The all-new should we trade for Mike Stanton thread

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Drek717 said:
......

 
Basically I think the farm + the younger guys on the 25 man need 2014 before we make any big decisions.  By the end of this season we should know:
1. If Bogaerts can hit ML pitching (likely) and if he can play ML SS (somewhat less likely)
2. Is WMB is the answer at 3B?
3. If Bradley's bat is going to show up at the ML level
4. If Betts is an early 2015 or early 2016 arrival (based on how he handles a AAA promotion in a few months)
5. If Cecchini can even play 3B given a bit more time to learn
6. What is Deven Marrero's ceiling?
7. Can Vazquez hit enough for his defense to reward us as the full time catcher?
8. Is there enough talent in the B. Johnson, Callahan, Kukuk, Stank, Butrey, Ball, etc. pool to mitigate the risk in trading Owens/one or more of the AAA starters?
9. Are any of Lavarnway/Hassan/Brentz group worth anything to the Red Sox, if so which ones and in what roles?
.......
 
Unless 2014 is the year to end all years, you're not going to know the answers to many of fhose questions.  And for every question that is answered with a resounding "yes," there'll be a question that is answered "No," meaning that a prospect's ranking will fall and so will his trade value.
 
It took Carlos Gomez over 1500 PA's in the majors before he broke through as an all-round player at the age of 26.  How many catchers are really finished products before their late 20s?  Bogaerts is a SS, right now, because his power has yet to develop.  If it does, then he has the SLG to justify a corner infield spot.  You'll know more by the end of 2014, but you won't know a whole lot.  Felix Doubront has made 60+ starts in the last 3 years and we're still not sure what he is or isn't.  Buchholz was considered a near-lock after his no-no at the end of 2007, but he wasn't ready and had to be sent back to AAA.
 
The point is there's a risk with young prospects because they take a while to fully evaluate.  And there's growing pains, even (especially) at the major league level.  A team like the Red Sox can't afford to integrate too many young players and still contend.  Stanton's tremendous value is because he is one of the very few prospects that got his game together at a very early age.  Bogaerts too, hopefully.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
WenZink said:
The point is there's a risk with young prospects because they take a while to fully evaluate.  And there's growing pains, even (especially) at the major league level.  A team like the Red Sox can't afford to integrate too many young players and still contend.  Stanton's tremendous value is because he is one of the very few prospects that got his game together at a very early age.  Bogaerts too, hopefully.
I know the Sox will never admit it, but this has to be a bridge year of sorts, right? Filling two key positions with rookies, and probably some portion of the pitching staff as well before we're done. Bogaerts and Bradley won't be instant stars, it doesn't work like that. The Sox can integrate a few young players at one time if truly necessary, but most years you'd prefer to only be breaking in one or two. You could then deal with a bridge-ish year now, a trade for Stanton in the winter, and only having to work in the occasional propsect or two a year (Vazquez and Barnes next year, maybe Betts, Owens and Swihart the following year, etc., minus the guys who left in the trade).
 
Mildly interesting topic at Gammo's blog about grooming future starters with bullpen innings at the major league level, the thinking being that young guys can learn that their stuff works in short, low-leverage stints, before taking off the wrapper. That seemed to help Workman. I'd love to see Rubby and Barnes get a few innings eventually.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
WenZink said:
 
Unless 2014 is the year to end all years, you're not going to know the answers to many of fhose questions.  And for every question that is answered with a resounding "yes," there'll be a question that is answered "No," meaning that a prospect's ranking will fall and so will his trade value.
 
It took Carlos Gomez over 1500 PA's in the majors before he broke through as an all-round player at the age of 26.  How many catchers are really finished products before their late 20s?  Bogaerts is a SS, right now, because his power has yet to develop.  If it does, then he has the SLG to justify a corner infield spot.  You'll know more by the end of 2014, but you won't know a whole lot.  Felix Doubront has made 60+ starts in the last 3 years and we're still not sure what he is or isn't.  Buchholz was considered a near-lock after his no-no at the end of 2007, but he wasn't ready and had to be sent back to AAA.
 
The point is there's a risk with young prospects because they take a while to fully evaluate.  And there's growing pains, even (especially) at the major league level.  A team like the Red Sox can't afford to integrate too many young players and still contend.  Stanton's tremendous value is because he is one of the very few prospects that got his game together at a very early age.  Bogaerts too, hopefully.
It isn't about knowing if those guys are 100% locks to produce.  That doesn't exist in baseball.  But right now we're starting three guys with basically no track record of any real amount and are looking to add at least one more next year (at catcher) and likely two starting pitchers.  Moving the confidence interval one way or the other on these guys is what matters, not assuming they're a lock.
 
Maybe Bogaerts moves off SS in a few years because he fills out and develops the power to be an impact corner bat while losing his ability to play SS.  If that happens the decision on Marrero will have been made long before.  But if even a younger, slimmer Bogaerts can't stick at SS this year then Marrero is the next SS option and goes from "redundant" to "essential".
 
I also don't see the uncertainty on Doubront.  He is what he is, an inconsistent #4-5 type who sometimes fools you by looking like a #2 for a few starts in a row before looking like a scrub to balance his line out.  He's basically Edwin Jackson.  High 3's to mid 4's FIP with damning inconsistency in which one you're getting.  In short, he's a guy you keep until you've got five better guys, then you hope to catch a hot stretch before you flip him to the highest bidder.
 
And Buchholz's career has largely been derailed due to injuries.  That can't be predicted and is just a risk you have to live with.
 
Fact is, if Bradley doesn't hit for all of 2014 then he shouldn't go into 2015 inked in as the starting CF.  If by July he still isn't hitting Betts should start playing CF in Pawtucket in anticipation of him competing for the job in ST against Bradley.  If WMB doesn't hit then Cecchini likely gets a crack at ML pitchers before the end of the season.  We'll start developing answers to all these questions.  Those answers might be developing towards a negative conclusion, but at least it's data.  Right now it's all an unknown and when you don't know you can't plan.  2014 is the first big wave of high level data on all these young prospects.  Lets see that data before we start making moves.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
johnnywayback said:
 
But having, for instance, Betts in our farm system may well be less valuable to us than having what he could bring back in trade -- precisely because we have so much depth.
 
 
I think Drek addressed the majority of my thoughts, but to re-emphazise.... there is a big difference between depth in minor league players and depth in established major leaguers.  Sure, if you have an established major leaguer signed long term, and a prospect that can only play his position, then you have depth (though injuries and underperformance of the major leaguer is still of course a possibility).
 
But most of this "depth" a lot of people are referring to really are just mutiple chances at a single good major league player.  I wouldn't give Swihart up for any less because we have Vazquez.  I wouldn't trade Cecchini for any less because we have Middlebrooks. I wouldn't trade Marrero for less because we have Xander (in case he has to change positions). I wouldn't trade Workman or Barnes for any less because we have Owens and Webster. It's quite possible the "depth" you think you are giving up turns out to be the only guy capable of being a good major league player at that position. 
 
Now that doesn't mean trades of prospects are bad ideas.  It's better of course to trade a prospect who doesn't turn out to be good, but it's even OK to trade a prospect who does turn out to be a good if you get someone even better back.  But you shouldn't change your own value on prospects because there are other good prospects in the system.  It's the same reason you shouldn't select for need in the MLB draft.  Too many variables too far in the future to know what your team will look like in 3+ years. 
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
radsoxfan said:
 
I think Drek addressed the majority of my thoughts, but to re-emphazise.... there is a big difference between depth in minor league players and depth in established major leaguers.  Sure, if you have an established major leaguer signed long term, and a prospect that can only play his position, then you have depth (though injuries and underperformance of the major leaguer is still of course a possibility).
 
But most of this "depth" a lot of people are referring to really are just mutiple chances at a single good major league player.  I wouldn't give Swihart up for any less because we have Vazquez.  I wouldn't trade Cecchini for any less because we have Middlebrooks. I wouldn't trade Marrero for less because we have Xander (in case he has to change positions). I wouldn't trade Workman or Barnes for any less because we have Owens and Webster. It's quite possible the "depth" you think you are giving up turns out to be the only guy in line to be a major league player at that position. 
 
Now that doesn't mean trades of prospects are bad ideas.  It's better of course to trade a prospect who doesn't turn out to be good, but it's even OK to trade a prospect who does turn out to be a good if you get someone even better back.  But you shouldn't change your own value on prospects because there are other good prospects in the system.  It's the same reason you shouldn't select for need in the MLB draft.  Too many variables too far in the future to know what your team will look like in 3+ years. 
I also wouldn't not trade prospects because you are afraid of which ones might turn out better.  As I stated before, this organization has a good enough track record of drafting the right prospects that I wouldn't bat an eyelash giving up a significant haul for Stanton.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
RedOctober3829 said:
I also wouldn't not trade prospects because you are afraid of which ones might turn out better.  As I stated before, this organization has a good enough track record of drafting the right prospects that I wouldn't bat an eyelash giving up a significant haul for Stanton.
 
