TheoShmeo said:
There were certainly no restrictions on signing a fat third baseman to a huge contract that will take him to his age-33 season. That's all on Ben.
Garbage time again: what's the plan this time?
- Thread starter The Gray Eagle
- Start date
There were certainly no restrictions on signing a fat third baseman to a huge contract that will take him to his age-33 season. That's all on Ben.
We don't know. One thing we do know is that the team seems capable of changing course, which is a good thing because certain commercial realities will intrude beginning next year. The Lightning-In-Bottle 2013 bought them a few years in my mind, but they are almost up. You can't sell this team with this price structure to the most avid fan base, much less an educated fan base. Fans know how much is being spent; they know how the team has screwed up; and they will have little if any faith.
For the rest of this year, they need to give 5 starting pitchers 14 starts each to figure out what they have. That is a lot of starts even when allowing for garbage time.
For the rest of this year, they need to give 5 starting pitchers 14 starts each to figure out what they have. That is a lot of starts even when allowing for garbage time.
Honestly, I don't know what they should or even can do. This team is facing some tough questions, and I think there's a very real possibility that they're in this situation again in 2016 given the status of the payroll as of this moment. That said, while I do totally understand where the "SELL SELL SELL" attitude is coming from, I think it's misguided. I think such a mentality would lead to some poor decision-making, and I think that "well we have to do something" attitude is ultimately what got the team into this position in the first place.
That said, I think there are a few things they could do to help resolve some of those question marks for 2016, most of which have been mentioned already:
- Trade Shane Victorino. Yes, the outfield market is a bit crowded with Upton, Cespedes, and Gomez out there, but I'm sure there's a team who could use him. As of now, there are two obvious holes in the lineup for next year - first base and right field. Trading Victorino allows the team to give Bradley an extended look, and he's certainly earned it. Other people have said this. I don't think a job share between him and Castillo would be the worst thing in the world, but I would personally prefer just getting Bradley up and leaving him alone.
- Trade Koji Uehara. It's $9 million more to play with this offseason, and teams go crazy for relievers around the deadline, although here the market may be flooded again with Clippard, Papelbon, Kimbrel, and Chapman maybe out there.
- Give SoSH's favorite pitcher Joe Kelly some high-leverage opportunities at Pawtucket with an eye towards bringing him up in a relief role in August and September. It hasn't worked out for him as a starter, but maybe he can be one of those shut-down relievers everyone is so covetous of.
- Put Owens in the rotation. Tell Buchholz to take his time (side note: people seem oddly cavalier about his injury - just because he's not getting TJS doesn't mean he's okay).
- First base, I am at a loss. I think the talk of moving Hanley there is wishcasting and unlikely to happen any time soon. Sticking Holt there might work for the rest of this year, but it's sub-optimal long term. Dare I suggest bringing back Allen Craig, who is at least getting on base in Pawtucket? For all the talk of how great it was to have his salary not counting towards the cap, his AAV is only $6 million.
I sort of think they might as well ride out the rest of the season with Farrell and his coaching staff, even though I don't think Farrell should be back next year. As far as the front office goes, I think amateur and minor-league scouting has been excellent - the Benintendi pick looks good, and they managed to uncover Eduardo Rodriguez and Brock Holt. Plus Devers (Moncada was kind of a no-brainer). It's the MLB-level acquisitions that haven't worked out.
Even these moves wouldn't help that much, though. Having Owens and Johnson both up might clarify which one gets traded this offseason. Even if Kelly turns into Wade Davis, they'd still need to acquire another reliever. There would still be question marks hanging over Sandoval and (to a lesser extent) Ramirez. As strong as the system is, the next wave probably won't be up until 2017 at the absolute earliest. Unless you think Margot and Sam Travis are going to be the guys who will turn this thing around.
That said, I think there are a few things they could do to help resolve some of those question marks for 2016, most of which have been mentioned already:
- Trade Shane Victorino. Yes, the outfield market is a bit crowded with Upton, Cespedes, and Gomez out there, but I'm sure there's a team who could use him. As of now, there are two obvious holes in the lineup for next year - first base and right field. Trading Victorino allows the team to give Bradley an extended look, and he's certainly earned it. Other people have said this. I don't think a job share between him and Castillo would be the worst thing in the world, but I would personally prefer just getting Bradley up and leaving him alone.
