Betts needs to play some 2B

  1. 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 dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But what if Mookie was sensational at 2b defensively, what if he is? How will we ever know for sure without seeing him in a few MLB games at 2b?....The consensus here means nothing. The Sox FO will not allow Betts to play 2b. Pedroia's spot for years to come. I think ultimately Betts should play 2nd at Pawtucket for a whole season. Then let's revisit the thread and see if Pedroia's production gets better, gets worse or he is breaking down while Betts is getting better offensively...But even then, they won't let Betts get a shot at 2b. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    We aren't allowed to find that out.  It would be too psychically damaging to the psyche of fans to see someone else play 2B.

    Emotion-driven fans will never allow St. Dustin to be removed from 2B for any reason - not for one game; not for one inning; not for one AB.

    Yaz?  Of course Yaz could give up his Gold Glove performance in LF.  They will wax poetic about the justice of Yaz a Gold Glove OF being taken out of the OF for FIVE seasons so an assortment of mediocre OF could play LF.

    But allow Betts to play 2B for a couple games on a last place team??  The horror! 

    Such goofy emotionalism from Roy et al in this thread.  

    [/QUOTE]

    And who's a liar? Making up your own little reality.

    Emotionalism? This from a poster who uses phrases like Dusty-Cult. This from a person who basically has called Pedroia selfish, implying he's not a team player. Ummm ... has anyone ever asked Pedroia to play another position or the good of the team?

    Thought not.

     

    Emotionalism? This from a poster who is so invested in his own position that he has to invent views of others simply because his psyche can't handle how over the top he's been on this thread. Either that or he's not smart enough to understand what someone else is writing. 

     

     
  2. 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 what if Mookie was sensational at 2b defensively, what if he is? How will we ever know for sure without seeing him in a few MLB games at 2b?....The consensus here means nothing. The Sox FO will not allow Betts to play 2b. Pedroia's spot for years to come. I think ultimately Betts should play 2nd at Pawtucket for a whole season. Then let's revisit the thread and see if Pedroia's production gets better, gets worse or he is breaking down while Betts is getting better offensively...But even then, they won't let Betts get a shot at 2b. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Answer this question the two questions in bold.

    Betts has played 276 games in the minors at second base. What is the front office going to see in a few games at the major league level that they didn't already see in those 276 games?

    The Sox have issues at other positions and a second baseman who in an off year by his standards still is one of the top six all-around and THE BEST defensively. I would think most rationale fans would expect the front office to address those spots.

    Why did second base suddenly become an issue for you?

    Danny, we've had a good spirited discussion on this thread. You've remained civil, while Ghost needed to attack me, so I played in his ballpark in answering his posts. And you're a smart baseball guy.

    So really -- why are you creating some sort of issue that really doesn't exist. If the front office isn't playing Betts at second base, it's not because of some conscious, sinister conspiracy. You use the term "untouchable."

    The reality is simple as I've stated before. The Sox have a second baseman who has produced at a high level -- top two or three. On another post, I showed how he ranked in categories last year. And in this supposed down year, he's still rank high.

    So isn't it more likely that a reasonable person would submit that the Sox have issues that need to be addressed, but second base isn't one of them. Betts is a tremendous prospect that could help elsewhere and that's why he's not playing second base.

    Now -- if the Sox were solid at all the other spots around the diamond and Pedroia was hitting .230 and really scuffling along, then the entire tone of your posts would be understandable.

    But that's not the case.

    My whole problem with this thread isn't the general notion of giving Betts some games at second base.

    It's the way Pedroia has been portrayed. A player like him who plays hard, who plays hurt, who goes all out all the time is selfish player and not a team player. 

