RochesterSamHorn said:
Aside from the talent deficit its a silly idea because teams don't sign FAs and then immediately trade them. Castillo is not being dealt for anyone this winter.
The future at 3rd
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
- Status
Aside from the talent deficit its a silly idea because teams don't sign FAs and then immediately trade them. Castillo is not being dealt for anyone this winter.
If Headley is willing to sign a pillow contract, do the Yankees become competition? I could see the A-Rod uncertainty being enough to have them sink some money into Headley if it's short term.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Quite likely .. but how much better is Headley than the in-house options? I don't think they will get into a bidding war over a crappy player. If the MFY offer him a 12/1 deal then they will probably get him.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I'd be shocked if Headley signs a pillow contract. This may be his only time to cash in on a sizable FA deal. If he has another down offensive year in 2015 his chances of getting a multiyear contract go down.
I think the Yankees resign him to something like 4/60. Doubtful they want Arod playing 3B at this stage in his career.
I really don't understand the fascination with Headley. He has had one "star" level year in his entire career. He's on the wrong side of 30 and his offense is in decline. Do people really want to pay 15m per year for three or four years for a sub .700 ops+ guy?
He's not a bad player - you just don't want to make a long term commitment to guys like that.
He's not a bad player - you just don't want to make a long term commitment to guys like that.
He's at .768 OPS in the second half. I'm willing to give him a Victorino like deal to bring him here, especially if you buy his defensive numbers.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
EDIT: I'm not saying sign him at all cost. I just think, of the three 3rd base options hitting FA this offseason (and we don't even know if Hanley would agree to play 3rd), Headley probably makes the most sense if you can get him on a 3-4 year deal.
RochesterSamHorn said:
You may want to emend that statement.
What's the redundancy "up the middle"? Let's see, we have Bogaerts, Pedroia, Castillo and Betts.
"Lack power at the corners"...maybe revise to "lack power at the corner".
"No immediate options internal at 3B": Middlebrooks, Cecchini, Holt, Bogaerts...despite their talent, they actually are immediate options at 3B.
"A trade must happen". Actually, no...a trade is not essential. If signing a 3B results in the loss of arms (either through trade or lack of money to sign a FA pitcher), then that's a stupid move. If it results in the loss of Betts, that's a stupid move. Competency is all the Red Sox need at 3B for the time being.
"Now get off your high horse and wipe yourself". No comment.
RochesterSamHorn said:
"I know I could've just paid the money for him a month ago, but it's probably smarter to give up some talent for the chance to pay him the money I didn't want to pay him a month ago." -Billy Beane
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I think his offensive improvment once leaving the spacious confines of Petco/ NL West improves his stock. Couple that with his career home/away splits, and one could make the case that Headley could be a .750-.800 OPS 3B with good-great defense. That's worth quite a bit, not even considering that offense has fallen precipitously at 3B over the last 10 years and that this a particularly weak market of FA 3B.
He's also a pull LHH so he has that going for him at NYY as well.
That being said, I don't want him on the Red Sox. I don't think he'd benefit from Fenway enough, and this team needs to find a way to generate offense.
Obviously the Sox cannot count on either Middlerbooks or Cecchini next year, at least at the start of the season, for reasons stated above by Lucchino. Middlebrooks has to demonstrate his effectiveness in the minors first, and Cecchini just needs more ABs in Pawtucket. Which creates an interesting problem at AAA -- if both Middlebrooks and Cecchini start the season in Pawtucket, where do they play? Does Middlebrooks' transition to the outfield begin next spring? He's probably included in one of the packages this winter.
OptimusPapi said:
Because they already have enough lumbering unathletic/gimpy DH-Types?
ARod
Teixeira
Carlos Beltran
Brian McCann
IpswichSox said:
I think WMB transistions to another team this winter. He's pretty much Plan F right now in the depth chart. Lets see if the FO can get a low A lottery pick for him.
