What, exactly, is the organization's approach to constructing a roster?

[Hee Sox Choi]

Man, Dan Szymborski is shredding the Sox FO in his chat today. Not a fan of the direction they've gone at all. Seems to believe that this a clear sign that they're not going to play one of X or Mookie this season, or that they'll be sent in a trade (which he also thinks is a bad move). We all have to wait and see what trades happen, but I'm closer to agreeing with Dan than not. I'm still pretty confused as to why both Hanley and Sandoval needed to be added.

 
Hanley is no longer a SS.  Yoenis is gone after this season (probably gone in the next few weeks).  That leaves you Betts and Rusney as your only OFs for the future.  Craig most likely has lost the mobility to play OF and will be a 1B.  Hanley fills the 3rd OF spot for the next 4 years and can back up 3b & SS.  Hanley was a better OF bat than anything in free agency.  It's a smart move which Dan doesn't get because he probably thinks of Hanley as an IF.  I can't believe these people think it signals an Xander trade, it really goes to show you how little they know about certain teams (like ours!).

 

[SoxLegacy]

I don't see the Sox trading Betts or Bogaerts--it would not fit with their desire to hold on to both of them in previous trade discussions nor would putting Ramirez at short fit in with their recognition of the critical nature of an excellent defense. It does not appear to be (at least to me) a situation where the front office goes crazy and abandons their philosophy. As others have posted, this is all part of a plan to address needs both in 2015 and down the road. Cespedes will be packaged up and dealt, thus bringing in another starter and reducing the OF logjam. Hanley slides into one of the corner outfield slots and provides depth at 3B, SS, and DH. Sandoval allows the Sox to fill their glaring hole at third while potentially sliding to first after Napoli moves on after 2015. That gives Cecchini a year to play at AAA and to develop into the next third baseman. Middlebrooks gets dealt at some point.

One thought that occurred to me was that perhaps this might be Ortiz's last season. He said he didn't want to go out like Jeter and I can see the Sox bringing in Sandoval and Ramirez to serve as future parts of the DH position.

 

[The Boomer]

The Moneyball exploitation of the undervalued high OBP player is extinct.  Prospects don't seem undervalued anymore either with pretty much every organization hording their best.  Veteran pitching doesn't qualify with wasteful long term contracts weighing down team budgets.  Hitting, particularly power hitting comes at a premium.  The Sox clearly paid full price or arguably even overpaid for their latest acquisitions.  Given the demand for this scarcity, the Sox should be able to get reasonable return for their expendable offense.  I think that Hanley is possibly best utilized at 1B and Napoli might be their prime trade fodder.  If they trade Cespedes, their offense can carry JBJ's defense.  Average pitchers will love the range and defense of a Betts-JBJ-Castillo outfield. 
 
To me, young AAA, rookie and even second year pitchers are undervalued.  They are cheap, cost controlled and, generally, harder throwing.  It doesn't cost as much to get them.  Not all will succeed but the cost for tryouts and failure are minimal compared to overpaying older players too much for too long.  Hanley and Panda are still in their prime years of production and probably worth the larger investment.  They didn't blink when Pedro, Ellsbury and others cost too much for too long before.  I think they will be outbid for Lester who won't be worth what he will get after those first 3 or 4 years.  Younger pitchers like Ross and Cashner in San Diego, for example, seem undervalued.  The Sox got good returns for the expiring contracts of Peavy and Miller last season.  Undervaluation and lack of patience for pitchers like Rodriguez, Escobar and Hembree made them available to the Sox.  In some ways, you can never have too much young pitching and it seems like the offensive surplus for the Sox and some of their own young surplus pitching could be packaged to get even better young pitching.  The Braves seemed to recognize this  when they got a probably underrated but promising cost controlled Shelby Miller.  Paying for older injury prone and declining pitching is too risky and relatively wasteful.
 
If I am right, their free agent currency won't be overspent for aging veteran pitching.  Trading for more of those undervalued young pitchers who will compete to fill out rotation and bullpen openings is probably the way to go.

 

[67WasBest]

 
I agree re: Lester. I meant to add that to my post and didn't.
 
I agree that you need to be flexible in a competitive environment, but there's a difference between flexibility and refusing to learn from your mistakes.  

What is it exactly they haven't learned?
 
Hanley is in LF, and as safety nets they have 1) Victorino 2) Craig/Nava platoon, 3Brentz/nava platoon, 4) Bradley taking an OF spot, 5) WMB or Cecchini establishing themselves as hitters and forcing their way into the mix.
 
Sandoval, at 3B, and as safety nets they have Cecchini, WMB, Holt, Weeks, Hanley, Xander and eventually Devers
 
Lester gets signed and as safety nets they have the pitching depth behind him, same for a second starter.
 
Is it concern about other players failing?  If so, they have pretty decent options to fill in at nearly every position.
 
It's been established repeatedly these deals will still allow them to fall below the 2015 LT line for next year, so I'm lost as to what exactly it is that's wrong with all this?

