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.
Future Left Side of the Infield
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 13, 2013 17:08:35 GMT -5
Good discussion. I'm an Iggy fan but Beasley makes some good points. Keep talking people. I know some lurkers want to weigh in.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 13, 2013 17:11:35 GMT -5
EDIT: Something about the quote / post before me got messed up. Here was my response:
In "accommodating Iglesias' skills, we're talking about playing one of the greatest defensive shortstops of this generation at.. shortstop! Sure, he's not going to be a potentially elite hitter like Bogaerts, but extreme defensive value at shortstop is incredibly rare and valuable. We're talking about a guy who could rack up 15-30 runs saved (according to DRS and UZR) per season. You can't dismiss that. There's a reason many people are dying to see Iggy play everyday for us, even if he's a .250 average, .300 OBP guy.
Now, I'm not taking the position that the Sox need to retain Iggy at all costs. If a trade could bring back some value that would fit our needs well, then OK. But if Iglesias is on the team, and starting, I don't see how he isn't the shortstop. As for this year with Drew, it's different case. He's a veteran who has only played short (not the best argument, but you know that's a big part of it), and he's been extremely surprising in how consistent he's been at short. This isn't Derek Jeter costing us 20 runs a season, Drew has overall saved us a few this year when compared to the league average shortstop. Bogaert's has plenty of time to get comfortable at third, and from what I know about him, he's not the type of guy that will have a big issue with it or let it deter him mentally and hurt his offensive performance.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 13, 2013 17:20:20 GMT -5
All I am saying is that having a SS with a bat like Bogaerts will give you a competitive advantage because of how much his offense will be above the league avg there. Yes SS is a defensive position but if you have someone who is fine at the position and produces so far ahead of the avg there it's giving you a competitive advantage and covers anything you are missing defensively.If Iglesias keeps hitting well and Middlebrooks not so well then I could see why Bogaerts makes more sense at 3rd base. It's not like I will be disappointed. It is my opinion that an offensive SS is one of more valuable things for any MLB franchise and not because of perceived value league wide but because of the advantage it gives you offesively.But where is the advantage offensively coming from if he's still in the lineup? If Bogaerts plays third, we're weighing Iglesias vs. the third baseman that would be playing if Iglesias was moved and Bogaerts was at short? Bogaert's is indirectly related to it. SS: Bogaerts 3B: Iggy RESULT: Doesn't make sense, flip the positions if they are both in our starting lineup SS: Bogaerts 3B: Other RESULT: What matters is Iggy vs. Other (if we're just measuring offensive value). If we include defense (and I see no reason not to), you also factor in Bogaert's drop-off from Iggy's defense.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2013 17:30:06 GMT -5
I don't see Iglesias's floor at .250/.300 OBP though, and that's why he's not an exceptional player even with generational defense. I'd be surprised if he could maintain that level of play over the course of a full season right now. ZIPS has him at that number, and with his current BB% & K% it certainly seems possible, but it's entirely based on this short sample run being a true turning point in his career. I know he looks great in 25 games or whatever this year, but he looked equally terrible last year in the same sample size. I just don't think his entire production (defense, baserunning, and hitting) will produce enough value to make him a rare talent. So who cares if that unexceptional production comes in average production across the board or comes with great defensive value while being an offensive liability? Sometimes I feel like his total value is overrated because that one aspect of his game is so exceptional and so many fans philosophically want a "defensive first" shortstop just for the sake of having one.
Drew is a veteran, but what does that mean exactly, other than some unwritten rule of how to handle ballplayers? The Red Sox have way more invested in Bogaerts than they do in Drew, and it's not like Drew's accrued his veteran status here...he's a mercenary looking for a long term deal after playing in our hitter friendly confines. And yeah he doesn't have experience at 3B, but the experience Bogaerts has now isn't enough to make it a different situation.
If the Red Sox were serious about moving Bogaerts to fit Iglesias in the short term (and possibly long term), they would either force him to learn at the MLB level (like Machado) or start the switch soon at AAA. I really don't like the idea of breaking him in at a position he doesn't have a lot of reps at, and I hate the idea of giving him less reps at shortstop in the short term when he's been making strides the last two years. By the time he gets used to 3B there's a good chance Iglesias turns back into a pumpkin or gets hurt yet again. There's a real opportunity cost by not putting Bogaerts in position to be the most valuable player he can be.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 13, 2013 17:32:16 GMT -5
If Middlebrooks doesn't hit at 3rd, Bogaerts will be very happy to move to 3rd to help the team. If we have a matrix of Bogaerts, Iglesias and Middlebrooks and Middlebrooks isn't hitting we all agree that the best team option is Bogaerts at 3rd. Iglesias picked it up in no time. Machado picked it up in no time. Bogaerts played 3rd well in the WBC. He can do it.
