Mookie vs Xander: Battle of the B's

[Rasputin]

I think Bogaerts is likely to be the better player based primarily on his power, but I think Betts has a more varied skill set and is going to be more fun to watch.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

This reminds me of the time I had to choose between getting a BJ from Adriana Lima or Alessandra Ambrosio.  Luckily for us, we own both Xander & Mookie.  I completely disagree with trading Xander or Betts away for a #1 because of the injury risk of pitchers.  Not to mention, there's plenty of acceptable SP still on the market.  
 
Not to mention, the FA starters list next year is TERRIFIC:  Cueto, Price, Shark, Jordan Zimmermann, Fister, Iwakuma, Porcello, Gallardo, Chen, Kazmir, Latos, Norris and a few others.  
 
It makes no sense to trade either of these guys when you can get a good pitcher for only money or by packaging up guys like Marrero, Cecchini and our many SP prospects.  I would not trade these 2 under any circumstances (except Kershaw, Harper or Trout).  Not for Sale (imagine him blowing out his arm and how sick we would all feel).  The Xander & Mookie Show is going to be a blast to watch.  In Boston.

 

[OCD SS]

Why? Hanley slides to SS this season and Marrero's glove is probably ready at some point soon. 
 
Actually, Marrero's glove might be ready now. 

I don't see HRam as a legitimate SS anymore, either defensively or from the perspective of keeping him healthy. I think moving him to LF not only saves his defense but is needed to keep him on the field.

If 2015 is about making a playoff run then Marrero isn't really an option; with how long it takes his bat to adjust to a level he's probably a few years away from being anything else than a JBJ of the infield.

Neither option strikes me as an immediate SS solution for a team that appears to value defense like the Sox does.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I don't see HRam as a legitimate SS anymore, either defensively or from the perspective of keeping him healthy. I think moving him to LF not only saves his defense but is needed to keep him on the field.
If 2015 is about making a playoff run then Marrero isn't really an option; with how long it takes his bat to adjust to a level he's probably a few years away from being anything else than a JBJ of the infield.
Neither option strikes me as an immediate SS solution for a team that appears to value defense like the Sox does.

I thought this thread was about X vs Betts? As in "who is going to be a better player?"

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I pick Mookie. They're both great prospects and it wouldn't be surprising at all for either one to end up with the better career. But, based on the totality of the evidence, I don't see much argument for picking Bogaerts as the one you'd expect to provide more value.

What it comes down to is this:

(1) Mookie has been the more productive hitter at A+, AA, AAA, and the Majors by almost any metric.
(2) While SS might have more positional value than wherever Mookie ends up, Mookie is much more likely to be a plus defender than Bogaerts.
(3) Mookie provides a lot more value on the basepaths.
(4) Xander has more power potential from a scouting standpoint (and thus potentially a higher ceiling as a hitter) but in terms of production there hasn't been much of a power difference between them.
(5) Mookie's floor as a hitter is a lot higher because of his control of the strike zone.

I think there's a reasonable middle ground where we don't get too carried away with Betts or assume that he's locked on to become a superstar while at the same time acknowledging the data in front of us, which all suggests that he's a more valuable player in expectation than Bogaerts.

It should be noted that Betts and Bogaerts are born just five days apart, but Bogaerts went through A+, AA and AAA a year younger than Betts. Given that the difference in production isn't that stark, the difference in age offsets it.
 
I'll go with Bogaerts because SS power is freakin awesome. I completely understand the Betts-backers pointing to athleticism & defense, Boras concerns, and a higher floor, but the idea that he's been more consistently productive largely reflects the fact that (a) he went through the minors at an older age, and (b) he hasn't had a full season + in MLB.

 

[amarshal2]

I was reading the comments section in Baseball Prospectus' Red Sox Top 10 Prospects last night when I came across the same discussion.  
(I don't have a BP subscription anymore but like to keep up on Chris Mellen's work as he's a Boston guy who got his start scouting for SoxProspects.com.  He's a natural as a scout and a really likeable guy, helping him build relationships in the game.  Comments are open to the public.)
 
