Betts to 2nd

[rodderick]

You're being somewhat obtuse. To read your posts, one might think that you view minor league performance as basically random and noninformative about big-league outcomes.

Both Betts and Xander have minor league track records from which we can draw inference in addition to their major league sample sizes. Indeed, if you are saying that their current big league samples are insufficient, then we should still be putting a large amount of weight on those minor league projections.

Within that record, we can look at things like walk and strikeout rates that tend to be more predictive than balls in play stats (favors Betts in both, and on K rates quite significantly so), the extent to which they sustained their production as they moved up levels (hard to interpret due to difference in age), and whether there is evidence in their minor league record of prolonged slumps (don't know).

We also have to incorporate what we know about the very real and observable trait of speed, in which Betts crushes Xander. Speed mitigates slumps both through the ability to leg out extra infield hits and turn singles into doubles, while also providing additional value through stolen bases and advancing on batted balls when slumps do hit.

Finally, the rut that Xander got into this season is almost a historically bad outlier. If Betts struggles, I bet his slump is significantly shorter and less deep simply based on what a normal rookie slump looks like independently of how you view his skill set relative to Xander.

They're both great young players who will have their ups and downs on offense and probably frustrate us on defense next year for different reasons.

 
This can't be said enough. Really, look at his June/July/August splits. I've never seen a player who isn't completely horrible have a three month stretch that bad. It's kind of a miracle that he ended up the season with a .660 OPS after about 300 PAs of absolutely putrid production. Injury, bad luck, inability to adjust, maybe all of them at once, I don't know what prompted that slump, but seeing as that was the major driving factor behind his subpar season with the bat, I'm actually petty bullish on Xander for 2015. I wouldn't really count on a drop that drastic happening again. 

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Honest question:
 
Why are we so focused on "the 950 OPS" comment?  Man one has to be supremely crystal clear with their wording around here, and even then you still might have to dance around this with further explanations.  I thought, and I could be wrong, that the number was thrown out as sort of a ceiling - his peak season could be that - but may well just sit in the 850 OPS range for the majority of his seasons.  Is that out of the ordinary to project floors and ceilings?  Is it not possible that Mookie Betts might put up a 950 OPS one year out of a dozen or so?
 
EDIT:
 
The discussion was about 21 year olds and their OPS jump the season after their rookie season.  A summation of that was: "On average, players who debut at 21 peak over .150 OPS points higher than their rookie year."
 
This was followed by this comment: "If Mookie may eventually be a 950+ OPS hitter, we'd be completely insane to trade him."  Keywords, may, and eventually.  Sort of spit-balling and projecting.
 
Which was followed by: "I really like Mookie but OPS 950+ is an improbable target.  We should be happy if he averages 850 in the next few years."
 
Wasn't everything pretty much summed up at this point?  And now there's a back-and-forth cluttering this thread (no offense), that's basically that small conversation, now beat to death.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

 
This can't be said enough. Really, look at his June/July/August splits. I've never seen a player who isn't completely horrible have a three month stretch that bad. It's kind of a miracle that he ended up the season with a .660 OPS after about 300 PAs of absolutely putrid production. Injury, bad luck, inability to adjust, maybe all of them at once, I don't know what prompted that slump, but seeing as that was the major driving factor behind his subpar season with the bat, I'm actually petty bullish on Xander for 2015. I wouldn't really count on a drop that drastic happening again. 

 
Though I tend to have the same thoughts (bullish - based on his end of year surge), does the lack of walks mean anything?  He had two walks in his last 106 PA's (I started from the day after his low point - 623 ops - on Aug 30).  It was almost like he didn't want to get into two strike counts or something - or he was consciously attacking early in the count.  If my memory serves me right, during the slump he was concerned about taking too many good pitches and/or missing the pitches he should drive.
 
Also in regards to the slump, I remember driving home from work one night and I was listening to Dave O'Brien on the broadcast.  And he said something to the effect of some issue with Xander's wrists or something.  And that Xander wasn't able to get that pop he's accustomed to.  Does anyone recall that or know of some article that describes this?

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Yeah this thing where every word gets scrutinized across many, many tl;dr posts is beyond painful to read.

