Drew v. 2.0
- Thread starter lambeau
- Start date
- Status
I wish SOMEONE would sign Drew so this argument can finally be given a rest.
Count me in the camp of people who believe WMB needs a full year with decent health before we go writing him off. This was our top prospect 18 months ago, and now he's talked about like a scrub. As pointed out, his OBP was .329 after returning.....not everyone is gonna put up Choo numbers in that department, and it's entirely possible Cecchini won't put up a .900 OPS against AAA pitching.
I'm not down on him, even if he's similar to Trumbo. He diversifies the lineup....Power is sometimes at the expense of OBP, and that's ok if you've got a couple guys like that spread throughout the order. It's great to have guys who take walks and slap singles 40% of the time, but that won't make a pitcher shake in his boots as much as a guy who can clear those bases with one swing.
Let Drew walk. Sign Uribe or someone like that. Give Will a chance to show what he's capable of and collect a draft pick in the process.
Count me in the camp of people who believe WMB needs a full year with decent health before we go writing him off. This was our top prospect 18 months ago, and now he's talked about like a scrub. As pointed out, his OBP was .329 after returning.....not everyone is gonna put up Choo numbers in that department, and it's entirely possible Cecchini won't put up a .900 OPS against AAA pitching.
I'm not down on him, even if he's similar to Trumbo. He diversifies the lineup....Power is sometimes at the expense of OBP, and that's ok if you've got a couple guys like that spread throughout the order. It's great to have guys who take walks and slap singles 40% of the time, but that won't make a pitcher shake in his boots as much as a guy who can clear those bases with one swing.
Let Drew walk. Sign Uribe or someone like that. Give Will a chance to show what he's capable of and collect a draft pick in the process.
I think Uribe's just signed a two-year contract with the Dodgers: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24375273/report-dodgers-juan-uribe-agree-on-twoyear-contract
CaskNFappin said:
There aren't any particular physical attributes that a 2bman needs that the typical SS would not have. But there is some footwork and positioning that the SS would need to work on.bosox79 said:
Minneapolis Millers said:
Pedroia was drafted as an undersized college shortstop. He stuck to the position to start his minor league career with the Sox before he was shifted to the other side of second base.
The Sox are already gambling by committing to Middlebrooks and Bogaerts on the left side of their infield. Is it inconceivable that Mookie Betts, an exciting comet of a player surging through the minors, might have what it takes before the end of the season to be the super UIF that they ultimately seek?
I thought that I was watching Joe Morgan when I saw his speedy amazing 2B range after he reached Salem last summer. If he starts at AA this year and maintains his productivity, being a utility player might punch his ticket to the majors. Why was Betts moved off shortstop so quickly before last season? Even with less of an arm than a regular ML shortstop requires, that would be a weakness they could live with. He is undersized but, if he can play OF, he could find regular at bats playing up to 6 defensive positions on a baseball diamond with his great speed. If 2013 wasn't a fluke, they will have trouble keeping him down on the farm for the next full minor league season:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=betts-000mar
I knew that my binky Mr. Betts struggled recently in the AFL but this article was encouraging as to his ability to make the needed adjustments from that level upward:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mookie-betts-learns-from-the-red-sox/
Also, I didn't know until now that his uncle was exactly the kind of deep depth utility player that the Sox need now and in the future:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/shumpte01.shtml
Uncle Schump never had a single minor league season as good as nephew Mookie.
Betts is unlikely to be the righty version of HOF 2B Morgan and Joe's stay in the minors wasn't for long before he got his early chances with the expansion Astros:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morgajo02.shtml
Nevertheless, Schumpert's relatively lengthy major league career for an irregular is probably just the floor for what Betts will do. It's too early to know the likely ceiling but, with this pedigree, Betts ought to reach and experience some success in the majors.
:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mookie-betts-learns-from-the-red-sox/
Also, I didn't know until now that his uncle was exactly the kind of deep depth utility player that the Sox need now and in the future:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/shumpte01.shtml
Uncle Schump never had a single minor league season as good as nephew Mookie.
