Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bosox1941, as always you make too much sense...only in the bizarro world of BDC is a player signed to a 39 mil deal who cant pass the physical a better option than a younger player who won the MVP of AAA at the same position.

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree. Gomez might not make a good 1B for us next year, but it hardly matters if Napoli or Gomez plays 1B-we are likely not making the playoffs anyway. It might cost the team a win or two if Gomez fails to make the grade, but so what? I am dead against caving in to anything more than a year with an option year with Napoli (and I realize that he would probably not sign under those circumstances). In the long term strategy to get this team back to relevance, since Mike Napoli cannot pitch, whether he plays here next year or not is largely irrelevant. First basemen will become available in 2-3 years when the pitching problem is hopefully fixed. For right now, PITCHING should be the #1, #2, and #3 priority, especially good YOUNG pitching. Therefore, position players should not be signed for more than a couple of years max: they are much more easily replaceable. One year and an option year for Napoli....or just let him go and focus on what is important to the long term success of the team.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know Pumpsie.  The reason that these negotiations are so protracted is because the Napoli camp has surely operated under a certain set of demands.  But, Napoli's position is greatly weakened by the health issue.  Another club would be pretty foolish to jump in and offer a similar deal to the Sox deal with current knowledge.  Eventually, his camp will cave to  whatever the Sox deem necessary to protect themselves.

     

    And if not, then, hey LET THE KID PLAY, and as you say, maybe there is nothing to lose. 

    [/QUOTE]

    What I am saying is that I would only give Napoli ONE year plus a team option for a second year-not even a two year contract unless there are guarantees that he can be released if his hip problem becomes an issue. He is not an essential part of the long term strategy for the Red Sox since he cannot pitch. He is fully replaceable when the team becomes competitive again. The worst thing the Sox can do is horse collar themselves again with long term contracts (ie more than two years) that decrease their flexibility in the years they can actually compete for a ring. Thats why I hate the Victorino deal so much: THREE YEARS for that guy at $13M per? Horrible.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    What I am saying is that I would only give Napoli ONE year plus a team option for a second year-not even a two year contract unless there are guarantees that he can be released if his hip problem becomes an issue. He is not an essential part of the long term strategy for the Red Sox since he cannot pitch. He is fully replaceable when the team becomes competitive again. The worst thing the Sox can do is horse collar themselves again with long term contracts (ie more than two years) that decrease their flexibility in the years they can actually compete for a ring. Thats why I hate the Victorino deal so much: THREE YEARS for that guy at $13M per? Horrible.

    I feel the same. Although 3 years is not as long as 5 or 7, if we were going to spend all this money, I'd have rather had Ben spend it on a 5 year deal for player with a better chance of impacting us greatly in 2013 and more than these guys in 2014 and 2015 as well, and even though in possible decline for years 4 & 5, they'd rate to be better than Naps and Victorino will be years 2-3. (A Sanchez/ J Hamilton?).

    Of course my top plan was to totally rebuild for 2014-2015 with maybe a couple cheap short deals to bridge to the kids.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

     Follow JIM BOWDENJIM BOWDEN@JimBowdenESPNxm

    Red Sox would like to shorten their deal with Napoli to one-year to make sure the hip will be ok for 2 or 3 seasons without a lot of DL time

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    I understand the FO wanting to protect themselves in case of injury, as they should. I can also certainly understand why Napoli would not be happy with the Sox wanting to shorten the deal to one year. Even so, he might not be able to get a better offer.

    It seems that they could work out some type of a vesting option that would be easily attainable if Napoli stays healthy. I just hope that Napoli doesn't end up begrudgingly agreeing to a contract that will cause him to be bitter or unhappy.

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    As the CBA only allows for "performance" options ot be participation based, this shoud be a no-brainer.  Get 500 plate appearances and get another year.  Everyone is happy!

     

    Unless the real issue might is that Napoli also secretly agrees with the hip and its diagnosis, or fears worse, and therefore would rather simply have the money guaranteed rather than hinge on his allegedly balky hip...

