Jack Flap

Because that sentence doesn't apply to either Bogaerts or Betts. Both spent at least some time in AAA (even if it was brief) and demonstrated some success there before being called up. Bradley in early 2013 skipped straight to the majors from AA, which is what some people seem to want to do with Benintendi...that, to me, makes him a much more relevant example. Of course, as you say, we can't say for a fact that Bradley's rushed initial call-up contributed to his early struggles in MLB, and there others like Conforto who have bypassed AAA and gone on to thrive in the majors. So it's all relative. I'm not against promoting Benintendi aggressively (if anything, I wished they'd moved him through the lower levels a little quicker), I just see no need for him to go straight from Portland to Boston at this juncture. Ultimately, though, I trust the team to make the right call here.

If Beni continues hitting well in Portland for a few more weeks, I'd move him up to Pawtucket, putting him in line for a possible cup of coffee in September. If his performance merits accelerating that timeline, then that's great - as long as it's based on the team's opinion of his readiness and not the needs of the roster.

I don't know, the last time we called up a highly rated prospect with minimal AA and no AAA experience, it didn't go too well (and seems to have messed him up for the better part of two years). Of course, Benintendi is not JBJ -- different players, different situations -- but the possible downside is pretty easy to see here.

Oh, I definitely agree. I wasn't too worried by his cold start for that very reason...and it makes it even more impressive to see him raking now.

BP's midseason top 50 is out: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=29756 #2 Moncada #11 Benintendi {#16 Margot } #19 Devers #24 Espinoza

No, it isn't. Expecting him to maintain a low-2 ERA was never realistic...I just hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far back in the other direction.

While we're talking about cherry-picking, Devers is hitting .362 with a .931 OPS since June 1st. Looks like he is figuring out High-A.

Ain't that the truth. (Meanwhile, Price gets castigated by the media for 8-inning, 3-run performances because the offense couldn't score for him.)

Not to be Debbie Downer here, but over his last 3 starts, Wright has allowed 12 ER on 24 H and 6 BB in 15.2 IP, for a 6.89 ERA and a WHIP close to 2. It's only 3 starts, and his first half run has been amazing overall, but if he starts turning back into a pumpkin, our rotation is going to be in even deeper s***.

I agree Brentz should be serviceable depth, if nothing else. I was surprised he wasn't DFA'd before now to open a spot on the roster, but it looks like we will need him for a little while - particularly if Shaw is going to be out any length of time.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa657504&position=OF That is all.

And I realize this...I've just always felt that if the Sox didn't think Swihart was going to stick as a catcher, he should be traded. Swihart's trade value when he was the top catching prospect in the game > his value to us as a LF/3B/whatever, and it wouldn't have been terribly hard to pick up a stopgap catcher until Vazquez was ready, or just roll with the guys we had in the system. I haven't given up on Swihart and think it would be premature to do so...but I hope we won't come to regret not trading one of our most valuable and obvious chips when its value was at its zenith.

I'd rather see this simply because more teams would get a chance at top talent this way...as opposed to some team like the Braves or Diamondbacks getting the top domestic prospect AND the top international prospect in separate drafts.

If this is the case, and they've felt for a while that Swihart wouldn't/shouldn't be catching long-term (if that's what you're saying), then it would have been wise to trade him when his value was stratospheric. He could have been a primary piece in a trade for a starting pitcher last winter, and Hanigan/Leon could have managed behind the plate for a month or two until Vazquez was ready...but instead they put Swihart out there for a handful of games, demoted him, and converted him into a left fielder of questionable offensive value, where he promptly got hurt running into a wall. Maybe the team's opinion of Swihart wasn't changed by 6 games, but this smacks of poor planning nonetheless.

What they did was shady as hell, they got caught for it, and IMO the punishment is appropriate. I don't think it's the end of the world either way. Hopefully the league is taking a close look at other teams' practices as well.

Actually, reading the game thread and avoiding the game itself is starting to look like a good option.

That's the thing. Everyone knew 'package deals' were going on, but if some players were actually getting more than the $300k limit, then that's something entirely different. I really can't blame the league for stepping in the way that they did, and if anything the punishments could have been worse.

I agree that those three guys should be pretty much untouchable, or close to it...I'm not sure the rest of the argument really holds, though. Guys like Devers who are at least 2-3 years away can't truly be "blocked," in my opinion, because who knows what our needs will be by the time they're ready...and even Swihart isn't really blocked until Vazquez shows he can hit his weight consistently. I'm not saying we shouldn't trade those guys if it makes sense to, but we shouldn't feel like we need to, either. Too often we've heard that we have too many outfielders, too many catchers, or whatever, and then someone gets hurt and someone else fails to meet expectations and suddenly you're calling up Sandy Leon or Bryce Brentz.

I was thinking the same thing, lol. Time to start reading up on next year's big talents...

I forget where I read this today, but apparently this was the first instance of a team subject to MLB spending restrictions using this method to get around those restrictions...which would definitely explain the harshness of the penalties. If these $300K limitations were going to have any teeth going forward, the league had to put its foot down.

This wasn't mismanagement of the budget...it was deliberate circumvention of the rules. 'Boston was limited last year to spending a maximum of $300,000 on international prospects after exceeding its spending limit the year before by spending $62 million on Cuban prospect Yoan Moncada. The Red Sox skirted the $300,000 threshold by packaging highly regarded prospects with lesser ones, paying both similarly and allowing the players’ agent to give the lion’s share of the money to the better prospect, according to the source.' http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source-red-sox-banned-from-signing-international-players-for-a-year-153432545.html Basically, you sign a group of kids with the same agent for $300K each, and the agent then distributes the money behind the scenes, with a higher amount going to the better prospects...explaining how the Red Sox were able to land two top talents (Guiarmo and Muzziotti) last July despite being hit with spending restrictions. Hard to feel sorry for the team...they really brought this on themselves. At least the penalty only extends to the 2016-17 signing period (where they would, again, have been limited to $300K per player anyway) and not the year after, when the restrictions will be lifted.

That wasn't my intent, sorry. Just was curious why you came to that conclusion. I don't think it's any secret that the reputation of our current prospect group is due more to the quality at the top rather than quantity...after the top 4-5 there is a steep drop off, and as I mentioned, most players on a minor league roster are ultimately organizational filler or guys who will never sniff the major leagues (and aren't really expected to) anyway. So going to a game and expecting the whole roster to be loaded with studs, and deciding the system must be overrated because it isn't, is really missing the point. Again, if you picked out Moncada and Benintendi and (maybe) Dubon, then you hit most of the prospect highlights from Portland. There wasn't much to watch there before those guys were promoted.

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 8m8 minutes ago Boston will not be allowed to sign any international amateurs during the 2016-17 b/c of violations, and contracts of players involved voided Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN 5m5 minutes ago Contracts of five BOS prospects voided, including including OFs Simon Muzziotti, Albert Guaimaro, P Cesar Gonzalez, INF Antonio Pinero. Damn.

Sounds like you got the main stuff in Portland. Ted Stankiewicz is the only other top 20 prospect (#16) residing there currently...most of the roster, I'm sure, is filler, as with any minor league team. What was it that you found unimpressive there?

That's kind of what I was getting at, Hugh. The stars aligned for us to get one of the top talents in the draft at #12 this year, but we can't count on something like that happening again. Groome should be someone you pull out all the stops for.