Lineup Discussions

[sk7326]

The Red Sox have a development program that is supposedly as elaborate as it gets. Every off-season, they invite some prospects to their "boot camp," where they live in the cjty & spend a lot of time learning about th

 

i read the same concern that Benintendi did not have enough reps in LF. But he was getting reps in CF, the harder position. Between the coaching and the kid, the bet is that the esoteric stuff (like a 37 foot wall) takes care of itself.

[moonslav59]

What has changed? the Sox developed him at 2nd base. When they thought he was MLB ready they moved him to a position where he was needed more. This is exactly in line with what people like me and User have been saying.

 

The Sox did just that, and I think a lot of us agree with it. The Sox did not make a mistake, what mistake could they have made? when a similar situation occurs in the future they are going to go about it the same exact way.

 

No, user said you follow protocol and protocol says you don't change a level and a position in the same year....let alone 6-8 weeks.

[moonslav59]

The Red Sox have a development program that is supposedly as elaborate as it gets. Every off-season, they invite some prospects to their "boot camp," where they live in the city & spend a lot of time in the classroom learning about off the field stuff.

 

Mike Hazen said that they didn't want to put too much on Moncada's plate, so they kept him where he was comfortable. I'm pretty sure my 98 year old grandmother also figured out that Moncada might end up at 3rd when you did, but realized that the Sox have done an excellent job of developing position players over the years, so they obviously have their reasons for keeping Moncada at 2nd.

 

You guys are missing my point and assuming I don't get why things were done the way they were.

 

Nobody is answering the question at hand.

[User Name]

No, user said you follow protocol and protocol says you don't change a level and a position in the same year....let alone 6-8 weeks.

 

Show me where I said those exact words.

[Hugh2]

No, user said you follow protocol and protocol says you don't change a level and a position in the same year....let alone 6-8 weeks.

 

No, what you don't do is develop a guy out of position. You don't develop a guy at a position that might make more sense for the team down the road, you develop him at the position he's best suited for and comfortable at. That is protocol.

[User Name]

No, what you don't do is develop a guy out of position. You don't develop a guy at a position that might make more sense for the team down the road, you develop him at the position he's best suited for and comfortable at. That is protocol.

 

Oh, so that's what protocol means. Because I was pretty sure that's what I was saying. But apparently, moon knows what I was saying better than I did. Good times.

[moonslav59]

I don't think it matters either way - nobody is stupid enough to have him take this sort of exam cold. So I am not going to look at the games number as an indicator of a whole lot.

 

It's not an exam. It's a question about your opinion based on what you know, which for all of us is much more limited than what the Sox know-granted.

 

In general, do you agree that 10 games is enough at a new position for a player to be sent up to the bigs at that new position?

 

They did it to Bogey in 2013, and they did not get burned. He did very well.

 

I'm not saying the Sox f***ed up. I'm asking people if they feel okay with Moncada getting just 10 games at 3B?

 

We're not even sure he'll play much 3B, so the question is maybe not even pertinent.

 

The timetable the Sox chose to use on Moncada followed very closely to what I hoped or speculated it should be. The gave him reps at 3B shortly after I said they should do it "sooner rather than later".; They actually started playing him at 3B a little quicker than I expected, but I'm not privy to what they saw in practice or know about his skill level on defense.

 

I'm feeling 10 games is rather short. I really didn't expect to see Moncada at 3B this year in the bigs...same as Bogey in 2013 (although I called for him to get 3B reps earlier then as well).

 

It's not a right or wrong question. I'm not trying to :get ya" or anyone else.

 

It's a simple question asking for opinions.

 

Nobody gets shot if they end up being wrong in hindsight later on.

[moonslav59]

Oh, so that's what protocol means. Because I was pretty sure that's what I was saying. But apparently, moon knows what I was saying better than I did. Good times.

 

See how it feels Mr. strawman constructor.

 

Your position was clear. You don't change levels and positions in the same year, because protocol is the right thing to do, because "it works"..

 

[sk7326]

It's not an exam. It's a question about your opinion based on what you know, which for all of us is much more limited than what the Sox know-granted.

 

In general, do you agree that 10 games is enough at a new position for a player to be sent up to the bigs at that new position?

 

They did it to Bogey in 2013, and they did not get burned. He did very well.

 

I'm not saying the Sox f***ed up. I'm asking people if they feel okay with Moncada getting just 10 games at 3B?

 

We're not even sure he'll play much 3B, so the question is maybe not even pertinent.

 

The timetable the Sox chose to use on Moncada followed very closely to what I hoped or speculated it should be. The gave him reps at 3B shortly after I said they should do it "sooner rather than later".; They actually started playing him at 3B a little quicker than I expected, but I'm not privy to what they saw in practice or know about his skill level on defense.

 

I'm feeling 10 games is rather short. I really didn't expect to see Moncada at 3B this year in the bigs...same as Bogey in 2013 (although I called for him to get 3B reps earlier then as well).

 

It's not a right or wrong question. I'm not trying to :get ya" or anyone else.

