Jed Lowrie went 4/8 in Pawtucket's doubleheader yesterday. That brought him up to 316/341/553 with a lousy 2/9 BB/K ratio.

Masterson appears to have leapfrogged him on the depth chart, however. Masterson struggled at first in Lancaster but his transition to double-A seems to be seamless.

Masterson's taken a big step forward. I think you're right about the depth chart, but I suspect Bowden's still a better prospect. I also think the talk of Masterson being destined for the pen is probably over for now.

Two other notes: Moss has made it a point to strike out at least once every single game recently and Lars's power has completely disappeared.

Oscar Tejeda and Josh Reddick, what so we know about them? I mean, so far so good, but anybody got some specifics?

Weekly Minor League Thread on Reddick

He seems like a monster to me. I know Tejeda's been discussed here as well.

--According to Edes, Mr. Strikeout, Brandon Moss, has been promoted to Boston.

--Portland wins 18-7, mostly on the strength of non-prospects' hitting. Natale hits a HR, though, and is now up to 273/410/385. The amazing part is his BB/K of 58/24! Since July 1 he's at about 315/440/440. I think he's getting the hang of AA. If only he could play defense, we might have something.

--Kottaras is hitting 354/440/615 since the All-Star break in 65 AB.

--Zack Daeges is about to break the Lancaster record for 2Bs. He's got 43, the record is 44. He hasn't hit well outside of Lancaster this year.

--Lancaster has broken the team record in HRs (now at 175).

--Aaron Bates is 23 and killing the ball at home and on the road in Lancaster. Wonder when he'll be promoted.

"According to Edes, Mr. Strikeout, Brandon Moss, has been promoted to Boston."

I wonder what comes next.

A lot of strikeouts?

According to a SoSH poster, "Brady Clark has walked away from the PawSox, and the Red Sox have signed Junior Spivey out of an independent league and he played CF for the PawSox yesterday."

How's Lin doing in rookie ball?

milb.com

The Sox also signed Junior Spivey to a minor league deal. He's 32, but he goes by "Junior" so he must be young enough to be a prospect. (Talent is another story.)

What's the point of Spivey? Ellsbury can do everything Spivey can and is younger and better to boot.

Edes updated: Moss takes the place of Hinske, who'll be gone for 3 days for personal reasons. I hope everything is OK there.

Seems sudden to me, but Edes suggests that since Moss has been taking grounders at first the last couple of weeks the Hinske situation might not be as much of a surprise to the team.

What's the point of Spivey? Ellsbury can do everything Spivey can and is younger and better to boot.

Depth. I'm sure Ellsbury isn't threatened, though this does give him time to rest his strained groin.

Other than for lack of talent, the reason I'm not a MLB player is that I don't like the idea of millions of people being familiar with the status of my groin.

Good day in Pawtucket. Ellsbury 3-3 with a walk and Lowrie 2-4 with 2 HR. If Lowrie crushes AAA next year WTF do we do with him? He seems like the kind of guy that you're never going to get fair value from in a trade.

It's a good question. I suggest keeping him in Pawtucket for the majority of next year, then bringing him up in 2009 as the utility man. If Lugo still sucks, he can absorb some of his playing time too. If Lugo is good, maybe they can trade him.

This is just another reason the Lugo signing was a disaster and another example of why signing free agents is the ultimate sign of incompetence or laziness from a team. I rather have gone stop-gap for 1 year and then looked at our options after this off-season. Instead, we signed barely average SS, blocked a better player, and lost out on Rick Porcello.

This is just another reason the Lugo signing was a disaster and another example of why signing free agents is the ultimate sign of incompetence or laziness from a team.

I know you're making an overstatement for effect, but I'm not really sure what effect you're going for. Signing Manny Ramirez, or signing Johnny Damon, or signing Daisuke Matsuzaka, is not a sign of incompetence or laziness.

Signing free agents who aren't very good is a sign of incompetence, but that's tautological. Johnny Damon is a pretty good comparison here - that was a great signing because Damon maintained a solid level of production for four years. Julio Lugo looks like a weak signing because he's not maintaining hte average level of production he had previously. If Julio Lugo had a 340/420 line with above average defense, no one would be talking about incompetence.

I don't see much evidence that signing free agents to multi-year deals is a categorically bad idea. It just comes down to judgement, and in this case the Red Sox' judgement doesn't look so hot. (Though Jed Lowrie doesn't seem to me to be the main reason, we're still all waiting to see how he'll handle SS as he moves up the ladder.)

