712 replies to this topic

[pk1627]

You're really glossing over the more important point; the White Sox were not as good a team as the Angels by any stretch of the imagination. You could argue that the White Sox were in better form for the playoffs because they had to contend for their division crown longer than the Angels, but the Angels were still the vastly superior team. The Rays definitely had a better chance of losing to the Angels in the division series than they did losing to the White Sox. Yes, if if if, but winning the division is not meaningless.

Well, this is off-topic but so is repeating "Derek Lowe $50 million" over and over.

I'd have to say that the Angels blew it big-time by not selecting the ALDS where 4 pitchers were needed. To me, the differentiator in the ALCS was Wake blowing up early and giving Sonnanstine that big lead. This leads into my main point in that the best way to improve this Red Sox team is to get that #4 pitcher. My opinion is that management will decide to do so by signing AJ Burnett - a favorite of JW Henry for years. Imagine a team where Daisuke is your #4.

How does this pertain to the thread topic? The Sox will pass on Teix (who is a fantastic player) by preferentially allocating their money to pitching.

[BostonFan23]

Why not groom Lars as a Papi replacement? How many effective years does Ortiz really have left?

*apologies if this has been said

[Bowlerman9]

How does this pertain to the thread topic? The Sox will pass on Teix (who is a fantastic player) by preferentially allocating their money to pitching.

Except the Sox can afford Burnett, Teixeira, a few bullpen arms, and a catcher.

They can "trade" Teixeira for another high priced SP, who would then push DiceK to being a #5.

They can "trade" Teixeira for another high priced throw in necessary to get a catcher, such as Andruw with Martin or Millwood with Salty, for example.

Just dont think the Sox decision to sign AJB or Lowe or Sheets by themselves is enough for them to not have enough money for Teix. If they decide to sign more than one, well, that would be a different way of allocating money.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Why not groom Lars as a Papi replacement? How many effective years does Ortiz really have left?

*apologies if this has been said

Exactly. Anderson isn't likely to be major league ready (assuming he doesn't completely wash out) by 2010 at the very earliest, and more likely 2011 would be the soonest he'd see a full time role. And counting on him for anything concrete at this point is insane. Prospects can have wildly varying amounts of success, from awesome (Pedroia) to unmitigated disasters (Buchholz). Hoping for Anderson to develop into a power threat is reasonable. Counting on it is plain nuts.

David Ortiz will be 33 years old this November 18. In 2010 he'll be 35. He already runs like he's carrying a grand piano on his back and he's battled numerous injuries this year after fighting through a knee problem last year. Does anyone really think, given his injury history and body size, that Ortiz is likely to age well?

This brings us to the question of Mike Lowell. Lowell will be 35 this coming February. His production in 2008 was good but way, way off from his production in 2007 799 OPS this year as oppsed to 879 in 2007). He is coming off a very serious hip injury which required surgery to fix. Does anyone really see Mike Lowell aging well over the next two years of his deal?

Teixeira will be 29 on April 11. He is in his prime now and can be expected to be at his peak production for 3 or 4 more years. Mike Lowell and David Ortiz can reasonably be expected to decline in production during that time. Kevin Youkilis can play a very good defensive third base. With Lowell and Ortiz' offense likely to go down, wouldn't going after Teixeria be a logical thing to do given 1) the Sox' needs (declining power from their current big guns) and 2) the age and injury issues of the Sox' incumbents from the power spots?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Teixeira will be 29 on April 11. He is in his prime now and can be expected to be at his peak production for 3 or 4 more years. Mike Lowell and David Ortiz can reasonably be expected to decline in production during that time. Kevin Youkilis can play a very good defensive third base.

If Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is willing to sign a 3 or 4 year deal (and the team doesn't mind a likely disgrunted $13M backup) than I think this makes sense, but Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is going to be looking for 6-7 years. I also question whether Youks is a guy who should be playing 3B every day and what effect that will have on him ultimately, but that's less important.

[BostonFan23]

If Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is willing to sign a 3 or 4 year deal (and the team doesn't mind a likely disgrunted $13M backup) than I think this makes sense, but Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is going to be looking for 6-7 years. I also question whether Youks is a guy who should be playing 3B every day and what effect that will have on him ultimately, but that's less important.

Besides his stint with the Dodgers, Manny's best years have been behind him, too. I want to say it was after 2004 that his numbers started a very slight decline, and obviously he bounced back in a big way with LA, but that could be for a variety of reasons.

Tex won't be a backup after his next prime 3/4 years, he'll still in all likelihood be a solid contributor and putting up something like 290/25/100 towards the end of his contract. Are those numbers worth $20m or whatever it takes? Maybe not, but the Sox can afford to overspend a bit, obviously.

Didn't Youk say that 3B was easier for him anyways?

[Bowlerman9]

If Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is willing to sign a 3 or 4 year deal (and the team doesn't mind a likely disgrunted $13M backup) than I think this makes sense, but Angels 1Bman whose name I can't spell is going to be looking for 6-7 years. I also question whether Youks is a guy who should be playing 3B every day and what effect that will have on him ultimately, but that's less important.

But you also have to account for inflation for the entire league. When Manny Ramirez signed a 20M a year contract that would take him through the age of 36, people thought he wouldnt have been worth 20M. Sure enough, Manny's production decreases 20% from his late 20s to mid to late 30s, and at the same time guys like Ichiro, Tori Hunter, and Vernon Wells are making 18M, and all of the sudden a 36 year old Manny Ramirez playing at 80% of his prime isnt a bad deal.

So now we're talking about Mark Teixeira receiving a 6-8 year deal in the 20-25M range and how he might only be worth it for 3-4 years. While I dont expect him to put up the same numbers in 2012 as in 2008, there is a good chance that (for the sake of this discussion lets pick a number) 23M in 2012 for 80% of Mark Teixeira's production isnt that far off from 23M in 2009 for 100% of Mark Teixeira's production.

[doc]

The other point to be made with Anderson is that although he seems to be our only prospect that hit's for power with Teixeira and Youk aboard Anderson can be used to acquire something we need and don't have like a young catcher, or more pitching.

[yecul]

My two concerns with Teixeira were Youkilis moving to 3B and their ability to trade Lowell.

The former point seemed to be addressed by Youks himself by saying it was actually less wear and tear over at 3B. Maybe that makes it ok for the team, maybe not, but it's something to go on.

The latter point should certainly be yes they can. It might not be a trade we like, but someone will take him. The potential savings from that can be theoretically subtracted from Teixeira for those that like to do such things. If he's owed ~25m and they cover 10m (generous) then Teixeira's theoretical 150m could be seen as 135m. Yay! Soo much cheaper.

The point of that was not to use exact numbers or anything, but to illustrate how this type of thing is never 1 to 1.

Lars Anderson should hardly be part of the dicsussion. If he turns into something 3-4 years from now then that is a GOOD problem to have. I would love to have too many great players to deal with. If we could be so lucky!

