sk7326

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.

Maybe - I don't see the 180 so much as just basic PR with minor leaguers. I've never heard an exec make an "he's almost ready" discussion vis a vis a farmhand. I think the recent events which moved this along was the trade market - the team would prefer to have found a viable veteran option ... but, given where their 3B position was qualitywise and what the trade market for 3B looked like ... this was probably the best move on the table for 3B.

What is funny too is that Betts has been one of the league's very best players again this year - just happens that more of his production this year has been due to elite defense.

Except for Bradley, most of the killer Bs peers are still in AA and AAA.

I agree - but I also say that a lot of these decisions are made by the players. Devers pushed the org a bit with his play. The errors are a watch item - but scouting seems to indicate he is fine at 3rd. It's not like Moncada being pressed into duty.

Really bringing him up NOW is not the panic move. Doing it in September is. Clearly the notion is bat him 9th, platoon him a little - count on his ability to adjust to level (which he has shown consistently since he was 17) to figure stuff out. If anything, this gives Devers an extra long runway. Now fans who expect Mike Schmidt to show up tomorrow will almost certainly be disappointed. But can he show that he belongs, take good at bats, not press too much. Aside from strikeout rate, the numbers themselves early on don't matter that much.

I think it's aggressive ... but specifically to your points 1. Who cares what he says? Of course he protects the kid. 2. It is ever thus 3. See #1. 4. True 5. Small samples - scouting reports seem to indicate he'll be okay. And they are errors - a silly stat mostly to begin with. 6. I don't know how much of an about-face it was. They denied Benintendi's readiness too ... I think the timing worked out here. It is a tad aggressive but there was a good natural window to break the seal.

The option accelerates the clock on making decisions - including starting free agency clock and such eventually ... so it does rush the org a bit - so if the player is not quite ready it can be tougher to do side work. But I think in Devers case there is more polish than when Moncada came up.

None of them are 25 - so clearly we move on.

No it won't - he is here to play. They don't burn an option year on him without being ready to let him ride. Remember - they brought Benintendi directly from AA. I suspect they were more protective of Devers because of the difference in age and high-intensity experience. (Benintendi in the SEC) But when a kid has brought the batting practice power he showed as a 17 year old into games in Portland - you have to start thinking hard. The AAA assignment was neither here nor there - Devers had nothing left to prove in Portland. And this trip was ALWAYS the sensible time to make the call. Better making your debut on the road than say during a Yankees series at Fenway. Kid can focus on baseball and his new team - with less of the other stuff. Unless he looks lost like Moncada, he's going to get his chance to figure this out ... and it makes sense, none of the other viable options would have that much higher odds of popping. Beltre was the only 3B who made sense, and there were good reasons for both teams to not make that deal.

Pedroia went from 2006 - not a big leaguer 2007 - rookie of the year 2008 - MVP

Made sense to do it on this trip - always had. A call up won't ruin a kid - although not every kid can handle it. Moncada - the cake just wasn't baked yet. (yes, whether it ever does is an open question - but the answer was decidedly not 2016) Bringing up a kid early can screw things up for a kid organizationally. There ain't the same time for teaching at the big league level - if the player can't make the adjustments on his own, it's tough sledding. And an org is burning an option year - which reduces their choices in the future. (Wily Mo Pena is a really good case for this) Devers has handled aggressive promotion - he is a good guy to bet on - bat him 9th, let him figure it out over 2 months.