Betts needs to play some 2B

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Pedroia is 4 years younger than Loretta was in '06....so it's possible he's breaking down faster than Loretta offensively.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Apparently, Schumps, Geo and myself are on an island in here....no worries.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pedroia is 4 years younger than Loretta was in '06....so it's possible he's breaking down faster than Loretta offensively.

    [/QUOTE]


    Or, he's just having an off year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I knew some dimwit would bring up Loretta. 

    Defense.  It is still important.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dimwit"?  Asinine suggestion, total confusion about Yaz' career, inability to deliver an analogous situation yet refusal yield an inch.  Pot/kettle? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You have a unique ability to not stay on subject - you must be great in staff meetings.

    Yaz was the best LF on the Sox roster in 1975.  Rice couldn't get out of his own way out there and carbo was a back up.  I only brought up Yaz because somebody was playing the "I've been a fan since Jim Lonborg" - and it is tiresome when somebody plays that card.  So I pointed out that even Yaz - a HoF OF didn't play a162 in LF every year.  Sometimes younger players got the chance.  And that's where you jumped in because you are a buffoon. 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I knew some dimwit would bring up Loretta. 

    Defense.  It is still important.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dimwit"?  Asinine suggestion, total confusion about Yaz' career, inability to deliver an analogous situation yet refusal yield an inch.  Pot/kettle? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You have a unique ability to not stay on subject - you must be great in staff meetings.

    Yaz was the best LF on the Sox roster in 1975.  Rice couldn't get out of his own way out there and carbo was a back up.  I only brought up Yaz because somebody was playing the "I've been a fan since Jim Lonborg" - and it is tiresome when somebody plays that card.  So I pointed out that even Yaz - a HoF OF didn't play a162 in LF every year.  Sometimes younger players got the chance.  And that's where you jumped in because you are a buffoon. 

     [/QUOTE]
    Yaz certainly was the best LF and probably the best 1B. On the other hand, Rice played 90 games in left and didn't make an error so he was better than you're implying.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I knew some dimwit would bring up Loretta. 

    Defense.  It is still important.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dimwit"?  Asinine suggestion, total confusion about Yaz' career, inability to deliver an analogous situation yet refusal yield an inch.  Pot/kettle? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You have a unique ability to not stay on subject - you must be great in staff meetings.

    Yaz was the best LF on the Sox roster in 1975.  Rice couldn't get out of his own way out there and carbo was a back up.  I only brought up Yaz because somebody was playing the "I've been a fan since Jim Lonborg" - and it is tiresome when somebody plays that card.  So I pointed out that even Yaz - a HoF OF didn't play a162 in LF every year.  Sometimes younger players got the chance.  And that's where you jumped in because you are a buffoon. 

     [/QUOTE]
    Yaz certainly was the best LF and probably the best 1B. On the other hand, Rice played 90 games in left and didn't make an error so he was better than you're implying

     

    Rice was shaky in LF. anyone who watched then could plainly see it...he was no Yaz - ut then again his bat was too good to keep out of the lineup

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    You're all over the map. First you say let Betts play some 2B but in another post you're proposing to trade Pedroia for pitching. If you're making that decision after Betts plays SOME 2B, then yeah, you're handing Betts the position.

    So which is it? 

    It really is a good thing you're not running the team. The Sox have the best DH in the game who has earned the playing time, yet you want to sit him to DH a player who'll never be a DH for the Sox just so a rookie can play a few games at 2B so he can prove in those few games he can play 2B so you can trade one of the top six 2B and put another rookie in the lineup.

    Evidently you don't believe a player has to do much to earn a job. To you, Betts can earn 2B by playing some games to let you trade Pedroia. Well on the other hand, Pedroia produced at an All-Star level last year and yet you say he was handed the position. All over the map again. I hope you don't drive like that. If so, stay out of Florida.