As for money, I would much prefer to spend a lot on top talent than a lot (but less) on mediocre talent. THIS is why you have a farm system. THIS is why you develop players and bring them up to give you cheap contracts on your roster. THIS is the peripheral value that Lester and Pedroia bring to the table. To allow you the ability to bring aboard expensive upper tier talent when the opportunity arises.

Now, maybe the Yankees or Angels or someone else blows everyone out of the water with a huge offer. You walk away. But you don't walk away assuming that is going to happen or that spending money is inherently bad.

[Quintanariffic]

If the team passes on Teixeira then the burden of proof shifts over to folks like Quintanarriffic to explain how the Sox will improve the ball club by adding pitching. IMO, it would be monumentally stupid not to re-sign Wake. That being said, the team will rely on Buchholz/Masterson or it needs to acquire an additional SP who will be a difference maker. Or perhaps the team can acquire a top catcher, but of course that would cost the team at least one of its pitching prospects. Thus far, it sounds like Quintanaraffic believes that the team should get Lowe and improve its bench and it is ready for the 2009 WS. IMO, that approach will not bring us to the promise land. (I am not intentionally being a dick here. I just don't get how some believe that plugging Lowe/Sheets into the rotation will be sufficient to enable the Sox overtake the Rays and stay competitive with a re-tooled MFY.)

I do appreciate the civility. So let's talk.

I think what people have to realize is that the 2007 Red Sox came within a game of making it to the WS with Mark Kotsay as their 1B, a Jed Lowrie who was so banged up that Alex Cora actually represented an attractive option to start, a David Ortiz who was clearly a shadow of himself and an ace starter in Beckett who was at 50%. While you can never predict injuries falling one way or the other, it's difficult for me to imagine that it could get much worse than that.

What needs to be upgraded on the playoff roster isn't Mike Lowell. I'd be be thrilled with an .800-.850 OPS Mike Lowell. What needs to be upgraded is Mark Kotsay - that's a MUCH lower bar. If this team was generally healthy but just didn't have the bullets to get it over the top, that would be one thing, and I'd feel a lot better about throwing down for Tex to get them to the promised land. But that wasn't the case here - this team was FAR from firing on all cylinders in October, and I am firmly of the belief that, even a year older next year, there is more than enough talent w/o Teixeira to contend for and win the WS. This is what primarily drives and informs my view that he is an unattractive candidate to throw $160-180MM to for the next 8 years. Now people can feel free to disagree with that outlook, but let's not pretend that the 2008 ALCS was anywhere close to the best that the 2008 team had to offer.

[Quintanariffic]

Now, maybe the Yankees or Angels or someone else blows everyone out of the water with a huge offer. You walk away. But you don't walk away assuming that is going to happen or that spending money is inherently bad.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't advocate prematurely walking away - you've always got to have your hat in the ring if you're the Red Sox. If, as Cafardo mused, Teixeira could be had for 5/$100, sign me up. But I think it's safe to assume that between the Yankees, the Angels, and the home town O's, all of whom have a gaping hole at 1B and deep pockets, the bidding will get well into stupid territory. I would bet a lot of money on the over at $150MM, and I think it's more likely to end up closer to $170-180MM.

[amarshal2]

The other point to be made with Anderson is that although he seems to be our only prospect that hit's for power with Teixeira and Youk aboard Anderson can be used to acquire something we need and don't have like a young catcher, or more pitching.

Anderson really should not be traded. We're seeing first hand how hard it is to obtain power bats when you don't spend $160M for an inner-circle HOFer or stumble across a once in a decade diamond in the rough.

As for Anderson, I'm with SJH on this one. You don't count on Anderson right now and you don't worry too much about blocking him in the near future. He's still years away from being an above average MLB corner infielder with the bat. While he's more than just projection he's not a guy who has developed power either. He doesn't really pull the ball with authority and he K's a decent amount. It may take years before he puts it all together at the MLB level. The Red Sox use their payroll to stay competitive every year. They know they may have to ship an older dude and his salary out of town if/when Anderson arrives but this is all part of the plan.

I also believe that Teixeira should not be the primary target as he really doesn't fill a primary need. I belive that Ortiz will be back closer to what we'd hope for once his wrist is healthy next year. I think Lowell can be at least an average offensive 3B and that Youkilis will continue to be an above average 1B (even accounting for regression). This is what Theo has said publicly. We all know they try to be at least average at every position and supplement it with a few stars. The positions on the diamond that concern me are C, CF, and SS. If the Red Sox have conviction about the long-term futures of Lowrie and Ellsbury then I think they should make an effort to trade young pitching (Bowden) for an offensive C and sign a starter. If not (though, I think they do), then Furcal is an option and they can try and trade for a CF'er.

Of course, if they can trade Lowell without eating his salary (unlikely) and Teixeira is willing to sign for a reasonable contract (unlikely) then I'm all for it.

Edited by amarshal2, 27 October 2008 - 02:18 PM.

[trekfan55]

Would the outcome have been any different though? The Sox were 2-2 in St. Pete and 1-2 at home vs. the Rays. It's not like missing that extra home game was clearly a deciding factor.

Not sure how, if at all, it changes the outcome, but it's a whole different series with Games 1&2 and 6&7 in Fenway, especially considering the bullpen usage in Game 2. Now, of course, we cannot assume everything plays excactly the same way but I would prefer (and so would the Sox which is what matters) the odds with HFA.

There's a lot of speculation in that.

What we know is that in the Wild Card era, 4 of the 14 champions (including 2008) were Wild Card teams. Even if you assume every team has an equal chance, 2 out of 8 playoff teams are WC, meaning that you would predict they would win the WS 25% of the time. Wild Card teams have exceeded that figure (4/14 = 28.6%). So at leas thus far, there is no statistical evidence that home field advantage by being a divisional winner gives you a leg up in winning the whole enchilada. To me, that's preferable to a bunch of "what ifs" about a 2005 team that was gassed in so many ways.

Yes, I agree with the fact that the wild card team has won more than their expected share of titles. Part of this is that the wild card team usually has a better record (and is in fact a better team) than 1 or maybe 2 division winners in the same league (and ins some cases in the other league as well). That was part of the idea in having the wild card. My point about 2005 comes down to a couple of games the Red Sox lost that should have won (a couple of Schilling blown saves come to mind) which not only would have changed the entire last weekend vs. the MFY but would also have changed their entire playoff rotation/schedule. And the funny thing is, the 2005 Red Sox were a win from Cleveland away from having to play 2 possible tie breaking games, which would have made things even worse. Would it have been different in 2005 if the Sox led off the playoffs at home against the Angels with Schilling on the mound, vs. on the road against the White Sox with an injured (we didn't know it then) Matt Clement throwing BP?

[yecul]

Do you feel that old and/or aging players, some coming off injuries, are the best bet to fire on all cylindars ever again let alone over the course of a long season and into the postseason?

The real key here is that this isn't just about 2009. This is about the next few years.

