All things Moncada

[moonslav59]

His struggles playing 2B is part of the reason I think moving him might be a good idea- sooner rather than later.

 

It might take 3 years for him to become adequate defensively at 2B. I'm not sure that even if we didn't have Pedey locked up at 2B for infinity, Moncada would project to be our 2Bman in 2-3 years.

 

Let me ask you this, Hugh, do you think that having Moncada (or any player in theory) stay after practice for maybe 20-30 minutes a day to take grounders at 3B or fly balls in LF, and then maybe in 2-3 weeks, (assuming he's doing fine in practice) start playing him a game here and there at his new position could seriously retard his growth and pr0gression?

 

[Hugh2]

His struggles playing 2B is part of the reason I think moving him might be a good idea- sooner rather than later.

 

It might take 3 years for him to become adequate defensively at 2B. I'm not sure that even if we didn't have Pedey locked up at 2B for infinity, Moncada would project to be our 2Bman in 2-3 years.

 

Let me ask you this, Hugh, do you think that having Moncada (or any player in theory) stay after practice for maybe 20-30 minutes a day to take grounders at 3B or fly balls in LF, and then maybe in 2-3 weeks, (assuming he's doing fine in practice) start playing him a game here and there at his new position could seriously retard his growth and pr0gression?

 

 

1. Reportedly his defense has taken big steps forward this year, which is expected if you keep a guy at a position and let him grow there. He could easily struggle trying to start over at a new position.

 

2. It could take him 3 years to become adequate at any position, he could easily become a good 2nd baseman quicker than switching to another position right now. How do we not know that Devers/Chavis/Shaw is our future 3rd baseman? how do we not know Pedey gets injured, traded, or drastically declines in two years from now? all of those are highly plausible to varying degrees. You don't interrupt a guys progression through the minors and switch his positions because of what might happen on the big club in a few years. I said it before and I'll say it again prospect development is from the bottom up....not from the top down. You let guys develop. Would you move Espinoza to the bullpen now because he's undersized and we might really need a set-up man in 2 years??? No you wouldn't.

 

3. Do I think it would seriously retard his growth? I think it could hurt and affect his growth yes, which is precisely why teams wait until players reach the upper minors to tinker with their positions. All things considered.

[User Name]

Moon, you're just flat out wrong on this. You don't jerk players around and take chances with their development based on unlikely "what-if" scenarios. That's just not how prospect development works.

[jacksonianmarch]

ms, you develop him where his value and capability are the highest. If he develops even into a league average defensive 2b, then he'll be worth a massive amount with what his bat offers. You move him to the OF right now and his stock nosedives based on positional value alone. What you can do is develop him in the toughest position (middle of the diamond) and move him as he gets closer to where your needs are.

[moonslav59]

1. Reportedly his defense has taken big steps forward this year, which is expected if you keep a guy at a position and let him grow there. He could easily struggle trying to start over at a new position.

 

Yes, he likely will struggle at a new position, and that is what will likely delay his promotion to MLB, unless he's our DH next year.

 

2. It could take him 3 years to become adequate at any position, he could easily become a good 2nd baseman quicker than switching to another position right now. How do we not know that Devers/Chavis/Shaw is our future 3rd baseman? how do we not know Pedey gets injured, traded, or drastically declines in two years from now? all of those are highly plausible to varying degrees. You don't interrupt a guys progression through the minors and switch his positions because of what might happen on the big club in a few years. I said it before and I'll say it again prospect development is from the bottom up....not from the top down. You let guys develop. Would you move Espinoza to the bullpen now because he's undersized and we might really need a set-up man in 2 years??? No you wouldn't.

 

Come on. That's an absurd counterpoint. Moncada would have to become GG good at 2B to make Pedey change positions. Moncada is blocked. Espi is not.

 

3. Do I think it would seriously retard his growth? I think it could hurt and affect his growth yes, which is precisely why teams wait until players reach the upper minors to tinker with their positions. All things considered.

 

I guess I just don't see asking a guy to stay after practice for a few reps at a new position puts so much strain on a young players mind, body or psyche.

 

.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[moonslav59]

Moon, you're just flat out wrong on this. You don't jerk players around and take chances with their development based on unlikely "what-if" scenarios. That's just not how prospect development works.

 

Constructing straw men again.

 

Asking someone to take some reps after practice is not "jerking".

 

[moonslav59]

ms, you develop him where his value and capability are the highest. If he develops even into a league average defensive 2b, then he'll be worth a massive amount with what his bat offers. You move him to the OF right now and his stock nosedives based on positional value alone. What you can do is develop him in the toughest position (middle of the diamond) and move him as he gets closer to where your needs are.