I am confident in the FO, but this stuff waxes and wanes, even with good organizations.  You shouldn't just assume your top 5 farm system is always going to produce top talent because you had a couple good years. 
 
If the team makes a prospects-for-star trade, it should be because they are getting fair market value for those prospects, not because the Red Sox have so much depth or they think they are such good drafters they can easily replace those players. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Drek717 said:
It isn't about knowing if those guys are 100% locks to produce.  That doesn't exist in baseball.  But right now we're starting three guys with basically no track record of any real amount and are looking to add at least one more next year (at catcher) and likely two starting pitchers.  Moving the confidence interval one way or the other on these guys is what matters, not assuming they're a lock....
 
Bogaerts, Bradley and Middlebrooks already have more of a track record than any of the prospects.
 
Drek717 said:
.....
 
I also don't see the uncertainty on Doubront.  He is what he is, an inconsistent #4-5 type who sometimes fools you by looking like a #2 for a few starts in a row before looking like a scrub to balance his line out.  He's basically Edwin Jackson.  High 3's to mid 4's FIP with damning inconsistency in which one you're getting.  In short, he's a guy you keep until you've got five better guys, then you hope to catch a hot stretch before you flip him to the highest bidder.
 
And Buchholz's career has largely been derailed due to injuries.  That can't be predicted and is just a risk you have to live with.
 
 
You may think you have Doubront figured out, but I can assure you that if Farrell and the Sox shared your certainty, they still wouldn't be screwing around with him.  And as for Buchholz, I was referring to 2008, before Buch's ailments started cropping up.
 
Drek717 said:
Fact is, if Bradley doesn't hit for all of 2014 then he shouldn't go into 2015 inked in as the starting CF.  If by July he still isn't hitting Betts should start playing CF in Pawtucket in anticipation of him competing for the job in ST against Bradley.  If WMB doesn't hit then Cecchini likely gets a crack at ML pitchers before the end of the season.  We'll start developing answers to all these questions.  Those answers might be developing towards a negative conclusion, but at least it's data.  Right now it's all an unknown and when you don't know you can't plan.  2014 is the first big wave of high level data on all these young prospects.  Lets see that data before we start making moves.
 I couldn't disagree more.  Bradley just has to post a .700 OPS to hold down the CF job.  He's flirting with that number today. He's already at the top of the league in defense.  The Sox are using his minor league numbers to project that eventually his hitting will improve  Outside of the last 4 weeks, Betts has far less of a minor league record.  And the chances of moving up to AAA AND having him learn one of the most challenging positions is asking for disaster. Cecchini has put up SLG numbers in the minors to show that he can be a corner infielder.  Middlebrooks did demonstrate exactly that. 
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
Drek717 said:
Those answers might be developing towards a negative conclusion, but at least it's data. Right now it's all an unknown and when you don't know you can't plan.  2014 is the first big wave of high level data on all these young prospects.  Lets see that data before we start making moves.
The problem with this is that we're also discussing these prospects in terms of trade value, and any negative conclusions drawn will be had by 29 other MLB teams, not just the Red Sox.

Part of trading prospects IS the uncertainty of what they may develop into. Sometimes teams win, sometimes they lose (on both sides). If as a team you are constantly sitting around waiting for certainty, you will be chasing your tail as some prospects pan out, some fail, the ones that fail will have zero trade value so you can't really make too many trades to fill gaps as you press the prospects who pan out into service, and you are then playing the game again on your new round of prospects where you wait for data, some get into service, some their value will be gone...

Eventually a team has to make that splash to fill gaps via trade, because the odds of fielding 9 guys that are average to above that were all home-grown is an impossibility. Data and planning is great, except when your opponents also know your data and plan as well. At some point you have to trust your conclusions based on limited data and hope that gives you an edge over the other teams.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
 

WenZink said:
 
Bogaerts, Bradley and Middlebrooks already have more of a track record than any of the prospects.
 
And combined it's less than a full season of ML ABs.  Between three guys.  In less than six months though it'll likely be more well over three seasons worth of ML ABs.  See the value of letting 2014 be the "bridge" year now?  Because at the end of this season the track records for those three expands massively.  the upper minors track record of guys like Betts, Cecchini, Vazquez, Swihart, etc. all expand massively.  This is the season where the data for all these guys takes a huge step forward because anyone can look like a low A superstar, it's AA, AAA, and the show where we see real predictive value from performance.
 



You may think you have Doubront figured out, but I can assure you that if Farrell and the Sox shared your certainty, they still wouldn't be screwing around with him.  And as for Buchholz, I was referring to 2008, before Buch's ailments started cropping up.
Farrell pushed Doubie to the late game on Thursday for literally the exact reason I cited, he's an inconsistent performer.  I'm pretty sure Farrell, Cherrington, et al. know exactly what Doubie is at this point, but he's still either one of the five best pitchers or close enough to whatever AAA pitcher would be better to make the lost value in dumping him and calling them up a bad move.
 
And Buchholz is a great example of what I'm talking about here.  People act like Bogaerts, Bradley, etc. are all locks that we simply have to wait for maturation on, so Marrero, Betts, etc. are spare parts.  But in Buch's case we saw a young guy who couldn't handle the mental stress of the bigs his first year up, did a little better the next, finally looked like he was putting it together in year three, and then went off the rails with injuries and inconsistency after that.  If the Sox had traded away a high end young pitching prospect in 2007 because Buchholz was can't miss we'd all be regretting that now, wouldn't we?  Shit happens, no one sells pro baseball player insurance that rewards clubs with new players if someone gets hurt/flames out.  So self-insure and keep a healthy stable of options in the minors until you know you're looking good on the 25 man.
 


I couldn't disagree more.  Bradley just has to post a .700 OPS to hold down the CF job.  He's flirting with that number today. He's already at the top of the league in defense.  The Sox are using his minor league numbers to project that eventually his hitting will improve  Outside of the last 4 weeks, Betts has far less of a minor league record.  And the chances of moving up to AAA AND having him learn one of the most challenging positions is asking for disaster. Cecchini has put up SLG numbers in the minors to show that he can be a corner infielder.  Middlebrooks did demonstrate exactly that.
 
Bradley with a .700 OPS is a tolerable starting CF, but if Betts moves up to AAA by mid-season and rakes a .850-.900 OPS you really don't think he's going to be pushing Bradley for the job in ST next year?  Come on.  This sounds like someone falling into the grossly inflated UZR to runs equations used by sites like Fangraphs, which continue to fail the smell test.  If Bradley is a .700 OPS guy with great defense that's acceptable but he won't be blocking Betts if the later shows himself capable of meaningfully better offensive production.
 
Also, Betts was a CF prior to joining the Sox more than he was a 2B.  He still takes fly balls during BP.  And lets not oversell the transition to CF for a premium position player.  Transitions are usually seen as difficult because they're  being made by poor athletes moving down the defensive spectrum because they really suck at their current position and aren't ever going to be great at the new one, just hopefully passable.  That isn't Betts.  He's an elite athlete at a premium position who would make a lateral move.
 
As for WMB/Cecchini, Will needs to show he can put up those numbers in the majors, otherwise those high minors numbers don't mean squat.  That's the point of 2014 as a bridge year.  Middlebrooks shows what he's got this year and the team handles Cecchini accordingly.  Cecchini isn't stagnating in his first AAA season by any means.


 
 
timlinin8th said:
The problem with this is that we're also discussing these prospects in terms of trade value, and any negative conclusions drawn will be had by 29 other MLB teams, not just the Red Sox.

Part of trading prospects IS the uncertainty of what they may develop into. Sometimes teams win, sometimes they lose (on both sides). If as a team you are constantly sitting around waiting for certainty, you will be chasing your tail as some prospects pan out, some fail, the ones that fail will have zero trade value so you can't really make too many trades to fill gaps as you press the prospects who pan out into service, and you are then playing the game again on your new round of prospects where you wait for data, some get into service, some their value will be gone...

Eventually a team has to make that splash to fill gaps via trade, because the odds of fielding 9 guys that are average to above that were all home-grown is an impossibility. Data and planning is great, except when your opponents also know your data and plan as well. At some point you have to trust your conclusions based on limited data and hope that gives you an edge over the other teams.
 
None of the worthwhile prospects are stagnating or facing the imminent threat of aging out of prospect status.  They might decline in value, they might improve in value.  That is a pretty even risk:reward ratio and not something to force the FO's hand over.
 
The Red Sox have the luxury of both a strong farm and a lot of money here.  They don't need to staff the team entirely from the farm but they do not need to make hasty trades to do so either.  Any winter they can fill the holes left from the in-house options easily enough with the next late 20's to mid 30's veteran looking for a short deal to either end their career or try making good for their next deal.  This team should be the last club worried about making a splash via trade to fill a hole.  It's simply unneccessary and should only be done when the piece they're getting is something truly exceptional while at the same time the price they're paying is reasonable.
 