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    this is making the theo compensation deal look like a shining ben moment in comparison

    [/QUOTE]

    Why?

    [/QUOTE]
    Now you're just being difficult... ;-)

    [/QUOTE]

    I would be lying if I said I never posted anything obtuse with the objective to just be difficult.  But, in this particular instance, I am genuinely interested into why Geo thinks the Napoli situation is akin to the epstein compensation.*

    *This is, of course, accepting the notion that the Epstein compensation was somehow bungled.  Other than it taking a long time to play out, I don't see that there was anything poor about that transaction.  I think that anyone expecting major league proven talent compensation for a front office personnel was in fantasy land.  there was no precedent for anything like that, and no reason to expect it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Color me in fantasy land.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to bgomez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://clnsradio.com/2013/01/10/report-red-sox-mike-napoli-going-in-separate-directions/

    WOW. Shocker. What do we do now?

     

    I say go hard after Mike Morse.

    [/QUOTE]


    The latest news is that the sox are trying to get a one year deal with Napoli. I am fine with that one year worth the risk, but 3 years ?????????????????????????????????????. I can also be content with one year deal with a first year stats and number of games played for a second year option.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    bum hip is a bum hip: 1 year or 2 or 3.  It's a bum hip.

     

    Just say NO!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    i agree, without knowing the extent of the injury i have to assume the worst and say we pass. trade for someone

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    A bum hip is a bum hip: 1 year or 2 or 3. It's a bum hip.

     

    Just say NO!

    I am really starting to worry about you Moon....

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A bum hip is a bum hip: 1 year or 2 or 3. It's a bum hip.

     

    Just say NO!

    I am really starting to worry about you Moon....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Why's that? The guy has a bum hip. You should be worrying about that, not me.

    How did Mike Lowell and ARod do after their hip injuries?

    I worry about you, if you are not worried.

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    Why's that? The guy has a bum hip. You should be worrying about that, not me.

    How did Mike Lowell and ARod do after their hip injuries?

    I worry about you, if you are not worried.

    Of course I am concerned about his hip, and his overall ability to hold up over a 3 year deal.  I never thought he was worth more than 2 years, and argued that point based on his age, his injury history, and his skillset. I was okay with the 3 year deal because I realize that teams usually have to overpay for free agents.  Or maybe I should say that I was okay with the 3 year deal because I was relieved that it was not a 4 year deal.

    All that said, if the FO deems him healthy enough to go ahead with a one year deal, you have to defer to their expertise and you have to take that risk, IMO.  He is potentially a very good offensive player.  If he bombs, you call up Gomez.

    And, I was teasing and meant no offense when I said I was worried about you. FTR, I worry about everything.  :-)

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    Can Johnny Damon play 1b? Might as well throw his name out there as a legit option if he can play 1b. Heck, they had Abreu field grounders at 1b already. Could do some time in LF as well...Only cost about a mil. maybe even just an invite with a 1M salary if he makes the team...

    I mean, there arent a ton of options without having to part with prospects if Naps deal falls through...I think Gomez is your RH option at that point. So who are the LH options? Overbay? Kotchman? Lee? At least Damon can play a good LF in fenway. Just not sure about the 1b skills. Could he not put up the numbers the other 2 can.

    Yeah, I know. Crazy Idea...Myabe I should get more sleep...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why's that? The guy has a bum hip. You should be worrying about that, not me.

    How did Mike Lowell and ARod do after their hip injuries?

    I worry about you, if you are not worried.

    Of course I am concerned about his hip, and his overall ability to hold up over a 3 year deal.  I never thought he was worth more than 2 years, and argued that point based on his age, his injury history, and his skillset. I was okay with the 3 year deal because I realize that teams usually have to overpay for free agents.  Or maybe I should say that I was okay with the 3 year deal because I was relieved that it was not a 4 year deal.