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25119
 
From the comments one can tell that the order for BP's top 10 players under 25 began like this:
1. Betts
2. Xander
 
Here are some of the highlights from the discussion in the comments:

 

Jeff Moore:
This is a significantly tougher call than we would have expected it to be a year ago. That Bogaerts is still as high as he is after a poor first season is a testament to what kind if player we all believe he can be. That there is even a discussion between him and Betts is also a testament to the kind of progress Betts made this season. This was extremely close. Al went with Betts but if you asked ten scouts or even the rest of the BP Prospect team, you'd probably get close to a 50/50 split on answers
 
 

 

Nick Farelis:
Mellen and I have had an ongoing dialogue about our mutual affection for Bogaerts for a few years now, and even with Betts's incredible breakout I think I can speak for Mellen in saying we still favor that profile over Betts at present, even viewing through the 2014 lens. Moore is certainly correct that you can find strong opinions on both sides of that coin, and in Al's write-up he notes how close of a call it was for him when constructing the 25U. 

In the end, I wouldn't read too much into the Betts/Bogaerts ranking other than both are really good young players. Someone has to be #1, and I think Al's framing of that discussion lays out a logical argument for having Betts slightly higher as of today.
 

 

 

Al Skorupa:
Touched on this with my answer directly below, but I considered Mookie's ability to play 2B or CF/OF and Xander's ability to play SS or 3B. Xander is a below average shortstop. I think he can stay at shortstop and I would play him there, but the fact is he's below average and will likely require a move at some point (late 20's?). Mookie is a potential future double plus defender at 2B. So, as I said below, I think to simply take a positional adjustment/defensive spectrum look at this isn't really fair treatment given the big difference in their glove grades. 

To add more info here, I've seen Mookie play both SS and CF a number of times. I guess he played some OF in high school, but he took so naturally to CF it was kind of shocking to me. He got great reads and jumps immediately - and I believe I saw his first game in the outfield since high school. I think he's at least a plus defender there, too. I'll go even a step further - Mookie probably doesn't grade all *that* far behind Xander at SS. The big difference is arm. Xander's arm lets him get away with some of his clunky actions and slow jumps at shortstop. Mookie has great range in the infield, but he can't make the throw from the hole that Xander can. This is the reason Xander is a shortstop (for a few years at least) and Mookie isn't - and it is a big difference, but line these two up on a field and Betts is a vastly superior athlete and runner with much louder defensive tools. Betts is a fast twitch guy while Bogaerts is not. 

It's a complex question and the final assessment is, again, that they're both excellent and very similar talent. I just want to emphasize it's really not as simple as it appears on its face to just give Bogaerts a boost for playing SS. Below average (maybe) SS (for a few years) or impact level 2B or CF?
 
 
I've seen both many times and I think they're both Role 7s. Put a gun to my head? Mookie. In internal discussions more than one member of our Prospect Team thought Mookie was the best prospect they saw all year. Full Stop. He has an incredible feel for the game and does everything well. Betts can change a game in many ways. So to some degree it's a question of *confidence in my projection*. Bogaerts does have more power, but that's really the only facet of the game where he exceeds or I'd project him to exceed Betts. Meanwhile, the comparison of their respective gloves is something that swayed me, too. Xander can play the left side of the infield (SS & 3B), but he's a 40 SS at best. While Bogaerts is a solid third baseman, Mookie is a legitimate *impact* defender at multiple spots - and up the middle spots (2B, CF). I was also disappointed with how Bogaerts played at 3B. So this isn't a straight up defensive spectrum issue - I'm grading them on future major league roles, and that's a big point in Mookie's favor. 

Finally, Bogaerts surprised me with his struggles this year. I thought with his approach and pitch tracking he would adjust smoothly to the majors, but he really got away from the strengths of his game. He's very young, but it still dinged him in my mind. In strong contrast Mookie came up (after being very much rushed) and smoked the ball consistently. Between two largely comparable talents these things are enough to tip it towards Betts. Again, I still think Bogaerts is an All-Star. If I can only have one though, I firmly answer "Mookie." I think he could potentially be Boston's best player as soon as 2015.

 
Also, an old friend makes an all too typical cameo at the end of the comments...

 

[E5 Yaz]

I don't see HRam as a legitimate SS anymore, either defensively or from the perspective of keeping him healthy. I think moving him to LF not only saves his defense but is needed to keep him on the field.

If 2015 is about making a playoff run then Marrero isn't really an option; with how long it takes his bat to adjust to a level he's probably a few years away from being anything else than a JBJ of the infield.

Neither option strikes me as an immediate SS solution for a team that appears to value defense like the Sox does.

 
Well, then you sign a shortstop to a one-to-two year contract. Someone who can play defense. Those types are out there. Hell, Drew is one of those guys.
 