What happens if you stick with Lowell this year and next? Do they rush Lars assuming he continues to progress and move Youkilis to 3B at that point? Do they ask Ortiz to play the field? Do they pick up a free agent at that point? Do the predicted free agents over the next 1-3 years compare to what Teixeira brings to the table? How about the potential trade targets? And what would their cost be? Or do you just resign Lowell again and run with that?

Age and health present a lot of questions. Avoiding them is usually best.

Other bidders, Youkilis at 3B, and the market for Lowell are the issues. Contract size is obviously a concern, but so is winning games now and in the future.

[mclusky]

I do appreciate the civility. So let's talk.

I think what people have to realize is that the 2007 Red Sox came within a game of making it to the WS with Mark Kotsay as their 1B, a Jed Lowrie who was so banged up that Alex Cora actually represented an attractive option to start, a David Ortiz who was clearly a shadow of himself and an ace starter in Beckett who was at 50%. While you can never predict injuries falling one way or the other, it's difficult for me to imagine that it could get much worse than that.

But you see, every team is counting on avoiding terribly unlikely bad things. Tampa doesn't plan on losing Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford again for long stretches. The Yankees will not see Posada and Joba Chamberlain go down or give 400 at bats to Melky Cabrera.

You don't improve by not having bad luck, that's not what regression to the mean, the term you used before, means. Regression to the mean means the Red Sox are constantly moving closer to .500, not the other way around. That the Red Sox fell short this year because they could not overcome a spate of injuries does not mean that this is unlikely to happen again, it means it is likely to happen again.

He is an unattractive candidate to throw $160-180MM to for the next 8 years.

No one is an attractive candidate for that kind of investment. Every free agent bidding war you win, you have also lost, because essentially you are paying more than anyone else thought the guy was worth. I think people around here get that. But as Yecul deftly points out, that's why you look for savings elsewhere, so you can overspend on players who meet needs. If you think the Red Sox should hold off until the next Albert Pujols comes around to spend money on a marquee FA, you do realize you may well be waiting for another 5 or 10 years, right?

Edited by mclusky, 27 October 2008 - 02:33 PM.

[trekfan55]

Getting back on topic, sorry for the highjack, the problem is not Anderson. Assuming anything out of Anderson and making personnell decsisions for 2009 based on Anderson is foolish, and we all know the FO is not that.

The problem is that for 2009 you have Kevin Youkilis at 1B and Mike Lowell at 3B. I, for one, think the Sox should sign Teixeira because they definitely need a power bat to help their lineup. He happens to be the best bat available out there, but what to do about Lowell and Youks? Added to this Lowell could barely walk at the end of his season and just had hip surgery, if the Sox count on him, pass on Tex and he is slow to recover then what? The way I see it, the FO would need to make drastic changes if it does sign Teixeira, which may include trading Youks, or trading Lowell while eating most of his salary. Add to that that I think Lugo will either be traded (again while eating a chunk of his salary) or be made a very expensive utilty man, and I find it hard to believe that the Sox would sign him.

Edited by trekfan55, 27 October 2008 - 02:37 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What needs to be upgraded on the playoff roster isn't Mike Lowell. I'd be be thrilled with an .800-.850 OPS Mike Lowell. He already runs like he's carrying a grand piano on his back and he's battled numerous injuries this year after fighting through a knee problem last year.

Mike Lowell didn't even provide that for the Red Sox this year, though (.799 OPS). That's not to say neener-neener, he wasn't an 800-850 OPS player, but to note that 1) he was much worse this year than in 2007 (80 point drop in OPS) and 2) given his age and injury situations it's unlikely he'll improve on that 799 OPS over the next two years he is under contract.

And Mark Kotsay was a problem precisely because Lowell was injured, and that injury situation is unlikely to improve. Old players get hurt. Mike Lowell will be 35 when the 2009 baseball season begins and he will be coming off very serious surgery. I think it's more than reasonable to think that Lowell's contributions will continue to decline.

Taking a look at the team for next year, you've got a few players who should improve (Ellsbury, anyone in the world at catcher besides Captain Corpse) and several others that look like excellent candidates for decline (Lowell, Ortiz, Youks had a career year this season and could be expected to be a touch worse next year, etc). IMO I do not think you can say, "Hey they were 1 game away from the WS with all these injuries, so only minor teaks are necessary." I think the Sox have to be aggressive in going after the very best players on the market, and here we have an elite one that plays a corner position (which the Sox can accommodate by moving Youks to 3rd), fills a big need (power), and most importantly is still smack dab in the middle of the prime of his career.

[yecul]

The problem is that for 2009 you have Kevin Youkilis at 1B and Mike Lowell at 3B. I, for one, think the Sox should sign Teixeira because they definitely need a power bat to help their lineup. He happens to be the best bat available out there, but what to do about Lowell and Youks?

Unfortunately, these are questions we cannot hope to answer. Can Youkilis be moved to 3B? Is there a (favorable hopefully) market for Lowell?

Who knows? We can speculate. What we do know is that both those things are possible and that Teixeira is available. As outsiders that is the best we can hope for and what we have to use to evaluate the situation.

That's why I'm running with 1. Youkilis handled 3B well when Lowell was out and said that it wasn't a challenge to play over there and 2. the belief that subsidized Lowell could certainly be traded. Heck, we hope to see Lugo traded and he definitely is less attractive than Lowell.

IMO I do not think you can say, "Hey they were 1 game away from the WS with all these injuries, so only minor teaks are necessary." I think the Sox have to be aggressive in going after the very best players on the market

To take it a step further, Boston being a premier franchise in the league with the stated goal of perpetual competitiveness and 95 wins should always be looking to improve. If they just swept the World Series last night I would still argue that this would be a very wise move.

Edited by Smiling Joe Hesketh, 27 October 2008 - 02:50 PM.

[Jack Sox]

I think adding Teixeira would be nice, but it's not overly necessary. I also think people are severely underestimating the Scott Boras factor here as well. I could be wrong, but I believe Mark Teixeira is the ultimate Scott Boras client. And when I say that, I mean that he's simply going to allow Boras to get him top dollar. I don't think anyone here can argue that if this is the case, Teixeira will be wearing pinstripes next year.

Following the Daisuke saga, the Red Sox winning another World Series, and missing the playoffs for the first time in 13 years, I see no way possible way the Yankees will be outbid here. Boras knows this. The Red Sox should stay in the hunt for as long as they can to jack up the price, but if it plays out like this, Teixeira will not be coming to Boston.

I'm fine with that, honestly. Like I said, nice but not necessary. People are talking as if Tex will be the last elite talent to hit the free agent/trade market for quite sometime. And while he is probably the best position player to hit the free agent market since Beltran, there are other ways to aquire that level of talent. It would be nice to do so at a position of need (catcher).