 

He won't be ML average at 2B for quite a while. I don't see that as a viable argument.

 

I also do not see us trading Moncada, and if we do, my guess is the next team will move him to a position better suited to his size and athleticism. (Sooner rather than later, which BTW does not mean it has to be tomorrow.)

[Jack Flap]

Anyway...Moncada with his first AA home run last night.

[User Name]

Constructing straw men again.

 

Asking someone to take some reps after practice is not "jerking".

 

 

Do you know what a strawman actually is? And that's weak. You don't have guys take reps at other positions just for the sake of it. The way development works is that you have a guy master his offensive approach and then his natural position because you need to keep kids focused, and you need org developmental plans to be effective, efficient and streamlined. This isn't a reinvention of the wheel by the Red Sox org. Every MLB organization follows the same tried-and-true development concept, and they use it for a reason. The less pressure on a kid's plate, the more likely he is to succeed in the first place. They're not robots.

[moonslav59]

Do you know what a strawman actually is? And that's weak. You don't have guys take reps at other positions just for the sake of it. The way development works is that you have a guy master his offensive approach and then his natural position because you need to keep kids focused, and you need org developmental plans to be effective, efficient and streamlined. This isn't a reinvention of the wheel by the Red Sox org. Every MLB organization follows the same tried-and-true development concept, and they use it for a reason. The less pressure on a kid's plate, the more likely he is to succeed in the first place. They're not robots.

 

It's not just for the "sake of it". Moncada will not be our 2Bman. His offense may be very close, if not already there, to being needed at the ML level.

 

I don't want to see him having to play 3B or LF after just 10 games in the minors or previous practice sessions.

 

It's not radical. It's not taking away time from his batting practice or his current position, at least in the beginning stages.

 

You are saying I want to "jerk him" into a new position. That is not my suggested plan, so yes I know what a straw man is, and I'm not him- my plan is not the one you are arguing against.

[Emp9]

I seriously doubt Moncada will stick at 2B. I've also never read or heard that he would stick there, and it has nothing to do w/ being blocked. Maybe they'll wait until his promotion to AAA to try him at other positions?

[moonslav59]

I seriously doubt Moncada will stick at 2B. I've also never read or heard that he would stick there, and it has nothing to do w/ being blocked. Maybe they'll wait until his promotion to AAA to try him at other positions?

 

Maybe they're waiting until he changes his name to Boncada, so he can joining the "New Killer Bees": Betts, Bogey & Bradley (& Benintendi?)

LOL

[moonslav59]

For the small sample size lovers: Moncada's AA OPS is now up to .842.

[Emp9]

Maybe they're waiting until he changes his name to Boncada, so he can joining the "New Killer Bees": Betts, Bogey & Bradley (& Benintendi?)

LOL

 

Lol. That's it. Rusney Bastillo it is then. How did we miss this?

[User Name]

It's not just for the "sake of it". Moncada will not be our 2Bman. His offense may be very close, if not already there, to being needed at the ML level.

 

I don't want to see him having to play 3B or LF after just 10 games in the minors or previous practice sessions.

 

It's not radical. It's not taking away time from his batting practice or his current position, at least in the beginning stages.

 

You are saying I want to "jerk him" into a new position. That is not my suggested plan, so yes I know what a straw man is, and I'm not him- my plan is not the one you are arguing against.

 

You're greatly underestimating how much impact the mental aspect of the game and the efficiency of a development program have on a young player. They are carefully devised and applied in a way that respects this delicate balance. There's a reason why teams do things the way they do. You're saying "Oh, it's not radical, oh, it won't take time away from other things"....then why haven't they done it? It's clear they will move him off the position. But this is a kid who came over from Cuba and is adjusting to life in the US and life as a professional baseball player. They will try to put the least amount of stuff on his plate possible.

 

Also, do you have any idea how much work goes into positioning/footwork on defense to prepare for the MLB level? Again, there's a reason why they handle development they way they handle it, and no amount of made-up scenarios is going to validate any sort of contention otherwise.

[moonslav59]

You're greatly underestimating how much impact the mental aspect of the game and the efficiency of a development program have on a young player. They are carefully devised and applied in a way that respects this delicate balance. There's a reason why teams do things the way they do. You're saying "Oh, it's not radical, oh, it won't take time away from other things"....then why haven't they done it? It's clear they will move him off the position. But this is a kid who came over from Cuba and is adjusting to life in the US and life as a professional baseball player. They will try to put the least amount of stuff on his plate possible.