Why does anyone actually want to spend their time wandering the main board "correcting" every detail in every post with ~500 word count bludgeons?

 

[jscola85]

Honest question:
 
Why are we so focused on "the 950 OPS" comment?  Man one has to be supremely crystal clear with their wording around here, and even then you still might have to dance around this with further explanations.  I thought, and I could be wrong, that the number was thrown out as sort of a ceiling - his peak season could be that - but may well just sit in the 850 OPS range for the majority of his seasons.  Is that out of the ordinary to project floors and ceilings?  Is it not possible that Mookie Betts might put up a 950 OPS one year out of a dozen or so?
 
EDIT:
 
The discussion was about 21 year olds and their OPS jump the season after their rookie season.  A summation of that was: "On average, players who debut at 21 peak over .150 OPS points higher than their rookie year."
 
This was followed by this comment: "If Mookie may eventually be a 950+ OPS hitter, we'd be completely insane to trade him."  Keywords, may, and eventually.  Sort of spit-balling and projecting.
 
Which was followed by: "I really like Mookie but OPS 950+ is an improbable target.  We should be happy if he averages 850 in the next few years."
 
Wasn't everything pretty much summed up at this point?  And now there's a back-and-forth cluttering this thread (no offense), that's basically that small conversation, now beat to death.

 
Thanks, I didn't realize my optimistic comment was going to start a war on the board! I agree that I would not bet on Mookie being a regular 950 OPS hitter, but if he regularly settles into a ~850 OPS hitter, it's not out of the question that he could have an anomalous peak year that gets at or close to 950.  For example, Jeter was a career .817 hitter, but in his prime, his OPS fluctuated from a trough of .794 to a peak of .989 - almost a 200 point swing in just a couple years.  Ortiz has a career 954 OPS with the Sox, with a peak year of 1.066 and trough year of .794 - almost a 275 point gap.
 
From year to year, OPS can range pretty widely, so if consensus is that Mookie in his prime is a "true talent" 850 OPS hitter, there's a reasonable chance that one or two years will crack 900+ and he'll also probably have a season or two below 800.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
In another thread we had a poster suggesting that if Xander isn't "hitting bombs" he's a mediocre short stop. It's silly.
 

 
Yes, it was reductive statement that I made. You're focusing on the wrong thing here. Most of Xander's promise is based on the premise that he can deliver elite power at a offensively weak position. 
 
If you recall, my comment was based on a comparison between the two; their respective "floors" and "ceilings". Somebody made the case that Xander's ceiling was higher than Mookie - and I obviously disagree with that, as I feel that Mookie's athleticism, and contact/speed skills suggest a more complete package of a player who can impact the game in more ways. 

 

[iayork]

 
This also bodes extremely well for Betts.  He debuted at 21 and posted an .812 OPS.  So he'd have a similar ~150 point jump to peak performance.  If Mookie may eventually be a 950+ OPS hitter, we'd be completely insane to trade him.

Not to pile on, because I know you're not serious, but it doesn't work like that.  There's a reversion to the mean thing going on: hit really low as a rookie, you'll hit better in subsequent years; hit really well, you're likely to drop a fair bit in the next couple years.  Here (for entertainment purposes only) is what it looks like for 21-year-olds in each of their subsequent years, sorted by their rookie-year OPS.  

Spoiler

There aren't that many players who debuted at 21 and who played for at least 3 seasons, so the numbers are probably too small to make much of (and because I only required that they play at least 3 seasons, there's further attrition going on in the 24-year-old season and thereafter, so the numbers are smaller still).  Anyway, the point is we'd rather have a .800 rookie than a .660 rookie, but even the latter -- historically -- can go on to a pretty decent career. 

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

 
Though I tend to have the same thoughts (bullish - based on his end of year surge), does the lack of walks mean anything?  He had two walks in his last 106 PA's (I started from the day after his low point - 623 ops - on Aug 30).  It was almost like he didn't want to get into two strike counts or something - or he was consciously attacking early in the count.  If my memory serves me right, during the slump he was concerned about taking too many good pitches and/or missing the pitches he should drive.