    All that said, if the FO deems him healthy enough to go ahead with a one year deal, you have to defer to their expertise and you have to take that risk, IMO.  He is potentially a very good offensive player.  If he bombs, you call up Gomez.

    And, I was teasing and meant no offense when I said I was worried about you. FTR, I worry about everything.  :-)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I was teasing too, but in all seriousness- about the hip injury: there's a good chance naps might be more healthy in 2-3 years than in 2013. His hip is bad now. A 1 year deal could be worse than a 2-3 year deal. I'm sure Ben knows what the outlook is, but if his hip is bothering him now, just say no to 1-2 or 3 years.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can Johnny Damon play 1b? Might as well throw his name out there as a legit option if he can play 1b. Heck, they had Abreu field grounders at 1b already. Could do some time in LF as well...Only cost about a mil. maybe even just an invite with a 1M salary if he makes the team...

    I mean, there arent a ton of options without having to part with prospects if Naps deal falls through...I think Gomez is your RH option at that point. So who are the LH options? Overbay? Kotchman? Lee? At least Damon can play a good LF in fenway. Just not sure about the 1b skills. Could he not put up the numbers the other 2 can.

    Yeah, I know. Crazy Idea...Myabe I should get more sleep...

    [/QUOTE]

    If bum hips are no problem, let's bring Mikey lowell out of retirement for another go at 1B.

    (Just kiddin)

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

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    Johnny Damon was only one and a half seasons away from 3,000 hits (but fell off a cliff last year)... and only two seasons removed from having a very good year.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    Move Bogaerts to 1B in ST and AAA, then bring him up the day after the date he won't lose a year of team control over. Go with Gomez, Hamilton, Salty and Papi (in NL parks) until then. We are not winning a ring with a hobbled Naps or Kotchman at 1B anyways.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Move Bogaerts to 1B in ST and AAA, then bring him up the day after the date he won't lose a year of team control over. Go with Gomez, Hamilton, Salty and Papi (in NL parks) until then. We are not winning a ring with a hobbled Naps or Kotchman at 1B anyways.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no chance that the Sox move Boegarts to 1st this spring.  If they do move him off SS (no given at all), left or right would be possible options, with 3rd being a long shot, unless Middlebrooks implodes.  Either way, he'll be given every opportunity to develop as a SS in 2014.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Move Bogaerts to 1B in ST and AAA, then bring him up the day after the date he won't lose a year of team control over. Go with Gomez, Hamilton, Salty and Papi (in NL parks) until then. We are not winning a ring with a hobbled Naps or Kotchman at 1B anyways.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no chance that the Sox move Boegarts to 1st this spring.  If they do move him off SS (no given at all), left or right would be possible options, with 3rd being a long shot, unless Middlebrooks implodes.  Either way, he'll be given every opportunity to develop as a SS in 2014.

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said Ben would move him, but I'd seriously think about it unless...

    1) I viewed Middlebrooks as an inferior fielding 3Bman than Bogaerts, then I'd move Middlebrooks to 1B next year and start Boggy at 3B in ST and AAA.

    2) We find a long term 1B solution.

     

    I don't get moving him to the OF. Why is that so understandable, but not moving a 6-3 IF'er who seems to be filling out to 1B?

    3B is not a "long shot". It is likely his best position, and if he is all many think he is, he will be better than Middlebrooks.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Move Bogaerts to 1B in ST and AAA, then bring him up the day after the date he won't lose a year of team control over. Go with Gomez, Hamilton, Salty and Papi (in NL parks) until then. We are not winning a ring with a hobbled Naps or Kotchman at 1B anyways.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no chance that the Sox move Boegarts to 1st this spring.  If they do move him off SS (no given at all), left or right would be possible options, with 3rd being a long shot, unless Middlebrooks implodes.  Either way, he'll be given every opportunity to develop as a SS in 2014.

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said Ben would move him, but I'd seriously think about it unless...

    1) I viewed Middlebrooks as an inferior fielding 3Bman than Bogaerts, then I'd move Middlebrooks to 1B next year and start Boggy at 3B in ST and AAA.