    And try to work on that selective reading comprehension, would you? Just a friendly suggestion. I've written I have no problem with giving Betts a couple of games at 2B to give Pedroia a day off. Do I need to write that sentence again or did it sink in yet.

    But here's a novel idea.

    The Sox have questions and or rookies at CF, 3B and SS, plus a starting rotation that needs to be rebuilt. Why not settle those positions first before creating another issue at a position.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     I cannot believe how dumb you are.  Your summation of everything I have written is the EXACT opposite of what I have written. 

    I never said "sit" Ortiz.  Can you at least try to stop lying?  How the heck do you function in life when all you do is lie?  I said it would be okay if Ortiz were given a day off now and then so others could play because the Red Sox are OUT OF CONTENTION.  I'm not saying bench Ortiz.

    I am not saying bench pedroia.  Never said that.  I said give him some days off - let him DH occasionally and get your #1 prospect who is a 2B a chance to play 2B.  That is NOT benching pedroia.

    I was then asked - who cares if Betts can play because there are no circumstances under which Pedroia won't be next year's 2B.  I replied, That is wrong - he could be hurt or he could be traded. 

    It is also possible that betts will be a mediocre 2B and we will know that he is better suited elsewhere.  Right now - no one knows.

    If Pedroia in a package deal could bring Stanton to Boston - I'm glad to trade him.  I think most people in this thread would never trade Pedroia - even if Kershaw came in return and the Dodgers paid Kershaw's salary.

    Such is the madness of Dusty-Cult.

    I've never seen so much fear from fans; anything but that!  Don't let anyone play 2B except Dusty!  Ever!  For as long as we live!

     It's quite possible that Betts will be better than Pedroia; but we'll never know.  Finding out is verboten.

    [/QUOTE]

    Holy crp, do you even know what you wrote. You wrote, “ I never said sit Ortiz.” OK -- what you did write was “But fear rules the day - we can’t let Dusty DH or sit out a game here and there.”

    You do know that if Pedroia DH’s, that means Ortiz will sit as I’m sure you know there can be just one DH in a game. Or are you that stupid (to play in your ballpark) that all of a sudden after not using Ortiz at 1B except in NL parks, that the Sox will DH Pedroia and play Ortiz at 1B just so Betts can play second. Can you at least pretend to know something about the game instead of accusing someone of lying when they’re just re-iterating what you’ve written.

    I never said you said bench Pedroia or Ortiz. I never used the word bench. So here’s another idea. Why don’t you stop lying?

    Do you really think that Betts playing a handful of games at 2B will let us know if he can play second or is better suited elsewhere? What -- did the field suddenly change from minors to the majors. The Sox already know how good Betts is defensively. Like all minor leagues, the question is can he hit? You can find that out by playing him at any position.

    You write, “If Pedroia in a package could bring Stanton.” Seriously? If the Marlins are going to trade Stanton to the Sox, they’re going to want Betts and others, not veteran with a big contract. You’re Kershaw example is just as stupid. I know your using it as a hypothetical to show your willingness to trade Pedroia and to create a strawman as fans unwillingness to trade Pedroia.

    Why don’t you come up with a realistic trade scenario to see if fans would agree to trade. No. That would take thinking. You’d rather make up phrases like Dusty-cult and make statements like fans don’t want anyone to play 2B but Dusty. (And seriously. Who calls Pedroia, Dusty.)



     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The same group of you who are saying that Pedroia has been handed the positon now simply want to hand the position to a rookie. A bit hypocritical, don't you think.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I think if you have to lie to make your point, it is you who are pathetic. 

    The proposal was to let Betts play SOME 2B.  Not hand him the job. 

    But fear rules the day - we can't let Dusty DH or sit out a game here and there.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're all over the map. First you say let Betts play some 2B but in another post you're proposing to trade Pedroia for pitching. If you're making that decision after Betts plays SOME 2B, then yeah, you're handing Betts the position.

    So which is it? 