The prevailing wisdom for emptying the farm in pursuit of Stanton is that power hitters like him are a rare commodity.  Well they aren't any more rare than good all around SS, 3B, C, or CF position players hitting the market.  Stanton plays a corner OF spot.  Is he an elite corner OF?  Sure.  But much like DH the gap between elite corner OF and a very good corner OF is generally not worth the dollars required for the former.  Meanwhile the gap between the best SS and the next tier is massive.  Same for the other three positions I mentioned.  Hence why it is absolutely essential for the Red Sox to come away from this currently fantastic crop of young talent with their long term answers at all four of those positions.  If once those answers have been confirmed there is enough left over to go after Stanton then sure, do it.  But Stanton is a luxury.  You can get 80-90% of his production from the FA market with a good veteran signing or even a smartly chosen platoon tandem.  Splurge once the spots you can't fill well via FA are answered.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Drek717 said:
And Buchholz is a great example of what I'm talking about here.  People act like Bogaerts, Bradley, etc. are all locks that we simply have to wait for maturation on, so Marrero, Betts, etc. are spare parts.  But in Buch's case we saw a young guy who couldn't handle the mental stress of the bigs his first year up, did a little better the next, finally looked like he was putting it together in year three, and then went off the rails with injuries and inconsistency after that.  If the Sox had traded away a high end young pitching prospect in 2007 because Buchholz was can't miss we'd all be regretting that now, wouldn't we?
 
 
The trouble with this is the counter-argument has plenty of support, too. What could we have gotten for Ryan Lavarnway in January 2012? What could we get now? Lars Anderson, same deal. For all we know, Mookie Betts is right now at the crest of his value. I don't think that's true, and I certainly hope it's not true, but it's entirely possible.
 
Blanket statements about the value of prospects or the wisdom of keeping vs. holding them are likely to be false.

 
Bradley with a .700 OPS is a tolerable starting CF, but if Betts moves up to AAA by mid-season and rakes a .850-.900 OPS you really don't think he's going to be pushing Bradley for the job in ST next year?  Come on.  This sounds like someone falling into the grossly inflated UZR to runs equations used by sites like Fangraphs, which continue to fail the smell test.
 
I thought the problem with UZR was its accuracy, not necessarily the basic notion of the value of defense relative to offense that it assumes.
 
None of the worthwhile prospects are stagnating or facing the imminent threat of aging out of prospect status.  They might decline in value, they might improve in value.  That is a pretty even risk:reward ratio and not something to force the FO's hand over.
It's not something to force the FO's hand over in either direction. They shouldn't feel forced to trade anybody, but neither should they feel constrained from trading anybody. They should look at needs and try to fill them. If they can make a trade that they think is reasonable in terms of value for value, and it fills a need, they should make it.
 
But Stanton is a luxury.  You can get 80-90% of his production from the FA market with a good veteran signing or even a smartly chosen platoon tandem.  Splurge once the spots you can't fill well via FA are answered.
I think the argument that elite power hitting corner OFs are easy to find on the free agent market, while CFs or Cs or skill infielders are nearly impossible to find, is simply false. Some years this is true, some years it isn't. Who were the big position player free agents this year? A second baseman, a CF, a catcher, a couple of shortstops (one of whom is still out there), and one corner OF (not an elite power guy, either). How about next year? Almost the only FAs even worth looking at will be third basemen. One of the biggest myths that gets perpetuated around here is that prolific power hitters playing LF or 1B are easy to find. In fact, just as at every other position, mediocre players of that type are always easy to find.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
radsoxfan said:
 
I think Drek addressed the majority of my thoughts, but to re-emphazise.... there is a big difference between depth in minor league players and depth in established major leaguers.  Sure, if you have an established major leaguer signed long term, and a prospect that can only play his position, then you have depth (though injuries and underperformance of the major leaguer is still of course a possibility).
 
But most of this "depth" a lot of people are referring to really are just mutiple chances at a single good major league player.  I wouldn't give Swihart up for any less because we have Vazquez.  I wouldn't trade Cecchini for any less because we have Middlebrooks. I wouldn't trade Marrero for less because we have Xander (in case he has to change positions). I wouldn't trade Workman or Barnes for any less because we have Owens and Webster. It's quite possible the "depth" you think you are giving up turns out to be the only guy capable of being a good major league player at that position. 
 
Now that doesn't mean trades of prospects are bad ideas.  It's better of course to trade a prospect who doesn't turn out to be good, but it's even OK to trade a prospect who does turn out to be a good if you get someone even better back.  But you shouldn't change your own value on prospects because there are other good prospects in the system.  It's the same reason you shouldn't select for need in the MLB draft.  Too many variables too far in the future to know what your team will look like in 3+ years. 
Some really good points here. However, not that this hasn't been addressed, but one of the keys is this: what do we (pretending that we are Boston's decision-makers) think we have in these prospects? Stanton is about a 5-6 bWAR player. By the time he hits his prime, he very well could be a 7-8 bWAR player. What are the chances the package they give up will contain a player like that? Probably very small. Even a combination of players totaling that wing really help the Sox because, and this is where the depth comes in, they can add several more of those guys anyway.

For example, let's play the guess-what-a-prospect-will-be-worth game (these numbers may have no correspondence to reality).

Player - WAR (seasonal)
Stanton: 7.5
- - - - -
Betts - 4.5
Marrero - 3.0
Cecchini - 3.5
Vazquez - 3.5
Swihart - 2.5
Middlebrooks - 3.0
Owens - 4.0
Ranaudo - 2.0
Barnes - 2.5
Workman - 2.0
Webster - 2.0

Ok so the Marlins ask for Swihart, Owens, Betts (to play the OF, say), and Webster. That's 13.0 WAR they'd be getting back, compared to just 7.5 they'd be giving up. Too much for Boston to surrender? Well, not if they also have guys to fill in those spots. So they keep Barnes, Ranaudo, and Vazquez. That's 7.5 they keep. Oh, plus they added Stanton, at 7.5. So it may be worth it to them in that case, since the total WAR they end up with is 15.0, not 13.0.

Silly example but it's why the depth allows you to surrender lots of quality pieces for that one mega piece - you can still fill in around that mega-piece very nicely.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
ivanvamp said:
Some really good points here. However, not that this hasn't been addressed, but one of the keys is this: what do we (pretending that we are Boston's decision-makers) think we have in these prospects? Stanton is about a 5-6 bWAR player. By the time he hits his prime, he very well could be a 7-8 bWAR player. What are the chances the package they give up will contain a player like that? Probably very small. Even a combination of players totaling that wing really help the Sox because, and this is where the depth comes in, they can add several more of those guys anyway.

For example, let's play the guess-what-a-prospect-will-be-worth game (these numbers may have no correspondence to reality).

Player - WAR (seasonal)
Stanton: 7.5
- - - - -
Betts - 4.5
Marrero - 3.0
Cecchini - 3.5
Vazquez - 3.5
Swihart - 2.5
Middlebrooks - 3.0
Owens - 4.0
Ranaudo - 2.0
Barnes - 2.5
Workman - 2.0
Webster - 2.0

Ok so the Marlins ask for Swihart, Owens, Betts (to play the OF, say), and Webster. That's 13.0 WAR they'd be getting back, compared to just 7.5 they'd be giving up. Too much for Boston to surrender? Well, not if they also have guys to fill in those spots. So they keep Barnes, Ranaudo, and Vazquez. That's 7.5 they keep. Oh, plus they added Stanton, at 7.5. So it may be worth it to them in that case, since the total WAR they end up with is 15.0, not 13.0.

Silly example but it's why the depth allows you to surrender lots of quality pieces for that one mega piece - you can still fill in around that mega-piece very nicely.
 
From where?  
 
There's an idea getting tossed around in the thread that there are infinitely fungible options on the FA market, and that, somehow, because we have few contract commitments in 2016 everything will magically be fine if we a) get Stanton and sign him to a mega contract and b) trade the top layer of prospects off of the farm. 
 
The FA market is limited and you can't fill all your needs simply by going out there and dipping into it.  Plus, it can get very expensive very quickly.  Just look at this year - we're stuck with AJP because we didn't want to pony up a long term deal for Salty, or McCann, and AJP was the best we could do on the market for the money we had.  
 
Granted, we have some overlap at some positions in the pipeline.  But we don't know which (if any) of those overlapping prospects will pan out.  
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
As I said, I think they have enough quality prospects that they could likely fill one sports from within. I think Stanton + three A- or B+ prospects is worth more than four A to A- prospects, in other words. Stanton is already a star on the major league level. And he's young. We aren't talking about trading for a star that is already 29.

Again, I'm on record that I don't think it'll happen. But I am of the opinion that they absolutely should pursue it vigorously.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Drek717 said:
......
Bradley with a .700 OPS is a tolerable starting CF, but if Betts moves up to AAA by mid-season and rakes a .850-.900 OPS you really don't think he's going to be pushing Bradley for the job in ST next year?  Come on.  This sounds like someone falling into the grossly inflated UZR to runs equations used by sites like Fangraphs, which continue to fail the smell test.  If Bradley is a .700 OPS guy with great defense that's acceptable but he won't be blocking Betts if the later shows himself capable of meaningfully better offensive production.
 
