1019 replies to this topic

[OttoC]

Right, but context is that if the Sox take on Morneau and some or all of his salary, then the price for Willingham drops a little....

Assuming that they carry thirteen pitchers, that leaves twelve position players for 2-9 and a DH). That leaves four on the bench, one of whom has to be a back-up catcher, one as someone that can play CF, one that can play SS/3B/2B. That foes not leave a lot of room for platooning and it limits the availability of lefty/righty match-ups. Platooning can be done with a four-man bench but it is tricky. How many times have we seen Francona or Valentine pull a player with a seemingly comfortable lead, either to give him a rest or put in a better defensive player or even lose the DH, only to have the other team come back. All of a sudden, there is a 78 OPS+ guy batting in the clean-up spot at a critical juncture.

The club will have a lo of money to spend but to paraphrase Tim Gunn, "Use the cash thoughtfully."

[The Gray Eagle]

If Morneau were to be acquired, he would be the starting first baseman, who get days off against a lot of lefty pitchers. If Sands is on the roster, he would be a part-time OF/1B, who could start against lefties when Morneau is out.

It could be done pretty much exactly like Francona did with Drew, even with the small bench you have when always keeping at least 12 pitchers.

I have no idea if the Twins would want to dump Morneau and what they would want in return, but if he did move to the Red Sox, it would be very easy to avoid a lot of lefty starters but still have him get lots of at-bats. He wouldn't be a prototypical "platoon player," he'd be a starting first baseman who gets about 400 plate appearances against RHP and about 100 against LHP. Similar to Drew's numbers in 2009.

As a 31-year-old coming back from a serious injury, Morneau's got a 142 OPS+ in the second half of this year against all pitchers. He's hit much better away from home than in MIN. That's intriguing and worth checking into. If he needs to sit against lefties frequently, that wouldn't be a big deal, that would be helping the team get the most out of him and the roster as a whole. We have RH options already in-house with Sands and Gomez, and Sands would not tie up an extra roster spot as he can cover LF as well. You could also bring in a different RH LF/1B bat if you think those guys aren't up to it.

[Drek717]

Our best deals have been locking up young players, buying out arbitration/ free agent years, and having option years. The best contracts in baseball follow this formula. You need to be sure of the player you do this with. Is Middlebrooks a candidate for a deal like this over this winter?

I'd say that time is after next season if the defense continues to show some maturation and he hits well (>.830 or so). I'd extend him regardless of what we've seen from Bogaerts as well. Middlebrooks has all the tools to be a very good 3B defender and has great natural power. If we buy out his arb years and get a couple low cost years/option years on the back end it's not like his contract will be difficult to move should Bogaerts be truly destined to 3B.

I could definitely see them going after Swisher this year to play LF @ ~ 2 years, 20??? mill.The guy is a consummate professional and gets on base very well.

The last thing I want to see the Sox do is walk themselves into another long term deal for a corner OF or 1B. Those positions are readily available in FA and often even from our own farm. Especially now when Bradley and Brentz are getting close. Blocking one of the Reddick/Kalish pair with Crawford was a mistake that hasn't worked out too well for us and isn't one we should look to do again soon. Vets who can either move to a 4th OF role (like Ross) or will take one year deals should be the plan until our own farm produces long term starters for the corners IMO.

It's ridiculous to spend big money and prospects for a platoon player.

Morneau works if he's a straight salary dump or we're sending someone who can't make the 40 man roster squeeze or isn't expected to make the 25 man and is out of options. He's got $14M owed to him for 2013 and then he's a FA. If the Twins don't require any kind of prospect coming back in return that $14M for one year will easily fit within the Sox' current budget. Also, platoon player or not he could easily put up 400+ ABs with a .900 OPS facing strictly righties. How is that not worth a single year salary of $14M with no long term commitments?

Morneau is a great fit if the Twins don't want to pay him $14M for next season, which I can't imagine they do. If they want real prospects then its a moot point, but if they're willing to just dump the money he should be plan #1A for first base with someone like Sands as his platoon mate.

[nvalvo]

I also said that I think (or guess) that the overall 10% is from most cases of observed clutch differential being all luck and a minority being much more predictive. The observed 10% clutch predictability in hitting, in this notion of mine, is caused by a minority of guys who are in an extreme frame of mind.

