Hugh2

He must of meant everyone else besides those guys.

Oh...and what are the historical numbers? that's a simple and lazy argument. While ballpark factors are very real, they are also much more marginal and often over accounted for. Pitchers all too often do the exact opposite of what their league and park suggest (for better or worse) Me and you had this same exact argument years ago about John Lackeys numbers at Fenway park. If I seem to recall, he pitched much better at home than away at Fenway park. And guess what....I just looked it up!!!!!! in his first season his ERA was Home: 4.34 Away: 4.45 In 2013 it was 2.47 vs. 4.48 in 2014 it was 2.94 vs. 4.73 Despite pitching in a hitters friendly park none of that seemed to matter. If teams score appx 20% more runs, then a very rough quick assessment could be to assume a 20% higher ERA. A 3.00 ERA pitcher becomes a 3.6 ERA pitcher which is still really really really good in the A.L. EAST. Also you're talking about Rich Hill here, and in case your forgot he pitched for the Red Sox with a 1.65 career ERA at Fenway park. Sonny Gray has a career 3.07 in Oakland with only a slightly higher 3.27 on the road. Ballpark factors are often not as big as people like you try to narrate as such, and sometimes they are completely irrelevant. And lets not forget that the home team factors into 50% of the numbers that calculate those factors and if it is an organization with little to no offensive talent then those number are often skewed. So, how many times do we see any pitcher from any team go to a new ballpark and lay an egg?

Well it's not really the same thing, it's probably a poor analogy. The point is that teams always try to work around the rules, not necessarily break them. It should be up to MLB to change the rules if they don't like it but they shouldn't penalize and make an example out of a team just change the dang rule.

I'm not exactly an angel here, but I've always been bothered by people who refuse to do an ounce of research and just post what they think, feel, or trust base don their own recollections. This is 2016, and when talking sports their is a whole world of knowledge and verifiable information clicks away.

Maybe I should read all comments before just posting one by one lol, I pretty much just reiterated Users point.

What I find frustrating is reportedly this was common practice, in that other teams were doing it. They didn't break any real rules, it was more like working around them. In the same way that it's common practice to throw a draft pick with a 500K slot value 10K and then pocket 490K to allocate to another pick teams who couldn't sign guys to more than 300K were signing multiple guys with the same agent from the same camp to 300K deals. This isn't like what St. Louis did, it feels more like the Sox are being turned into an example.

Short answer Yes. semi short answer. If you suck at your job you inevitably get fired or go to jail. Not trusting the experts without knowing any of them would be like not believing or trusting any doctors because you don't know anything about medicine or personally know the doctor. If 99 out of 100 doctors tell you to take this medicine or you will die......odds are you're swallowing that pill.

Devers is old enough to be a sophomore in college, playing in high A. He's one of the youngest guys in the league. You can count on one hand how many pitchers he's faced in his pro career who are younger than him. In June he's batting .313/.352/.386. He effectively had one bad month, which given his age and need for adjustment is meaningless. In fairness so is this sample size and I would like to see more power, but he's young it's a SSS, Salem and the Carolina league is notorious for no power. But you're right, he's young and so far away. I think you're spot on with your analysis with Groome and Rutherford, BTW I think the Yankees might have finally broken their streak of horrible 1st round draft picks with this kid. Still young and far away but on perceived talent alone he's easily your most exciting pick in over a decade from what I can remember.

Rosario, Coyle, and Romanski are organizational prospects. Maybe not Romanski, he has a chance but I doubt he's more than a back up catcher. Why do you think our system is overrated???

Yes/No We get the #13 pick next year if we fail to sign him along with our other 1st round pick. Guys like Groome fall, but it's very rare that a guy who was rated the #1-3 prospect by every scouting source on talent pre draft falls that far. It would be highly unlikely someone as talented as him falls. The 13th pick is consolidation enough to not blow up their draft the next two years for Groome, but I think they are going to make a serious push for him. They haven't signed all 1-10 yet, Groomes team could be posturing in the hopes that the Sox try to save as much money on other picks to give to him. Think of it this way, If Groome turns down 4 million he'd be turning down the 2nd highest offer ever turned down to re-enter the draft in a much deeper draft and even though he still might be top 10 talent a LOT can happen. He has a rookie agent, this guy is probably just posturing and trying to make a name for himself. If he signs Groome to anything above slot he looks like a hero.

Well, left field isn't THAT far fetched but at this point 1B seems highly improbable for Moncada. Unless he turns into a balloon but can still hit I think he'd be traded before he ever touches first base in this organization. He's not just really good at baseball, he's an ELITE talent on just pure athleticism. IDK I could be wrong but I'd be pretty comfortable betting my first born child on that. Have you ever seen him Moon? If I'm not mistaken you are close to the Portland area no? so you should go check him out. The guy is so built he really stands apart on the field. Funny to see him stand next to Benintendi who looks like the skinniest guy on earth next to him yet he has some really big deceiving power. That's what strong wrists and bat speed will do for you!!!

I highly doubt the news is ever going to be "we're very close to signing, on the verge but we just want another 5K or 400K" high profile signings always go to the deadline. The Sox are notorious for signing their higher picks right up against the deadline. I think it's still much more likely than not he signs.