    It really is a good thing you're not running the team. The Sox have the best DH in the game who has earned the playing time, yet you want to sit him to DH a player who'll never be a DH for the Sox just so a rookie can play a few games at 2B so he can prove in those few games he can play 2B so you can trade one of the top six 2B and put another rookie in the lineup.

    Evidently you don't believe a player has to do much to earn a job. To you, Betts can earn 2B by playing some games to let you trade Pedroia. Well on the other hand, Pedroia produced at an All-Star level last year and yet you say he was handed the position. All over the map again. I hope you don't drive like that. If so, stay out of Florida.

    And try to work on that selective reading comprehension, would you? Just a friendly suggestion. I've written I have no problem with giving Betts a couple of games at 2B to give Pedroia a day off. Do I need to write that sentence again or did it sink in yet.

    But here's a novel idea.

    The Sox have questions and or rookies at CF, 3B and SS, plus a starting rotation that needs to be rebuilt. Why not settle those positions first before creating another issue at a position.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In Schumps defense, I think I was the one who said the term possible trade of Pedroia if Betts were sensational in a short time defensively at 2b. But here's my point and this is something that still proves my point that there is a massive come to the defense of the defensive-minded, slipping in power Pedroia. Let's say he is a veteran who deserves respect...Didn't Lester deserve better? Didn't the fans deserve better than to see both Peavy and Lackey discarded with no real idea how to replace them in place. Rookies? Oh wait, you can only use young SPs to replace veteran SPs, but if you apply the same logic to a rookie 2b to Pedroia, you simply can't do it...Why? Who made Pedroia THE UNTOUCHABLE? He becomes an incredible trade chip if you think about his age, his GG defense and the Hometown Discount Contract. Is that too hard to understand or it just that the emotions I'm accused of having isn't affecting some of the Pedroia die-hard fans. Look, I love the guy, I really do. But I loved Lester and Lackey probably more to be honest. Why? They were 2 postseason proven veterans who had a LOT TO STILL OFFER. Instead dealt because the organization thinks it's so damn easy to build a Rotation. It's not. It's blown up and a lot has to happen to change it. Roy, you said wait till '15 to make a comment about how the rotation will be. And I say let Betts play some 2b in a non-competitive time for Sox baseball to help with determining possible options TO MAKE THE ROTATION BETTER. It may never come down to trading Pedroia or Betts, but one or both could eventually be the difference between getting a really strong SP in the off-season.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can’t really compare the Lester and Pedroia situations. Pedroia is locked up and signed what has been deemed a favorable salary. Lester is unsigned and will cost considerably more, and pitchers are much more high-risk commodities. That made Lester tradeable.

    Did Lester deserve better? I don’t know. He never gave the Sox numbers so we really don’t know what he thought a hometown discout was. Having said that, I’m on record as being in favor of re-signing Lester. I still hope they sign him in the offseason.

    Now you lose me with your criticism of the Peavy and Lackey trades because IMO, they’re different situations. Let’s start with Peavy. The Sox have pitching prospects who have upside. Peavy, while he should have had more wins with better run support, wasn’t exactly pitchign lights out. The Sox have plenty of pitching prospects so you do trade a Peavy who is on the downside of his career to open up a spot for a prospect who might be ready and have more upside.

    Lackey is different. First, as to the immediate plan is to see how the young pitchers do. Of course, you don’t know if the youngsgters will produce. If you’re looking for guarantees, then you’re not going to make any moves because whether you brought in a rookie or a veteran, there’s still no guarantee. But beyond that, Lackey was traded because the Sox needed help with the offense and Cherington felt it will be easier to add to the pitching in the offseason than the offense. You need to open your field of vision in this area.

    Somehow tying it to Pedroia makes no sense. You’re using young pitchers to replace the veterans because you have the propects PLUS you were able to use the veterans to boost the offense AND you feel you can find veteran pitchers in the offseason to fill in the gaps.

