What to expect this year from Coco Crisp...

[DoubleX]

Oh, and yeah, 10 AB's at Fenway Park is REAL significant.

It isn't, but if you go back to 2002, Crisp is just 5 for 43 at Fenway (.116 BA), with only one extra base hit (a double back in 2002).

Of course, I still wouldn't put much stock, if any in that since those numbers had just as much to do with Boston's pitchers and the fact that he was a young and developing player, than any quirks that Fenway might have for him. So yeah, I don't think this small sample is at all a harbinger of things to come.

[Mattingly]

I don't know if he was ever compared to Fisk, but I do remember him being a very highly touted prospect and largely regarded as the best in baseball a few years back.

Seemed like the Yanks' farmhands were highly touted also. Nick Johnson was one. He's come into his own with the Nats.

Give it time, just like how Dioneer Navarro was also a highly-touted Yankee catch prospect. See what Shoppach and the others do in the bigs.

[BoSox Rule]

I don't know if he was ever compared to Fisk, but I do remember him being a very highly touted prospect and largely regarded as the best in baseball a few years back.

Kelly Shoppach was never, ever, ever, ever, regarded as the best prospect in baseball, or anywhere close to it.

[Boston Boxer]

My biggest concern is what will he do in the outfield? I'd like to see if he can patrol such a large area.

Also stressed is that he'll be essentially the outfield captain, as he's in CF. He'd have to deal with Manny and Nixon out there, so I'm very eager to see what happens.

I presume he'll do good, but it remains to be seen.

I think more is made of the CF in Fenway than it really is...RF has way more ground to cover.

[DoubleX]

Kelly Shoppach was never, ever, ever, ever, regarded as the best prospect in baseball, or anywhere close to it.

I meant best catching prospect.

[Mattingly]

I think more is made of the CF in Fenway than it really is...RF has way more ground to cover.

In that case, I'll discuss that, which seems slightly off-topic.

Prior to Damon, who'd played CF there? How much CF experience did they have before coming to the Red Sox?

I meant best catching prospect.

Who was higher rated? Kelly Shoppach or Dioneer Navarro?

[DoubleX]

Who was higher rated? Kelly Shoppach or Dioneer Navarro?

Shoppach. At the time, Navarro was still very young and raw and in the low minors, whereas Shoppach was further along.

[Boston Boxer]

In that case, I'll discuss that, which seems slightly off-topic.

Prior to Damon, who'd played CF there? How much CF experience did they have before coming to the Red Sox?

Who was higher rated? Kelly Shoppach or Dioneer Navarro?

Here are the CF from my memory.
Brady Anderson - Rookie
Fred Lynn - Rookie and future great
Ellis Burkes - Rookie
D Lewis
Lee Tinsley - more of a corner outfielder
Billy Hatcher - Good center fielder

[SoxSon]

What I don't get is why the Red Sox traded for him in the first place. Wasn't Kelly Schoppach a couple of years ago supposed to be the second coming of Carlton Fisk? Isn't Ande Marte supposed to be another Mike Schmidt? Why would you give up such once in a lifetime prospects for a run of the mill CF'er? Am I crazy, or wouldn't those two guys (not to mention Mota) be enough to land the Sox a CF like Andruw Jones or Jim Edmonds? What am I missing?

In response to your post, EH, and a lot of other posts along the same lines, I thought I'd throw out an unspoken truth that I haven't seen posted anywhere on BBF (though I may have missed it).
Teams like Boston and New York can nearly always afford to trade away prospects, because those guys will come back. It's ugly, but true. If the guy turns out to be the next big thing, his payday will come from a team like Boston or New York. That's partly why we get what we can for him now, and check in on him later.
Not the prettiest way to manage a ballclub, but it's reality, nonetheless.

[BoSox Rule]

I meant best catching prospect.

He was never considered the best catching prospect either. The only thing he was projected as was a solid major league player who will walk, hit his share of HR's, be a very good defender at catcher. Here is a list of BA's best catching prospects back to 2002 and where they place in the top 100.