[Bowlerman9]

I think adding Teixeira would be nice, but it's not overly necessary. I also think people are severely underestimating the Scott Boras factor here as well. I could be wrong, but I believe Mark Teixeira is the ultimate Scott Boras client. And when I say that, I mean that he's simply going to allow Boras to get him top dollar. I don't think anyone here can argue that if this is the case, Teixeira will be wearing pinstripes next year.

Following the Daisuke saga, the Red Sox winning another World Series, and missing the playoffs for the first time in 13 years, I see no way possible way the Yankees will be outbid here. Boras knows this. The Red Sox should stay in the hunt for as long as they can to jack up the price, but if it plays out like this, Teixeira will not be coming to Boston.

I'm fine with that, honestly. Like I said, nice but not necessary. People are talking as if Tex will be the last elite talent to hit the free agent/trade market for quite sometime. And while he is probably the best position player to hit the free agent market since Beltran, there are other ways to aquire that level of talent. It would be nice to do so at a position of need (catcher).

Thanks for bringing up the same argument for the 10th time in this thread. We get it. The Yanks can outspend us. The Sox probably wont end up with Teixeira. Its been beaten into the ground.

Mark Teixeira will cost a lot of cash and zero prospects to acquire. The Sox have a lot of cash.

A top notch catcher will cost very little cash (unless you're talking about acquiring a bad contract along with it) and a bunch of prospects. The Sox have a lot of cash and a bunch of prospects.

Acquiring a catcher does not stop us from signing Teixeira. Signing Teixeira does not stop us from acquiring a catcher.

Its great to keep pointing out that the Yankees probably will sign him. We get it. Everyone knows it. That shouldnt stop an intelligent discussion of whether people think he would be a good addition (as some do) or a waste of money (as some do).

[Quintanariffic]

Its great to keep pointing out that the Yankees probably will sign him. We get it. Everyone knows it. That shouldnt stop an intelligent discussion of whether people think he would be a good addition (as some do) or a waste of money (as some do).

Here's where SOSH breaks down a lot more often than it should. I think we can all agree that Teixeira would be a good addition. Just as everyone likely would have agreed that Santana would have been a good addition in an absolute sense. The question for me is the price in terms of $ and roster flexibility. Let's not discount the latter factor, as the Yankees found out to their dismay with Giambi. Not saying that Teixeira becomes Giambi, but massive contracts come with inherent issues if they go wrong. It is a sad commentary that some here interpret what is a nuanced stance into some sort of hocus argument that I'm not a fan of signing the guy. I, and I think many others, just don't view what he brings to the table as enough of a priority given the cost, the upgrade he represents in the near-term and other needs on the roster.

We all draw the line somewhere, but I hope we can at least be adult enough to realize that someone who's line doesn't match yours isn't an idiot. We had the same discussion with the Santana trade, and the emergence of Lester and Masterson, along with the good but not great numbers Santana put up in a pitchers park in the NL make some people look a little silly right now in how strident they were to obtain him at all costs.

Edited by Quintanariffic, 27 October 2008 - 03:49 PM.

[SoxFanSince57]

I do appreciate the civility. So let's talk.

I think what people have to realize is that the 2007 Red Sox came within a game of making it to the WS with Mark Kotsay as their 1B, a Jed Lowrie who was so banged up that Alex Cora actually represented an attractive option to start, a David Ortiz who was clearly a shadow of himself and an ace starter in Beckett who was at 50%. While you can never predict injuries falling one way or the other, it's difficult for me to imagine that it could get much worse than that.

What needs to be upgraded on the playoff roster isn't Mike Lowell. I'd be be thrilled with an .800-.850 OPS Mike Lowell. What needs to be upgraded is Mark Kotsay - that's a MUCH lower bar. If this team was generally healthy but just didn't have the bullets to get it over the top, that would be one thing, and I'd feel a lot better about throwing down for Tex to get them to the promised land. But that wasn't the case here - this team was FAR from firing on all cylinders in October, and I am firmly of the belief that, even a year older next year, there is more than enough talent w/o Teixeira to contend for and win the WS. This is what primarily drives and informs my view that he is an unattractive candidate to throw $160-180MM to for the next 8 years. Now people can feel free to disagree with that outlook, but let's not pretend that the 2008 ALCS was anywhere close to the best that the 2008 team had to offer.

With all due respect, I am afraid that you are playing it "one year at a time" and not considering the long term actively enough. IMO, the Rays are going to be materially better and more confident next year and I believe that the MFY with CC and Tex for starters will be much more competitive. I fear that you are not taking into account how much better the Sox need to get just to stay even with its competition. IMO, if the Sox get a healthy Mike Lowell and a healthy David Ortiz back in their line up and essentially make no meaningful moves, they will fare worse in the standings than this year. Getting Lowe/Sheets will improve the team's pitching depth, but it also then blocks Buchholz/Bowden/Masterson in 2010 and beyond. (Wake is just too good a 5th starter/innings eater at 4M annually to dump him.) Adding Lowe/Sheets, but not strengthening the offense may not be enough to keep up with the Jones in the AL East. AND when you look at 2010 and beyond the offense will be older and weaker.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Great, awesome. They scored a lot of aggregate runs. Let's look a little closer though.
Disclaimer {I put all the runs scored and win data in manually. I seem to have missed a single win, which should not affect the data too much}
The Red Sox scored and average of 5.2 runs a game. They scored more than 7 runs 33 times, ~20%, and won 27 of those games, ~80%. They scored less than 3 runs 34 times, ~20%, and won 7 of those games, ~20%. They scored from 3 to 7 runs, inclusive, 95 times, ~60%, and won 60 of those games, ~65%.
I would like to make the argument that if the Red Sox were able to score 2 extra runs in 5 or more games where they had not already scored more than 7 runs, they would have won enough extra games to have won the division. I believe Teixeira can make that difference, even over a 'fully recovered' Lowell starting on day one.
I'll post a regression later once I run it on SAS.

I would make the argument that having elite starting pitching in those games started by the 4/5 spots would make a bigger difference. Do you think if Schilling had pitched in place of Buchholz this year, the Sox would have gone 3-12 over those 15 starts? I think there's a damn good chance the Sox would have broken 100 wins.

I think my position on this is pretty clear -- they should go after multiple strong starting pitchers, bench depth, and most of all at least one catcher who can make contact when he swings the bat. Teixeira is just gravy...yummy, but not really something that can take the place of the meat and potatoes.

And I don't think that Lars should be traded, not because he will be a better hitter than Teixeira from 2012-2016 (although he will, barring injury) and would be blocked. I just think unless you get a Josh Beckett back in return, you don't trade away a Hanley Ramirez. So unless Mauer is available, Lars has to be untouchable. Those of you saying he's a "nice prospect" -- have you even looked at comps among 20-yr old players at AA since 1992? It's in the minor league forums -- Lars is sandwiched right between Jeter and Chipper Jones. The last 20-year old Sox farmhand I've found to put up those kinds of numbers (.436 OBP and .526 SLG) at AA was Jim Rice in '72.