MakMan44 said:
Well, on the current depth chart I'd have Cecchini ahead of WMB. But there are currently no in-house options that I (or the Sox) would give the starting gig to. Which means a FA or a trade. But the FA options are problematic if you think Cecchini is the starter in 2016. A trade would seem more likely - or the aforementioned pillow contracts to Headley or Panda.
Also , isn't Aramis Ramirez a potential FA this year? I think he has a player option but may not want to resign with Milwaukee. He's RH and old but still a very good hitter. He'd be my first choice.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I don't mean to pick on you, but is there a reason people just use crude OPS and not era and park adjusted measures like OPS+ or wRC+? They're easy to understand and it's not like they're some crazy new metric. Just citing crude OPS, particularly ones from the more extreme ballparks like Petco and Fenway, can be seriously misleading. Headley's career wRC+ of 114 compares decently to Pedroia (117) and Beltre (115).
Of course, there are reasons why you might prefer those other guys, and I'm not arguing that given the Red Sox current position that they should necessarily sign Headley, but for a board that throws WAR around and seems to understand some of the issues with it, I think we can do a little better than just citing crude OPS, particularly when talking about players from extreme ballparks.
LeoCarrillo said:
I was at this game. Greinke had already homered that game.
I mentioned to my buddy (also a Red Sox fan) that his name has been floated around SoSH, and he immediately said "He's terrible defensively." That was before the play linked to.
dbn said:
I think a lot of people just know that Sandoval is a fat dude and assume he must be bad at fielding. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, if people just look for about 30 seconds.
That fangraphs link has a nice little highlight reel of Sandoval's excellent defense at 3B near the end of the article.
He could be the best defensive third baseman ever, that doesn't change the fact he has serious conditioning issues. I think the likelihood of him holding up over a 5 or 6 year contract is slim.alwyn96 said:
The free agent pool is not something I think management wants to get into bidding wars over considering the two best options being Sandoval and Headley both have their flaws. Lucchino's statement preferring a left-handed bat at 3b really narrows the field. Unless I'm missing someone, there are only two stellar LH/3b in MLB that would be better than our internal options and worth trading for, but extremely unlikely available... Seager (Mariners) and Chisenhall (Indians).
There are some interesting very young LH/3b now appearing... J. Lamb (Diamondbacks), C. Asche (Phillies), and C. Spangenberg (Padres). It seems though, management's new preference is to trade for "established" players.
There are some interesting very young LH/3b now appearing... J. Lamb (Diamondbacks), C. Asche (Phillies), and C. Spangenberg (Padres). It seems though, management's new preference is to trade for "established" players.
OptimusPapi said:
I think that's a fair criticism - I'm responding to the idea that he has been/is a terrible defender. He is still pretty young though, so if you want to say his weight gives him the injury profile of a 31 year old rather than the just-turned-28-year-old player that he is, then you can adjust your injury risk calculation accordingly. The likelihood of Pedroia holding up over the rest of his contract is also pretty slim, but I think he's a valuable player regardless. All players are going to have some weakness element of risk, and if they don't then you generally have to pay them a ton more in money and years or they're just not going to be available.
A Philly fan just told me that because of Maikel Franco, the Phils are thinking about moving Cody Asche to LF. That seems like kind of a waste. He's 24 and had a pretty decent year.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/32637/cody-asche
Philly seems like it could use one of our excess young pitchers. He may not be better than Cecchini but at least he's proven himself to some degree. I don't know much about him to be honest.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/32637/cody-asche
Philly seems like it could use one of our excess young pitchers. He may not be better than Cecchini but at least he's proven himself to some degree. I don't know much about him to be honest.
My apologies for not using the stat-du-jour. I think my main focus was using OPS merely as a descriptive term going forward. Headley, in his twenties was a good player. But I'm thinking his 31-34 aged seasons are going to be at best mediocre - which to my way of thinking is not worth 60/4.alwyn96 said:
But the main issue is the plethora of prospects already on board. You don't want to sign a mediocre player for 4 years when the odds are very good that one of Cecchini, WMB, Coyle etc will produce at least as much value at 1/100th the cost. Not to mention where to move X when his SS defensive limitations are no longer tolerable?