    Oh -- and it's wrong to defend him.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    roy, so we're clear, yes I probably have been a little over the top on Betts seeing time at 2b, but I really do think there is a bit of an over-protectiveness in defending Pedroia. Now, I've said this a number of times---Pedroia is as good a defensive 2b as I've ever seen. He has made so many spectacular plays over the years that you almost expect 2 great plays from him every game. My problem with the Sox, and it's probably unfair to pick on Pedroia, is that if the tables were switched--meaning let's say it was Pedroia in his contract year--and Lester locked up, how untouchable would he be? I would be clamoring that you can't ever trade Dustin as he is a dirtdog and a hustler and a true Sox guy who helped the team win 2 WS titles (i.e. Lester...). Then let's say Dustin gets traded for Cespedes. How would you feel? Pretty mad, no? That's me right now. I think Lester was traded for no real reason other than the Sox couldn't learn from previous mistakes. Or that for whatever reason they thought he was expendable. He is not expendable. Not for a position player, not for Cespedes, not for Hamels, not for Scherzer, not for Price. Lester is exactly who the Sox should be signing to CC type contracts. And instead, he's gone, and so is Lackey, and so is Peavy, and Miller...and the Sox treat it like it's going to be easy to replace them all. So when you come to the defense of Pedroia, who, unlike Lester, was having an off-season and was part of the reason why the Sox have faltered (i.e. RISP most of the season, 42 RBI for a guy who should have more and just 5 HR, signifying his decline in power), I say what's the big deal. Pedroia is a guy you know, you feel is a keeper. And I'm with you on it. But Betts is a trade bait, and if he showed some leather in a week's worth of games at 2b, and it resulted in a possible trade down the line, this is the time to play him there. You're right, I'm not upset at Pedroia, I'm upset with a FO and a fan-base that for whatever reason think it was okay to blow up the rotation. Lester was expendable is how fans look at it. Pedroia is not. I see some sort of double standard there. 

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Lester is 30 and having his best season and is the type of guy who I really believe will pitch into his late 30s effectively. What's not to want to sign for 125 mil for 6 years? Instead it was 70 mil for 4 years and then you wonder why negotiations never became serious.

     
  5. 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]

    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...

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Who won the Gold Glove for LF in 1977, genius?  Carl Yastrzemski.

    Did you know that?  I guess not. 

    So who was the superior OF in 1975?  Yaz.

    And yet the Red Sox did not play Yaz in LF in 1975 - they played Rice and Carbo our there (mostly rice who could not field at all).

    This line of argument (About Yaz) which you are attempting to make a "gotcha moment" actually works against you because if they had handled Yaz like you insist they handle Pedroia - Yaz would have played LF every game every year his whole career because he had "earned it as a veteran"

    LOOK at 1977.  Gold Glove award for Yaz.  he was clearly the best LF - but he was willing to subjugate personal for team.  Not just a few games - many games.

    He could have said in 1972 thru 1976 - under no circumstances will I sit out even one game a week in LF; But Yaz didn't do that - he was a team guy.

    LOOK at 1971.  Yaz at age 31 (same age as Pedroia) won the Gold Glove in the OF.  The VERY NEXT year yaz played 83 games in OF.  Why?  Did he suddenly stink?  No.  He won the GG in 1977, genius.

    Yaz did what was best for the team.  Always.

    So yes, he is an excellent example of a star who set aside his personal desires for the good of the team.  I'm glad you are harping over Yaz because the facts support me and make you an idiot.

    Yaz - the legitimate heart and soul guy - had no problem doing what was best for the team.

    Yet, many here suggest that asking Pedroia to let Betts play some 2B is Outrageous (it isn't), unprecedented (it's not) and unfair (wrong).

    So you have no clue on Yaz.  thanks for begging for a smack-down.

     [/QUOTE]



    A Gold Glove, Mr. Baseball?  Wow, you really know your stuff.

    You are desperately trying to sound less ridiculous than you do, good luck with that.  My point was not that Yaz couldn't play OF after 1969, it's that he didn't much.  Still waiting for your example of a veteran, star player sitting a couple of days a week to showcase a rookie.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B


    I have seen enough of a sample that the kid "has it". His bat speed and control along with his decent speed will get him on base. He is a natural 2nd base guy and would look good part of the deal for Stanton.