[Jack Sox]

Thanks for bringing up the same argument for the 10th time in this thread. We get it. The Yanks can outspend us. The Sox probably wont end up with Teixeira. Its been beaten into the ground.

Mark Teixeira will cost a lot of cash and zero prospects to acquire. The Sox have a lot of cash.

A top notch catcher will cost very little cash (unless you're talking about acquiring a bad contract along with it) and a bunch of prospects. The Sox have a lot of cash and a bunch of prospects.

Acquiring a catcher does not stop us from signing Teixeira. Signing Teixeira does not stop us from acquiring a catcher.

Its great to keep pointing out that the Yankees probably will sign him. We get it. Everyone knows it. That shouldnt stop an intelligent discussion of whether people think he would be a good addition (as some do) or a waste of money (as some do).

See, I don't think people DO get it. And my post wasn't just about the Yankees ability to spend. It's nice to speculate about options like trading a 35 year old Mike Lowell coming off major hip surgery and his overpriced contract somewhere, moving Youk to 3rd, and paying Tex 20 million for the next 10 years. But the odds of it happening are just extremely low. I'm not saying it isn't discussion worthy, I'm just saying it's unrealistic in terms of what will actually happen. Maybe, I'm wrong and the Sox will blow everyone else out of the water. I just don't see any of it happening.

My real point is, that's fine by me. I don't expect Mike Lowell to get back to his 2007 level ever again, but if he proves he's over this injury (and until he does he has next to 0 trade value) I don't have a huge concern he can still be a productive player for the next few years. Maybe not a 13 million dollar player, but still solid. Would it be nice to have an upgrade? Sure it would, but the Sox missed that opportunity when they showed little to no interest in A-Rod last offseason. And the scenario of signing Tex, bringing Lowell to spring training to prove he's healthy enough for someone to trade for is a complete non-starter. That, I can guarentee, will not happen. With a players like Lowell, Ortiz, and Drew it's simply boils down to building a better bench. In the end, IMO, this proved to be the Sox downfall this season. I think we'll see drastic improvements to the bench for next season.

I get the fact that trying to obtain a catcher doesn't preclude the Sox from going out and signing a marquee free agent. I just think Tex is the wrong marquee free agent to go after. As of right now in the Sox rotation they have Beckett (who really knows how he'll respond next season), Lester (I'd imagine he'll have a few bumps in the road next year due to increased work load), and Daisuke as 3 locks in the rotation. I think it's a no brainer to bring back Wake and highly expect it to happen, so we'll say 4 locks. That leaves the 5th spot to one of Buchholz/Masterson/Bowden or more likely a free agent signing. I wouldn't touch either Burnett or Sheets as I just don't see them living up to what they'll get on the market. If I'm looking for someone to eat up innings, I might be intrigued by Derek Lowe, but in this market I think he'll find himself getting offers from 12-15 million a year over 3-4 years. The Sox won't go that high, nor should they. That brings me to CC, and while I fully recognize the same situation I detailed with the Yankees is likely here as well, this is the guy I'd throw the kitchen sink at. It's simply more of a need going forward.

[Bowlerman9]

Here's where SOSH breaks down a lot more often than it should. I think we can all agree that Teixeira would be a good addition. Just as everyone likely would have agreed that Santana would have been a good addition in an absolute sense. The question for me is the price in terms of $ and roster flexibility. Let's not discount the latter factor, as the Yankees found out to their dismay with Giambi. Not saying that Teixeira becomes Giambi, but massive contracts come with inherent issues if they go wrong. It is a sad commentary that some here interpret what is a nuanced stance into some sort of hocus argument that I'm not a fan of signing the guy. I, and I think many others, just don't view what he brings to the table as enough of a priority given the cost, the upgrade he represents in the near-term and other needs on the roster.

We all draw the line somewhere, but I hope we can at least be adult enough to realize that someone who's line doesn't match yours isn't an idiot. We had the same discussion with the Santana trade, and the emergence of Lester and Masterson, along with the good but not great numbers Santana put up in a pitchers park in the NL make some people look a little silly right now in how strident they were to obtain him at all costs.

I completely understand where you are coming from and dont disagree with anything you wrote here. We have had a lot of intelligent discussion here and people constantly saying "well NY will get him anyways" and "we should devote resources to getting a catcher" both dismisses the possiblity that the Red Sox may be willing to spend a ton of money on the guy, and the fact that the resources that will be used in signing Teix (cash, both long and short term) are entirely different from the resources used in acquiring a catcher (prospects).

Stating that you would rather use the cash that would go to Teix on pitching is something that, while I dont agree with it, I can understand where you are coming from. The people beating the "NY will outbid us" drum keep beating it over and over again and dont really add anything else to the discussion that all of us dont understand.

If NY signs Teix and Sabathia and the Sox still have money to spend, I would be happy to discuss the remaining options. Until then, lets discuss Teix as if its a possiblity.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Here's where SOSH breaks down a lot more often than it should. I think we can all agree that Teixeira would be a good addition. Just as everyone likely would have agreed that Santana would have been a good addition in an absolute sense. The question for me is the price in terms of $ and roster flexibility. Let's not discount the latter factor, as the Yankees found out to their dismay with Giambi. Not saying that Teixeira becomes Giambi, but massive contracts come with inherent issues if they go wrong.

The Yankees' roster inflexibility cannot be tied to any one singular person. You say Giambi, I say Damon, Matsui, and going forward Posada. They showed a remarkable lack of concern for the aging of their players and such, are left with multiple players that should be DH/1B types.

Financially, if you want to argue any hinderance (which I would disagree with, but that a seperate point), again, you need to look at the overall picture, not just any singular player. The Yankees had 7 players making over $13M (and three over $20). The Red Sox had three (and 1 if you count Manny).

I completely agree with your overriding point, that the Yankees destroyed themselves through signing every big name free agent and hamstringing themselves. But you have to take into account the whole picture with them - they did it with multiple people, all at significant age and that's where they got into trouble.

It is a sad commentary that some here interpret what is a nuanced stance into some sort of hocus argument that I'm not a fan of signing the guy. I, and I think many others, just don't view what he brings to the table as enough of a priority given the cost...

The Red Sox dropped $8M on Schilling and $7M on Manny for nothing this year. They spent another $3M on Timlin and another $2M on Cora, for performance they could have gotten for the minimum. That's $20M with nothing to show for it. They can afford it.

You said upthread that you would prefer John Henry pockets $20M rather than spend it on Teixeira. I've asked you this before and you didn't answer: is it just a matter of principle or do you honestly think Teixeira would somehow hamstring them? Because if it's the former, then there's no sense discussing it anymore. If it's the latter then think there's a discussion there.

...the upgrade he represents in the near-term....

Do you disagree that he would likely add at least 40 OPS+ points over Lowell next year? And in 2010? Or, again, is that just not worth it to you?

...and other needs on the roster.