It's the same problem as they had at C last winter .. They could have signed a mediocre C (Salty) for 3 or 4 years but declined because of the prospect depth and signed the one year stop gap instead.
I could easily see offering Headley a 1/15 year deal .. The equivalent of a QO. But he will probably get a 3/30 type offer from some team that sees him through the lens of his 2012 season.
RochesterSamHorn said:
Leaving aside the last part (you seem to be saying that the Sox FO will only bid on flawless free agents, but I'm guessing that's not quite what you mean), are you basing this thought on any specific evidence? Is there something Lucchino or someone else has said to suggest that they won't bid on Sandoval and Headley and instead intend to focus on trade targets?
Mentioning Chisenhall is kind of interesting in light of this board's on-again, off-again love affairs with young players. He is about to turn 26. Over parts of three seasons before this year, he compiled a .224/.284/.411 line in 682 PA for a 94 OPS+. Will Middlebrooks has just turned 26. Over parts of three seasons he has compiled a .237/.284/.411 line in 894 PA for an 88 OPS+.
Granted, Chisenhall has had more of a zigzag trajectory, while Middlebrooks' has been a swan dive--and WMB has been a year older. But still, Chisenhall's story is a reminder that young players sometimes struggle for more than a few weeks or months before figuring it out, and this might provide some context for the Sox' reluctance to cut bait on WMB.
I don't want to sign mediocre players to long term contracts when we already have 3 or 4 guys who project to be better for minimum wages.MakMan44 said:
So you are suggesting Headley does? Outside of 2012 he's been basically a 4 win player for his late twenties prime. And that includes a generous defensive component .. a stat with, shall we say, generous error bars. I would be shocked if he delivers 16 WAR over the next four years. I see him more in the 2.5 range .. In other words a declining mediocre player ..MakMan44 said:
But to each there own. I'd take him for a year because I want to see the kids develop in AAA next year with the possibility of a mid season Vazquez like promotion to the full time 3b gig.
But signing anyone long term there .. Be it Panda, Headley, Hanley or a trade means we are blocking some very tasty prospects and restricting X to SS.
Who are we blocking? Merrero, Cecchini and who? Devers? Long way away. Plus there is belief Garin doesn't stick at 3rd.
The team does need to decide on X though, otherwise they can't commit to a player at SS or 3b. If they think X moves to 3rd in < 3 years, they should move him to 3rd in 2015. If they think he can play it for > 3 years, signing a player for 3/42 to play 3rd would be fine.
Really though, X is the SS or he isn't. Not commiting just hurts the Sox ability to build a team.
The team does need to decide on X though, otherwise they can't commit to a player at SS or 3b. If they think X moves to 3rd in < 3 years, they should move him to 3rd in 2015. If they think he can play it for > 3 years, signing a player for 3/42 to play 3rd would be fine.
Really though, X is the SS or he isn't. Not commiting just hurts the Sox ability to build a team.
I'd expect Headley to remain something like a 3 win player over the next 3-4 seasons but $30/3 is right in line with a 2 win player, anyway.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I agree with bosox though, I don't really see signing Headley to a 3 year deal as blocking anyone. You can shift him or Cecchini to LF if Cecchini plays his way onto the roster.
