The Outfield--What are the options??
- Thread starter drtooth
- Start date
- Status
Has anyone tried to analyze what's wrong with Nava? JBJ and Sizemore are to some extent expected, but it's like Nava just fell off a cliff. Usually when a player tanks this badly there's some speculation as to why. I don't think I've seen any yet so far.
nattysez said:
1) Even everyday players get days off;
2) I think sometimes managers say what they think the clubhouse needs to hear, when their real thoughts are somewhat more nuanced. Let's see what happens if Nava gets a couple of hits tonight.
nattysez said:
Everyday probably isn't meant literally .Maybe its just a matter of "Gomes looks like he's pressing, lets give Nava a shot." There doesn't have to be some quadratic equation for every single lineup move. Every outfielder has been hitting like shit. Only JBJ's glove has been a positive. So the manager is futzing around with a bunch of wet wood trying to light a small fire.
Here;s some Grade A speculation: I've thought from Day 1 that he looked heavier than last year. All of this is on TV, of course. But he wouldn't be the first guy that had a breakthrough year and got a little slacky in his off-season.
He said it the day they optioned Nava back to AAA before they knew Carp had broken his foot, and, if I remember right, it was qualified with something like "for the time being".
Rovin Romine said:
I'd like to see more of this, as well. I wonder if the 86 PA is enough of a sample size to determine anything concrete. A perusal of his stats on Fangraphs revealed little change in Nava's approach, as his plate discipline and P/PA numbers are similar to last year. He's seen a few more fastballs this year than usual. The main thing that sticks out is what were line drives last year have become ground balls and infield flies. And obviously a huge shift in BABIP. What do people think his true talent level is, if you take luck out of the equation (either last year's good luck or this year's bad).
Put me in the camp that thinks a healthy Napoli may make a lot of these issues less glaring. Can Holt play the OF decently enough to be used in right? If so, I think you can get by with JBJ in center and Nava/Gomes/Holt at the corners. Not a terribly inspiring outfield, but we've seen good contributions from Holt so far, and Gomes and Nava should be passable if used correctly and hit 7th or 8th. I don't believe that Nava won't right himself to some degree, but I do think he needs a strict platoon and a low pressure slot in the order.
Holt RF
Xander 3B
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
A.J.P C
Drew SS
Nava RF
JBJ CF
Not a terrible looking vsRHP lineup for a team trying to get to .500, and you get plus defense from 2B, CF, SS, 3B, 1B
Holt RF
Xander 3B
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
A.J.P C
Drew SS
Nava RF
JBJ CF
Not a terrible looking vsRHP lineup for a team trying to get to .500, and you get plus defense from 2B, CF, SS, 3B, 1B
I get that Holt might be the best hitter of a bad bunch.....but he's not very good at 3B, looks pretty uncomfortable at 1B, and now people want to pencil him in for a semi-regular (i.e., non-emergency) OF gig?
Shane . . . . . . come back . . . . . .
Shane . . . . . . come back . . . . . .
Maybe, but I don't see how say, Corey Dickerson for Brandon Workman is a pipe dream.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Both are 25, Workman is about two months older. Both have about 1/10th of a year of service time. Workman has been a productive pitcher in limited ML samples, Dickerson has been a productive hitter in limited ML samples.
Right now the Rockies manager isn't playing Dickerson regularly and he's in all reality blocked from his natural position by Cargo with Colorado. Baseball America has never ranked Dickerson higher than the 13th best prospect in the Rockies farm system. His big output in 2013 at AAA is skewed by an absolutely massive home/road split from playing in Colorado Springs and some serious luck in hitting 14 triples.
Workman meanwhile went into 2013 as the #8 prospect in the Red Sox farm system by Baseball America, at a time when the Red Sox farm was considered well superior to the Rockies. Workman since then has been a productive ML pitcher who happens to be stuck in a log jam at the position.
To me this looks like a perfect 1:1 swap. The Rockies need pitching, the Red Sox need an outfielder. Boston would be taking a risk that Dickerson will be league average the second he leaves Colorado. I'd personally say that Colorado would be getting the real deal here.
As for Gordon, I think that would be more like Ranaudo/De La Rosa/Webster/Barnes. One of the higher upside guys. If KC thinks one of them has #1/#2 potential it would make sense for them. Maybe throw in Hassan to give them an OF body with some potential to break through as an OBP guy if they want something extra, or a low minors lottery ticket (Perkins?). I don't think Gordon will happen because KC was competitive last year and Gordon is a pretty good deal at $12.5M next year with a matching 2016 team option.
