I like big bats and I cannot lie: Acquiring a hitter

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,461
Somewhere
You hold back with this year's frontline free agents because only one of them (Martinez) represents a natural fit for the team, and he would be a full time DH on the wrong side of thirty. Obviously we could pray that he's the next Ortiz but with the Sox already so invested in Ramirez, it seems like a bridge too far.

Plus there are a number of LHH hitting 1B/DH types that would fit nicely and should come much more cheaply.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
While I agree with the timeline, your post isn't complete without anything addressing our financial context; how the team is shaped not just on the field but against the luxury tax.
That's actually the point, IMO.

Cards on the table: I think this roster is probably going to need a pretty dramatic rebuild around 2020, whether we sign another bat or no. The Price opt-out makes all of this something of a garden of forking paths, but looking at the spreadsheet over at Cot's Contracts, here's how the big picture shapes up.

Over the 2018-2019 offseasons, we will probably need to replace 500-700 IP of starting pitching at the same time as Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Rodriguez are getting more expensive. In the 18-19 offseason Pomeranz and (perhaps) Price are FA. After 2019, Sale and Porcello are FA. In 2019, Bogaerts and Bradley are Arb3 — although Bradley has another year), and Betts and Rodriguez are Arb2.

We'll have help because of expiring contracts, but less than you might think. This could be mitigated if a few of these low-minors pitchers (Groome, Houck, Mata, Shawaryn, Scherff, Darwinzon Hernandez) pan out in a hurry, or Price a) stays and b) ages well, or Rodriguez becomes the 1-2 starter that he seems like he could be with a bit more consistency. Maybe one of our position player core gets traded for good value. But I don't really see where all that pitching is coming from. Presumably some of our interesting low-minors players will have blossomed into the sort of prospects that could be useful in trade, but certainly not enough to replace most of a starting rotation, and we won't be able to pay retail to acquire good FA SP if we're extending the kids.

The big moves made since Dombrowski came over — signing Price, gutting the farm for Sale, Pomeranz and Kimbrel — have all shifted the roster, from rookie league to MLB, to a greater focus on this three-year window. That's happened, and we've debated it ad nauseam. It will mean, I think, an all but inevitable rebuild.

Having done that, there are two paths we can take from here. One is certainly the patience/flexibility path, but unless we get tremendous rebound years from a bunch of position players, that risks wasting another of our two remaining seasons with this rotation that we've expended so much to get.

So my reasoning is this: sign Martinez for six years. If our top three starting pitchers can stay close to healthy and a few of the position player core have good years at the plate, that could be a great team. Take two swings at the postseason in 2018-19. From there, we'll see. Maybe we try to reload in 2020, but if it doesn't work, we're sellers at the deadline. If you make good trades, you can be back in contention pretty quickly.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
So my reasoning is this: sign Martinez for six years. If our top three starting pitchers can stay close to healthy and a few of the position player core have good years at the plate, that could be a great team. Take two swings at the postseason in 2018-19. From there, we'll see. Maybe we try to reload in 2020, but if it doesn't work, we're sellers at the deadline. If you make good trades, you can be back in contention pretty quickly.
Yeah, over the last two off seasons they've bet hard on the three year window that started in 2017. Going safe and patient now, when the farm is already basically empty (this is a bottom 5 system in the game right now) would be like deciding to chase to the river after the flop, then folding over a moderate raise after you've already dumped the majority of your stack into the pot just before the river card hits the table.

Sign Martinez to whatever it takes. When he's likely to be bad, this is likely to be a bad team anyway. This isn't the time to take your foot off the pedal. We passed that point about a year ago. So do everything you can to turn the remaining chips into major league roster improvements and maximize your chances of winning in the next two seasons because after that, they start losing control of assets and the front office will not be able to keep up with replacing that production going forward.

So get nuts. Address the power outage quickly and decisively. If Martinez won't play 1B or DH, look to move JBJ even if that leads to something a bit wacky like swapping him for Schwarber, moving Schwarber to DH and living with mediocre defense at 1st for a season with Hanley back on the bag. If he can't stay healthy, he won't see his option vest which is a nice silver lining. if he does stay healthy, he should have a fairly productive year. Or eat half of his contract and dump him somewhere and re-sign Moreland. But don't bring a bottom 1/4 of the league power team back to try and win during this limited window. And don't let cost limit you (right up until the point where your first draft pick would get dropped 10 spots).

You made the decision to go all in if necessary back at the flop. Don't let your last 50 cents in chips keep you from seeing what the river card is.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,861
St. Louis, MO
I'd also consider Kimbrel expendable to get chips in a trade for a hitter. If you don't plan to resign him next winter, trade him now for pieces and sign a less expensive closer long term, a la Greg Holland.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Trading Bradley for Schwarber is a pretty questionable idea, IMO. If Schwarber's mediocre season line is who he is, then he's a league average hitter who is either a bad LF or a DH, and, well, we already have one of those guys in 2017 Hanley Ramirez. Schwarber's 2017 was worth — per baseball-reference — 0.0 WAR (Schwarber).

(Using the b-r system, Bradley posted more oWAR than Schwarber in 2017, when you include base running.)