- Trade Koji Uehara. It's $9 million more to play with this offseason, and teams go crazy for relievers around the deadline, although here the market may be flooded again with Clippard, Papelbon, Kimbrel, and Chapman maybe out there.
- Give SoSH's favorite pitcher Joe Kelly some high-leverage opportunities at Pawtucket with an eye towards bringing him up in a relief role in August and September. It hasn't worked out for him as a starter, but maybe he can be one of those shut-down relievers everyone is so covetous of.
- Put Owens in the rotation. Tell Buchholz to take his time (side note: people seem oddly cavalier about his injury - just because he's not getting TJS doesn't mean he's okay).
- First base, I am at a loss. I think the talk of moving Hanley there is wishcasting and unlikely to happen any time soon. Sticking Holt there might work for the rest of this year, but it's sub-optimal long term. Dare I suggest bringing back Allen Craig, who is at least getting on base in Pawtucket? For all the talk of how great it was to have his salary not counting towards the cap, his AAV is only $6 million.
I sort of think they might as well ride out the rest of the season with Farrell and his coaching staff, even though I don't think Farrell should be back next year. As far as the front office goes, I think amateur and minor-league scouting has been excellent - the Benintendi pick looks good, and they managed to uncover Eduardo Rodriguez and Brock Holt. Plus Devers (Moncada was kind of a no-brainer). It's the MLB-level acquisitions that haven't worked out.
Even these moves wouldn't help that much, though. Having Owens and Johnson both up might clarify which one gets traded this offseason. Even if Kelly turns into Wade Davis, they'd still need to acquire another reliever. There would still be question marks hanging over Sandoval and (to a lesser extent) Ramirez. As strong as the system is, the next wave probably won't be up until 2017 at the absolute earliest. Unless you think Margot and Sam Travis are going to be the guys who will turn this thing around.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I'm with you. But at the least, he's showing progress. That K/BB rate is baffling (his last start was 6 BB and 2 Ks), but perhaps it's a function of what they want him to throw. I'd just glad he's at least allowing fewer hits than he had been, and that's been sustained over a decent period of time now.
I wasn't making a linear point or intending to. (Not that anything should get in the way of the chance to make a snarky comment; Yay, Drewdawg!)DrewDawg said:
My point is that Henry set up a rule regarding Lester that lead them to draw a reasonably hard line and then signed off on them lavishing questionable contracts on Porcello, Sandoval and Castillo, as if they were relatively free spenders.
And the broader point is that BC is seemingly functioning in Henry's paradigm with somewhat limited flexibility so firing Ben is kind of useless unless the next guy is going to have more room to operate.
How do you know that?Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
My assumption is that every single big decision made in this organization is made collectively with input from the GM and the Trio.
I have heard Larry and John say that repeatedly over the years. Theo seemed to have left over the extent to which the Trio impacted his decision making.
I agree with Gray Eagle 's assessment and recommendations almost entirely.I am a bit concerned that a FO can be rationally assessed in one season...maybe an analysis of BC suffices...Good post.
TheoShmeo said:
Fine, whatever. I doubt the Trio have their fingers in every single pie but don't care enough to argue about it vociferously. If that's the case, Ben hasn't made that situation work at all, on the heels of it working wonderfully from 2003-2011. So Ben needs to go in favor of someone who can make it work better.
3 last place finishes in 4 years. It's simply not working, even when taking 2013 into account (and it's not like they deliberately sacrificed the future to make 2013 work).
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Right, this is why the "but, 2013!" argument doesn't quite work for me - there's a case to be made that 2013 was basically an accident.
Farrell should've been out this year and he should certainly be gone after this season. He is not a good manager, as his record makes abundantly clear. And spare me the "he won a World Series" stuff -- so did Bob Brenly and Ozzie Guillen. Miracles happen.
While I understand the rationale behind trying Hanley at first, I don't think it's going to happen. While people love to say he's "athletic enough" to change positions, he's a year into trying to play LF and remains at best a below-average LFer. Now you want him to start handling the ball nearly every play? No thanks. They are stuck with him in LF until Papi retires.
I don't believe in this front office, but this team is so much better on paper than on the field that part of me thinks this FO should remain in place while a better manager takes over. If even a better guy can't make this team winners, then clear out the FO.
