Register now to remove this ad

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 325

Thread: Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by kenmeister View Post
    I love comparisons like this. So what idiot left Boggs in the minors for so long?
    My guess is they were looking for a little more power out of a corner infielder; Boggs only hit 9 homers in 6 minor league seasons and until his last year in AAA, there weren't a lot of doubles either (71 total through his first 5 minor league seasons). His last year at AAA, he hit 41.

    Boggs was a late bloomer. He was a 7th round pick, so it's not like he had star written all over him out of high school. Some guys take longer to figure it out; maybe he just had to mature physically.

    He was an anomaly in that he hit better in the majors than he did in the minors (although he did hit pretty well for average there as well), When he first came up (1982), he played as much 1B as he did 3B; the Sox had Carney Lansford at 3rd and all he had done was win the batting title his first year with Boston in 1981 (and he still hit .301 in 1982).
    Last edited by illinoisredsox; 11-12-2019 at 03:36 PM.
    The Yankees could go 0-162 and it wouldn't be enough

  2. #32
    Deity Slasher9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,248
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    It was the only aspect of his career you mentioned. So why do you suspect PEDs so strongly?
    body type, era he played in, teammates, company he kept.
    we love to look at bonds rookie picture and then his picture later in his career after he "bulked up". why not take a look at rickey?
    also, rickey says "rickey does what rickey wants".
    other names i have posted under: none

  3. #33
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by kenmeister View Post
    I love comparisons like this. So what idiot left Boggs in the minors for so long?
    The company line, "He was blocked" by Carney Lansford- same way Bagwell was blocked. (Novel idea: move Bags to 1B.)

    In the team's defense, Boggs was one of those rare birds who did much better in MLB than he did in the minors:
    He spent 6 years in the minors (counting 57 games in 1976 NYPL). Can you imagine Boggs on the 1978 team?

    He was under .800 in A-/A ball (174 games).
    He was .784 in AA (222 gms)
    He was .834 in AAA (266 games)
    .798 in all the minors combined (662 gms & 2680 PAs)

    He ended his ML career with a .858 OPS.

    He had a .906 OPS from 1982 to 1991 (10 years).

    He was still a respectable .778 from 1992-1997 (ages 34-41)!
    Sox 4 Ever

  4. #34
    Carney Lansford, right. I remember now.

    Interesting stats there about he did better in the majors than the minors.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    The company line, "He was blocked" by Carney Lansford- same way Bagwell was blocked. (Novel idea: move Bags to 1B.)

    In the team's defense, Boggs was one of those rare birds who did much better in MLB than he did in the minors:
    He spent 6 years in the minors (counting 57 games in 1976 NYPL). Can you imagine Boggs on the 1978 team?

    He was under .800 in A-/A ball (174 games).
    He was .784 in AA (222 gms)
    He was .834 in AAA (266 games)
    .798 in all the minors combined (662 gms & 2680 PAs)

    He ended his ML career with a .858 OPS.

    He had a .906 OPS from 1982 to 1991 (10 years).

    He was still a respectable .778 from 1992-1997 (ages 34-41)!
    Boggs would not have done much to help the 1978 team. He was 20, spent the year at AA and although he hit .311. his slugging was only .370. He apparently wasn't that good in the field at that point either; he had 61 appearances in the field spread out among 3B, SS, 2B and the OF and must have DH'd/PH the other 48 games he played in.

    He really didn't start showing flashes of the hitter he became in the majors until 1981.
    The Yankees could go 0-162 and it wouldn't be enough

  6. #36
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Slasher9 View Post
    body type, era he played in, teammates, company he kept.
    we love to look at bonds rookie picture and then his picture later in his career after he "bulked up". why not take a look at rickey?
    also, rickey says "rickey does what rickey wants".
    None of that really says anything.

    Even when those pictures of McGwire from his rookie year of 1989 and then his 1999 picture were juxtaposed with each other really wasnt proof. A lot can happen in a full 10 years.

    There are reasons to be suspicious, maybe. But that's the best there is, and the random circumstantial accusations of steroid abuse get legs quickly and have had very negative effects on the legacies of some innocent players...

  7. #37
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by illinoisredsox View Post
    Boggs would not have done much to help the 1978 team. He was 20, spent the year at AA and although he hit .311. his slugging was only .370. He apparently wasn't that good in the field at that point either; he had 61 appearances in the field spread out among 3B, SS, 2B and the OF and must have DH'd/PH the other 48 games he played in.