But Schwarber's probably better than his 2017. If he's actually the .900ish OPS hitter we saw in the second half, who is either a bad LF or a DH, then that's a 3-4 WAR player. On a pre-arb salary, that's tremendous. But let's remember that Bradley was worth 2.8 WAR in what we all feel was a down year for him. Bradley's 3-2-1 weighted last three seasons grade out to 3.5 WAR, which is basically the ceiling for a normal DH (or a middle-of-the-road David Ortiz season).

To make this trade, you'd have to be really confident that you understood why Schwarber's second half (.253/.335/.559, .309 BABIP) looked so different from his first half (.178/.300/.394, .200 BABIP), and that as he ages into his mid-20s, Schwarber could get his on base skills up to match the SLG, and be a .950-1.000 OPS type. If that doesn't happen, Bradley's next three seasons (he's a Super 2, so arb2-4) might be worth more than Schwarber's next four seasons, especially given that Schwarber's skillset is well-compensated by the arbitration system. And if we are putting a premium on value in 2018 and 2019, as I'm arguing we should, Bradley might be worth a lot more.

I think the Cubs would and should absolutely make that trade if offered, though. Basically, Bradley would be a considerable upgrade on Jay. Swapping Schwarber's LF innings (-13 runs of DRS) for Bradley in CF (+11 runs), using some combination of Almora/Zobrist in LF (presumably +X) and Heyward in RF, might be a 30-run difference. You'd expect Schwarber to hit better than Bradley going forward, but I don't know if you'd expect him to hit *that* much better. They also have no shortage of power, because of their remarkable infield.

From our point of view, it's closer. (edit: it's closer because we have tons of CF-capable outfielders.) We could put Schwarber in LF, with Benintendi and Betts in the other two spots. Fenway's LF always has wonky defensive stats, so it's hard to quantify the difference there, but I think we can safely call it a considerable downgrade in LF and CF. If we get an extra .200 points of OPS, though... it might break even. Or we can put Schwarber at DH, in which case we now need another OF. In this scenario, whether we come out ahead depends on who we can acquire for that spot. (edit: Snod clarifies that he meant along with a signing of JDM for LF. That's an idea.)
 
Last edited:

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,672
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yeah, over the last two off seasons they've bet hard on the three year window that started in 2017. Going safe and patient now, when the farm is already basically empty (this is a bottom 5 system in the game right now) would be like deciding to chase to the river after the flop, then folding over a moderate raise after you've already dumped the majority of your stack into the pot just before the river card hits the table.

Sign Martinez to whatever it takes. When he's likely to be bad, this is likely to be a bad team anyway. This isn't the time to take your foot off the pedal. We passed that point about a year ago. So do everything you can to turn the remaining chips into major league roster improvements and maximize your chances of winning in the next two seasons because after that, they start losing control of assets and the front office will not be able to keep up with replacing that production going forward.

So get nuts. Address the power outage quickly and decisively. If Martinez won't play 1B or DH, look to move JBJ even if that leads to something a bit wacky like swapping him for Schwarber, moving Schwarber to DH and living with mediocre defense at 1st for a season with Hanley back on the bag. If he can't stay healthy, he won't see his option vest which is a nice silver lining. if he does stay healthy, he should have a fairly productive year. Or eat half of his contract and dump him somewhere and re-sign Moreland. But don't bring a bottom 1/4 of the league power team back to try and win during this limited window. And don't let cost limit you (right up until the point where your first draft pick would get dropped 10 spots).

You made the decision to go all in if necessary back at the flop. Don't let your last 50 cents in chips keep you from seeing what the river card is.
It's arguable that their best option is and always was to GFIN during the window. If we look back at 2015, the rotation was a shambles, and the pen was headed by a 40 year old Koji. Xander, Betts, Bradley, and Shaw already had their clocks ticking (that year or previously) Pedroia/Ortiz were aging, and Porcello, the highest upside starter was a FA in 2020. It didn't seem like the rotation or the bullpen were going to be filled by internal candidates only at that point - trades would have to be made.

2016 brings us a solid rotation "next few years" core with Price, Porcello, Erod and Wright (if only as an innings eater), and Kimbrell for the pen. Lackluster performances here and there, and a bad post-season. By season's end, we're down Ortiz/Wright/Erod and have a thin pen, but we've picked up Pom. At that point, we've basically traded Margot and Espinoza as the major pieces.

The start of the 2017 season has rotation, bullpen and 3B weaknesses. So we acquire Sale for Moncada and Thornburg for Shaw. We should have had a top flight starting rotation, a strong bullpen, and all the younger players, on average, improving somewhat. That's close to a 100 Win team without injury or across the board underperformance.

In an alternate universe of holding on to prospects, at this point, we'd have Moncada and Shaw as a 3B/1B tandem, and Margot as our 4th OF (maybe). But our rotation would be pretty terrible Price, Porcello and ? (assuming the injuries occurred to Buchholz/Erod/Wright/Espinoza), and out bullpen likely far worse as well. Looking to the future in the alternate universe, we'd have Moncada, Margot, and a likely couple of the current younger players beyond the 2020 window, but that's it. We'd still have to acquire a rotation, and the bullpen would still be terrible. I realize that FA signings can plug holes in this alternate universe, but young players will also arb up into FA. I guess the bottom line is that I just don't see the decimation of the farm system as having sent the next easily identifiable core of the next great RS out the door, mostly because of the lack of SP prospects.