I like the idea of Iglesias at SS. The concept of being able to win low scoring games in the playoffs because we have excellent defense appeals to me. I like being optimized for a lot of different scenarios. If we can win low scoring games as well as slugfests it makes us a better team IMO.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 13, 2013 17:35:38 GMT -5
I don't see Iglesias's floor at .250/.300 OBP though, and that's why he's not an exceptional player even with generational defense. I'd be surprised if he could maintain that level of play over the course of a full season right now. I know he looks great in 25 games or whatever this year, but he looked equally terrible last year in the same sample size. I just don't think his entire production (defense, baserunning, and hitting) will produce enough value to make him a rare talent. So who cares if that unexceptional production comes in average production across the board or comes with great defensive value while being an offensive liability? Sometimes I feel like his total value is overrated because that one aspect of his game is so exceptional and so many fans philosophically want a "defensive first" shortstop just for the sake of having one. Drew is a veteran, but what does that mean exactly, other than some unwritten rule of how to handle ballplayers? The Red Sox have way more invested in Bogaerts than they do in Drew, and it's not like Drew's accrued his veteran status here...he's a mercenary looking for a long term deal after playing in our hitter friendly confines. And yeah he doesn't have experience at 3B, but the experience Bogaerts has now isn't enough to make it a different situation. If the Red Sox were serious about moving Bogaerts to fit Iglesias in the short term (and possibly long term), they would either force him to learn at the MLB level (like Machado) or start the switch soon at AAA. I really don't like the idea of breaking him in at a position he doesn't have a lot of reps at, and I hate the idea of giving him less reps at shortstop in the short term when he's been making strides the last two years. By the time he gets used to 3B there's a good chance Iglesias turns back into a pumpkin or gets hurt yet again. There's a real opportunity cost by not putting Bogaerts in position to be the most valuable player he can be.This last part is the most salient point IMO. Looked at discretely in terms of player value alone, that is a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 13, 2013 17:37:53 GMT -5
When player value cannot be optimized positionally, often it makes sense to trade the player. As Beasley proposed I believe. If we can get appropriate value for whoever is traded I'm all for it. But it needs to optimize team needs even more than the player.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 13, 2013 17:48:56 GMT -5
I don't see Iglesias's floor at .250/.300 OBP though, and that's why he's not an exceptional player even with generational defense. I'd be surprised if he could maintain that level of play over the course of a full season right now. ZIPS has him at that number, and with his current BB% & K% it certainly seems possible, but it's entirely based on this short sample run being a true turning point in his career. I know he looks great in 25 games or whatever this year, but he looked equally terrible last year in the same sample size. I just don't think his entire production (defense, baserunning, and hitting) will produce enough value to make him a rare talent. So who cares if that unexceptional production comes in average production across the board or comes with great defensive value while being an offensive liability? Sometimes I feel like his total value is overrated because that one aspect of his game is so exceptional and so many fans philosophically want a "defensive first" shortstop just for the sake of having one. Drew is a veteran, but what does that mean exactly, other than some unwritten rule of how to handle ballplayers? The Red Sox have way more invested in Bogaerts than they do in Drew, and it's not like Drew's accrued his veteran status here...he's a mercenary looking for a long term deal after playing in our hitter friendly confines. And yeah he doesn't have experience at 3B, but the experience Bogaerts has now isn't enough to make it a different situation. If the Red Sox were serious about moving Bogaerts to fit Iglesias in the short term (and possibly long term), they would either force him to learn at the MLB level (like Machado) or start the switch soon at AAA. I really don't like the idea of breaking him in at a position he doesn't have a lot of reps at, and I hate the idea of giving him less reps at shortstop in the short term when he's been making strides the last two years. By the time he gets used to 3B there's a good chance Iglesias turns back into a pumpkin or gets hurt yet again. There's a real opportunity cost by not putting Bogaerts in position to be the most valuable player he can be. On Iggy's floor: You're right, I thought before this season he would struggle to eclipse .230/.280/.340. I'm not sure what his offensive future holds, and I'm taking his current performance with a hefty amount of salt (obviously in interpreting the stats themselves, but here I mean just what he's showing with his progression as a hitter). My point is that if he is given a starting role next season - and it may not last, depending on how tolerable his offense is - we are best off with him playing short. On Drew: Yup, it basically is just what you said: an unwritten rule in handling assigning players in the proper spots. If Drew wasn't having an above-average defensive season, I'd be a lot more critical of it. Instead, I'm kind of just taking an "it is what it is" position, since I don't think it's a huge deal or detriment, especially with Iggy not starting everyday. As for Xander: I guess I'm just trying to say I think it'd be for the best if he gets comfortable at both short and third in the minors right now, because we don't know what next year holds with Iglesias. Maybe Iggy will regress horribly towards his typical minor league performance, maybe he'll be traded, etc. In that case, I'm all for putting Bogaert's at his natural position for the start of his major league career. I just believe we can prepare him for two different spots without significantly derailing his development and productivity.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2013 17:50:09 GMT -5