Also, Betts was a CF prior to joining the Sox more than he was a 2B.  He still takes fly balls during BP.  And lets not oversell the transition to CF for a premium position player.  Transitions are usually seen as difficult because they're  being made by poor athletes moving down the defensive spectrum because they really suck at their current position and aren't ever going to be great at the new one, just hopefully passable.  That isn't Betts.  He's an elite athlete at a premium position who would make a lateral move.
 
As for WMB/Cecchini, Will needs to show he can put up those numbers in the majors, otherwise those high minors numbers don't mean squat.  That's the point of 2014 as a bridge year.  Middlebrooks shows what he's got this year and the team handles Cecchini accordingly.  Cecchini isn't stagnating in his first AAA season by any means.


.......
 
poster Savin Hillbilly addressed most of your points adequately, so rather than pile on, I just want to respond to this part of your post;
 
Bradley with a .700 OPS is an adequate first full year, given his defensive value.  Ellsbury posted a .729 OPS in his first full year, 2008, when OPS were a bit higher.  Ellsbury, of course had added value beyond OPS, because he stole 50 bases a year, when healthy.  Bradley's added value comes from his defense and the expectation that he'll get to 10% more balls than Jacoby, as Coco Crisp did.  I expect that Bradley will eventually become a better hitter, maybe even this year, since his most notable problem is that he's too patient at the plate, which is more fixable than a batter who is too much of a free swinger.  It's funny that  you present a scenario where Betts gets to AAA this summer and continues to "rake" at an .850-.900 OPS, since Bradley did nearly that (.842 OPS) at Pawtucket last summer.
 
(And , btw) Will Middlebrooks HAS shown he can put up power numbers in MLB...look at 2012, where he posted SLG of .509 for almost 300 PA's.  Even if Cecchini suddenly finds some power in AAA, he's still more of a question mark than WMB, even if we're not sure if WMB can sustain his production.)
 
Secondly, where did you here that Betts was a center fielder before he was drafted?  He came to the system as a SS, but in short-season Lowell, a couple of summers ago, he was so screwed up in the field (6 errors the first week), they switched him to 2b, where he's remained since.  The idea of converting him to CF is nice to think about, but it's more fantasy than reality.  How can you expect Betts to become a good enough CF to challenge Bradley, when Jackie has been working at tracking down balls for 15 years and Mookie has never played the position?  I'm not sure where the talk is coming from, and it's fun to dream, but has no part of a realistic future plan.  If Betts has any shot to make the major leagues in the next two years it's at second base.  If Pedroia goes down to long-term injury, Mookie has a spot.  Maybe in a few years, Betts becomes and adequate outfielder to become a multi-purpose sub, but he's not going to become a decent enough CF to challenge Bradley.  Jackie has far more value to the Sox than Betts, right now.  Bradley put up similar offensive numbers to Betts at High A Salem.  He's put up an OPS of .842 at AAA.  And Bradley plays great, stellar, defense at one of the most critical positions.
 
It's fun to play "what-if" with prospects, but you invite a large amount of chaos to your organization if you try to make them all fit.  Unless you have a Mike Trout in your system, a young player usually takes 4-5 years in the bigs to fully reach his potential, and while sometimes that potential is greater than you expected (Dwight Evans!) sometimes it's less and often it's different than what you thought.  40-50 years ago you developed from within because FA did not exist.  Today, if a team doesn't have the financial resources, FA is still not an option.  But if you're the Red Sox, you have the best of both worlds.  If Mookie Betts is worth more to a team that has a need for a second baseman, then you have a potential trading partner.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
ivanvamp said:
Silly example but it's why the depth allows you to surrender lots of quality pieces for that one mega piece - you can still fill in around that mega-piece very nicely.
 
I understand your point, and for each individual player, those WAR estimates may have some validity (though some might be closer to "upside" than "most likely"). But the important point is that you have to assume overall, half of those guys will probably have a WAR of 0. And you don't know which half it will be.  
 
That's the problem.  If all your prospects were going to be 2-4 WAR players, then you really would have depth.  But that's not what is going to happen in all likelihood.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
WenZink said:
 
poster Savin Hillbilly addressed most of your points adequately, so rather than pile on, I just want to respond to this part of your post;
 
Bradley with a .700 OPS is an adequate first full year, given his defensive value.  Ellsbury posted a .729 OPS in his first full year, 2008, when OPS were a bit higher.  Ellsbury, of course had added value beyond OPS, because he stole 50 bases a year, when healthy.  Bradley's added value comes from his defense and the expectation that he'll get to 10% more balls than Jacoby, as Coco Crisp did.  I expect that Bradley will eventually become a better hitter, maybe even this year, since his most notable problem is that he's too patient at the plate, which is more fixable than a batter who is too much of a free swinger.  It's funny that  you present a scenario where Betts gets to AAA this summer and continues to "rake" at an .850-.900 OPS, since Bradley did nearly that (.842 OPS) at Pawtucket last summer.
 
(And , btw) Will Middlebrooks HAS shown he can put up power numbers in MLB...look at 2012, where he posted SLG of .509 for almost 300 PA's.  Even if Cecchini suddenly finds some power in AAA, he's still more of a question mark than WMB, even if we're not sure if WMB can sustain his production.)
 
Secondly, where did you here that Betts was a center fielder before he was drafted?  He came to the system as a SS, but in short-season Lowell, a couple of summers ago, he was so screwed up in the field (6 errors the first week), they switched him to 2b, where he's remained since.  The idea of converting him to CF is nice to think about, but it's more fantasy than reality.  How can you expect Betts to become a good enough CF to challenge Bradley, when Jackie has been working at tracking down balls for 15 years and Mookie has never played the position?  I'm not sure where the talk is coming from, and it's fun to dream, but has no part of a realistic future plan.  If Betts has any shot to make the major leagues in the next two years it's at second base.  If Pedroia goes down to long-term injury, Mookie has a spot.  Maybe in a few years, Betts becomes and adequate outfielder to become a multi-purpose sub, but he's not going to become a decent enough CF to challenge Bradley.  Jackie has far more value to the Sox than Betts, right now.  Bradley put up similar offensive numbers to Betts at High A Salem.  He's put up an OPS of .842 at AAA.  And Bradley plays great, stellar, defense at one of the most critical positions.
 
It's fun to play "what-if" with prospects, but you invite a large amount of chaos to your organization if you try to make them all fit.  Unless you have a Mike Trout in your system, a young player usually takes 4-5 years in the bigs to fully reach his potential, and while sometimes that potential is greater than you expected (Dwight Evans!) sometimes it's less and often it's different than what you thought.  40-50 years ago you developed from within because FA did not exist.  Today, if a team doesn't have the financial resources, FA is still not an option.  But if you're the Red Sox, you have the best of both worlds.  If Mookie Betts is worth more to a team that has a need for a second baseman, then you have a potential trading partner.
Betts played all 3 up the middle positions in high school. He was primarily a short stop but played a reasonable amount in center field and claims it was the position he was most comfortable at. There is a recent Speier article, linked in the Betts thread in the minor league forum, that discusses both this fact and that the organization likely plans on exploring his ability to play other positions, including center, after he is promoted to AAA.

Also, it's worth noting that by UZR, Ellsbury had been the second best (qualified PA threshold) center fielder in baseball over the last 3 years. He's 7th for all outfielders, ignoring position. UZR/150 does not change his rankings. Reaching 10% more balls than Ellsbury is possible, but it the absolute high end of what Bradley could do and it would mean he is one of the very best defensive players at his position in the history of the game.

As for Bradley v. Betts, they are extremely different offensive players. Bradley strikes out a lot and has at every level and Betts has a huge advantage in that skill. Bradley probably has more power although that is unclear. Bradley walks more, Betts hits for a much higher average. Betts also brings baserunning value Bradley never will. But, trying to say who is better is not really the point. Both probably have futures in Boston. The question about Betts in center is, if he and Bradley are in the same outfield in the future, is a Betts in left, Bradley in center outfield better or worse than Betts in center and Bradley in right? Because, Betts probably doesn't have the arm for right.

Also worth noting, in a future where Betts is a super sub, it might be that Bradley shifts to right on days where Betts is a right fielder for this reason. Flexibility is good and the goal is maximizing value across the lineup, not maximizing the value of each individual player.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
JakeRae said:
Betts played all 3 up the middle positions in high school. He was primarily a short stop but played a reasonable amount in center field and claims it was the position he was most comfortable at. There is a recent Speier article, linked in the Betts thread in the minor league forum, that discusses both this fact and that the organization likely plans on exploring his ability to play other positions, including center, after he is promoted to AAA.

Also, it's worth noting that by UZR, Ellsbury had been the second best (qualified PA threshold) center fielder in baseball over the last 3 years. He's 7th for all outfielders, ignoring position. UZR/150 does not change his rankings. Reaching 10% more balls than Ellsbury is possible, but it the absolute high end of what Bradley could do and it would mean he is one of the very best defensive players at his position in the history of the game.