Bowlerman did a great job showing what the other needs will cost. Your reply was that you disagreed and would prefer Henry pocket the money. If you continue to bring up the point that Teixeira wouldn't allow us to address other issues, then you ned to show something to tha tpoint.

We all draw the line somewhere, but I hope we can at least be adult enough to realize that someone who's line doesn't match yours isn't an idiot. We had the same discussion with the Santana trade, and the emergence of Lester and Masterson, along with the good but not great numbers Santana put up in a pitchers park in the NL make some people look a little silly right now in how strident they were to obtain him at all costs.

No one's saying you're an idiot. But those of us in the "for" column are repeatedly being asked to prove he is worth the investment or how he wouldn't handicap the bigger picture. We repeatedly do it. No one in "against" column has yet to prove anything other than they "don't think he's worth it". And citing Santana proves nothing since that was about prospects and this is about nothing but money.

[Quintanariffic]

But you see, every team is counting on avoiding terribly unlikely bad things. Tampa doesn't plan on losing Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford again for long stretches. The Yankees will not see Posada and Joba Chamberlain go down or give 400 at bats to Melky Cabrera.

Well if the Yankees go out and trade for or drop big dollars on guys to backfill for or replace Posada and Joba, then it would be an apt comparison. I'll bet you sollars to donuts they the Yankees are going into the 2009 season with those two guys penciled in to give them 500-600 ABs and 75-85 hi-lev innings respectively.

You don't improve by not having bad luck, that's not what regression to the mean, the term you used before, means. Regression to the mean means the Red Sox are constantly moving closer to .500, not the other way around. That the Red Sox fell short this year because they could not overcome a spate of injuries does not mean that this is unlikely to happen again, it means it is likely to happen again.

No. Doesn't it depend on what you are regressing to the mean? I was referring to the mean number of games lost to injury by your starters. Over time, from year to year you can expect variability around a longer term average. Of course, if you collecta bunch of old, injury prone players, you are going to tend to deviate from the mean consistently, but I wouldn't contend that the Red Sox are such a team by and large. Just b/c Jed Lowrie broke his wrist in May, I don't think that means it's likely to happen again. I can't speak for what the injuries to Ortiz and Lowell mean for the likelihood that something similar happens to them again, though their relative rarity would seem to argue against a reoccurence.

No one is an attractive candidate for that kind of investment. Every free agent bidding war you win, you have also lost, because essentially you are paying more than anyone else thought the guy was worth. I think people around here get that. But as Yecul deftly points out, that's why you look for savings elsewhere, so you can overspend on players who meet needs. If you think the Red Sox should hold off until the next Albert Pujols comes around to spend money on a marquee FA, you do realize you may well be waiting for another 5 or 10 years, right?

Please. Let's not start comparing Teixeira to Albert Pujols or the few other truly game-changing hitters out there. Let's also not pretend that the FA market is the only route to obtaining high salaried, high ceiling talent. There are any number of ways that the Red Sox can use their salary advantage to acquire such players. In 2004, they dropped fairly big coin to bring in Clement and Wells. That was an abject failure. The next year, they traded Hanley, Anibal Sanchez, and two ml relievers for the core of their 2007 WS team, and that was every bit about using their payroll advantage. Yes it cost them Hanley, but that doesn't seem to have set them back now does it? I'd rather play out the string with Lowell (unless they absolutely think he's cooked), see where the priorities emerge, and address them at that point. Even with all of the graduations to the big club and trades for Gagne and Bay, the Sox have a top 5 minor league system and are widely regarded to have had one of the top 5 drafts in 2008. They are using their revenue advantage here (they were the first team to break the $10MM bonus barrier) so they can use those players as chips to avoid spending $180MM on guys who aren't game changers for them.

Who is to say that guys like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Jay Bruce or other emerging studs don't become available b/c their teams aren't willing to pay up in arbitration? As we've seen in this decade, the baseball salary structure is NOT immune from the broader economy, and given the downturn we are headed into, it would be folly to assume that salaries will continue to grow at the rate of the last 3-4 years. Locking in a guy like Tex for huge money doesn't make sense to me as a result.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Please. Let's not start comparing Teixeira to Albert Pujols or the few other truly game-changing hitters out there. Let's also not pretend that the FA market is the only route to obtaining high salaried, high ceiling talent. There are any number of ways that the Red Sox can use their salary advantage to acquire such players. In 2004, they dropped fairly big coin to bring in Clement and Wells. That was an abject failure.

Picking one poor set of FA signings does not make for a larger trend, though. Clement and Wells were 2 middling players available as free agents. Teixeira is the elite hitter available on the market today, a player with extremely consistent, and excellent production and most importantly, consistent 30+ home run power. He is not Pujols (no one is), but he is just about the farthest thing from the hitting equivalent of Matt Clement.

I think the logical extension of your argument is that the Sox should not waste their money on middle-of-the-pack guys in free agency, which I whole-heartedly agree with. If, as you say, the Sox have a top 5 prospect system, then that frees up more money to be spent on the truly elite free agents because good young players from your system play cheap for many years after they come up.

Teixeira certainly qualifies as a truly elite free agent: the guy has an OPS over .930 in 4 of his 6 seasons in the majors, and the exceptions are his first year at .811 and one year at .885. That's got to be well over 100 points better than could possibly be expected from Mike Lowell over the next two years. He has been at 30+ home runs each of the last 5 years, he's reliably a 150+ game player, and he drew more walks than strikeouts in 2008. In every way the guy is an absolute beast.

I guess we disagree on the impact a guy like Teixeira would have on this team. Personally, I feel that should he be added to this club his impact would be immense, because he would more than make up for the decline in power from Ortiz and Lowell over the next few years, his defense is excellent and his plate discipline superb. You will be paying a lot for him, but you have to pay for quality. Teixeira is quality. I think your mention of Giambi earlier was not applicable here because Giambi had issues with PEDs that weren't exactly unknown at the time he was signed (his agent made the Yankees take the phrase regarding PEDs out of the contract, and the Yankees agreed), while Teixeira has no such rumors surrounding him.

[SoxFanSince57]

Here is what I "get".

PITCHING IS PARAMOUNT--Spend on premier pitchers
Option 1. Upgrade pitching by getting CC. His contract would preclude Tex.
Option 2. Upgrade pitching by trading for Peavy. This would cost Buchholz, Crisp/Ellsbury and probably another high-level prospect. This would preclude acquiring a young stud catcher because it would cost another MLB-ready pitcher.
I am not advocating this, but under these scenarios the rationale is pitching is king and the Sox should place far greater priority on top-of-the-line pitching talent than on its offense. That is certainly a fair argument and a reasonable strategic approach.

Here is what I don't "get".

1. Some contend that Lowell should not be moved to make room for Tex, because 3B isn't really an area of immediate need AND they contend that Lowell is injured and has no real trade value. Obviously Lowell can't be too valuable to trade and too hurt to have trade value. (In my view, there is no doubt that a subsidized Lowell (6M) would be high on the radar of a number of teams. Reports are that his surgery was successful and that he will be ready for ST.)