It's also likely the reason Farrell was fired. All the pieces are here, now.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
nvalvo, I don't necessarily disagree with your take on JBJ for Schwarber. Personally, I'd probably assume his career line which makes him something like a 35 HR a year threat with a .330 OBP. That's pretty good for a 24 year old and there's reason to think the OBP would come up over the next few years.

That said, it was sort of a throw away example of the type of thing they should look to do if they can sign Martinez and it creates an outfield logjam. JBJ is the second one up for FA (after Bogaerts), so swapping him for Schwarber would tack on one more year of control for that roster spot, which is an additional benefit. Plus, JBJ is a Theo draftee (one of his last in Boston) which might make him a touch more valuable to the Cubs than he would be to another team.

And if you are adding Schwarber at those numbers to the middle of the lineup with Martinez providing at least 2-3 years of 30ish HR .350+ OBP, you've got an imposing middle of the order again, which this team was sorely lacking this year.

I don't have the historical numbers pulled, (maybe I'll find time to check them over the winter) but I would guess that if you looked at all of the playoff teams in the wild card era, or maybe even the divisional era, you'd probably find a minimum threshold of SLG relative to league average and that the 2017 Sox would be below that threshold. They don't need to be a top 5 SLG team in the majors to compete, but I imagine middle of the pack or better is probably necessary (as a rough estimate).

And you don't necessarily need HR power to be a high SLG team (See: Red Sox, 2013) but it helps.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
What about Khris Davis? He's kind of Martinez Lite: poor defender, big HR power, high K/middling BB--the major difference is that he has much lower BABIPs, which reflect the fact that he's more of a FB hitter (Fenway could help him there). He's a FA in 2020, which dovetails neatly with the two-year window people are floating. He would add a dependable 30-40 HR to the mix, though his other contributions would be mostly negative. The A's were making noises about extending him during the season, according to MLBTR, but they haven't done it yet, so maybe they'd be amenable to a deal.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
While he'd be much much cheaper, the difference between Davis's OBP and Martinez's is huge. Martinez is probably a .350 guy at worst. Davis is a .330 guy at best.

Davis in full seasons: .299, .323, .307, .336
Martinez after joining the Tigers: .358, .344, .373, .378

And it's not like Davis is really much younger than Martinez. He's 29 to Martinez's 30. I wouldn't consider him comparable, even if he's got a HR rate that's a little easier to trust. Martinez is just a far superior overall hitter.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
What about Khris Davis? He's kind of Martinez Lite: poor defender, big HR power, high K/middling BB--the major difference is that he has much lower BABIPs, which reflect the fact that he's more of a FB hitter (Fenway could help him there). He's a FA in 2020, which dovetails neatly with the two-year window people are floating. He would add a dependable 30-40 HR to the mix, though his other contributions would be mostly negative. The A's were making noises about extending him during the season, according to MLBTR, but they haven't done it yet, so maybe they'd be amenable to a deal.
Not a bad suggestion because the acquisition cost wouldn't be too awful - plus it would take Johnny Damon off the hook for worst Red Sox outfield arm ever.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/good-lord-khris-davis/
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
nvalvo, I don't necessarily disagree with your take on JBJ for Schwarber. Personally, I'd probably assume his career line which makes him something like a 35 HR a year threat with a .330 OBP. That's pretty good for a 24 year old and there's reason to think the OBP would come up over the next few years.

That said, it was sort of a throw away example of the type of thing they should look to do if they can sign Martinez and it creates an outfield logjam. JBJ is the second one up for FA (after Bogaerts), so swapping him for Schwarber would tack on one more year of control for that roster spot, which is an additional benefit. Plus, JBJ is a Theo draftee (one of his last in Boston) which might make him a touch more valuable to the Cubs than he would be to another team.

And if you are adding Schwarber at those numbers to the middle of the lineup with Martinez providing at least 2-3 years of 30ish HR .350+ OBP, you've got an imposing middle of the order again, which this team was sorely lacking this year.

I don't have the historical numbers pulled, (maybe I'll find time to check them over the winter) but I would guess that if you looked at all of the playoff teams in the wild card era, or maybe even the divisional era, you'd probably find a minimum threshold of SLG relative to league average and that the 2017 Sox would be below that threshold. They don't need to be a top 5 SLG team in the majors to compete, but I imagine middle of the pack or better is probably necessary (as a rough estimate).

And you don't necessarily need HR power to be a high SLG team (See: Red Sox, 2013) but it helps.
If you're talking about doing this *along with* signing Martinez for LF, I'm less opposed. It saves about $6-8m AAV against the 2018 and 2019 caps, even if it is unlikely to improve the team on the field. (But it's still risky. Schwarber has struck out in 30% of his career PA: there's still a chance he busts.)

If that saved money helps you make the team better during our window — say, by signing Martinez for LF — without hitting the $237m cap, I could see it making sense; subtracting from our OF surplus to lengthen the lineup. But my point is that it's not a trade that is likely to improve the roster on its own, even if the increased flexibility it brings might help.

(I'd probably want Theo to include an A-ball starting pitcher, too. We need to pack Greenville with arms, if we don't want this roster to implode in three years.)

