The "Unofficial Pre- Hot Stove (2010)" thread.

[jacksonianmarch]

Because all I was hearing was about how much he sucked and how much he wasn't even an option. At his stage of development that's a ridiculous position to take. If he holds on his current vector, he'll be ready by the break next year or by 2012 at the latest. Can that change if he does poorly next year? Absolutely, but that's true of every prospect anywhere and so is just something you say when you want to sound smart rather than a meaningful contribution to the conversation.

 

And judging a guy based on his first handful of at bats in the bigs, especially on the basis of irregular playing time, is just silly. In this case his minor league stats are a much better indicator of what you can expect out of them even if they aren't a 1-for-1 translation. I don't think this guy is ever going to be a superstar hitter but the potential is there to be average and he's closer to that potential than you guys are ever going to give him credit for.

 

No, he is not. He is not close enough to that potential to have you be right on your initial point. He is absolutely, unequivocally not an option for the sox as a starting SS for 2011. Might he progress and be an option in 2012 or 2013, possibly. But your initial point was to consider him as an option for 2011 and that is just wrong.

[example1]

Yes please. He [Ethier]would be one of the few players I wouldn't mind giving up Kelly for. I now it's a long shot. Just something for everyone to chew on.

 

I actually love the idea of Ethier and I too would consider giving up Kelly for him if Ethier would sign longterm. I might hesitate a little bit with Kelly (push Stolmy or Doubront + + instead).

 

If they got Ethier this year in a Dodgers fire sale then I would recommend re-signing Ortiz for a year (pick up his option) and signing one of Beltre or VMart.

[a700hitter]

No' date=' he is not. He is not close enough to that potential to have you be right on your initial point. He is absolutely, unequivocally not an option for the sox as a starting SS for 2011. Might he progress and be an option in 2012 or 2013, possibly. But your initial point was to consider him as an option for 2011 and that is just wrong.[/quote']Plan C is usually a desperate trade after Plans A and B are out for the season. You don't turn over the keys to a guy like Navarro.

[Dojji]

No' date=' he is not. He is not close enough to that potential to have you be right on your initial point. He is absolutely, unequivocally not an option for the sox as a starting SS for 2011. Might he progress and be an option in 2012 or 2013, possibly. But your initial point was to consider him as an option for 2011 and that is just wrong.[/quote']

 

You're way overreading what an "option" is. An "option" is not synonymous with "a guy you actually want to see out there starting given the choice between him and Hanley Ramirez." Nick Green was an "option" in 2009, that doesn't mean we didn't get real lucky to have him put up even an average season.

 

All you have to do to be an "option" is to be on the 40-man roster and have the potential to be adequate. You guys seem to take it to mean a guy is at least a 50% lock to be above average, that's a ridiculous standard 3 men down the depth chart.

 

If Navarro needed to come up and play for us for a month because of a worst case scenario, he'd get a lot of haters because it wouldn't always be pretty. He is raw, both offensively and defensively. Plan A probably doesn't call for Navarro to join the team except possibly in September, I agree with that. That said, the guy hit fairly well in AA and was promoted to AAA. This org does that only when they think guys are 18 months or less from the big leagues. You can pretend they don't think that way, but the fact remains that the organization considers Navarro enough of an option going into next year that he's worth a callup to see what he can do.

 

It's OK to be skeptical about his projections, but try not to be in outright denial of the things the guy has done. He's not half as far away from big league time as Jacko wants to pretend he is.

[Dojji]

Oh, and I do believe I also mentioned Iglesias in that OP that everyone loves to misquote. So if you want to play the national sport, at least get it somewhere in the same continent as accurate.

 

Depth chart at shortstop

 

Scutaro/Lowrie

Lowrie/Scutaro

Iglesias

Navarro

 

We go that deep in shortstops and projectable shortstop prospects. That's actually really good -- but just because you'd rather see Iglesias or Lowrie (and so would I) it doesn't do to dismiss the achievements of a guy like Navarro who's put himself in a very good position despite being a lot less heralded.

[Yaz Sideburn]

Oh, and I do believe I also mentioned Iglesias in that OP that everyone loves to misquote. So if you want to play the national sport, at least get it somewhere in the same continent as accurate.