Betts is unlikely to be the righty version of HOF 2B Morgan and Joe's stay in the minors wasn't for long before he got his early chances with the expansion Astros:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morgajo02.shtml
Nevertheless, Schumpert's relatively lengthy major league career for an irregular is probably just the floor for what Betts will do. It's too early to know the likely ceiling but, with this pedigree, Betts ought to reach and experience some success in the majors.
:
Al Zarilla said:
This.
The better original statement would have been that "any SS has the necessary tools to learn to be a 2B", but the double play evasion plus the get up from a dive in either direction to make a throw is different than shortstop and necessary to learn. Some SS are a natural and have an inclination to adapt easily (like adapting to the quicker reactions and charging the bunt at 3B), while others might be more hard ingrained in being a shortstop and find some of these actions foreign to them...not because they lack the tools to do them, but just because they are not used to them and could be at risk of reduced effectiveness and increased injury while in the learning process.
So semi off topic, if they are moving a guy off SS, how do they decide on 2b or 3b? Arm strength, size, and bat?
If we're really looking at the potential return of Drew as a "deep depth" opportunity, then Drew returning to SS, Bogaerts playing 3B, and sending WMB to AAA while signing a UIF would be the ultimate "deep depth" play for the IF. I don't think I prefer that option to letting WMB and Bogaerts both play at 3B and SS, respectively, but it's a viable option if WMB still has an option left, which I believe he does. It would also be a reasonable option of WMB's back is still bothering him, so he could work his way back gradually, while being the logical call-up in the event of any injury at SS or 3B, and possibly 2B. A separate UIF would be a better option for irregular "day off" PAs, while WMB could get regular playing time in AAA. In that scenario, the team would be a AAA CF and a MLB UIF away from a completed position player depth chart for 2014.
Can anyone actually tell me the difference between "deep depth" and "depth," apart from some sort of Red Sox organization pixie dust? Is there a certain player you can point to who would count as a "depth" utility player but not a "deep depth" utility player?The Boomer said:
I'd argue that "deep depth" implies having multiple starting-caliber players at each position, such as Victorino in RF or CF, Carp at 1B or LF, Nava in LF or RF, then having strict utility players like Holt or Snyder in AAA instead of starting the season on the MLB roster. Aside from Pedroia, Gomes, and the catchers, the rest of the roster appears to be multi-position capable if we count WMB as a 2B candidate.The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
It's probably largely a pixie dust PR thing, but the narrative in my head would define "depth" as having a backup player for every position somewhere on the MLB or AAA roster, while "deep depth" is having one MLB-caliber player between the starter and that utility/backup player.
JMDurron said:
This is how I see it too. The only two guys of their end of the season "regulars" with a wOBA below .330 and a wRC+ below 100 were the young'uns Middlebrooks and Boegarts, and Boegarts still was posting a .320 on-base percentage and WMB's second half was .329.
Going 12 deep with real major league hitters solves a lot of problems for a manager.
I don't see the value of carrying a UIF if you can sign Drew and give him the majority of the starts against righties. Start Bogaerts against lefties. Split the starts at third between X and WMB. The internal competition among the three should only enhance the team's offense. This arrangement also acts to minimize the effects of potential defensive slumps by Bogaerts and WMB>
Doctor G said:
So Pedroia plays 162 games in 2014?
The value of a utility infielder is having a player with some semblance of experience at a position to serve as a back-up to that position. Having a player with just four innings of experience at 2B (or none at all in Drew or Bogaerts case) serve as Pedroia's primary back-up is not the best plan to enter next season with.
Why do you need to carry a UIF when you have an emergency 2B in Middlebrooks. If Pedroia is going to miss substantial time you call up a replacement from Pawtucket. I don't see why you waste a roster space as long as you have enough at bats to maximize your offense and develop your young players at the major league level.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Doctor G said:
Because you want to give Pedroia a day off once in a while. "Emergency 2B" is distinctly different from "back-up 2B". It was one thing that they plugged Middlebrooks in for late innings of a blow-out or could use him should Pedroia get hurt mid-game, but I don't think you want Middlebrooks getting starts at 2B. It's no different than saying that they can get away with only carrying one catcher on the roster because Napoli or Gomes or Pedroia are designated as the "emergency catcher".