 
I heard Dave and Joe on a game broadcast in early Sept (maybe) talking about his aggressiveness.  IIRC they had talked to him about the change in his approach and he had told them he was being more aggressive earlier to not let the good pitches go by.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Re: the early struggles of MLB players, there's a great piece on Fangraphs about Alex Gordon (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-good-that-alex-gordon-got-from-being-bad/).
In his first four seasons (age 23-26), Gordon averaged  1.25 fWAR, but it was worse than that, as his trajectory was downward -> 2.0, 2.5, 0.5, -0.5. The latter two seasons - 2009 and 2010 - he was sent down to figure things out.
When he came back in 2011 he put up a 6.6 fWAR season, and has averaged 5.6 fWAR since then.
Obviously not every player will eventually be able to figure it out and become an All-Star. But whether it's Xander or Mookie or Middlebrooks or JBJ, sometimes you've got to give them time, especially when you see that the talent is there for a high ceiling potential.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Re: Xander's lack of walks in his 2nd, 2nd half surge:  I'm becoming more and more convinced that OBP component of OPS has became less important than the SLG component.  Or... I should say, it's actually MORE important, but we'll be seeing less and less hitters with high isolated walk rates.  The shrinking strike zone, emphasis on pitching a fast game is creating a need for hitters to be a lot more aggressive around the corners, as those pitches are going to be more likely called a strike.  They might not have been 4,5 years ago so hitters could wait for a dead strike, or "their" pitch and not mess around with marginal pitches.
I'm thinking that the days of hitters with a .280 BA and a .400 OBP are long gone.  More likely to see a .280 BA hitter with "good discipline" only have a .350 OBP

 

[Auger34]

 
Yes, it was reductive statement that I made. You're focusing on the wrong thing here. Most of Xander's promise is based on the premise that he can deliver elite power at a offensively weak position. 
 
If you recall, my comment was based on a comparison between the two; their respective "floors" and "ceilings". Somebody made the case that Xander's ceiling was higher than Mookie - and I obviously disagree with that, as I feel that Mookie's athleticism, and contact/speed skills suggest a more complete package of a player who can impact the game in more ways. 

 
See, I actually flip it around there. I think Mookie's floor is higher than Xander's but ceiling is lower...basically for the same reasons you stated. Mookie has speed, better contact rates, and should become a better natural defender at whatever position he settles into with his athletic ability.
Xander, if everything goes right, could be in the high .800s in OPS with about 25 HRs, and play a decent-pretty good SS. That is so valuable that I don't think Mookie's ceiling can surpass that in RF

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Re: Xander's lack of walks in his 2nd, 2nd half surge:  I'm becoming more and more convinced that OBP component of OPS has became less important than the SLG component.  Or... I should say, it's actually MORE important, but we'll be seeing less and less hitters with high isolated walk rates.  The shrinking strike zone, emphasis on pitching a fast game is creating a need for hitters to be a lot more aggressive around the corners, as those pitches are going to be more likely called a strike.  They might not have been 4,5 years ago so hitters could wait for a dead strike, or "their" pitch and not mess around with marginal pitches.
I'm thinking that the days of hitters with a .280 BA and a .400 OBP are long gone.  More likely to see a .280 BA hitter with "good discipline" only have a .350 OBP

Assume you mean "expanding strike zone."

 

[benhogan]

 
See, I actually flip it around there. I think Mookie's floor is higher than Xander's but ceiling is lower...basically for the same reasons you stated. Mookie has speed, better contact rates, and should become a better natural defender at whatever position he settles into with his athletic ability.
Xander, if everything goes right, could be in the high .800s in OPS with about 25 HRs, and play a decent-pretty good SS. That is so valuable that I don't think Mookie's ceiling can surpass that in RF

Well if the pipe dream happens (mentioned above) and .950 Mookie shows up, that would be Stanton-esque...with better range in the field and superior base running skills.
 
High .800s Xander's ceiling isn't getting there, even by playing "a decent-pretty good SS" (which is also a pipe dream).

 

[williams_482]

Well if the pipe dream happens (mentioned above) and .950 Mookie shows up, that would be Stanton-esque...with better range in the field and superior base running skills.
 