Signing Manny Ramirez, or signing Johnny Damon, or signing Daisuke Matsuzaka, is not a sign of incompetence or laziness.

Sure it is. It's a sign of taking the easy way out to mask poor preparation or few contingencies. A competent team should understand when it's players will be free agents and prepare for this before they actually become free agents. In this situation, they should have re-signed Alex Gonzalez to a 1 year extension during the 2006 season. Strapping yourself to a long-term contract should always be the last resort. And even when it's that, it's still pathetic.

If Julio Lugo had a 340/420 line with above average defense, no one would be talking about incompetence.

I would. Because no matter what, Lugo cost them the 20th pick of the draft, and that means Rick Porcello (who will be a top 10 prospect in baseball as soon as he signs, if h does). At no point in his career has Lugo had more value than that.

(Though Jed Lowrie doesn't seem to me to be the main reason, we're still all waiting to see how he'll handle SS as he moves up the ladder.)

Playing SS does not get harder at higher levels. We already know, through accounts both in print and online, that Lowrie is a more than adequate fielder.

What's the point of Spivey? Ellsbury can do everything Spivey can and is younger and better to boot.

actually, that's not true at all. spivey was a 2b. he may not play a good infield now, but i believe that ellsbury is left handed and wouldn't even be able to fake it in the infield.

Temple,

I think you're attributing to laziness what is actually just the reality of the situation. Teams almost never develop all of their own players. It would be great to develop an above average player at every position, but I can't think of any team that ever has. The Red Sox have a lot of resources, so signing free agents is a good way to fill holes that they can't fill internally. I think you're really overgeneralizing here.

Playing SS does not get harder at higher levels. We already know, through accounts both in print and online, that Lowrie is a more than adequate fielder.

I'm glad to get your take on this, as we were discussing it in another thread. I know of the one scout that said he was a good SS to BA, but who else is saying he's more than adequate?

I think that if you want to use him as a utility guy to start with anyway, you could do it in 08. Then in 09 reassess whether he or Lugo is the better choice.

Lowrie's numbers at AAA are now 326/347/652. 2/9 BB/K, though.

Another nice game for Masterson in AA: 6 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 10 K, 7/1 GO/AO. He's now at 39 IP, 19 H, 1 HR, 9 BB, 45 K, 1.38 ERA, and 4.77 GO/AO. This is beginning to rival what Buchholz did there.

If Lowrie crushes AAA next year WTF do we do with him? He seems like the kind of guy that you're never going to get fair value from in a trade.

I bet he can play third. His minor league numbers make him look like another Pedroia with a little more power but a little less OBP. That's a good player.

How does he get the K's, with heat or with the breaking stuff?

If he's got power then he'd fit nicely in Lowell's spot.

I rather have gone stop-gap for 1 year and then looked at our options after this off-season.

That's what they supposedly did last year, and in 2004 too.

The Red Sox have a lot of resources, so signing free agents is a good way to fill holes that they can't fill internally.

So I'm the only one who feels dirty every time we sign a FA? Its like the equivalent of getting a hooker when you need to get laid.

I know of the one scout that said he was a good SS to BA, but who else is saying he's more than adequate?

I've seen him play 7 or 8 games since he's been with the organization and I've never seen anything to show that he needs to be moved.

Over the last two days posters from SP.com have chimed in on their impressions from Pawtucket, and they agree with that assessment. I'm wondering where the negative reviews are being generated from.

I'd love to play him at 3B, but I doubt you'll see it.

BTW, that Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury, Lowrie draft is looking very nice. Imagine if we signed Alvarez.

According to MCOA, the negative view of his defense comes from the BA handbook, which says he doesn't have the range for SS. (I know how you feel about BA.)

I've argued previously that the Sox using Lowrie at SS is a pretty good indication that he's decent there. But that argument can be taken even further, because they actually moved him there after he played 2B in college. You'd think that if he didn't look to have the skills for the position, they'd have pretty quickly moved him back.

BTW, that Buchholz, Bowden, Ellsbury, Lowrie draft is looking very nice. Imagine if we signed Alvarez.

What about Hansen--1.62 ERA his last 10 appearances! He's way better than Joba.

And don't forget Bell and Natale. Those guys are the franchise.

Lowrie struggled defensively in Wilmington. He also had a hard time staying on his game mentally after making an error. Terrible body language which I'm sure helped to characterize him for the scouts and he seemed to be in a funk the rest of the game.

Considering how well he's played this year maybe he really was physically fighting that ankle injury most of the year and he just never felt right and that ate at him mentally.

