1019 replies to this topic

[Rasputin]

MLB Trade Rumors:
"The Marlins could reverse their stance on trading Giancarlo Stanton, opines MLB.com's Joe Frisaro, if the Rangers are desperate to add another big bat and were willing to offer Jurickson Profar or Mike Olt in a deal. Frisaro also thinks Miami could be a trade match with the Angels as Peter Bourjos "has been on the Marlins' radar for a while."

http://www.mlbtrader...euXhvIBrUhvk.99


What do the Red Sox have to offer Miami?

Encouragement to, congratulations for, and thanks for fleecing either of the teams they're likely to trade with.

[Cellar-Door]

Encouragement to, congratulations for, and thanks for fleecing either of the teams they're likely to trade with.

Perhaps even serving as the team with the "mystery offer" that is used to encourage other teams to up their offers.

[The Gray Eagle]

We need another starting pitcher. We really should not be banking on Lackey being a useful pitcher, especially not at the start of the season. If we don't dump his contract, then he should ideally start the season on a rehab assignment, unless/until another starter is injured in spring training. He is coming off serious arm surgery, he needs to show that he has his command 100% back before he pitches for the Red Sox.

We can trade Salty and a reliever for a useful starting pitcher. If the White Sox won't trade us Floyd for that, then we should be able to find someone else. Switch hitting catchers who hit 25 HRs should have some value. Now that we have 2 or 3 other catchers (depending on Napoli) then he has less value to us than to other teams.

Reportedly, the team has been looking to move Salty since midseason, so hopefully we can bring back a good arm for him and one of our relievers (another spot where we have a surplus.)

It'd be ideal to get a young guy with an option year left who has a lot of upside in a deal like that, but I don't know who that would be. Probably someone who was a highly regarded prospect but who had an off year in 2012 as a major league rookie and/or AAA starter, with a team that needs a power hitting catcher.

[Rasputin]

We need another starting pitcher. We really should not be banking on Lackey being a useful pitcher, especially not at the start of the season. If we don't dump his contract, then he should ideally start the season on a rehab assignment, unless/until another starter is injured in spring training. He is coming off serious arm surgery, he needs to show that he has his command 100% back before he pitches for the Red Sox.

He's going to be 16 months from the surgery by the time the season starts. I really don't think it's going to be a problem.

[Edelpeddle]

We need another starting pitcher. We really should not be banking on Lackey being a useful pitcher, especially not at the start of the season. If we don't dump his contract, then he should ideally start the season on a rehab assignment, unless/until another starter is injured in spring training. He is coming off serious arm surgery, he needs to show that he has his command 100% back before he pitches for the Red Sox.

We can trade Salty and a reliever for a useful starting pitcher. If the White Sox won't trade us Floyd for that, then we should be able to find someone else. Switch hitting catchers who hit 25 HRs should have some value. Now that we have 2 or 3 other catchers (depending on Napoli) then he has less value to us than to other teams.

Reportedly, the team has been looking to move Salty since midseason, so hopefully we can bring back a good arm for him and one of our relievers (another spot where we have a surplus.)

It'd be ideal to get a young guy with an option year left who has a lot of upside in a deal like that, but I don't know who that would be. Probably someone who was a highly regarded prospect but who had an off year in 2012 as a major league rookie and/or AAA starter, with a team that needs a power hitting catcher.

I agree, the Red Sox do need another starter. Cherington indicated he's still involved in trade talks today around the time of the press conference.

[bosockboy]

He's going to be 16 months from the surgery by the time the season starts. I really don't think it's going to be a problem.

Yep....he was throwing well in intrasquad rehab starts in September....hitting 94 MPH I believe. That was 90 days ago. Should be full steam ahead.

I think may of us forget what a good pitcher Lackey is when healthy. We've never seen him healthy in a Boston uniform.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think may of us forget what a good pitcher Lackey is when healthy. We've never seen him healthy in a Boston uniform.

His story arc with us has distorted perceptions a bit: he wasn't bad in 2010, just ordinary, where we were expecting better than ordinary. So we were already predisposed to negativity (not that we ever need much help there), and then his 2011 hugely reinforced that. But really, he was only a bad pitcher for that one injury-racked year, and there's no reason to think he'll be worse than an average pitcher if he's fully healthy again.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Only quibble I have is that Morales is the #6 starter in the 'pen so that leaves only one spot for Melancon/Bard/Aceves/Mortensen. There could be a deal with one or two of those guys and Salty to fill one of the weaknesses.

Good point. My math is a bit off.

However, I'm not sure I like the idea of three lefties in the pen. Surprisingly (to me anyway), the one with the best wOBA split vs. RHH--both 2012 and career--is Breslow, who I've always thought of as, if not an outright LOOGY, a "lefty specialist." But he actually gets everybody out. Morales and Miller, not so much.

Really, the more I look at Morales' numbers, the less excited I am about keeping him around. He's too inconsistent and too vulnerable to RHH. I suppose you could say the same of Miller, but I just feel like he has more upside. Keep Miller as the LOOGY, Breslow as an all-purpose middle reliever, and keep Aceves or Mortensen on the roster as long man/emergency starter while keeping the real #6 and #7 starters (RDLR and an Aaron Cook type TBNL) in Pawtucket.

[Rasputin]

I agree, the Red Sox do need another starter. Cherington indicated he's still involved in trade talks today around the time of the press conference.

Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Dempster, Floyd.

Who starts, who doesn't, and where do they go? Doubront doesn't have any options left does he?

