Let's get reasonable (moderate improvements to the roster)

Ages 32-34 for a first baseman shouldn't be that risky. It's locking a guy at his level in for 35-37 that is undesirable. If he's a 3 WAR player like he's been the last couple years (and was prior to his full time move to 1b), $15M a year seems like a very good value. The switch-hitting is also a plus over Moreland because you'd be less inclined to need a platoon partner to hit lefties.

I'd be fine with bringing Moreland back at a modest raise, but if they can get Santana for 3/45 (which I think MLBTR projects as a hometown discount for Cleveland), I wouldn't be upset.

sean1562 said:

Why do so many people like Santana that much more than Moreland? I def see him as an upgrade but a multiyear deal at $15 mil per year for years 32, 33 and 34 of Carlos Santana?

Click to expand...

What's with the dismissive "of Carlos Santana" thing? Carlos Santana is:

1) A consistently good overall hitter. His worst wRC+ ever is 107, and this year's 117 was the only other year he's been under 120. His career number is 123. He does this by combining good power with excellent plate discipline and above-average contact. The one weakness in his game is BABIP, and he'll be going from a home park with a .302 2017 BABIP to one with a .317 BABIP.

2) A switch-hitter with essentially zero career platoon split.

3) A solidly above-average defensive 1B.

4) A guy with a tremendous record of staying on the field. The fewest games he's appeared in since becoming a full-time player in 2011 is 143. That was the only year he was under 150. He ranks 5th out of 421 major leaguers for games played in the past seven years. Maybe it's tempting the gods to mention it, but if you want an iron horse, Santana is it.

He's not a superstar, but he's a very good and very *reliably* good player. 3 years at $15M for him would be about as solid a bet as free agent deals ever are.

Of all of the 1st base options, Santana seems (to me) to be the most "reasonable" choice to meet "expectations"

sean1562 said:

Why do so many people like Santana that much more than Moreland? I def see him as an upgrade but a multiyear deal at $15 mil per year for years 32, 33 and 34 of Carlos Santana?

Click to expand...

For me it boils down to Moreland's lack of upside potential. Generally speaking, people are reading too much into those hot stretches last year, and in the accompanying assumption that without the injury it's somehow bankable going forward that he'll better then .250/.320/.440 OPS type he's pretty much been his whole career. Including last season when all was said and done.

(I especially don't get it for the people that keep combining it with a JD Martinez signing btw. I mean if we are going to field the highest payroll in the game, eat second tier LT hits, and put the maximum incoming handicap on an already barren farm system for the foreseeable future in the name of going for it in 2018............why the heck at that point would you be conservative cute over $5-$10m and settle for the lowest upside guy on the table?)

MikeM said:

Cut down for brevity

(I especially don't get it for the people that keep combining it with a JD Martinez signing btw. I mean if we are going to field the highest payroll in the game, eat second tier LT hits, and put the maximum incoming handicap on an already barren farm system for the foreseeable future in the name of going for it in 2018............why the heck at that point would you be conservative cute over $5-$10m and settle for the lowest upside guy on the table?)

Click to expand...

I think it comes down to putting together several extensions for existing players whom the Sox would like to lock up for the long term. Assuming Betts, Bogaerts, Sales and possibly JBJ all get long-term deals this or next season these would put a significant strain on the club if they went all in on Martinez and Santana ($140/$48 million). There is also the chance that Price will opt-out and Porcello's contract ends. They'll may need to restock the rotation. I think Kimbrel is a free agent after 2018 which means seeing about an extension or search for another closer. If Hanley performs like he did in 2016 there is a better than even bet his option kicks in. It comes to dollars and how much they want to spend in LT. Going all in on Martinez and opting for another year or two of Moreland would be a more cost effective option.