    Boegarts has been a SS his entire life.  How does anyone know how well he can play 3rd?  If Middlebrooks regresses at 3rd this year, then maybe they will consider a move to first and switch Boegarts to 3rd after the season.  I wouldn't count on it, though.  Boegarts wants to play SS, he's improved at the position and he just turned 20 years old.  Why would they move him away from the position at this point? He will be the starting SS in Portland to start the season, barring injury. 

    2) We find a long term 1B solution.

    I don''t think "long term" is available right now, but they won't be going into spring training with what they have in house right now.   

    I don't get moving him to the OF. Why is that so understandable, but not moving a 6-3 IF'er who seems to be filling out to 1B?  Maybe he doesn't like the position, maybe they feel his athleticism and strong arm would be better suited elsewhere.  It doesn't matter, because at least for 2013, he will remain a starting SS.

     3B is not a "long shot". It is likely his best position, and if he is all many think he is, he will be better than Middlebrooks.  I say it's a long shot because I think Middlebrooks is the 3rd baseman for the foreseeable future, barring injury.  The organization loves the kid.  Unless he regresses, or fizzles out, he isn't going anywhere. 

    This can all be revisited after 2013, but as of right now, they aren't moving Middlebrooks off 3rd and they aren't moving Boegarts off short, so it is kind of pointless to have a discussion about it. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    I never said Ben would move him, but I'd seriously think about it unless...

    1) I viewed Middlebrooks as an inferior fielding 3Bman than Bogaerts, then I'd move Middlebrooks to 1B next year and start Boggy at 3B in ST and AAA.

    Boegarts has been a SS his entire life.  How does anyone know how well he can play 3rd?  If Middlebrooks regresses at 3rd this year, then maybe they will consider a move to first and switch Boegarts to 3rd after the season.  I wouldn't count on it, though.  Boegarts wants to play SS, he's improved at the position and he just turned 20 years old.  Why would they move him away from the position at this point? He will be the starting SS in Portland to start the season, barring injury. 

    Look, I've read in several places that Bogaerts does not project to be a ML SS, and that he will probably be better suited for 3B. 

    Middlebrooks does not need to "regress" to consider moving him to 1B. He did not look very good at 3B in the small sample size I saw in 2012. I am not giving up on him at 3B, but if he stays the same as 2012, and Boggy projects to be a better 3Bman, my point is that we should not wait years and years to make the moves, or we risk having to wait until players adjust to their new positions before they can contribute in all areas of the game at the MLb level.

    I am not an expert on projecting propsects at new positions, but I am taking the word of experts who know more about Bogaerts than I do.

    2) We find a long term 1B solution.

    I don''t think "long term" is available right now, but they won't be going into spring training with what they have in house right now.   

    I don't either, hence my point about making the moves sooner rather than later or too late.

    I don't get moving him to the OF. Why is that so understandable, but not moving a 6-3 IF'er who seems to be filling out to 1B?  Maybe he doesn't like the position, maybe they feel his athleticism and strong arm would be better suited elsewhere.  It doesn't matter, because at least for 2013, he will remain a starting SS.

     3B is not a "long shot". It is likely his best position, and if he is all many think he is, he will be better than Middlebrooks. 

    I say it's a long shot because I think Middlebrooks is the 3rd baseman for the foreseeable future, barring injury.  The organization loves the kid.  Unless he regresses, or fizzles out, he isn't going anywhere. 

    It's not like moving Middlebrooks to 1B is giving up on him. I think the organization could "love him" at 1B just as much if not more than at 3B, especially if Boggy thrives at 3B.

    This can all be revisited after 2013, but as of right now, they aren't moving Middlebrooks off 3rd and they aren't moving Boegarts off short, so it is kind of pointless to have a discussion about it. 

    OK, just because there is virtually no chance Ben moves Boggy or Middlebrooks this spring or summer, we should never talk about it. That's your way of looking at discussion and debate, not mine.