High .800s Xander's ceiling isn't getting there, even by playing "a decent-pretty good SS" (which is also a pipe dream).

There is no reason to believe Betts is capable of a .950 OPS while Bogaerts isn't. Both are unlikely, but neither is completely implausible. 

 

[jscola85]

Not to pile on, because I know you're not serious, but it doesn't work like that.  There's a reversion to the mean thing going on: hit really low as a rookie, you'll hit better in subsequent years; hit really well, you're likely to drop a fair bit in the next couple years.  Here (for entertainment purposes only) is what it looks like for 21-year-olds in each of their subsequent years, sorted by their rookie-year OPS.  

Spoiler

There aren't that many players who debuted at 21 and who played for at least 3 seasons, so the numbers are probably too small to make much of (and because I only required that they play at least 3 seasons, there's further attrition going on in the 24-year-old season and thereafter, so the numbers are smaller still).  Anyway, the point is we'd rather have a .800 rookie than a .660 rookie, but even the latter -- historically -- can go on to a pretty decent career. 

 
Of course!  Like I've written - I'm not expecting Betts to become a 950 OPS hitter.  I'd have to imagine that the error bar in predicting future performance based on just 200 plate appearances is pretty large.  Brock Holt looked pretty damn great his first 200 PAs too (yes, yes, I know the difference between these two guys' ages and minor league numbers!).

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Assume you mean "expanding strike zone."

yes.  yes, that's right.

 

[rodderick]

 
Of course!  Like I've written - I'm not expecting Betts to become a 950 OPS hitter.  I'd have to imagine that the error bar in predicting future performance based on just 200 plate appearances is pretty large.  Brock Holt looked pretty damn great his first 200 PAs too (yes, yes, I know the difference between these two guys' ages and minor league numbers!).

 
Actually, the main distinction here is their difference in BABIP, ISO, K% and BB%. Mookie's success just seems repeatable, while Holt was obviously going to see his numbers crash down once he stopped getting so lucky on balls in play.

 

[Auger34]

Well if the pipe dream happens (mentioned above) and .950 Mookie shows up, that would be Stanton-esque...with better range in the field and superior base running skills.
 
High .800s Xander's ceiling isn't getting there, even by playing "a decent-pretty good SS" (which is also a pipe dream).

To clarify I wasn't responding to the .950 OPS thing. I don't think that's a realistic scenario. I think that Bogaerts defense improving to the point of decency could actually happen (or is much more likely to happen than Betts reaching a .950 OPS)

 

[benhogan]

To clarify I wasn't responding to the .950 OPS thing. I don't think that's a realistic scenario. I think that Bogaerts defense improving to the point of decency could actually happen (or is much more likely to happen than Betts reaching a .950 OPS)

As Xander fills out, his ceiling as a defensive major league SS is slightly below average, his floor is worst fielding SS in MLB.  
 
I love our prospects as much as the next guy, but lets not kid ourselves. Xander turning the DP was atrocious, that side arm flip is not going to cut it.
 
'pretty good' implies to me a top 10 fielding SS 

 

[Auger34]

Didn't mean to imply that I meant middle of the road, like 15th or 16th

 

[maxotaur]

MMS: That you consider your response to be tempered is exactly what I'm talking about. Mookie has all of 213 major league plate appearances. I will be shocked if he doesn't have at least one prolonged slump next year. Hell, even Pedroia had a bad slump in his first full season. I'm not suggesting Mookie is likely to struggle for months on end, but this idea that his skill set makes him likely to avoid any prolonged slump is sort of silly. Even the best hitters in the game struggle and most of them had adjustment periods when they were young.

And I'm not even going to touch the .950 OPS comment.

I think he had in mind Xander's slump, which at 4 months could be considered "epic" as opposed to just "prolonged". If that was his point I'm in agreement. Many players suffer a "prolonged slump at some point throughout the season but I doubt Betts will approach 4 months.

That being said his .950 statement is indicative of having just smoked some good mookie.

 

[JakeRae]

Is it really that crazy to think that a player who makes the majors at age 22 would be able to produce in his peak years at a level similar to each of his last 3 stops in the minors?