2005
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
32. Daric Barton, Athletics
44. Brian McCann, Braves
67. Jeff Mathis, Angels
79. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
81. Neil Walker, Pirates
89. Russell Martin, Dodgers

2004
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
22. Jeff Mathis, Angels
35. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
41. Dioner Navarro, Yankees
78. Kelly Shoppach, Red Sox

2003
4. Joe Mauer, Twins
16. Victor Martinez, Indians
48. Jeff Mathis, Angels
66. Justin Huber, Mets
67. John Buck, Astros
94. Jayson Werth, Blue Jays

2002
7. Joe Mauer, Twins
36. Josh Phelps, Blue Jays
41. J.R. House, Pirates
43. John Buck, Astros
70. Jayson Werth, Astros
97. Victor Martinez, Indians

And Baseball Prospectus (top 40 prospects list 2002-2004, top 50 in 2005)
2005
9. Daric Barton, Athletics
41. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
44. Brian McCann, Braves
48. Josh Willingham

2004
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
17. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
18. Jeff Mathis, Angels
30. Dioner Navarro, Yankees

2003
4. Victor Martinez, Indians
9. Joe Mauer, Twins

2002
25. Josh Phelps, Blue Jays

[DoubleX]

He was never considered the best catching prospect either. The only thing he was projected as was a solid major league player who will walk, hit his share of HR's, be a very good defender at catcher. Here is a list of BA's best catching prospects back to 2002 and where they place in the top 100.

2005
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
32. Daric Barton, Athletics
44. Brian McCann, Braves
67. Jeff Mathis, Angels
79. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
81. Neil Walker, Pirates
89. Russell Martin, Dodgers

2004
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
22. Jeff Mathis, Angels
35. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
41. Dioner Navarro, Yankees
78. Kelly Shoppach, Red Sox

2003
4. Joe Mauer, Twins
16. Victor Martinez, Indians
48. Jeff Mathis, Angels
66. Justin Huber, Mets
67. John Buck, Astros
94. Jayson Werth, Blue Jays

2002
7. Joe Mauer, Twins
36. Josh Phelps, Blue Jays
41. J.R. House, Pirates
43. John Buck, Astros
70. Jayson Werth, Astros
97. Victor Martinez, Indians

And Baseball Prospectus (top 40 prospects list 2002-2004, top 50 in 2005)
2005
9. Daric Barton, Athletics
41. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
44. Brian McCann, Braves
48. Josh Willingham

2004
1. Joe Mauer, Twins
17. Guillermo Quiroz, Blue Jays
18. Jeff Mathis, Angels
30. Dioner Navarro, Yankees

2003
4. Victor Martinez, Indians
9. Joe Mauer, Twins

2002
25. Josh Phelps, Blue Jays

I totally forgot about the existence of Mauer. I kept forgetting that is ML break was delayed. Anywho, guess I was wrong, I was always under the impression that Shoppach was a blue-chipper and more highly regarded as Navarro. Oh well. Thanks for the info.

[Evangelion]

Here are the CF from my memory.
Brady Anderson - Rookie
Fred Lynn - Rookie and future great
Ellis Burkes - Rookie
D Lewis
Lee Tinsley - more of a corner outfielder
Billy Hatcher - Good center fielder

We also had Damon Buford out in CF.

If the guy turns out to be the next big thing, his payday will come from a team like Boston or New York. That's partly why we get what we can for him now, and check in on him later.

That only applies to the Yankees. The Red Sox and a few other teams spend a lot of cash, but the Yankees are still about 80$ a year ahead of most teams in MLB, including the Red Sox. I believe the Rangers, Angels, Giants and other big name teams are also spending about 100 plus million dollars a year.

[SoxSon]

That only applies to the Yankees. The Red Sox and a few other teams spend a lot of cash, but the Yankees are still about 80$ a year ahead of most teams in MLB, including the Red Sox. I believe the Rangers, Angels, Giants and other big name teams are also spending about 100 plus million dollars a year.

The rest of baseball would disagree with your first line there, Evangelion. I do, too. I'm under no delusion about how Boston fits into the market.

The Rangers only spent about 56 million last season on payroll (they are not big spenders by any means); the Giants spent 90. The "Big 3" from last season are the Yankees, Boston and the Mets, with the Angels trailing just after. The Red Sox spent 123.5 million dollars last season on payroll. Yes, Boston was 85 million dollars lower than the Yanks (no small change), but we were also 22 million higher than the next team on the list. Boston and New York both stand out here, clearly.

[Evangelion]

Yankees' payroll is still 8 million more than the Red Sox. To consider them in the same league as the Yankees is ridiculous. The Yankees are still in a league of their own. The difference between the Yankees' payroll compared to the Red Sox's payroll is still large. Never said the Red Sox were not big spenders. Just said you can't put them in the league of Yankee spending when the difference between their payroll is 80 million a year.

Though, we're getting closer. I think the Red Sox are being subjected to 2006 Luxury Tax, which I believe only the New York have been subjected to up to this point.