While I understand the rationale behind trying Hanley at first, I don't think it's going to happen. While people love to say he's "athletic enough" to change positions, he's a year into trying to play LF and remains at best a below-average LFer. Now you want him to start handling the ball nearly every play? No thanks. They are stuck with him in LF until Papi retires.
I don't believe in this front office, but this team is so much better on paper than on the field that part of me thinks this FO should remain in place while a better manager takes over. If even a better guy can't make this team winners, then clear out the FO.
TheoShmeo said:
Cherington is GM. His job includes oversight of Baseball Operations.
It's Baseball Operations' analyses of the game that should be informing Henry with the various data used to make such a strategic determination. So trying to absolve Cherington of responsibility for it seems misplaced. And IMO, it's not at all clear that it's the wrong strategic decision to make, in general.
Rather, it's the specific decisions -- not only how to evaluate pro players outside the Sox system, but also how much to pay to bring them aboard and keep them around -- that seems to have fallen flat for the Sox more often than not in the past two years.
And to the best of the fans' limited knowledge, that appears to be Allard Baird's area of responsibility.
BosRedSox5 said:
It's hard to figure out exactly what Baird does. But when he was promoted in 2011, the team announced that "Baird, formerly the Royals GM, is involved in most player personnel decisions already. He was the one in charge of the Sox’ efforts to scout Carl Crawford, and his imprint has also been felt on anything from the Sox’ efforts to more aggressively scout and sign players from the independent leagues (such as Daniel Nava) to the teams’ discussions of players going in both directions in potential trade discussions."
More recently, Baird was also the point man in evaluating Rusney Castillo.
"He has remained a key voice in the Sox front office and played a prominent role in the acquisition of Tampa Bay outfielder Carl Crawford, a signing that Cherington said he also championed while serving under Epstein."
Baird's been promoted twice since 2011, so he is obviously a voice that is being listened to. He has been an assistant GM here since 2008. In 2011 he was promoted to VP/Player Personnel and Professional Scouting for the Red Sox. Then in 2013, his title was changed to VP/Player Personnel.
His track record as GM was unimpressive. The team's major league player evaluation has been terrible for at least a year and a half. Baird is a "key voice" by all accounts, who is focused on major league players, not the minors.
We're really not arguing that much. I would eject Ben too.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I am just making the point that ejecting him is utterly useless if he is going to have the level of involvement from the Trio that I presume Ben has had to put up with.
You hit Bingo. If the Red Sox GM was going to be given complete or close to complete autonomy then Theo never would have left. The signs of micromanagement from the top are right there for everyone to see should they choose to look outside the box a little.TheoShmeo said:
Hagios said:
They just finished last in 2014. And then spent a bunch of money on player who turned out to all suck horribly. And are now in last place again.
There's nothing accidental about it.
Every projection system and pundit had this team pegged as the division favorite. I get that this is a results-based business and I'm not sure I'd be against firing BC and/or JF, but I do think that sometimes bad things happen to good people, so to speak. (It's also fair to wonder if the opposite happened in 2013.)Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
For me, the shape of the farm system (5 guys in KLaw's mid season top 50, which does not include E-Rod, Xander Swihart, or Betts) is the best argument for that status quo.
moondog80 said:
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the players the Sox signed has flopped flat on their faces, with the exception of Hanley (who's been playing hurt and in a new position, so it's remarkable that he's the best signing so far).
Every. Single. One.
Ben's job isn't to build a team to please the pundits and projection systems, it's to build a winner. He's failed utterly. He and Farrell need to be ushered off the premises. Baird gets defenestration.
I think a Bradley who is a MLB starter is probably a 10-15 homer guy, too. He hit 10 in 80 AAA games in 2013, and has 9 in 64 games this year. He strikes out a decent amount, so he's going to need to hit HR to keep his BA & OBP up. If he's a 0-5 HR guy like he was in 2014, he's probably not a regular anyway.ivanvamp said:
soxhop411 said:
It is not a GM or manager's job to be a helpless bystander. If you acquire a guy and then sign him to a huge contract extension it's a direct reflection of your opinion of him. You are literally putting your money where your mouth is. When Porcello then goes out and becomes the very worst starting pitcher in all of baseball, it is evidence of a total lack of professional capability in baseball analysis on the part of the GM or manager (assuming Porcello's not injured).