Based on his play in Wilmington it's not hard to see why people would think he had to move off of SS although I've never really understood what the baseline competence is in that situation. Do scouts simply think that any SS who projects below average ought to move? If he projects as a -5 SS, then you can see how a scout might say he ought to move and a fan might say he's adequate defensively and with his offense will be a very valuable overall package.

What do you think of as inadequate defense from a SS? -10? -15? Hard to see him as that bad so it's doubtful that he has to move, but I'm sure there are traditionalists who think god invented 2B or 3B for shortstops who project as even minimally below average defenders.

I think that -10 to -15 range is probably inadequate*, even if he's a good enough hitter to make up for it a bit. That's bad enough where you have to think you can get a better offense/defense tradeoff at another position. Plus a terrible defender up the middle has to be tough on the pitchers.

I also wouldn't mind moving him if he was -5 at SS but say, +5 as 2B.

Scouts basically judge a fielder on his absolute ability. All the major league shortstops more or less passed the scouting test of their absolute ability.

Saying a SS is -15 is judgement on his ability relative to all the major league short stops who passed that test.

If scouts were perfect, then you would think that a starting A-Ball SS about whom there is scouting consensus that he can't stick at SS in the majors would have a UZR of -30 or worse if given the chance.

So basically I don't think a scout that says Lowrie can't stick at SS in his mind thinks he's anyway near -5

Unfortunately scouts can't be perfect, beyond that they have biases that make them worse than they can be and beyond that we don't really have a strong grasp of what scouts think about players. So I guess as Primates all we can really do is regress regress regress.

My guess is Lowrie -9/150

I'd add that even if you don't accept the hardline MGL position that defense at skill positions peaks around age 19-20, it seems fair to argue that a player who might be near adequate at age 24 could easily end up below the line at 27.

Hearing all the Lowrie SS optimism, though - everyone should check out those notes at SoxProspects, though I do keep a bit of skeptical eye on fanboyish evaluators - that makes me feel good. If the Red Sox have a tough decision to make about their shortstop, that's great news. Tough decisions about playing time are good things.

And I'm enjoying Lowrie's sudden transformation into Brandon Wood over his first few ABs in AAA.

http://variablesdont.blogspot.com/2007/08/thoughts-on-justin-masterson.html

Steagles, thanks for that. Very interesting comments. I would like to know, however, who told you he threw 98 mph?

Through 4 IP tonight, Buchholz has allowed 1 H and has 7 K. He's facing off against top Minnesota pitching prospect, Kevin Slowey.

A nice strong outing would be good--he hasn't been quite as super-dominant in AAA so far.

Lowrie's 1-2 with a 2b. Ellsbury 0-2. Let's give up on him.

He's facing off against top Minnesota pitching prospect, Kevin Slowey.

AKA Jose Lima, Jr. (13HRs[!!] in 37 MLB IP this year)

This is just another reason the Lugo signing was a disaster and another example of why signing free agents is the ultimate sign of incompetence or laziness from a team.

Yeah, because it makes perfect sense to not sign a SS projected to hit .280/345/403 because your B- HiA SS might break out. Or because a great pitching prospect MIGHT slight to 20th in the draft? Yeah your right. Never sign a free agent. You might do great work on the minors, but your view of the big picture is pretty damnm limited.

No, I'm the only one who accounts for the big picture and realizes that free agents are more often than not snake oil, used as quick fixes. But in the long run they, or the big picture, they burn you.

In 2005 and 2006 the Sox got two top 15 prospects with their draft picks in the 20's. They don't need to know they are going to get the top pitcher available to be able to know that they are going to have a good shot at a player who drops because of financial demands. You don't give up draft picks for non-premium free agents. You just don't do it.

In 2005 and 2006 the Sox got two top 15 prospects with their draft picks in the 20's

I don't have the energy to debate the actual points being discussed, but cherry picking evidence like this does your argument no favors. What matters is the average expected value of a draft pick to the Red Sox. Looking at two data points does virtually nothing to reveal what that value is.

Maybe this is unfair, but you seem to make these kinds of posts a lot. It makes debates more contentious and ego-driven, which are two adjectives worth avoiding in life.

temple, are you talking about daniel bard and craig hansen? i know we might have gotten rick porcello this time around, but methinks there's a reason bard and hansen dropped and it wasn't 100% the money.

No, I'm the only one who accounts for the big picture and realizes that free agents are more often than not snake oil, used as quick fixes.

Well, duh. And minor leaguers are more often than not worthless.

The key is limiting yourself to FAs who aren't snake oil, and who provide the quick fix you need at a non-onerous cost (including the cost of draft picks lost). And that is possible, just as it is possible to use your draft picks wisely to land the better players available, and your player development system to maximize the return.