2. Some believe that if the Sox could get Teixeria, Lowe/Sheets and a young stud catcher all while staying within the team's budget, they should pass on acquiring Teixeria because he just does not represent a good enough return on the money.

3. Some argue that the Sox should trade its prospects for a stud catcher, acquire a Lowe/Sheets-level SP, make the same improvements to the bullpen and bench that everybody suggests and keep the 20M for future use.

Edited by SoxFanSince57, 28 October 2008 - 04:50 AM.

[grantb]

Who does it seem that the Yankees would be more likely to outbid everyone else for?

The Yankees seem almost destined to sign Mark Teixeira this offseason, but while it's been suggested that Teixeira is seeking upwards of 10 years, $200MM, the Yankees may be looking to offer half of that, or "a deal in the range of 6 years, $18-20MM a year."
The Yankees are gearing up to offer CC Sabathia "an offer that may dwarf those of other clubs, by a factor of 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.mlbtrader...s-latest-t.html

CC Sabathia. Though the West Coast sentiment is strong for the Bay area native, would the Angels or Dodgers make a massive outlay of money for him? The Brewers are trying to keep him, but they might not have much of a chance. Which always brings us back to the Yankees. While New York doesn't appear to be Sabathia's cup of tea, what type of sweetener would it take? The Yankees could do it.

Mark Teixeira. The Angels would be out of their minds not to re-sign him, especially if they let Frankie Rodriguez go. If it's a five-year, $100 million deal Scott Boras wants, the Angels have to do it. If not, the Yankees and Red Sox won't be shy, though the Yankees need to think of Jorge Posada as a first baseman/DH in a year or two.

http://www.boston.co..._whats_cooking/

[yecul]

Picking one poor set of FA signings does not make for a larger trend, though. Clement and Wells were 2 middling players available as free agents.

Just like Derek Lowe, actually. That's the key. You can either spend a lot on middling talent or you can spend a LOT on an upper tier talent.

No matter what, when you bring aboard free agents on multi year deals you are going to be paying a lot of money. I see it as the decision to spend wisely or to spend less.

This might all be moot for a variety of reasons, but we're just talking priorities and best approach here. We love to spin the wheels.

[Tony the Pony]

I'd love for the Sox to pursue and sign Teixeira.

One of my best friends' last name is Teixeira. As an Oriole fan, he really hates the Red Sox. It would be great to give him a Red Sox Teixeira jersey for his birthday next year.

[Quintanariffic]

Lots to reply to here, but I won't waste everyone's time trying to respond to every strain of though above. For whatever reason, I've been remiss to mention CC Sabathia in this thread, who I'd much rather drop big money on, even knowing the inherent risks with pitchers. He is the pitching mirror image of Tex in terms of youth, reliability, and superiority to all current and near-term future FA options. Even then, I wouldn't feel great about it b/c I don't think it's good business to be handing out mega contracts to anyone. Ever. They are a loser's game that will almost always burn you on the back end. It is an easy out, chasing that one big player to get you over the hump, or to keep you at the top, but it is a dead-end street.

I don't disagree that the savings from all the players that are home grown make going after Teixeira an attractive prospect, I'd just rather allocate the dollars elsewhere.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

PHILADELPHIA - The Brewers have informed teams they are willing to listen to offers for first baseman Prince Fielder.

"They have put it out there they are will talk about him but it has to be a substantial package," an industry source said.

The YankeesNew York Yankees need a first baseman but aren't likely to chase after Fielder for two reasons: He is a below average defender and they are going to need first base for Derek Jeter when he re-signs following the 2010 season.

NY Post

[sfip]

NY Post

As said many times, the NY Post is about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Witness their article of the Dodgers offering Manny 2 years, $60M as their most recent example.

There's no way the chances of Jeter playing 1B in 2010 will stop the Yankees from acquiring a 1B of Teixeira's caliber. No more than the possibility of Posada playing 1B in 2009 would.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

As said many times, the NY Post is about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Witness their article of the Dodgers offering Manny 2 years, $60M as their most recent example.

There's no way the chances of Jeter playing 1B in 2010 will stop the Yankees from acquiring a 1B of Teixeira's caliber. No more than the possibility of Posada playing 1B in 2009 would.

Sorry, i must have missed that part of your gospel blog. Can you link it again so we can all go home knowing that the Yankees will outbid us?

[Pearl Wilson]

In my interpretation, Youks' interview on WEEI contradicted what the Globe reported - that he finds 3b easier. He said 3b was the more difficult position (basically for the usual reasons), and he also mentioned that his throwing elbow and shoulder were "barking" at him (someone already mentioned his Chadfordesque throws). Maybe this is a matter of conditioning that his off-season program will address?

Anyway, I wanted to throw it out there because most here are assuming that he can make a successful transition back to 3b.

[grantb]

In my interpretation, Youks' interview on WEEI contradicted what the Globe reported - that he finds 3b easier. He said 3b was the more difficult position (basically for the usual reasons), and he also mentioned that his throwing elbow and shoulder were "barking" at him (someone already mentioned his Chadfordesque throws). Maybe this is a matter of conditioning that his off-season program will address?

Anyway, I wanted to throw it out there because most here are assuming that he can make a successful transition back to 3b.

I think he said that first was more difficult because it required more footwork, not that it was less taxing on his body. The physical aspect and the difficulty of the position are not necessarily one in the same.

[mclusky]

No. Doesn't it depend on what you are regressing to the mean? I was referring to the mean number of games lost to injury by your starters. Over time, from year to year you can expect variability around a longer term average. Of course, if you collecta bunch of old, injury prone players, you are going to tend to deviate from the mean consistently, but I wouldn't contend that the Red Sox are such a team by and large. Just b/c Jed Lowrie broke his wrist in May, I don't think that means it's likely to happen again. I can't speak for what the injuries to Ortiz and Lowell mean for the likelihood that something similar happens to them again, though their relative rarity would seem to argue against a reoccurence.

I should've known better than to draw this already largely semantic argument further into the swamp with this term. You can hardly read about baseball on the Internet without some glib reference to "regression to the mean." But anyhow, you maintain that the Red Sox will improve by "regressing" their number of injuries. I get that.

The problem with this analysis is this: it may be correct to predict that the Red Sox will regress to the mean in terms of health, but it would also be correct to predict some regression to the mean in other areas, equally important ones like hitting, pitching and fielding. The Red Sox won 95 games; that's waaaay ahead of the mean, so there's plenty of room for regression.

Who is to say that guys like Joey Votto, Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, Jay Bruce or other emerging studs don't become available b/c their teams aren't willing to pay up in arbitration?

And who is to say that they will be, or that the asking price for them will be any less extravagant? Miguel Cabrera was available last year but he was deemed too expensive in prospects. Albert Pujols chose to resign with his team and never became available. Mark Teixeira is not Albert Pujols, we know this, but he's a switch-hitting stud and he is available.