But I didn't take the question as meaning for 2015 only, which is why if forced to choose, I'd keep Betts

 

[MakMan44]

 
Yeah, but the drop from Xander to Hanley defensively is probably bigger than the drop from Mookie to Victorino or even Nava. Hanley is bad out there.

I agree with this but I read his point as if they didn't have an in house replacement for Xander this season which Hanley is.

 

[MakMan44]

I don't see HRam as a legitimate SS anymore, either defensively or from the perspective of keeping him healthy. I think moving him to LF not only saves his defense but is needed to keep him on the field.

If 2015 is about making a playoff run then Marrero isn't really an option; with how long it takes his bat to adjust to a level he's probably a few years away from being anything else than a JBJ of the infield.

Neither option strikes me as an immediate SS solution for a team that appears to value defense like the Sox does.

Sorry I missed this. I think the Red Sox agree, since they've dubbed Hanley the starting LF already. I think a playoff team could handle either player at SS but my opinion and what the Sox think probably don't match up as you've pointed out.

 

[OCD SS]

I thought this thread was about X vs Betts? As in "who is going to be a better player?"

Follow the conversation: despite most people preferring Mookie, X has more immediate positional necessity as a SS than Mookie does in a crowded OF, IMO. My response deals with the idea that Hanley is any sort of viable stopgap that would allow the Sox to deal X for a #1 SP.

Make sense?

 

[SoxVindaloo]

I pick Betts because of his precocious contact and plate discipline skills. The list of players in baseball history who have had an age-21 season with at least 200 PA, an OPS+ over 120, and a K/BB under 1.5 is a short and distinguished one. Not everybody on it turned out to be an All-Star, but there are no washouts on it either. As foulkehampshire says, the floor here appears to be very high. And the ceiling is something on the order of Tim Raines.
 
Bogaerts may have an even higher ceiling; that will depend not only on the power developing into the .500-SLG range but also on his ability to stick at SS and play passable defense there through his offensive prime. But I think he has a much lower floor.

Betts.
I'm with you here. Xander's bat looks very promising, but short of becoming an elite bat a lot of his value seems tied to staying put as a power hitting SS. Xander long-term at 1B is probably a lot closer to the mean.

 

[MakMan44]

I've heard 3rd and OF but 1st seems a bit drastic.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Follow the conversation: despite most people preferring Mookie, X has more immediate positional necessity as a SS than Mookie does in a crowded OF, IMO. My response deals with the idea that Hanley is any sort of viable stopgap that would allow the Sox to deal X for a #1 SP.

Make sense?

That's the problem .. IMO the OP is asking the question about which player is going to have the better career .. and not which player fits better in the plan for 2015 RedSox which is what every other bloody thread seems to devolve into .

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That's the problem .. IMO the OP is asking the question about which player is going to have the better career .. and not which player fits better in the plan for 2015 RedSox which is what every other bloody thread seems to devolve into .

 
The intention was to compare the two players in a variety of ways. There shouldn't be any restrictions on how we do that if what we're trying to get at is their theoretical and/or real world value. IMO, there's no reason to try and constrain the discussion to any one particular approach. Value to the 2015 club is a part of what each player is worth. Value over their cost controlled years is also a part. Weighing the present versus the future is a huge part of what a GM does, so it should be no surprise that this thread has a bit of that going on as well.

 

[Fishy1]

I was very big on Betts, like everybody, at the end of the year: after a year of watching nearly the entire team hacking away at stuff off the plate, the at bats Mookie was putting up were truly impressive.

I think, though, that it's easy to forget how comfortable Xander looked at the plate last year in tough spots. He showed the same precosity I salivated about above. It was frustrating to see that his late surge last year came along with a return to his free-swinging ways, last seen in Portland. But if there's one thing we've seen, it's that Bogaerts can adjust. So the biggest knock on him on offense has got to be a lack of consistency in approach. If that was coming from a wrist injury (and we all saw how he struggled to turn around even meager fastballs) it's possible some of that concern can be waved.

I still think I take Mookie: even if he's coming up a year later, it's hard to ignore just how absurd his rise has been, and how sustained. That remains the most impressive thing to me. He hasn't slumped in almost two years. Major league stuff didn't phase him - he's got the ability to waste very tough pitches, and pop that is consistently surprising. And I think by the eye test, he's looked as comfortable against major league pitching if not more, than Bogaerts ever has. His defensive flexibility is another plus.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

This reminds me of the time I had to choose between getting a BJ from Adriana Lima or Alessandra Ambrosio. 