    Trading Pedroia would simply open another hole in the offense, which you’re trying to fill.

    I’m wary about rebuilding the rotation, but in this case, the Sox have a bunch of arms they can throw at the problem -- not just one player at one position. And I agree with Cherington that it might be easier to find pitching than hitting in the offseason.

    Why does Betts HAVE TO PLAY second base. The Sox already know what kind of defender he is. They just need to know if he can hit, so again, why does it have to be at second, especially because the odds of trading Pedroia is slim and not because Pedroia is untouchable. It’s because as good as Pedroia is, he is 30 and has a big contract. What do you think you’re going to get for him. Betts included in a package will be more enticing to teams.

    I just don’t understand why you needed to start this holy war against Pedroia simply because your mad that Cherington blew up the pitching staff. It’s like you want to punish Pedroia for it.

    Why couldn’t have you kept it simple and say you’d like to see Betts get as many at-bats as possible and it should be OK if a few of those games come at 2B. Simple.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    But that's what people, including you I believe, didn't think was worth doing--playing Betts some games at 2b. I just would like to see what he does over there. Maybe Pedroia has a potential guy to challenge him in the future, maybe Betts is pedestrian defender there. But instead of people anointing him as the next CF, I think Betts deserves an opportunity to use these meaningless exhibition (real) games to see what he could do at 2b. I'm not sure that I have any idea what kind of defender he would be at 2b. I've never seen him play there. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But that's what people, including you I believe, didn't think was worth doing--playing Betts some games at 2b. I just would like to see what he does over there. Maybe Pedroia has a potential guy to challenge him in the future, maybe Betts is pedestrian defender there. But instead of people anointing him as the next CF, I think Betts deserves an opportunity to use these meaningless exhibition (real) games to see what he could do at 2b. I'm not sure that I have any idea what kind of defender he would be at 2b. I've never seen him play there. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Hilarious how so many here are AFRAID of getting Betts some time at his natural position...sorry folks but no one is above replacement - especially a declining Pedroia....

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    and may I add Lester wasnt declining and we still traded him without even worrying about a replacement...Pedroia should be sitting down 2x a week to let Betts play at 2B...and then Betts can play 2x a week in the outfield..this will give the team a very good idea of what they have and how they can parlay it in a trade to improve the team in 2015

    As always - 100% correct!

     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    This dismissal of Lester by fans and then the "hope" he will return is mind-boggling. The Sox were afraid of losing him for nothing, they created the situation, they undercut him in a 4-year, 70 mil offer that yes WAS VERY INSULTING....But Dustin is simply THE UNTOUCHABLE...it's really all you can ascertain by the number of posts about him being the heart/soul of the Sox. Maybe the heart/soul was dealt away a week ago--Lester, Lackey. Maybe they SHOULD have been Untouchables.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    It's not hating on Pedroia, it's simply stating a fact that he can have declining offensive numbers and he's hands off based on his contract to even allow Betts a chance to play some 2b. Lester who was ascending could have been signed and done after the WS title. But the Sox bet he wouldn't be as good as he's been. And then got lucky to get Cespedes for him as the only saving grace of giving up one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    There was ZERO PLAN in the trades and dumping of the Sox '13 Rotation...It was a Firesale, Garage Sale with bodies all over the lawn....Peavy, Lackey, Lester, and throw in needlessly Miller too...Doubront I can understand.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's not hating on Pedroia, it's simply stating a fact that he can have declining offensive numbers and he's hands off based on his contract to even allow Betts a chance to play some 2b. Lester who was ascending could have been signed and done after the WS title. But the Sox bet he wouldn't be as good as he's been. And then got lucky to get Cespedes for him as the only saving grace of giving up one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball....

    [/QUOTE]

    Heart and Soul = We signed him cheap and we don't care if he's declining...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I knew some dimwit would bring up Loretta. 