     

     

     

     

    BDC member since 12/13/2004 "Can you believe it?"

    Statistics and Memories are forever.

     
  7. 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]

    roy, so we're clear, yes I probably have been a little over the top on Betts seeing time at 2b, but I really do think there is a bit of an over-protectiveness in defending Pedroia. Now, I've said this a number of times---Pedroia is as good a defensive 2b as I've ever seen. He has made so many spectacular plays over the years that you almost expect 2 great plays from him every game. My problem with the Sox, and it's probably unfair to pick on Pedroia, is that if the tables were switched--meaning let's say it was Pedroia in his contract year--and Lester locked up, how untouchable would he be? I would be clamoring that you can't ever trade Dustin as he is a dirtdog and a hustler and a true Sox guy who helped the team win 2 WS titles (i.e. Lester...). Then let's say Dustin gets traded for Cespedes. How would you feel? Pretty mad, no? That's me right now. I think Lester was traded for no real reason other than the Sox couldn't learn from previous mistakes. Or that for whatever reason they thought he was expendable. He is not expendable. Not for a position player, not for Cespedes, not for Hamels, not for Scherzer, not for Price. Lester is exactly who the Sox should be signing to CC type contracts. And instead, he's gone, and so is Lackey, and so is Peavy, and Miller...and the Sox treat it like it's going to be easy to replace them all. So when you come to the defense of Pedroia, who, unlike Lester, was having an off-season and was part of the reason why the Sox have faltered (i.e. RISP most of the season, 42 RBI for a guy who should have more and just 5 HR, signifying his decline in power), I say what's the big deal. Pedroia is a guy you know, you feel is a keeper. And I'm with you on it. But Betts is a trade bait, and if he showed some leather in a week's worth of games at 2b, and it resulted in a possible trade down the line, this is the time to play him there. You're right, I'm not upset at Pedroia, I'm upset with a FO and a fan-base that for whatever reason think it was okay to blow up the rotation. Lester was expendable is how fans look at it. Pedroia is not. I see some sort of double standard there. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Item in bold: I'd like that trade actually. I'd be disappointed that Pedey was gone, but to get a power-hitting LF especially with Betts in the wings, I'd take it. The reality is that you couldn't get a Cespedes for Pedey.

    I understand you feelings about the Lester trade. I wanted Lester-re-signed too. And maybe they get him back in the offseason. I don't expect it, but until Lester signs a long-term deal, I'll give it a sliver of a chance of happening.

    The one thing you're not giving the Sox at least a little benefit of the doubt, which makes it different from your example about if it were Pedey in a contract year, is that Lester is a pitcher. It is reasonable for the Sox to be wary about long-term contracts for a pitcher in his 30s. The odds are better that the team is going to be burned by the contract than the player is going to live up the deal. The list is long of contracts like that blow up in the team's face. That has to be considered fairly, which should at least mitigate the anger you feel.

    Having said that, a team needs to pick its spots on who to gamble on with a contract like Lester will get, and I think Lester is one of those players.

    The anger you feel about Lester is understandable, however. Bringing the other three pitchers in the equation is a bit baflfling, especially Peavy. As I posted before, he is mediocre at best right now. When a team as the pitching prospects the Sox have, you don't keep a guy like Peavy who has no upside and is blocking a prospect with a lot of upside who might be ready. That trade shouldn't get anywhere near the anger radar.

    Lackey's situation is different. He apparently asked to be traded. Considering the Sox situation and Lackey's age and the fact that the Sox do have pitching prospects and there was another chance to get a power bat, it was probably a smart move, rather than create a headache down the road.

    So yes, the Sox blew up the rotation, but they do have legitimate prospects and I don't think they think it easy to build a rotation as much as it would be easier to find some pitching in the offseason rather than the power bats they need. We'll see.

    So like I said -- let's hold back the anger until we see what the team looks like in April. If nothing else, Cherington IMO has earned the benefit of the doubt. 

