The off-season

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Benintendi is a CF and would move over to replace him.
I don't necessarily endorse trading JBJ, but I think Betts is locked into RF regardless.
The only reason Betts would be locked into RF is because JBJ is the better defender between the two. If JBJ gets dealt, there's no reason Mookie should stay locked in RF in deference to Benintendi; my feeling is that Mookie is probably the better CFer and CF defense is still more important than RF, even in Fenway.

If Benny can't handle RF in Fenway, then he looks like the more obvious trade candidate.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,397
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
It's looking more and more like Napoli IMO .. probably on a two year deal at reasonable dollars. The Sox marginally upgrade the defense at 1B and get a good - if not great - bat.

I'm more concerned with upgrading the bullpen - and the lack of any news on that front.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
It's looking more and more like Napoli IMO .. probably on a two year deal at reasonable dollars. The Sox marginally upgrade the defense at 1B and get a good - if not great - bat.

I'm more concerned with upgrading the bullpen - and the lack of any news on that front.
I don't like the idea of bringing Napoli back on a multi-year deal at all. He had a 113 wRC+ after a 98 the year before. That difference is almost entirely in his BABIP and with the kind of hitter he is, I'm not sure the bounce back to a .298 BABIP last year is predictive. He's prone to a lot of rolling over on pitches because he has to sell out more for power these days than he used to. That's the nature of decline. And assuming he'll be at around a .300 BABIP and about 10-15% better than league average is also assuming no further decline.

No thanks.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,488
Scituate, MA
Scott Lauber posted this on ESPN/Twitter:

Before adding players for '17, Red Sox up to ~$188 million for competitive balance tax. Breakdown: ~$136M committed to Price, Hanley, Porcello, Sandoval, Pedroia, Kimbrel, Buchholz, Young; ~$24M, based on MLBTR projections, for arb-eligible Kelly, Pomeranz, Abad, Ross, Bogaerts, Bradley, Holt, Leon, Workman; ~$10M for pre-arbs on 40-man (Betts, E-Rod, Benintendi, Shaw, etc.); ~$13 million for benefits; at least $5 million for in-season moves.

@ScottLauber
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0597106369287427387-4
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
866
Maryland
Scott Lauber posted this on ESPN/Twitter:

Before adding players for '17, Red Sox up to ~$188 million for competitive balance tax. Breakdown: ~$136M committed to Price, Hanley, Porcello, Sandoval, Pedroia, Kimbrel, Buchholz, Young; ~$24M, based on MLBTR projections, for arb-eligible Kelly, Pomeranz, Abad, Ross, Bogaerts, Bradley, Holt, Leon, Workman; ~$10M for pre-arbs on 40-man (Betts, E-Rod, Benintendi, Shaw, etc.); ~$13 million for benefits; at least $5 million for in-season moves.

@ScottLauber
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0597106369287427387-4
I read this as well. Since the luxury tax threshold din't rise as much as many of us expected, there's not a lot of flexibility to add big contracts and stay under the tax unless they can find a way to move salaries out. Since Sandoval is unlikely to be going anywhere, that puts Buchholz as the prime candidate (and highly likely to be moved) if they were somehow to deal for a SP like Sale, which I still think is highly unlikely given the acquisition cost, or Verlander (unlikely given his salary, although it's not unreasonable).

Given how tight they are to the cap, I expect that Buchholz will probably be moved just to make room, budget-wise, for whoever is coming in for RP and DH. But with the tight market for SP, we might even get something worthwhile for him.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
I'm a little more worried about Holliday's fall off a cliff potential then I was Beltran, as that was quite the drop in obp last year. Even eliminating the multi year possibility on him or Napoli, I think I'd still rather us be in on the LHH Granderson if/when the Mets dump him for almost nothing and then aim for the platoon with Young.

I also don't see a concern about going over the LT being a surrounding factor atm. As it stands losing Ortiz alone is already presenting a reality where we probably end up fielding a downgraded team in 2017. That is bad enough atm without piling on a need to sweat paying an extra couple million in penalty tax on his replacement.