I don't think sticking Holt in RF at Fenway is a wise decision. If he is going to see time in the OF it should be in LF. Otherwise he can go to the bench and against righties you have:
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Napoli
Sizemore
AJP
Drew
Nava
JBJ
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Napoli
Sizemore
AJP
Drew
Nava
JBJ
And? I'd say it's pretty obvious why people think he'll be a better OF than a 3B, since reaction time is the big hang up for him at 3B. As for 1B, it might not be the most athletically demanding position in the world, but it's got some unique skill set and awareness demands that no other position requires.joe dokes said:
I think there is a very good chance he's a solid LF immediately and a passable RF though probably with a weaker arm than would be ideal, but someone you could live with especially when outside of Fenway.
Drek717 said:
Actually I hadn't realized that people thought he'd be a better OF than 3B. I just thought it was an attempt to keep his bat in Boston for a while longer.
Regardless, immediately "solid" and "passable" after never having played the outfield before in 6 yrs of pro ball? That is a damn tall order. But in the end, if the coaches think he can do it on the fly, so be it, but I'm skeptical.
To me, the answer is simple: If you're not going to go full beast mode and push your chips into the middle of the table to get Stanton (which almost certainly won't happen), then you strict-platoon Nava and Gomes in LF, hope Victorino is healthy in RF, and let JBJ stay in CF and live with it.
Nava has been bad, but it's only 77 ab this year. Lots of guys have crappy stretches like that.
Career splits:
Nava (vs. RHP): .282/.381/.433/.814
Gomes (vs. LHP): .278/.380/.500/.880
So you're getting essentially a .280/.380/.460/.840 hitter in LF. That's if they play to career norms. Obviously neither has done that so far this season, but I would think that that's the safest bet right now, unless we can get a stud like Stanton.
It's also pretty inexpensive.
Farrell just has to play this by the numbers, not by some Gomes "intangible".
Nava has been bad, but it's only 77 ab this year. Lots of guys have crappy stretches like that.
Career splits:
Nava (vs. RHP): .282/.381/.433/.814
Gomes (vs. LHP): .278/.380/.500/.880
So you're getting essentially a .280/.380/.460/.840 hitter in LF. That's if they play to career norms. Obviously neither has done that so far this season, but I would think that that's the safest bet right now, unless we can get a stud like Stanton.
It's also pretty inexpensive.
Farrell just has to play this by the numbers, not by some Gomes "intangible".
ivanvamp said:
I'm with ivanvamp. If there's an attractive opportunity for a medium- or long-term OF solution (either a Stanton type or a Denorfia type), Ben should look into it.
If not, then help will have to come from JBJ's considerable upside (he's hit a bit more in the last week or so...), Victorino's and Sizemore's health, and Nava and Gomes returning to some approximation of 2013 form. Or, you know, Mookie.
It just doesn't make sense to pour a bunch of resources into someone like Jose Tabata, as if that will cure what ails a sub-.500 team with an erratic starting rotation.
Two points on Nava. I am on the record as being a big Nava believer and it makes no sense to me why he was so poor this year. So keep that in mind -- I'm biased.
1. His xBABIP is .286 using Fangraphs' batted ball classifications. Not great but not .143 either. Obviously a tiny sample size and vulnerable to FG's classification of his batted balls. But he does have 10 line drives according to Fangraphs this year and if I remember correctly at the beginning of the season they seemed to be finding gloves disproportionately.
Using b-ref's numbers they actually give him 12 line drives and just 4 hits on those (league average is a .670 BA on line drives). .120 on ground balls and .053 on fly balls (league average is .242 and .170). So maybe his hits are just weak but it's my opinion that, especially at the beginning of the season he had some bad batted ball luck. With such a small sample size just a few hits can make a big difference, as we know.
2. It's difficult to make this argument as it usually becomes circular and can't be proven or disproven, so if you're inclined against Nava you're going to disagree and that's fine. But you have to question where his head is at due to the team's (Farrell's) actions. This is a guy who was overlooked time and time again, and finally broke through with an all-star level season (against RHP - that's his role). Then he's benched in the biggest series of his career -- at the pinnacle of the sport -- not because Gomes was playing materially better than him but because he made the lineup have more energy (had a cool beard and was funny).