It's silly and stupid and entirely unuseful, but I think the bad clutch performance continues until it doesn't. If you know what I mean. I used to track cumulative offensive clutch differential over each season and there have been years where it would trend steadily downwards, then steadily upwards, back and forth, for 20 or 40 games at a time. Egregious good or bad clutch games would seem to trigger a tendency for more of the same, until an opposite example fell out at random and sent the trend going the other way. I don't think every team does this, but some teams seem to be prone to groupthink in terms of confidence and hence approach when trailing late or in extra innings.

This team could turn it around any time if they luck into a rally. I mean, at some point an opposing closer has to walk a hitter no matter how much we hack at everything.

My problem with BV is that it's the manager's job to notice that the team is pressing, make them aware that they've changed their approach, and instill some confidence when it's lacking. As long as he's the manager, the team will be prone to extended clutch slumps, because he doesn't seem to have the skill to prevent them.

Thanks.

So, in that case, the predictability of clutch doesn't have much bearing on the plans as regards The Rebuilding Project, but it may be an argument for trying to shake up the culture.

So here's the case that standing pat will not be so disastrous that you need to get somebody, even if they're no ace:

Buchholz was coming off a year missed due to injury, was hammered for 9 starts, and has been CY-level ever since.
Lester has had bad BABIP luck compounding a legitimate subpar performance where he lost command of and confidence in his cutter, but has seemingly turned it around and I'll gamble on him being a #2 again.
Morales and Doubront, from a scouting POV, have been more impressive than their numbers, as evidenced by their both having #3 starter SIERAs. I like the idea of them sharing a rotation slot plus the Swiss Army Knife roster spot (spot starter, long man, and third LHR).
You have to give Lackey a shot to be some semblance of Lackey again.
De La Rosa has enough promise that it doesn't make sense to trade for a similar, more expensive guy.
This F.O. has a good track record so far with mlfa's, so sign 2-3 upside guys for depth.
Add Webster and Wright on options, and by mid-season Workman and by year's end maybe Barnes, and you have flexible depth as well.

It's not going to be a great rotation, but who has one these days? It certainly looks good enough to contend with. My key argument is that we should avoid focusing on it so much that we overestimate it as a problem, and hence overpay for someone who might not actually help. (A la trading for Melancon.)

I agree with you on most of these assessments, but it seems to me that Ben should try, even so, to acquire one more SP whom we actually want, on a short deal. I believe that Lackey, even healthy, and possibly Lester, too, would have more value to a team expecting to contend sooner than we are. While I get that you don't want to hamstring the team in 2013, it would be useful to have one more veteran SP (Matsuzaka resigned on a one-year deal?) so that, if/when we're out of contention at the deadline and Lackey/Lester have reestablished value, we can deal them to a contender for a package focused on pitching prospects. It's possible that Rubby gives us enough depth to be able to do that, but I suspect not. There are too many health questions.

Now, if we're contending and everyone's pitching well, we keep everyone. But I guess I don't expect John Lackey to be part of the next championship Sox team, and it makes sense to recoup something from that investment if possible.

[TheoShmeo]

I posted about this in the general thread about the trade but maybe it's better discussed here.

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

[MikeM]

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

Those comments are pretty open to speculation, most of which really won't/can't be answered until we see it put in it's proper context this winter. To top that off it seems a lot of people are operating under the simplified assumption we can use MLB's LT threshold as rough estimate of how much money the Sox are going to be willing to spend going forward, but i personally don't expect that to be the case at all.

If anything, i'm guessing the ultimate goal of this "rebuild" is to re-establish the budget baseline back to the pre-2010 levels. Which looking back at the relative consistency of it all, and after the penny pinching and Crawford contract comments we saw spilling out last winter, really strikes me as this ownership's comfort zone. If that proves to be the case, then the whole dynamic of "what they do in the next several months" changes quite a bit. The $45m figure for 2013 is getting thrown around a ton, but in reality (and with arby figures) it's actually already pushing beyond $75m with low end estimates, and likely inching towards the $100m mark once you factor in Ortiz on a 1 year deal. Leaving a fair amount of flexibility still being created, but hardly of the potential "time to spend like sailors!" variety, or which warrants risky flush-our-money-down-the-toilet gambles like offering Dice-K arby in the overly-optimistic hope he declines.