 

[Plympton91]

Is it really that crazy to think that a player who makes the majors at age 22 would be able to produce in his peak years at a level similar to each of his last 3 stops in the minors?

Thank you.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Is it really that crazy to think that a player who makes the majors at age 22 would be able to produce in his peak years at a level similar to each of his last 3 stops in the minors?

 
When a .950 OPS would have tied him for 4th best in the majors this year with Giancarlo Stanton? Yeah, I think it's a little nuts. His minor league career OPS of .877 is still a lofty number to reach, but puts him more in the Adrian Beltre, David Ortiz in his twilight™, Yasiel Puig range, which is actually a little believable, though he lacks the power of any of those names so I'm still more than a little hesitant. Maintaining that kind of OPS at the major league level usually requires more power than Mookie has ever shown at any level, and it's pretty common for guys who have OBP's comfortably in the .400's in the minors to end up in the mid to high .300's in the majors. Pitchers have better control and command and the strike zone is called more accurately. I just don't see the argument for guessing that Mookie's peak is going to be in the Andrew McCutchen zone.
 
A quick example: Kevin Youkilis had a career minor league OBP of .442 as compared to Mookie's .408. In his peak years he posted a .413 and a 411 and finished with a career .382. Youk developed power, which allowed him to get his OPS up into .900+ territory. Mookie doesn't have the kind of body you expect that kind of development from. I can absolutely see him being a Dustin Pedroia type player if everything breaks right, which is ridiculously valuable, but Pedroia has never sniffed a .950 OPS in the majors. Maybe people haven't gotten their heads around the fact that a .950 OPS means you are one of the top 5 hitters in the world these days. It would be one thing if people were hoping for that kind of production from him in 2001, when a .950 OPS was good for 24th in the majors and meant you were Brett Boone. The scoring environment has changed, though, and a .950 OPS out of Mookie in his prime is incredibly unlikely. It's not impossible, but I'd be pretty comfortable betting the house on him not getting there.
 
And keep in mind, the throwaway line about him reaching .950 was based on a sample size too small to extrapolate from. Again, he had about a third of a season. Xander Bogaerts had significantly more plate appearances under his belt before he started struggling. There is still plenty of time for Mookie to falter and chances are he's going to. Maybe it's a month or two months instead of four, but the idea that we can make guesses about his peak based on 213 major league plate appearances and his minor league track record is... well... a bit nuts.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Congratulations guys. You created a straw man, turned it into a dead horse, then managed to reincarnate it as a straw man again.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I'm a Betts fanboy and compare him to Biggio in that he does everything well, the positional changes and similiar minor league performance. Even Biggio never had a .950 and he played in a much more friendly era. .950 in this climate would be insane, add in the 30ish SB and maybe plus defense and you are talking about a top 5 player in the league.

I think if peope actually broke down a .950 ops, they'd see it's like a 1% chance. He would have to hit like .350 or hit 30+ HRs. His minor league numbers suggest he's around a .180-.220 ISO if you're optimistic and assume no drop off from his 2013/14 minor league numbers.

I just don't see the power being there to get to .950, and while he has great command of the strikezone he isn't walking 100 times.



.320/.410/.540 In 600abs, that's 192 hits, 324 total bases. That's 120 singles, 40 2bs 4 triples and 28 hrs.

 

[JakeRae]

Biggio really did not have a similar minor league performance to what Mookie has had. If you take a quick look at his aggregate minor league line of .344/.436/.517 I can understand reaching that conclusion. But, he got there by destroying A ball at age 21 to the tune of .375/.471/.597 and then putting up a far more modest (relative to Mookie) line of .320/.408/.456 in the PCL at age 22 prior to getting the call and hitting .211/.254/.350 in MLB. Mookie, in contrast, just completed his age 21 season. During that season, he hit .355/.443/.551 in AA, .335/.417/.503 in AAA, and .291/.368/.444 in MLB. Mookie, at 21, was much much better than Biggio at age 22.
 
