Introducing the New 2B of the Reds: Aaron Boone

[creek14]

I don't know why some of you are complaining so much. You love Carl for his fiscal responsibility and then complain when we end up with a piecemeal infield. And starters.

[creek14]

Originally posted by Wheelhouse
I agree with the move, at least offensively: Aaron would be a top-of-the-line 2Bman with the bat, and Larson would bring up the Reds' power numbers at the corners to an acceptable level. I also think that Aaron's shortcoming at third base is his arm, which would be solved at second. The question in the move is how good is Larson defensively. Keep Lark at short and spell him often with Lopez. Seems good to me.

All discusion on this topic should have stopped after this post.

If Wheelhouse gives the stamp of approval to anything dealing with a Boone, it must be a good thing.

[MikeS21]

It seems to me that this is only a PR move designed to cover up the real issue that a no legitimate plan was in place to replace Todd Walker. This is a blantant attempt to put a positive spin on a major foul-up.

Boone may be OK at 2B, but I have serious questions about Brandon Larson's abilities as an everyday player. He may have had eye surgery, and while he was obviously better than his 2001 ML stint, he still didn't exactly set the world on fire at the ML level after he came up last year. 51 AB's isn'y much of a sample size.

I suppose for all the folks who question the Reds' public relations department, you gotta admit they gave it the ole' college try. But I don't see a serious fan buying this.

[MikeS21]

Blech!!!!!!

Can you believe this:

"Aaron's very athletic. We believe he can quickly develop into an All-Star-caliber second baseman," Bowden said.

"I'm leery of taking a guy who's arguably Gold Glove-caliber at third and moving him," Bob Boone said.



Evidently they are watching a different Aaron Boone than we are. But, I suppose if it gets Branyan and Larson some AB's this ain't all bad.

[MikeS21]

Here it is, folks.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASAp..._cin&fext=.jsp

Larson will be at 3B.

And this blurb: "Right now, Barry Larkin's our shortstop and Felipe Lopez is our future shortstop, until the day comes that Felipe Lopez becomes the shortstop," Bowden said. "To put a timetable on that would be foolish."

[MikeS21]

I think you're right about Branyan, M2. I look for Larson to be traded.

This also reveals a little of the brass's think concerning Lopez. They are willing to be patient with him and give Larkin a chance to mentor him along.

[919191]

Originally posted by SpringfieldFan
Has become the most objecive poster on Redszone, and most interesting read.

Best thing to happen to this site in a long time!

[RFS62]

If you look past all the hyperbole from Bowden and Papa Boone, it makes a lot of sense to at least consider this idea and see how it plays out.

Would anybody really rather see Brandon Larson at second instead of Aaron? Would it be better to give a lot of playing time to Larkin at second when we don't know how many games he'll be able to play this year?

Aaron is a hard worker and, Bowden's gushing aside, he is very athletic. And it leaves us with two third basemen to platoon or one for trade bait in Larson and Branyon.

And, as was pointed out earlier, this gives Lopez time to develop into the shortstop of the future under Larkin's tutelidge.

Let's just see how it all plays out in spring training.

[RFS62]

Old Red Guard,

That was fantastic, as usual.





There's a very funny article in the archives of The Onion that follows that theme.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3849/in_my_day.html

[remdog]

If AB's in the number one slot he'd be the most power there since Larkin hit 30 HR's in....(skratches head here).....whenever.

Of course, that would probably put Barry in the #2 slot. Am I correct in recalling that #2 isn't Barry's favorite....??

Rem

[remdog]

I think '62 may have a plausible scenario there. I'm more comfortable with the idea of AB at 2nd than SS and he didn't do all that badly in the #6 position.

If you end up platooning Larson and Branyon at 3rd it gives the lineup a little more flexibility.

Rem

[remdog]

Non-tender Castro, and eat his contract. Gookie can do what castro does defensively, and has more range. Plus it allows him to develop a little at the major league level. When people rant about Bowden abusing young pitchers, I should point out he abused Gookie in 2001(?) when Larkin was hurt.---TRF

I've written similar words in the past myself, TRF. You can't 'non-tender Juan because he already has a contract, but you can cut him. While it would be unpalitable for the Reds, eating Castro's contract would allow the Reds to keep Gookie (who at least has potential). It's likely that someone would pick up JC's contract for the league minimum (with the Reds paying the balance) so, with Gookie making only slightly more than the minimum, the thing is pretty much a wash.

And, I also thought that calling up Gookie and then setting him on the bench when Larkin was hurt was a major turning point in Gookie's development.