OK, so he can shake that off - he has a whole offseason to do so and hey, they won the whole thing. Farrell tells him "Danny, I made that call at the end, but you know, we wouldn't have gotten there without you and that's real important." Cool.
Then he goes into the next season with his previous role, it's cold, the team is all kind of sluggish, and he doesn't play super great and also has some bad luck. Before you know it it's been a few weeks and he's hitting .140. Ouch. But instead of showing a little confidence in him, the team DEMOTES him to keep a guy who had a hot first week but since then had been just as shitty, and who hasn't had a good season since 2008 and hasn't even been playing baseball since 2011. Nava tries to shake that off, but how do you not let that get to you?
It's possible that he is toast and always was going to stink this year, but it's also possible that they didn't handle things optimally and he would have rebounded quicker and at least been a positive contributor if they had shown the slightest confidence in him. Instead, well, who knows how he'll do.
1. His xBABIP is .286 using Fangraphs' batted ball classifications. Not great but not .143 either. Obviously a tiny sample size and vulnerable to FG's classification of his batted balls. But he does have 10 line drives according to Fangraphs this year and if I remember correctly at the beginning of the season they seemed to be finding gloves disproportionately.
Using b-ref's numbers they actually give him 12 line drives and just 4 hits on those (league average is a .670 BA on line drives). .120 on ground balls and .053 on fly balls (league average is .242 and .170). So maybe his hits are just weak but it's my opinion that, especially at the beginning of the season he had some bad batted ball luck. With such a small sample size just a few hits can make a big difference, as we know.
2. It's difficult to make this argument as it usually becomes circular and can't be proven or disproven, so if you're inclined against Nava you're going to disagree and that's fine. But you have to question where his head is at due to the team's (Farrell's) actions. This is a guy who was overlooked time and time again, and finally broke through with an all-star level season (against RHP - that's his role). Then he's benched in the biggest series of his career -- at the pinnacle of the sport -- not because Gomes was playing materially better than him but because he made the lineup have more energy (had a cool beard and was funny).
OK, so he can shake that off - he has a whole offseason to do so and hey, they won the whole thing. Farrell tells him "Danny, I made that call at the end, but you know, we wouldn't have gotten there without you and that's real important." Cool.
Then he goes into the next season with his previous role, it's cold, the team is all kind of sluggish, and he doesn't play super great and also has some bad luck. Before you know it it's been a few weeks and he's hitting .140. Ouch. But instead of showing a little confidence in him, the team DEMOTES him to keep a guy who had a hot first week but since then had been just as shitty, and who hasn't had a good season since 2008 and hasn't even been playing baseball since 2011. Nava tries to shake that off, but how do you not let that get to you?
It's possible that he is toast and always was going to stink this year, but it's also possible that they didn't handle things optimally and he would have rebounded quicker and at least been a positive contributor if they had shown the slightest confidence in him. Instead, well, who knows how he'll do.
I'm on board with the 'look for someone who provides a longer-term answer' POV, too. The thing that hits you when you look at the current outfield is that even though it's underperforming, 'performing' wouldn't be great, either. Vic is a constant injury risk, and Sizemore is too, but (based on this year's evidence) without any future upside. Gomes is good in a limited role, not so good outside of that. JBJ can catch, but there's really no evidence that he can hit in MLB. And Nava might be okay, or he might have turned back into a pumpkin. So...if the current roster doesn't have any real OF answers on it - and there's no one (aside from Mookie) who looks like an answer on the farm, it seems like 'swap some of our high-value young pitching for high-value OF help' would be a better approach than a Tabata-esque 'stick a band-aid on it and hope tomorrow looks better' approach.
Can we stop with this? I don't know if it's not using language correctly and you mean to say "thus far in MLB JBJ has shown no evidence of his hitting ability" or if you really mean that his minor league career is meaningless in predicting his future. I suspect the latter though, and it's just not true. If you have a reason to think that his minor league track record should be ignored, state that, not these types of truisms.
Farrell on Nava:
Let me translate this: "Ben Cherington called me last night and told me that I'd better start platooning Nava and Gomes if I didn't want to have to find my own transportation home from Cleveland."