 

Depth chart at shortstop

 

Scutaro/Lowrie

Lowrie/Scutaro

Iglesias

Navarro

 

We go that deep in shortstops and projectable shortstop prospects. That's actually really good -- but just because you'd rather see Iglesias or Lowrie (and so would I) it doesn't do to dismiss the achievements of a guy like Navarro who's put himself in a very good position despite being a lot less heralded.

 

navarro's put himself in a very good position for what?

[example1]

To end up as the starting SS for the Red Sox if a number of unfortunate events happen. Seems reasonable. All this talk about Navarro...

[Spudboy]

Speaking of Navarro.

 

/www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2010/09/17/navarro_dirt_poor_talent_rich/

[BSN07]

I actually love the idea of Ethier and I too would consider giving up Kelly for him if Ethier would sign longterm. I might hesitate a little bit with Kelly (push Stolmy or Doubront + + instead).

 

If they got Ethier this year in a Dodgers fire sale then I would recommend re-signing Ortiz for a year (pick up his option) and signing one of Beltre or VMart.

 

I agree. Try and use other players then Kelly, but ultimately if you have to do it to get him it be ok.

 

I like Beltre. But not at 4+ years. I would hate for the Sox to be in the same "Lowell" type deal in year 4 of that deal. Also keeping Beltre pretty much nixes any chance of adding an impact bat from the 2011 FA class. Agon, Fielder and Pujols aren't coming to Fenway to DH IMO.

 

If V-Mart will take the right deal I'd bring him back. If he would take 3-4 years at 10-12M(a reasonable offer, albeit an obvious home town discount). I could get on board for having him around as a C/1B/DH rotation. If he wants 4+ years(which he is likely to get offered) and wants to be an everyday catcher then let him walk.

[Dojji]

navarro's put himself in a very good position for what?

 

To be useful to his team. Either as a player or as a trading piece. A lot of teams are desperate for good young shortstops not just this year but every year. Navarro's ability to play SS well with good range and a strong arm combined with a .750-.800 OPS bat in the minors makes him a good dark horse candidate to become a starting SS for someone, meaning he's a guy you could possiby either trade for a reliever or work in as the second piece in a bigger deal for an impact bat with, say, the Padres, who could use a young, talented SS right about now.

 

Basically he's put himself in a range of performance this year where a GM would look at him and say "Hey, this guy could help me." Whether that GM is Theo or a trading partner doesn't really matter.

[Yaz Sideburn]

To be useful to his team.

 

to be useful to this team as the starting shortstop next year? because that's what people took issue with you saying, not that he might eventually turn into a useful player 2-3 years down the road

[Dojji]

He'd be a "starting shortstop" like Kevin Cash was a starting catcher this year. Not in terms of quality, in terms of role. My only point was that if you needed a guy for several consecutive starts and Navarro was all you had, you could do a lot worse.

 

Nor should we pretend we've never been that far down on the depth chart. We've been that deep in catcher nearly as often as not since 2006 and in shortstop in 2009.

 

There's no real reason to play Navarro down. In all likelihood we don't see him at all but that doesn't mean he can't be effective. I'm just saying that if we do need to see him, his chances of being replacement level or better are fair.

[Dojji]

I don't get why challenging me on the Navarro question has become a "thing" for you in particular Yaz. What I'm proposing is really not that absurd, and Navarro's ability to play ball in the big leagues is being way underrated here.

 

In terms of readiness, he'd be a little raw and rushed if he was called up now, but he has enough talent that he could pull through a rough inifial couple months and settle in. Jumping pretty much straight from AA to the majors would be rocky for him, but it really depends on the level of expectations. If they're reasonable for a rookie who's learning on the job (replacement level or better), he can probably meet them. If they're the standards of a major contender looking for real run production from the shortstop position, the only guy we have who has a real chance to meet that standard is Jed Lowrie (Scutaro is more a really, really good utility man on a championship team or a starter on an average to above average one).

 

Little doubt he'd benefit from some extra time in the minors, if he debuted now his frist year wouldn't reflect his ultimate talent level, but this kid isn't a bit prospect either. He's quite underrated and shows potential in at least 4 of the 5 tools (power is a work in progress, but he's a good gap hitter). Navarro's worst sin is to be behind two guys in Iglesias and Lowrie who are far more immediate, that doesn't, or at least shouldn't, take away from our impressions of his own talent, which is non-trivial.