Plus if it was going to be an issue DD never picks up that Buchholz option to begin with.
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,446
Rogers Park
How does Heyman not know that the Sox drafted Alvarez?

edit: Beaten to it.

More substantively, Alvarez is merely okay. The Orioles had him on a one year, $5.75m deal that rose $200k when he reached his 350th plate appearance.

About 85% of those PA were against RHP, and he posted a .251/.326/.522 line against them. The .650ish OPS against lefties continues a multi-year pattern — although 2015 was a bright spot — that suggests that Showalter was right to use him as a platoon player. He and Chris Young could make a pretty decent DH tandem, however, if we don't intend to platoon Young with any of the OF, and he didn't do anything that suggests he should have a big raise coming.

If you can keep his glove in his locker, he should be a pretty reliable bet to earn a win and change as the strong side of a DH platoon. If you can pay him less than that's worth (as Baltimore did), that's okay, but I wouldn't be shocked if we could do better with the roster spot.
 
Last edited:

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Yeah, I just mean signing him is a big no in my opinion. He is literally all or nothing. Much rather Nap or Holliday.
I'm the opposite. If they're looking to fill the DH/1B slot, Alvarez seems like the safest bet by far. He's probably good to pencil in 20+ home runs and something like 15% better than league average. He's been pretty consistent in that range for wRC+ over the last 5 years with the exception of a drop in his ISO in 2014 which covers the drop to a roughly league average bat. He's also only 29 so there is less of an age related decline concern as compared to the other two.

I explained my apprehension about Napoli a few posts up, and Holliday is old enough that his massive drop in walk rate might not be a blip on the radar. If these guys are all going to require multi-year commitments, and it's probably a fair chance that they all do, I'd much rather the 29 year old who has been mostly very consistent offensively over the last 5 years (at least as far as overall production goes) than the guys in their mid 30's who are showing signs of their age.

And that's before considering positional flexibility. I don't want Alvarez starting at third, but having him to back it up in an emergency is a touch more value in his ledger.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
Not that i believe in signing him, but Alvarez is likely to be >$10m on a one year deal. If we want to sign Nap or Holiday or EE or nearly anyone else, it's gonna be on multiple years at a higher rate. There's a huge gap in the market between the aging sluggers and anyone only getting a 1 year deal. If the Sox are determined to make a signing, as opposed to staying pat, Alvarez is likely one of the few options.

And giving away my age: I actually grew up playing against (HS) and with (summer ball) Alvarez. We're not friends or anything, but I can say he was a Sox fan. But if he signs in the AL East, he went 4-for-25 against me my Senior year with only a double. I recently threw 68mph at one of those amusement park guess-your-speed booth, and think I could crack 70 by Pitchers & Catchers if given enough warning.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yeah, I just mean signing him is a big no in my opinion. He is literally all or nothing. Much rather Nap or Holliday.
I'd rather none of the 3 but I'm guessing Alvarez would be the cheapest by far and hits left handed. He has much better splits vs RHP and would make sense to platoon with Sam Travis later on, or you can just outright release him if he sucks. I can't see him getting much more than he got last year.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
Is Alvarez getting a multi year deal since he's a lot younger then the other guys, or are we talking a one year deal and low commitment type scenario at roughly the $5.75 he made in 2016?

I might be able to get on board with the latter.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Is Alvarez getting a multi year deal since he's a lot younger then the other guys, or are we talking a one year deal and low commitment type scenario at roughly the $5.75 he made in 2016?

I might be able to get on board with the latter.
Probably the latter, he's a DH who needs a platoon partner. It's not like he really improved last year, he just sat vs lefties.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,595
Maine
Is Alvarez getting a multi year deal since he's a lot younger then the other guys, or are we talking a one year deal and low commitment type scenario at roughly the $5.75 he made in 2016?

I might be able to get on board with the latter.
Can't imagine he's going to command more than $8-10M per year whether it's a one year deal or multiple. Alvarez as the LHH half of a DH platoon with Chris Young and Hanley could be really good value. I'd stay away from playing him in the field, but he could be an emergency fill-in on either corner.