[bosockboy]

His story arc with us has distorted perceptions a bit: he wasn't bad in 2010, just ordinary, where we were expecting better than ordinary. So we were already predisposed to negativity (not that we ever need much help there), and then his 2011 hugely reinforced that. But really, he was only a bad pitcher for that one injury-racked year, and there's no reason to think he'll be worse than an average pitcher if he's fully healthy again.

What we don't know was if the ordinary 2010 was the beginning of his injury troubles. I suppose there is some slim hope that there is one pre-2010, sub 4 ERA season left in that arm.

[The Gray Eagle]

Lackey's coming off serious arm surgery. His velocity doesn't matter, that's the first thing that comes back. Command is the last thing that comes back. He needs to demonstrate that he has his command back, repeatedly, before he pitches in big league games for us.

Lackey's strength when he was with the Angels was never his velocity, it was his command. He needs that to be a solid pitcher, and he should demonstrate that he has it before he gets thrown into real games. If he goes out there unable to command his stuff, it's going to be 2011 Lackey all over again, and that was a horror show for everyone in every way. There's no need for that.

We have a surplus at catcher and RP, we should be able to move that for a SP who will allow us to let Lackey prove he is able to command his pitches before we throw him into real games. We need to pick up another Rubby DLR type in exchange for a power-hitting catcher and a useful reliever.

Too many good starting pitchers has not been this team's problem in any year that I can remember, and it is surely not going to be the problem in 2013. Pitchers always get hurt, and others always have unexpected off years. We need another one.

[Rasputin]

Lackey's coming off serious arm surgery. His velocity doesn't matter, that's the first thing that comes back. Command is the last thing that comes back. He needs to demonstrate that he has his command back, repeatedly, before he pitches in big league games for us.

Lackey's strength when he was with the Angels was never his velocity, it was his command. He needs that to be a solid pitcher, and he should demonstrate that he has it before he gets thrown into real games. If he goes out there unable to command his stuff, it's going to be 2011 Lackey all over again, and that was a horror show for everyone in every way. There's no need for that.

And just how are you going to do this? You have spring training and the length of a rehab assignment to get it done.

We have a surplus at catcher and RP, we should be able to move that for a SP who will allow us to let Lackey prove he is able to command his pitches before we throw him into real games. We need to pick up another Rubby DLR type in exchange for a power-hitting catcher and a useful reliever.

Why is someone going to give up a really good pitching prospect for Salty and a reliever?

Too many good starting pitchers has not been this team's problem in any year that I can remember, and it is surely not going to be the problem in 2013. Pitchers always get hurt, and others always have unexpected off years. We need another one.

I'm always a fan of more good pitching but you can still only start five of them. Whoever you're looking at getting better be ready to go to Pawtucket.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Dempster, Floyd.

Who starts, who doesn't, and where do they go? Doubront doesn't have any options left does he?

Even if he does, deliberately building the team so as to send him back to Pawtucket just seems wasteful. He's 25 years old, and he just had a solid year--he wasn't perfect, but he was decent, and made big strides forward. The whole point of getting a season like that from a young pitcher is so you can say "Yay. Now we have a young, cost-controlled #5 who should continue to get better for a few more years." Not so that you can say "That's all well and good, but we need to spend a lot of money or talent on somebody we think will probably be a bit better, if all goes well."

[gammoseditor]

You can't force Lackey to pitch in AAA if he's healthy. He's not a young pitcher with options. It worked with Daisuke last year because he wanted to pitch in AAA until he's right. Lackey doesn't seem to have the personality to agree to an extended AAA rehab to prove his command is back.

[Rasputin]

Even if he does, deliberately building the team so as to send him back to Pawtucket just seems wasteful. He's 25 years old, and he just had a solid year--he wasn't perfect, but he was decent, and made big strides forward. The whole point of getting a season like that from a young pitcher is so you can say "Yay. Now we have a young, cost-controlled #5 who should continue to get better for a few more years." Not so that you can say "That's all well and good, but we need to spend a lot of money or talent on somebody we think will probably be a bit better, if all goes well."

Yeah, this.

Ideally we'll look back in a few years and see we added Doubront in '12, de la Rosa in '13, and Barnes in '14 to go with whichever veterans we end up keeping.

[nvalvo]

I looked around the web to see what the MLB-level catching situations looked like.

AL East:
BAL - Wieters, Teagarden. Comment: No need.
BOS - Lavarnway, Ross, Napoli. Salty as excess depth.
NY - Cervilli, Stewart. Comment: Glaring need.
TB - Molina, Lobaton. Comment: Conceivable need. .
TOR - Arencibia, Buck. Comment: No need.

AL Central:
CHI - Flowers, Gimenez. Comment: Need.
CLE - Santana, Marson, Gomes. Comment: No need.
DET - Avila, Peña. Comment: Conceivable need.
KC - Perez, Hayes. Comment: No need.
MIN - Mauer, Butera. Comment: No need.

AL West:
HOU - Castro, Corporan. Comment: Not the sort of move I see them making.
LAA - Iannetta, Conger. Comment: No need.
OAK - Norris, Kottaras. Comment: I'd run with Norris, were I in Beane's office.
SEA - Jaso, Montero. Comment: Jaso was good in 2012, so this really depends on whether Montero is a catcher. They have a few catchers in the minors, but nobody too interesting.
TEX - Soto, Whiteside. Comment: Conceivable need.

NL East:
ATL - McCann (injury), Laird, Pagnozzi. Comment: Where it all began... unlikely.
MIA - Brantly, Mathis. Comments: I have no idea what is going on in Miami.
NY - Thole, Recker. Comments: Conceivable need.
PHI - Ruiz (Suspended 25 games), Kratz, Quintero. Comments: With Ruiz returning, they should be set.
WAS - Ramos, Suzuki. Comments: Conceivable need.