I spent a little time trying to think of comps for Betts, which is hard. Betts' minor league performance is the profile of a pretty unique player. However, one player from the modern era does look pretty similar. That player hit .326/.428/.540 in A+ and .337/.421/.535 at AAA during his minor league career. He was a bit older than Mookie, being 22 in A+ and 22/23 while compiling the AAA line. There are further similarities in BB and K rates. Both walked around 13% of the time and struck out 14-15% of the time. Both posted very high BABIP (mid to upper .300's). 
 
The player I just described, in his third MLB season, hit .336/.408/.549. and has averaged .308/.374/.487 thus far in his career. His name, if you haven't guessed it, is Buster Posey.
 
Now, I get that Buster Posey looks a lot different from Mookie Betts. But, statistically, he is incredibly similar to Mookie Betts if we ignore base running ability. And, he did exactly what people here are saying there is no chance Mookie could do and did it in a fairly similar offensive environment. That's not to say that Betts will have a career like Posey or have a peak season like Posey. To say that would be to attach certainty to what is an optimistic but not unrealistic projection of an ability to duplicate the success a similar hitter has had. But, the really short version of this story is that a lot of people around here are not appreciating how truly, extraordinarily, generationally (non-Mike Trout division) great Mookie's minor league performance has been. 

 

[Hyde Park Factor]

Yeah this thing where every word gets scrutinized across many, many tl;dr posts is beyond painful to read.

Why does anyone actually want to spend their time wandering the main board "correcting" every detail in every post with ~500 word count bludgeons?

Because doing it V&N isn't enough anymore.

 

[Niastri]

Continuing to pile on about how unlikely it would be for Betts to hit .950 at any point in his career....
 
He would need both around a .400 OBP and a .550 SLG.
 
This past season, only Andrew McCutchen, Victor Martinez and Jose Bautista had .400 OBP performances.
Last year (where declining offense started to become apparent) there were seven who hit that well.
 
This past season only Jose Abreu, Victor Martinez, Mike Trout and Giancarlo Stanton had .550 SLG performances.
Last year five players hit that well.
 
The only players to do both were Martinez this year along with Cabrera, Goldshmidt and Trout last year.  The last two years Abreu, Stanton, Davis and Ortiz have been able to slug well enough to have a SLG heavy OPS season of .950.
 
Betts is amazing, but a .900 OPS would make him among the most valuable players in the league.  That seems like an unrealistic dream end result. 

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Ive said this before, and not to be all EV, but I think that Mookie should be evaluated from May 2013 and you can throw out his earlier minor league numbers. Thats when he made the well known change from a leg kick to a stride, which led to utter domination since that exact point. Using his career minor league numbers is a bit deceiving.

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/05/05/red-sox-minor-league-roundup-a-year-of-feats-of-mookie-and-the-change-that-set-them-in-motion-allen-webster-breaks-through-alex-wilson-is-ready-henry-ramos-is-hitting/

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Fred (NJ)

Do the Red Sox ultimately trade Mookie Betts due to Pedroia and Rusney? Would Syndergaard, Hererra and Murphy be enough for the Mets to get him?

Klaw (1:48 PM)

No. I think Betts is the real untouchable there. They think he's going to be a superstar - and I can't disagree.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/51257/mlb-insider-keith-law

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

As far as I can tell, there have been four other players this millenia to put up an OPS over 920 in their age 21 or younger season in the International League: Adam Dunn, David Wright, Jay Bruce, and B.J. Upton. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Let's recap:
 
If Betts (and Bogaerts) is untouchable, that puts him at either CF, RF, LF or 2B. I think talk of him at SS or 3B is silly at this point.
 
From what I read, it seems that Betts may be a better option in CF than Castillo, who would then play RF.
 
That leaves Victorino, Cespedes, Nava and Bradley vying for 1 starting position and 1 (maybe 2?) backup positions.
 
I can't construct this team. Victorino, if healthy and not too old, has proven himself to be a great RF and good #2 hitter (it would be nice if he could bat lefty again). Bradley is clearly a defensive replacement, or more likely AAA depth or trade material (it would be nice if he could learn how to hit again). Cespedes is a clear power threat that creates a 3-big hitter lineup (Ortiz, Cespedes, Napoli), but also seems to be a decent candidate for trade. Nava is Nava.
 
The title of this thread is "Betts to 2B", but we know Betts is not to 2B.
 