 

Also, do you have any idea how much work goes into positioning/footwork on defense to prepare for the MLB level? Again, there's a reason why they handle development they way they handle it, and no amount of made-up scenarios is going to validate any sort of contention otherwise.

 

 

You're greatly over exaggerating what I'm calling for. That's the "jerking straw man".

[Spudboy]

Over exaggerating? Is that possible?

 

Must be like re-aggravating.

 

A sports term.

[User Name]

You're greatly over exaggerating what I'm calling for. That's the "jerking straw man".

 

Again, do you actually know what a straw man is? Please define it for me.

[moonslav59]

Again, do you actually know what a straw man is? Please define it for me.

 

A straw man is an argument based on a fallacy by giving the impression of refuting an argument made by someone, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that person.

 

You claim I want to "jerk Moncada around", when my position is far from that.

 

I don't see what's so hard for you to understand about calling your argument "straw man". You may disagree with my definition of "jerking around", but clearly you should be able to understand why I am calling it a straw man argument.

 

And, I hate getting in argument over semantics, knit-picking peoples positions, and reading into things inaccurately. Can we move on to baseball?

 

Many people felt Middy was a high risk to fail in 2013. We ended up having to play Bogey at 3B after just 10 games in the minors. To me, that was "jerking" a player around, and at the worst possible time and level.

 

Many people saw that once Vazquez was over his injury, we'd need to find another place to play Swihart, assuming his bat became as many projected it might become. This talk was even occurring before Vazquez's injury. Swihart ended up being "jerked" to LF after just 12 games in AAA.

 

You can claim these two cases were injury related and this sort of thing happens in baseball, but there is an argument to be made to be proactive, especially in cases like Swihart's where it is pretty obvious there is an issue of being blocked at his natural position anyways. The Bogey-Iggy issue was different. It seemed clear all along,m Sox management wanted Bogey to be their long term SS not Iggy, so I get the reasoning to not start converting Bogey to 3B, but having him learn how to play 3B "just in case" would not have been a radical idea or "jerking" as much as he actually ended up being jerked.

 

Yeah, the philosophy is to not change a guys position shortly after advancing to a new level. I get it. I understand the benefits, but how cool is it to have a player change positions at the MLB level so quickly? It's happened often with the Sox. Too often for me to not be concerned.

 

The Betts situation did not occur under any stress or pressure due to injury or immediacy needs at the ML level due to a playoff run. Mookie's rapid rise surprised just about everyone. It seemed like he was jumping up a level every few weeks. He played mostly 2B with some SS from 2011 to the fall league of 2013. He was promoted to AA to start 2014 then promoted to AAA after just 54 games, and onto MLB action after just 45 games at AAA. That's 3 levels of advancement in just a few months, and along the way, they converted him from a middle infield position to CF.

 

In your opinion, was this following "standard procedure"?

 

In your opinion, was this "jerking" a fragile prospect around?

 

Yes, I believe they gave him 30-40 games at AA as a 2B before moving him to CF, which is pretty close to the timetable I am suggesting we try with Moncada. (Actually, I am not calling for moving Moncada to LF or 3B right away. I was just saying he could start taking reps in practice sooner rather than later.) Betts played more OF than 2B at AAA (33 CF, 4 RF, 6 2B), so they did transition him adequately before the bigs, but there was no pressure to promote him to MLB in mid 2014. What if there had been a big need? Would it have been prudent to get Betts time in the OF sooner than they chose to do so?

 

I'm not sure what the answer would have been. All worked out well with Betts as he adjusted better than anyone anticipated. Bogey looked good at 3B in 2014, but not so good in 2015. Swihart's sample size was too small to gauge. Some say we messed up JBJ by forcing him to play LF. I was for keeping him in CF and moving Ellsbury to LF, but I'm not sure his situation relates to this argument.

[moonslav59]

Over exaggerating? Is that possible?

 

Must be like re-aggravating.

 

A sports term.

 

Like a hypothetical scenario.

[Hugh2]

So asking a player to focus a little time on a new position won't hurt them, but it will help them? I mean prospect development is kind of a zero sum game, if that time is beneficial then that means you're taking away from their development. Again, there is a reason why teams DON'T do what you're proposing.

 

Why don't pitchers take more batting practice in the minors?

 

And to reiterate Users point I think you're underestimating how crucial prospect development is. There is a huge mental side to the game, and filling a guys head with a bunch of scenarios of how he's supposed to play at one position but then have him go out and play another (even if it's a few minutes every day) can really screw a guy up in the head.