Rem

[Guacarock]

This experiment makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying it will pan out. Just that it's worth trying on for size at the opening of the season to see how A. Boone responds to the shift. Here's why:

1. Unless Boone cedes 3B, then Branyan and Larson are left in limbo on the bench. Could be that's where they belong. But both exhibited flashes of power and timely hitting in their short stints with the Reds last season. If either one of them can handle 3B defensively, we stand to gain by having their bats in the lineup. We did rank 20th among all ML teams last season in runs scored (709) and 19th in RBI (with 678). We need to improve upon those totals in 2003 if we're going to hope to move up in the standings.

2. Let's say the experiment flops, and we discover neither Larson or Branyan can handle the hot corner. No big deal. A. Boone returns to his old position and we move on to Plan B. But perhaps that Plan B could still involve Larson or Branyan -- say Larson in LF or Branyan at 1B. We might discover, for instance, that we want their offense (if one or both can deliver 30-plus dingers), but that we need to limit exposure to their defensive deficiencies. We won't know that unless these two get some more playing time. I'd sure hate to deal off Larson prematurely, only to see him go elsewhere and flourish like Konerko. We screwed up there, and shouldn't repeat that same mistake twice. And even if we end up dealing Larson before 2003 runs its course, why not beef up his trade value first?

3. This buys us some time to see what we've got in Lopez, our new young SS of the future, without placing undue pressures and expectations upon him. Why lock him into a 2B regimen when we might need him sooner than we think at SS (depending on how Larkin's aging bod holds up to the wear and tear of yet another season)? If Lopez gets 200-250 ABs this season, that's no crying shame. That's a pretty reasonable amount of playing time to break in a prospect.

4. We know Larson and Branyan will face defensive challenges wherever they play, but we've seen enough of A. Boone at 3B to know he's not Gold Glove caliber at the position. Yes, he's speedy and athletic and has quick reflexes, but he's also prone to throwing errors, lapses in his concentration and a certain streakiness that may or may not be due to injuries. Who knows how a move to 2B will impact his defense? He did seem to rise to the occasion playing SS in 2002. And just maybe, 2B will suit his strengths (speed, range), while masking one of his shortfalls (the pesky, bad throws).

5. By my calculations, the Reds are an average team defensively. We ranked a poor 23rd among all ML teams in total number of errors last season (120), but on the flip side, our fielders were 5th in assists (1,774) and 4th in Total Chances (6,255), suggesting they were aggressively stretching to make key plays. Better that than a lumbering squad like the 2002 Mets that committed 144 errors in far fewer opportunities. The upshot: We have valid reason to be concerned about our defense, but no cause to be sounding the alarms and striking the panic buttons just yet.

6. If we really want to improve the defense, the answer doesn't really lie in the choice of fielders, but who we insert into the rotation. We need a KO specialist or two among our starting pitchers. Which teams had the fewest Total Chances on defense in 2002? Minnesota, Anaheim, the Yankees, Seattle, Arizona and both Chicago squads. A disproportionate number of those teams made the play-offs. Their rotations were simply a much higher quality than ours. As a small-market team, we can't hope to upgrade our rotation significantly unless we're innovative in how we compose our offense -- maximizing whatever resources we have, and, yes, cutting corners where necessary. Flexibility is a must. Trying out A. Boone at 2B fits that game plan. It might not work, but if it doesn't, the damage ought to be fairly easy to repair.

[buckeyenut]

1) I have heard a lot of "experts" talk about Larson in the same ilk as Dunn or Kearns in regards to the Reds producing quality hitters. Larson hit all year last year, whether it was AAA or Majors. He has done EVERYTHING to deserve a shot at real playing time, not a platoon.

2) Branyan is out for a month or so, this move gives Larson a legitimate lengthy chance to grab the fulltime job and if he doesn't he can platoon with Branyan.

3) When Larson was killing the ball in AAA last year and Walker was struggling, many of us talked about making this exact move. If I remember right, many folks thought at that time that Aaron Boone would make an above average 2B at the plate, while he remained an average or below average 3B. In fact, I think Boone could be a poor mans Jeff Kent. I think he has the bat and the skill to be adequate defensively right away and maybe good longterm.

4) The ability to play 2B, SS and 3B can only increase Boone's worth, making his trade value higher. Since Boone is a viable trade option over the next year or two, that seems like a very good thing.

I like this move. I think it helps the reds in 2003 and longterm. Kind of surprised it came from the Reds.

[guernsey]

Doesn't exactly read like it's a done deal yet.