When player value cannot be optimized positionally, often it makes sense to trade the player. As Beasley proposed I believe. If we can get appropriate value for whoever is traded I'm all for it. But it needs to optimize team needs even more than the player. I agree with this. If they (Iggy and X) were hypothetically forced to be on the same diamond for the next 5 years and guaranteed to be healthy for the duration sure, it would be a no brainer. I'm just not ready to go "all in" on Iglesias for the future with his total track record at this point. Xander isn't ready to take a full time gig right now, so Iglesias will get more opportunities. There's a good chance that if Iglesias keeps hitting and shows this is a turning point rather than a SSS fluke, which is what it would take to earn the starting job moving forward, other teams would notice too...and that's a damn valuable property to have. At the start of the season all of our ideal scenarios were having Iglesias raise his stock while Xander continued to raise his, and so far that's exactly what happened. EDIT: @matt I could totally be overrating the impact of switching Bogaerts around, that's entirely fair. I guess I'm more reluctant to play with his position due to all the early skepticism that he wouldn't be able to stick long term. Now that's he's made real progress and hasn't showed signs of losing range/mobility or filling out to an absurd level I'm really reluctant to tempt fate. There's a good chance he could play 3B for a year, Iglesias could regress, and then Bogaerts could jump back over to SS and not miss a beat. My nightmare scenario is having Bogaerts play 3B for one season, find out Iglesias isn't a true first division starter, move Bogaerts back, and then find out he's regressed defensively without the continued reps and is forced to move him back yet again. That's just the Boston fan in me I guess, being afraid of the worst possible outcome. Everything Xander's shown so far suggests he can handle just about anything, and he's made adjustments at every level.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Jun 13, 2013 17:59:03 GMT -5
Drew being at SS maximizes his trade value to Redsox if they chose to do so whatever public comments they might make about him not moving to 3B.
If WMB gets out of the funk little bit, even with his K don't you think he can replace Napoli's production next year? Also why is no one talking about moving WMB to OF? He seems to have a strong arm for it and if needed he can share the duties with Victorino/Nava whether it is RF/LF? I highly doubt they will give up on him this soon. Remember most people thought he has a middle of the order bat. He might be a Buccholz with bat needing some shuttle time to get his act together. IIRC he struggled at new levels before getting better and last year he carried a hot bat to MLB until he got hurt. Well this is his struggle at the new level and he will get out of it.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 13, 2013 18:03:57 GMT -5
Drew being at SS maximizes his trade value to Redsox if they chose to do so whatever public comments they might make about him not moving to 3B. If WMB gets out of the funk little bit, even with his K don't you think he can replace Napoli's production next year? Also why is no one talking about moving WMB to OF? He seems to have a strong arm for it and if needed he can share the duties with Victorino/Nava whether it is RF/LF? I highly doubt they will give up on him this soon. Remember most people thought he has a middle of the order bat. He might be a Buccholz with bat needing some shuttle time to get his act together. IIRC he struggled at new levels before getting better and last year he carried a hot bat to MLB until he got hurt. Well this is his struggle at the new level and he will get out of it. I mean, it could happen, but unless he really turns a corner with the bat, I'd hate to see him take bats away from Victorino or Nava. I doubt he'd ever play RF, especially at Fenway. His arm is nice, but it would take him some time to become decent out there, and his range is limited. For me, the logical spot is 1B, even though you'd be wasting a solid throwing arm. If Napoli wants big money or a multi-year deal (I wouldn't really want to give him 2 years), and doesn't fix this ridiculous K%, why not do a WMB/Carp platoon?
|
|
dave
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by dave on Jun 13, 2013 18:48:06 GMT -5
I think this comes down to who gives the biggest positional value difference. If Xander continues to hit like he can its not going to matter which position he plays on the left side of the infield to be a difference maker. This gives the flexibility to take the greater value of Iglesias glove over Bogaerts vs. WMB/Cecchini bat over Iglesias. This assumes that the three of them are around the same defensive value at third.