He just turned 21 a month ago and was out of baseball for over a year, so it's not like he's played it for "quite some time" like a 30 year old ss. Also according to many scouts he's taken a very large leap this year on his defense at second. Lastly, his defense isn't elite due to things like "consistency" which is common for someone raw and undeveloped. He has the range, arm, athleticism and instincts of an elite defender. You can't teach those last things, you teach someone fundamentals and develop consistency however. also many scouts see a move to CF/3B if he moves off of position, and while LF isn't as wasteful as 1B it's still a waste for someone of his talents. Again, I doubt we see him in LF.

I don't. Moncada is a much much better athlete with more defensive potential, anything is possibly but I'd be very surprised to see both these guys on the same team with Moncada pushed to the outfield. Benintendi could force the hand but my guess is best case scenario he is up in Pawtucket by August and may get a cup of coffee in September.

Moncada is easily closer than Devers, he's older and more polished and more athletic. Devers still has a huge ceiling with all star bat potential but I agree that Moncada takes that position (probably 3B) but I wouldn't completely rule him out of the outfield (not likely on this team). I can see Devers taking over at 3B if Moncada is trade bait or something else happens. I can also see him moving to 1B 2-3 years down the road, however he could also be trade bait. DD has a history of trading elite prospects, but the good news is he's pretty good about getting elite players back for them.

You're welcome, they have great stuff, and they release one about every month. They also have guests scouts from ESPN, MLB.com, Baseball America and others on their show too at times.

New Soxprospects podcast out. Mandatory listen if you are prospect loving folk, you can listen here but you might find it more convenient to download on stitcher or itunes. http://soxprospects.com/podcast/index.htm

I know it may be tempting but it might not be optimal to go out and get that one piece this trade deadline. You will certainly always overpay if you're a buyer, therefore it is only worth it to really go for it if you already have a very good chance of doing something in the playoffs. While this team is much better than last year, with a very exciting core and a dynamic offense it is still fundamentally flawed. It is plausibly we could move a ton of pieces for someone that will help us now, get hot at the right time, and get lucky in October. And I suppose there is not much wrong with that if you're 90 years old and want to see another championship now, but it might make more sense to wait until the off season and evaluate the trade market then.

If I was a G.M. I'd consider Liriano a much better investment than Clay. I wouldn't even think about it, I'd take him over Buchholz in a heartbeat.

So asking a player to focus a little time on a new position won't hurt them, but it will help them? I mean prospect development is kind of a zero sum game, if that time is beneficial then that means you're taking away from their development. Again, there is a reason why teams DON'T do what you're proposing. Why don't pitchers take more batting practice in the minors? And to reiterate Users point I think you're underestimating how crucial prospect development is. There is a huge mental side to the game, and filling a guys head with a bunch of scenarios of how he's supposed to play at one position but then have him go out and play another (even if it's a few minutes every day) can really screw a guy up in the head. If Moncada is going to move off of 2B you're likely not going to see it until he reaches AAA. And for the record, I never once said Pedey would switch positions so that was either a straw man argument or you didn't understand my point on the last page. Again, and I can't stress this enough. You CAN NOT look at prospect development from the top down, you take a bottoms up approach. You let a guy develop where he plays and where he has the most value. When he is MLB ready then you can either trade him if he's blocked, or if it is in the best interest of the team you can move him. But even then at the MLB level it can screw a guy up e.g. JBJ.

1. Reportedly his defense has taken big steps forward this year, which is expected if you keep a guy at a position and let him grow there. He could easily struggle trying to start over at a new position. 2. It could take him 3 years to become adequate at any position, he could easily become a good 2nd baseman quicker than switching to another position right now. How do we not know that Devers/Chavis/Shaw is our future 3rd baseman? how do we not know Pedey gets injured, traded, or drastically declines in two years from now? all of those are highly plausible to varying degrees. You don't interrupt a guys progression through the minors and switch his positions because of what might happen on the big club in a few years. I said it before and I'll say it again prospect development is from the bottom up....not from the top down. You let guys develop. Would you move Espinoza to the bullpen now because he's undersized and we might really need a set-up man in 2 years??? No you wouldn't. 3. Do I think it would seriously retard his growth? I think it could hurt and affect his growth yes, which is precisely why teams wait until players reach the upper minors to tinker with their positions. All things considered.

It wouldn't but giving a guy only 3 games above A ball or less reps at multiple positions would.

Ok fair enough, so lets revisit this position in a month from now if Moncada is absolutely mashing it in Portland. FWIW, everything I've read about his defense has eluded that his errors have come on balls on the ground. He gets to and makes fantastic defensive plays on whats in the air, and the kid has a strong arm too....sounds like LF/RF might be a better position for him than 3B. But that's speculation.

No I'm not saying that you're saying that. You're confusing outcome with strategy. It's like putting Mike Trout on 1B to get to the next hitter and he hits a HR, it might be the right decision with the wrong outcome. You can't completely contradict standard player development procedure and then claim you're not talking about radical change because that is EXACTLY what you're doing. I can call an apple a duck but it's still an apple. You're completely contradicting yourself here.

No offense Moon but you're kind of all over the place here, I'm not sure where you stand. Now you're trying make it sound more like you agree with us, but earlier in this thread it sounded like you were advocating moving guys off position earlier in their development. That's a bad ideal, it doesn't happend and it shouldn't happen. How do you even know he would make a good 3B??? what I've heard from a lot of scouts is they think his skills would transition better to the outfield. Regardless it doesn't matter, if his bat is still developing you don't switch him off position. It made it sound earlier that you are advocating making a guy develop his bat and switch positions at the same time. You don't do that, that is a horrible ideal with the only caveat being when a guy first is indroduced to pro ball or you move a guy from starting pitching to the bullpen.