So "who would have thought" is an invalid question here. Cherington put all of his pitching chips on Porcello and was rewarded with utter failure. That's on Cherington, and it's another reason to fire him. He simply cannot be making these types of egregious mistakes in player acquisition and monetary outlay.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Good thing the Giants overhauled their FO after missing on Chris Stratton with their 1st round pick in 2012.
None of this totally absolves a bad pick -- but good teams whiff. It happens. I don't think you can judge entire scouting depts on one pick.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
You say "every single one" like it's a list of 300 guys. Do the guys from 2013 count? Is there a GM age curve where he's gotten worse at the job?
Really, we're talking about two guys, Pablo and Porcello. Miley has been good after a rough start, I'm glad to have him around the next few years. Masterson has sucked, but everyone knew there was a chance of that, including the FO. With the Sox' resources, there's no such thing as a bad one-year deal.
czar said:
Stratton was picked 20th overall. Not 7th. I think that's a distinction well worth noting.
Also....Stratton's numbers (K rate, K/BB rate, WHIP) are much better than Ball's.
The Ball selection is reason enough IMO to fire some people. The Sox couldn't afford to miss on such a prime opportunity to get all-star level talent, and they did, badly.
moondog80 said:
We are not talking about just 2 guys, and we're not talking about 2013. I listed them above:
Panda
Castillo
Craig
Porcello
Miley
Kelly
Masterson.
Those are the players I listed. Seven players. At least 5 of whom were expected to be regular starters (it's questionable what they thought Craig and Castillo might do this year).
Amongst them the Sox have spent a disheartening amount of money and have received horseshit work from all of them. Miley has been pitching well lately, as you say, but even that's only good enough to get his ERA+ up to 89, because he was so wretched in the beginning of the season.
Just look at that list, look at their salaries and what they've contributed to the team, and tell me with a straight face that Ben has done a good job. Because it can't be done. All of those are Ben's guys.
The problem with this team stems from last trade deadline when they went into it thinking they just needed to retool and not rebuild a bit.
They had the most trade chips of any team at the deadline and walked away with relative peanuts because they insisted on players that could contribute this year. It is rather ironic that one of the few trades they made for the future (Miller - Erod) turned out to be the only one that will help this year.
I'd love to know what kind of a prospect haul this team could have received if they opted to trade Lackey and Lester for prospects instead of Cespedes, Kelly and the Corpse of Allen Craig.
They had the most trade chips of any team at the deadline and walked away with relative peanuts because they insisted on players that could contribute this year. It is rather ironic that one of the few trades they made for the future (Miller - Erod) turned out to be the only one that will help this year.
I'd love to know what kind of a prospect haul this team could have received if they opted to trade Lackey and Lester for prospects instead of Cespedes, Kelly and the Corpse of Allen Craig.
If LL is being pushed out or winding down for retirement really isn't important. Who is filling Larry's void is.
Ben is not worth of being elevated to that level of management. They had a guy who was and let him leave. Billy Beane, if he's interested, isn't going to be replacing Ben... He'd be the new Larry.
Ben is not worth of being elevated to that level of management. They had a guy who was and let him leave. Billy Beane, if he's interested, isn't going to be replacing Ben... He'd be the new Larry.
Wow. You might want to look at the history of guys picked 7th in the draft. The median career (throwing out the last 5 years bc they have not yet had time to reach the majors) WAR is like 0.2 The top 10 starts out impressively but tails off quickly:Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Frank Thomas
Clayton Kershaw
Troy Tulowitzki
Nick Markakis
Prince Fielder
Trot Nixon
Richard Dotson
Dan Wilson
Ray Fosse
Austin Kearns
The only guy outside of that who looks like he will break through is Matt Harvey. So there's like a 5-10% chance you'll get an all-star, but really you'll do well to get Rick Cerrone (ranks 12th with a whopping 8.1 career WAR).
j44thor said:
Was that wrong though?
I don't remember anyone thinking we should rebuild completely... and like others said, we were almost universally considered bound for the playoffs by projection services and pundits.
At the rate Ball is going he's going to get the Dean Wormer for career WAR: 0.0.