Let me translate this: "Ben Cherington called me last night and told me that I'd better start platooning Nava and Gomes if I didn't want to have to find my own transportation home from Cleveland."
smastroyin said:
How good is that minor league track record though? In AA and AAA, both at perfectly age-appropriate years (don't give me "average age of AAA player BS; the appropriate metric is "average age at which major league players with more than 2000 career at bats made it through AAA"), he hit .270 with a good walk rate bringing his OBP up into the upper 300s, and good power for a CFer. Well, transitioning that .270 to the majors, it seems reasonable to expect it to drop to .240, and then for walk rate to decline when facing better pitchers, so combined with the drop in batting average, and OBP of .300 to .310 isn't crazy. So, it seems to me that JBJ's minor league career could easily have suggested a .240 / .305 / .380 line, and if the Red Sox were counting on better than that, they were being overly optimistic. At the beginning of 2013, I projected significantly better, but that was before he had a rather pedestrian batting average and contact rate at Pawtucket last year.
It's not that GM is smart and manager is dumb. It's that when there's an apparent deviation from the manager's previous plans, a reasonable guess could be that his boss told him to. It's a matter of seniority, not intelligence.
I'm against any sort of reactionary moves by the Sox right now. The simple reason being I don't think any one arm or bat is going to turn this year around. I would rather just suck it up and stick with the plan.Drek717 said:
That being said I would love to get Dickerson on this team. He's a great little lefty batter that currently holds a 1.079 OPS. He may never be a full-time player but he would be a great in a platoon role and a bat to come off the bench when he isn't playing (something we sorely lack now).
That's the problem. The fact that I would be so keen on getting him makes me belive the Rockies feel similar about his value. Regardless of someone's ranking as a prospect (8th or 13th in this instance), the acid test of the big league washes that out. We have all heard of innumerable top prospects who just died upon reaching the Show. Right now Dickerson is proving he belongs here. Very much so.
I like Workman. He's a good pitcher. But it's going to take a good deal more than a 1:1 swap. Think about adding something else that makes this realistic. And the key word is Realistic - have you seen Hassan play? Then talk to Ben.
Plympton91 said:
Eh, if you translate the 16/18 SB into 16 singles converted into doubles and a loss of two hits, you get a line of .263/.335/.450/.785 which only just gets him to comparable to his 2013 slash line of .298/.355/.426/.781 with the 52 steals on top of that. And that doesn't adjust for the fact that hitting doubles is better than singling and stealing because of runners on base stuff.
That said, what I haven't seen reported is his numbers to this point last year, which are .268/.337/.372/.710 which looks pretty similar to his current .273/.343/.383/.726. He may be a bust for NY and time will tell, but thus far, he's pretty much the same guy he was last year.
Whether or not that's worth the money is obviously another debate entirely. For this discussion, he definitely would not have been the solution thus far into the season. Of course, neither would last year's Ellsbury have been so.
I made the rare decision to tune into sports radio this afternoon and Michael Holley was making a pretty compelling case that there isn't much to do about the OF, and there probably that wasn't much that could have been done in the off-season either. His argument was that the die was cast in 2012, and that got us Victorino and Gomes, which, with Nava not hitting and Vic out, got us the problems we have now. And sure, they could have made other moves, but those moves after 2012 brought us 2013 which was AWESOME and, well, what would the reaction have been to bringing in guys to move Vic and Gomes out of their spots? It would have seemed pretty weird, right?
So getting away from Holley and back to my own thoughts, personnel-wise (bracketing usage by Farrell) is the switch from Ellsbury to JBJ, and while JBJ's .588 is a significant drop-off, sometimes the guys get injured, and sometimes they stop hitting. I don't have a clue what happened to Nava--I mean, sometimes you can see what's wrong with a guy's approach like X feeling the lure of the monster and trying to pull outside pitches, but sometimes someone just goes Full Bard on you and... man, he looked like he didn't know what to do with a bat.
If Farrell is so smart, why does he cause so much cognitive dissonance with his infernal bunting?Reverend said:
Rudy Pemberton said:
First off: this has nothing to do with one being smart and the other dumb, or vice-versa. It's about decision-making.
Secondly: Manager says things, sticks to them and consistently makes questionable decisions, then, one day, that changes on a whim.
It could be possible Farrell changed his mind with no outside influence, but it's not exactly going out on a limb to assume Cherington, as both his boss and the guy who provided Farrell with the options to use, might've "suggested" he utilize them properly. I really doubt it was in Cherington's initial plans to have Gomes batting against nearly all RHP, especially ones with killer platoon splits.