     

     

     

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' 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]


    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...

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Who won the Gold Glove for LF in 1977, genius?  Carl Yastrzemski.

    Did you know that?  I guess not. 

    So who was the superior OF in 1975?  Yaz.

    And yet the Red Sox did not play Yaz in LF in 1975 - they played Rice and Carbo our there (mostly rice who could not field at all).

    This line of argument (About Yaz) which you are attempting to make a "gotcha moment" actually works against you because if they had handled Yaz like you insist they handle Pedroia - Yaz would have played LF every game every year his whole career because he had "earned it as a veteran"

    LOOK at 1977.  Gold Glove award for Yaz.  he was clearly the best LF - but he was willing to subjugate personal for team.  Not just a few games - many games.

    He could have said in 1972 thru 1976 - under no circumstances will I sit out even one game a week in LF; But Yaz didn't do that - he was a team guy.

    LOOK at 1971.  Yaz at age 31 (same age as Pedroia) won the Gold Glove in the OF.  The VERY NEXT year yaz played 83 games in OF.  Why?  Did he suddenly stink?  No.  He won the GG in 1977, genius.

    Yaz did what was best for the team.  Always.

    So yes, he is an excellent example of a star who set aside his personal desires for the good of the team.  I'm glad you are harping over Yaz because the facts support me and make you an idiot.

    Yaz - the legitimate heart and soul guy - had no problem doing what was best for the team.

    Yet, many here suggest that asking Pedroia to let Betts play some 2B is Outrageous (it isn't), unprecedented (it's not) and unfair (wrong).

    So you have no clue on Yaz.  thanks for begging for a smack-down.

     [/QUOTE]



    A Gold Glove, Mr. Baseball?  Wow, you really know your stuff.

    You are desperately trying to sound less ridiculous than you do, good luck with that.  My point was not that Yaz couldn't play OF after 1969, it's that he didn't much.  Still waiting for your example of a veteran, star player sitting a couple of days a week to showcase a rookie.

    [/QUOTE]

    728 games in the OF AFTER 1969....*he didn't much?"....Most of those games occurring between 1970 and 1977 or by the time he had been 17 years in MLB

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Agree Betts should play, don't agree it must be 2B, which is why the Sox moved him to CF in Portland and the Pawtucket.    

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    So had Pedroia been traded for Cespedes, wouldn't that had been replacing one area and subtracting another? I don't think a lot of fans would have your sentiment on Pedroia being traded for Yoenis (yes, hypothetical). But of course, any time a Sox star is in a contract year---basically if they haven't been signed by the first month of the season--they are going to be traded or they are going to leave for free agency as another team will value that star better than the Sox, right or wrong. 

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Business is business...So basically, roy, if I'm reading you right, it's really more about where a player stands in their contract than how important the player is to the team's success....That's a GM's point of view for sure.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:


    Schumps, this is why I like you posting. You bring up something that god forbid the Sox even remotely think about. If you are going to blow up things, do it right. There is absolutely no reason to think they couldn't trade Pedroia at some point for a top SP. Betts could be the future 2B, but in the Sox FO minds, you aren't even allowed to mention Pedroia and another team. It's okay to lowball, then trade Lester, not Dusty.






    I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I agree it's a bit refreshing to see the orthodoxy challenged in this area.


    Pedroia's contract is often cited as the model for team-friendly extensions, but the reality is that he has declined for three straight years, has been a barely league-average hitter this season (101 OPS+), and is signed up through 2021 (7 more years). I love Pedey as much as anyone, but that is cause for some concern.


    The other reality is that if JBJ and Mookie are going to be on the major league team, they should be playing almost every day. So should Holt, for obvious reasons. So putting Betts at 2B once or twice a week and resting Pedroia (which is all Schump suggested in his OP) is hardly an outlandish suggestion.