It's a bad miss and it's unacceptable for a team that never gets to pick that high. Although I suppose if they keep Cherington around like you want them to they'll have plenty more chances to pick in the top 10.....
moondog80 said:
I agree with this. I think most of the moves Ben made are defensible and reasonable, but for whatever reason, they didn't work out.
With one exception - the need to get "major league caliber talent" in the 2014 sell-off. The worst part of this decision wasn't just that Kelly (et al) haven't performed but the organization seems to have a huge misjudgment about how much talent they had at AA and AAA, and it's going to take that much longer to rebuild this team into a contender.
So yeah, it's bad luck - I mean what are the odds that nobody outperforms their projections, but in the business that Cherington, Farrell, and Baird are in, bad luck usually means people lose their jobs. C'est la vie.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
And before we write off Trey Ball, can we please remember that he's a 6'6" lefty who is the same age as Andrew Benintendi? He has a 90+ fastball and has only been pitching full time for a year-and-a-half.
Sure he might flame out but it's not like the other draft picks with whom we were associated are tearing it up either. Perhaps the Sox had the bad fortune of having a high pick in a not-so-good draft.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I don't get what the fact they usually don't pick that high has to do with anything. Are you saying that in the 90%-95% of cases where teams got a marginal player at best, it was because the drafting team didn't try hard enough because they knew they would have a good pick again the next year? But the Red Sox should have just read Rick Pitino's "Success is a Choice" and willed their way to picking an all-star at a spot where it happens very rarely?
Everyone in this thread seems to be shitting on Trey Ball... but, was the 2013 class filled with stars that we whiffed on?
If Ball had gone to play for the the University of Texas as planned, he wouldn't be draft eligible yet right? And he's just turned 21 and according to Soxprospects he made some adjustments in the second half of 2014 and is fairly respectable in high A ball right now. Let's give him a little more time before we declare him a massive bust.
If Ball had gone to play for the the University of Texas as planned, he wouldn't be draft eligible yet right? And he's just turned 21 and according to Soxprospects he made some adjustments in the second half of 2014 and is fairly respectable in high A ball right now. Let's give him a little more time before we declare him a massive bust.
BosRedSox5 said:
As pointed out above, he is in fact not pitching well at High A right now, because his K/BB ratio is still terrible even during his recent "good" stretch.
moondog80 said:
Of course not. Picking a guy at 7 who turns out to be a monumental bust shows a lack of ability in the scouting and drafting departments. They missed on the kid not because they needed to try harder but because they didn't scout well enough to make a good enough judgement on Ball's abilities.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Ball was a slightly outside the box pick in what was generally thought to be a very weak draft. Neither Clint Frazier or Austin Meadows is lighting the world on fire (I assume their lack of impending stardom would also be "unacceptable" from your POV) and if you're going to continue to use selecting Trey Ball with the #7th pick they perhaps you could point to just who they should've had the clairovance to select.
Baseball is a quirky game and even over 162 games the results can be out of whack with true talent; I would much prefer the Sox have a set of values and sound process for building the roster, but most of this thread seems like bitching about results rather than critiquing the process.
OCD SS said:
So they went outside the box with a high draft pick because of his stuff and said draft pick has promptly struggled badly as a professional and we're just supposed to shrug and say shit happens?
No. And your very statement shows there are problems in their process, not to mention the results.
Well, earlier this week he was in Philadelphia scouting Hamels. Now, putting aside whether that waste of time alone is enought to cost him his job, it is evidence that he takes a hands on approach. Also, recall that in addition to being Senior Vice President of Player Personel, he holds another title - Director of Professional Scouting. That seems pretty descriptive to me of what part of his job is.BosRedSox5 said:
I have no inside information, but if the Sox are structured like most businesses, Baird is Cherington's right hand man when it comes to evaluating (and signing or not) guys, who are already playing pro ball. If so, and by way of example regarding his competence, how does he allow the Yankees to sign Andrew Miller, while bringing aboard the crew of mediocrities that we have (or no longer have) in the pen?
To me, of all the missteps that were taken for this season by the FO, this is the most egregious. Not only is Miller, whose terrific skills the Red Sox are well familiar with, passed on, but he is allowed to go to an archrival. I think that is the sort of thing that should cost one his/her job, when seen in the context of the other wreckage.
I think you can defend nearly every move the FO made. Whether you agree it was a good decision is entirely up to debate, but I think most everything this offseason can be defended. What cannot be defended is in-season roster moves.