Now, yes, I'm sure Cherington was part of the decision to send down Nava initially, but that wasn't about Nava personally as much as it was about not losing other assets. If he stayed, the club would've had to cut Carp or Sizemore - not ideal with the small sample sizes at the time.
At the risk of sounding overly cavalier, what's the worst thing that happens if you dump Sizemore, move Betts to the 40-man, call him up, and stick him in RF until Shane Vic comes back? He can't be worse than who the Sox have had out there, and he's been hot. In a worst-case scenario, he struggles mightily and you send him back down having given him a taste of MLB and you're stuck having to re-sign Sizemore (requiring another 40-man move) or using Carp/Hassan in RF until you can trade for someone or Shane Vic gets healthy. In a best-case scenario, he stays hot and gives you a super-sub who can play 2B, SS in a pinch and in the OF all year.
People are talking about a July call-up -- are you going to ruin the kid by calling him up a month earlier?
People are talking about a July call-up -- are you going to ruin the kid by calling him up a month earlier?
Plympton91 said:
The history you enumerate in questioning the quality of his minor league track record specifically excludes his utter torching of the South Atlantic (.933 OPS) and Carolina (1.006 OPS) leagues in the preceding 18 months. Why?
You're also right that his minor league track record suggests a .700ish OPS, give or take 20 or 30 points. That would put him in Austin Jackson, Denard Span, Desmond Jennings territory, and with his glove, that's a good player. (CF stats)
His excellent glove gives him a high floor, essentially replacement level (which is good, because it's what he's shown us so far). The elite on base skills and decent power he's shown in the minors suggests his ceiling in his prime could be quite high — a plus defensive CF with an .780-.800 OPS — i.e. an Angel Pagan-type player.
That is good enough to be a consensus top-50 prospect.
Well, how many managers can you name with Ivy league educations?Rudy Pemberton said:
That being said I don't think it's so much a matter of perceived intelligence as it is the immediate ability to assign blame.
We tend to blame what's in front us. If you get an off sandwich at Subway would blaming the CEO ever come to mind? We see the managers actions daily as they unfold. We don't see process with upper management. Just the unveiling.
In any event I don't think Farrell is intellectually challenged in any way. To the contrary. I believe he is an intelligent man who is over-thinking things in the face of adversity. In essence he could be accused of channeling his inner "Valentine". Shudder the thought.
nattysez said:
He has a grand total of 12 games played in the outfield in his minor league career and only 56 career games above single-A. And you want to rush him up to become the defacto starter in RF for the big league club to accomplish what, exactly?
I think the more prudent option at this juncture, if you're considering Betts like this, is to do it with Holt instead. At least Holt has the benefit of a proven bat at the MLB level (even if he's simply on a hot streak). A 21 year old thrown into a brand new position defensively is likely going to struggle. A 21 year old thrust into facing MLB pitchers with barely any time against AA, let alone AAA pitching is likely going to struggle. Combining the two could be disastrous. At least Holt knows he can hit and there's less risk that he'll carry defensive struggles into the batter's box.
I think we have to be careful about viewing Betts as some kind of savior. If they call him up before late August and it isn't a matter of more injury attrition, I think it's a white flag move rather than an attempt to salvage the 2014 season. It's calling him (and perhaps more young guys) up and throwing him (them) into the fire knowing it doesn't matter if he (they) flails a bit because the season is lost.
nvalvo said:
He was a major college player, so I don't give any credit for performance in low-A, which is where you want your good high school draftees -- like Trey Ball -- to go in their first full year of professional baseball. Performing well in Salem over a half season in your first full year out of college is great, but is certainly trumped by what is now two full years of subsequent performance in AA, AAA, and the majors. You are what your record says you are.
The one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that Betts will not be called up as a "white flag move".Red(s)HawksFan said:
He's not on the 40-man, and does not need to be protected in next year's rule 5 draft.
Similar to Bogaerts last year, the only way he gets a call up is if they think he can help the team make the playoffs or win in the playoffs.
Eddie Jurak said:
Then I don't expect to see him this season. I'm not calling the season lost by any means, but I also don't think the season will be significantly impacted by a 21-year-old rookie who happens to be off to a hot start in AA. He's not a difference maker and he shouldn't be viewed/treated as such.
