldn't always expect 20 homeruns every year based off one year or a couple years. They are fun to look at when a players career is over however. I just think the eye test always wins. So if a player hits 20 home runs year after year, you don't expect him to hit 20 home runs the next year? Sorry, but that is absurd. No it's not. Lets take a guy like Trot Nixon for example. From the age of 27-29 he hit over 20 homeruns a year. All signs pointed to him hitting even more 20+ homerun seasons at the age of 30-32 at the very least. Instead he never hit 20 homeruns again, in fact he never hit more than 13 homeruns in a season. Numbers are only a indicator, not a barometer.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 3:20:22 GMT -5
Sure, but the thing is that more balls get hit to CF than RF and you want your best defender involved in as many plays as possible. I agree to a point with this. Was Fred Lynn a better defender than Dwight Evans? That is arguable. They are like comparing Betts & JBJ. Evans just fit better in RF because of his arm. Not only that but Betts is faster than JBJ. I'm not sure if that means he has more range because of JBJ's good jumps but it's close I bet. The arm is the seperater. Plus if you're going to platoon JBJ and Young (that's the plan according to Farrell) then why bother swapping Betts from CF to RF every other day practically? That wouldn't make sense to me. Keep your star player in Betts in Cf until Pedrioa retires, then move him back to 2B. By that time he will lose the elite speed most likely but he would still have plenty to cover ground at 2B. Either that or move him to LF if he feels uncomfortable going back to the infield years from now.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,712
|
Post by gerry on Jan 14, 2016 3:30:37 GMT -5
I agree to a point with this. Was Fred Lynn a better defender than Dwight Evans? That is arguable. They are like comparing Betts & JBJ. Evans just fit better in RF because of his arm. Not only that but Betts is faster than JBJ. I'm not sure if that means he has more range because of JBJ's good jumps but it's close I bet. The arm is the seperater. Plus if you're going to platoon JBJ and Young (that's the plan according to Farrell) then why bother swapping Betts from CF to RF every other day practically? That wouldn't make sense to me. Keep your star player in Betts in Cf until Pedrioa retires, then move him back to 2B. By that time he will lose the elite speed most likely but will still have plenty to cover ground at 2B. Either that or move him to LF if he feels uncomfortable going back to the infield years from now. Moncada
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 4:19:39 GMT -5
Not only that but Betts is faster than JBJ. I'm not sure if that means he has more range because of JBJ's good jumps but it's close I bet. The arm is the seperater. Plus if you're going to platoon JBJ and Young (that's the plan according to Farrell) then why bother swapping Betts from CF to RF every other day practically? That wouldn't make sense to me. Keep your star player in Betts in Cf until Pedrioa retires, then move him back to 2B. By that time he will lose the elite speed most likely but will still have plenty to cover ground at 2B. Either that or move him to LF if he feels uncomfortable going back to the infield years from now. Moncada All reports so far has Moncada more comfortable fielding balls in the air rather than balls in the infield. Heard that from Alex Spier (sp?) in a podcast from this website actually. Moncada has RF written all over him for me. The arm, athleticism, the speed (and range) would be best served in the outfield. Just like with Mookie at this present time. A future outfield of Benintendi, Mookie, and Moncada seems very possible to me.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 4:47:54 GMT -5
Moncada also seems like a perfect leadoff hitting type of player for me. The on base, the occasional power (with room to grow), the speed, the good hit tool it all seems like a leadoff hitter to me.