Beyond that, i really don't believe Ben and co are looking at it in timeline terms, or more specifically, taking a "we are going to build for year X" approach. I expect a concentrated effort will be made to bring in a starting pitcher upgrade (it may not be the $20m free agent or pipe dream Felix, but there's no freaking way they shed all that payroll and then follow that up by standing pat with internal options there), they'll look to make short term/value signings to fill out the roster, and then go from there with the knowledge that the overall bar has been lowered with the 2nd WC possibility.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Also, "what they do over the next several months" doesn't necessarily all have to be directly about player acquisition, still less about high-priced player acquisition. It could just as easily refer to a need to reassess and revise how the organization handles everything from talent evaluation to chain-of-command issues. I think the point is not "the trade will only be a success if we've replaced those three guys with equally formidable talents by next April 1," but rather that hitting the reset button in such a dramatic way has given the team an opportunity to reshape itself on many fronts, and that the success of that reshaping is going to largely depend on the decisions they make in the near term, before the dust settles, whether those decisions are about player acquisition or other, more under-the-hood stuff.

[JimD]

I posted about this in the general thread about the trade but maybe it's better discussed here.

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

I didn't take his comment to mean that the team is going to go right back to the free agent market and sign a few more $100 million contracts - I see it as a candid acknowledgement that they've been given an opportunity and that he and his staff have to do a good job in making acquisition and roster decisions or else the opportunity may be wasted.

[dcmissle]

I posted about this in the general thread about the trade but maybe it's better discussed here.

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

The responsible answer is, "it depends", unless they are determined to make a hell bent run at certain obviously flawed FAs, which is what got them into the situation from which they have just escaped.

They need to be conservative, which does not equate to "cheap". Indeed, it may mean the opposite of cheap -- it could, and probably should, mean kicking the tires on top tier players who would command a lot of money and precious prospects in a trade. But because the trade market is the more sensible avenue in the very near term, you can't guarantee anything and you certainly should not force things.

[someoneanywhere]

I posted about this in the general thread about the trade but maybe it's better discussed here.

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

If we are talking powerhouse -- the kind of teams that ran out there in 2003-2005, and then again from 2007-2009 -- that might take longer. Young players are going to be inconsistent performers even in small and mid markets. In Boston, the consistency we saw for most of the aughts may take some time to develop.

Sill, I'm a contrarian on the short-term, I suppose -- because I think with a couple of well-placed moves, this team can contend in 2013. It may be up and down thereafter, but I think the notion that they are punting on 2013 is premature. They probably do need a front-end starter, and will need some stability in the pen. Maybe they have the latter in-house The biggest need is to replace the offense departed in the trade, but, again, I am not sold on the notion that it is impossible in the near term to get near approximate production, especially if it is spread across several positions. It simply depends on what can be had in the trade market -- and as we saw with Gonzalez, anyone is available for the right price.

[Yaz4Ever]

I'd like the Sox to kick the tires on Mauer (currently on waivers) and see if we can get him and $$ from MN for a low-level prospect / spare part. Obviously, this only works if the Twins are looking to simply dump salary.

[Rasputin]

I posted about this in the general thread about the trade but maybe it's better discussed here.

What's the rebuilding timeline? I have been assuming that the Sox would use the financial flexibility that the trade provides them in the next few years. I did not think they would feel the need to refill the financial hole in one off season.

Ben said on WEEI yesterday that the trade is only as good as what they do in the "next several months." Does he mean that? I know that this is Boston, a major market, but if he feels pressure or the need to restock the team all at once, I don't see how he can do it well or maintain the discipline he spoke about.

Pretty sure it means they're going to be trying to field a competitive team for 2013 which is what I think the goal should be and which won't be, I think, all that difficult.

If you retain Ortiz you have a cornerstone bat. If Ellsbury is more like his 2011 than his 2012 then you have two. That allows you to fill LF, RF, 1B with guys who don't have to be in the top twenty in MVP balloting to be productive contributors.

The situation on the pitching side is similar with Lester and Buchholz being likely to have good seasons in 2013. Guaranteed? Of course not.

If you can get some one and two year deals to contribute while Bradley, Barnes, Bogaerts et al are tearing the shit out of AAA then all is well with the world.

[czar]

I'd like the Sox to kick the tires on Mauer (currently on waivers) and see if we can get him and $$ from MN for a low-level prospect / spare part. Obviously, this only works if the Twins are looking to simply dump salary.

Mauer is owed $23m annually until he is 36 years old.

That is precisely the type of contract that got us into this mess in the first place.

Edited by czar, 29 August 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[Yaz4Ever]

Mauer is owed $23m annually until he is 36 years old.

That is precisely the type of contract that got us into this mess in the first place.