    Defense.  It is still important.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Dimwit"?  Asinine suggestion, total confusion about Yaz' career, inability to deliver an analogous situation yet refusal yield an inch.  Pot/kettle? 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You have a unique ability to not stay on subject - you must be great in staff meetings.

    Yaz was the best LF on the Sox roster in 1975.  Rice couldn't get out of his own way out there and carbo was a back up.  I only brought up Yaz because somebody was playing the "I've been a fan since Jim Lonborg" - and it is tiresome when somebody plays that card.  So I pointed out that even Yaz - a HoF OF didn't play a162 in LF every year.  Sometimes younger players got the chance.  And that's where you jumped in because you are a buffoon. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong again.  Quelle surprise!

    1)  Yaz played 8 (eight) games in LF for the Red Sox in 1975, Mr. Baseball.

    2)  You first mentioned Yaz on this thread after I wrote that your OP was idiotic, unprecedented...that no team would do such a thing (i.e. drop a star player "a couple of games a week") and challenged you to give an example.  And your example was Yaz in '75, so I pointed out that Yaz effectively stopped being a full time OF in 1969.  Poor you.  I imagine you weren't very smart before...nowadays...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Not that it matters, but Yaz moved to LF in the 75 Playoffs after Rice's broken hand....played there in the postseason was outstanding there especially v. Oakland.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There was ZERO PLAN in the trades and dumping of the Sox '13 Rotation...It was a Firesale, Garage Sale with bodies all over the lawn....Peavy, Lackey, Lester, and throw in needlessly Miller too...Doubront I can understand.

    [/QUOTE]
    Just because you don't agree with the rationale, it doesn't mean there wasn't a plan. Peavy was traded because he was mediocre at best. So if that's the case and you have pitching prospects you think are ready, you trade them.

    Lester was traded because of the issue of his contract. Sox wanted something for him and needed outfielder power. So they traded him for Cespedes, rather than lose him for nothing as a FA.

    Lackey the same thing. The Sox have an abundance of pitching prospects and Cherington felt in this offseason, getting a veteran pitcher would be easier than getting a bat. Just because you don't agree, it doesn't mean there was rational reasoning behind what they did.

     

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that it matters, but Yaz moved to LF in the 75 Playoffs after Rice's broken hand....played there in the postseason was outstanding there especially v. Oakland.

    [/QUOTE]
    To add, Yaz played just LF in the ALCS and first three games of the W.S. then played played just 1B in three of the last four games of the W.S. and played LF and 1B in the Game 6.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But that's what people, including you I believe, didn't think was worth doing--playing Betts some games at 2b. I just would like to see what he does over there. Maybe Pedroia has a potential guy to challenge him in the future, maybe Betts is pedestrian defender there. But instead of people anointing him as the next CF, I think Betts deserves an opportunity to use these meaningless exhibition (real) games to see what he could do at 2b. I'm not sure that I have any idea what kind of defender he would be at 2b. I've never seen him play there. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You're not sure what kind of defender he'd be at 2B because you didn't watch him play in the minors. I think the Sox know what kind of a defender he'd be. You're obsession with him playing 2B is beyond belief. If the Sox feel Betts could be in the picture next year, they need to simply find him at bats. Sitting Pedroia twice a week as Geo suggested his ridiculous.

    Name one team who sat a veteran in his prime -- top six at his position -- that much just so a rookie can play. It just isn't done.And what words are you trying to put in my mouth. I said it's fine if Betts plays a few games at 2B -- maybe a half dozen tops. It goes back that the Sox have issues at other positions, not 2B, so if you think Betts can help the offense next year, it's to help at one of those positions.What team when they have questions at three positions -- 3B, SS and CF -- creates an issue at a fourth position that is manned by a player who in an off year remains the best defensive player at his position and top six overall.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    dIn response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The same group of you who are saying that Pedroia has been handed the positon now simply want to hand the position to a rookie. A bit hypocritical, don't you think.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I think if you have to lie to make your point, it is you who are pathetic. 