AL Central:
CHI - Castillo, Navarro. Comments: They should see what Castillo can do.
CIN - Hanigan, Mesoraco. Comments: Mesoraco is the future. No need.
MIL - Lucroy, Maldonado. Comments: Conceivable need.
PIT - Martin, McKenry. Comments: No need.
STL - Molina, Cruz. Comments: No need.

NL West:
ARI - Montero, Nieves. Comments: No need.
COL - Rosario, Hernandez. Comments: Rosario is the future. No need.
LAD - Ellis, Fedex. Comments: No need, but clearly in the grip of irrational exuberance.
SD - Hundley, Baker. Comments: No need.
SF - Posey, Sanchez. Comments: The best catching tandem in baseball. No need.

So what comes out of this exercise is that NYY, Chicago, and maybe Seattle or LAD are our market. There are a few other contending teams I could imagine having interest, e.g. Texas or Detroit. Chicago and New York are clearly the best fit.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Dempster, Floyd.

Who starts, who doesn't, and where do they go? Doubront doesn't have any options left does he?

Conceivably, you could move Dourbont to the pen for another year, but I agree with you and SH that it would be wasteful and would not make a lot of sense considering the steps he took forward last year. He looks like he could be a very solid back of the rotation option in 2013 if he takes another step forward and he's an age where you would expect him to do just that. Personally, I'd rather the started him next season, but if you can get Floyd for Salty and a lefty reliever, it wouldn't be an awful option.

[knucklecup]

An interesting platoon partner with Gomes would be David DeJesus.

Numbers versus righties in 2012:
AVG OBP SLG OPS .289 .365 .461 .826

Gomes versus lefties in 2012:
AVG OBP SLG OPS .299 .413 .561 .974


Combined:

.291 BA / 421 OBP / 490 SLG / 911 OPS combined in 2012. Did this manually - this is accurate.

http://www.miniwebto...=20&at_bats=576

Edited by knucklecup, 14 December 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[knucklecup]

Conceivably, you could move Dourbont to the pen for another year, but I agree with you and SH that it would be wasteful and would not make a lot of sense considering the steps he took forward last year. He looks like he could be a very solid back of the rotation option in 2013 if he takes another step forward and he's an age where you would expect him to do just that. Personally, I'd rather the started him next season, but if you can get Floyd for Salty and a lefty reliever, it wouldn't be an awful option.

Why does nobody seem confident in Morales?

It seems like Farrell sees what I see. I know he was pitching against the Cubs but I saw him up close and personal at Wrigley this summer and he was fantastic on that Sunday night. He pitched well in a couple starts before that as well. I'm really intrigued as to what he can do.

I do not think another starter is a necessity.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't either. I'm just saying that it's possible for the team to add another starter without having to send Doubront to Pawtucket. I think Dempster gives them enough pitching depth and that Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront with Morales and DLR as the first two shuttle options with Webster, Britton, Workman available in emergencies and maybe even Barnes late in the year is about as good for depth as it's likely to get in the majors this year. The Sox might not have that sure thing ace at the top of the rotation (though we all hope Lester can return to being that) but the drop off from Lackey, Dempster and Doubront to the next two available options isn't that big.

The only reason I can think that Cherington might feel the need to acquire another starter is if Lackey's recovery isn't going well or they're feeling confident about finding a suitable deal for Lester before Spring Training.

[seantoo]

I gotta figure, based on the #2 slot (Pedroia?) that we're on the bottom.

Anyway, Mike's got a point... why compare us to the Blue Jays of all teams? Also, while omitting the #9 spot was done to avoid ruining the game, it does illustrate that even if we're equal with the Jays 1-8 (not that impressive really) the difference in the #9 hole really shows our weakness.

EDIT- Well damn, while I was typing you gave the answers away

One batter is 11% of the order but the ninth batter gets less at bats than the top of the order. For simplicities sake lets call it 10%. #9 batters at best would still hit below the MLB norm's 270ish 330 ish 400ish, so know subtract what Inglesias would give us for the sake of simplicity and this point let's say .220/.280/.350. So the difference is about .05/.05/.05 or a 5% however this 5% difference is based on the 10% difference that the 9 batter can potentially have. It results in 5% of 10% or 5 thousandths of a difference. What are we talking about here? a few at bats difference over the course of a full season and thats assuming those extra positive at bat outcomes actually resulted in runs scored which in reality cannot be assumed. Again what are talking about here. If we are not contending let Inglesias attempt to be close to adequate with his bat at the MLB level and considering his ability and limited experience there is the real possibility he will indeed. Check his minor league monthly splits last season. He clearly was starting to turn the corner, enough to give him a shot in Boston or at least that is what the front office saw.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

RE: a short-term early season fill-in for Lackey because he's doing a rehab assignment...isn't that guy already in house? Wouldn't someone like Morales, Webster, DLR or even Aceves be that short-term replacement with the flexibility of moving to the bullpen or Pawtucket at the end of April to make room for a ready Lackey? While acquiring another "DLR-like" prospect would be a positive in general, it's not a necessity vis a vis Lackey and his recovery/rehab. And acquiring another proven starter like Floyd would be a great luxury, it would also create a situation where they might be forced to move another starter just to free up the log-jam. Cue the "these things have a way of working themselves out, guys get hurt/need rest, blah, blah, blah". Floyd before the Dempster signing made total sense. Floyd now would probably portend a Lester trade or something similar (or a disastrous injury).

[OttoC]

One batter is 11% of the order but the ninth batter gets less at bats than the top of the order....