That being said I think Iglesias is going to hit enough to win the battle and Cecchini is athletic enough to move to the outfield. I'm not down on WMB but he profiles the best at first of the group with his power(if he can get out of his own head...)
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 13, 2013 18:48:52 GMT -5
In some ways it's a real shame but it could well be that Iglesias or Bogaerts get traded to maximize player value. As was noted above, moving Bogaerts off SS does potentially reduce his value and maybe it's just perception but I bet people would consider Bogaerts value as less if he started being primarily a 3rd baseman.
At the same time, he might be above average defensively at 3rd and that is a good thing also.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 13, 2013 18:52:08 GMT -5
In some ways it's a real shame but it could well be that Iglesias or Bogaerts get traded to maximize player value. As was noted above, moving Bogaerts off SS does potentially reduce his value and maybe it's just perception but I bet people would consider Bogaerts value as less if he started being primarily a 3rd baseman. At the same time, he might be above average defensively at 3rd and that is a good thing also. You wouldn't solve a minor conundrum like this by trading Bogaerts. He's one of the last people in the organization you'd see being floated around in trade talks, IMO. The idea of his value/perceived value depleting by being moved off shortstop isn't really an issue if he's not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 13, 2013 19:01:12 GMT -5
I think this comes down to who gives the biggest positional value difference. If Xander continues to hit like he can its not going to matter which position he plays on the left side of the infield to be a difference maker. This gives the flexibility to take the greater value of Iglesias glove over Bogaerts vs. WMB/Cecchini bat over Iglesias. This assumes that the three of them are around the same defensive value at third. That being said I think Iglesias is going to hit enough to win the battle and Cecchini is athletic enough to move to the outfield. I'm not down on WMB but he profiles the best at first of the group with his power(if he can get out of his own head...) Welcome to the board Dave. Good post.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 13, 2013 19:06:15 GMT -5
The Sox do not have a long term solution at 1B, so trading WMB or Xander makes absolutely no sense to me. I am an Iglesias fan, pencil him in at SS, ride the ups and downs in his offense, and let the pitchers reap the benefits of his outstanding defense. At 1B & 3B, why not let both Xander and WMB get some work at both positions, see how that plays out, WMB is a solid 3B with a very good arm for the position, and I am pretty sure Xander could play at least an average 3B as well, and there is no reason to believe that either one of them would not be able to switch over and play a good 1B.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jun 13, 2013 19:07:19 GMT -5
In some ways it's a real shame but it could well be that Iglesias or Bogaerts get traded to maximize player value. As was noted above, moving Bogaerts off SS does potentially reduce his value and maybe it's just perception but I bet people would consider Bogaerts value as less if he started being primarily a 3rd baseman. At the same time, he might be above average defensively at 3rd and that is a good thing also. You wouldn't solve a minor conundrum like this by trading Bogaerts. He's one of the last people in the organization you'd see being floated around in trade talks, IMO. The idea of his value/perceived value depleting by being moved off shortstop isn't really an issue if he's not going anywhere. Agreed. Hypothetically though if someone offered a Bundy for example, I'd even consider trading Bogaerts but that is extremely unlikely. I'd hate to lose either of them is my point I guess. I think both of them can be excellent contributors.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jun 13, 2013 19:10:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Xander, period. That's how high his ceiling is.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 13, 2013 19:37:19 GMT -5
If Xander keeps proving he can stay at SS he's the SS. A bat like that at a premium position is too valuable. Not a fan of this argument. Just because he could play shortstop - which would maximize his market value - doesn't mean he needs to because of it. He's going to be with our organization for years to come before we worry about other teams competing for his services. Point is, if we have Iglesias and Bogaerts on our major league roster, Iggy is certainly going to be the shortstop. If he fails collapses offensively to the point where he shouldn't be a starting player, Bogaerts can always shift back. See the Mike Trout / Peter Bourjos situation in LAA, for example. Many people want Trout to be the full time center fielder because he's an incredibly valuable all around player, and his ability to play center field would maximize his player value year. Yet, Mike Scioscia is currently making the best decision to keep Trout in LF when Bourjos is playing, because Bourjos is a better fielder there. It's really about maximizing value to the team, not the player. I think playing Bogaerts at SS is maximizing team value; it's a lot easier to find an elite (or even above average) 3B than it is a SS. As you kind of mention, it's really dependent upon specific circumstances, and maybe Bogaerts and Iggy is better than WMB and Bogaerts, but (just as a for instance, so don't crucify me guys) Headley and Bogaerts is probably better than either one - Cecchini and Bogaerts has the potentially to be a lot better than either one too (the point I'm really trying to make is, there are a lot more good 3B options than SS options, so - at least in general - playing a player like Bogaerts at SS would be maximizing team value).