 

It's a simple question asking for opinions.

 

Nobody gets shot if they end up being wrong in hindsight later on.

 

If there were no coaches, no fielding instructors, and no such thing as practice, and the kid was not a "I'll figure this out" sort of dude - 10 games at 3B might be a bit short.

[Hugh2]

It's not an exam. It's a question about your opinion based on what you know, which for all of us is much more limited than what the Sox know-granted.

 

In general, do you agree that 10 games is enough at a new position for a player to be sent up to the bigs at that new position?

 

They did it to Bogey in 2013, and they did not get burned. He did very well.

 

I'm not saying the Sox f***ed up. I'm asking people if they feel okay with Moncada getting just 10 games at 3B?

 

We're not even sure he'll play much 3B, so the question is maybe not even pertinent.

 

The timetable the Sox chose to use on Moncada followed very closely to what I hoped or speculated it should be. The gave him reps at 3B shortly after I said they should do it "sooner rather than later".; They actually started playing him at 3B a little quicker than I expected, but I'm not privy to what they saw in practice or know about his skill level on defense.

 

I'm feeling 10 games is rather short. I really didn't expect to see Moncada at 3B this year in the bigs...same as Bogey in 2013 (although I called for him to get 3B reps earlier then as well).

 

It's not a right or wrong question. I'm not trying to :get ya" or anyone else.

 

It's a simple question asking for opinions.

 

Nobody gets shot if they end up being wrong in hindsight later on.

 

So if all our knowledge is limited compared to what the Sox know as you just said and apparently they always do this to guys as you just said then why shouldn't anyone believe that they did the right thing?

[moonslav59]

No, what you don't do is develop a guy out of position. You don't develop a guy at a position that might make more sense for the team down the road, you develop him at the position he's best suited for and comfortable at. That is protocol.

 

1) Moncada played some 3B in Cuba, so 2B might have been his most comfortable position, but maybe not by much, so the original call might not have been a slam dunk decision. One has to think they'd have started him at 3B, if they felt he was better there, so I'm not arguing that point, but Moncada is a unique player with unigue talent and positional history.

2) I was told what "protocol" was by posters who knew better than I. (So I was told.)

3) When beni was called up, rather than admit the protocol was not followed, they screamed "desperation" not deliberate decision made after serious planning.

[Hugh2]

Oh, so that's what protocol means. Because I was pretty sure that's what I was saying. But apparently, moon knows what I was saying better than I did. Good times.

 

I haven't read this entire thread, but I remember the original argument and I'm pretty sure me and you were making the same point/argument back then about how teams generally develop players.

[moonslav59]

So if all our knowledge is limited compared to what the Sox know as you just said and apparently they always do this to guys as you just said then why shouldn't anyone believe that they did the right thing?

 

Then why even make comments and give our opinions?

[Hugh2]

1) Moncada played some 3B in Cuba, so 2B might have been his most comfortable position, but maybe not by much, so the original call might not have been a slam dunk decision. One has to think they'd have started him at 3B, if they felt he was better there, so I'm not arguing that point, but Moncada is a unique player with unigue talent and positional history.

2) I was told what "protocol" was by posters who knew better than I. (So I was told.)

3) When beni was called up, rather than admit the protocol was not followed, they screamed "desperation" not deliberate decision made after serious planning.

 

What??? the team thought Benetendi was ready so they called him up and only switched his position for a very brief time as we said.

[Hugh2]

Then why even make comments and give our opinions?

 

Because it's a forum and thats what we do amongst other things. But if there is overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong and not adhered to by any other team in baseball then why would anyone want to hold onto that opinion????

 

It's like this, if 100 out of 100 doctors told me to take this vaccination or I would die....I would believe them and take it.

[User Name]

See how it feels Mr. strawman constructor.

 

Your position was clear. You don't change levels and positions in the same year, because protocol is the right thing to do, because "it works"..

 

 

Show me exactly where I said that.

[sk7326]

This is the thing with "protocol" ... and one of the reasons I puke in my mouth a little when OPS' in AA (or any minor league stats really) are cited to talk about a kid (as tempting as it is).

 

The team has an org plan with a kid - we want to see you do blah blah blah ... and if that happens, yay they are onto the next thing. It might show in the numbers, it might not. Now it sucks in an internet forum to have this be a black box - what fun is that? - but there you go.

 

With Benintendi, perhaps the targets are different - they wanted to see if his approach went to seed, if he could keep constructing good at-bats. Maybe the OF thing had a low score on their Benintendi-O-Meter because they simply assumed he'd be fine (if a born CF can't play LF then what are we doing with our lives).

 

I reckon Moncada was a slower roll for those sorts of reasons - maybe they wanted to see more craft at the plate (they weren't ignoring those wheelbarrows of Ks). The protocol is probably being followed, but the plan for every big prospect is its own snowflake.

 

The plan for hitting is less obvious than for pitching of course - no innings limits to worry about etc.

[moonslav59]

What??? the team thought Benetendi was ready so they called him up and only switched his position for a very brief time as we said.