Dickerson was also a .775 guy in twice the sample size last year. The Rockies manager also keeps benching him in favor of better defenders for RF too (which is why he's averaging 2.6 PA per game this season). He also had a massive home/road split last year.maxotaur said:
Right now Dickerson has had a nice baker's dozen of road starts that have his numbers juiced up. If the Rockies believe that he's now an all-star and not the LH version of Bryce Brentz he was widely considered literally two months ago good for them. If instead they have a more realistic valuation they should trip over themselves with joy to get a solid, high floor SP with some ML experience like Workman for him, as otherwise he's blocked by Gonzalez and I don't think they're going to trade Gonzalez.
nattysez said:
I know this is hyperbole, but the idea that teh GM is telling the Manager who to play is nonsense. That would be the most poorly kept secret in town if it ever happened.
As for something of substance, I haven't seen this theory before. Cafardo caveat, but still:
So its "ridiculous" that he was swinging for fences, but "there were some mechnaical stuf..."
joe dokes said:
Sort of. But I can't imagine that Farrell and Ben haven't talked about the OF situation. Absent Farrell having some hitherto unknown reason why Nava can't play against RHP, it's not a stretch to imagine Ben saying, "I understand the OF sucks, but we're not going to make a trade right now - let's see how Nava pans out in that role for the next two weeks."
Of course, we wouldn't have thought Bogaerts would be a difference maker last season at age 20, and he was.Red(s)HawksFan said:
If the Red Sox are in the playoffs, I think Mookie has better than even odds of being on the playoff roster. But you are right that he won't be the difference between making the playoffs vs not.
Eddie Jurak said:
That's fair. The Red Sox were making the post-season with or without Bogaerts last year. Just as the 2007 team was making the post-season with or without Ellsbury coming up. Their contributions in the post-season are a different animal. If they get there this year, there's a fair chance Mookie could be a contributor in the post-season.
My point was that a lot of other things have to be righted or fixed for this team to make the post-season. Rushing Mookie Betts through AAA in the hopes that he can not only contribute but represent a significant upgrade in the second half is not going to be one of those fixes.
Hard for us fans, mostly watching hitters on TV or occasionally at a game, to analyze what's wrong with a guy that goes bad. Unless a guy is bailing out, or changes his hands or stance or is doing something else obvious, tough for us. Pitchers are easier, although maybe I say that because Lester's funk a couple of years ago could easily be seen on TV . Sometimes hitters come out of it suddenly. A not everyday player, like Nava, that got off to a horrible start and came out of it recently is Gregor Blanco of the Giants. He said it was a confidence thing. OK. No help here, I know.Rovin Romine said:
FRIED CHICKEN & BEER IN DODGERS CLUBHOUSE!
Okay, that's a tabloid headline I just made up, but the clubhouse situation in LA is getting really bad. Hanley is disgruntled, Kemp is pissed, Crawford is lining up his new reality show, Ethier/Mattingly are going at it. Getting ugly. Sounds like they could use Jonny Gomes and we could use Matt Kemp for pennies on the dollar. Problem is, Kemp has looked shitty the past week but maybe he's sulking.
From MLB:
Mattingly's honesty went even further; too far, in fact, to be quoted here in describing his club's play. But he followed up with a cleaner translation -- "Not that good." Before the game, Mattingly suggested club chemistry was a problem, saying his players weren't "pulling in one direction."
A pregame argument on the field Tuesday between reliever Kenley Jansen and shortstop Hanley Ramirez, within media earshot, was just the latest sign of discontent for a team that hasn't justified its $235 million payroll.
Three position starters -- left fielder Carl Crawford, third baseman Juan Uribe and catcher A.J. Ellis -- are on the disabled list. Others are clearly unhappy, among them former Gold Glove center fielder Matt Kemp after being moved to left field; and Ramirez, who never got the contract extension he wanted. Andre Ethier and Mattingly exchanged words in the dugout last week.
"Honestly, I'm so tired of talking about individual guys instead of talking about us as a club and how we're going to win games," Mattingly said. "There's so much focus on individual guys that we've gotten away from: 'What's the team doing? How are we going to win games?'"
Mattingly spoke at length on how the Dodgers are lacking a team feeling, that they're not all moving in one direction. Mattingly couldn't explain why that's the case, but he said it has nothing to do with his crowded outfield.