 

[williams_482]

Man, Dan Szymborski is shredding the Sox FO in his chat today. Not a fan of the direction they've gone at all. Seems to believe that this a clear sign that they're not going to play one of X or Mookie this season, or that they'll be sent in a trade (which he also thinks is a bad move). We all have to wait and see what trades happen, but I'm closer to agreeing with Dan than not. I'm still pretty confused as to why both Hanley and Sandoval needed to be added.

He seems to be under the impression that the Red Sox would rather bench Mookie than Victorino, which seems rather unlikely. 

 

[67WasBest]

He seems to be under the impression that the Red Sox would rather bench Mookie than Victorino, which seems rather unlikely. 

I can see them starting this way if they intent on dealing Victorino to let him establish value, but not for longer than the end of May and only if there was a real chance of dealing him

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I wonder if the Sox drive to innovation and overall business-y culture hurts them sometimes; they certainly seem to feel a need to learn something from everything that happens, in a game where random variance is a major force. Paying close attention and being willing to change are good characteristics for a FO; but separating lessons from noise, and knowing when to change and when to show patience are important too. 

 

[nattysez]

What is it exactly they haven't learned?
 
Hanley is in LF, and as safety nets they have 1) Victorino 2) Craig/Nava platoon, 3Brentz/nava platoon, 4) Bradley taking an OF spot, 5) WMB or Cecchini establishing themselves as hitters and forcing their way into the mix.
 
Sandoval, at 3B, and as safety nets they have Cecchini, WMB, Holt, Weeks, Hanley, Xander and eventually Devers
 
Lester gets signed and as safety nets they have the pitching depth behind him, same for a second starter.
 
Is it concern about other players failing?  If so, they have pretty decent options to fill in at nearly every position.
 
It's been established repeatedly these deals will still allow them to fall below the 2015 LT line for next year, so I'm lost as to what exactly it is that's wrong with all this?

 
Are you seriously contending that if Hanley doesn't work out at LF, they can just eat $22m/year with no ramifications?  You realize there's no other place to play him, right?  And that he's never played OF for any meaningful amount of time in the majors?  Meanwhile, if Panda turns into Crawford/Renteria part 2, they're stuck with an overweight, underperforming 3bman with a massive contract.  
 
And the suggestion that there's no risk here because they have a lot of guys who can also play the positions is nuts.  Are you seriously suggesting they can just eat $22mm and play Nava in left if Hanley turns out to be a disaster in LF?  You think Hanley will play good soldier if he's benched after dropping a few balls in LF?
 
Reading some of the posts on this board were making me think I was nuts until I turned on MLB Network and heard Ken Rosenthal, Brian Kenny and others saying the same things I've been saying -- the Sox don't seem to have a consistent philosophy, signing Hanley to play LF is high-risk, Panda's far from a sure thing, etc.

 

[Darnell's Son]

 
Are you seriously contending that if Hanley doesn't work out at LF, they can just eat $22m/year with no ramifications?  You realize there's no other place to play him, right?  And that he's never played OF for any meaningful amount of time in the majors?  Meanwhile, if Panda turns into Crawford/Renteria part 2, they're stuck with an overweight, underperforming 3bman with a massive contract.  
 
And the suggestion that there's no risk here because they have a lot of guys who can also play the positions is nuts.  Are you seriously suggesting they can just eat $22mm and play Nava in left if Hanley turns out to be a disaster in LF?  You think Hanley will play good soldier if he's benched after dropping a few balls in LF?
 
Reading some of the posts on this board were making me think I was nuts until I turned on MLB Network and heard Ken Rosenthal, Brian Kenny and others saying the same things I've been saying -- the Sox don't seem to have a consistent philosophy, signing Hanley to play LF is high-risk, Panda's far from a sure thing, etc.

Playing the outfield really isn't that hard. The guy is athletic enough to play short stop at the major league level. Manny Ramirez and countless others have managed to play the outfield. Hanley being a butcher in left is the least of my worries with his signing.

 

[Doctor G]

The Red Sox approach seems to be the same as Baltimore's approach with a real leadoff hitter and  a better 2nd baseman and closer.

 

[Apisith]

Hanley's bat is good enough to play anywhere. The worst case is he sucks in LF and ends up replacing Napoli at 1B or replacing Ortiz at DH. Where he plays isn't that important because we've signed him for his bat. Yes, good D would be appreciated but it isn't necessary. Saying all this, I see no reason to think that he won't be average or slightly above average in LF. We have stuck stiffs there for years and they all end up somewhat all right; an athletic guy like Hanley will be fine.

The best case is he ends up being Alex Gordon-level good, which is certainly within the realms of possibility. Gordon was a so-so 3B if memory serves me right and now he's the best defensive LF in the game. He's not fast but he reads the ball well and has a good arm. Hanley has a good arm, is athletic enough to get to most balls and I'm sure his reaction time will be quick enough since he was a shortstop for so long.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Playing the outfield really isn't that hard. The guy is athletic enough to play short stop at the major league level. Manny Ramirez and countless others have managed to play the outfield. Hanley being a butcher in left is the least of my worries with his signing.

It's not just a matter of athleticism; countless players struggle with getting quick reads and taking the right route, especially when they've never done it before. Manny at least spent his whole career taking fly balls; Hanley's only been taking pop-ups.
 