PapaSox said:

I think it comes down to putting together several extensions for existing players whom the Sox would like to lock up for the long term. Assuming Betts, Bogaerts, Sales and possibly JBJ all get long-term deals this or next season these would put a significant strain on the club if they went all in on Martinez and Santana ($140/$48 million). There is also the chance that Price will opt-out and Porcello's contract ends. They'll may need to restock the rotation. I think Kimbrel is a free agent after 2018 which means seeing about an extension or search for another closer. If Hanley performs like he did in 2016 there is a better than even bet his option kicks in. It comes to dollars and how much they want to spend in LT. Going all in on Martinez and opting for another year or two of Moreland would be a more cost effective option.

Click to expand...

Coupled with this is the existence of Sam Travis, whom we've all dismissed at this point. But he's 24 and projects to basically be what Mitch Moreland has been through his career - a league average bat with solid defense. His 2017 was not good, but if he gets back on track next year, can he be penciled in in 2019 for the minimum? I assume he rides the shuttle this year and sees a few ABs during the annual Hanley DL stint. If they're ok with Moreland now, I don't see why they wouldn't be ok continuing down a similar path - this could free up some dollars for extensions in the scenario above. Personally, I'm coming around to signing Santana, but I don't find this to be an illogical approach.

Sam Travis would have to make a real leap to get to solid defense at 1B.

Santana and Hosmer might get QOs, which I think would render them radioactive for Sox purposes.

Harry Hooper said:

...
Santana and Hosmer might get QOs, which I think would render them radioactive for Sox purposes.

Click to expand...

Because Hosmer's coming off a good season and is young, I doubt the QO will dampen his market, so he'll get priced out of what Boston will want to pay. But Santana's market might be depressed by it, which is what might make him attractive to us as a 1B improvement on shorter, ultimately tradeable deal. Seems like a good and reasonable GFIN move that wouldn't impair signing the Bs.

Savin Hillbilly said:

What's with the dismissive "of Carlos Santana" thing? Carlos Santana is:

.

Click to expand...

Carlos Santana also has "old player skills" or whatever they call them. Players like him tend not to age well. See Kevin Youkilis. I'm not against signing him depending on the years and money but ages 32-34 are when those players tend to fall apart.

I also don't want Belt. He's a decent enough hitter but we don't need decent, and not at his price tag. I'd rather they go cheap at 1b if there isn't a Rizzo type available. Is Belt really worth $13 mil more a year than Moreland, especially when you lose JBJ in the process?

bosox79 said:

Carlos Santana also has "old player skills" or whatever they call them. Players like him tend not to age well. See Kevin Youkilis.

Click to expand...

I see Kevin Youkilis. I also see Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans, and Ron Cey, the top three through-age comps BR lists for Santana, who produced 15.2, 11.9, and 13.7 bbWAR respectively for their age 32-35 seasons.

The effect you're referring to may be real, but I think it's subtler than you're suggesting. Is Santana likely to decline over the course of a 3- or 4-year contract? Of course. That's a given with him as with nearly all free agents over 30. Is he slightly more likely to decline, or likely to decline a wee bit faster, than a guy who was more athletic in his prime? Perhaps. But if you look at the guys who have been performing solidly in their early-to-mid 30s in recent years, there are a lot more Santana types than, say, Jacoby Ellsbury types on that list. So I think it's a fallacy to say that "old player's skills" are a longevity red flag in themselves. I would give more weight to things like injury history, which for Santana is a major plus.

Is Belt really worth $13 mil more a year than Moreland, especially when you lose JBJ in the process?

Click to expand...

You're assuming we can have Moreland for $4M a year, I gather. I seriously doubt this. But yes, you can make a pretty good argument that Belt is $13M better. He's not a "decent enough" hitter, he's a very good one. He ranks 8th among 34 qualifying 1Bs over the past three years in offensive runs created and wRC+. He's averaged 20 offensive runs a year over that stretch. Moreland? -1.5.

Defensively, he's ranked by FG as the best 1B in baseball over that three-year stretch, averaging about 2 defensive runs a year better than Moreland, who's next on the list. (There are technically two guys that FG ranks ahead of Belt--Travis Shaw and Luis Valbuena--but they've both played a lot more 3B than 1B.)