Still...

Betts RF R
Benintendi CF L
Martinez LF R
Schwarber DH L
Ramirez 1B R
Devers 3B L
Pedroia 2B R
Catcher R/S
Bogaerts SS R

... is a lineup.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
But my point is that it's not a trade that is likely to improve the roster on its own, even if the increased flexibility it brings might help.
We seem to be in agreement on the rest, but I'd quibble with this. It wouldn't make the team better overall once you factor defense into the mix, but I think it makes the lineup better because it fills in a gap where they are deficient (power) without pulling from OBP much, if at all. They'll lose a few stolen bases and some 1st to 3rds, but I would argue that simply replacing JBJ with Schwarber in 2018 makes the lineup (and just the lineup) better.

JBJ looks to be around a 3 WAR player overall and Schwarber more like a 2 WAR player when playing in left field (where he's a negative value). So long term, as a DH, I think he'd probably kick out similar overall value to JBJ, which means that I agree it's not an improvement to the roster overall. That doesn't mean it can't make this a more dangerous team in the playoffs, though.

But yeah, something like this with a Martinez signing would be far more optimal.

Edit: I say he's a 2 WAR player while in LF because he's worth 3.3 fWAR over his career across 198 games. Average that out over 162 and he's 2.7 per a full season. Subtract some for not playing 162 games a year and a bit more for his debut being driven by a hot streak and not necessarily representative of his talent level, and I'm comfortable rounding that down to 2 as a quick and dirty measure.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
910
I don't see the logic in going "all in" for a 30 year old DH when the team this year was top-5 in the AL in runs and won 93 games despite the fact that the majority of their roster failed to meet preseason expectations (and they were last in the AL in home runs).

As others have mentioned, the practical problem is if JD Martinez accepts being a primary DH, Hanley is a near full time first baseman and his option vests (497+ plate appearances next year, and I don't see a viable trade option here). Or they are forced to trade an outfielder, likely JBJ, and thereby offset the value added with Martinez's offense by replacing an excellent defensive player with a poor one. Those both seem like 2 steps forward and 1 step back. In the end, it will boil down to his asking price... I'd jump if he is this year's Encarnacion but I suspect that will not be the case.

Other options for improving offense: replace Leon with a better hitting catcher, sign a good super-utility player to cover for Pedroia and fill into the infield/DH rotation, and look for a short term deal on a 1B/DH/OF. If David Price is healthy, with a few tweaks this team should be in position to win 93+ games next year. If he's not, adding JD Martinez isn't going to put them over the top and we'll be pissed that the front office blew its budget on an aging DH instead of Machado, Harper, etc.

(Interestingly, Tampa and Toronto were 6th/7th in home runs last year and scored the fewest runs in the AL.)
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
(Interestingly, Tampa and Toronto were 6th/7th in home runs last year and scored the fewest runs in the AL.)
Probably because they were 22nd and 27th in OBP. The idea of signing Martinez and (maybe) trading JBJ to fit him in left, is based on the belief that the Sox had a suitable regular season offense but simply didn't have enough power to compete in the playoffs when they were facing the best starters in the league more consistently.

If you think they can be a good enough offense to compete in the playoffs with a bottom of the league SLG next year, expending significant resources on increasing home run production (or even doubles production) is probably not going to make much sense to you.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
910
Probably because they were 22nd and 27th in OBP. The idea of signing Martinez and (maybe) trading JBJ to fit him in left, is based on the belief that the Sox had a suitable regular season offense but simply didn't have enough power to compete in the playoffs when they were facing the best starters in the league more consistently.

If you think they can be a good enough offense to compete in the playoffs with a bottom of the league SLG next year, expending significant resources on increasing home run production (or even doubles production) is probably not going to make much sense to you.
Well, yeah, the math behind the HR numbers/scoring for Tampa and Toronto isn't a mystery, I included the note because so much of the discussion has been on the need to add "Home Runs" to the line-up. Its not just home runs (or we'd just sign Chris Carter). So, while I agree with you that the Sox need to improve their offense next year, I'm not convinced JD Martinez is the answer, at least not when cost and positional impact are factored into the equation.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I don't think trading Jackie Bradley to make room for JD Martinez makes much sense.

If you move him, Andrew Benintendi can probably play a decent CF -- I think it would be Benintendi who moves, by the way, because he doesn't have the arm to play RF (and you certainly don't want Martinez, who is a butcher, trying to handle Fenway's RF instead of our Gold Glove winner). That's a downgrade at two positions: CF and LF. We'd also be losing one of the few roster flexibility advantages we currently have, which is not needing to carry a backup CF on the bench.

And, of course, finding that CF-capable backup outfielder will cost money, because outside of Rusney Castillo, there is absolutely nobody currently in the organization who's ready to fill the role. Seriously, the top CF in the system are probably Cole Brannen (Lowell) and Lorenzo Cedrola (Greenville).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don't think trading Jackie Bradley to make room for JD Martinez makes much sense.

If you move him, Andrew Benintendi can probably play a decent CF -- I think it would be Benintendi who moves, by the way, because he doesn't have the arm to play RF (and you certainly don't want Martinez, who is a butcher, trying to handle Fenway's RF instead of our Gold Glove winner). That's a downgrade at two positions: CF and LF. We'd also be losing one of the few roster flexibility advantages we currently have, which is not needing to carry a backup CF on the bench.