Okay, that's a tabloid headline I just made up, but the clubhouse situation in LA is getting really bad. Hanley is disgruntled, Kemp is pissed, Crawford is lining up his new reality show, Ethier/Mattingly are going at it. Getting ugly. Sounds like they could use Jonny Gomes and we could use Matt Kemp for pennies on the dollar. Problem is, Kemp has looked shitty the past week but maybe he's sulking.
From MLB:
Mattingly's honesty went even further; too far, in fact, to be quoted here in describing his club's play. But he followed up with a cleaner translation -- "Not that good." Before the game, Mattingly suggested club chemistry was a problem, saying his players weren't "pulling in one direction."
A pregame argument on the field Tuesday between reliever Kenley Jansen and shortstop Hanley Ramirez, within media earshot, was just the latest sign of discontent for a team that hasn't justified its $235 million payroll.
Three position starters -- left fielder Carl Crawford, third baseman Juan Uribe and catcher A.J. Ellis -- are on the disabled list. Others are clearly unhappy, among them former Gold Glove center fielder Matt Kemp after being moved to left field; and Ramirez, who never got the contract extension he wanted. Andre Ethier and Mattingly exchanged words in the dugout last week.
"Honestly, I'm so tired of talking about individual guys instead of talking about us as a club and how we're going to win games," Mattingly said. "There's so much focus on individual guys that we've gotten away from: 'What's the team doing? How are we going to win games?'"
Mattingly spoke at length on how the Dodgers are lacking a team feeling, that they're not all moving in one direction. Mattingly couldn't explain why that's the case, but he said it has nothing to do with his crowded outfield.
The team is only four games out of the Wild Card and may still be right in the middle of that race in late July. Given that the Wild Card is often decided by a single game in the standings, could Betts represent a 1 win upgrade over the last two months of the season vis-a-vis guys on the existing roster? Its hard to say until we see how Betts fares in AAA but that's not implausible to me.Red(s)HawksFan said:
I know the playoffs are a crapshoot (tm)...but the odds of a very flawed Red Sox (or Yankee) team succeeding against one of (Tigers, A's, or even Blue Jays) in a series have got to be pretty slim - unless Red Sox (or Yankee) pitching rises to a level that puts them among baseball's best staffs.
I agree with HawksFan and Max above that any incremental moves that require trading away young talent are, given what we've seen this year, fool's gold. Better to just ride out the season without mortgaging anything and see what shakes out. The playoff competition in both leagues is (right now) so much better than the 2nd tier teams fighting for wild card spots.
I agree with HawksFan and Max above that any incremental moves that require trading away young talent are, given what we've seen this year, fool's gold. Better to just ride out the season without mortgaging anything and see what shakes out. The playoff competition in both leagues is (right now) so much better than the 2nd tier teams fighting for wild card spots.
They really don't. We need to get healthy. Napoli, Victorino, and even Middlebrooks against lefties so Drew can sit change the lineup dramatically.geoduck no quahog said:
Other than that, we're just looking at Bradley improving to be the high OBP guy we know he can be and trading for a platoon partner for Gomes.
We won't be the favorites but we can win the division and hope we don't get the Tigers or As in the Division series.
Rasputin said:
Plus, this team has really been dragged down by the performances of the 4th and 5th starters. Leaning heavily on Lester, Lackey, and the back end of the bullpen, who the hell knows what could happen. Sometimes you get lucky, but you've got to make it there first.
There's no reason to believe in the first week of June that the team is a bunch of dead men walking, effectiveness of the current outfield aside.
Adrian's Dome said:
Yeah, the key would be to figure out if there's a third starter that can be relied upon in a short series. Looking at the whole roster and concluding that Boston couldn't beat Detroit, Oakland or Toronto in a series is short-sighted.
I won't get into any specific trade scenarios, only to ask why are the Sox not zeroing in on Joc Pederson and Jake Marisnick, two players with high ceilings and blocked in the systems they play for? We have a boatload of prospects (except outfielders) and role players who would fit in nicely on the Dodgers and Marlins.
benhogan said:
You know he's 39 years old, right? As great as he's been for the Sox, his days are surely numbered. Year to year is really all you want to go with him. And if the team continues to fall out of contention and they can turn him into a prospect or two at the deadline, they absolutely have to do it.
- Status