 
This is the best analogy so far.  Actually, as Sox fans, we get to have a 3-some with both for the next few years.  Who knows maybe one or both of them is a cold fish or not into the girl-girl stuff etc. and we are left disappointed.  Despite the risk that one or both don't come close to their potential, we'd be nuts to give up on the chance for the pure ecstasy of seeing both Betts and Bogaerts reach their ceilings with us.
 
That said this is not the point of the thread.  I think Snod pointed it out best at the start of the thread and the end of the trade one... in their first 200-300 ML AB's they both looked fantastic with Xander getting another 100+ before being found out (temporarily, I hope).  Also their minor league numbers are indistinguishable when adjusted for age/league etc.  If forced this season, I stick with Xander and trade Betts for someone like Sale, Kershaw or Trout (Almost nobody else).  In the post steroid age power bats are going to be increasingly harder to obtain through internal development or FA.  His power potential and swing mechanics provide a lot of hope that he'll be that middle of the order threat that I think every team with dreams of sustained runs at a trophy needs.
 
Edit:  Also it is funny how fickle we are collectively with prospects.  After 2013, there would be almost nobody willing to even consider Betts over Bogaerts.  Now it looks like the majority will.  We fall in and out of love pretty quickly with these kids.  I remember second baseman back in 2007 that got off to a pretty rocky start because of his "big 'ol swing".

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
The intention was to compare the two players in a variety of ways. There shouldn't be any restrictions on how we do that if what we're trying to get at is their theoretical and/or real world value. IMO, there's no reason to try and constrain the discussion to any one particular approach. Value to the 2015 club is a part of what each player is worth. Value over their cost controlled years is also a part. Weighing the present versus the future is a huge part of what a GM does, so it should be no surprise that this thread has a bit of that going on as well.

Fair enough ..

 

[SoxLegacy]

I don't know where this post should go (maybe the trash, lol) because there are many tangentially connected posts in a number of threads, so if a mod feels this belongs elsewhere, have at it.

In another thread, Rasputin stated that he doesn't want the Sox to deal Betts, Swihart, or Bogaerts and I am in full agreement. I don't see how dealing either Betts or Bogaerts makes the team stronger--it becomes a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. If Betts is part of a package to get a pitcher, the team loses their potential leadoff hitter and one of the top prospects in baseball. If X is dealt, then we have a hole at short with no in house answer. Could Marrero make the jump? That's a huge question that nobody can answer and given his performance as well as the difficulties experienced by X and JBJ I have a hard time believing the Sox take that gamble.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I don't know where this post should go (maybe the trash, lol) because there are many tangentially connected posts in a number of threads, so if a mod feels this belongs elsewhere, have at it.

In another thread, Rasputin stated that he doesn't want the Sox to deal Betts, Swihart, or Bogaerts and I am in full agreement. I don't see how dealing either Betts or Bogaerts makes the team stronger--it becomes a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. If Betts is part of a package to get a pitcher, the team loses their potential leadoff hitter and one of the top prospects in baseball. If X is dealt, then we have a hole at short with no in house answer. Could Marrero make the jump? That's a huge question that nobody can answer and given his performance as well as the difficulties experienced by X and JBJ I have a hard time believing the Sox take that gamble.

I agree with holding on to Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart, but it could make them stronger if it could bring back a cost-controlled SP that's not available on the FA market (or not signable at a price the team is willing to consider). To be clear, by "cost-controlled SP" I mean a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale, guys with years of cheap control -- Hamels is expensive enough that giving up a Betts or Bogaerts just to save a few million per year, and one extra year under contract, to acquire him instead of Lester/Scherzer would be foolish.
 
Also, in terms of implications on 2015, trading Bogaerts would be much bigger than trading Betts. As you note, Bogaerts is the only qualified SS at the moment; but there are multiple options for RF/CF, and multiple options for the leadoff hitter.

 

[EricFeczko]

I don't know where this post should go (maybe the trash, lol) because there are many tangentially connected posts in a number of threads, so if a mod feels this belongs elsewhere, have at it.

In another thread, Rasputin stated that he doesn't want the Sox to deal Betts, Swihart, or Bogaerts and I am in full agreement. I don't see how dealing either Betts or Bogaerts makes the team stronger--it becomes a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. If Betts is part of a package to get a pitcher, the team loses their potential leadoff hitter and one of the top prospects in baseball. If X is dealt, then we have a hole at short with no in house answer. Could Marrero make the jump? That's a huge question that nobody can answer and given his performance as well as the difficulties experienced by X and JBJ I have a hard time believing the Sox take that gamble.