I agree. What I was advocating (not clearly) was that the Twins would have to subsidize a large part of that contract. They have first dibs on AL waivers, so this could be done monetarily or via a trade for a big contract of ours - say, Lackey. We saved a great deal of money by moving the big three last week. I don't want them to turn around and overpay someone else for $23M just because we have cash available, but if we can have them eat one of our big unwanted contracts or get them to kick in money (sounds funny that the Sox would get money from the Twins) that made his contract more reasonable (in exchange for a lesser prospect/spare part), I'd be very interested in an OBP guy like Mauer. Anyhow, I said "kick the tires" not "jump in and drive away quickly".

[Savin Hillbilly]

I agree. What I was advocating (not clearly) was that the Twins would have to subsidize a large part of that contract.

But at that point, the question "what's in it for them" starts to rear its ugly head. Mauer's still a good player, and he's a hometown favorite. They'll get worse *and* take a PR hit by moving him; the only thing that could make it a win for them is zeroing out his line on the payroll, or coming damn close to it.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

Mauer is owed $23m annually until he is 36 years old.

That is precisely the type of contract that got us into this mess in the first place.

Exactly. The Sox really need to focus on value going forward. Joe Mauer, while good, does not provide value. At best, he's paid the market rate, but even then, I think $23 million per year is expensive for a guy with moderate power, even if he plays catcher.

[MikeM]

If we are talking powerhouse -- the kind of teams that ran out there in 2003-2005, and then again from 2007-2009 -- that might take longer. Young players are going to be inconsistent performers even in small and mid markets. In Boston, the consistency we saw for most of the aughts may take some time to develop.

The whole "building for powerhouse team in year X" concept is great in theory and all, but a lot more often then not that just leads to a situation where one simply finds themselves sitting around like Linus on Halloween night, waiting for that Great Pumpkin moment that likely isn't coming (sorry, watched some old Charlie Brown with the kid this morning). Or at least in some ideal fashion that you can reliably project out with any real precision, especially around a core of guys who potentially are years away and haven't even seen AAA pitching/hitting yet.

No white flags will be getting raised here. Adjust the internal definition/expectation of what we view as being/staying competitive (we already knew 8 years ago that fielding a 100 win team on paper every spring was going to be unrealistic), make a conservative effort to put the most competitive team we can on the field in 2013, then re-evaluate where we stand and what type of moves we want to make on year-to-year basis. If the powerhouse team emerges out of that, great. If not, that's just the reality we now face outside what 25 years from now will probably be referred to as the Golden Era of Boston Red Sox baseball.

[Kull]

Another factor to consider is, what happens if the Yankees do collapse and miss the playoffs? They'll be under the same kind of pressure to make major changes and will also be looking for ways to retool going forward. Admittedly, they are unlikely to find a willing partner such as the Dodgers who would take on their brutal contracts, but then the Yankee checkbook has always been larger than Boston's. Since free agency won't be the answer for anybody in 2013, that means the teams willing to make deals for good players will now have two suitors to play off against each other.

Admittedly this scenario isn't in play just yet, but it's quite possible that the cost of fielding a competitive team in 2013 will be lot higher than we thought.

[zenter]

Another factor to consider is, what happens if the Yankees do collapse and miss the playoffs? They'll be under the same kind of pressure to make major changes and will also be looking for ways to retool going forward. Admittedly, they are unlikely to find a willing partner such as the Dodgers who would take on their brutal contracts, but then the Yankee checkbook has always been larger than Boston's. Since free agency won't be the answer for anybody in 2013, that means the teams willing to make deals for good players will now have two suitors to play off against each other.

Admittedly this scenario isn't in play just yet, but it's quite possible that the cost of fielding a competitive team in 2013 will be lot higher than we thought.

Regarding Sox vs Yanks checkbook, the new CBA changes everything. Much like the Red Sox, the Hank and Cashman have stated a serious interest in getting below the tax threshold because the pain is too high. As you imply, the Dodgers are spending because their ownership is trying to buy its way out of a serious McCourt-created image problem. Otherwise, we're talking about the same salary "cap" for Sox and Yanks as we go forward. Talent-scouting is thus increasingly about guys not on the 40-man roster. Meanwhile, the CBA also implies that free agents will be looking at a lot more competitive bids mainly because the top bids will mostly be lower than in recent history. As a result, fewer overpays on borderline guys. All this is to say, whether the Yankees rock or suck, the new CBA (combined with most teams using largely the same playbook) means that fielding a competitive team was going to be harder anyway.

[seantoo]

The Red Sox, pre-trade, were playing .472 baseball. That is including the contributions of Gonzalez, Beckett and (to some degree) Crawford. If you count last September, they have played .434 baseball with Gonzalez and Beckett - and by counting those games you get essentially a full season sample size.