PapaSox said:

I think it comes down to putting together several extensions for existing players whom the Sox would like to lock up for the long term. Assuming Betts, Bogaerts, Sales and possibly JBJ all get long-term deals this or next season these would put a significant strain on the club if they went all in on Martinez and Santana ($140/$48 million). There is also the chance that Price will opt-out and Porcello's contract ends. They'll may need to restock the rotation. I think Kimbrel is a free agent after 2018 which means seeing about an extension or search for another closer. If Hanley performs like he did in 2016 there is a better than even bet his option kicks in. It comes to dollars and how much they want to spend in LT. Going all in on Martinez and opting for another year or two of Moreland would be a more cost effective option.

Click to expand...

Again, applying that as a whole would add up a lot better to me here if we weren't already burning every other conservative play bridge around it. Plus we are talking maybe an additional year or 2 on some of these guys who play a different position then everybody on your list above. Signing Moreland instead of spending a couple million extra per on a better upside option isn't ultimately winning you any budgeting battles at that point.

The league average line at 1B last season was .261/.343/.472. That's probably best case scenario for Mitch Moreland. So you are basically left realistically shooting for under average offense at a primarily offensive position, while potentially keeping the door open for another probable under average offense prospect in Travis? Just doesn't make any real sense imo.

Savin Hillbilly said:

You're assuming we can have Moreland for $4M a year, I gather. I seriously doubt this. But yes, you can make a pretty good argument that Belt is $13M better. He's not a "decent enough" hitter, he's a very good one. He ranks 8th among 34 qualifying 1Bs over the past three years in offensive runs created and wRC+. He's averaged 20 offensive runs a year over that stretch. Moreland? -1.5.

Defensively, he's ranked by FG as the best 1B in baseball over that three-year stretch, averaging about 2 defensive runs a year better than Moreland, who's next on the list. (There are technically two guys that FG ranks ahead of Belt--Travis Shaw and Luis Valbuena--but they've both played a lot more 3B than 1B.)

Click to expand...

He could be $13 mil better than Moreland, but when you also add in JBJ? I can't see it. I'd rather they sign Carlos Santana than trade for Belt. Also, "decent enough" is vague, my bad. Belt is a good hitter, I just think the Sox could do better than Belt with $18 mil and JBJ.

MikeM said:

Again, applying that as a whole would add up a lot better to me here if we weren't already burning every other conservative play bridge around it. Plus we are talking maybe an additional year or 2 on some of these guys who play a different position then everybody on your list above. Signing Moreland instead of spending a couple million extra per on a better upside option isn't ultimately winning you any budgeting battles at that point.

The league average line at 1B last season was .261/.343/.472. That's probably best case scenario for Mitch Moreland. So you are basically left realistically shooting for under average offense at a primarily offensive position, while potentially keeping the door open for another probable under average offense prospect in Travis? Just doesn't make any real sense imo.

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with your argument but the jest of this discussion is "moderate improvements". As soon as we add JD to the discussion we are no longer moderate. Adding Byran Shaw and/or Santana with Nunez, Austin Jackson and Alex Cobb would be as far as I'd extend things on a moderate scale. As stated earlier there are several possibilities that can add considerably to the 2019 payroll which make large outlays now troublesome down the line.

Now if we want to go a tad "crazy" we can switch the discussion to another thread.

Edit: Focused on supplementing the current roster with FAs as I do not want to drain what resources are presently available.

PapaSox said:

I can't disagree with your argument but the jest of this discussion is "moderate improvements". As soon as we add JD to the discussion we are no longer moderate. Adding Byran Shaw and/or Santana with Nunez, Austin Jackson and Alex Cobb would be as far as I'd extend things on a moderate scale. As stated earlier there are several possibilities that can add considerably to the 2019 payroll which make large outlays now troublesome down the line.

Now if we want to go a tad "crazy" we can switch the discussion to another thread.

Edit: Focused on supplementing the current roster with FAs as I do not want to drain what resources are presently available.

Click to expand...