Unless the deal is ridiculously disproportionate (e.g. Latos AND Cueto for only one of either and no other players/cash), I completely agree.
 
To me, both are really hard to compare to one another. On nearly every level the players are simply different. Xander projects to be an average-ish 3B/SS; Betts projects to be an above-average/excellent OF/2B. They are both projected to have patience, but Xander is projected to hit for power but make less contact, and Betts is projected to make great contact but hit for less power. From what I've read on this site and otherwise, Xander has the higher upside, but it currently appears that Betts has the higher floor.
 
I guess I edge towards Betts having better value for two reasons. 1) Unless I'm mistaken, the Red Sox have him under team control for longer than Xander because Xander was called up last year. 2) Betts at this point has more options than Xander and greater positional flexibility, it would be easier to drop him to AAA if he struggles.

 

[radsoxfan]

But to become a true superstar he will have to get the power numbers up .. Probably in the vicinity of 30 bombs a year and I don't think he has that in him. 
 

 
Disagree with that criteria for "superstar". To make an arbitrary cutoff, 24 offensive players in baseball had >5 WAR this season. 7 had more than 25 HRs. 9 had less than 20.  
 
I'd take Betts, just barely.  Both great guys to have on the team, but Xander's struggles this past year do matter.  All these young guys have small sample sizes, so the more data points you have, the easier it is to come up with a reasonable range of projections and a likelihood for each.  2014 certainly could still be a blip on the radar on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but Xander's bust/dissapointment potential is higher now than it was a year ago in my opinion.  
 
It's a tough call, but give me the guy who hasn't struggled yet as the tie breaking vote. 

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Disagree with that criteria for "superstar". To make an arbitrary cutoff, 24 offensive players in baseball had >5 WAR this season. 7 had more than 25 HRs. 9 had less than 20.  
 
I'd take Betts, just barely.  Both great guys to have on the team, but Xander's struggles this past year do matter.  All these young guys have small sample sizes, so the more data points you have, the easier it is to come up with a reasonable range of projections and a likelihood for each.  2014 certainly could still be a blip on the radar on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but Xander's bust/disspointment potential is higher now than it was a year ago in my opinion.  
 
It's a tough call, but give me the guy who hasn't struggled yet as the tie breaking vote.

I think our definitions of "superstar" are a little out of whack .. In my mind a superstar offensive player is one of the top five position players in baseball .. Think Trout or McCutcheon or Harper or Stanton. But Betts can be very very good. One of the advantages of being good at so many facets of the game - and being such a good athlete - means he can regress in one area .. Power for example - and still be an all star player by improving his defense or base running or plate discipline. Xander is much more limited - if his bat doesn't become elite then he's not an elite player.

But I love them both.

 

[The Boomer]

 
Strongly disagree with that criteria for "superstar". To make an arbitrary cutoff, 24 players in baseball had >5 WAR this season. 7 had more than 25 HRs. 9 had less than 20.
 
I'd take Betts, just barely.  Both great guys to have on the team, but Xander's struggles this past year do matter.  All these young guys have small sample sizes, so the more data points you have, the easier it is to come up with a reasonable range of projections and a likelihood for each.  2014 certainly could still be a blip on the radar on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but Xander's bust/disspointment potential is higher now than it was a year ago in my opinion.  
 
It's a tough call, but give me the guy who hasn't struggled yet as the tie breaking vote. 

 
Those of us who go back far enough, were spoiled by the almost immediate great play of the original Boomer plus Pudge, Lynn, Rice, Boggs, Clemens, etc.  Of course everyone but Lynn and Clemens (for cheating) is now in the HOF.  However, for every one of them, there are many more examples of youngsters who struggled at the beginning of very good careers.  Jim Lonborg says hi.  Sox fans are generally (or at least in terms of the loudest expressive opinions) so impatient! You can argue that they gave up too soon on Cecil Cooper, Bagwell (rather than Scott Cooper) and Hanley, for example, for short term gain although only Josh Beckett (then age 25 or so) became a champion.  The current farm system seems, by far, to be better than at any other I can remember going back to the 1960's. While not every prospect makes it, some will whether hyped from the beginning (Bogaerts) or coming from nowhere before emerging (Betts) succeed.  It is a lot easier and much less expensive to cut bait and move on to the next prospect (which is why the Sox still own their wealth of upper level or on the cusp pitchers). Lester might soon be a Cub but, one or two decent pre-arbitration pitchers acquired by trade could be well worth their much more reasonable pay.  This will allow the strong upper level pitching prospects in the minors to develop and, if they can perform well enough, make it to and stick in the majors.