 

A number of teams if they had a Navarro would debut him by midseason next year for the glove and hope the bat caught up, a lot of good shortstops began their careers that way. So if you wanted to demand that I commit to the idea that Navarro could be a starter, I'll go ahead and say it: On a small market, one that's bringing a youth movement forward and trying guys out to see whether they can get the job done, Navarro could absolutely be a starter. He could start on a bigger market that had a hole at his position as well. Just his bad luck, he's coming up in our deepest field position at the high minors level so he probably won't get much of a look this year. That has nothing to do with what he's capable of, just what opportunities he's likely to recieve.

[Palodios]

He'd be a "starting shortstop" like Kevin Cash was a starting catcher this year. Not in terms of quality, in terms of role. My only point was that if you needed a guy for several consecutive starts and Navarro was all you had, you could do a lot worse.

.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that when someone is hitting below .150-- ie Kevin Cash and Navarro-- you cannot, in fact, do a lot worse. Any mediocre AAA player can hit to that level in the majors. Navarro playing in 2011 is not a plan C, it is a worst case scenario. Maybe he'll be able to pick up his offense as he develops, but right now he is clearly not ready.

[Dojji]

You're judging Navarro on his first handful of at bats at the big league level. No one ever shows their real talent level in one month of part-time play.

 

I'm judging him off his AA numbers which are a much more realistic evaluation of his current talent level. I have no doubt in my mind that in regular at bats Navarro would hit well over .150. He's not a noodlebat shortstop prospect, at least not based on his performance in AA at age 22, which is on the young side for AA. This is not Tony Pena, Jr. I don't think something like .260/.320/,390 is really beyond Navarro's capabilities in his rookie campaign if he has a good long chance to get his feet under him and recover from his early struggles. That's not an offensive juggernaut, but coupled with acceptable defense it's more than adequate for the very low offensive standards of a shortstop.

 

Longterm at the big league level I see him as a .270/.340/l.410 guy who can be a bit streaky but will generally be a positive if not world-beating contributor. Sorta somewhere between Yunel Escobar and an Orlando Cabrera with a bit of third base mixed in. maybe more if he fills out a bit and builds on his gap power. I'm not calling this guy an allstar, but he certainly is good enough to be a starting caliber shortstop with very reasonable projections.

[Yaz Sideburn]

I don't get why challenging me on the Navarro question has become a "thing" for you in particular Yaz. What I'm proposing is really not that absurd' date=' and Navarro's ability to play ball in the big leagues is being way underrated here.[/quote']

 

in case you haven't noticed, everyone in this thread is challenging you on this issue. no one's saying that navarro won't turn into a decent shortstop eventually, we just disagree with the idea that he'd be servicable starting shortstop for us next year

 

if we got so far down on the depth chart that navarro was our starting shortstop, we would would make a trade. he's not even a plan c at this point in his career

[Dojji]

I disagree on both points. Trading for a shortstop is not easy, there are few options that are simultaneously available for a reasonable price and better than replacement value.

 

We got stupid lucky when Lowrie and Lugo were unable to go in 2009, that Green was able to hold down the fort until a better solution was found. Replacing an injured SS properly is one of the most difficult things a GM can be forced to try to do in midseason. Only catcher is harder. at the very least, minor leaguers would get a shot in the worst case, and we'd make a move only if they couldn't settle in.

 

Just to drive my point home: Which shortstop would you "make a move" FOR if Lowrie gets hurt again and Scutaro is having trouble with his neck/back? What are the options that you think would be available for a reasonable price, and how many of them are actually better than Navarro?

[jacksonianmarch]

Orlando Cabrera is available seemingly every yr. He puts up enough defense to remain at SS and enough offense to justify a roster spot. He's not perfect, but he is available

[Dojji]

By the time we knew we'd need a replacement, the FA's would be signed and we'd be possibly as much as a couple months into the season. That's why it isn't as easy as all that to replace.

[a700hitter]

By the time we knew we'd need a replacement' date=' the FA's would be signed and we'd be possibly as much as a couple months into the season. That's why it isn't as easy as all that to replace.[/quote']That's when you make a trade.

[Dojji]

Which brings us back to our original issue.

 

I disagree on both points. Trading for a shortstop is not easy, there are few options that are simultaneously available for a reasonable price and better than replacement value.