Would like to here everyone else's opinion on Moncada and his future in the outfield possibly and where they see him possibly fitting into a lineup. I heard Spier also talk about Moncada as a number 2 or 6 hitter. I just think his skill set is ideal for a leadoff hitter. Kind of like a Tim Raines 2.0
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2016 7:32:30 GMT -5
So if a player hits 20 home runs year after year, you don't expect him to hit 20 home runs the next year? Sorry, but that is absurd. No it's not. Lets take a guy like Trot Nixon for example. From the age of 27-29 he hit over 20 homeruns a year. All signs pointed to him hitting even more 20+ homerun seasons at the age of 30-32 at the very least. Instead he never hit 20 homeruns again, in fact he never hit more than 13 homeruns in a season. Numbers are only a indicator, not a barometer. So in other words, you think there is absolutely no way to predict what a player does from one year to the next. Yes, no prediction is always 100% accurate. But there's a good chance that Mike Trout hits 30-40 HR next year because he has done it for the last 4 years. There is a better chance that he hits 30-40 than there is that he hits 5. And I could predict that even if I never saw him play, just by looking at his numbers.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 14, 2016 9:29:44 GMT -5
All reports so far has Moncada more comfortable fielding balls in the air rather than balls in the infield. Heard that from Alex Spier (sp?) in a podcast from this website actually. Moncada has RF written all over him for me. The arm, athleticism, the speed (and range) would be best served in the outfield. Just like with Mookie at this present time. A future outfield of Benintendi, Mookie, and Moncada seems very possible to me. If this is the case, why wouldn't the Sox play him in the OF? With Mookie, they gave him a year or so to get his feet wet out there. I would imagine if the FO see's Moncada as an Of'er, they would slot him out there this year as IMO I don't see him toiling too long in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2016 10:18:11 GMT -5
All reports so far has Moncada more comfortable fielding balls in the air rather than balls in the infield. Heard that from Alex Spier (sp?) in a podcast from this website actually. Moncada has RF written all over him for me. The arm, athleticism, the speed (and range) would be best served in the outfield. Just like with Mookie at this present time. A future outfield of Benintendi, Mookie, and Moncada seems very possible to me. If this is the case, why wouldn't the Sox play him in the OF? With Mookie, they gave him a year or so to get his feet wet out there. I would imagine if the FO see's Moncada as an Of'er, they would slot him out there this year as IMO I don't see him toiling too long in the minors. They only gave Mookie about 2 weeks to get used to the OF, though he's a special case. They typically don't move prospects to new positions until AAA unless it's 100% clear that they cannot stick where they're at. They also gave Xander and Iglesias about 2 weeks to get used to 3B, IIRC.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,952
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 14, 2016 12:10:32 GMT -5
Elvis Andrus is more like JBJ than Bogaerts and Betts. I'd extend Betts now and wouldn't worry about him. Andrus was a good glove first player. Mookie is a star. Bogaerts still has work to do offensively before I throw him a ton of money. If his BABIP normalizes and he doesn't make adjustments in his approach/mechanics to get on base and hit for power, he could end up being a lost at the plate like 2014. His offensive ceiling is miles higher than Andrus' ever was though. What you are saying may be spot on. If so, why does Texas give an 8/118 extension to Andrus. They must have also saw his "ceiling" as fairly high as well. I can't see us giving 8/118 to JBJ anytime soon. I agree with Betts as I don't see much regression there, but then again, I'm not a GM. That being said, I'd give Betts that contract all day. The Rangers signed Andrus in advance for 8 post-free-agency years, his ages 26 to 33, at $15M a year, because he had been worth $14.7M a year at ages 20 and 21 and $28.7M at ages 22 and 23. (I'm using bWAR, but FanGraphs' WAR to $ ratio.) They didn't have to project any ceiling; they'd already seen it. He was subsequently worth $32.4M and $7.6M on his previous contract, which had paid out his arbitration years at ages 24 and 25, and $16.4M on the first year of his deal. He's basically having the career of a guy who's 3 years older than his official age. It's not impossible that that's actually the case. He was signed by the Braves out of Venezuela at "age 16." His bat has never been above-average for his league, but it peaked at ages 22 and 23 at about a 95 wRC+ and has been 78 ever since. He was a +4 defender at ages 20 and 21, +9 at ages 22 through 24, and then -13, -1. All quite strange if those ages are correct.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 14, 2016 12:26:41 GMT -5
With all the talk about signing XB/Mookie long term, I was just thinking about Elvis Andrus a few years ago when Texas signed him to that long extension, I think 15 mil per till age 34. They probably felt the same about him as we do about our guys. There are already whispers that they are regretting this. I'm all for extending Mookie & XB, I just don't think it's a slam dunk. It's one thing to have a good year but to do it year and out is what is necessary for anyone to be worthy of signing a long term deal (especially) when they are still arb. eligible, to save money. Why would you not wait until the absolute minimum of seeing straight 2 whole years of performance for a variety of obvious reasons? Even three years would be wise to wait and see. Doing so before hand is silly and taking unnecessary risk. Edit: to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 13:42:58 GMT -5
No it's not. Lets take a guy like Trot Nixon for example. From the age of 27-29 he hit over 20 homeruns a year. All signs pointed to him hitting even more 20+ homerun seasons at the age of 30-32 at the very least. Instead he never hit 20 homeruns again, in fact he never hit more than 13 homeruns in a season. Numbers are only a indicator, not a barometer. So in other words, you think there is absolutely no way to predict what a player does from one year to the next. Yes, no prediction is always 100% accurate. But there's a good chance that Mike Trout hits 30-40 HR next year because he has done it for the last 4 years. There is a better chance that he hits 30-40 than there is that he hits 5. And I could predict that even if I never saw him play, just by looking at his numbers. Well injuries are a part of the game also and Trout is a special player. That's all the numbers would tell me.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 14, 2016 14:20:24 GMT -5
Anyone doing work in any front office has to have some way to value players beyond the eyeball test. That's a given.
Now, if you want to be a pure fan and ignore all the information, that's fine. We understand. There are some on the board who'd like to do at least a little projecting. That's how the consensus was arrived at last year, with lots of posters suggesting the pitching might be a problem, based on past performances. I had my own suggestion that, for all of his hitting prowess, Ramirez did not have a history of staying healthy. I based that on the existing injury record. There were lots of other information-based evaluations by posters, as well. The three keys to that process are, data, data, and more data.