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jun 13, 2013 19:46:03 GMT -5
Plain and simple, Iggy and Boggy. Sorry WMB. You are talented but your approach is so poor.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jun 13, 2013 20:04:55 GMT -5
Plain and simple, Iggy and Boggy. Sorry WMB. You are talented but your approach is so poor. Agreed. And for 1st I'd be ok next year with a Carp/Nava platoon (with Nava getting most of the time in LF and taking 1st against lefties with Gomes getting in LF then).
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 13, 2013 20:32:40 GMT -5
This conversation will be interesting when Iglesias comes plummeting back to earth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not rooting against him, but its crazy how quickly people are convinced he's overcome his offensive struggles in such a small period of time (or conversely how quickly people are ready to trade Middlebrooks). Ultimately, I like the idea of Bogaerts at short, Middlebrooks at 3B, and Iglesias as Utility. Now I could be proven wrong and if Middlebrooks never improves, then sure, lets switch things up....but I'm not ready to project our infield for the next couple of years based on everyone's last 150 at bats.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jun 13, 2013 20:35:47 GMT -5
I don't think anyone on this forum is considering trading Xander for a 1 Year rental or a veteran like Lee. If there is a logjam on the left side of the infield, it might make theoretical and statistical sense if you could if you could convert his value into another position, think a Shelby Miller, Cole, Tavares, Lars Anderson type. A trade like that would take a rare set of circumstances to occur and also probably wouldn't sit well if fans who have been looking forward to Xander.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 13, 2013 21:07:19 GMT -5
If there is a logjam on the left side of the infield, it might make theoretical and statistical sense if you could if you could convert his value into another position, think a Shelby Miller, Cole, Tavares, Lars Anderson type. One of those does not belong with the others...
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 13, 2013 23:01:21 GMT -5
I'm really torn about this and glad that I'm not a decision maker on the Sox, although I'd say it's a pretty good decision to have to make.
Before this season, I would have said it was a no-brainer. You trade Rey Ordonez-like SS Iglesias while he still has some value and you play Bogaerts at SS and WMB at 3b, and then when WMB starts approaching free agency you could slide Bogaerts to 3b and maybe Marrero or Lin is ready to play SS by then, and by then Cecchini would be at 1b or LF.
I feel silly having my head turned by a sample size of about 85 ABs, but I truly believe that Iglesias might have grown a bit as a hitter, and I'm not saying this just because he has a ridiculously high BABIP.
Obviously he won't be challenging for batting titles, but I've seen, to me, what feels like a more patient intelligent approach Iglesias is taking to hitting, something I wish WMB would start doing more of.
When the year started I thought of Iglesias as a guy who'd at best be a .550 OPS kind of guy with brilliant defense. I figured WMB would be a .750 - .800 OPS 3b.
At the moment Iglesias seems like a guy to me who can be a .275 hitter with a .650 OPS which would be an asset for a guy with his kind of defense, and I do happen to think that defense at SS is crucial.
If WMB doesn't develop some kind of patience at the plate, he could go the way of Shea Hillenbrand, which is concerning to me.
The one thing I am certain of is that WMB does NOT belong at 1b. He will not be enough of an offensive player to be there - I would sooner trade him and get another 1b.
The only things I'm certain of is that Cecchini will wind up in a corner somewhere other than RF, whether it's LF, 3b, or 1b I cannot be certain of.
And that Bogaerts is a cornerstone player whom I cannot wait to see.
The only way I can see this working where everybody gets a shot is if Middlebrooks plays more like he did last year and winds up at 3b, Iglesias hits well enough to be an asset at SS, Bogaerts winds up in LF, although that might be a waste of his athleticism, and Cecchini winds up at 1b performing like a young Kevin Youkilis.
|
|
|