The "deep depth" approach as described above seems like what you do when you have several veteran players, all with established value but also established limitations, and you want to deploy them so as to have a strong performer at each position for that day's game, nearly all the time.
But that's not the situation the Sox infield will be in next year if Bogaerts and WMB are both on the 25-man. The Sox will have two strong two-way performers on the right side, who should play nearly every day when healthy, and two young players on the left side who (for somewhat different reasons) should also play nearly every day when healthy--either in MLB, or, if they're not cutting it, in AAA. There are no Gomes or Nava equivalents in our infield picture. If you want to sign Drew and trade WMB, I'm OK with that, though it wouldn't be my first choice. But signing Drew to be our fifth infielder (or to make WMB our fifth infielder) is solving a problem that doesn't exist by creating a new one.
But that's not the situation the Sox infield will be in next year if Bogaerts and WMB are both on the 25-man. The Sox will have two strong two-way performers on the right side, who should play nearly every day when healthy, and two young players on the left side who (for somewhat different reasons) should also play nearly every day when healthy--either in MLB, or, if they're not cutting it, in AAA. There are no Gomes or Nava equivalents in our infield picture. If you want to sign Drew and trade WMB, I'm OK with that, though it wouldn't be my first choice. But signing Drew to be our fifth infielder (or to make WMB our fifth infielder) is solving a problem that doesn't exist by creating a new one.
You need to have a second planned option at every position, not just emergency and Pawtucket call ups. So if you are only going to have a Middlebrooks you would need to make sure he crosses this line and could comfortably play 10-15 games, not just be like the #3 catcher who never actually plays.
Pedroia resting a dozen games for a replacement level player is worth about a half a win, so not a season breaker, but also not immaterial and you would like those dozen games to be played by someone better than replacement level at it (best of all Pedroia himself for some of them). I think that you can be creative for that rest, but you need someone on the roster who is pretty good at it, and I don't think WMB profiles as that. I'm still in the camp that we don't re-sign Drew and we do find a Punto/Ciriaco-like infielder to fill in at multiple positions without costing 2/24M plus a draft pick to do it.
Pedroia resting a dozen games for a replacement level player is worth about a half a win, so not a season breaker, but also not immaterial and you would like those dozen games to be played by someone better than replacement level at it (best of all Pedroia himself for some of them). I think that you can be creative for that rest, but you need someone on the roster who is pretty good at it, and I don't think WMB profiles as that. I'm still in the camp that we don't re-sign Drew and we do find a Punto/Ciriaco-like infielder to fill in at multiple positions without costing 2/24M plus a draft pick to do it.
My cursory search on BR shows that Middlebrooks has only played 4 innings at 2B (last year) and never professionally prior to that. He might be able to play 2b in an emergency, but i don't know how comfortable the team would be in giving him starts to give Pedroi days off during the season.Doctor G said:
You don't absolutely need for your backup 2b to be able to play 10-15 games if there is someone in Pawtucket who can come up. But a non-ideal backup means you might have to DL someone who only needs a week off. It's a risk. But I think if Drew comes back they will have to move someone like Carp so they can fit a backup on the roster.
Crazy idea: with Seattle picking up some bats to replace the CF types they had in LF and RF, could we try to get Ackley to backup the three OF positions as well as 1b and 2b?
Crazy idea: with Seattle picking up some bats to replace the CF types they had in LF and RF, could we try to get Ackley to backup the three OF positions as well as 1b and 2b?