    He really didn't start showing flashes of the hitter he became in the majors until 1981.
    Yes, I was kind of thinking of the mid 80's Boggs playing in '78- kind of unrealistic, I know.

    It's like saying, "Imagine if we had the 1967 Yaz in 1975 or 2019.
    Sox 4 Ever

  8. #38
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    My point was more directed at fans who would give $240M/6 but let him walk over $320M/10. If none are out there, I apologize for creating a strawman.
    I have said that I'd prefer a contract with a higher AAV for fewer years, but I'm not willing to pay him $40 mil a year.

    That said, if I were willing to give him $240M/6, I think it's still a fairly large jump from that to $300M/10 as far as the overall money goes and especially the number of years. In other words, I can understand someone who would give the $240M/6 but not the $320M/10.

  9. #39
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by 5GoldGloves:OF,75 View Post
    An MLB.com writer proposed some rather underwhelming trade proposals of Betts to the Mets: Nimmo and Matz? Diaz and Smith? What, you want someone with star potential... how about McNeil -- but we'd need Betts and Eovaldi.

    Pass, pass, pass. He finally came up with a one-for-one: Betts for Thor.

    That's getting warmer, but still not worth it to me for one of the game's top five players (plus, isn't there some kind of new GM rule advising against ever trading an All-Star position player for a pitcher straight up?). Syndergaard is good, but is coming off a season where he led the NL in earned runs allowed. As I've said from the beginning of the offseason, I wouldn't consider moving Mookie unless I was overpaid... McNeil and Thor?

    Bloom and the Sox are smart enough to listen to all offers, but also to wait them all out unless an overwhelming, publically-perceived win looks guaranteed.
    The early word out of the GM meetings is that teams are not willing to give up much in terms of prospects for Mookie when they also have to pay his huge salary.

    I'm thinking more and more that the Sox are going to keep Mookie this year, and if necessary, wait until next year to reset.

  10. #40
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    I have said that I'd prefer a contract with a higher AAV for fewer years, but I'm not willing to pay him $40 mil a year.

    That said, if I were willing to give him $240M/6, I think it's still a fairly large jump from that to $300M/10 as far as the overall money goes and especially the number of years. In other words, I can understand someone who would give the $240M/6 but not the $320M/10.
    The $300M/10 counts as just $30M against the tax. The $240M counts as $42M. That 412M could be used to sign a nice FA. Of course, the last 4 years would be $30M vs $0.

    IMO, contract costs will keep rising, the next player contract with MLB will help the players make more, so I think the $60M/4 difference could be okay, even if Betts hits .780 the last 4 years combined.
    Sox 4 Ever

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Well, Rickey did steal 535 bases after age 30. That total alone would be ranked 31st on the All Time list.

    But more important, after age 30, Henderson still had a career OBP of .403 and an OPS of .811...
    Yeah and how much did he have prior to age 30? He declined. Betts is hardly a 30 base steal guy so imagine how poorly that will look after 30

  12. #42
    And also, a 811 OPS sucks if you're paying the guy a record contract

  13. #43
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by redsoxrules View Post
    And also, a 811 OPS sucks if you're paying the guy a record contract
    The .403 OBP part of that .811 makes it better, but it's not all that great, yes.
    Sox 4 Ever

  14. #44
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,320
    Quote Originally Posted by redsoxrules View Post
    Yeah and how much did he have prior to age 30? He declined. Betts is hardly a 30 base steal guy so imagine how poorly that will look after 30
    Yes Rickey did decline as he got older But it was expected since he was one of the greatest offensive players in MLB history.

    Everyone declines as they age. Betts will too. But that doesn’t mean he is going to be a non-contributing player. Just like Rickey wasn’t...

  15. #45
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Yes Rickey did decline as he got older But it was expected since he was one of the greatest offensive players in MLB history.

    Everyone declines as they age. Betts will too. But that doesn’t mean he is going to be a non-contributing player. Just like Rickey wasn’t...
    The other part of the equation is about him producing more than he's earning for the first 5-6 years of the suggested 10 year deal. In theory, if he over-produces by $40M and then under-produces by $30M the last 4-5 years, he'd still have been an overall plus.

    BTW, Rickey had an .870 OPS from age 26-35 and an .861 from age 27 to 36.

    Betts has better power, and power ages better, but even if he declines like Rickey did, he'd be worth a 10 year deal.
    Last edited by moonslav59; 11-13-2019 at 08:51 AM.
    Sox 4 Ever

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •