sk7326

It's what you get when you are an 18 year old in a full season league - scouts always noted the swing was there. Funny what happens as you grow into your body. Almost all of these plate appearances have involved him being the youngest kid in the entire league.

Votto At the same time, Votto is exactly what the team needs. While I would not like trading, say Bogaerts and Groome for Votto and Cozart (for instance) ... that deal is not terrible, and there are reasons for both sides to do it.

Our #2 hitter, like hitters #1-#9, should focus on not making outs. .347 OBP is not as amazing as I'd want - but fine.

More true in 1997 than now. 12 man pitching staffs mean that there are just fewer bench players - guys HAVE to play.

Pedestrian compared to Aaron Judge - solid compared to anybody else. Stuff happens at different rates - David Ortiz was a not-very good regular in Minnesota. Things happen - ultimately the upside of this team lies on the kiddos, which for any organization is a good problem to have. Indeed our kid led team is a 1st place one knowing that there is room to improve.

He's going be Holt on the low end, closer to Zobrist on the high ... plug in wherever makes sense ... I don't mind them giving Devers some time off here and there (like 1 out of 3 games) ... between Benintendi, Moreland and Devers, there should be enough at-bats for him.

I think the question is not will Devers be here the rest of the year ... just how will his work be managed. I think it would have been easy to do a straight platoon - but he looks surprisingly stout against lefties already. (first Pawsox homerun, a hit yesterday) But Nunez gives Farrell a lot of options to manage rest and PT - it's like getting a good Brock Holt.

Nunez is basically a version of Brock Holt who is actually good (see Holt 2014). And that would help! Between 1B, 3B and spelling other spots there are the ABs for him.

yeah, there's "taking pressure off the kid" but that is a bit much ...

They don't bring him up at all if they had an intention of cutting bait quickly. He is going to be part of the 3B situation the rest of the way - the only question is how much platooning they do. (my guess = quite a bit)

Maybe - the consensus scouting I've seen says he is fine at 3B, and eventually his bat will profile anywhere.

He puts a good outcome on the board ... even if it's not likely, that it could is enough. The other options simply do not have that sort of upside. In terms of downside they are all roughly the same.

Looking forward to tonight of course ... the big things here. 1. The team needed some spark, and something fun. This qualifies. As I've noted before - yeah the 2007 Buchholz no-hitter was just one game, but the season can drag, and so something neat popping up in the middle is good. 2. Bogaerts did .250/.320/.364 in his 2013 tour. That seems like a reasonable ask for Devers - it's not great but it provided stability, and he looked like he belonged. 3. Essentially we are asking for Devers to be an improvement on nothing. He will do that I think. How much? See #2. That's still something considerable. 4. It is a testament to the ceiling of this team that somehow we are 55-46 with only one player having an extraordinary year. (Sale) Betts has had a quietly excellent season - but after last year it feels like a step back (which it is, if you are exceedingly greedy) 5. The team needs a bat - but where it is doesn't matter quite as much now. A right hander who can play 3B would be nice - David Freese is a good choice for a lower price point - especially since he does have some semi-famous big game experience. 6. The shame this season has been that there have been a lack of great seasons - just a bunch of okay ones. Benintendi has had a solid rookie season ... but he teased a lot more. (it is easy to forget that he is a rookie still) Bogaerts has had a decent season for him, but no LEAP! (he's still a good player) Betts has been one of the league's 5 or 6 best position players again - but not as good as 2016. Porcello went from one of the luckiest pitchers in the league to one of the most snakebitten.

That part is silly. 1. It's baseball - having a great team guarantees nothing. The best team rarely wins. (by my count, maybe every 4 or 5 years) 2. He did what his owner wanted - sold out, made big moves. 3. Dombrowski built systems too in Montreal and Miami. If Henry wanted Dombrowski to think longer term, Dombrowski would.

I don't know. I think once they decided he was their best shot at filling the need - the question is when. I think in isolation they preferred to keep him at AAA - but that got outweighed by the chance to give him 2 full months at the big league level.

Well Ortiz' was the most unusual aging curve of them all - where he looked almost finished 8 years ago.

One plus on the defensive end is often an org's best fielding instructors are at the ML level. Butterfield is known as one of the better fielding coaches in the game.

Really depends on whether Hanley can handle a more full time ride at 1B

Question I have is whether Jose Bautista is worth a buy-low look.

Bogaerts did a .250/.320/.364 in his 2013 tour. We remember the performance better - because he did not look overwhelmed and made the basic plays in the field. I think that is a fair expectation. It is not great - but it's passable and it will bring the position stability.

I think there is no ceiling with him in a lot of ways ... but this year? You bring him up because you are getting nothing out of 3B - and he should be able to be okay. I think .250 with some command of the strike zone and a little bit of pop is a reasonable expectation.

If he's on 25, he has to go on the 40.

I take Dombrowski's words about a 20 year old who is rocketing up the farm far less seriously than you do. I can count on zero hands the number of times I have read an exec pumping up a future call-up, especially a high profile one. It's always deflect or whatever. The trade market was not there last week either - but there was a Yankees series at Fenway. Better getting his feet wet in Seattle. Focus on the baseball and his new team - limit (at least for a little while) the other stuff.

They ARE better largely - Boston media view of the Red Sox will always make players seem not good enough ... and early great performance skews views of good I went to college in Atlanta (grad school) and that is always how folks viewed Andruw Jones, a dude who hit a homerun in the World Series as an 18 year old. How do you top that? You can't - but he was really good for a long time. But it is hard to be that fired up when a supposed prodigy ends up landing on very good. It's not rational but there you go.

I don't think this is expected to put us over the top. The good players playing better has to take that onus. It's to take a position which has been below replacement level and turning it into "something". Given how poor the position has been - being able to be a slightly below average major leaguer would represent a large marginal improvement. Somewhat secondarily - baseball is fun, and the season is a slog even in the best of times. Just something to up that can help. I always remember Buchholz' no-hitter as a sudden burst of sunshine into another good season which had hit a bit of a plateau.