And, of course, finding that CF-capable backup outfielder will cost money, because outside of Rusney Castillo, there is absolutely nobody currently in the organization who's ready to fill the role. Seriously, the top CF in the system are probably Cole Brannen (Lowell) and Lorenzo Cedrola (Greenville).
It's probably Tzu Wei Lin, who up until last year, never played the position.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'm still not sold on a big bat being needed. However, if the Sox are to go after one then I'd rather them go after a FA. The Minors are a tad empty and to subtract ML talent simply means more holes to fill.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
While he'd be much much cheaper, the difference between Davis's OBP and Martinez's is huge. Martinez is probably a .350 guy at worst. Davis is a .330 guy at best.

Davis in full seasons: .299, .323, .307, .336
Martinez after joining the Tigers: .358, .344, .373, .378

And it's not like Davis is really much younger than Martinez. He's 29 to Martinez's 30. I wouldn't consider him comparable, even if he's got a HR rate that's a little easier to trust. Martinez is just a far superior overall hitter.
There's no doubt Martinez is the better hitter (hence the "Lite"); framing this in OBP terms may be mildly misleading, though, since the difference is mostly BABIP-driven: their career walk rates are almost identical, but their career BABIPs are about 60 points apart. It's really a BA difference. This matters because goosing flyball BABIP is the quintessence of the Fenway park effect. It would help Martinez, who is somewhat of a flyball hitter--but it would help Davis even more. So the gap between them as hitters would narrow here, I think.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
There's no doubt Martinez is the better hitter (hence the "Lite"); framing this in OBP terms may be mildly misleading, though, since the difference is mostly BABIP-driven: their career walk rates are almost identical, but their career BABIPs are about 60 points apart. It's really a BA difference. This matters because goosing flyball BABIP is the quintessence of the Fenway park effect. It would help Martinez, who is somewhat of a flyball hitter--but it would help Davis even more. So the gap between them as hitters would narrow here, I think.
I might buy into this if the difference in fly balls was covered by their ground ball rates, but it's more in the line drive rates. Martinez, over their careers, hits line drives 21.2% to Davis's 19.0%. That may seem insignificant, but over a full season that's probably and extra 12-15 line drives which also play really well at Fenway.

By contrast, their ground ball rates are within 0.3% of each other. I don't think Davis is in Martinez's ballpark, to be frank.

Edit: It's also worth noting that in two of the last three seasons (2015 and 2017) Martinez has hit more fly balls, and significantly more so in 2015. In that same span, Martinez hit significantly more line drives in 2015 and 2016.
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I don't see the logic in going "all in" for a 30 year old DH when the team this year was top-5 in the AL in runs and won 93 games despite the fact that the majority of their roster failed to meet preseason expectations (and they were last in the AL in home runs).

As others have mentioned, the practical problem is if JD Martinez accepts being a primary DH, Hanley is a near full time first baseman and his option vests (497+ plate appearances next year, and I don't see a viable trade option here). Or they are forced to trade an outfielder, likely JBJ, and thereby offset the value added with Martinez's offense by replacing an excellent defensive player with a poor one. Those both seem like 2 steps forward and 1 step back. In the end, it will boil down to his asking price... I'd jump if he is this year's Encarnacion but I suspect that will not be the case.

Other options for improving offense: replace Leon with a better hitting catcher, sign a good super-utility player to cover for Pedroia and fill into the infield/DH rotation, and look for a short term deal on a 1B/DH/OF. If David Price is healthy, with a few tweaks this team should be in position to win 93+ games next year. If he's not, adding JD Martinez isn't going to put them over the top and we'll be pissed that the front office blew its budget on an aging DH instead of Machado, Harper, etc.
They really can't put all their eggs in the Harper/Machado basket. Those are pipe dreams to me unless DD goes nuclear, and I'd rather he didn't. These two seasons may be the closest they get to a championship for a while, so I personally don't want them punting away an offseason.

JD Martinez has basically been prime big Papi the last few years. It is exactly what this team needs and was missing last year. A 4 or 5 year deal on a guy moving down the defensive spectrum (or DH) and into a hitters park, to me isn't a huge risk. I think it preserves the bat for a few more years, if anything. My guess is he'd be somewhere in the 5/125 range.

It was a bad sign that Hanley didn't get benched for performance much during the season. Whomever takes over has a serious shit show to deal with if he doesn't perform. Personally, I don't think they'll cave if he hits poorly into June. He has been DFA worthy for two of his three seasons, and it wouldn't shock me if they finally went that route well before it vested.
 
Last edited:

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
I don't think trading Jackie Bradley to make room for JD Martinez makes much sense.

If you move him, Andrew Benintendi can probably play a decent CF -- I think it would be Benintendi who moves, by the way, because he doesn't have the arm to play RF (and you certainly don't want Martinez, who is a butcher, trying to handle Fenway's RF instead of our Gold Glove winner). That's a downgrade at two positions: CF and LF. We'd also be losing one of the few roster flexibility advantages we currently have, which is not needing to carry a backup CF on the bench.