Let's assume away injuries because apparently they are bad luck/karma when it happens in Boston. Frankly, I think you need to account for major injuries in your analysis because they do actually happen but lets put that aside.

They do need to replace Gonzalez' production and getting a >.900 OPS from that position is going to be highly unlikely given what is on the roster as well as what is available via free agency. Its a large hole to fill.

Also, in my analysis, I wonder if the Sox will continue to get a .859 OPS from the likes of Cody Ross. I suspect he may regress toward his more mid-to-high .700 OPS, which is more around his career norm, going forward.

You can also assume sky-high contributions from the kids but its also just as likely (if not more so) that Iglesias struggles mightily and that even Lavarnway et al aren't beasts straight out of the gates.

And then there is the pitching. As j44thor above notes they don't have much in the pipeline and you can say "Lester will be Lester" but what does that mean? The fact is that he has declined for three consecutive seasons - ERA+, K/9, WHIP, velocity - whatever measure you'd like.

You can concoct scenarios where Buchholz also takes a step forward but I would counter it by saying that he has had a hard time staying healthy in his career. He has also never come close to 200 IP in a season yet.

The Red Sox can certainly make some roster moves during the offseason that work incredibly well. They may also get lucky with the development of some of their youngsters. But assuming they are going to be a contender involves a lot of hope. Unfortunately, hope isn't really a great strategy for building a winning baseball team.

I agree with about half your points. Yes, rookies cannot be counted on to do well right out of the gate and many stars take 2 years to establish that they are stars in fact I'd state for the record that thats a safe assumption. Yes, replacing Gonzalez is a big hole to fill and not easily replaced.
However, and you had to see this coming, you are cherry picking the season with the .434 baseball "season" because if you play that game the Sox had the third best record in all of baseball after the start THIS and for the next 60 or so games. This team after the bad start last season had among the best records til September 1'st depite the 4-10 start. Cherry picking is easy and its wrong because it does not give anyone an accurate picture of the talent level and what to expect going forward and really that is what this exercise is about, no?
Also when things go wrong even very rational people will force reasons to explain why it happened. I think it must be in our wiring as we all do it. We, on whole, are often wrong when we force an answer to explain something that went wrong away. The Red Sox, several DL trips ago, have had the most DL trips since 1987 for any MLB team or 27 years ago. By now who knows we may be taking all time with the DL trips. Whatever the reason is for all the injuries, its not related to the talent the team has/had. Maybe it's the culture of the team, I'm not sure nor can anyone else say with any certainty. This team could contend next season with one or two additions BUT 1 of the additions is an elephant in the room, an Ace. Aquiring 1 is the single most important thing this team can do and make no mistake it will not be easy acquiring one, however other than that one large hole this team is not far away from contending.
Edit: Cleaning up the dreck.

Edited by seantoo, 07 September 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Robert Plant]

What scares me the most about "rebuilding" is the media and the fans. Everyone in Boston seems to want instant results. Rebuilding usually involves putting young players in night after night with full confidence until they come into their own. Often these young players have terrible slumps, but given time they often become good to great major league players (see the 2012 Padres and the 1994 Expos). Boston media and fans have a bad habit of attacking anyone who is struggling. This is counter productive to giving young players the space to make the mistakes that they need to in order to become competent major league-rs.

Edited by Robert Plant, 07 September 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[OttoC]

I've said on more than one occasion that I'd rather see them rebuild from within but then I'd say I am in the minority.

[Robert Plant]

I've said on more than one occasion that I'd rather see them rebuild from within but then I'd say I am in the minority.

I can't agree more, but like I said in my recent post, I think Red Sox fans and media might sabotage a rebuilding process.

[Rasputin]

I can't agree more, but like I said in my recent post, I think Red Sox fans and media might sabotage a rebuilding process.

Media and fans can't.

That said, I think rebuilding is the wrong word.

The Sox can field a competitive team in 2013 while bringing in the guys who are mostly at AA now.

[Rudy Pemberton]

The Sox can field a competitive team in 2013 while bringing in the guys who are mostly at AA now.

Do you really believe that? Suggesting that a team on pace to lose around 90 games can be competitive by calling up their AA players the following year seems a tad optimistic.

[koufax32]

Yeah, if played right, 2014 can be an "explode back onto the scene" year. Between the kids and a potentially good FA crop that will be the year to pounce. I think Ben needs to spend this offseason with that goal in mind.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Do you really believe that? Suggesting that a team on pace to lose around 90 games can be competitive by calling up their AA players the following year seems a tad optimistic.