As for Bradley v. Betts, they are extremely different offensive players. Bradley strikes out a lot and has at every level and Betts has a huge advantage in that skill. Bradley probably has more power although that is unclear. Bradley walks more, Betts hits for a much higher average. Betts also brings baserunning value Bradley never will. But, trying to say who is better is not really the point. Both probably have futures in Boston. The question about Betts in center is, if he and Bradley are in the same outfield in the future, is a Betts in left, Bradley in center outfield better or worse than Betts in center and Bradley in right? Because, Betts probably doesn't have the arm for right.

Also worth noting, in a future where Betts is a super sub, it might be that Bradley shifts to right on days where Betts is a right fielder for this reason. Flexibility is good and the goal is maximizing value across the lineup, not maximizing the value of each individual player.
 
1. Point taken about Betts' HS CF experience, but what are the odds he'd be able to play CF with anywhere near the aptitude of Bradley?  And after having seen Jackie, I don't want anyone else playing CF when Bradley is in the lineup.
 
2. Regarding Ellsbury's proficiency in CF; I didn't make it entirely clear, but I was trying to compare Bradley's projected 1st full year of MLB vs Ellsbury's 2008 year.  Ellsbury was around a 90+ OPS and his defense didn't really rise to a higher level until his 2011 year.  Bradley appears to be an elite defender in year one. (And that point was in response to Drek's comment about Bradley's potential weakness at the plate.)
 
3. Not sure how you have determined that "Betts hits for a far better average."  The only large enough sample we have is comparing Bradley's 2011 year at A+ Salem vs Betts' 2012 year with the same team.  Bradley was a little better, but close enough.  Betts has put up amazing numbers in AA, but still only one month, and he has no record at AAA, while Jackie had an .842 OPS, which I'm sure the Red Sox would be elated if Betts was promoted to Pawtucket this year and posted something similar.
 
4. The problem with Betts in left field is that normally you'd want to see more signs of power in a corner outfielder.  Betts has been noted for always getting the barrel of the bat on the ball, but that may not be sustainable vs better pitching.  He may still have a high contact rate, but that contact may not translate to the same solid contact rate.
 
5. And I still don't see how the Red Sox incorporate the role of 'super sub' onto their roster unless Betts sustains something close to a .400 BA/1.000 OPS.  I don't think you'd screw around with the composition of your team just to accomodate one player, unless he's Mike Trout.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
WenZink said:
 
5. And I still don't see how the Red Sox incorporate the role of 'super sub' onto their roster unless Betts sustains something close to a .400 BA/1.000 OPS.  I don't think you'd screw around with the composition of your team just to accomodate one player, unless he's Mike Trout.
 
Well if Betts turns out to be Ted Williams, he will probably get to stick to one position if he wants.  
 
But the idea that an above average player that can play multiple positions will somehow not get many bats or will screw up team chemistry (or whatever it is you are implying) is ridiculous. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
radsoxfan said:
 
Well if Betts turns out to be Ted Williams, he will probably get to stick to one position if he wants.  
 
But the idea that an above average player that can play multiple positions will somehow not get many bats or will screw up team chemistry (or whatever it is you are implying) is ridiculous. 
Well Betts is now hitting .406, so I'm sold on the Teddy ballgame thing!
 
But I said nothing about chemistry.  It's just constructing a position-player assortment that would enable a very good player, with no position available, to play here, there and everywhere.  Yeah, Maddon does it in Tampa Bay, but that's because he's not given much to work with.  (Joe did back-flips when they got him James Loney.)  But I don't get how the hell it works with Betts, who, if he makes it to MLB, early, will be on the strength of a hot bat.  And if he's that good a hitter, you don't want hitting everyday, and so you then decide which guy to sit down?  We're not talking a straight platoon, like Nava/Gomes.  So you're going to tell Pedroia to sit one day, and Bradley the next, and Bogaerts to sit on Jewish Holidays?  It's fantasy.
 
Right now Betts is blocked at 2nd base.  He's blocked at CF, unless Bradley absolutely craters at the plate.  And he's blocked at SS, even though he probably can't play SS at the professional level, anyway.  So, instead, fan boys in the media come up with this idea of Betts being Ben Zobrist v2, as if it's something that can be easily done in a matter of months.  Great.  Do it.  And then send him to Joe Maddon for David Price.  With Zobrist, S. Rodriguez and Mookie, Joe would have a field day.
 
OR, just find some team that really needs a good-hitting, second baseman, and see if you can soak them in a trade for something you really need.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
WenZink said:
Well Betts is now hitting .406, so I'm sold on the Teddy ballgame thing!
 
But I said nothing about chemistry.  It's just constructing a position-player assortment that would enable a very good player, with no position available, to play here, there and everywhere.  Yeah, Maddon does it in Tampa Bay, but that's because he's not given much to work with.  (Joe did back-flips when they got him James Loney.)  But I don't get how the hell it works with Betts, who, if he makes it to MLB, early, will be on the strength of a hot bat.  And if he's that good a hitter, you don't want hitting everyday, and so you then decide which guy to sit down?  We're not talking a straight platoon, like Nava/Gomes.  So you're going to tell Pedroia to sit one day, and Bradley the next, and Bogaerts to sit on Jewish Holidays?  It's fantasy.
 
Right now Betts is blocked at 2nd base.  He's blocked at CF, unless Bradley absolutely craters at the plate.  And he's blocked at SS, even though he probably can't play SS at the professional level, anyway.  So, instead, fan boys in the media come up with this idea of Betts being Ben Zobrist v2, as if it's something that can be easily done in a matter of months.  Great.  Do it.  And then send him to Joe Maddon for David Price.  With Zobrist, S. Rodriguez and Mookie, Joe would have a field day.
 
OR, just find some team that really needs a good-hitting, second baseman, and see if you can soak them in a trade for something you really need.
 
You're completely misunderstanding how such a "super sub" would be used. He'd basically be a platoon starter at some position, on this team probably sharing LF with Nava. So then you'd start Betts in LF on days that Bradley, Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, and Pedroia are all in the lineup. But if it's a day that one of them was going to get off anyway, you move Betts to that position and start Nava and his bat in LF instead of starting some shitty no-bat utility player like Herrera. Or if Pedroia is beat up with a minor injury and needs to miss 3 or 4 days but not go on the DL, then you get Nava's bat in the lineup instead of Herrera, etc. And if someone like Pedroia or Bogaerts needs a DL stint, then you can call up a decent bat like Brentz or something to play in the OF, and shift Betts to starting at 2B or SS in the interim.
 
The point isn't to redistribute playing time from your best players to the super sub, but rather to minimize the number of ABs that pure bench players get.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Papelbon's Poutine said:
You're looking at this the wrong way. The PED era is over and the game is evolving. For one, most guys aren't playing 160 games anymore. For two, the era of the full time DH are gone. So think of Betts as a solution to both those problems. When Papi is gone, the Sox will likely transition like most teams have and 3-4 days a week, the DH slot is a chance to get guys a little rest and rotate through. Now instead of moving a starting level bat to DH and replace him with a bench player, you do that and replace him with Betts, who ideally is the same level bat.

So maybe he plays twice a week in LF, one game each in CF, 3B, 2B and 1B. Most games there is one guy in the lineup who is a bench guy or platoon guy. If you can replace his at bats with a guy like Betts, that's an extremely valuable piece to have.
 
Great way to describe it.  For the purpose of roster construction, he'd essentially take the DH spot, allowing a full bench complement in addition to him.
 
The prototype for this is probably Tony Phillips.  He logged 1000+ innings at 5 different positions, another 500+ at a sixth position, plus another 100 games as a DH.  For an eight year stretch (age 30-38), he averaged 144 games played and 650 PA per season while playing anywhere from 3 to 7 different positions in a given season.  For his career, he sported a .374 OBP (.391 in the eight year stretch I cited).
 
By no means should this be considered Betts' career track yet, but if things break right with a bunch of the current players and prospects, it could be a way to work him on to the roster should it not be clear he has a claim to a single position.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Papelbon's Poutine said:
You're looking at this the wrong way. The PED era is over and the game is evolving. For one, most guys aren't playing 160 games anymore. For two, the era of the full time DH are gone. So think of Betts as a solution to both those problems. When Papi is gone, the Sox will likely transition like most teams have and 3-4 days a week, the DH slot is a chance to get guys a little rest and rotate through. Now instead of moving a starting level bat to DH and replace him with a bench player, you do that and replace him with Betts, who ideally is the same level bat.

So maybe he plays twice a week in LF, one game each in CF, 3B, 2B and 1B. Most games there is one guy in the lineup who is a bench guy or platoon guy. If you can replace his at bats with a guy like Betts, that's an extremely valuable piece to have.
 
The issue of a new type of offensive roster composition is an interesting one, that deserves discussion and analysis.  I just don't see it, but could be convinced.
 