And, of course, finding that CF-capable backup outfielder will cost money, because outside of Rusney Castillo, there is absolutely nobody currently in the organization who's ready to fill the role. Seriously, the top CF in the system are probably Cole Brannen (Lowell) and Lorenzo Cedrola (Greenville).
I'm not advocating trading JBJ but why can't you move Mookie to center on the days Beni is out and then move Holt to rf?
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I'm not advocating trading JBJ but why can't you move Mookie to center on the days Beni is out and then move Holt to rf?
Because Holt isn’t even really a capable LF?

Look, Mookie has transitioned well from a middle-infielder in high school and the minors to a terrific RF. He didn’t start out as an outfielder, and he’s had little-to-no practice in the other OF positions, much less experience in games.

RF is now his position, and we may as well accept it, because he’s damn good there. And hopefully, he will be patrolling Fenway’s RF during the top half of innings there for many years to come.

It’s far less of a problem to just get a good-fielding true outfielder who’s capable of playing anywhere on the grass.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Because Holt isn’t even really a capable LF?

Look, Mookie has transitioned well from a middle-infielder in high school and the minors to a terrific RF. He didn’t start out as an outfielder, and he’s had little-to-no practice in the other OF positions, much less experience in games.

RF is now his position, and we may as well accept it, because he’s damn good there. And hopefully, he will be patrolling Fenway’s RF during the top half of innings there for many years to come.

It’s far less of a problem to just get a good-fielding true outfielder who’s capable of playing anywhere on the grass.
I think Mookie was the primary CF in 2015
Because Holt isn’t even really a capable LF?

Look, Mookie has transitioned well from a middle-infielder in high school and the minors to a terrific RF. He didn’t start out as an outfielder, and he’s had little-to-no practice in the other OF positions, much less experience in games.

RF is now his position, and we may as well accept it, because he’s damn good there. And hopefully, he will be patrolling Fenway’s RF during the top half of innings there for many years to come.

It’s far less of a problem to just get a good-fielding true outfielder who’s capable of playing anywhere on the grass.
He came up for good as a CF in 2015 .. 133 games .. with 28 games in CF in 2014.

So , to suggest he has no experience there would be incorrect.

I think he would have no problems whatsoever moving back to CF.. but then , we would still need a RF .. which isn't Beni in my opinion .. nor do I think Benintendi would make more than a below average CF.

Sign Nunez as a super sub , 4th OF and sign J.D. As a OF/DH combo.
Hanley goes back to 1st.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Hate the idea of having Hanley a full-time player. Too much risk of him either not producing or more likely if given a full-time role of breaking down. If we're "all-in" I'd think he would be a bad bet for a full season.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Hate the idea of having Hanley a full-time player. Too much risk of him either not producing or more likely if given a full-time role of breaking down. If we're "all-in" I'd think he would be a bad bet for a full season.
It's not like we are really being given a choice on that all-in though. Whether it's taking the field or being a full time DH, Hanley Ramirez is going to be a full time player in 2018, with an even longer leash then Pablo had this year. That bet is going to be made either way, and at this point it's just a matter of how the team is going to let it play out.

Again, I'm just hoping DD doesn't buy into some let him DH another full year after the shoulder surgery and see what happens mentality. Which essentially amounts to the same bad bet we made last year when the team bought so heavily into a perfect storm of awesomeness that they couldn't see 2016 for what it really might have been. Which was hardly some pillar of projection stability, and where across the board regression in a few key spots was always one of the more likely outcomes on the table imo.

(but hey, why call out the projections for being at fault and not putting enough overall weight on variables like bad second halves (Bradley/Bogaerts), probable flukes (Leon, and to a much less but still existing extent Betts), lucky rolls of the dice on aging/injury prone players given what they'd been doing over a multi year period (Hanley/Pedroia), and the over-generalized aging-to-production belief pattern that seems to have went into everything at that ("he's only 24, so obviously he must still be due for a peak break out even after 2000+ ABs in the majors)....when you can simply blame Farrell instead)
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
It's not like we are really being given a choice on that all-in though. Whether it's taking the field or being a full time DH, Hanley Ramirez is going to be a full time player in 2018, with an even longer leash then Pablo had this year. That bet is going to be made either way, and at this point it's just a matter of how the team is going to let it play out.

Again, I'm just hoping DD doesn't buy into some let him DH another full year after the shoulder surgery and see what happens mentality. Which essentially amounts to the same bad bet we made last year when the team bought so heavily into a perfect storm of awesomeness that they couldn't see 2016 for what it really might have been. Which was hardly some pillar of projection stability, and where across the board regression in a few key spots was always one of the more likely outcomes on the table imo.

(but hey, why call out the projections for being at fault and not putting enough overall weight on variables like bad second halves (Bradley/Bogaerts), probable flukes (Leon, and to a much less but still existing extent Betts), lucky rolls of the dice on aging/injury prone players given what they'd been doing over a multi year period (Hanley/Pedroia), and the over-generalized aging-to-production belief pattern that seems to have went into everything at that ("he's only 24, so obviously he must still be due for a peak break out even after 2000+ ABs in the majors)....when you can simply blame Farrell instead)
Yes we have choices if they are "all-in." Hanley does not have to be a full-time player if they are "all-in." Nor should he be unless he shows he can hit right from the start. But even then you are playing with extreme fire to expect he'd be effective over the course of a full season. For being "all-in" the Sox shouldn't dare plan for it not only for 2018 but for 2019 also. What I agree with you on is that Hanley is injury prone. Which means if the sox are truly "all-in" and Hanley can also affect who the sox can get in 2019, then they should in no way plan for Hanley to be full-time.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Again, Hanley and his $20m contract is going to be the full time starter somewhere in our lineup whether your paper theory on a potential lesser half platoon (they'll cut cut bait completely before going that route to start the season) likes it or not.