They could be a dark horse contender for a wildcard spot if a bunch breaks right (Lester figures himself out, Buchholz's late season stumbling being nothing more than fatigue after missing last year and returning to a full starter's load this year, De La Rosa being able to provide what Moralez and Doubront have given the team this year, Moralez and/or Doubront taking a step forward, Bailey not missing another season, Middlebrooks picking up where he left off, Sands figuring out how to resemble his minor league self in the majors, Ellsbury getting some or all of his power back), but no... it's not likely will be competitive in 2013 without making some trades or signing some free agents. The reason to take that chance is...

Yeah, if played right, 2014 can be an "explode back onto the scene" year. Between the kids and a potentially good FA crop that will be the year to pounce. I think Ben needs to spend this offseason with that goal in mind.

This off season needs to be about retaining Ross, bringing Papi back for a two year contract and hoping he doesn't hit the decline we all fear in that span, then they need to work towards getting Bradley and Bogaerts onto the major league roster by the end of the 2013 season. It could be a painful year in between this season and 2014, but long term they could set themselves up for a really nice run on the backs of a home grown core of young guys and vets (Pedroia, Middlebrooks, Bradley, Bogaerts, Barnes, Buchholz, Lester)

[Robert Plant]

Yeah, if played right, 2014 can be an "explode back onto the scene" year. Between the kids and a potentially good FA crop that will be the year to pounce. I think Ben needs to spend this offseason with that goal in mind.

Agreed, and 2013 should probably be a year when the kids are given the space and time to make mistakes and hopefully come into their own. Assuming next year is in fact a rebuilding year, the front office needs to frame it as such. That might help to mitigate the rabid instincts of the Boston media and some fans.

Edited by Robert Plant, 08 September 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Rasputin]

Do you really believe that? Suggesting that a team on pace to lose around 90 games can be competitive by calling up their AA players the following year seems a tad optimistic.

I had a post eaten but no, I'm not suggesting that Bogaerts, Bradley, Brentz, and Barnes be handed jobs on the big club in 2013.

I do suggest that they be given a legitimate chance to win those jobs but I don't really anticipate more than one would, and even one is fairly unlikely.

You can fill in left, right, and first with competent but not outstanding players. If Pedroia and Ortiz perform at their career norms and Ellsbury is more like 2011 Ellsbury then the team will be competitive. If they don't, it won't.

I think de la Rosa is the 6th starter and you actively look for ways to get him starts.

I think when an outfielder gets an owie you first ask if Bradley looks ready for a couple weeks in the bigs then you ask if Brentz is ready for a couple weeks in the bigs.

I think you make it part of your goals as a franchise to get these guys involved before September. I think you actively look to them first for injury replacements.

The idea is to incorporate them into the team as much as possible based on injuries and how well the individuals are performing so that when they come to camp in 2014 they're guys who have had 50-100 plate appearances and they are in much better position to take those jobs and run with them.

[Super Nomario]

The idea is to incorporate them into the team as much as possible based on injuries and how well the individuals are performing so that when they come to camp in 2014 they're guys who have had 50-100 plate appearances and they are in much better position to take those jobs and run with them.

Is the idea that they will be better prepared having had a few dozen plate appearances, or that the team would less reluctant to give them full-time jobs if they've already gotten their feet wet? I'm not aware of any evidence that giving rookies a bit of experience beforehand helps them get off to a good start the following season.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

...then they need to work towards getting Bradley and Bogaerts onto the major league roster by the end of the 2013 season.

What does that work consist of, exactly? Because I'm unaware of methods to make prospects ready to contribute before they are, ya know, ready to contribute. You can bring them up all you want, doesn't mean they will be ready to make a difference. The Sox are at the my of waiting for these guys to develop into impact players. They need to be prepared for that not to happen by end of next year and quite possibly ever.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Do you really believe that? Suggesting that a team on pace to lose around 90 games can be competitive by calling up their AA players the following year seems a tad optimistic.

You're right, that never works.

He got a cup of coffee in AAA the year before, but he was basically an AA player, and half a year younger than JBJ on Opening Day.

Granted, he wasn't the only thing about that club that improved that year, by a long shot, but he was certainly the biggest difference.

[Rasputin]

Is the idea that they will be better prepared having had a few dozen plate appearances, or that the team would less reluctant to give them full-time jobs if they've already gotten their feet wet? I'm not aware of any evidence that giving rookies a bit of experience beforehand helps them get off to a good start the following season.