I really don't see that as cherry-picking. A pattern has developed in the draft recently where top tier talent has dropped to the late first round and the supplemental round because of their financial demands. The Sox have benefited from this two years in a row, and had to know that there was a strong likelihood of it happening again.

Through 4 IP tonight, Buchholz has allowed 1 H and has 7 K. He's facing off against top Minnesota pitching prospect, Kevin Slowey.

I realllly hope Buchholz does well in his 3 September starts so it's easier for the Sox to have him leapfrog Wake and Lester next March. Does anyone really doubt that he's the best starter the Sox have right now outside of Daisuke, Beckett and a healthy Schilling?

The Sox have benefited from this two years in a row,

no they haven't.

temple, are you talking about daniel bard and craig hansen? i know we might have gotten rick porcello this time around, but methinks there's a reason bard and hansen dropped and it wasn't 100% the money.

In hindsight it looks that ways, but both players were pretty highly thought of prior to the draft; especially Hansen. He even told Florida not to draft him because they weren't prepared to give him the money Boston was.

With Bard, I think there were more dubious teams, but the word was that Seattle would have taken him 5th overall if Morrow didn't get to them and after that teams were scared of the demands he was floating. There was ridiculous talks about him wanting Hansen money during the beginning part of the negotiations.

Does anyone really doubt that he's the best starter the Sox have right now outside of Daisuke, Beckett and a healthy Schilling?

maybe masterson. his numbers are insane.

Temple, I misinterpreted your quote. I thought you were talking about top 15 minor league prospects which I guess would refer to Buchholz and Ellsbury or something. Sorry.

In hindsight it looks that ways, but both players were pretty highly thought of prior to the draft; especially Hansen. He even told Florida not to draft him because they weren't prepared to give him the money Boston was.

i know they were highly touted, but it looks from my pov that major league teams thought differently. i mean, major league teams should have better scouting reports than baseball america and espn, so it makes sense.

Sort of sounds like you're arguing yourself into a corner here Temple. You're arguing the Sox shouldn't be signing Lugos because the pick they gave up could have gotten them some great prospects. But the prospects you cite as examples were only great until they got drafted, and have stunk it up since. Seems like you'd want to draft the guys who do well AFTER they're drafted.

I realllly hope Buchholz does well in his 3 September starts so it's easier for the Sox to have him leapfrog Wake and Lester next March.

The Red Sox are going to start Buchholz while they're in a dogfight for the AL East with NY?

Sort of sounds like you're arguing yourself into a corner here Temple. You're arguing the Sox shouldn't be signing Lugos because the pick they gave up could have gotten them some great prospects. But the prospects you cite as examples were only great until they got drafted, and have stunk it up since. Seems like you'd want to draft the guys who do well AFTER they're drafted.

it did cost the red sox porcello. i'm just shocked that temple is citing the red sox drafting bard as a good thing!

Buchholz gave up a couple hits, but finished strong, K'ing 2 in the 7th. 7 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 0 BB, 9 K. In AAA:

25.1 IP, 20 H, 3 HR, 6 BB, 39 K, 3.20 ERA.

The only number not to like there is the HR total. Maybe the hits are a tad high as well. You have to like the 6.5/1 K/BB and the 13.9 K/9.

Sort of sounds like you're arguing yourself into a corner here Temple. You're arguing the Sox shouldn't be signing Lugos because the pick they gave up could have gotten them some great prospects. But the prospects you cite as examples were only great until they got drafted, and have stunk it up since. Seems like you'd want to draft the guys who do well AFTER they're drafted.

That's not true. I agree with the decision to go after guys who slip because of money demands. That those two have stunk it up in particular doesn't mean that the wrong decisions were made per se.

The Red Sox are going to start Buchholz while they're in a dogfight for the AL East with NY?

What dogfight?

It’s a very convenient argument to make this year when the two free agents the Sox signed are there two worst regulars. Not remotely convincing, but convenient.

I've always said the advantage of a big market team is to sign the best free agents. Lugo doesn't really fit that mold, and I could have lived without him. But considering the team had no reasonable prospects in the system and he was the best player available at the position it made sense.

I do think it is a penny wise and a pound foolish to be swearing off free agents a year after the Sox signed the best position player and best pitcher on the market (according to AROM).

That's not true. I agree with the decision to go after guys who slip because of money demands. That those two have stunk it up in particular doesn't mean that the wrong decisions were made per se.