 

If Moncada is going to move off of 2B you're likely not going to see it until he reaches AAA. And for the record, I never once said Pedey would switch positions so that was either a straw man argument or you didn't understand my point on the last page.

 

Again, and I can't stress this enough. You CAN NOT look at prospect development from the top down, you take a bottoms up approach. You let a guy develop where he plays and where he has the most value. When he is MLB ready then you can either trade him if he's blocked, or if it is in the best interest of the team you can move him. But even then at the MLB level it can screw a guy up e.g. JBJ.

[User Name]

That's the hilarity of it. He's accusing others of engaging in strawmen while propping up a bunch of them himself.

[moonslav59]

So asking a player to focus a little time on a new position won't hurt them, but it will help them? I mean prospect development is kind of a zero sum game, if that time is beneficial then that means you're taking away from their development. Again, there is a reason why teams DON'T do what you're proposing.

 

Why don't pitchers take more batting practice in the minors?

 

And to reiterate Users point I think you're underestimating how crucial prospect development is. There is a huge mental side to the game, and filling a guys head with a bunch of scenarios of how he's supposed to play at one position but then have him go out and play another (even if it's a few minutes every day) can really screw a guy up in the head.

 

If Moncada is going to move off of 2B you're likely not going to see it until he reaches AAA. And for the record, I never once said Pedey would switch positions so that was either a straw man argument or you didn't understand my point on the last page.

 

Again, and I can't stress this enough. You CAN NOT look at prospect development from the top down, you take a bottoms up approach. You let a guy develop where he plays and where he has the most value. When he is MLB ready then you can either trade him if he's blocked, or if it is in the best interest of the team you can move him. But even then at the MLB level it can screw a guy up e.g. JBJ.

 

I'm not sure the move to LF was what screwed JBJ up. I'm not even sure the argument some make that we rushed him too quickly is totally accurate. He looked ready at the minor league level- bat and glove. Some players just take longer to adjust to MLB than others, and we'll never know, if we waited a yeara on JBJ, he wouldn't have still gone through a tough adjustment period. It may also have just been an extended slump or a loss of something nobody could figure out.

 

I wasn't accusing you of "straw man" building, Hugh. I did think you seemed to act like I wasn't understanding your point or that I didn't know what the standard procedure was.

 

Maybe I don't value the "mental side" as much as you do, but I'm not dismissing it wholesale. I don't think I ever called for Moncada to be immediately switched to LF or 3B. I may be wrong about him being closer to ML ready offensively, so if that is true, then I agree that we can wait the normal wait time to consider starting the process of moving him to another position. If he is ML ready with the bat right now, then I wouldn't wait too much longer (maybe 15-20 more games) before beginning to give him some reps at 3B or LF (not both). I'm not saying start playing him in LF next week or even 2-3 weeks from now, but probably sooner tahn we did with Swihart and others.

 

I'm just not sure how long our luck can run having to quickly get players ready for a new position at the ML level.

[moonslav59]

That's the hilarity of it. He's accusing others of engaging in strawmen while propping up a bunch of them himself.

 

Show me where I misstated your position, then argued against a point you never made. Name "the bunch" of straw men I constructed. You're straw-manning on me straw-manning! LOL!

 

BTW, nice avoidance of my reply to your question.

[User Name]

This discussion has really run its course. Teams pay millions of dollars to people so they can handle the adjustment and development of their young players. Simply put: You don't know better. Things are done the way they are done because it's the most logical, efficient way.

[User Name]

Re: question

 

Answer what? It's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[moonslav59]

So, let's burn the straw man and move on.

 

I'm just hoping we don't trade Moncada. The sky's the limit with this guy.

[cp176]

So, let's burn the straw man and move on.

 

I'm just hoping we don't trade Moncada. The sky's the limit with this guy.

 

This I agree with. Now before any folks start telling me to curb my enthusiasm, if you get a chance to actually see him, do it. Pretty sure that with everything that he has done so far in addition to his physicality, you also would not want to see him traded. He obviously is going to be the one that everybody wants. I simply would not trade this kid regardless. Anyone else - yup - not him.

[moonslav59]

I'll be in Portland next week and plan on going to a game or two.

 

I can't wait!

[cp176]

I'll be in Portland next week and plan on going to a game or two.

 

I can't wait!

 

Good for you. have fun- great place to see a game. i hope he plays! I got unlucky but I saw enough.