If backing up Pedroia is our only problem going into next year, it's not a bad problem to have.
bosox79 said:
The bat, obviously, is a big determinate of "value." But at the risk of going too technical: it's not necessarily "footwork," or not in the sense that most people think of it. The main difference between the positions (and this is why not everyone can make it work) is in how you leverage the ball -- whether you are adept in the hips. Almost all of the plays you make at short, and at third, move your leverage toward first base, or allow you to "get around" the ball to line your hips and your shoulders toward the bag. (And this is the key. Watch the famed Jeter jump in the hole move: the jump is there to turn his momentum and power his hip turn.) At second the leveraging is different because the plays tend to take you away from the bag; getting your feet around the ball to leverage it is different, and for a lot of guys, awkward. In amateur ball and the lower levels of pro ball sometimes this is hard to discern, but as you start climbing toward the big leagues, every step matters because the speed of the game is so intense. (I call this the Cafardo Principle. A certain Boston scribe has been known to write about baseball at the big-league level as if it's still the same Little League game we all know and love. It is not, by any means.)
I pulled this quote from Barry Larkin just now off the BP Monday quote column: look at what Larkin "looks for" in a SS. "In rhythm" means what I'm talking about -- the ball fielded while the hips and the shoulders turn, which not only provides power on the throw to first but also, by getting the back of the left shoulder turned to the target, accuracy. Again, every step matters, because the more you have to do to make all this happen, the more steps the hitter is taking on you toward first. Same principle at 2B, different work entirely to make it happen.
Edit: Exactly to my point about the Cafardo Principle: you can almost hear him screaming, on behalf of LL parents everywhere, "get in front of the ball!1!!" But you don't "get in front of it" at the big-league level and it really shouldn't be taught that way after age 15 or so. You -- as Larkin unselfconsciously simply says it -- go around it.
It’s all in the flexibility and the lateral quickness and movement of the guy… Generally, when I saw Bogaerts, I was watching him on a routine ground ball at third base. Most third basemen sit there and let the ball come to them… I saw him really work his feet to get around the ball, to catch the ball in rhythm. Matter of fact, I said right there, ‘There’s your shortstop.’”
Why? Does Brock Holt have a future beyond sitting on the bench in Boston waiting for Dustin Pedroia to agree that he needs a day off? I thought people generally agreed his ceiling was maybe ML utility infielder.Doctor G said:
The reason I would prefer Holt playing everyday In Pawtucket is that if he is called upon to play 2nd in the event of a Pedroia injury I would prefer him to be as sharp as possible.Worst Trade Evah said:
What I am really questioning here in the final analysis is whether the utility infielder position isn't an anachronism in an era of 12 man bullpens, particularly for a team like Boston who has a fulltime DH.
I think it is.
I don't know. The baseball season is long, and players can get pretty banged up over the course of the season. Getting hurt and tired isn't an anachronism. Not "I need a DL trip" level banged up, but a "My foot is killing me from fouling a ball off it, I jammed my thumb sliding into a base and I'm sore and exhausted from an overnight flight across the country" type banged up. I don't think you want to have to keep asking your star 2B (and rookie SS maybe?) to play through every nagging injury. Pedroia's shown a lot of toughness playing through the injuries he's had, but I'd rather avoid having players play through stuff and never fully heal. Guys getting rest when they need it can help avoid needless trips to the DL.Doctor G said:
Ultimately though, UIF is a pretty low-level concern. I'm sure they'll figure something out - whether it's Drew returning and Middlebrooks pretending to play 2B, or Brock Holt! or (most likely) some unexciting glove guy from outside the org.
Doctor G has a good point here.Doctor G said:
It really comes down to this:
Drew + Workman (as #6 starter) > Dempster + Holt (or Punto like utility guy) + comp. pick + some future $$$(Drew's year 2 and/or 3 of the contract)*
* the assumption that Drew would sign a 2-3yr deal with Sox, would be willing to rest vs. LH starters, PH in late game situations - and not sulk. And we could dump some of Dempsters $13MM/yr and offset that vs. Drew's first year.
Or they don't sign Drew, trade Dempster/Peavy and use the savings to not only get a UI, but upgrade somewhere else
where would you like to upgrade?swingin val said:
Starting staff? check
catcher? check
bullpen? check
1st base, 2nd base, DH? check. check.check
LF platoon? CF? RH? check. check. check.
prospects? check
So you are concerned about our minor league depth, and would like to use money to enhance that at the expense of upgrading the big club?keninten said:
Carp, Nava provides nice depth at 1st. Hassan should see time at 1st in AAA. Travis Shaw at AA.