What I find really ridiculous is that one month by one prospect is the impetus for making this some type of priority or at least contingency play, just because Mookie's path to the majors is currently blocked.  Betts was rated a consensus top 70 prospect before this season.  His hot start helped confirm his High A numbers at Salem last year, plus there was a graduation of a number of prospects, so he'd probably be a top 30 prospect if they came out with a new list right now.  But that's not cause for the Red Sox to revise their approach to position-player utilization.  He's hitting .406 for a month.  If he'd had ten less hits in April, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If he hits .280 in May, we won't be having this discussion a month from now.
 
I got excited by Mookie's fast start because it means his value shot up and so does his trade value.  I think all we know for sure is that Betts is a good hitter and projects to be a good hitter in MLB someday, but that's far from being some revolutionary impetus to changing the way the Sox think about position-player assignments.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
WenZink said:
 
The issue of a new type of offensive roster composition is an interesting one, that deserves discussion and analysis.  I just don't see it, but could be convinced.
 
What I find really ridiculous is that one month by one prospect is the impetus for making this some type of priority or at least contingency play, just because Mookie's path to the majors is currently blocked.  Betts was rated a consensus top 70 prospect before this season.  His hot start helped confirm his High A numbers at Salem last year, plus there was a graduation of a number of prospects, so he'd probably be a top 30 prospect if they came out with a new list right now.  But that's not cause for the Red Sox to revise their approach to position-player utilization.  He's hitting .406 for a month.  If he'd had ten less hits in April, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If he hits .280 in May, we won't be having this discussion a month from now.
 
I got excited by Mookie's fast start because it means his value shot up and so does his trade value.  I think all we know for sure is that Betts is a good hitter and projects to be a good hitter in MLB someday, but that's far from being some revolutionary impetus to changing the way the Sox think about position-player assignments.
The Red Sox have talked a lot about deep depth. A super sub provides deep depth virtually on their own. They also provide opportunity to carry a Mike Carp without worrying about whether you have a real backup center fielder or to carry a base stealing specialist, or some other luxury item.

I think you are mistaking the lack of existence of many players suited to this role with an aversion to the concept. It's the former, not the latter that explains why Zobrist is basically the only guy this happens with. Also, on most teams, if you have a starter level talent who can play all 3 up the middle positions, he is probably better than one of your starters at one of those positions. It is the unique possibility that Betts might be blocked at all his potential positions and the hope that he has great defensive versatility that opens this door.

Also, for the record, I've been discussing this possibility since before the season started, as have others. This is not a response to a hot streak and the idea is more likely to have originated here or at SoxProspects and been ported to the media than the other way around.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
JakeRae said:
The Red Sox have talked a lot about deep depth. A super sub provides deep depth virtually on their own. They also provide opportunity to carry a Mike Carp without worrying about whether you have a real backup center fielder or to carry a base stealing specialist, or some other luxury item.

I think you are mistaking the lack of existence of many players suited to this role with an aversion to the concept. It's the former, not the latter that explains why Zobrist is basically the only guy this happens with. Also, on most teams, if you have a starter level talent who can play all 3 up the middle positions, he is probably better than one of your starters at one of those positions. It is the unique possibility that Betts might be blocked at all his potential positions and the hope that he has great defensive versatility that opens this door.

Also, for the record, I've been discussing this possibility since before the season started, as have others. This is not a response to a hot streak and the idea is more likely to have originated here or at SoxProspects and been ported to the media than the other way around.
 
You mention Zobrist, but he didn't start playing multiple positions until he was in his 3rd year as a MLB player, at the age of 27.  He was a SS in the minors and played there his first two years as a back-up for the Twins.   That's far different then taking a 21 year old and screwing around with him.  Betts has a good shot at making the majors as a second baseman.  He can hit and run.  He has to concentrate on his defense and work hard to maintain his plate discipline and contact rate if/when he moves to AAA and the majors.  Let's not complicate his journey by trying to make him into a Zobrist.  It's hard enough as it is.  If he makes it to the majors maybe, in time, he can evolve into a multi-position player.  Right now, the reason he's a 2nd baseman is because he couldn't play SS.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
WenZink said:
 
You mention Zobrist, but he didn't start playing multiple positions until he was in his 3rd year as a MLB player, at the age of 27.  He was a SS in the minors and played their his first two years as a back-up for the Twins.   That's far different then taking at 21 and screwing around with him.  Betts has a good shot at making the majors as a second baseman.  He can hit and run.  He has to concentrate on his defense and work hard to maintain his plate discipline and contact rate if/when he moves to AAA and the majors.  Let's not complicate his journey by trying to make him into a Zobrist.  It's hard enough as it is.  If he makes it to the majors maybe, in time, he can evolve into a multi-position player.  Right now, the reason he's a 2nd baseman is because he couldn't play SS.
This is getting way off topic but it's less that he couldn't play ss and more that he was on the same roster as Deven Marrero and there was an opening at 2nd at that level. He excelled there, so they left him there while he advanced.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Snodgrass'Muff said:
This is getting way off topic but it's less that he couldn't play ss and more that he was on the same roster as Deven Marrero and there was an opening at 2nd at that level. He excelled there, so they left him there while he advanced.
Perhaps, but I was referring to his move from SS to 2B in his time at Lowell, where he made 6 errors at SS in his 1st 2 weeks of play.  That was a year before they even drafted Marrero.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
WenZink said:
 
He's hitting .406 for a month.  If he'd had ten less hits in April, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If he hits .280 in May, we won't be having this discussion a month from now.
 
 
As Snodgrass said, this is now officially off-topic, but I'm not sure why you keep saying this.  There was talk of Betts potentially being valuable as a multi-position player before the year started.  It's really not all that revolutionary or controversial. And it certainly is not only based on just one good month.
 
Will it happen? Who knows.  He might be trade bait, he might switch positions, he might flame out.  But it's completely realistic that Betts could provide value at the major league level at some point in multiple roles.  Your continued efforts to refute this possibility make no sense, and directly contradict many statements by the people who follow the Red Sox every day and even people in the Red Sox front office. Let's just hope that Betts continues to torch AA, and see what happens.
 
If Mookie is involved in a Stanton trade, I hope it's because the Marlins absolutely love him and value him as the centerpiece of a deal (meaning we don't have to give up much else of value). The FO shouldn't feel the need to add Mookie into the Stanton trade (or any trade) just because his value is high now and Pedroia is blocking second base. 
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
RedOctober3829 said:
I also wouldn't not trade prospects because you are afraid of which ones might turn out better.  As I stated before, this organization has a good enough track record of drafting the right prospects that I wouldn't bat an eyelash giving up a significant haul for Stanton.
It will be much harder to do this post-2011 though, given the new CBA.  In 2011, they drafted Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley, and Betts. In 2010, not as good a year, they drafted Ranaudo, Workman, Cecchini.  Those two drafts accounted for almost all of their top 10. 
 
2012, with the new CBA: Deven Marrero, Brian Johnson, and a few guys who might emerge.  All in all, less of a haul than 2010, never mind 2011.
 
Then last year: Trey Ball, but only because they sucked in 2012. A couple of somewhat interesting arms (Stankiewicz, Smith, Littrell).  
 
There isn't going to be a great influx of new depth, the rules don't allow it. Trading for Stanton would mean the equivalent of shipping out the entire haul for the 2011 draft.  After making a deal like that, the Sox will be a bottom-third minor league system.  And resocking via the draft or international free agency will not be easily done.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
WenZink said:
Perhaps, but I was referring to his move from SS to 2B in his time at Lowell, where he made 6 errors at SS in his 1st 2 weeks of play.  That was a year before they even drafted Marrero.
 
So was I.  Two weeks does not prove he is incapable of playing short and his move had as much to do with Marrero as anything else.  Without Marrero we have no idea if he'd have been moved.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
radsoxfan said:
 
As Snodgrass said, this is now officially off-topic, but I'm not sure why you keep saying this.  There was talk of Betts potentially being valuable as a multi-position player before the year started.  It's really not all that revolutionary or controversial. And it certainly is not only based on just one good month.
 
Will it happen? Who knows.  He might be trade bait, he might switch positions, he might flame out.  But it's completely realistic that Betts could provide value at the major league level at some point in multiple roles.  Your continued efforts to refute this possibility make no sense, and directly contradict many statements by the people who follow the Red Sox every day and even people in the Red Sox front office. Let's just hope that Betts continues to torch AA, and see what happens.
 
If Mookie is involved in a Stanton trade, I hope it's because the Marlins absolutely love him and value him as the centerpiece of a deal (meaning we don't have to give up much else of value). The FO shouldn't feel the need to add Mookie into the Stanton trade (or any trade) just because his value is high now and Pedroia is blocking second base. 
Reportedly the prospect the Marlins were interested in was Bogaerts, and who could blame them in wanting an elite prospect back for Stanton.  My excitement over Betts' fast start to this season is that it might get him into the elite status and be a suitable substitute for Bogaerts in any possible trade-and-sign involving Stanton.  The Marlins need a second baseman.  The Red Sox do not.  Mookie Betts is a second baseman.
 
Regarding the conversion of Mookie to a "Swiss Army Knife,"  I'd love to expand on my opposition to the idea and respond to how rumors get started with the best of intentions, but are really just silly, however, it really does belong in a separate thread, and I do think it's a very worthy topic for it's own thread, because I don't know of any elite prospect that has undergone such a conversion since Cesar Tovar, 50 years ago, and with good reason.
 