Hence that is plan you are realistically building around there, and why we really have nothing to lose by plugging him back in at 1B imo. You just learn from the Shaw mistake last winter, and make sure we actually have/keep a guy around that can reliably field the position every day if/when that forced-down-our-throat plan goes south. Which should at least be an easier overall replacement bar to clear then 3B played out to be last year.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Again, Hanley and his $20m contract is going to be the full time starter somewhere in our lineup whether your paper theory on a potential lesser half platoon (they'll cut cut bait completely before going that route to start the season) likes it or not.

Hence that is plan you are realistically building around there, and why we really have nothing to lose by plugging him back in at 1B imo. You just learn from the Shaw mistake last winter, and make sure we actually have/keep a guy around that can reliably field the position every day if/when that forced-down-our-throat plan goes south. Which should at least be an easier overall replacement bar to clear then 3B played out to be last year.
Again if Sox are going all-in then it's probably going to be pretty silly that they relied on Hanley as a full-time player. Just because they might use Hanley and pray for his health doesn't mean the move wasn't without huge risk nor does it mean they were "all in."

Sure "potentially" "a lesser half platoon" is possible. "Potentially" depending on several blunderous moves a GM can make, he can be fired quickly too. Anyhow, that phrase you used of "potentially less half platoon" wasn't my point. You're straying away from what I said. I specifically said Hanley is a bad risk. Not the type of player the sox should rely on if they are going "all in." A GM making additional dumb trades or for example keeping as you've even called Hanley- "injury prone" - an aging, brittle over-the-hill player likely to break down if he plays a full season - isn't going to have much success. A guy like Hanley is a bad risk in the "all-in" scenario. .

And to avoid the bad risk, a GM has options. We know he could blunder just like he did with Shaw. And he could do the same if he sticks with Hanley for a full season. Or he could be astute. Make a few good moves and make the sox that much better. That can be done.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Again if Sox are going all-in then it's probably going to be pretty silly that they relied on Hanley as a full-time player. Just because they might use Hanley and pray for his health doesn't mean the move wasn't without huge risk nor does it mean they were "all in."

Sure "potentially" "a lesser half platoon" is possible. "Potentially" depending on several blunderous moves a GM can make, he can be fired quickly too. Anyhow, that phrase you used of "potentially less half platoon" wasn't my point. You're straying away from what I said. I specifically said Hanley is a bad risk. Not the type of player the sox should rely on if they are going "all in." A GM making additional dumb trades or for example keeping as you've even called Hanley- "injury prone" - an aging, brittle over-the-hill player likely to break down if he plays a full season - isn't going to have much success. A guy like Hanley is a bad risk in the "all-in" scenario. .

And to avoid the bad risk, a GM has options. We know he could blunder just like he did with Shaw. And he could do the same if he sticks with Hanley for a full season. Or he could be astute. Make a few good moves and make the sox that much better. That can be done.
I'm not arguing that Hanley isn't a bad risk. My point is that you still have to plan around that regardless, and that we are essentially only left with 2 options there: Take the risk or eat the money, because going out and signing somebody else while you then stash him into a bench role isn't going to be a reality choice given the situation.

If you cut him at any point before next season concludes his option on 2019 is automatically exercised btw.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
The true “all in” scenario involves shipping Hanley off to Cincinnati to balance out Joey Votto’s 2018 salary ;).
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
The true “all in” scenario involves shipping Hanley off to Cincinnati to balance out Joey Votto’s 2018 salary ;).
Signing JD Martinez and one of Hosmer/Santana/Moose, while watching our first round pick for 2 straight drafts drop 10 spots, is the true get crazy all-in atm/imo.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
I'm not arguing that Hanley isn't a bad risk. My point is that you still have to plan around that regardless, and that we are essentially only left with 2 options there: Take the risk or eat the money, because going out and signing somebody else while you then stash him into a bench role isn't going to be a reality choice given the situation.

If you cut him at any point before next season concludes his option on 2019 is automatically exercised btw.
What you are saying isn't "all-in" iimo. If the sox go "all-in" they wouldn;t have to cut him. They could platoon him. If he does well at the platoon - maybe he forces the team to give him enough at bats to vested but you can make moves to upgrade (and should) if you are going all-in because his position can be upgraded.
 
Last edited:

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
What you are saying isn't "all-in" iimo. If the sox go "all-in" they wouldn;t have to cut him. They could platoon him. If he does well at the platoon - maybe he forces the team to give him enough at bats to vested but you can make moves to upgrade (and should) if you are going all-in because his position can be upgraded.
It's also about efficient use of resources.

Turning Hanely into a platoon player is a more efficient way to improve that spot right now. He can still provide some value.