We can look at the breakdown of plate appearances by batting position by consulting league-splits at baseball-reference.com. For the AL from 2008 through 2012, plus a 5-year average:

2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	5-year
12.22%	12.23%	12.27%	12.21%	12.24%	12.23%
11.95%	11.96%	11.97%	11.93%	11.95%	11.95%
11.67%	11.68%	11.67%	11.64%	11.65%	11.66%
11.38%	11.41%	11.41%	11.38%	11.40%	11.40%
11.12%	11.13%	11.12%	11.14%	11.13%	11.13%
10.85%	10.87%	10.84%	10.89%	10.86%	10.86%
10.58%	10.57%	10.56%	10.59%	10.54%	10.57%
10.28%	10.22%	10.24%	10.29%	10.28%	10.26%
9.95%	9.93%	9.94%	9.94%	9.96%	9.94%

As one can see, the breakdown by line-up position is fairly consistent and can be estimated reasonably accurately by the formula PA% = -0.0028(LineupPos) + 0.1252, with the correlation coefficient, r, equal to 0.9996.

• Back to top

[MikeM]

I hate the concept of banking on Lackey as much as anybody, but at the end of the day it is what it is, and we are simply in too deep there not to at least try.

Spent the day letting the Dempster contract fully sink in, and i guess i'm pretty ok with it as a 2 year flyer. Well, as long as Marcum does not go on to sign some ridiculously cheap 1 year deal somewhere else that we could have been in on.

[BosRedSox5]

One batter is 11% of the order but the ninth batter gets less at bats than the top of the order. For simplicities sake lets call it 10%. #9 batters at best would still hit below the MLB norm's 270ish 330 ish 400ish, so know subtract what Inglesias would give us for the sake of simplicity and this point let's say .220/.280/.350. So the difference is about .05/.05/.05 or a 5% however this 5% difference is based on the 10% difference that the 9 batter can potentially have. It results in 5% of 10% or 5 thousandths of a difference. What are we talking about here? a few at bats difference over the course of a full season and thats assuming those extra positive at bat outcomes actually resulted in runs scored which in reality cannot be assumed. Again what are talking about here. If we are not contending let Inglesias attempt to be close to adequate with his bat at the MLB level and considering his ability and limited experience there is the real possibility he will indeed. Check his minor league monthly splits last season. He clearly was starting to turn the corner, enough to give him a shot in Boston or at least that is what the front office saw.

You make a good case for how the #9 batter has a limited impact... but is it just old timey baseball nonsense for me to think that having a weak link in the lineup chain is a bigger problem? Granted, we had Manny and Papi, but I always thought the key to the Red Sox success in 2003-2004 was the "relentless" lineup that Theo talked about. Pitchers never got a break. In 2003 the most common lineup was Damon, Walker, Nomar, Manny, Papi, Millar, Nixon, Mueller and Varitek. They scored 961 runs and the #9 guy had a .863 OPS.

Is there any basis for thinking that having a weak hitter in the lineup makes it more difficult for the rest of the team?

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't either. I'm just saying that it's possible for the team to add another starter without having to send Doubront to Pawtucket. I think Dempster gives them enough pitching depth and that Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront with Morales and DLR as the first two shuttle options with Webster, Britton, Workman available in emergencies and maybe even Barnes late in the year is about as good for depth as it's likely to get in the majors this year.

Morales is out of options, FWIW, as are Bard, Melancon, Mortensen, Miller and Breslow, according to this very useful page at soxprospects.com.

[Savin Hillbilly]

You make a good case for how the #9 batter has a limited impact... but is it just old timey baseball nonsense for me to think that having a weak link in the lineup chain is a bigger problem? Granted, we had Manny and Papi, but I always thought the key to the Red Sox success in 2003-2004 was the "relentless" lineup that Theo talked about. Pitchers never got a break. In 2003 the most common lineup was Damon, Walker, Nomar, Manny, Papi, Millar, Nixon, Mueller and Varitek. They scored 961 runs and the #9 guy had a .863 OPS.

Is there any basis for thinking that having a weak hitter in the lineup makes it more difficult for the rest of the team?

We won a championship in 2007 and finished third in the league in runs per game while getting a .631 OPS out of the #8 slot. I think Iglesias could conceivably hit that mark, while fielding his position a hell of a lot better than the 2007 guy.

[judyb]

Some NL teams manage to have very good offenses, and Iglesias probably isn't going to be worse than what they get out of their #9 hitters.

[czar]

As one can see, the breakdown by line-up position is fairly consistent and can be estimated reasonably accurately by the formula PA% = -0.0028(LineupPos) + 0.1252, with the correlation coefficient, r, equal to 0.9996.

Nitpick, but I wouldn't call that "fairly consistent."

Ex: Ballpark 6000 PA per team per year (random guess) -- #1 slot in the lineup gets about ~720 of those, #9 gets ~540.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Nitpick, but I wouldn't call that "fairly consistent."

Ex: Ballpark 6000 PA per team per year (random guess) -- #1 slot in the lineup gets about ~720 of those, #9 gets ~540.

I'm pretty sure he meant consistent from year to year, not from position to position.

[OttoC]

I'm pretty sure he meant consistent from year to year, not from position to position.

I meant consistent within a given lineup position from year to year.

[czar]

I meant consistent within a given lineup position from year to year.

Gotcha. My bad.

[Edelpeddle]

Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Dempster, Floyd.

Who starts, who doesn't, and where do they go? Doubront doesn't have any options left does he?