    Imagine this scenario. Middlebrooks hits very well in 2012, but continues to struggle fielding 3B. Boggy tears up AAA pitching, but looks horrendous at SS and is deemed not MLB SS material. We pick up a couple of key players next winter and look to seriously compete in 2014 and 2015, but we can't bring up Boggy yet, because we have to spend 2014 teaching him a new position, so we get him in 2015 not 2014. We also have to deal with Middlebrooks learning 1B in MLB during the 2014 or 2015 season. This could be a real happening. I actually think it is very likely Bogaerts can be a better fielder than Middlebrooks at 3B, and we have a serious need at 1B as we all know. I think Middlebrooks would probably be a better fielder at 1B than 3B after 1-2 years. It's my opinion based on what I know right now. We don't have to rush things. We can gain another year of more prime year team control on Boggy, if we keep him down another year, but I want to see this kid as soon as possible, and I don't want an all hit-no-field SS as a longterm goal.

    Boggy is young. He may develop into a fine SS, but I have yet to read anyone projecting him as even an above average fielding SS. Does that not concern you, even at age 20?

    How many 6-3 and filling out prospects become great fielding SSs? He's still pretty skinny for 6-3, so who knows...

    sozprospects.com says this...

     

      Slightly above-average arm.  Solid-average range, but losing footspeed as he gets bigger.   Needs to slow the game down defensively and resist the feeling to rush plays. Inconsistent with footwork and staying down on the ball.  Choppy at times with his movements and reactions.  Has been improving with his defensive technique, but does not look likely to stick at shortstop.  Will transition to third base or left field down the line.  Can stick on the infield. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Nothing to read, here. Out to lunch posters. One claimed H. Ramirez would not be traded in 2012 because he was needed to sell tickets. Another is now claiming that signing Kotchman for near zero is something to avoid, as if a likely minor league contract or MLB contract at near the minimum is something to worry about.

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and one claimed we should trade for HanRam just seconds before his steep decline.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can Johnny Damon play 1b? Might as well throw his name out there as a legit option if he can play 1b. Heck, they had Abreu field grounders at 1b already. Could do some time in LF as well...Only cost about a mil. maybe even just an invite with a 1M salary if he makes the team...

    I mean, there arent a ton of options without having to part with prospects if Naps deal falls through...I think Gomez is your RH option at that point. So who are the LH options? Overbay? Kotchman? Lee? At least Damon can play a good LF in fenway. Just not sure about the 1b skills. Could he not put up the numbers the other 2 can.

    Yeah, I know. Crazy Idea...Myabe I should get more sleep...

    [/QUOTE]

    If bum hips are no problem, let's bring Mikey lowell out of retirement for another go at 1B.

    (Just kiddin)

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey, Im just throwing names against the wall and seeing who sticks at this point.

    Personally, Id like to go after Daric Barton of the A's if Naps falls through.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Napoli deal falls through, according to Jen Royle

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I never said Ben would move him, but I'd seriously think about it unless...

    1) I viewed Middlebrooks as an inferior fielding 3Bman than Bogaerts, then I'd move Middlebrooks to 1B next year and start Boggy at 3B in ST and AAA.

    Boegarts has been a SS his entire life.  How does anyone know how well he can play 3rd?  If Middlebrooks regresses at 3rd this year, then maybe they will consider a move to first and switch Boegarts to 3rd after the season.  I wouldn't count on it, though.  Boegarts wants to play SS, he's improved at the position and he just turned 20 years old.  Why would they move him away from the position at this point? He will be the starting SS in Portland to start the season, barring injury. 

    Look, I've read in several places that Bogaerts does not project to be a ML SS, and that he will probably be better suited for 3B. 

    Middlebrooks does not need to "regress" to consider moving him to 1B. He did not look very good at 3B in the small sample size I saw in 2012. I am not giving up on him at 3B, but if he stays the same as 2012, and Boggy projects to be a better 3Bman, my point is that we should not wait years and years to make the moves, or we risk having to wait until players adjust to their new positions before they can contribute in all areas of the game at the MLb level.