I guess this all has to wait for Spring Training to see how Victorino recovers and who can be traded. All we know (or think we know) is that 2 of the 6 outfielders are untouchable (Betts and Castillo). An outfield of Cespedes / Betts / Castillo with Victorino / Nava as pinch hitters (or in one case - runner) or replacements is not a terrible thing. That leaves 1 utility infielder for SS and 3B with Betts able to cover 2B if necessary (Nava covers 1B). Bradley's got to go to Pawtucket or elsewhere.
 
Still no LHH of note other than Ortiz.
 
Betts in CF or RF?

 

[MakMan44]

I'd honestly rotate the two of Castillo and Betts between CF and RF, I don't see the harm in doing so. 

 

[williams_482]

I'd honestly rotate the two of Castillo and Betts between CF and RF, I don't see the harm in doing so. 

What would be the benefit of doing so? From what I understand, players generally prefer not to move around all the time. A guy like Zobrist or Holt who is adding value by moving around is one thing, but I doubt either player would be particularly happy about being shuffled back and forth at random. 

 

[MakMan44]

What would be the benefit of doing so? From what I understand, players generally prefer not to move around all the time. A guy like Zobrist or Holt who is adding value by moving around is one thing, but I doubt either player would be particularly happy about being shuffled back and forth at random. 

Just to increase their reps, and figure out where they best fit. Neither player has extensive experience in the OF, though I'm assuming Castillo's experience dwarfs Mookie's but at this point in time, I think it's impossible to declare who's better in CF or RF.
 
EDIT:Yeah, Castillo has over 2000 career innings in the OF between CF and RF. I'm not sure how the Red Sox take that into consideration when deciding where to slot Mookie/Castillo, hence my suggestion to rotate at least in 2015. 
 
Also, I don't really think shuffling would be that big an issue with the pair of them, especially if Farrell is up front about it with them. We know that Mookie and Castillo have moved from position to position throughout their careers.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Shit. I'm an idiot.
 
Can he pitch?

 

[Rasputin]

Cespedes, Betts, Castillo start in the OF. Vic as fourth OF. Bradley to AAA.

I don't see any of those as particularly hard decisions.

Ideally, weed and both Nava and Craig to AAA, but Craig gets exposed to waivers and I think Nava is out of options.

We can keep one of them as a fifth OF if we have to, which we probably will, which means if there isn't some room created by an off season trade, and Craig shows signs of getting his groove back, it's bye bye Nava.

 

[RIrooter09]

I don't think anyone is claiming Craig with that salary.  Send Bradley, Craig, Middlebrooks to AAA and sign a 3B.  Nava, Victorino, Holt, and a backup C make up your bench.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't think anyone is claiming Craig with that salary.  Send Bradley, Craig, Middlebrooks to AAA and sign a 3B.  Nava, Victorino, Holt, and a backup C make up your bench.

 
I hope you're right about Craig, because I think that's just about the ideal scenario to start the season.

 

[Sprowl]

Just to increase their reps, and figure out where they best fit. Neither player has extensive experience in the OF, though I'm assuming Castillo's experience dwarfs Mookie's but at this point in time, I think it's impossible to declare who's better in CF or RF.
 
EDIT:Yeah, Castillo has over 2000 career innings in the OF between CF and RF. I'm not sure how the Red Sox take that into consideration when deciding where to slot Mookie/Castillo, hence my suggestion to rotate at least in 2015. 
 
Also, I don't really think shuffling would be that big an issue with the pair of them, especially if Farrell is up front about it with them. We know that Mookie and Castillo have moved from position to position throughout their careers.

Castillo appears to have a stronger arm, making him the better suited for Fenway's RF. We haven't seen enough repetitions to judge how they'll perform in range. I think the notion of shuffling them back and forth without exigent need would be foolish. Players do need to settle in as quickly as possible and accumulate innings at one position to get better at that position. Moving them around gratuitously just lengthens the learning curve that will pay off most. That's fine in a tanking year like 2014, but we have higher hopes for 2015.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Geo- you completely forgot about Craig, too, who is at least in the mix. Hard to see how all the pieces fit; Nava and potentially Cespedes look like good bets (no pun intended) to be moved, and JBJ spends the year in AAA.