I'd feel better about him at the plate than Travis Shaw, that's for damn sure.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
Can't imagine he's going to command more than $8-10M per year whether it's a one year deal or multiple. Alvarez as the LHH half of a DH platoon with Chris Young and Hanley could be really good value. I'd stay away from playing him in the field, but he could be an emergency fill-in on either corner.

I'd feel better about him at the plate than Travis Shaw, that's for damn sure.
Well, Morales only got $11m/per so that estimate may even be high.

I'm really only concerned about a multi year need there because it then potentially plays against one of the more appealing factors with this possibility for me, in that he'd otherwise probably be the easiest to turn the page on latter in the event other surrounding situations played out in favorable manner. Because even on a 1 year deal we are still essentially marrying ourselves into a 2017 commitment with Napoli/Holliday at bigger $$$, and one which Farrell will certainly do his best to honor on full time veteran types.

As Snod already pointed out, I also do kind of like the fact Alvarez has Pablo who can still hit RHP potential at third as a bonus there.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
Between Holt, Panda and Shaw, Alvarez should/would never, ever see a game at 3B. Maybe 1B in a pinch, but he's comically bad as a defender.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Between Holt, Panda and Shaw, Alvarez should/would never, ever see a game at 3B. Maybe 1B in a pinch, but he's comically bad as a defender.
I was mostly envisioning a Panda-less scenario (due to injury or a trade) where injuries led to a need for Alvarez to hang out at the hot corner for a few games. By and large, yes, emergencies only. It's not a lot of value, but it's a small factor to consider.

He'd probably be passable at 1st in a pinch as well.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,599
He'd probably be passable at 1st in a pinch as well.
I argued for NY to sign him last winter for his left-handed bat, but you really don't ever want him in the field, even briefly. The Pirates didn't let him play 3B at all in 2015 after his -19/150 UZR in 2014, and his 1B numbers have been equally horrendous. The Orioles didn't let him play 1B at all last year, just 53 dreadful innings at 3B and the rest DH.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2495&position=3B
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
Between Holt, Panda and Shaw, Alvarez should/would never, ever see a game at 3B. Maybe 1B in a pinch, but he's comically bad as a defender.
While I again get get the need to be optimistic that losing a few lbs is going to miraculously turn back the clock on Pablo's career, the last time we saw Panda actually playing he was already the worst defender in the league.

Bar on defense isn't exactly being set high enough there atm to really support a "never" claim. Plus you are probably looking at a fill in scenario where one of Pablo/Shaw isn't even on the MLB roster.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
Bar on defense isn't exactly being set high enough there atm to really support a "never" claim. Plus you are probably looking at a fill in scenario where one of Pablo/Shaw isn't even on the MLB roster.
If the roster seriously does not have enough infielders to cover 3B, then yes, you put a guy who has played the position before there over, say, trying Steven Wright out at the hot corner.

The scenario you describe is actually exactly why Alvarez played 3B at all last year. Machado was moved to SS after Hardy fractured a bone in his foot. Alvarez was bad enough in his short stint there that Ryan Flaherty took over until Hardy came back. And even when Alvarez did start, he was replaced by Flaherty several times late in games. I very much doubt that much of the consideration is that he's played 3B before. If there is any defensive consideration, it's more likely that you'd stick him at 1B, where he's also really bad.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
89,915
Oregon
Awful. Dumpster diving. Replacing Ortiz with those two and hoping and praying on Panda is bad. Hopefully that is not the play.
There was precisely one Papi-level DH type available as a FA this offseason. With the new CBA and the looming extensions for younger players, throwing a truckload at Edwin could bite them in the ass
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
I also wonder if it would come from the trade market. Bruce or Granderson from the Mets for Buchholz?
Agree. Trade Market much more appealing for a bat. Avoid paying the farm for Sale at all costs. Check on Cargo or Granderson. Not feeling Bruce.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
One less potential landing spot for for EE, who is maybe starting to second guess turning down Toronto's pre-Morales offer.