Correct, Doubront has no more options left. If we acquired Floyd or a pitcher of similar caliber, I would have Doubront and Lackey compete for the 5th starter spot and the loser goes to the bullpen. That would give us a bullpen of Bailey, Uehara, Tazawa, Melancon, Breslow, Aceves, Doubront/Lackey. Bard and De La Rosa have multiple options left and could both start the season in the minors until they prove healthy and effective. If everyone's healthy in Spring Training (unlikely), we could explore a trading Morales, Mortensen and Miller. And we would have Beato, Carpenter and possibly Atchison and Hill as additional minor league depth.

[Edelpeddle]

Morales is out of options, FWIW, as are Bard, Melancon, Mortensen, Miller and Breslow, according to this very useful page at soxprospects.com.

Minor correction, Bard has two options left as the page says.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Minor correction, Bard has two options left as the page says.

Yes, but he'd be subject to optional waivers in order to be sent down since more than three years has lapsed since his first MLB appearance. Waivers are revocable, but if they have to pull him back from a claim, he's stuck on the big league roster.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 14 December 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[redsoxstiff]

I ASSume that thenew manager and new pitching coach may have a dramatic improvement/turnaround in the PS...ergo I'll try my best to hold off until the fourth or fifth rotation

[PrometheusWakefield]

Minor correction, Bard has two options left as the page says.

Although he may be running low on opportunities.

[soxfan121]

I have a few questions, based on how I see "the plan" that Cherington is developing:

1. How close is Jackie Bradley Jr.? He's hit well at every level, he's 22 and he's reportedly major league ready with the glove. I recognize the CF situation is clogged - Ellsbury for one year or trade bait, Victorino as the presumed stop-gap. If Ellsbury is not traded, Bradley could hit .800 in spring training and not make the club. Ideally, he wouldn't need to be added to the 40-man until 2014 - when he's 24. However - how good is Jackie Bradley Jr.? If Ellsbury is traded, could Bradley supplant Victorino by mid-2013?

2. Are Webster & Barnes top of the rotation arms? Will pick #7/#44 yield a top of the rotation prospect? And are they going to bank on two of those four developing as such or are they betting one of the four is that good and also waiting patiently for Felix Hernandez to leave Seattle as a free agent?

3. Will Cherington be willing to sell out of (possible) major league bullpen and outfield assets at the trade deadline even if the club is "in contention" and insert guys like Alex Wilson/Ryan Kalish mid-season? Or is "in contention" more important?

[BosRedSox5]

1.) Bradley did really well last season. Maybe a full year in AA and a half year in AAA? I'd say a year and a half, two tops. Gotta love his eye and plate discipline. Doesn't strike out a lot, and takes a good number of walks. I'd have to believe his talent isn't going to be blocked. Personally, I'd love us to trade Ellsbury though. All we'll get for him next season is a draft pick.

2.) Kind of early to saw on Webster and Barnes... no way to know if 7 or 44 will yield a top prospect. On another thread someone listed top former #7 picks, and I started day dreaming about landing the next Frank Thomas, but who knows. Our scouting dept is pretty solid. Maybe they'll get it right. Sox have a lot of money, gotta believe that once we start becoming relevant again we'll start throwing money around.

3.) If we're in contention, I think everything else goes out the window. Can you imagine the outrage if we trade a top set up man or a useful role player in the middle of a pennant race? I just don't think that will happen.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I have a few questions, based on how I see "the plan" that Cherington is developing:

1. How close is Jackie Bradley Jr.? He's hit well at every level, he's 22 and he's reportedly major league ready with the glove. I recognize the CF situation is clogged - Ellsbury for one year or trade bait, Victorino as the presumed stop-gap.

I really doubt Victorino will stand in Bradley's way once the latter is judged to be ready. They'll just stick him back in right (or in left if they've acquired a better RF by then).

Bradley will have had a full year in AA by midyear, so I'm guessing the plan is to bring him up to Pawtucket by July, give him a taste of ML pitching in September and, if he passes all those tests, let him compete for the CF job in March 2014, when he will be just approaching his 24th birthday.

[seantoo]

You make a good case for how the #9 batter has a limited impact... but is it just old timey baseball nonsense for me to think that having a weak link in the lineup chain is a bigger problem? Granted, we had Manny and Papi, but I always thought the key to the Red Sox success in 2003-2004 was the "relentless" lineup that Theo talked about. Pitchers never got a break. In 2003 the most common lineup was Damon, Walker, Nomar, Manny, Papi, Millar, Nixon, Mueller and Varitek. They scored 961 runs and the #9 guy had a .863 OPS.

Is there any basis for thinking that having a weak hitter in the lineup makes it more difficult for the rest of the team?

BosRedSox5 you are actually supporting my point. The example you use is the exception to the rule, that line-up was exceptional, ideal and damn near perfect. It set records even IIRC. Off the cuff I don't think a relentless line-up affects other batters in the line-up although it appears to wear on oppossing pitchers more. I might be spltting hairs but I think the distinction is worth noting.
This team as it stands today still needs alot of improvement to be thought of as a favorite to even win the division, never mind play-off series. I realize the division is in flux more now than it has in a decade or two and the added wild card is a possibility, albeit somewhat limited IMO. However the front office is not going for it right now. The Sox front office is going with the bridge 2.0 approach right now. I think they learned from bridge 1.0 and are doing a better job at acquiring solid bridge players while holding onto top prospects (so far at least) to blend them in. They have a few non core pieces they can move such as Salty and a few bullpen arms that can still improve this team. I think with lowered expectations that as this season enfolds the Sox should only encourage us. The one angle that concerns me is how the other teams in the division and by that I mean Toronto and Baltimore are seizing this rare opportunity (Both the Sox and NY, to a lesser degree are vunerable) and using this window to contend. I think Baltimore while improved clearly had an abundance of luck on their side last year and like water will find it's own level this year but there is still time for them to make a mark this off-season.