Craig fits in Pawtucket - he has an option and after 2014 he doesn't deserve to have any claim on a major league job.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If Craig has a monster ST, he goes north with the club. If Craig has a woeful ST, he gets waived and is likely unclaimed and ends up in Pawtucket. If Craig has a mediocre ST...then what happens?

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

If Craig has a monster ST, he goes north with the club. If Craig has a woeful ST, he gets waived and is likely unclaimed and ends up in Pawtucket. If Craig has a mediocre ST...then what happens?

possible platoon role -- perhaps matching with Nava if Cespedes is dealt (with Victorino as 4th OF who gets a bunch of starts in RF at home when/if healthy).  But a lot will depend on what happens (or doesn't) between now and opening day.  As of now, it is not easy to find a place for him on the ML roster.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

possible platoon role -- perhaps matching with Nava if Cespedes is dealt (with Victorino as 4th OF who gets a bunch of starts in RF at home when/if healthy).  But a lot will depend on what happens (or doesn't) between now and opening day.  As of now, it is not easy to find a place for him on the ML roster.

 
Obviously dealing Cespedes pretty much solves the roster crunch, but it also robs the team of one of its only two 30-HR threats--and with Papi about to hit 39, there's obviously a statute of limitations (albeit an indeterminate one) on his membership in that club.
 
I think trading Cespedes is a good idea if the return is right. But it's a gamble.

 

[Fireball Fred]

The other point about Cespedes is that he's the only Sox outfielder except Betts who is actually

 

[Fireball Fred]

Oops, damned iPad. The thing about Cespedes is that he's an established major league starting outfielder who is healthy - so he actually can be traded.

 

[williams_482]

 
Obviously dealing Cespedes pretty much solves the roster crunch, but it also robs the team of one of its only two 30-HR threats--and with Papi about to hit 39, there's obviously a statute of limitations (albeit an indeterminate one) on his membership in that club.
 
I think trading Cespedes is a good idea if the return is right. But it's a gamble.

It obviously does depend on the return, but I think that Cespedes, as a source of that supposedly rare and highly coveted "right handed power," may return more value than his actual production warrants. 
 
He is a roughly three win corner outfielder with averageish on base skills, good power, substandard range and a good arm on a one year contract that pays him roughly half his market value. If someone thinks being a right hander who hits 30+ bombs makes him worth more than that I think the Red Sox will be very willing to let him go.

 

[MakMan44]

Castillo appears to have a stronger arm, making him the better suited for Fenway's RF. We haven't seen enough repetitions to judge how they'll perform in range. I think the notion of shuffling them back and forth without exigent need would be foolish. Players do need to settle in as quickly as possible and accumulate innings at one position to get better at that position. Moving them around gratuitously just lengthens the learning curve that will pay off most. That's fine in a tanking year like 2014, but we have higher hopes for 2015.

Yeah, I mean if they're able to identify where they feel each player is strongest by season's start, I absolutely agree that keeping them there is the best idea. I didn't necessarily think that was the case but I'm not watching these guys right now (though I guess Mookie isn't playing anyway). I'm sure the FO has a much better handle on where Mookie and Rusney are going to be playing in 2015 than I do.  
 

 
I think it's pretty sure to be Castillo in CF. He's been getting rave reviews so far since signing. 
 
From anonymous scout in Edes' positional analysis: 
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/40923/red-sox-offseason-primer-outfield
 
And Law's review of the AFL: 
 
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/post?id=2901
 
I don't see what upside is gained by hoping Betts can be that good in time. Put him in RF and let him settle in. 

Thanks Pap, I guess that makes things easier for the Red Sox then. 

 

[Plympton91]

I don't think anyone is claiming Craig with that salary.  Send Bradley, Craig, Middlebrooks to AAA and sign a 3B.  Nava, Victorino, Holt, and a backup C make up your bench.

And if someone does claim Craig, send them a thank you note along with his equipment.

Your scenario is exactly what will happen, although from the sounds of it Middlebrooks may have a chance to win the 3B job unless they really bring in a long-term high quality veteran for that position.