    I am not an expert on projecting propsects at new positions, but I am taking the word of experts who know more about Bogaerts than I do.

    2) We find a long term 1B solution.

    I don''t think "long term" is available right now, but they won't be going into spring training with what they have in house right now.   

    I don't either, hence my point about making the moves sooner rather than later or too late.

    I don't get moving him to the OF. Why is that so understandable, but not moving a 6-3 IF'er who seems to be filling out to 1B?  Maybe he doesn't like the position, maybe they feel his athleticism and strong arm would be better suited elsewhere.  It doesn't matter, because at least for 2013, he will remain a starting SS.

     3B is not a "long shot". It is likely his best position, and if he is all many think he is, he will be better than Middlebrooks. 

    I say it's a long shot because I think Middlebrooks is the 3rd baseman for the foreseeable future, barring injury.  The organization loves the kid.  Unless he regresses, or fizzles out, he isn't going anywhere. 

    It's not like moving Middlebrooks to 1B is giving up on him. I think the organization could "love him" at 1B just as much if not more than at 3B, especially if Boggy thrives at 3B.

    This can all be revisited after 2013, but as of right now, they aren't moving Middlebrooks off 3rd and they aren't moving Boegarts off short, so it is kind of pointless to have a discussion about it. 

    OK, just because there is virtually no chance Ben moves Boggy or Middlebrooks this spring or summer, we should never talk about it. That's your way of looking at discussion and debate, not mine.

    Imagine this scenario. Middlebrooks hits very well in 2012, but continues to struggle fielding 3B. Boggy tears up AAA pitching, but looks horrendous at SS and is deemed not MLB SS material. We pick up a couple of key players next winter and look to seriously compete in 2014 and 2015, but we can't bring up Boggy yet, because we have to spend 2014 teaching him a new position, so we get him in 2015 not 2014. We also have to deal with Middlebrooks learning 1B in MLB during the 2014 or 2015 season. This could be a real happening. I actually think it is very likely Bogaerts can be a better fielder than Middlebrooks at 3B, and we have a serious need at 1B as we all know. I think Middlebrooks would probably be a better fielder at 1B than 3B after 1-2 years. It's my opinion based on what I know right now. We don't have to rush things. We can gain another year of more prime year team control on Boggy, if we keep him down another year, but I want to see this kid as soon as possible, and I don't want an all hit-no-field SS as a longterm goal.

    Boggy is young. He may develop into a fine SS, but I have yet to read anyone projecting him as even an above average fielding SS. Does that not concern you, even at age 20?

    How many 6-3 and filling out prospects become great fielding SSs? He's still pretty skinny for 6-3, so who knows...

    sozprospects.com says this...

     

      Slightly above-average arm.  Solid-average range, but losing footspeed as he gets bigger.   Needs to slow the game down defensively and resist the feeling to rush plays. Inconsistent with footwork and staying down on the ball.  Choppy at times with his movements and reactions.  Has been improving with his defensive technique, but does not look likely to stick at shortstop.  Will transition to third base or left field down the line.  Can stick on the infield. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I say he would be better in the OF because hes always had issues with footwork. Yes, he has improved and is still only 20yrs old, but playing 1b requires a TON or proper footwork to play the position adequately. 3rd base requires a good quick twitch reflex. If hes getting slower with footwork and reactions, not sure a corner IF spot is the place for him.

    I think LF would be a solid fit if SS doesnt work out. Just has to learn the monstah and belt 30+hr and 100+ rbi...Your typical slugging corner OF'er. With his good arm he would compile a lot of OF assists as well.

    Ive seen him play in person a few times and he does look a little awkward out there. Hes good, but hes not an incredibly agile big man. If he fills out a lot this year and it hurts his development at SS he will be moved. If I was a betting man I would say LF.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share