 

[Pozo the Clown]

The Red Sox have a good relationship with Boras though...the Red Sox have gotten every Boras client I can remember they have wanted in the uniform.

 
I can recall some who they didn't get.  Mark Teixeira after the '08 season. Johnny Damon after '05.  
 
And as far as the "good relationship" goes, may I direct you to the 11th bullet point in this article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/15/shaughnessy-what-love-about-larry-lucchino/tv8HBZd0ypMNhcQsByFFIN/story.html

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I can recall some who they didn't get.  Mark Teixeira after the '08 season. Johnny Damon after '05.  
 
And as far as the "good relationship" goes, may I direct you to the 11th bullet point in this article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/15/shaughnessy-what-love-about-larry-lucchino/tv8HBZd0ypMNhcQsByFFIN/story.html

I can't believe you included a link to a Skank article .. That's just cruel .. I feel so .. Sullied.

I beg to differ on Damon .. I don't think they really wanted him back .. His days as a CF were just about over and there was really nowhere for him to play with Manny and Papi on the team.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Those of us who go back far enough, were spoiled by the almost immediate great play of the original Boomer plus Pudge, Lynn, Rice, Boggs, Clemens, etc.  Of course everyone but Lynn and Clemens (for cheating) is now in the HOF.  However, for every one of them, there are many more examples of youngsters who struggled at the beginning of very good careers.  Jim Lonborg says hi.  Sox fans are generally (or at least in terms of the loudest expressive opinions) so impatient! You can argue that they gave up too soon on Cecil Cooper, Bagwell (rather than Scott Cooper) and Hanley, for example, for short term gain although only Josh Beckett (then age 25 or so) became a champion.  The current farm system seems, by far, to be better than at any other I can remember going back to the 1960's. While not every prospect makes it, some will whether hyped from the beginning (Bogaerts) or coming from nowhere before emerging (Betts) succeed.  It is a lot easier and much less expensive to cut bait and move on to the next prospect (which is why the Sox still own their wealth of upper level or on the cusp pitchers). Lester might soon be a Cub but, one or two decent pre-arbitration pitchers acquired by trade could be well worth their much more reasonable pay.  This will allow the strong upper level pitching prospects in the minors to develop and, if they can perform well enough, make it to and stick in the majors.

 
I heart this post. While it's true that many successful players hit the ground running and never look back, that's not a universal pattern. Our impatience leads to ridiculous things like the meme that has emerged here that we have a bunch of "failed" starting pitching prospects on the roster--the most experienced of whom, Rubby, has thrown all of 174 major league innings. A guy who hasn't even thrown 200 innings yet hasn't "failed" at anything except throwing 200 innings.

 

[benhogan]

 
I'd take Betts, just barely.  Both great guys to have on the team, but Xander's struggles this past year do matter.  All these young guys have small sample sizes, so the more data points you have, the easier it is to come up with a reasonable range of projections and a likelihood for each.  2014 certainly could still be a blip on the radar on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but Xander's bust/disspointment potential is higher now than it was a year ago in my opinion.  
 
It's a tough call, but give me the guy who hasn't struggled yet as the tie breaking vote. 

yep agreed, Xander's 3 months of struggle last summer do count.  
 
Also not a fan of Xander's footwork around the bag and side arm flip when he tries to turn a DP.
 
Add in Betts glove, speed and ability to lead off, and its Mookie.
 
question, do the Sox have an extra year of control of Mookie over Xander? YES
 
EDIT..it was answered already, so definitely Mookie in my book.

 

[radsoxfan]

I think our definitions of "superstar" are a little out of whack .. In my mind a superstar offensive player is one of the top five position players in baseball .. Think Trout or McCutcheon or Harper or Stanton. But Betts can be very very good. One of the advantages of being good at so many facets of the game - and being such a good athlete - means he can regress in one area .. Power for example - and still be an all star player by improving his defense or base running or plate discipline. Xander is much more limited - if his bat doesn't become elite then he's not an elite player.

But I love them both.

 
If you are talking about a superstar offensive player (one of the top 5 hitters in the league), then I agree that will be tough with 15 HR power.
 
I thought you were talking about being a superstar player, which by my definition includes offense, defense, speed, base running, etc. In that case, I see no reason Betts (or a player with his skill set) can't become one of the most valuable players in baseball. 