    As far as I'm concerned, no stone should be left unturned in the search for ways to improve next season and in the future.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Which is why when a guy gets offered 70 mil for 4 years and is a star pitcher, the organization is telling you bye-bye. Lester was undercut on purpose, methodically done so that they wouldn't have to give him a CC type of contract. It's business.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Schumps, this is why I like you posting. You bring up something that god forbid the Sox even remotely think about. If you are going to blow up things, do it right. There is absolutely no reason to think they couldn't trade Pedroia at some point for a top SP. Betts could be the future 2B, but in the Sox FO minds, you aren't even allowed to mention Pedroia and another team. It's okay to lowball, then trade Lester, not Dusty.

    [/QUOTE]


    I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I agree it's a bit refreshing to see the orthodoxy challenged in this area.

    Pedroia's contract is often cited as the model for team-friendly extensions, but the reality is that he has declined for three straight years, has been a barely league-average hitter this season (101 OPS+), and is signed up through 2021 (7 more years). I love Pedey as much as anyone, but that is cause for some concern.

    The other reality is that if JBJ and Mookie are going to be on the major league team, they should be playing almost every day. So should Holt, for obvious reasons. So putting Betts at 2B once or twice a week and resting Pedroia (which is all Schump suggested in his OP) is hardly an outlandish suggestion.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is for a lot of Sox fans. I'm fine with it, but more so because the games are meaningless right now. All Dustin can do is pad his stats, that's it, right now. Maybe it's a star's player right to expect to play no matter what in bad times, which I do agree doesn't happen very much. Star players get their at bats and don't sit much historically in a bad season. Historically, not saying the Sox couldn't try something different than a norm.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    As a PR person, all you really have to do is announce what your intentions to the press after a private meeting with players. Then you have Farrell say, "Ben and I have talked this over and I'm sure some of our veteran mainstays aren't entirely going to be pleased by it, we are going to start playing our young players in games and that means veterans are going to sit. It doesn't change their long-term importance to the team, it just is so we can do some more MLB evaluating with our youth in this very unorthodox time for us." .....clap, clap...fans satisfied, players informed, agents informed. Betts plays 2b for a few games a week.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    When Pedroia first came up in 2006, he had played 162 games at AAA.  The next year he was handed the 2B job in ST.

    betts has played 34 games at AAA and 54 at AA.  If he needs to play more 2B, he can do it at Pawtucket.  He is still 21 years old, until October.  

     

     
  17. 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]

    So had Pedroia been traded for Cespedes, wouldn't that had been replacing one area and subtracting another? I don't think a lot of fans would have your sentiment on Pedroia being traded for Yoenis (yes, hypothetical). But of course, any time a Sox star is in a contract year---basically if they haven't been signed by the first month of the season--they are going to be traded or they are going to leave for free agency as another team will value that star better than the Sox, right or wrong. 

    [/QUOTE]

    First bold item. To answer the question, no. The Sox don't have power-hitting OF prospects. They have a 2B prospect. So if you traded Pedey for Cespedes, it would open a spot for Betts. I wouldn't have liked to have traded Pedey, but I could accept in that situation. But it would have helped one area and you open a spot for a top prospect.

    Second bold item. We'll have to see how it works going forward. So far, the only examples of what you said are Ellsbury and Lester. Ellsbury I wouldn't have signed for that money. Ellsbury I would have. 

    And look at the Youk example. He hit his 30s and became injury prone and was done by 32, 33.

     

     
  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]

    Business is business...So basically, roy, if I'm reading you right, it's really more about where a player stands in their contract than how important the player is to the team's success....That's a GM's point of view for sure.

    [/QUOTE]

    No. You take all things into consideration. If you don't think you can sign a player and you can help yourself with a trade, you make the deal in a year like this when you're out of the pennant race.

    A player might be vital to the team's success but if it reaches a point where you can't sign him then his importance becomes moot.

    What good would it have been to keep Lester if at the end of the day, he ends up signing somewhere else in the offseason. Like I said, I'm all for re-signing him, but it does reach a point with all players where the contract becomes prohibitive. 