I said think, because I wasn't sure. I didn't check out the exact numbers for the bigger spenders. At the end of 2005, our payroll was 116,640,070. Most likely it's higher. Can't locate an up to date payroll list of MLB. The Mets, Angels and Phillies were other big spending teams of last year that could have been group together with us. Nonetheless, only Mets come close to being close to our payroll and even then they were still about 9 million behide at the end of 2005.

Point being, Boston and both New York teams do stand out. Nonetheless, the Angels were not that far behide Mets' payroll last year. The Mets were further behide Boston, but then Boston was around 80 million behide Yankees. Big difference there. No, we're not 22 million dollars higher to my knowledge. We're should be at least 10 plus million above the Mets currently, but that's still nothing compared to being 8 times as much of that total behide the Yankees.

Boston is a big market spender, but New York is a league of their own by far.

[SoxSon]

Yankees' payroll is still 8 million more than the Red Sox. To consider them in the same league as the Yankees is ridiculous. The Yankees are still in a league of their own. The difference between the Yankees' payroll compared to the Red Sox's payroll is still large. Never said the Red Sox were not big spenders. Just said you can't put them in the league of Yankee spending when the difference between their payroll is 80 million a year.

Though, we're getting closer. I think the Red Sox are being subjected to 2006 Luxury Tax, which I believe only the New York have been subjected to up to this point.

I said think, because I wasn't sure. I didn't check out the exact numbers for the bigger spenders. At the end of 2005, our payroll was 116,640,070. Most likely it's higher. Can't locate an up to date payroll list of MLB. The Mets, Angels and Phillies were other big spending teams of last year that could have been group together with us. Nonetheless, only Mets come close to being close to our payroll and even then they were still about 9 million behide at the end of 2005.

Point being, Boston and both New York teams do stand out. Nonetheless, the Angels were not that far behide Mets' payroll last year. The Mets were further behide Boston, but then Boston was around 80 million behide Yankees. Big difference there. No, we're not 22 million dollars higher to my knowledge. We're should be at least 10 plus million above the Mets currently, but that's still nothing compared to being 8 times as much of that total behide the Yankees.

Boston is a big market spender, but New York is a league of their own by far.

Hmm...I'm not sure why our numbers don't match up. Some of the figures you're quoting seem off to me.
Listen, I'm not trying to correct you. I have zero interest in that. But there are too many players and too few positions for one team to take in every worthy player out there (going back to the original point about prospects). NY is spending much more than anyone else, but they have a limited roster, so 8 million or 80 million, we're clearly second on that food chain. I'm not sure where the disagreement is here.

[Utter Chaos]

Prior to Damon, who'd played CF there?

Red Sox CF since 1996 with at least 20 games played in CF:

Name		Year	G
Johnny Damon	2005	147
Johnny Damon	2004	148
Johnny Damon	2003	144
Johnny Damon	2002	151
Carl Everett	2001	84
Trot Nixon	2001	70
Darren Lewis	2001	21
Carl Everett	2000	126
Darren Lewis	2000	41
Darren Lewis	1999	88
Damon Buford	1999	82
Darren Lewis	1998	109
Damon Buford	1998	67
Darren Bragg	1997	118
Shane Mack	1997	43
Jesus Tavarez	1997	29
Lee Tinsley	1996	79
Darren Bragg	1996	47
Milt Cuyler	1996	30
Alex Cole	1996	24
Dwayne Hosey	1996	20

[Boston Boxer]

that is great Chaos, thanks

As you can see, we have had only one really good CF since 96...the others were servicable at best. So, i am not worried about Coco playing CF

[Simayl]

I think he will make a good impression with the fans and have a solid season. I think he is a good trade.

[monty]

Coco should do well in Boston. Hes got a taylor made swing, like Damons, for Fenway. I think you'll see alot of triples. doubles, less singles and less homerums. However, more RBIs and a higher OPS.

[Mattingly]

Red Sox CF since 1996 with at least 20 games played in CF:

Name		Year	G
Johnny Damon	2005	147
Johnny Damon	2004	148
Johnny Damon	2003	144
Johnny Damon	2002	151
Carl Everett	2001	84
Trot Nixon	2001	70
Darren Lewis	2001	21
Carl Everett	2000	126
Darren Lewis	2000	41
Darren Lewis	1999	88
Damon Buford	1999	82
Darren Lewis	1998	109
Damon Buford	1998	67
Darren Bragg	1997	118
Shane Mack	1997	43
Jesus Tavarez	1997	29
Lee Tinsley	1996	79
Darren Bragg	1996	47
Milt Cuyler	1996	30
Alex Cole	1996	24
Dwayne Hosey	1996	20

Thanks. I was just too lazy to look that one up.