I guess it could always get re-interesting there if Texas ends up going in a different direction too.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
Awful. Dumpster diving. Replacing Ortiz with those two and hoping and praying on Panda is bad. Hopefully that is not the play.
We're not replacing Ortiz. His production, unless you believe in EE or Bautista, is not coming back. The play is that you supplement some of that with a decent power bat, rotate Hanley or others for rest, and put the best 8 guys in the line-up based on what's on the roster (or, like the link says, hope that Pablo is redeemed...) - and you hope that his production is replaced by spreading it around between the young guys continuing to get even better and that new bat. The question is: if we have some money to spend, and not going out for a trade, is there a better option on the market for the DH spot. The answer is probably yes, unless Marco Hernandez is a full time member of this team or we carry 3 catchers.

I also wonder if it would come from the trade market. Bruce or Granderson from the Mets for Buchholz?
For one, I don't think the Mets are trading either for the lowest member of their bullpen totem pole/6th starter. Second, there's a big disconnect in the names everyone seems to throw around: do we want a DH who can also play the OF or INF? I feel pretty set in the OF, nor do I want Bruce or Granderson tackling the Monster. An INF option is much more appealing to me.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,263
deep inside Guido territory
#Whitesox do not currently perceive #Redsox #Dodgers as serious players on Sale. #Nationals are trying, but Chi very much want elite Return, which is someone like Turner, which is a no go for the Nats.

--Joel Sherman

 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,653
Agree. Trade Market much more appealing for a bat. Avoid paying the farm for Sale at all costs. Check on Cargo or Granderson. Not feeling Bruce.
2015-16 Brandon Moss — .226/.302/.443 – .318 wOBA
2015-16 Trevor Plouffe — .250/.306/.429 — .318 wOBA
2015-16 Carlos Gonzalez — .260/.309/.442 – .318 wOBA [away from Coors]
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
1,885
Quincy
I have a sneaking suspicion that Joey Bats will be the DH. DD likes even making a semi-major splash if he can.
Except that wouldn't be semi-major, that would be major. If he wouldn't go for EE, I have a hard time believing he'd go for Bautista *unless he'd accept a 1-year deal, which I really don't see*
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Sacrificing your first-round draft pick for a short-term deal with a 36-year-old in decline would indeed be a semi-major splash, but of the belly flop variety.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
The Padres are "aggressively shopping" Yangervis Solarte, per Ken Rosenthal. That would be a nice upgrade of Aaron Hill's roster spot as a platoon partner for Shaw or Sandoval who could also PH for a lefty DH like Alvarez late in games.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
The Padres are "aggressively shopping" Yangervis Solarte, per Ken Rosenthal. That would be a nice upgrade of Aaron Hill's roster spot as a platoon partner for Shaw or Sandoval who could also PH for a lefty DH like Alvarez late in games.
He'd be a nice upgrade period.

Although that is probably one of those smaller scale "makes too much sense to actually end up happening" type moves though. Plus there really has been no indication that DD (who once moved Miguel Cabrera back to third base after a 4 year layoff) has even given a mere thought to the direct possibility that we better insure the various ways our upcoming situation at third can still play out to be a complete disaster.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Pearce to Jays 2 years 12.5 mill per. I know its been discussed ad nausea why EE doesn't fit/too costly/draft pick/age/ etc. But with his market theoretically shrinking is their a price that does make it worth the plunge ? Idk if there is but the Jays being seemingly out makes things interesting I would say.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Pearce to Jays 2 years 12.5 mill per. I know its been discussed ad nausea why EE doesn't fit/too costly/draft pick/age/ etc. But with his market theoretically shrinking is their a price that does make it worth the plunge ? Idk if there is but the Jays being seemingly out makes things interesting I would say.
Well this is the type of scenario where even though they signed Holliday I don't think you can count the Yankees out 100%. Same with Houston. They could still use him at 1st. Honestly wouldn't go more than 18 per over 3 years for a DH.