Then you could go big ticket elsewhere (say Moose at 3B, Devers moves to 3B) and you can live with your own Seth Smith type guy to platoon with Hanley at DH (ideally someone who is a big more versatile and could spell another position on off days as well, but you get the point).

I'm not sure what the right answer is. It may just be a more Duquette like tinkering for underappreciated resources, or maybe you get a Santana and then you can just platoon hanley. There's many ways to fix this. But I doubt they're gonna throw out 2 or 3 huge contracts this winter so it's more about what would be the best way to make the one big move they will choose to make.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Who is this platoon partner for Hanley? I see Santana mentioned, but is it really an effective platoon if both players are restricted to DH or 1B? Someone in the mix has to be more flexible position-wise than Hanley is, if only to maintain some flexibility with an already short bench. Not saying it can't be done, but I'd love to see a workable example of it. Preferably one that doesn't involve trading for an unattainable player or signing a player (or two) to unreasonably large contracts. The Sox are already locked into paying Hanley $20M...I can't see them spending another $20M for a platoon partner.
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
Who is this platoon partner for Hanley? I see Santana mentioned, but is it really an effective platoon if both players are restricted to DH or 1B? Someone in the mix has to be more flexible position-wise than Hanley is, if only to maintain some flexibility with an already short bench. Not saying it can't be done, but I'd love to see a workable example of it. Preferably one that doesn't involve trading for an unattainable player or signing a player (or two) to unreasonably large contracts. The Sox are already locked into paying Hanley $20M...I can't see them spending another $20M for a platoon partner.
I was personally thinking Santana plays 1B. He's also a switch hitter, which helps. One of cleveland's big advantages the last 2 years is how much of a platoon advantage they've had when up at the plate. It's a high %. Last year, IIRC they were at the top. I would be surprised if they weren't this year as well.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
The Sox are already locked into paying Hanley $20M...I can't see them spending another $20M for a platoon partner.
I don't know if they'll pay 20 mil, but a platoon partner for Hanley goes a long way to saving 22 mil in 2019, so wouldn't that factor into the decision?

The more limiting factor might be not wanting to use two roster spots on DH types.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
I was personally thinking Santana plays 1B. He's also a switch hitter, which helps. One of cleveland's big advantages the last 2 years is how much of a platoon advantage they've had when up at the plate. It's a high %. Last year, IIRC they were at the top. I would be surprised if they weren't this year as well.
Ok, that works independently of the Hanley situation in that case. But it also limits Hanley to primarily DH. Who is his platoon partner at the DH spot? A LHH who plays where in the field when he's not DHing or when he plays in place of someone who slides to DH instead. It can't really be someone who only DHs and is a liability anywhere else.
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
Ok, that works independently of the Hanley situation in that case. But it also limits Hanley to primarily DH. Who is his platoon partner at the DH spot? A LHH who plays where in the field when he's not DHing or when he plays in place of someone who slides to DH instead. It can't really be someone who only DHs and is a liability anywhere else.
yeah that's what I was getting at. The problem is we need a RHH OF to give JBJ days off. But if they're not a better hitter than Hanley it's gonna be hard to keep Hanley out of the lineup.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I think people are thinking too small when they think about a "platoon."

Let's say Hanley starts 50 games at 1B (mostly against LHP, but occasionally just to give Player X a night off). He can also start, say, 10 games at DH to give Martinez a night off. Additionally, when Benintendi gets a night off, Martinez plays LF and Hanley is the DH. Let's say 15 of those (hopefully most against LHP that Player X can handle). Plus another 10 for Betts -- Martinez plays RF, Hanley is the DH. And another 10 where JBJ sits, Benintendi plays CF, Martinez plays LF, and Hanley is the DH.

We've now got Hanley to 95 starts, even without the possibility that one of those four guys sprains an ankle and misses three weeks. And on the other 67 nights, we've made it very difficult to bring in a LOOGY against Player X, Benintendi, or Devers. That gets Hanley 400-500 very useful PA, the bulk of which come against LHP.

Now, who is Player X? Well, I'd love for it to be Justin Bour, and I'd be fine with it being Mitch Moreland. But if you have confidence that Hanley can handle all those PA (and the 50 games in the field), you can go low-market there and wait for whoever out of the Morrison/Duda/Santana/Alonso group has to take a cheap deal late in the winter.

Hanley Ramirez can be a very important piece of next year's roster even if he isn't a full-time starter.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That gets Hanley 400-500 very useful PA, the bulk of which come against LHP.

.
You do know this is impossible right? Mookie Betts had 148 PA against lefties this year and played in 153 games. You are seriously overstating how many PA there are vs LHP to go around in any given season.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
You do know this is impossible right? Mookie Betts had 148 PA against lefties this year and played in 153 games. You are seriously overstating how many PA there are vs LHP to go around in any given season.
Yeah, if Hanley gets 95 starts, about a third of them will probably be vs. RHP.

Which is not necessarily an issue, since over his career he's had a very modest platoon split (136 to 123 wRC+). He's only had a wRC+ under 100 vs. RHP once since his 2011 injury year. If he's healthy and on his game, he's not a liability vs. RHP. And if he's not healthy or on his game, he's not that much of an asset vs. LHP. So the focus on platooning him is a bit puzzling.