We currently have Craig, Nava, Cespedes, Betts, Castillo, JBJ and Victorino as OFs. I wouldn't bump any of those guys (with the exception of Craig if he remains in his current zombie state) to play a Headley or Cecchini out of position.MakMan44 said:
Fair enough. Just so we're clear, I'd be moving Headley/Cecchini in 2016 when Cespedes and Victorino's contracts expire. Still a lot of moving parts, but we're just spitballing here, we don't even know what Cecchini or Headley is actually going to do next season. Regardless, it seems we're not going to agree on Headley, so I think it's best we just agree to disagree?BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Not only Vic and Y, but also Napoli. So, if Craig rebounds he slides to 1B, and if he doesn't rebound next year they eat the contract and move on. That would leave Nava, Betts, Rusney, JBJ, and Brentz as the OF. It would be easy to see Cecchini as better than at least 2 of them, especially with his ability to back up 3B, and Nava getting expensive in arbitration by then.MakMan44 said:
Why move WMB for a low A lottery ticket type when WMB is still young and a far better chance to suddenly have it click and go back to being 2012 WMB than any low minors lottery ticket will have?BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
He's got one more option left I believe they've avoided using one to date on him. Have him start 2015 in AAA playing LF, DH, some 1B as Shaw's backup and some 3B as Cecchini's backup. See if he gets his swing back together. If not when he's out of options then dump him on some team then. Not like it'll really hurt his value any, and if it all suddenly clicks he's going to be a very valuable player.
As for 3B - I would have some interest in Jed Lowrie who has likely seen his market take a big hit following his down season. If Oakland offers the QO the Sox will have a protected first round pick and a sandwich 2nd/3rd round pick (from the Lester/Cespedes trade), making it almost a draft pick wash to go after him. If he doesn't get the QO the Sox are in an ideal position to splash the pot on a one year get right deal or even a 2-3 year deal for mid-market money. His defensive sample at 3B is limited but very solid while at shortstop he looks to have improved from bad to passable. Not someone who you'd give the job over Bogaerts simply on principle, but good enough to where if Bogaerts falls on his face defensively, goes into another 3 month slump, or gets hurt he could step in and do the job. He'd basically be a 2015 version of Bill Mueller, switch hitting and all, plus with the ability to be your #2 shortstop.
Cecchini has looked decent at third, actually. He did have a bad year overall at Pawtucket, but came around late, and he can hit off the Wall. Seems to be a high-OBP guy with little apparent power, like Wade Boggs and that fellow we traded for Larry Andersen.
mauidano said:
At losing what, Jenny Dell? He's already lost about everything else. While the Sox may not yet want to completely give up on WMB, there's no way they can pencil him in for anything other than a place on the PawSox opening day roster.
It's been said many times before. You don't just dump WMB for a bag of balls. You give him every chance to prove he can meet the potential once seen in him...and you give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was a compilation of injuries and other physical issues that could have crippled his hitting. You give him all of Spring Training to show what he has, and then make a decision...unless the Sox have gone out and acquired another 3B (in lieu of pitching).
He get's another shot at losing the starting 3rd base job.
He get's another shot at losing the starting 3rd base job.
geoduck no quahog said:
It would be the third year in a row they go with this strategy, and it has been a massive failure the last two years. Fangraphs has us dead last in production out of 3B this year at -1.8 WAR.
Yep, like JBJ, WMB should be sent to AAA next season in an attempt to reestablish himself as a potential ML'er. If he can't do so, you dump him quietly after next season. I can't see Ben going into 2015 counting on either of them to provide anything in Boston.
Boy it seems far different to me. We have two starting C on the cusp of being in the bigs for good.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
WMB imo hasn't been a prospect for 18 months but people can keep hammering how the holes in his swing/approach along with his inability to adjust to pitchers adjustments are a blip on the radar. Garin looks like a AAAA to me between his lack of defense and power until he takes Bagwell vitamins. Coyle is years away from being a consideration.
The only immediate 3b prospect we have is being force fed the SS position or currently seen misplaying fly balls in LF. It's an obvious position of opportunity to improve upon.......looking at WMB or Garin as an option is head scratching with so much youth/uncertainty at other positions.
Is Cespedes is open to it I'd love to see him play 3-4 weeks of winter ball with this being a chance for a healthy exten$ion come ST.
HomeRunBaker said:
You misunderstand .. I meant it was the same type of problem .. good prospects on the horizon (Cecchini=Vazquez) but not yet ready for the majors so a one year stop gap will be required.
- Status