Like I was saying though, it still applies either way there. The surrounding key word being "improvement".

We don't get that re-signing Mitch Morleand. We likely don't even win any budgeting battles signing Moreland over a better upside guy like Duda either. Or even Santana for that matter, if he can be had at the rates being speculated in this thread while still dodging a second tier LT hit the process.

Savin Hillbilly said:

You're assuming we can have Moreland for $4M a year, I gather. I seriously doubt this

Click to expand...

Moreland is 32yo and sports career ops of .756. Again, that's over .50pts under the current league average.

Maybe he gets lucky again and finds another team so overly-confident about the rest of the surrounding lineup (and in need of a 1B) that they'll put the same emphasis value on his defense...but that's really best case scenario for him that still probably won't improve his stock from last year. If anything, he's a prime candidate this winter to join the growing list of FA 1B who are struggling to even find a job imo.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

And Moreland is a really interesting case. As a league average bat with above average defense, he should (theoretically) be worth 8-9M per year this winter. He won't be, but statistically speaking...

Click to expand...

This is generally an even worse way of looking at it imo. It also doesn't change the fact he was below league average last year. If we aren't going to seriously consider a major roster shake up, our current team construction doesn't need another (hopeful) league average bat with above average defense at 1B. We need to focus more on actually trying to improve the lineup potential.

Heck, give me a flyer on Adam Lind before another year of Mitch Moreland. But that's just me I guess.

There's a big difference between a league average bat (100), and a league average bat for a first baseman (121). To people who have suggested they keep him - they don't need that at first. They need a really good bat to improve on paper because there aren't any other positional upgrades available pending trades.

I think he'll get about the same as he did last year - if that. If a team signs him to be full time (ie against lefties whom he has a career wRC+ of 79), that value will go down, not up, so it'll probably be some team that wants a complementary piece. There aren't many platoon first baseman who get more than year to year contracts.

DD is on record as saying they want to get a bat. So I'm assuming that isn't going to be Moreland.

I'm still curious about Jurickson Profar. Cost should be low and we can offer him a starting gig at 2B the first couple months of the season, with a Nunez-like role or more if he regains form. He's a FA after 2019.

chawson said:

I'm still curious about Jurickson Profar. Cost should be low and we can offer him a starting gig at 2B the first couple months of the season, with a Nunez-like role or more if he regains form. He's a FA after 2019.

Click to expand...

What form would that be that he's regaining? He was a highly touted prospect (debuting at age 19) but he's never really panned out as a major leaguer: career .638 OPS, 71 OPS+, 0.0 WAR. Last year he had a .501 OPS in 22 games.

I suppose if the Rangers non-tender him (he's arb-1 this season, eligible for free agency after 2020), maybe you throw a minor league deal at him and give him a look in spring training. I wouldn't give anything of value up for him, even a lottery ticket from the low minors. And I certainly wouldn't hand him a starting job, even if it's just temporary in Pedroia's place.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

What form would that be that he's regaining? He was a highly touted prospect (debuting at age 19) but he's never really panned out as a major leaguer: career .638 OPS, 71 OPS+, 0.0 WAR. Last year he had a .501 OPS in 22 games.

I suppose if the Rangers non-tender him (he's arb-1 this season, eligible for free agency after 2020), maybe you throw a minor league deal at him and give him a look in spring training. I wouldn't give anything of value up for him, even a lottery ticket from the low minors. And I certainly wouldn't hand him a starting job, even if it's just temporary in Pedroia's place.

Click to expand...

This year we saw breakouts from Tim Beckham, Avisail Garcia, Eric Thames, Steven Souza, Tommy Pham, Chris Taylor, Eugenio Suarez, and Jonathan Schoop. Profar has had no opportunities in Texas and was more highly touted than all of those guys. He's younger than Aaron Judge.

Beckham had a career OPS of .720 and OPS+ of 97 prior to 2017. Garcia .695/92, Souza .712/96, Pham .789/111, Suarez .723/95, and Schoop .710/91. All better career numbers prior to their "breakout" seasons in 2017. Thames is a different case as he went to Korea for three years where he really broke out before coming back to the states. Taylor's really the only one who was arguably worse off than Profar prior to this season before more or less coming out of nowhere to have a great year.