Edited by seantoo, 15 December 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[Drek717]

I have a few questions, based on how I see "the plan" that Cherington is developing: 1. How close is Jackie Bradley Jr.? He's hit well at every level, he's 22 and he's reportedly major league ready with the glove. I recognize the CF situation is clogged - Ellsbury for one year or trade bait, Victorino as the presumed stop-gap. If Ellsbury is not traded, Bradley could hit .800 in spring training and not make the club. Ideally, he wouldn't need to be added to the 40-man until 2014 - when he's 24. However - how good is Jackie Bradley Jr.? If Ellsbury is traded, could Bradley supplant Victorino by mid-2013?

Bradley will be ready when he's ready, signing Victorino assures they won't have to run the risk of rushing him onto the 2014 roster regardless of what happens with Ellsbury. That is also likely the plan, let Ells walk and net the comp. picks, then start Victorino in CF until you can't deny Bradley the job anymore, maximizing the overlap of his club controlled and peak years. If Bradley does something in 2013 to take the job out of the gate in 2014 Victorino's deal plus a little cash is a pretty valuable trade chip to anyone losing out on the Ellsbury and Granderson markets next off-season.

2. Are Webster & Barnes top of the rotation arms? Will pick #7/#44 yield a top of the rotation prospect? And are they going to bank on two of those four developing as such or are they betting one of the four is that good and also waiting patiently for Felix Hernandez to leave Seattle as a free agent?

I'd like to think they're no longer banking on FA starters period. Hernandez is a hell of a pitcher, but he isn't a free agent for another two seasons and even then will get the biggest pitcher's contract in MLB history, probably something to the effect of 8/$240M.

Next year outside of Wainright (who the Cardinals are actively trying to extend) and Josh Johnson you don't even have many good #2/#3 types available to bank on.

2015 is a hell of a long time to circle around someone else's pitchers, waiting for them to fix your rotation.

At this point for the Sox to be a highly competitive team in the near future they either need a major blockbuster for starting pitching or they'll need at least two of Doubront, De La Rosa, Barnes, Webster, Owens, Britton, Ranaudo, #7, #44, etc. to emerge as at least good #2/#3 types. That is assuming at least one of Lester and Buchholz can still be around to anchor the staff as the defacto #1 (if not a true front line starter in terms of production).

The Red Sox farm right now is juiced with prospects who project in the 3-5 starter/very good reliever range but lacks any true top of the rotation starter prospect. Lets be honest here, Barnes, De La Rosa, etc. are not Jon Lester or Clay Buchholz level prospects. Barnes for example is behind pre-cancer Jon Lester's career track record, who at Barnes' age was posting mid-2's ERA stints in AA and AAA with 15 MLB starts to cap it off. Buchholz was even fruther ahead at 22 as he was pitching at similar tiers but with far better success, including ungodly sick peripherals. Of course these guys have mitigating circumstances (Barnes played three years of college ball, De La Rosa had his tommy john issue), but the fact remains we aren't looking at the same tier of top pitching prospect here as there's still a lot of unknowns surrounding even our best pitching prospects.

3. Will Cherington be willing to sell out of (possible) major league bullpen and outfield assets at the trade deadline even if the club is "in contention" and insert guys like Alex Wilson/Ryan Kalish mid-season? Or is "in contention" more important?

I think Cherrington's willingness to sell has and will continue to hinge upon the price he can get. If we're "in contention" he isn't going to sell key role players without receiving a king's ransom. If we're out of contention he'll let them go more cheaply, but I think he and the rest of the FO sees much opportunity cost in not moving someone at the deadline if the return isn't up to their standards.

Case in point: this past deadline they weren't mathematically eliminated yet but also a good distance out, with several bullpen arms who likely could have found new homes (Atchison for example) and obviously Cody Ross as a legitimately valuable role player on a contending team, with Salty being moved to open up room for Lavarnway as an option as well. Pretty much none of that happened (Albers for Breslow was it). Why? Probably because making such moves to acquire more C+ types who project as quad-A or fringe ML guys isn't particularly worth it when the farm is already full of guys like that.

I'd bet that if we're in contention at the deadline we're more likely to see the FO make moves to strengthen the 2013 team that will pay off both short and long term. Something like emptying a large part of the farm for a Giancarlo Stanton should he become available. Strengthen the 2013 club while also parlaying multiple younger, less proven assets for a single, proven, long term fix.

[Savin Hillbilly]

The Red Sox farm right now is juiced with prospects who project in the 3-5 starter/very good reliever range but lacks any true top of the rotation starter prospect. Lets be honest here, Barnes, De La Rosa, etc. are not Jon Lester or Clay Buchholz level prospects. Barnes for example is behind pre-cancer Jon Lester's career track record, who at Barnes' age was posting mid-2's ERA stints in AA and AAA with 15 MLB starts to cap it off. Buchholz was even fruther ahead at 22 as he was pitching at similar tiers but with far better success, including ungodly sick peripherals. Of course these guys have mitigating circumstances (Barnes played three years of college ball, De La Rosa had his tommy john issue), but the fact remains we aren't looking at the same tier of top pitching prospect here as there's still a lot of unknowns surrounding even our best pitching prospects.

The second bolded quote is more than a "mitigating factor"; it makes comparisons to Lester, at this stage of Barnes' career, 100% useless on apples-and-oranges grounds. It would be exactly as meaningful to turn it around and compare how they did in A+. Lester, at A+ Sarasota in 2004, had a 4.28 ERA in 20 starts, with a 2.62 K/BB ratio. Barnes, at A+ Salem in 2012, had a 3.58 ERA with a 3.64 K/BB. Therefore, Barnes is going to be a better pitcher. "But," you'll say, "Barnes was two years older!" And I'll call that a "mitigating factor."