- Mike Napoli is a top 3 worst offensive player in all of baseball and at a position where offense is most important.
- Hanley Ramirez is one of, if not the worst, full-time left fielders I've ever seen roam an outfield.
- Our right field situation makes Trot Nixon cry. Rotating deck chairs in RF isn't going to make those guys productive. I'm sure Castillo being a complete bust (yes, I think we can say that as they've buried him and have apparently no desire to deal with him at the MLB level to get at-bats, be it an attitude problem or talent problem we don't know but it's irrelevant).
They've done nothing on the surface to address these issues. Nothing.
The pitching has been horrific and maybe historically bad but there isn't much you can do about that in the middle of the season when you literally have 1 1/3 decent starting pitchers.
Even if you throw out talent evaluation as an issue you have a serious problem with the on-field construction of this team and that's a FO issue.
- Mike Napoli is a top 3 worst offensive player in all of baseball and at a position where offense is most important.
- Hanley Ramirez is one of, if not the worst, full-time left fielders I've ever seen roam an outfield.
- Our right field situation makes Trot Nixon cry. Rotating deck chairs in RF isn't going to make those guys productive. I'm sure Castillo being a complete bust (yes, I think we can say that as they've buried him and have apparently no desire to deal with him at the MLB level to get at-bats, be it an attitude problem or talent problem we don't know but it's irrelevant).
They've done nothing on the surface to address these issues. Nothing.
The pitching has been horrific and maybe historically bad but there isn't much you can do about that in the middle of the season when you literally have 1 1/3 decent starting pitchers.
Even if you throw out talent evaluation as an issue you have a serious problem with the on-field construction of this team and that's a FO issue.
FYA, Miller going to NYY is the least of this team's problems IMO. They could have signed him for whatever he wanted and it would not have made the slightest difference in the team's results, because he is not a starting pitcher.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I think the problem with your last statement is that it lacks context. I get the anger, I really do but there doesn't appear to be many all star level talents emerging from the front of that draft. Only Renfroe, Crawford and Harvey look like very good prospects in the first round, all would have been reaches at 7 based on the info we had at the time.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Yes, that is exactly what you should say. That would be exceedingly obvious to anyone who would take 5 seconds to look at the historical success rates of draft picks, even as high as #7.
The farm system is in great shape. Like I said, 5 guys in the top 50, and would have 3 more if not for promotions in the last year. There's a lot to be critical of with the front office, but the farm system is not one of them. Every team ever has whiffed on picks this high (assuming we can in fact draw that conclusion on Ball). Did they all suck? Or is the draft just a process that will result in frequent failure, even for the best of teams?
moondog80 said:
The failure of Ball as a 7 pick is just one of the many black marks against Cherington in his GM stewardship, that is what you should say. He vaunted farm system is lovely, I suppose, but Ben's major league team, the one that is supposed to matter, is about to finish last for the 3rd time in 4 years. The failure of Ball as a high pick is simply part of the overall portrait of failure Cherington has wrought, and it's another reason he should be fired.
canderson said:
So what specifically should they have done? Napoli isn't defendable in the least. If Hanley hit more like Manny, would we hear so much about his defense? And they've tried just about everyone in RF, so what else could they have done?
Allen Craig and to a much lesser extent Joe Kelly is what was wrong. That and you took the best starting pitcher on the market and turned him into 1.2 years of Cespedes which rather predictably nets you 1yr of Porcello. I would have rather they went the Cubs route and traded for 7yrs of cost control of the #3 prospect in baseball + or something to a similar effect.BosRedSox5 said:
But your points 2 (Ramirez) and 3 (right field) undermine your first sentence. Add in the rush to extend Porcello, the pass on Andrew Miller, the assembly of mediocrities in the pen ... not impressive.canderson said:
Also, I know they needed a 3rd baseman, and Sandoval is reputed to have been the best available. However, how well was he really scouted? His physical condition is a joke for the hot corner. Historically, he has been excellent handling balls hit close to him (not so much this sesonm, but can anybody seriously argue that he has any range? He is rumored to be a goofy guy during the regular season, who really shows up for the post season. Did the FO satisfy itself that this was untrue? His plate discipline is amazing and has contributed to ice cold streaks in the past.