 

[radsoxfan]

 
I heart this post. While it's true that many successful players hit the ground running and never look back, that's not a universal pattern. Our impatience leads to ridiculous things like the meme that has emerged here that we have a bunch of "failed" starting pitching prospects on the roster--the most experienced of whom, Rubby, has thrown all of 174 major league innings. A guy who hasn't even thrown 200 innings yet hasn't "failed" at anything except throwing 200 innings.

 
To be clear, by no means do I think Xander is a lost cause, or even remotely close to it.  Of course plenty of prospects struggle early and go on to great careers.  Xander could easily be one of those players.
 
But we're making projections here, regarding both a player's ceiling as well as their likelihood of reaching different outcomes.  Xander's 2014 season is pertinent information which has to negatively skew that distribution at least a bit.  I still think he has a high ceiling, but the bust/dissapointment potential I think is higher than most people thought 12 months ago.  We can't look at his struggles in 2014 as completely meaningless data points just because "he's young" since there are some young players who never struggle that much for that long.
 
To throw some numbers out there, perhaps what I thought was a 10th or 20th percentile projection for his career might now be a 30th or 40th percentile for him.  Not a huge deal, and still leaves the door wide open for an All-Star or even possibly HOF career, but enough for me to lean Mookie in this discussion. 

 

[Rasputin]

I agree with this but I read his point as if they didn't have an in house replacement for Xander this season which Hanley is.

 
I don't think he is. I don't think the Sox are willing to go with Ramirez at short on anything but an extreme emergency situation. The kind of situation that has Papi playing first because we only have nine position players left and four--or maybe five--of them are outfielders. 
 
I mean, for Ramirez to play short, Bogaerts, Holt, and whoever the other ut if is would have to get hurt in the same game.

 

[Granite Sox]

An interesting  side-bar is that almost without exception, we all think both these players have huge upside, most of us see Betts as a lead-off hitter, X as a power/middle of the order guy, but very few of us can pin-point what positions these guys will play

 
As of this moment, I'm an X-Man.
 
There is no doubt that Mookie is a terrific athlete, but he was moved off of shortstop because of his erratic and "fringey" arm.  His play at 2B in the minors was not suggestive of an elite defender (despite the SoxProspects profile), due to very rough positional footwork and continued erratic throwing (this manifested itself in the majors when Betts got a game or two at 2B).
 
He's shown the ability to go get the ball in CF, but is not remotely comparable to JBJ as a defender, and it's difficult to say whether he's better than Castillo due to the lack of data we have on Rusney.  But it appears Castillo will get first crack at CF.  So, defensively, Betts is 3rd behind Castillo and JBJ in CF, with Margot coming along in the minors as a current CF with potential superior defensive ability.  And I would argue that Betts doesn't have the arm to play RF.  Victorino > Betts in RF.  Cespedes arm > Betts, Betts glove > Cespedes. 
 
X is no sure thing positionally, either, but Betts seems more boxed in defensively at the moment.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

They're both of comparable total value.  There are differences already noted: Mookie's plus speed and contact skills, X's plus arm and power.  For me, it really comes down to Mookie's bowling proficiency versus X's language skills.  Forced to choose, I'll go with the multi-linguistic SS.

 

[nighthob]

If you are talking about a superstar offensive player (one of the top 5 hitters in the league), then I agree that will be tough with 15 HR power.
 
I thought you were talking about being a superstar player, which by my definition includes offense, defense, speed, base running, etc. In that case, I see no reason Betts (or a player with his skill set) can't become one of the most valuable players in baseball.

This. And, additionally, I would add that when it comes to offense, I don't care whether a player is generating runs with homers or by setting the table and using his legs.

 

[The Filthy One]

Jonah Keri has Betts one spot ahead of Bogaerts in his annual MLB Trade Value column. 
 
"The notoriously optimistic Bill James Handbook reckons that Betts, a 5-foot-9, 155-pound dynamo, will resemble peak Wade Boggs next year, projecting him to hit .321/.405/.493. Though the Sox would have to weigh the long-term implications of losing a player as young, talented, and cheap as Betts, they could lose him and still easily populate the outfield next season. They’d have a much tougher time replacing Bogaerts at shortstop, where new signee Ramirez is not — repeat not, not, not — the answer. Maybe Bogaerts’s offensive struggles (.240/.297/.362) last season were growing pains stemming from the then 21-year-old being jerked between two positions (short and third). But even though they’re no longer rookies, both he and Betts are still prospects, carrying all the question marks that come with the territory. Meanwhile, Hamels could easily add five wins to the record of whichever team is bold enough to trade for him."