 

We got stupid lucky when Lowrie and Lugo were unable to go in 2009, that Green was able to hold down the fort until a better solution was found. Replacing an injured SS properly is one of the most difficult things a GM can be forced to try to do in midseason. Only catcher is harder. at the very least, minor leaguers would get a shot in the worst case, and we'd make a move only if they couldn't settle in.

 

Just to drive my point home: Which shortstop would you "make a move" FOR if Lowrie gets hurt again and Scutaro is having trouble with his neck/back? What are the options that you think would be available for a reasonable price, and how many of them are actually better than Navarro?

[Palodios]

I disagree on both points. Trading for a shortstop is not easy, there are few options that are simultaneously available for a reasonable price and better than replacement value.

 

The problem with your assessment is that you are not differentiating between "bad" players and "better than navarro" shortstops. Is it difficult to trade for players better than replacement? Sure. But trading for better-than-Navarro players is much much easier.

 

Right now this organization has five options better than Navarro. Scutaro, Lowrie, Hall, Iglesias, Patterson.

[Spudboy]

The problem with your assessment is that you are not differentiating between "bad" players and "better than navarro" shortstops. Is it difficult to trade for players better than replacement? Sure. But trading for better-than-Navarro players is much much easier.

 

Right now this organization has five options better than Navarro. Scutaro, Lowrie, Hall, Iglesias, Patterson.

 

Hall, Patterson?:lol:

 

Hall has been 10% better than what could have been expected. Patterson is a 1 tool player and does not play SS. What do you mean?

[mvp 78]

Well, I did hear that Vmart started as a SS in the instructional leagues...

[Spudboy]

Well' date=' I did hear that Vmart started as a SS in the instructional leagues...[/quote']

 

:lol:

[BSN07]

Ok I will admit I have been busy and haven't followed the club as close as I normally due. But why all this talk of SS for next year? Isn't Scutaro under contract?

[Yaz Sideburn]

I disagree on both points. Trading for a shortstop is not easy, there are few options that are simultaneously available for a reasonable price and better than replacement value.

 

We got stupid lucky when Lowrie and Lugo were unable to go in 2009, that Green was able to hold down the fort until a better solution was found. Replacing an injured SS properly is one of the most difficult things a GM can be forced to try to do in midseason. Only catcher is harder. at the very least, minor leaguers would get a shot in the worst case, and we'd make a move only if they couldn't settle in.

 

Just to drive my point home: Which shortstop would you "make a move" FOR if Lowrie gets hurt again and Scutaro is having trouble with his neck/back? What are the options that you think would be available for a reasonable price, and how many of them are actually better than Navarro?

 

i give up. your entire point is that navarro would somehow be helpful for us next year by sucking as our starting shortstop should scutaro, lowrie and iglesias all get hurt. how that would be helpful is beyond me

[Palodios]

Hall, Patterson?:lol:

 

I know, that's the problem-- players we'd normally scoff at the idea of starting for this team... would be better than navarro.

[Dojji]

Ok I will admit I have been busy and haven't followed the club as close as I normally due. But why all this talk of SS for next year? Isn't Scutaro under contract?

 

He's dealing with a known issue with his back or neck, can't recall which, that may require surgery to fix.

[Dojji]

I know' date=' that's the problem-- players we'd normally scoff at the idea of starting for this team... would be better than navarro.[/quote']

 

Yeah and Dustin Pedroia looked really great in his first handful of PA's too. Not to say Navarro has anywhere NEAR the offensive chops of a Pedroia, but you can't judge ANYONE based on how they do in their first 40-50 PA's. Whether it's good, whether it's very not, what Navarro is doing at the big league level at the plate at the moment has almost NO bearing at ALL on what he can become.

 

Judge him on his whole body of work not on one very small sample size based on seeing everything for the first time. I think ORS put up MLE's earlier and they're competitive with the lower middle of the league's starting SS. That's without allowing for potential improvement as the guy gets closer to his physical peak. This really isn't a tenth as ridiculous as you guys have decided to think of it as.

 

We all agree that Navarro isn't actually likely to get a chance to prove it one way or the other, but that's because he's blocked, and Iglesuas and Lowrie have "first dibs" at any SS time. Not because if called upon he wouldn't put up at least a replacement level performance.