It may very well be true that Barnes doesn't have the potential to produce on the level that Lester has, but their career arcs so far have been so entirely different that I don't think you can use age-by-age comparisons to support that point.

As for RDLR, there we do have the materials for a bit more of an apples-to-apples comp.

At 18, both guys pitched a handful of rookie-league innings, posting identical 13.50 ERAs.
At 19, Lester was in A ball, pitched 106 innings, with a 3.65 ERA and 1.61 K/BB. RDLR: FRk, 47, 1.71, 2.43.
20: Lester A+, 90, 4.28, 2.62. RDLR: Rk, 16, 6.06, 2.00.

So far Lester's well ahead; he's struggling a bit, but at A+, where RDLR is still in rookie ball and not pitching much (injury?). But now things get interesting:

21: Lester AA, 148, 2.61, 2.86. RDLR: A/AA (even IP split), 110, 2.37, 2.47.
22: Lester AAA, 46, 2.70, 1.72. RDLR: AA, 40, 2.92, 2.74.

Both pitchers were called up to the big club in the middle of these successful age-22 seasons. Here's how they did:

Lester 81 IP, 4.76 ERA, 1.40 K/BB
RDLR 60 IP, 3.71 ERA, 1.94 K/BB

Both pitchers, of course, then got whacked with serious health/injury issues that kept them off the mound for most of the following year. But at that point, they were pretty evenly matched. Lester had gotten a better head start, but Rubby caught up quickly and in his age-22 season appeared to be pretty much Lester's equal if not a bit ahead.

[nvalvo]

Next year outside of Wainright (who the Cardinals are actively trying to extend) and Josh Johnson you don't even have many good #2/#3 types available to bank on.

A quibble: a certain two-time Cy Young winner is projected to go to free agency after the 2013 season. We all understand that Tim Lincecum's career has been something of a rollercoaster, with incredible success mixed with puzzling struggles. This is both the reason he is likely to be available in FA, and the reason that he will be a risky signing, even by FA pitcher standards. But if he has a good season in 2013? He won't turn 30 until June 2014. And he seems (to my eyes, anyway) to have the off-speed repertoire — that changeup! — to age gracefully. Where he ends up, and whether Sabean deals him first, will be very interesting to follow — Seattle?

In any case, it doesn't change your point that waiting around for FA starters cannot be Plan A.

[Drek717]

Both pitchers, of course, then got whacked with serious health/injury issues that kept them off the mound for most of the following year. But at that point, they were pretty evenly matched. Lester had gotten a better head start, but Rubby caught up quickly and in his age-22 season appeared to be pretty much Lester's equal if not a bit ahead.

I think you're mistaking my point. I'm not saying that Barnes and Ruby can't prove themselves to be Lester/Buchholz level prospects, but that right now they have a lot of unknowns and therefore can't be projected to that level.

There are good reasons to think that Barnes is poised to give us that dominant AA season to prove himself as that tier of pitcher, but he's got to actually do it before we assume he can.

As for Ruby, the big difference here is that Lester's health issues was a completely non-baseball related illness while Ruby actually needed Tommy John based on what happened to his arm while throwing a football. Lester coming back from cancer is crazy but the fact is if he beat it and could get back in throwing shape there wasn't a lingering concern. With Ruby there is the lingering concern about his arm continuing to hold up.

Also, his age 21 season isn't really comparable since he did split time between A and AA while still putting up only a little better than 2/3rds the innings that Lester posted exclusively in AA. This is another difference between Lester and De La Rosa that is a point of concern. His biggest single season sample size at one level was 60 IPs in the majors in 2011. That was a real nice sample for someone so young at the ML level, but you've got to worry some about the fact that he's never had more than 10 starts at a single level and the 110 IP split over A and AA is his career high for innings in a single season. He needs to prove full season durability and stamina as a starter, something Lester had done with nearly 150 IPs at AA, then followed it up with a combined 26 starts and 127 IP between AAA and MLB despite missing the tail end of the season.

Both have a lot of questions to answer in 2013. They could answer them in the positive direction and then elevate themselves to Lester/Buchholz level prospects, but right now they aren't quite on that tier.

2013 is a huge year for Red Sox pitching, period. Barnes is about to get his first shot to show something at a much more projectable level (AA). Ruby gets a full season to prove that he's healthy and can take a starting workload for a whole year. Webster is probably the most proven mL pitcher we have right now, he gets to take a big step up to AAA. Henry Owens gets to show us if he's someone to watch. At the ML level we have Lester trying a bounce back and Buchholz trying to put together a healthy season but just as importantly we have Doubront with the opportunity to build on 2012 and take another step forward. Playoff contention or not, what we see this year from all these guys and the rest of the starters in this organization will dictate what the FO needs to do for years to come.

Edited by Drek717, 17 December 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[In my lifetime]

Now with Drew likely on board, the current 25+ roster looks like:

C
Lavarnway/Salty (?Salty to be traded)
Ross
1B
Napoli
2B
Pedroia
SS
Drew
3B
Middlebrooks
DH
Ortiz
OF
Ellsbury
Victorino
Gomes
Kalish
Nova
Utility
Gomez
Ciriaco/Iglesias (Iglesias with Drew signing most likely to start at AAA)

Assuming Salty is traded, that still leaves room for only 3 of the following 5: Kalish/Nova/Gomez/Ciriaco/Iglesias
Getting Drew means Iglesias gets needed time to work on his hitting every day in AAA. This leaves Ciriaco, who has no options as the utility IF.
Then Gomez to AAA as one of the OFers or Lavarnway learns a little 1B
You can see why Sweeney is on their radar. Sign Sweeney as OF and back up 1B. Then Gomez and either Nava or Kalish (both with 1 option remaining) start in AAA

SP
Lester
Bucholz
Dempster
Lackey
Doubront

Swing
Morales

RP
Bailey
Uehara
Aceves
Tazawa
Miller (L)
Breslow(L)/Mortenson/Melancon/Bard

Breslow, Melancon and Mortenson all have no options remaining.