MODs is there away to split of the last few post into a new thread?
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
So was I.  Two weeks does not prove he is incapable of playing short and his move had as much to do with Marrero as anything else.  Without Marrero we have no idea if he'd have been moved.
 
I don't get it?  What am I missing?  Marrero was drafted in June of 2012.  Mookie was switched from SS to 2nd in the summer of 2011, 2012 and then started the 2013 year at 2nd. .How did Marrero have any effect on the Mookie move? 
 
Edit nope, you're right, Mookie was in Lowell in 2012 as well.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
WenZink said:
 
Regarding the conversion of Mookie to a "Swiss Army Knife,"  I'd love to expand on my opposition to the idea and respond to how rumors get started with the best of intentions, but are really just silly, however, it really does belong in a separate thread, and I do think it's a very worthy topic for it's own thread, because I don't know of any elite prospect that has undergone such a conversion since Cesar Tovar, 50 years ago, and with good reason.
 
MODs is there away to split of the last few post into a new thread?
 
There is a Mookie thread in the Minor League Forum that you yourself have been posting in.  I'll point out that in that thread, plenty of people have been speculating (and quoting people with/around the team) about the potential to use Mookie in a multi-position role, particularly early in his career. Those posts date back to August of 2013, and definitely are not solely related to his hot start this year. 
 
Go ahead and post your dissertation about why it's such a stupid idea to consider over there.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
WenZink said:
 
I don't get it?  What am I missing?  Marrero was drafted in June of 2012.  Mookie was switched from SS to 2nd in the summer of 2011, .  How did Marrero have any effect on the Mookie move? 
 
Where are you getting that timeline from?  His fangraphs page has him playing 1 game in 2011 and then starting the 2012 season in Lowell.  Same with baseball-reference.com,  Both he and Marrero played for Lowell that year, with Betts playing his first game on June 18th.  Marrero's first game was June 24th.
 
Mookie:
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=betts-000mar&type=bgl&year=2011
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=betts-000mar&type=bgl&year=2012
 
Deven:
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=marrer001dev&type=bgl&year=2012
 
Edit to add links.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
 
The trouble with this is the counter-argument has plenty of support, too. What could we have gotten for Ryan Lavarnway in January 2012? What could we get now? Lars Anderson, same deal. For all we know, Mookie Betts is right now at the crest of his value. I don't think that's true, and I certainly hope it's not true, but it's entirely possible.
 
Blanket statements about the value of prospects or the wisdom of keeping vs. holding them are likely to be false.
 
I'm not making a blanket statement in favor of keeping vs. holding prospects though.  I'm simply saying that until our own needs are met we avoid giving away that which might meet out needs.  Consider Lars Anderson.  If Lars Anderson had actually lived up to his potential as a middle of the order 1B would we have traded him for anything in the world?  No, that was a huge need for this club.  So then it's no about maximizing a prospects value to the club, which can be done either through years of service or via trade, it's about filling the actual specific needs of the 25 man roster.
 
That's the case with Betts vis a vie Bradley and Bogaerts.  The odds are good that Bradley will hit well enough to lock up CF full time.  Don't mistake my caution for doubt here, I think Bradley is going to be an incredibly valuable player long term.  But lets give him 2014 before we trade away our safety net for the negative outcome in Betts.  Same with Bogaerts, though there we do have Marrero as well.
 
Now maybe Betts and/or Marrero scuttle their value with a bad 2014 in the minors, but then I'd say they're both at least as likely to increase their value.  Betts was a fringe entrant into the Baseball America Top 100 this past winter.  If he continues at even 80% of his current clip he's going to take a massive jump up that list.  If Marrero's bat continues to look worthwhile in AA he's likely going to join that list as well as slick fielding SS with good contact, OBP, and base stealing ability tend to be pretty valued.  We'll have more answers and it's a good chance they'll each move their value from the A-/B+ range respectively into the A+/A- range.
 
I thought the problem with UZR was its accuracy, not necessarily the basic notion of the value of defense relative to offense that it assumes.
I'd describe my problem with it as sitting firmly at the confluence between it's sample size demands and it's variance in degree, and seeing just how muddy those waters are.  When applied over sample sizes smaller than what it works well for (multiple combined seasons) it gives out what I view to be exaggerated numbers to either side of the spectrum.  
 
When we then put those numbers through an equation to total up the runs above average on a per season basis we get goofy things like Shane Victorino's positionally adjusted 2013 defense alone being worth more than Giancarlo Stanton's 2013 offense.  Given that LF and RF have the same positional adjustment would any of us take a league average bat with Victorino's defense in LF over Stanton's bat?  Hell no.  And therefore we see that UZR based defensive RAR values (and the WAR values associated with them) simply don't pass the smell test.  
 
Is defense important?  Sure, but I feel like there's been something of an over-correction made along the way and now we're stuck with a lot of people trying to treat defensive value as the new OBP when it's not as cut and dry as all that.  It matters, but so does the offensive side of the balance sheet and that is far more quantifiable at this point in time.
 
It's not something to force the FO's hand over in either direction. They shouldn't feel forced to trade anybody, but neither should they feel constrained from trading anybody. They should look at needs and try to fill them. If they can make a trade that they think is reasonable in terms of value for value, and it fills a need, they should make it.
I agree completely.  There is no stipulation in either direction based simply on residence time in the farm system.  There is real value in filling as many needs from the farm as possible when opposed to FA or trade though, since farm hands have far lower salaries and much greater roster flexibility.  
 
I'm arguing for a more cautious hand in confirming our needs are met, not that we never trade prospects and try shoehorning them in all around the diamond in order to aim for some fantasy 25 man with all home-grown players.  I don't want a roster as incestuous as the Cardinals, free agency and trades are democratic.  But no one is going to let us win a trade for a SS, 3B, CF, or C in two years if we trade away our "redundant" guys now and the front runners fail to pan out.
 
I think the argument that elite power hitting corner OFs are easy to find on the free agent market, while CFs or Cs or skill infielders are nearly impossible to find, is simply false. Some years this is true, some years it isn't. Who were the big position player free agents this year? A second baseman, a CF, a catcher, a couple of shortstops (one of whom is still out there), and one corner OF (not an elite power guy, either). How about next year? Almost the only FAs even worth looking at will be third basemen. One of the biggest myths that gets perpetuated around here is that prolific power hitters playing LF or 1B are easy to find. In fact, just as at every other position, mediocre players of that type are always easy to find.
I'm not arguing that elite power hitters are easy to find, just that the next step down from that group at LF, 1B, and DH are more regularly available than the one step down from elite SS, C, 2B, 3B, and CF options are.  Every FA class is different and we're likely to start seeing a reduction in the very good to elite players who make it through period as mid-market teams are adding new revenue pretty rapidly thanks to new TV deals and the like, but the trend has been for good bats with questionable defensive value to make it to FA and then sign reasonable deals more often than the guys who are better all around players.  I'd rather focus on locking up our own up the middle core components and then trade any depth that might be left than go chasing a LF/1B/DH power bat type assuming the up the middle spots will work themselves out.
 
Don't get me wrong, as soon as there is good confidence in our harder to fill position guys being legitimate answers then I'm all for pursuing someone like Stanton, even at a mild overpay if that is what the Marlins would accept simply because his extension isn't going to involve a lot of post-prime years.  But I'd rather know that SS, 3B, CF, and C are set and live with a Nick Swisher type in LF than have a Stanton in LF and give out the kind of deal Peralta got this winter from the Cardinals.
 

quint

Caught Looking
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,512
a really good source
jacklamabe65 said:
Whether this is a good thing or not, this deal seems to be inevitable (a lifelong Tribe friend of mone told me in 1976 that Eck would be pitching for the Sox within two years). It will probably happen this off-season, however.
What are you, like 67?
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Eddie Jurak said:
It will be much harder to do this post-2011 though, given the new CBA.  In 2011, they drafted Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley, and Betts. In 2010, not as good a year, they drafted Ranaudo, Workman, Cecchini.  Those two drafts accounted for almost all of their top 10. 
 
2012, with the new CBA: Deven Marrero, Brian Johnson, and a few guys who might emerge.  All in all, less of a haul than 2010, never mind 2011.
 
Then last year: Trey Ball, but only because they sucked in 2012. A couple of somewhat interesting arms (Stankiewicz, Smith, Littrell).  
 
There isn't going to be a great influx of new depth, the rules don't allow it. Trading for Stanton would mean the equivalent of shipping out the entire haul for the 2011 draft.  After making a deal like that, the Sox will be a bottom-third minor league system.  And resocking via the draft or international free agency will not be easily done.
This is true for most players. The Red Sox would have to decide if the sum of the parts is worth it for Stanton. Assume that it's something like Owens, JBJ, Betts and another Minor Leaguer. Realistically that's a package the Marlins would probably still not move Stanton for but it's not a slap in the face either.