Brock Holt playing SS at AAA, Marrero at AA, rumors of Betts playing some SS this summer constitutes some nice SS depth.
Quintin Berry could be signed to a minor league deal for MLB min to add depth to CF in AAA, if you like.
Acquiring Drew would be a good way to create "deep depth" on the left side of the INF.
At this point the Red Sox comparative financial might should be best used trying to get Tanaka on post and ensuring as slump free of a season as possible, like last year.
The 2013 Sox were machine like AND entertaining, we will never get their like again.
So we can settle for machine like and enjoy the wins.
Tanaka being a terrific pitcher that only costs money means the Sox should get a big bag of money in the game.
Far more importantly is exactly what keninten suggests. We can use millions of dollars to get good quality players in AAA to make sure the team doesn't suffer if the first team gets hurt or underperforms. Deep depth is having Carp, Nava, Gomes AND Ortiz who all can play DH and First, as well as Left field and even Right field in a pinch.
Fortunately, Pedroia played well even through his injuries, but the Sox were amazingly injury free otherwise. This next year, we want multiple top quality players at each position for decent money.
So, a couple million for an above average AAA CF and SS makes sense. Paying an above replacement MLB player too many dollars to be a depth guy who knows he will play only sporadically or if somebody gets hurt is a way that the Sox can make their money pay. We are missing two spots, and Drew at a negative pick and too much money doesn't make sense. One of the guys out there can do it for him, although that list is slimming.
The 2013 Sox were machine like AND entertaining, we will never get their like again.
So we can settle for machine like and enjoy the wins.
Tanaka being a terrific pitcher that only costs money means the Sox should get a big bag of money in the game.
Far more importantly is exactly what keninten suggests. We can use millions of dollars to get good quality players in AAA to make sure the team doesn't suffer if the first team gets hurt or underperforms. Deep depth is having Carp, Nava, Gomes AND Ortiz who all can play DH and First, as well as Left field and even Right field in a pinch.
Fortunately, Pedroia played well even through his injuries, but the Sox were amazingly injury free otherwise. This next year, we want multiple top quality players at each position for decent money.
So, a couple million for an above average AAA CF and SS makes sense. Paying an above replacement MLB player too many dollars to be a depth guy who knows he will play only sporadically or if somebody gets hurt is a way that the Sox can make their money pay. We are missing two spots, and Drew at a negative pick and too much money doesn't make sense. One of the guys out there can do it for him, although that list is slimming.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Did you read the thread?
The reason not to sign Drew to this same sort of deal is position inflexibility and the pick.
My personal belief is that it is important to have Middlebrooks and Bogaerts play as starters. This will create the next Red Sox dynasty, the first since 1918.
There are several free agents who think they can be starters for lesser teams that would happily take starter money to back up for the Red Sox. One of them might do it knowing he will spend the whole season in Pawtucket even though he could get a starting job somewhere else. If the Sox pay 2 mil for a AAA back up and the Royals pay 1.3 mil for their starter, why wouldn't you pick the Sox if you have only earned 2 mil so far in your career? At the Drew/Napoli level, it becomes play money, but at the utility infielder position, it is the difference between comfortable and rich, much less generational wealth.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/position/ss
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/position/2b
No, I would not want to use money to upgrade the minor league depth. Using Peavey or Dempster to get a prospect. I`m not good with all the minor leaguers but someone like Devon Hanson. He may be blocked in Pittsburg and they have a couple SS prospects behind him.benhogan said:
The money saved could be used on Tanaka. Our depth at SP is a good fall back position if we don`t get him.
Signing Drew is not a good option because of the lost pick. I just don`t see Drew coming back without a full time job. If he got a short term deal it would hurt him financially with his next contract if he doesn`t get playing time. Long term he might not have a spot either. He`d be better off with another 1 year deal with someone else.