Either way, most of the guys you named already had starting jobs prior to their breakouts, just based on what they'd done to date. I think there are better alternatives than counting on Profar to all of a sudden live up to the expectations people had for him five years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Profar isn't worth a shot or that he's never likely to break out and be a productive big leaguer. He's just not a guy you go out of your way to acquire, even at a minimal price. He's more of a Plan C or Plan D kind of option.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

What form would that be that he's regaining? He was a highly touted prospect (debuting at age 19) but he's never really panned out as a major leaguer: career .638 OPS, 71 OPS+, 0.0 WAR. Last year he had a .501 OPS in 22 games.

I suppose if the Rangers non-tender him (he's arb-1 this season, eligible for free agency after 2020), maybe you throw a minor league deal at him and give him a look in spring training. I wouldn't give anything of value up for him, even a lottery ticket from the low minors. And I certainly wouldn't hand him a starting job, even if it's just temporary in Pedroia's place.

Click to expand...

You remember when the MFYs picked up Gregorius and we all snickered? Or when Toronto brought Smoak aboard and we did the same thing again?

These are exactly the sort of pickups that smart teams make — gather talent in advance of a breakout year, not afterward. It doesn’t always, or even usually, work out. But taking a flyer on a 24-year old middle infielder about to hit the scrap-pile after he’s put up a .370 OBP in 700+ AAA plate appearances seems like a no-brainer.

What would be truly perfect would be to swap Holt for the half-as-expensive and more-than-twice-as-likely to have a breakout Pro far

Buzzkill Pauley said:

You remember when the MFYs picked up Gregorius and we all snickered? Or when Toronto brought Smoak aboard and we did the same thing again?

These are exactly the sort of pickups that smart teams make — gather talent in advance of a breakout year, not afterward. It doesn’t always, or even usually, work out. But taking a flyer on a 24-year old middle infielder about to hit the scrap-pile after he’s put up a .370 OBP in 700+ AAA plate appearances seems like a no-brainer.

What would be truly perfect would be to swap Holt for the half-as-expensive and more-than-twice-as-likely to have a breakout Pro far

Click to expand...

Agree. We also just hired a young and fellow Caribbean-born manager with a reputation for invigorating young players.

Buzzkill Pauley said:

You remember when the MFYs picked up Gregorius and we all snickered? Or when Toronto brought Smoak aboard and we did the same thing again?

These are exactly the sort of pickups that smart teams make — gather talent in advance of a breakout year, not afterward. It doesn’t always, or even usually, work out. But taking a flyer on a 24-year old middle infielder about to hit the scrap-pile after he’s put up a .370 OBP in 700+ AAA plate appearances seems like a no-brainer.

What would be truly perfect would be to swap Holt for the half-as-expensive and more-than-twice-as-likely to have a breakout Pro far

Click to expand...

I don't recall snickering at the Yankees acquiring Gregorius. Nor at the Jays for signing Smoak (frankly, he's more like Mitch Moreland than Profar). They had a need and those guys filled it cheaply. They also took three years from their acquisition to "break out". Let's not pretend that the Yankees or Jays are some sort of geniuses for acquiring players at low cost that eventually had their career year (to date...it might be their new level, it might not).

Unless Dombrowski or someone in the scouting department sees a fixable flaw in Profar that no one else is seeing, they're shooting in the dark if they were to pick him up with the expectation that he's going to break out a la Tim Beckham or Chris Taylor or Didi Gregorius. Maybe they hit on him, maybe they don't. I'm just saying it had better not be Plan A. Particularly if they're not trying to pinch pennies and stay under the luxury tax threshold this winter.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

Unless Dombrowski or someone in the scouting department sees a fixable flaw in Profar that no one else is seeing, they're shooting in the dark if they were to pick him up with the expectation that he's going to break out a la Tim Beckham or Chris Taylor or Didi Gregorius. Maybe they hit on him, maybe they don't. I'm just saying it had better not be Plan A. Particularly if they're not trying to pinch pennies and stay under the luxury tax threshold this winter.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I hope DD isn't planning to spend the bulk of a payroll increase on upgrading a few months of second base, which is where we presently have a hole.