FWIW, I think there are good arguments to be made against signing Teixeira, but IMO they all revolve around how else you make major improvements to the team in other areas, this year, right now. Anything else is just people trying to outsmart themselves.

[Quintanariffic]

I should've known better than to draw this already largely semantic argument further into the swamp with this term. You can hardly read about baseball on the Internet without some glib reference to "regression to the mean." But anyhow, you maintain that the Red Sox will improve by "regressing" their number of injuries. I get that.

The problem with this analysis is this: it may be correct to predict that the Red Sox will regress to the mean in terms of health, but it would also be correct to predict some regression to the mean in other areas, equally important ones like hitting, pitching and fielding. The Red Sox won 95 games; that's waaaay ahead of the mean, so there's plenty of room for regression.

No question, and I don't think I've seen anyone advocating standing pat in the literal sense of the word. There is clearly a need to upgrade at C, and either the bullpen or the rotation depending upon where Masterson shakes out. Furthermore, the addition of guys like Baldelli, Blake, and/or Greg Norton, the latter two of which can both play 1B, 3B and corner OF, could represent an important boost to the team's depth. I suspect Blake will be looking for a starting job, but not so sure about Norton and Baldelli. Now, are any of these moves "game changers" that set the Sox up for the long-term to the extent adding Teixeira would? No. But my opinion is that such a large move isn't what is needed for this team to compete for a ring in the short-term and would create too much baggage on the back end. I think reasonable people can agree to disagree on that point.

And who is to say that they will be, or that the asking price for them will be any less extravagant? Miguel Cabrera was available last year but he was deemed too expensive in prospects. Albert Pujols chose to resign with his team and never became available. Mark Teixeira is not Albert Pujols, we know this, but he's a switch-hitting stud and he is available.

FWIW, I think there are good arguments to be made against signing Teixeira, but IMO they all revolve around how else you make major improvements to the team in other areas, this year, right now. Anything else is just people trying to outsmart themselves.

I guess I just don't see this team needing major improvements. It took an extraordinary series of injuries to stop them from making the WS as it was - this was not an over-achieving team. The only two players who you can point to as likely candidates for regression are Youks and, to a lesser extent, a Pedroia entering his prime.

[ddupre]

Simply put, you either believe that Teixeira is a great enough talent to be worth the investment of these kinds of resources or you don't.

Certain players, like Pedro and Manny, are so good and so young that they are worth throwing the kitchen sink at. Teixeira is one of those for me. I think he's a unique opportunity to lock up a historically good player for his entire prime. We should make every effort to lock him up in a Sox uniform.

I believe that the Red Sox collection of young talent, especially on the pitching staff, and general team strength and stability would be selling points for an ambitious young superstar. We can afford to be price competitive. Lock him up.

[iowacityiconoclast]

I'm surprised that Adam Dunn hasn't entered the conversation as a backup target.

I'm fine with the Sox going aften Teixiera, but I suspect the Yankees will outbid any offer the Red Sox make. And while Dunn isn't quite in Teixiera's company as a hitter, he's an on-base machine whose had 40+ homers during each of the last five years. And he's going to come a helluva lot cheaper than Teixiera.

The big question is whether or not Dunn can play a passable 1B, but if he can, he'd also be able to spell Drew and Bay in the outfield, and Papi at DH.

[Bowlerman9]

I'm surprised that Adam Dunn hasn't entered the conversation as a backup target.

I'm fine with the Sox going aften Teixiera, but I suspect the Yankees will outbid any offer the Red Sox make. And while Dunn isn't quite in Teixiera's company as a hitter, he's an on-base machine whose had 40+ homers during each of the last five years. And he's going to come a helluva lot cheaper than Teixiera.

The big question is whether or not Dunn can play a passable 1B, but if he can, he'd also be able to spell Drew and Bay in the outfield, and Papi at DH.

He cant. I am as big an Adam Dunn fan as anyone, and I would absolutely to see him in a Sox uniform - but the guy has some of the worst footwork you have ever seen on a baseball player, and would be a giant liability at 1B. If the Sox needed a DH, I would be all over him, but going into 2009, I just dont see any reason the Sox should pursue him.

ADAM DUNN.

[TomRicardo]

I'm surprised that Adam Dunn hasn't entered the conversation as a backup target.

I'm fine with the Sox going aften Teixiera, but I suspect the Yankees will outbid any offer the Red Sox make. And while Dunn isn't quite in Teixiera's company as a hitter, he's an on-base machine whose had 40+ homers during each of the last five years. And he's going to come a helluva lot cheaper than Teixiera.

The big question is whether or not Dunn can play a passable 1B, but if he can, he'd also be able to spell Drew and Bay in the outfield, and Papi at DH.

I think David Ortiz plays a more passable 1B. If you are thinking about Dunn (a sexy sexy beast of a hitter), Jason Bay in CF and Dunn in LF would be a more plausible scenario. And after watching Bay in LF, thats not very plasible at all.

[grantb]

I think Teixeira fits into the Red Sox' model for success better than Dunn does, especially with his Gold Glove caliber defense. Dunn has said he values winning though, so who knows?

Adam Dunn knows it's cliche, but he intends to prioritize winning over money when he hits free agency.

http://www.mlbtrader...ons-latest.html

[smastroyin]

How about this?




I just don't think Tex is quite at the generational talent level with the bat. He's a very good hitter who also brings a good glove. He's in the Vaughn/McGriff class, not the Manny Ramirez/Albert Pujols class, at least with the bat. There is no shame in that, but I don't see him as so special that you throw away the rulebook when dealing with whether to sign him.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Since Teixeira doesn't resemble the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man, I'm much more optimistic of his chances in remaining far more productive after age 32 than Mo Vaughn.

[FelixMantilla]

I just don't think Tex is quite at the generational talent level with the bat. He's a very good hitter who also brings a good glove. He's in the Vaughn/McGriff class, not the Manny Ramirez/Albert Pujols class, at least with the bat. There is no shame in that, but I don't see him as so special that you throw away the rulebook when dealing with whether to sign him.

I agree 100%. Nice player and all but his acquisition would create a logjam around 1B/DH plus could potentially block Lars Anderson down the road.

Sure you gotta kick the tires, but barring an unlikely bargain, I think the Sox have gotta pass.

[Foulkey Reese]

I agree 100%. Nice player and all but his acquisition would create a logjam around 1B/DH plus could potentially block Lars Anderson down the road.

Sure you gotta kick the tires, but barring an unlikely bargain, I think the Sox have gotta pass.

I sure hope that the Sox would never avoid signing a big time free agent in his prime because he might block a prospect down the road. Lars may very well be a super star, but it's just as likely that he'll be a disappointment.

Remember when everybody wanted Coco gone because he might "block" Ellsbury?

There are quite a few valid reasons to pass on Teixeira, but worrying that he might block Lars Anderson in a few years really isn't one of them.