     

     

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Clearly, the Sox window to sign Lester ended most likely in ST...And had the Sox been competitive, I don't know if Lester would have been dealt under that scenario, but surely there was a radar by Ben and staff to use Lester as their best trade bait by the time they knew the season was done. I like Cespedes, I do, but I would prefer if they tried to create a contract for him. In that way, Lester's trade could have better long-term dividends on the field. 

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's the way Pedroia has been portrayed. A player like him who plays hard, who plays hurt, who goes all out all the time is selfish player and not a team player. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    I haven't attacked Pedroia once.  Don't try to hide behind Pedroia.

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkWPCLogaqc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkWPCLogaqc

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knPJVNbOcDo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knPJVNbOcDo

     

    Mookie can play 2nd.  The second video is my favorite. 

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' 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]


    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...

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Who won the Gold Glove for LF in 1977, genius?  Carl Yastrzemski.

    Did you know that?  I guess not. 

    So who was the superior OF in 1975?  Yaz.

    And yet the Red Sox did not play Yaz in LF in 1975 - they played Rice and Carbo our there (mostly rice who could not field at all).

    This line of argument (About Yaz) which you are attempting to make a "gotcha moment" actually works against you because if they had handled Yaz like you insist they handle Pedroia - Yaz would have played LF every game every year his whole career because he had "earned it as a veteran"

    LOOK at 1977.  Gold Glove award for Yaz.  he was clearly the best LF - but he was willing to subjugate personal for team.  Not just a few games - many games.

    He could have said in 1972 thru 1976 - under no circumstances will I sit out even one game a week in LF; But Yaz didn't do that - he was a team guy.

    LOOK at 1971.  Yaz at age 31 (same age as Pedroia) won the Gold Glove in the OF.  The VERY NEXT year yaz played 83 games in OF.  Why?  Did he suddenly stink?  No.  He won the GG in 1977, genius.

    Yaz did what was best for the team.  Always.

    So yes, he is an excellent example of a star who set aside his personal desires for the good of the team.  I'm glad you are harping over Yaz because the facts support me and make you an idiot.

    Yaz - the legitimate heart and soul guy - had no problem doing what was best for the team.

    Yet, many here suggest that asking Pedroia to let Betts play some 2B is Outrageous (it isn't), unprecedented (it's not) and unfair (wrong).

    So you have no clue on Yaz.  thanks for begging for a smack-down.

     [/QUOTE]



    A Gold Glove, Mr. Baseball?  Wow, you really know your stuff.

    You are desperately trying to sound less ridiculous than you do, good luck with that.  My point was not that Yaz couldn't play OF after 1969, it's that he didn't much.  Still waiting for your example of a veteran, star player sitting a couple of days a week to showcase a rookie.

    [/QUOTE]

    728 games in the OF AFTER 1969....*he didn't much?"....Most of those games occurring between 1970 and 1977 or by the time he had been 17 years in MLB

    [/QUOTE]


    Danny, even just counting '70 - '77 Yaz averaged only 72 OF games/year. It's a bit of a nitpick to argue the use of the word "much".

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

    Re: Betts needs to play some 2B

    Yaz was bounced around because of need, not because he wasn't probably one of the best outfielders of both the 1960s and 70s. He was as good in LF as any Sox ever defensively. With that said, Pedroia can't play any other position but 2b, and that's been his position. And he's a Gold Glove there. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin'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]

    No plan?

     

    You're kidding, right?  The plan became officially obvious on July 31.

     

    Whether or  not you like the plan, or whether or not it is a good plan remains to be seen.  But there is a clear plan...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin'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]

    I doubt scouts, many of whom have seen Betts play 2B in the minors, were watching him and thinking "Wow.  He covers ground and turns a nice double play, but these are minor league grounders and minor league double plays.  Can he field a major league ground ball?  I have no idea, and need him to play 2B in the show to know for sure."

     

Share