    The proposal was to let Betts play SOME 2B.  Not hand him the job. 

    But fear rules the day - we can't let Dusty DH or sit out a game here and there.

    [/QUOTE]


    The underlying message of the proposal was to move Pedroia.   The Sox have a lot of work to do, but this isn't the most likely or smartest path.

     

    It looksd to me like the ?Sox have plenty of room for both Betts and Pedroia.  They will be making some trades, I imagine, but I think newcomers like Edwin Escobar (who will have no options left) and possibly even Yoenis Cespedes (whose acquisition appeared to inspire the Reds to put Latos on the market) are more likely to be potential trade bait.

     

    The Sox aren't going into a youth movement.  At the trading deadline, two of their biggest acquisitions were 20 and 30 years old.  Why would these moves make you think the team needs to get younger at 2B?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Underlying response to asking if Mookie could get a few reps at 2b in meaningless games is how dare anyone suggest Pedroia is anything but the team's untouchable player...Forsome reason, none of the SP were untouchable. If Mookie is a natural 2b, then it appears he will have to be playing that position somewhere else. I think most scouts would like to see a player perform at the MLB level on defense before making judgment calls. However, Mookie's future is not going to be his natural position in Boston. Not with Pedroia here.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    dIn response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The same group of you who are saying that Pedroia has been handed the positon now simply want to hand the position to a rookie. A bit hypocritical, don't you think.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I think if you have to lie to make your point, it is you who are pathetic. 

    The proposal was to let Betts play SOME 2B.  Not hand him the job. 

    But fear rules the day - we can't let Dusty DH or sit out a game here and there.

    [/QUOTE]


    The underlying message of the proposal was to move Pedroia.   The Sox have a lot of work to do, but this isn't the most likely or smartest path.

     

    It looksd to me like the ?Sox have plenty of room for both Betts and Pedroia.  They will be making some trades, I imagine, but I think newcomers like Edwin Escobar (who will have no options left) and possibly even Yoenis Cespedes (whose acquisition appeared to inspire the Reds to put Latos on the market) are more likely to be potential trade bait.

     

    The Sox aren't going into a youth movement.  At the trading deadline, two of their biggest acquisitions were 20 and 30 years old.  Why would these moves make you think the team needs to get younger at 2B?

    [/QUOTE]

    notin, there was a factoid that said that the Sox '14 roster after the final FireSale was at an average age of 28 or 3 years younger than the '13 WS champions....that's a youth movement, no?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Underlying response to asking if Mookie could get a few reps at 2b in meaningless games is how dare anyone suggest Pedroia is anything but the team's untouchable player...Forsome reason, none of the SP were untouchable. If Mookie is a natural 2b, then it appears he will have to be playing that position somewhere else. I think most scouts would like to see a player perform at the MLB level on defense before making judgment calls. However, Mookie's future is not going to be his natural position in Boston. Not with Pedroia here.

    [/QUOTE]


    The flip side of that argument is why is Mookie so important that he can't switch positions, if he's blocked at 2b?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Underlying response to asking if Mookie could get a few reps at 2b in meaningless games is how dare anyone suggest Pedroia is anything but the team's untouchable player...Forsome reason, none of the SP were untouchable. If Mookie is a natural 2b, then it appears he will have to be playing that position somewhere else. I think most scouts would like to see a player perform at the MLB level on defense before making judgment calls. However, Mookie's future is not going to be his natural position in Boston. Not with Pedroia here.

    [/QUOTE]


    The flip side of that argument is why is Mookie so important that he can't switch positions, if he's blocked at 2b?

    [/QUOTE]

    Mookie is trade bait for a major star....maximize his value by showcasing him at his best position - not some new one....Pedroia could use a few more games off as he ages - it will help preserve him (and Im betting that next year, coaching will do this frequently to keep him fresher)

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share