Edit: to be clear, I think he'll be fine and, as Apisith noted, his bat can play anywhere if it doesn't work out. But there's definitely risk in asking a 31 year old to move to a new position.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Agree to disagree. Moving from SS to LF should be a cakewalk with a full Spring Training to practice. If he can't handle LF he should find a bridge to jump off of.

 

[jacklamabe65]

The Moneyball exploitation of the undervalued high OBP player is extinct.  Prospects don't seem undervalued anymore either with pretty much every organization hording their best.  Veteran pitching doesn't qualify with wasteful long term contracts weighing down team budgets.  Hitting, particularly power hitting comes at a premium.  The Sox clearly paid full price or arguably even overpaid for their latest acquisitions.  Given the demand for this scarcity, the Sox should be able to get reasonable return for their expendable offense.  I think that Hanley is possibly best utilized at 1B and Napoli might be their prime trade fodder.  If they trade Cespedes, their offense can carry JBJ's defense.  Average pitchers will love the range and defense of a Betts-JBJ-Castillo outfield. 
 
To me, young AAA, rookie and even second year pitchers are undervalued.  They are cheap, cost controlled and, generally, harder throwing.  It doesn't cost as much to get them.  Not all will succeed but the cost for tryouts and failure are minimal compared to overpaying older players too much for too long.  Hanley and Panda are still in their prime years of production and probably worth the larger investment.  They didn't blink when Pedro, Ellsbury and others cost too much for too long before.  I think they will be outbid for Lester who won't be worth what he will get after those first 3 or 4 years.  Younger pitchers like Ross and Cashner in San Diego, for example, seem undervalued.  The Sox got good returns for the expiring contracts of Peavy and Miller last season.  Undervaluation and lack of patience for pitchers like Rodriguez, Escobar and Hembree made them available to the Sox.  In some ways, you can never have too much young pitching and it seems like the offensive surplus for the Sox and some of their own young surplus pitching could be packaged to get even better young pitching.  The Braves seemed to recognize this  when they got a probably underrated but promising cost controlled Shelby Miller.  Paying for older injury prone and declining pitching is too risky and relatively wasteful.
 
If I am right, their free agent currency won't be overspent for aging veteran pitching.  Trading for more of those undervalued young pitchers who will compete to fill out rotation and bullpen openings is probably the way to go.

A voice of sagacity and reason. Thanks, Boomer.

 

[lexrageorge]

The Sox do have nearly $40M coming off their payroll in 2016 in Napoli, Victorino, and Cespedes, and that is something that likely factored into their spending patterns (I'm assuming the Sox pick up Ortiz' option).  It's not crazy to go over the tax threshold a little this year to take advantage of a couple of players being available this offseason, especially when their 1st round pick is protected.  Seems like the team is enjoying the fruits of their earlier discipline; by maintaining payroll flexibility in 2013 and 2014, they were able to add some nice pieces this offseason. 
 
Hanley should be subject to less wear and tear playing LF, and as noted he can move around and spell Sandoval and Bogaerts from time to time.  Sandoval can moved to 1B or DH in a couple of seasons once some of the team's infield prospect  start to show their readiness to play at the MLB level.  
 
The Sox always will be a high payroll team.  This team looks different from the one at the end of the 2011 collapse.  At that point, the Sox had significant payroll commitments to a 1B that couldn't really play another position (aside from DH, which was occupied), a LF that truly sucked both on the field and at the plate, and 3 starting pitchers who were either hurt or past their prime.  And no real prospects on the near term horizon. 

 

[67WasBest]

Now that baseball is starting to resemble the game I played as a young man in the 60's and 70's, and in light of the depth of young talent the organization possesses, I wondered if a very solid model from the 1970's might be applied here?  In the mid 60's the Orioles started a run of success that lasted more than 15 years.  Their system required many of the qualities that mark the structure of the present Red Sox.  What's missing is the starting pitching, but it's early in the offseason and I'm sure we'll have 5 decent starters.
 
Here's my recollection of the Orioles model;
 
- Staff the rotation with at least 4 solid starters and leave the 5th spot open for the best performer from your system, or add a 1 year arm if none are ready
- Load the bullpen with young arms who could start for second tier teams.  Let them find the mastery of their third pitch in the majors, promote from within whenever possible, trade at peak value and when a replacement has "earned" the spot
- Promote youngsters when their SUSTAINED production pushes a veteran out of a job except where salary demands a change
- Never give away an asset, find a way to gain value where needed and always maximize years of control.  Move blocked players to areas of need, at a minimum, their added versatility increases their return
- Load the lineup with multidimensional hitters who can keep the line going, and hit 3 run homers
- Support the defense with strong up the middle defense (think Mark Belanger and Paul Blair), even if it costs offense
 
Henry's and BC's comments in this Speier article discusses how they approached this year and why they haven't abandoned their model..  Call it whatever you wish, but the way this team is assembled, and likely to be completed, looks an awful lot like the mid 60's Orioles organization.  Can we hope for similar success?  Can we hope for greater success because of free agency and greater financial might?