Both, really. There's an adjustment period. I'd rather get it started sooner rather than later. When they come up, they will show their strengths and learn some weaknesses. It will give them time with the major league coaches and a better idea of what they need to do to succeed. It will give the coaches some time with the players to develop the confidence to use them.

The bottom line, I want the players, the coaches, the front office, and the fans to get used to thinking of these guys as the future, and that the future is now.

You're right, that never works.

He got a cup of coffee in AAA the year before, but he was basically an AA player, and half a year younger than JBJ on Opening Day.

Granted, he wasn't the only thing about that club that improved that year, by a long shot, but he was certainly the biggest difference.

In his defense, and I assure you, that bothers me as much as it does him, I believe he was referring to bringing up multiple guys.

I don't think many folks would be too surprised if one of the guys at AA plays 120+ games for the big club in 2013 but if three of them did, well, that's another matter entirely.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

What does that work consist of, exactly? Because I'm unaware of methods to make prospects ready to contribute before they are, ya know, ready to contribute. You can bring them up all you want, doesn't mean they will be ready to make a difference. The Sox are at the my of waiting for these guys to develop into impact players. They need to be prepared for that not to happen by end of next year and quite possibly ever.

Poorly phrased on my part. The goal is to continue to work with them in the minor leagues in the hopes that they are ready to step in by the end of the season and get a taste of the big leagues. Chances are, it won't be more than a September call up, but I would think they're not going to trade for or sign players who would block either Bradley or Bogaerts to more than one year. Either that, or they'll sign players who they won't hesitate to sit should either or both make their way to the big league club as hoped.

By "work towards" I meant the front office should be looking to field the best team they can in 2013 while keeping an eye toward the kids who may be ready to make an impact in 2014.

[Plympton91]

What scares me the most about "rebuilding" is the media and the fans. Everyone in Boston seems to want instant results. Rebuilding usually involves putting young players in night after night with full confidence until they come into their own. Often these young players have terrible slumps, but given time they often become good to great major league players (see the 2012 Padres and the 1994 Expos). Boston media and fans have a bad habit of attacking anyone who is struggling. This is counter productive to giving young players the space to make the mistakes that they need to in order to become competent major league-rs.

If it happens all the time, then how come you can only come up with 2 examples in the past 18 years, neither of which team ever won a world series? People way overestimate how often "rebuilding" works. If "rebuilding" was the right way to build a winning baseball team, then Carl Pavano, Brian Rose, and Jeff Suppan would be on their way to the Hall of Fame along with Phil Plantier and our very own Sam Horn. You people are wishcasting a bunch of players who've yet to master AA into the crux of a world series contender. The Red Sox will be lucky if one player currently at Salem or Greenville becomes an all-star at some point, two would be historically productive.

I think it's time for PhillySoxFan to republish his study of just how few draft picks outside of the first round ever make any meaningful contribution to a major league team. If the Red Sox aren't going to sign top free agents or make trades for impact players like Gonzalez and Schilling, then they will become perennial also rans, except for one little lucky streak every 15 years or so.

Rebuilding consists of taking the payroll flexibility and using it to sign the right players this time. Sign or trade for a #1 starter, go out and find somebody to put up a 900 OPS at 1B and LF, and work in Lavarnway at C, and Kalish/Nava/Linares to RF, and use minimum salary players for the 5th starter spot and spots 9,10,11, and 12 in the bullpen to save John Henry money.

Edited by Plympton91, 08 September 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Rebuilding consists of taking the payroll flexibility and using it to sign the right players this time. Sign or trade for a #1 starter, go out and find somebody to put up a 900 OPS at 1B and LF, and work in Lavarnway at C, and Kalish/Nava/Linares to RF, and use minimum salary players for the 5th starter spot and spots 9,10,11, and 12 in the bullpen to save John Henry money.

No one is suggesting the Red Sox don't spend money. People are advocating not jumping to spend it all again right away, especially in a weak free agent year. Being restrained in 2013 allows the prospects currently in AA or AAA to develop for another year so the team can see what kind of help they can get from the farm before going out and plugging holes with the money they have available.

Not every prospect will pan out. The vast majority of them won't. But if one of Bradley or Brentz becomes an every day regular and if Bogaerts (arguably the best short stop prospect the team has had since Nomar) doesn't derail, they could have some really cheap and impressive contributions at shortstop and center field in two years. Why not wait to see if that happens? There's no plausible path to becoming a division favorite in 2013 without emptying the farm. Just a few months ago the biggest complaint around here was that the farm system was too thin at the top and they had no real depth for the bloated major league roster because of the trades they'd made in the previous years.

