sk7326

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.

Yes - but not for anything the Red Sox would be willing to give up. Between the trades and the graduations - the Sox system is very top heavy.

If he had more projectable swing, this would be evident

Aluminum bat in a shaky conference ... have to lean on more than the numbers there. Travis swing seems more built for line drive than getting the backspin you'd want from a power hitter. Now every so often there is a Goldschmidt or Pedroia who just confound scouts - but I think Travis has the sort of swing which looks like 15 HR sort of thing, which is fine.

And minor leaguers aren't equal - he might have been worth 4 if none of them were major league-probable, or all guys with "extra guy, maybe" sort of view.

I do think the Moneyball thing vis a vis amateur scouting was disproven significantly. The problem with waiting for college and looking at stats too hard became a matter of limiting the upside pool. The Blue Jays under Ricciardi in particular were not getting enough star power into their system by looking too much at amateur stats (especially in high school where competition varies so wildly). It put them behind the curve on projectable high school talent - which is where a lot of your true star upside comes from. Note Beane has reversed course there for sure. What Moneyball did more than anything was to put "approach" on the table as a scoutable trait - something more born than made.

Any scout that tells you some player is the next ____________ is garbage. THAT is hype. Soxprospects does not do that. They do a good job looking at tools, age, performance and putting some probability down. Remember, prospects are about probability and upside - with a bit of a bias towards upside (because that is just harder to find). They do a good job identifying best case scenario and why it could/couldn't happen. For instance, Devers is in AAA (and on his small sample size he does not look overwhelmed) as a 20 year old - that is a massive good sign for his future. Just like how in high school, the 14 year old who is getting regular minutes on the varsity is where you look for future stardom. Sam Travis on the other hand - from the jump - was a college 1B. The upside is inherently not great, but the probability is a little higher. Travis seems to be tracking there - no a star, but a perfectly good starter.

A lot of the places are professional scouts - they just aren't working for a team ... as Law has pointed out, scout is frankly kind of a crappy lifestyle ... like most lower level jobs in baseball ops - lots of travel, low pay. If you are a guy with some decent scouting chops - and want to have a family, working for a publication is often a healthier lifestyle.

Law is right in general here - but even he will point out there are a couple of very specific times where it makes sense to get the sacrifice ... like 1st and 2nd, nobody out in the bottom of the 9th ... where exactly one run is all that matters. But that occasion (where one run is really all you care about) is pretty infrequent.

A slump!!! Oh noes!!

I mean Travis looks like he could have 15 HR power - not 30 ... so he's not Otis Nixon out there, but I don't see a slugger in him. More like a working-class Mark Grace or something

very very rare ... there you go. And again, bunting for a hit is totally cool

Bunting is a perfectly legitimate way to try to get a hit. But sacrificing? In short, the only time it's a good idea is if you only really need one run - where the value of the second run is nil ... that situation is very very rare

or to get a hit ... or in a few specific late game spots

That was known for over a year - and maybe last year was a bump with that in mind. But I think if Betts was getting MVP buzz again, things would perk up more. The team has had a lot of - negativity is the wrong word - but yes it feels less satisfying because the talent has largely played to okay versions of themselves. (aside from Sale)