The options while Pedroia recovers are Lin, Holt, Marrero, and Marco Hernandez. If we sign Nunez, he's still a bad defensive second baseman, and we're not going to sign someone else in FA who knows the job's essentially Pedroia's.

I kind of like a possible trade for Kinsler's option year, but there's old reports those two might have bad blood. Plus, Kinsler might be pissed to be relegated to a utility role in his walk year once Pedroia's healthy.

chawson said:

Sure, but I hope DD isn't planning to spend the bulk of a payroll increase on upgrading a few months of second base, which is where we presently have a hole.

The options while Pedroia recovers are Lin, Holt, Marrero, and Marco Hernandez. If we sign Nunez, he's still a bad defensive second baseman, and we're not going to sign someone else in FA who knows the job's essentially Pedroia's.

I kind of like a possible trade for Kinsler's option year, but there's old reports those two might have bad blood. Plus, Kinsler might be pissed to be relegated to a utility role in his walk year once Pedroia's healthy.

Click to expand...

Based on what he said following the Cora press conference today, it doesn't appear he expects to spend much of anything on a fill-in for Pedroia.


I don't expect Profar would be any better a temporary replacement than Lin, Marrero, Holt or Hernandez. Perhaps he has a higher ceiling, but he's never shown signs of approaching it at the big league level. At least Holt has been an All Star for a short stretch. I might bet more on him having a healthy BROCKHOLT two months filling in for Pedroia than I would bet on Jurickson Profar turning into the guy everyone thought he'd be five years ago.

chawson said:

Sure, but I hope DD isn't planning to spend the bulk of a payroll increase on upgrading a few months of second base, which is where we presently have a hole.

The options while Pedroia recovers are Lin, Holt, Marrero, and Marco Hernandez. If we sign Nunez, he's still a bad defensive second baseman, and we're not going to sign someone else in FA who knows the job's essentially Pedroia's.

Click to expand...

Agree with your first point, but I think the point of Nunez would be that he'd fill multiple roles and be an offensive upgrade over our internal 2d base (and OF) options. He might be a lousy defender everywhere, but you could always throw a guy like Marrero out there in the 9th to protect a 1 run lead.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

I don't expect Profar would be any better a temporary replacement than Lin, Marrero, Holt or Hernandez. Perhaps he has a higher ceiling, but he's never shown signs of approaching it at the big league level. At least Holt has been an All Star for a short stretch. I might bet more on him having a healthy BROCKHOLT two months filling in for Pedroia than I would bet on Jurickson Profar turning into the guy everyone thought he'd be five years ago.

Click to expand...

That's a weird bet, and it's not relevant.

The relevant question is who is more likely to play at Brock Holt's 2015 vintage, wRC+ 99, "All Star"-level in 2018: a 30-year-old Holt or a 25-year-old Profar? And then, which of the two has a better chance at playing well above that threshold? I think it's Profar for both.

Rays aren't attaching a QO to Morrison.

chawson said:

That's a weird bet, and it's not relevant.

The relevant question is who is more likely to play at Brock Holt's 2015 vintage, wRC+ 99, "All Star"-level in 2018: a 30-year-old Holt or a 25-year-old Profar? And then, which of the two has a better chance at playing well above that threshold? I think it's Profar for both.

Click to expand...

Probably worth noting for this discussion of temporary replacements that Holt did have a hot first half in 2015 with a 119 WRC+ before visibly fading after the break.

Whether he can ever get back to that level, given the concussion and vertigo issues, is another question entirely.

"carlos santana is getting a qualifying offer from indians of $17.4M"

Damn, I was really hoping to see DD go after Santana but this definitely gives pause.

chawson said:

The relevant question is who is more likely to play at Brock Holt's 2015 vintage, wRC+ 99, "All Star"-level in 2018:

Click to expand...