If they get Tanaka they'll likely move both Peavy and Dempster, as moving one and adding Tanaka still leaves you with six ML SPs who expect regular starts. That would free up ~$25M in money, and I'd assume Tanaka takes no more than $15M of that. So what do you do with the other $10M?keninten said:
I mean, you don't have to spend it, but if the choice is getting some AAAA scrubs and sitting on a stack of cash or bringing back Drew and knowing that the 3B/SS/UTIL roles will almost surely give above average production that seems like a much better use of the money.
Picks are nice but the Sox have had strong drafts without any extra picks and they're already assured one sandwich as-is. The gap between Drew and true utility IF options is huge for a guy almost guaranteed 400-500 ABs.
As for why Drew would return, well, legitimate journalists have reported that the Mets are dubious on acquiring him because of his stated preference to return to Boston all things equal, and if he's looking for a one year hitch he knows that 1. he gets a nice Fenway bounce and 2. that Boston gives a damn nice spotlight to springboard off of.
Don't get me wrong, I think Drew is going to get a 4 year deal from somebody for a healthy eight figure sum. But if he'd take a 1 or 2 year deal to stay in Boston, knowing that it'll be a three players/two positions plus backing up Pedroia situation then from the Red Sox perspective that's a move you jump on.
I think you could make a pretty legitimate argument that $10-$13M for Drew over the next 2 years, greatly reducing replacement level utility IF ABs, is the single biggest upgrade the Sox could make with that money, since any SP upgrade is swapping Peavy/Dempster money for someone else.
Easy, don't make a trade until you identify a need. Starting pitching can be worth more at the deadline than before spring training. Besides, with so many pitchers 30 and over, you can never really have enough starting pitching, unless it starts to hurt team chemistry.
Exactly, why move Dempster/Peavy to get a utility guy if we could instead secure a far better player in Drew to effectively take up that playing time with the money Dempster/Peavy would vacate and then use the trading of one of them to add another quality prospect?Wake's knuckle said:
Also, retaining Drew if he's willing to take a 2 year deal to stay with the Sox isn't necessarily forfeiting the sandwich pick. Drew will be going into his age 31 season, so a 2 year deal would have him back in the FA market heading into his age 33 season. If he's healthy and plays well that is definitely a guy you could put another QO on and get your pick then. The QO is likely only depressing his value with regards to 4-5 year big money deals.
Of course, all this only works if Drew would take a 2 year deal with Boston over a 3 or 4 year deal somewhere else, otherwise I can't see how Boras doesn't net him a Michael Bourn type contract.
Drek717 said:
If Drew's market is supposedly depressed now because of the pick attached to him, how is it not going to be similarly negative for him in two years? I think teams are going to be even less likely to forfeit a draft pick for a 1-2 year deal to a 33 year old SS. It makes sense that the longer the deal the player is looking or willing to sign for, the less impact the pick has on his ability to get said deal (see Ellsbury, Cano, Hamilton, Swisher). I would think if the Red Sox are letting Drew walk away in two years, they're not going to hang the QO on him at that point...he'd likely take it rather than go back out on the market.
I'd attribute a decent bit of Drew's market sluggishness to his health concerns and only being one good year away from his pretty serious ankle injury. Is it a given they offer the QO and get a pick for him in two years? Definitely not, but he definitely won't be too old for that to be a real possibility. Also, it's entirely possible that he has suitors in the 3/$30M or 4/$40M range but would prefer 2/$26M to stay in Boston. If that's the case the market would likely bring him a second contract at 33 still more worthwhile for him than accepting a one year QO.Red(s)HawksFan said:
My point is that it isn't accurate to just assume that the pick is gone. It decreases the chances of getting the pick versus just letting him twist in the wind and wait for some team to get a deal, but two strong seasons out of him could very possibly give the same option after getting more value out of him.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's just plain stupid to hand 300 at-bats to a utility INF like Izturis or a Cedeno. By far the biggest hole in the Sox line up last season was 3rd base, adding Drew solves that in spades.Drek717 said:
As far as depth at starting pitching? if we deal Dempster, we have these guys that could step in to the #6 slot: Workman, Morales, Webster, De La Rosa, Britton, Renaudo, Barnes and potentially Owens by August.
I'm not opposed to also dealing Peavy, if we go and get Tanaka*, in fact I'd love that move. But that should not prohibit the Sox from being more then passive towards Drew.