Huh? You got bad players instead of good players, and it's still a good decision? I sort of know what you're saying--good decision-making doesn't always lead to good results--but in these cases, how are you so sure that their decision-making is good?

I would like to know, however, who told you [masterson] threw 98 mph?

it's just something i picked up. his fastball is by far his best pitch, and for as long as i've known about him, the only weak thing that has been said about him has been that he might be destined for the bullpen. i guess that that combination of factors led me to believe that he could dial it up to the high 90s.

from a quick look at the video on my website, carlos gomez (chadbradfordwannabe) threw out aaron heilman as a comp. i don't know whether that'll stick, but i like it. masterson has one main advantage over heilman that i can see, and i think it is a pretty major one: he got started quicker (heilman was drafted as a 4th year senior) and is advancing faster. heilman didn't get a cup of coffee until he was 24, and when he returned to AAA at age 25, his performance dropped. since then, he's been in the bullpen almost exclusively.

i don't think that's masterson's future because A) his groundball tendencies are more pronounced, and B) he is in an organization that has a clue.

Huh? You got bad players instead of good players, and it's still a good decision? I sort of know what you're saying--good decision-making doesn't always lead to good results--but in these cases, how are you so sure that their decision-making is good?

Wait...aren't people telling me the same thing, but w/r/t Drew and Lugo? We got bad players instead of the good players we paid for. Why doesn't this logic apply there?

We got bad players instead of the good players we paid for. Why doesn't this logic apply there?

Odds.
1) The amount of projection needed is HUGELY different for a college player or highschool player than a veteran major leaguer.

2) Also when you bipass signing someone due to who may or may not be available in the draft maybe the guy slips to you and maybe he doesn't.

This isn't a simulation where you can run 1mm iterations and just take the outcome that has the most positive value. You also have to manage your risks. Careful selected free agents are:
1) a way to manage your risks
2) a way to fill in gaps in your pipeline
3) a way to aquire high end talent at in its prime with no waiting period and limited risk within a short horizon.

No one is saying you should always sign free agents. You're the only one who has anb extreme position here, on that is well out of line with business practice or any kind of reasonable analysis.

Sox sign Kielty to minor-league deal. Michael Tucker was released to make room for him. That's exactly what should have happened.

EDIT: Except that signing free agents is wrong. Bad Theo, BAD Theo.

This looks pointless. There's no evidence he's better than Pena and he's 6 years older. In retrospect, the Drew signing looks like a major boo-boo, up there with losing Renteria.

There's no evidence he's better than Pena and he's 6 years older.

He can catch the ball. The Sox need to be carrying a 4th OF who can play center, otherwise Coco Crisp never rests. They also should be able to sub in their fourth outfielder for Manny on defense to rest him down the stretch. Regardless of who's better in the abstract, Kielty makes a lot more sense on the roster.

The Sox need to be carrying a 4th OF who can play center,

drew can play center.

This looks pointless. There's no evidence he's better than Pena and he's 6 years older.

Again, it's a minor-league deal. Given Michael Tucker was on the roster, it's virtually a no-risk decision to drop him for Kielty. IIRC there's no impact on the 40-man roster, he's not taking a spot that was being filled by a true prospect, and there's very little money involved.

In retrospect, the Drew signing looks like a major boo-boo, up there with losing Renteria.

Well, in retrospect a few months afterward, losing Pedro Martinez looked like a major boo-boo, as did letting Damon go. Both have been some combo of injured and/or ineffective shortly thereafter. I think Renteria also showed us how wrong we can be to judge a free-agent a few months afterward.

drew can play center.

Kielty hits a lot better righthanded than Drew does, though.

Isn't it likely that Kielty stays in Pawtucket and then gets called up when the rosters expand in September? It's not June anymore, roster expansion is only a hair over three weeks away. It's not like Kielty's kicking Wily mo off the team, though he might be kicking him off the postseason roster.

EDIT: Which I guess would mean calling him up by September 1, unless they can Francisco Rodriguez him. So nevermind.

Bradford reports that Wily Mo cleared waivers. I'll guess that Kielty gets a week to train a bit in AAA, then Wily Mo gets traded for a C prospect and Kielty takes his spot. Really didn't expect Wily Mo to clear, but I'll take it.

Bradford reports that Wily Mo cleared waivers.

I don't get it. Why wouldn't a team like Baltimore pick him up and just stick him in LF everyday and see how he does? Even if Boston wants someone back, it's not going to be much and Pena doesn't make much anyway.

Play him everyday in a park favorable to HR hitters and I think he'd surprise a lot of people.

How the hell did the White Sox not put in a claim on Pena? Seriously?