Holt was chosen as a reserve. No Red Sox player received won the fan voting as a starting player (Ortiz was batting .228; Pedroia was out with an injury in the last week of June and neither Betts nor Bogaerts were chosen over others at their respective positions). However, the rules call for at least one player from each team and Holt was picked as a utility player. He wasn't hitting badly at the time-- .295/.383/.424/.807 in 258 PA through July 5th (from July 7th through the end of the season he only hit .265/.313/.334/.648). If there were a season-ending All-Star squad, he probably would not have made it.

He faded much worse in 2014, around the same time. From the beginning of the season (299 PA) through July 21st, he hit .326/.369/.457/.826 but from July 22nd through Sept 15th, he hit .208/.270/.260..350.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Profar isn't worth a shot or that he's never likely to break out and be a productive big leaguer. He's just not a guy you go out of your way to acquire, even at a minimal price. He's more of a Plan C or Plan D kind of option.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see Profar here. He has never really had consistent PAs at a consistent position in MLB. He could get a chance to do that for seven weeks - finally - and then you figure out whether he's going to force himself to be in the lineup. If resigning Nunez is really the priority it seems like it is, why aren't you taking a few shots at a super utility guy? You can grab both, after all. If Profar fills in for seven weeks and sucks - well, who cares, the team has enough talent that that alone won't sink them (see 3B fiasco this year). Then he's just your token backup infielder who can play shortstop. Or you cut him and promote Marrero for the rest of the way. I doubt the Sox get him, though. Seems like the kind of guy a small market club takes a shot on and gives 450 PA to. San Diego and Cincinnati both really need a shortstop. Pittsburgh could use him.

I haven't really seen this mentioned yet, but I think we need to take a few shots at trying to find a lefty mid lev reliever this offseason. I kept waiting for Abad to be DFA'd all year, despite doing alright in almost entirely low lev innings. Scott is a solid matchup piece but also a rescue out of indy ball with a HR problem, and honestly, I don't have much confidence in either of these pitchers going forward. We are overflowing with guys who are somewhere between ROOGY and 8th inning guy if he wasn't so inconsistent. I really want to see some creative fliers at the low end of the FA pool and the nontender market on LHRP. Would be disappointed if they gave a middle relief type 3 years at too much money to try to address this issue. Not betting on Mike Minor. We need to find this year's version of that.

For the no-risk lefty reliever flier bin: I nominate Vidal Nuno, who is a free agent who was outrighted off a 40-man in August. Minor league contract + ST invite.

He was terrible in MLB this year, but posted dominant rates in AAA - 10.13 K/9, 2.36 BB/9, 0.34 HR/9

He was, also, highly effective as a swing man in 2015 and full time reliever in 2016. He is 30.

This is what Jeff Sullivan wrote about him last offseason (before he managed to not be given a trial in one of the worst rotations of all time):

Nuno is a younger strike-thrower with three years of arbitration eligibility. You can see why the Mariners wouldn’t mind this move. And you can see why the Dodgers would go for it. The Dodgers’ front office hasn’t forgotten its small-market roots, and they’re always trying to win the surplus-value game. Nuno could be something more than he looks like. The boring moves are seldom quite as boring as they seem.

Click to expand...

He's been traded four times in three years, which probably says something. I'd take a no risk shot at him, though, because you don't have to squint too hard to see a guy who could throw in the 6th/7th in a postseason series.

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2017/11/boston_red_sox_looking_to_add.html

Sounding like you can scratch re-signing Mitch Moreland off the board.

Again, I wouldn't sleep on the possibility that Jay Bruce ends up being his more conservative play guy here either. With Hanley shifting back to first and Bradley staying put.

The more I read and hear about JD & Stanton the more I like the idea of signing Santana, resigning Nunez, Fister and Addison Reed and adding Austin Jackson to the OF. It's not flashy but I think it will work for the Sox next season.