If the Sox brass believes that Betts is for real is he worth putting into the outfield? Does Pedroia eventually move off second to make room for Betts?

Is JBJ the true heir to Ellsbury or is that reserved for someone not on the roster currently?

Will Owens develop into a true #2 or better?

I wouldn't be inclined to give the Marlins anything and everything for Stanton (Xander is unmovable) but that's a transcending talent right there that actually has a decent arm in the outfield and is very young. That's the player you open the "war chest" for. Not someone in their mid 30's and that's been the problem over the years with many teams.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Drek717 said:
......
I'm not arguing that elite power hitters are easy to find, just that the next step down from that group at LF, 1B, and DH are more regularly available than the one step down from elite SS, C, 2B, 3B, and CF options are.  Every FA class is different and we're likely to start seeing a reduction in the very good to elite players who make it through period as mid-market teams are adding new revenue pretty rapidly thanks to new TV deals and the like, but the trend has been for good bats with questionable defensive value to make it to FA and then sign reasonable deals more often than the guys who are better all around players.  I'd rather focus on locking up our own up the middle core components and then trade any depth that might be left than go chasing a LF/1B/DH power bat type assuming the up the middle spots will work themselves out.

....
 
I don't think it's true any longer that power hitters, (at LF, 1B, and DH or anywhere) are more regularly available.  Since the more stricter PED program there seems to be shortage.  And while it's hard to project younger prospects' eventual power (since it's usually the last skill to develop) I don't see much of that in the Sox farm system.  (I'm sure the Sox hope Travis Shaw breaks out at Portland this year.) And I think those few amateurs that show/project a lot of slugging are usually drafted early in the 1st round.  And even on the Major League level, the Sox' power is primarily in an aging Ortiz and Napoli, which is why a lot rides on Middlebrooks' development.
 
If Stanton is made available by the Marlins, they're going to be able to demand a lot, and with good reason.  And future FA classes will be older and have less elite players owing to the exploding trend of offering long-term contracts to players still under club control.  Napoli was a great find; a RH power bat willing to sign a short-term deal, but if power remains a scarce resource than the older, slugging FA's will be able to demand richer, longer-term deals, and I don't see the Sox going down that road.
 
Put another way, if the Sox don't pursue Stanton and land him, what other direction do they go in?  Both in specific targets or in long-term construction of their lineup?  For over 5 years the Sox were blessed with a 3-4 of Ortiz/Ramirez, and stalked from afar Adrian Gonzalez as an eventual replacement.  Ortiz' longevity and the opportune availability of Napoli worked very well in 2013.  But if not Stanton, now what?  Do they use their financial flexibility to take on a devalued asset like Josh Hamilton or a Matt Kemp, if they see value with a little subsidization of their contracts? ( I'm just speculating that those are the kind of risks the Red Sox could take with next to no contract obligations past next year.)
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Rudy Pemberton said:
Not picking on you, but we hear this same line of thinking every time a marquee player becomes available (whether it's Johan Santana, Cliff Lee, Adrian Gonzalez, Mark Teixeira, or whomever. If the Sox don't land Stanton, there's literally thousands of directions they could go in. There's lots of way to build a winning team.
You're welcome to pick away, but I thought I made a case for why, in 2014, things are far different than in 2008/09 when the Red Sox went after Teixeira:
Less projectable power in system + less power in MLB + stated policy vs long-term contracts to old guys + aging/weakening of FA market
 
I don't see lots of ways to find power to the Red Sox lineup vs a few years ago.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
WenZink said:
You're welcome to pick away, but I thought I made a case for why, in 2014, things are far different than in 2008/09 when the Red Sox went after Teixeira:
Less projectable power in system + less power in MLB + stated policy vs long-term contracts to old guys + aging/weakening of FA market
 
I don't see lots of ways to find power to the Red Sox lineup vs a few years ago.
Why do the Red Sox need power? A baseball team needs good baseball players to win games. The question is why are some fixated on power rather than the more general issue of finding good players?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
JakeRae said:
Why do the Red Sox need power? A baseball team needs good baseball players to win games. The question is why are some fixated on power rather than the more general issue of finding good players?
 
I think that's a false, or at least overstated, dichotomy. Power is one of the best ways to be a good baseball player.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
I think that's a false, or at least overstated, dichotomy. Power is one of the best ways to be a good baseball player.
Shane Victorino, 2013 version, says hello.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
benhogan said:
Shane Victorino, 2013 version, says hello.
???what???
 
Not sure what this even means.  Shane didn't lead the team in SLG, but we had Ortiz and Napoli.  The concern is that a team full of Victorinos won't be able to compete with a well balanced team that has some power to drive in runners that get on base a lot.
Sure, a team can win with a lineup of .375 OBP players, but if the team's SLG avg is also .375, wouldn't it be great to have maybe 2 guys in the middle of the lineup who also have an additional .100 points of SLG behind them...
The concern here is that the Sox don't have any middle of the lineup bats but they have a bunch of other talent that other teams may covet.  How can they leverage that to bring about a balanced lineup, not just 1-9 Shane Victorino 2013's waving hello
 

williams_482

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 1, 2011
391
Trotsky said:
Not sure what this even means.  Shane didn't lead the team in SLG, but we had Ortiz and Napoli.  The concern is that a team full of Victorinos won't be able to compete with a well balanced team that has some power to drive in runners that get on base a lot.
Sure, a team can win with a lineup of .375 OBP players, but if the team's SLG avg is also .375, wouldn't it be great to have maybe 2 guys in the middle of the lineup who also have an additional .100 points of SLG behind them...
The concern here is that the Sox don't have any middle of the lineup bats but they have a bunch of other talent that other teams may covet.  How can they leverage that to bring about a balanced lineup, not just 1-9 Shane Victorino 2013's waving hello
 
If those two power guys in the middle of the lineup are the same overall quality of hitter than the OBP guys, then the team with nine .375/.375 guys would score more runs. OBP has a substantial cascading effect, which means you need disproportionately more additional power to make up for a lower OBP player on a high OBP team. 
 
This article touches on the subject briefly, and has a link to a lineup sim if you want to play around with it yourself. 
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
I think that's a false, or at least overstated, dichotomy. Power is one of the best ways to be a good baseball player.
 
My intent was not to say that power is not a relevant skill in assessing whether a player is good but that it's not necessarily a worthwhile attribute standing alone. As evidence of the latter position, which williams_482 has already responded to on substance, see the post quoted below. There is a widespread belief that power is a necessary skill, separate from being a good baseball player, not as an element of being one. Why and on what grounds does this belief persist?
 
 
Trotsky said:
???what???
 
Not sure what this even means.  Shane didn't lead the team in SLG, but we had Ortiz and Napoli.  The concern is that a team full of Victorinos won't be able to compete with a well balanced team that has some power to drive in runners that get on base a lot.
Sure, a team can win with a lineup of .375 OBP players, but if the team's SLG avg is also .375, wouldn't it be great to have maybe 2 guys in the middle of the lineup who also have an additional .100 points of SLG behind them...
The concern here is that the Sox don't have any middle of the lineup bats but they have a bunch of other talent that other teams may covet.  How can they leverage that to bring about a balanced lineup, not just 1-9 Shane Victorino 2013's waving hello
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Turning this back to Stanton, his OBP hasn't been under .350 since his rookie year. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
JakeRae said:
.....There is a widespread belief that power is a necessary skill, separate from being a good baseball player, not as an element of being one. Why and on what grounds does this belief persist?
 
 
 
And where can I go to visit this Tribe of power-worshiping Strawmen?  Do they live on a reservation?
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
WenZink said:
 
And where can I go to visit this Tribe of power-worshiping Strawmen?  Do they live on a reservation?
 
You might want to look in the mirror and read your last few posts.  You ranted about the need for power hitters, the potential loss/decline of power hitters, and the expense of power hitters. 
 
There is no need for power hitters for the offense to be good.  There is a need for good players for the offense to be good.  If they are good because they have power (like Stanton), great.  If they are good because they get on base a lot, great.  
 
Any desire to properly balance high OBP guys with enough power guys in the middle of the lineup is FAR outweighed by simply getting the best players, regardless of why they are good. 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
MakMan44 said:
Turning this back to Stanton, his OBP hasn't been under .350 since his rookie year. 
 
And this points up a significant factor here: every power event is also an OBP event--but not vice versa. Certainly players who are good at power but suck at OBP are not rare. But they are not as common as players who are good at OBP but suck at power.
 
Among AL players last year, 25% of players with 450 or more PA had an ISO over .190. 25% had an OBP over .349. Of the top 25% ISO guys, 12.5% had a below-average OBP. Of the top 25% OBP guys, 25% had a below-average ISO. That's a very quick and crude way of looking at it, but I think the point holds: elite power is less likely to suck at OBP than elite OBP is to suck at power.
 
Also, the article that williams_482 linked to points out that the value of power relative to OBP increases in low run environments--like the one we are, relatively speaking, in now. So a guy like Stanton is worth more compared to a guy like Joe Mauer now than he would have been 5 or 10 years ago.