So I think Ben's to do list is:
1. Try to sign Swisher, but there is no desperation as he is not the piece that makes this team a WS contender
2. Explore trade options for Salty
3. Bullpen - possible trade to deal with excess pitchers/option issues
4. Figure inevitably, injuries will make some decisions for you

Edited by In my lifetime, 17 December 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[biollante]

I'm looking at the suggested lineup. Nothing looks very impressive or that bad. Seems like it will come down to whether the starting pitching can do better than it looks like it will. Injuries always seem to be rearing their ugly head every year.

[bosockboy]

While not as sexy as some would like, the offseason has produced the following:

1) Greatly improved roster over last season's shitshow; should compete for a playoff spot with health.
2) Used only cash to do it; prospect inventory left untouched.
3) Nothing over 3 years thus far, and no draft picks surrendered.
4) Flexibility to add a difference maker if the team performs well, and flexibility to sell pieces off if it doesn't.

Hard to beat that really when you look at it on the whole.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The team has essentially taken it's worst players and replaced them with major league average or better players. Plus, this is interesting...

Ross: 4.25
Napoli: 4.43
Pedroia: 3.97
Drew: 4.25
Middlebrooks: 3.88
Gomes: 4.13
Ellsbury: 3.89
Victorino: 3.77
Ortiz: 3.91

That number is P/PA. Every Red Sox regular had a number in 2012 that was better than Justin Smoak at 47th in the AL. This is a team of absolute grinders at the plate and pitchers are going to hate this lineup. New additions Ross, Drew and Napoli would slot into the top 10 in the AL and Gomes would have been tied with Cody Ross at 13 if he had enough PAs to qualify. Pedroia, Ellsbury and Middlebrooks all had numbers better than number 38 Matt Wieters.

Edit: Added more context.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 17 December 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[MikeM]

While not as sexy as some would like, the offseason has produced the following:

1) Greatly improved roster over last season's shitshow; should compete for a playoff spot with health.
2) Used only cash to do it; prospect inventory left untouched.
3) Nothing over 3 years thus far, and no draft picks surrendered.
4) Flexibility to add a difference maker if the team performs well, and flexibility to sell pieces off if it doesn't.

Hard to beat that really when you look at it on the whole.

1. It's arguably not even a better roster then we went into last season with, and for almost the same amount of money being spent, for the most part it's really only *potentially* an upgrade over last season's shit show at that imo. With quite a bit there banking on a lot better to best case scenarios playing themselves out.

2-3. I've stated it multiple times over the winter, and i'll state it again here. Outside a collective group of people's need/desire to have the Sox prioritize small market/build from within values above all else, which is then fitted around every move we make in the name of presenting such as the existing reality in play, there's essentially zero supporting evidence (beyond vague and always generalized comments on the matter) of that actually be the bottom line case with this ownership here.

It's the conveniently overlooked/cornerstone flaw in latest "short term money doesn't matter" Master Plan Theory, and why the surface logic being presented in such has and will continue to be altered on a never ending basis. As at the end of the day, and unless you truly believe that waving the white flag on improving our situation under these multi-year contracts is ultimately an acceptable option for this ownership in the event they crash and burn in year 1, then the presented notion that fairly expensive 3 year commitments "don't matter" is just short sighted optimism at it's best. Of course they potentially matter, especially once you start making the jump from dreaming in the hypothetical to making surrounding reality based choices. It's one thing to take a conservative approach with the years given out in year 1 of a retool, mainly in relationship to a few guys they might not have been all that sold on as long term solutions to begin with. It's quite another to go all in on that concept to point you are willing to accept short term defeat if/when some or none of that pans out for you this season, and they remain the most glaring areas to improve upon going forward from there.

4. Drew brought our projected payroll up to what, roughly $160m? What kind of flexibility remains there is yet to been seen.

Hard to beat that really when you look at it on the whole.

On the whole, we are fielding an awful expensive team for something you wouldn't ideally want to bet the house on breaking .500 baseball. The fact we are paying out a combined $22.5m+ in 2013 on the 2012 Victorino/Drew combo sticks out like a sore "money well flushed" thumb, and the projected lineup already needed help before potentially having a Napoli-less hole shot through it, with the readily available/alternative option of plugging in Swisher getting more doubtful by the day. If cause for concern on that latter is indeed warranted, it needs to be resolved sooner rather then latter imo. I do really like how the bullpen is shaping up though, and the decision to play it relatively safe in signing Dempster is growing on me.

Could any of that (again, as a whole) really gone down differently? Hard to say given the reliable information on actual opportunities made available to us. I do however believe that when all is said and done, you'll be able to mix and match signings across the league to form a better and more cost efficient team then what Ben assembled for us here. I'm also not a big fan on the "trying to be overly cute" perception i got out of the Victorino signing, which is making me question just how much of Bad Theo we should be expecting out of Ben in regards to his approach towards free agency.

Granted, ST is still a long ways off, and 1 big trade nobody sees on the horizon atm has the potential to change much of the above. I'm certainly not dismissing that possibility at this point either.