Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: bismo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:44:30 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 16, 11:14 pm, Gnork <gn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 16, 7:14 pm, Dave Bismo <bi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:44:43 -0800 (PST), Gnork <gn...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 16, 9:32 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dave Bismo" <bi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iarqo31legq6plqpipv9ahqm2vm8ebc7sj@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:26:44 GMT, "Srgnt Billko" <f...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Dave Bismo" <bi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b90oo31o9qa1p18segk8s5u3cierjtv7i2@xxxxxxxxxx
Soxprospects.com interviewed Baseball America's Jim Callis, who gave
some really good and detailed answers about our prospects and how he
ranks young players:
http://soxprospects.blogspot.com/2008/01/interview-with-baseball-amer...
-Bismo.
Good read. His take on Lowrie is about the same as mine - good but
nothing
special - or as doctors say "unremarkable".
It'll be interesting to see what happens with Lowrie. He could be
good trade bait for Epstein.
Based on that assessment, I don't really see why.
"I've talked to enough people who think he can play a passable shortstop in
the majors (though you'd want someone better defensively) and he'll hit more
than most infielders. I think he'll hit enough to play second base and third
base..."
Would you be willing to trade much for a player of that description? Now
I'm also not saying he could not help us one day...or even fill out a trade
offer...but aren't those types of players really fairly easy to find?
No. Look at all the pathetic hitting shortstops and the weak hitting
second sackers. If he hits well enough he would be a big plus. Also he
might develop into a good fielder. He also might not hit as well as
they think.
What Gnork said. There are very few middle infielders who have
Lowrie's offensive potential. He could be a legitimate .300 hitter
with a good OBP, not too many strikeouts, 40 doubles, and 15 homers a
season. Not to mention the bonus of being a switch-hitter. As long
as his defense is reasonably acceptable, Lowrie would be a really nice
player for a lot of teams. I mean, that's basically a poor man's
Jeter without the speed, or Michael Young with more walks, or Pedroia
with more pop but less defense, and someone who could make a couple of
All-Star teams. Even at 3B, while not fitting the Schmidt/Chavez
prototype, Lowrie could project as a really nice Bill Mueller sort of
player.
Either way, he'd be a few notches ahead of the typical infielders that
are readily available. There are tons of teams, especially
low-payroll ones, who'd love to have a player like Lowrie. The fact
that he could potentially play three positions makes him more
attractive, because he doesn't have to be locked into one spot,
allowing the team more insurance for injuries and flexibility for
other moves. He's a good prospect with legitimate value-
-probably
more to other teams than he has with Boston.
I don't know about that last part. If he has a big year in AAA and
Lugo sucks as bad as last year, then I say they have to move Lugo one
way or another to make room for Lowrie. It could happen on a partial
basis by mid-season this year. There are a lot worse things than a
Pedroia / Lowrie keystone combo in whatever order. By that I mean
Pedroia could play SS and Lowrie 2nd or vice-versa.-
Well, one value Lowrie *does* have to Boston is that he's a heck of an
insurance policy. You can stash him at AAA, where he probably needs
more experience anyway, and he's just a short trip away if Lugo
continues to underperform or gets hurt, or if any of the other
infielders get hurt. At the very least, I'm sure they'd give Lowrie a
chance before going out and trading for a replacement.
Long-term, I don't know what his future is with Boston. Lowell's
going to be here for three more years, and so is Lugo (though I doubt
Epstein would be afraid to replace him, even if it involves eating a
lot of contract). Youkilis is also under Boston control for at least
three more years, and if he's ever traded, it would likely mean that
they're going after a bigtime 1B, or that Lars Anderson is ready to
take over. Pedroia, forget about. He's under Boston control for five
more years, and hoepfully a lot more than that. I don't really see
Lowrie waiting around 3 years for Lowell to go or ever replacing
Pedroia, so his future wtih Boston would be at SS--and that's of
course contingent on (a) Lugo doing really poorly, and (b) the team
being comfortable with Lowrie's SS defense.
It's true that they could move Pedroia to SS, where he was IMHO a
little above average, and play Lowrie at 2B, where I don't think he'd
be better than average. Personally, I'd prefer to leave Pedroia at 2B
and play Lowrie at SS, because I think Dustin is very good defensively
at 2B (and wonder if not playing SS for a year would be a problem).
I'd rather have a very good 2B and an average-at-best SS than an
average-at-best 2B and slightly above-average SS. Either way, it
would shape up to be a very good offensive keystone combo.
But overall, I think Lowrie might have more appeal to other teams, who
might have more holes long-term than merely at SS, and wouldn't have
to eat several million to create that hole. Either way, I look
forward to seeing what Lowrie does. He could become a very good big
league player, though I still have doubts about his defense.
-Bismo.
.
- References:
- Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Dave Bismo
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Srgnt Billko
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Dave Bismo
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Dano
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Gnork
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Dave Bismo
- Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- From: Gnork
- Good Interview About Our Prospects
- Prev by Date: Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- Next by Date: Re: Sox Memories (Burks)
- Previous by thread: Re: Good Interview About Our Prospects
- Next by thread: Hamlet Revival on Broadway!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