*I really don't believe Rakuten will post Tanaka till after the 2014 season, so I think working our budget around Tanaka may be fruitless this offseason.
Wasn't there speculation around here that Ellsbury's injury history might impair his getting maximum money? I think other GMs have short term memory like a closer or a defensive back in football need to have. What hit those two players and others that have been injured are usually looked at as random occurrences and they have no more probability of re-injure than any player getting injured. Now, something like multiple concussions for a football player or a catcher would be a different thing. A pitcher with two Tommy Johns, like Brian Wilson would be another cause for caution.Drek717 said:
Al Zarilla said:
Speaking of injuries, this fits here too:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/yankees-likely-to-sign-brian-roberts.html
It's apparently official now. What is the average age of the Yankees? With Pettite and Rivera now retired, I guess they are theoretically getting younger. They will need some Plan B options if Father time and more injuries catch up with Jeter, Beltran, Roberts, Soriano, Suzuki, maybe Teixeira and a 3B TBNL or A Rod. Sabathia and Kuroda will lead their youthful starting brigade. They are like the Dorian Gray of baseball teams.
ji oh said:
The inability to cut payroll might prevent the Yankees from getting under the luxury tax limit this season despite their promise to do so:
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/10154043/new-york-yankees-hit-28m-luxury-tax
I am weirdly rooting for them to cut A Rod's suspension back to not more than 50 games. It will cause plenty of interesting drama in the Bronx. This quote is revealing:
"Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner said he hopes to get under the threshold next year, when it rises to $189 million. That would reset the team's tax rate to 12.5 percent for 2015 and get the Yankees some revenue-sharing refunds.
But following agreements Tuesday on a $2 million, one-year deal with second baseman Brian Roberts and a $7 million, two-year contract with left-hander Matt Thornton, the Yankees are at $177.7 million for 15 players next year, when benefits are likely to total between $11 million and $12 million. Their only hope to get below the threshold appears to be if an arbitrator upholds most of Alex Rodriguez's 211-game suspension, relieving the team of a large percentage of the third baseman's $25 million salary."
If the Sox offered Drew the 1/14 QO equivalent now I think he'd accept. Seems like a win win for both sides.
bosockboy said:
I'm skeptical he would take that right now -- it's only December 18. Don't bet against Boras, is my bottom line.
While the number of landing spots seems limited right now, we are not the only team that can make room for a plus glove middle infielder who gets on base with very good proficiency for a short stop and bats from the left. Just as we're talking about moving our presumptive shortstop over to third base potentially to make room for Drew, I'm sure there are other teams who could think about doing the same thing or something like it. I don't have nearly the knowledge of other teams' rosters as the rest of you, but a player as good as Drew finds his way. I do think the Cardinals making their move and QO have reduced his market significantly below what he hoped, but I still very much see 2/26 or 3/34 or something like that as very likely.
We don't know why he hasn't signed yet. Perhaps Boras is playing chicken adhering to 4/50, knowing he can always drop in January or early February if he needs to.
bosockboy said:
Except for the fact that it's a clear loss for Drew because he went into the season expecting a multi-year deal and probably still has those expectations, and it's a clear loss for the Red Sox because Xander Bogaerts is the shortstop of the future and even if Middlebrooks isn't the third baseman of the future, Cecchini is already crawling up his ass.
So just to be clear here, you think that signing Drew to a one year deal is a "loss" for the Red Sox? And you think it's a loss because Xander is the "shortstop of the future" and a player in AA who might not stick at third is a fallback option?Rasputin said:
And you feel that way on a one year deal?
Signing Drew to a one year deal doesnt prohibit anything you said.
SouthernBoSox said:
Except that it does.
In order to figure out if Middlebrooks is the guy at third, the Red Sox need to play him. In order for Bogaerts to be the shortstop of the future, the Red Sox need to play him. The Red Sox do not have a full time spot open for anyone on the left side of the infield.
That could change with a trade but as things seem pretty well set, the trade would have to be a huge one and those are always unlikely.
- Status