Extrapolations from previous performance are at the heart of the way teams get evaluated, along with real-time scouting of course. You are welcome to blow the data off. That doesn't mean everyone else has to.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2016 14:41:11 GMT -5
So in other words, you think there is absolutely no way to predict what a player does from one year to the next. Yes, no prediction is always 100% accurate. But there's a good chance that Mike Trout hits 30-40 HR next year because he has done it for the last 4 years. There is a better chance that he hits 30-40 than there is that he hits 5. And I could predict that even if I never saw him play, just by looking at his numbers. Well injuries are a part of the game also and Trout is a special player. That's all the numbers would tell me. You can't predict freak injuries, but Trout has been healthy and it's pretty likely that while he's healthy, he'd hit HR at around a 30-40 HR pace. You can project using statistics for anyone with any kind of track record, no matter if they're bad or average players. Any projection system is way more accurate than saying "numbers have no bearing on what a player does from one year to the next". Numbers are a pretty big indicator on what a player does from one year to the next. And if you don't want to say "pretty big indicator", you can at minimum admit that they have at least some bearing. Brock Holt isn't going to hit 30 HR next year and Dee Gordon isn't going to hit .200. Of course you can bring up exceptions that don't fit, but in general, statistics can be used to make predictions that are more accurate than wild guessing.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 14, 2016 15:33:42 GMT -5
Well injuries are a part of the game also and Trout is a special player. That's all the numbers would tell me. You can't predict freak injuries, but Trout has been healthy and it's pretty likely that while he's healthy, he'd hit HR at around a 30-40 HR pace. You can project using statistics for anyone with any kind of track record, no matter if they're bad or average players. Any projection system is way more accurate than saying "numbers have no bearing on what a player does from one year to the next". Numbers are a pretty big indicator on what a player does from one year to the next. And if you don't want to say "pretty big indicator", you can at minimum admit that they have at least some bearing. Brock Holt isn't going to hit 30 HR next year and Dee Gordon isn't going to hit .200. Of course you can bring up exceptions that don't fit, but in general, statistics can be used to make predictions that are more accurate than wild guessing. Okay that's fair but what I said isn't completely ridiculous like you pointed out. I said the numbers are a indicator with my original point but it doesn't always predict decline, injuries, or poor performance. If you want to use the best player in baseball to prove your point, fine but most times baseball doesn't work that way with most players. You got to be pretty special to put up the numbers year in and year out.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 14, 2016 16:45:48 GMT -5
Moncada also seems like a perfect leadoff hitting type of player for me. The on base, the occasional power (with room to grow), the speed, the good hit tool it all seems like a leadoff hitter to me. Would like to here everyone else's opinion on Moncada and his future in the outfield possibly and where they see him possibly fitting into a lineup. I heard Spier also talk about Moncada as a number 2 or 6 hitter. I just think his skill set is ideal for a leadoff hitter. Kind of like a Tim Raines 2.0 I think Moncada ends up in the OF, though I really can't say where without seeing how he tracks balls, how quick his reads are, and who else the Sox have. Certainly, his arm plays anywhere and so will his speed. I'm not sure he's a leadoff hitter. I think you're underestimating his power based on last year, and maybe overestimating his base stealing (although by all accounts, scouts seem to see him as a 30+ threat). I think he's going to look more like a #3 hitter, although with the high OBPs and speed, who knows? Again, it depends on who else the Sox have. Mookie may hit himself out of 1/2 if he adds any more power, or Bogaerts could take the 3 spot...or Benintendi...good problem to have. If Moncada reaches his ceiling, he could probably easily hit anywhere from 1-5.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 14, 2016 17:34:15 GMT -5
With all the talk about signing XB/Mookie long term, I was just thinking about Elvis Andrus a few years ago when Texas signed him to that long extension, I think 15 mil per till age 34. They probably felt the same about him as we do about our guys. There are already whispers that they are regretting this. I'm all for extending Mookie & XB, I just don't think it's a slam dunk. It's one thing to have a good year but to do it year and out is what is necessary for anyone to be worthy of signing a long term deal (especially) when they are still arb. eligible, to save money. Why would you not wait until the absolute minimum of seeing straight 2 whole years of performance for a variety of obvious reasons? Even three years would be wise to wait and see. Doing so before hand is silly and taking unnecessary risk.
Edit: to clarify. I don't think so. It all depends on the deal of course. But I'd compare him to Longoria with Tampa. Risk reward is high with a guy like Mookie. I would advise him against extending now if I was his agent. I think the team would benefit by an early deal. Now the sox can afford to pay him market rate down the road , but the record says if that happens he's gone. I'd rather lose Xander than Mookie.
|
|
|