PapaSox said:

The more I read and hear about JD & Stanton the more I like the idea of signing Santana, resigning Nunez, Fister and Addison Reed and adding Austin Jackson to the OF. It's not flashy but I think it will work for the Sox next season.

Click to expand...

That’s Theo type thinking. Hold your cards and see how the first third of season shakes out with this team.

Sign Martinez to DH and rotate him to LF to give Benintendi and Bradley some DH time, Mookie too, as Martinez can play some RF on the road.

Hernandez opens the season at 2B, with a bench of Leon, Marrero, Swihart, & Brentz.

Sign McGee for the pen to go with Kimbrel, Smith, Barnes, Maddox, Workman, Velazquez and eventually Thornburg.

Save some $/bullets for 7/31 and next season's free-agent class.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a safe winter where they trade JBJ for Belt and a prospect or bench piece and then sign Jay Bruce to play left field.

Click to expand...

I think I'd also prefer this to spending over 150m for JD, or having to give up significant prospects or MLB pieces for Stanton (not a given in my book, depending on whether the Sox are willing to pick up more of the contract than others). I'd still like the bigger bat if the price is reasonable, but that's yet TBD, so this is a pretty damn good alternative to overpaying to get one of them.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a safe winter where they trade JBJ for Belt and a prospect or bench piece and then sign Jay Bruce to play left field. Yeah, he's more likely 2016 Jay Bruce than the 2017 version going forward, meaning about 10% better than league average, but the 30 HR power is real and Bruce and Belt would be an overall upgrade offensively over JBJ and Moreland. You are sacrificing defense in the outfield, but Benintendi can play a solid CF and Bruce should be pretty good in left. Bruce can also handle a little 1st base if need be, meaning no need to suffer Hanley out there.

You could reasonably expect that lineup to do the following with regard to home runs: Betts (20-25), Benintendi (20), Bruce (30), Belt (20), Pedroia/2B (10), Bogaerts (15), Devers (20), Vazquez (5), Hanley (20). I'm assuming Hyers will have a slight upward impact on a few of these guys and that Bogaerts will be one of the players he will focus on with approach. That's 160-165 HR from just the starters. Getting 40 or so from the bench isn't unreasonable, especially if Brentz is there. That gets them back to about league average and has consistent home run threats throughout most of the lineup. As a floor, this feels reasonable. If anyone outperforms expectations (like Devers), even better.

Click to expand...

A major league bench shouldn’t be counted on to hit 40 home runs. Sox bench hit 15 the last couple years, and even in the high slugging days of last decade, maxed out at about 25 in 2004.

Factoring that, the team you have above would still rank bottom five in MLB (180+/-) in home runs (in 2017 numbers). Maybe that’s a Fenway thing. Not saying it’s a bad plan or a bad team, but FWIW.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Leon 7
Young 7
Marrero 4
Nunez 8
Panda 4

That's 30. Bench hit 17 last year (2016), 35 in 2015, 35 in 2014, and 35 in 2013. And the 2004 club hit 44. Where are you seeing 15 the last few years and 25 in 2004? I got my figures from baseball-reference.com.

Click to expand...

I counted León as a starter because he was in a true timeshare and Nunez too, since he essentially was acquired to step in for an injured player and started most games down the stretch. Same for Shaw’s 13 home runs in 2015 since he essentially supplanted a hurt/ineffective regular.

But I see your point and I’m happy to stand down on this since it’s a matter of perspective, roster management, etc. And you didn’t include León/Vazquez in your 160-65, so yes, the figure would be higher, but not by much.

Brentz could very well hit 20 home runs next year and that would be awesome — except that it probably means Benintendi got hurt.

I still like Bruce as one of the biggest potential DD sleepers on the board, but it obviously boils down to what the contract ends up looking like there.

Have to figure there is at least a decent chance that a drawn out JD Martinez saga puts a hold on his willingness to sign early as well. Which might complicate matters since you might not pull the trigger on a Belt deal without getting Bruce squared away first.