 

[Pumpsie]

I'm of the "don't trade Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart" camp but one additional factor that hasn't been considered yet is the very strong possibility that Betts could be the "face of the franchise" for the next decade.  He's extremely personable and likable and already Sox fans have taken to him more so than Bogaerts or any of the other younger guys. Right now, he'd be the very last guy on the roster I'd trade. 

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I'm of the "don't trade Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart" camp but one additional factor that hasn't been considered yet is the very strong possibility that Betts could be the "face of the franchise" for the next decade.  He's extremely personable and likable and already Sox fans have taken to him more so than Bogaerts or any of the other younger guys. Right now, he'd be the very last guy on the roster I'd trade. 

I dunno about this; if the Red Sox are making personnel moves with marketing in mind, they're doing it wrong. Winning sells.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I'm of the "don't trade Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart" camp but one additional factor that hasn't been considered yet is the very strong possibility that Betts could be the "face of the franchise" for the next decade.  He's extremely personable and likable and already Sox fans have taken to him more so than Bogaerts or any of the other younger guys. Right now, he'd be the very last guy on the roster I'd trade. 

 
It hasn't been considered because Mooke friendly/ Bogaerts not (?) is a storyline originating 100% from your head and we don't have access to that. Plus it makes no sense so that cuts down on the number of people who would potentially have gone there.
 
Great point though.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

I dunno about this; if the Red Sox are making personnel moves with marketing in mind, they're doing it wrong. Winning sells.

 
They're probably not making decisions based on that, but it's not a zero-weight factor. Winning sells even more when you like the people doing the winning. 

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

 
They're probably not making decisions based on that, but it's not a zero-weight factor. Winning sells even more when you like the people doing the winning. 

Fans liked Bogaerts just fine before he slumped, JBJ was RSN's BFF in 2013 spring training, etc...

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
 
I choose Betts, but why does it matter if Xander is above average or just average? He's here for his offensive ability, and that's my concern, his ability to reach that potential. If he hit 30 HRs, why does it matter if he's only average or slightly below at SS?

It's interesting. At the time I meant "above average defender" in the Fangraphs sense where after the positional adjustment an average shortstop shows up as above average and a below average shortstop could at least end up even. I assumed that Boegarts -4.8 in defensive value indicated that he was in the negative double digits at shortstop, which strikes me as not just below average but actually terrible.
 
But actually looking at the details the story is more complicated. Boegarts actually was below average last year at shortstop - but he was terrible at third base. Overall his UZR/150 at shortstop was -2.7, which puts him in the range of acceptable but not good shortstops like Starlin Castro (who shows up as a positive defender after the positional adjustment). At third he was -29.4 in 385 innings. SSS and all but it does make more sense why the organization felt committed enough to Boegarts as a shortstop to sign Sandoval to play third base - at least the initial numbers indicate that he's terrible at third. 
 
So anyway, maybe Boegarts already has passed my test of being a positive defensive player but I'm still saying Betts because I think the offensive potential is about a draw but Betts looks like a superior defensive player. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

So, is it generally agreed that trading either of these guys to gfin is a non-starter amongst us?

It'd be like trading Lynn and Rice in 1974.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

So, is it generally agreed that trading either of these guys to gfin is a non-starter amongst us?
It'd be like trading Lynn and Rice in 1974.

Can only speak for myself but I certainly would agree with this. We need a poll!

 

[jimbobim]

Can only speak for myself but I certainly would agree with this. We need a poll!

 
Agreed and I like Sale but I can see his arm exploding and then seeing Betts Bogaerts Abreu dominating for years. No thank you. 

 

[Rasputin]

So, is it generally agreed that trading either of these guys to gfin is a non-starter amongst us?

It'd be like trading Lynn and Rice in 1974.

Swihart too.

 

[williams_482]

Dave Cameron posted an offseason update to his usual trade value series today, ranking Betts 25th and Bogaerts 20th. 
 
Personally, I see Betts as a probable 3-4 win player right now, with a "reasonable" (not necessarily probable, and certainly not guaranteed) upside of being Ben Zobrist 2.0, while Bogaerts is right now a roughly 2 win player with a "reasonable" upside of Hanley Ramirez. Both of those players are similarly valuable in their primes, although perhaps Bogaerts is more likely to reach that level of offensive production than Betts is to develop Zobrist-level power and gold glove worthy outfield defense. 

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Swihart too.

Hopefully they remember to tender contracts...