 

My opinion was wrong?

 

For God's sake, the Sox followed my suggestion nearly to the exact timetable I suggested they might do, assuming as I said at the time Moncada was already or extremely close to ML ready offensively!

 

On Beni, I never disagreed with management and said we should "call him up the second they feel he is ML ready". I had hoped, in hindsight, that he got more reps in LF than he did, but I was not in the camp for calling him up earlier.

 

[Spudboy]

What has changed? the Sox developed him at 2nd base. When they thought he was MLB ready they moved him to a position where he was needed more. This is exactly in line with what people like me and User have been saying.

 

The Sox did just that, and I think a lot of us agree with it. The Sox did not make a mistake, what mistake could they have made? when a similar situation occurs in the future they are going to go about it the same exact way.

 

Agreed.

 

Do people expect Moncada to walk into Oakland and be the second coming of Brooks Robinson?

 

If all I have read about him is mostly accurate, the guy is a very good athlete and very coachable. While many here would be comforted if Moncada had played half a season or more at third before promotion, someone with more knowledge has made the judgment that he is good enough to give MLB a go.

 

Besides, he is a Red Sox because of his potential as a hitter and offensve weapon.

[moonslav59]

Show me exactly where I said that.

 

What good would it do? When you misrepresented my opinion, I was forced to go back and show exactly what I said, and how you twisted it. You never admitted you constructed a strwman, and kept saying I didn't even know what a strawman was.

 

The ball's in your court now. You go back and look.

 

I know what you and other said.

[User Name]

Ok, so that's not what I said, is what you're saying. Cool.

[moonslav59]

Ok, so that's not what I said, is what you're saying. Cool.

 

You need reading comprehension classes.

[User Name]

My reading comprehension is fine, you are just making s*** up.

[moonslav59]

My reading comprehension is fine, you are just making s*** up.

 

You're an expert at doing that.

[oldtimer]

Getting back to the lineup discussions, the plan for next season is somewhat fluid, with some young players with things to demonstrate to solidify a position for themselves. Here is my current take.

 

Pedroia (2nd)

Benintendi (LF)

Bogaerts (SS)

Betts (RF)

Ramerez (DH)

Bradley (CF)

Leon ©

Moncada (3rd)

Holt (1st)

 

4 Reserves

Vazquez ©

Young (Of)

Swihart (Of/c)

Rutledge(IF)

 

If that feels uncomfortable having 2 outfield subs instead of two infield subs, then take out one of either Swihart or Young. and replace him with one of Shaw, Hernandez or Marrero. Some of the fluidity can will be further confused by potential trades. Swihart has been mentioned and I would suppose Rutledge is also possible although he is a proven major league commodity and played decently before being injured. The other big if is whether DD trades for another big bat for DH. I wouldn't advise an older player on a long term contract for that no matter what the current production shows.

[moonslav59]

Getting back to the lineup discussions, the plan for next season is somewhat fluid, with some young players with things to demonstrate to solidify a position for themselves. Here is my current take.

 

Pedroia (2nd)

Benintendi (LF)

Bogaerts (SS)

Betts (RF)

Ramerez (DH)

Bradley (CF)

Leon ©

Moncada (3rd)

Holt (1st)

 

4 Reserves

Vazquez ©

Young (Of)

Swihart (Of/c)

Rutledge(IF)

 

If that feels uncomfortable having 2 outfield subs instead of two infield subs, then take out one of either Swihart or Young. and replace him with one of Shaw, Hernandez or Marrero. Some of the fluidity can will be further confused by potential trades. Swihart has been mentioned and I would suppose Rutledge is also possible although he is a proven major league commodity and played decently before being injured. The other big if is whether DD trades for another big bat for DH. I wouldn't advise an older player on a long term contract for that no matter what the current production shows.

 

There's lots of permutations, but this might work well...

 

1) Beni

2) Bogey

3) Betts

4) Pedey

5) JBJ v R/HRam v L

6) Moncada

7) HRam v R/JBJ v L

8) Leon

9) Shaw v R/Young v L

 

[Hugh2]

There's lots of permutations, but this might work well...

 

 

 

about 362,880 of them. And this is just with the starting 9

[bosoxmal]

Getting back to reality, Beni isn't in the conversation for tonight's game. If the Sox were smart enough to hire me as their lineup consultant, my bottom four this game would be Holt, Moncada, Leon, Bradley. I expect it to be Leon, Holt, Moncada Bradley.

 

What sayeth you other gurus?

[Kimmi]

about 362,880 of them. And this is just with the starting 9

 

A man after my own heart.

[Kimmi]

Getting back to reality, Beni isn't in the conversation for tonight's game. If the Sox were smart enough to hire me as their lineup consultant, my bottom four this game would be Holt, Moncada, Leon, Bradley. I expect it to be Leon, Holt, Moncada Bradley.

 

What sayeth you other gurus?

 

This guru has said it a thousand times and will say it a thousand more. It doesn't much matter.