Why would you advocate going down the same road again the moment they have a chance to stop and consider trying something a little different?

Also, Bradley and Bogaerts are in AA and Brentz is in AAA and had 456 ABs in AA before being promoted. Allen Webster is in Portland as well. Hardly the A and High-A wishcasting you're describing here.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 08 September 2012 - 09:12 PM.

[nvalvo]

Not every prospect will pan out. The vast majority of them won't. But if one of Bradley or Brentz becomes an every day regular and if Bogaerts (arguably the best short stop prospect the team has had since Nomar) doesn't derail, they could have some really cheap and impressive contributions at shortstop and center field in two years. Why not wait to see if that happens? There's no plausible path to becoming a division favorite in 2013 without emptying the farm. Just a few months ago the biggest complaint around here was that the farm system was too thin at the top and they had no real depth for the bloated major league roster because of the trades they'd made in the previous years.

Quoted for truth. I would also suggest that if we frame the choice as between the 25-man roster and the farm, we're missing the point.

It's hardly a stretch to point out that the principal contrast between the (totally fantastic) 2007 team and subsequent, similarly talented but much less successful editions, was health.

But the other difference was the incredible depth the team had that year in the high minors. A look through the roster of the 2007 Pawtucket Red Sox shows many useful pieces. Among the pitchers, Lester and Buchholz certainly stick out (they started 14 games between them for the big club, Lester more in the postseason), but guys like Breslow, Pauley, Gabbard, and Lopez also threw meaningful innings for Pawtucket. Hell, Manny Delcarmen was a useful arm. The hitters were just as interesting. The late-season contributions of Jacoby Ellsbury are memorable, but guys like Moss, Murphy, and Lowrie were also hanging around. That's real, meaningful depth at a lot of positions.

We had good health in 2007, so that extensive depth didn't come into play as much as it might have. But we saw the difference in later years: trade away enough of those guys, those Gabbards and Mosses and Murphys, and soon enough you've got the likes of Kevin Cash, Nick Green and Jonathan Van Every playing meaningful innings for your team.

A championship-level team requires a deep 40-man roster, and more, even. You need to have genuinely useful players in the high minors. The potential effectiveness of cleaning out the minors for the major league club will show when, say, you trade for Victor Martinez — great! — but then the pitching implodes, only now Masterson and Hagadone, who might have been your optionable depth, play for the Tribe.

This is not to say one should never make that kind of trade — or even that that one was a bad move — but that there's a limit to the number of win-now moves you can make before the edifice rots from within.

edited for clarity.

Edited by nvalvo, 09 September 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[someoneanywhere]

A championship-level team requires a deep 40-man roster, and more, even. You need to have genuinely useful players in the high minors. The potential effectiveness of cleaning out the minors for the major league club will show when, say, you trade for Victor Martinez — great! — but then the pitching implodes, only now Masterson and Hagadone, who might have been your optionable depth, play for the Tribe.

I know this is an illustration of your point, and not your point -- I'm just piggybacking on it. In hindsight, that was the deal that should not have been done -- probably the point where the downhill began, at least from the perspective of the rearview mirror.

The irony being that one of the deals they have to consider is -- yes, I think -- trading for V-Mart. I know the risks; I know the age; and I know most of all that it's hard to even consider one deal in isolation from the three or four that are necessary to make this club into a contender in 2013. But he's high character, a true pro, and if healthy perhaps the kind of thing the Red Sox can do with the financial flexibility. If you take him and his contract, you lessen the costs in prospects -- who right now, in many ways, are even more valuable than the financial flex.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 10 September 2012 - 11:10 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

The irony being that one of the deals they have to consider is -- yes, I think -- trading for V-Mart.

Why? He's not a catcher any more. He's a terrible 1B. He's good for one thing and one thing only at this point in his career, and that's DH. And we already have one of those who is an even better hitter, at about the same price, and hasn't missed the whole last year.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I've scanned through this thread and other than a few idle references at the begining of the thread there has been very little mention of Jerry Sands. Maybe I am just high on Sands, but I think he could be one of the most value pieces aquired in the Nick Punto trade. The guy is exactly the type of young, cheap, high OBP., high upside types who could man the void between 1stbase, DH, Left field, 4th outfielder for years to come.

It wasn't long ago that Sands was the best young slugger in the dodgers farm. I think in a full time roll Sands could put up comparible numbers to what Cody Ross did this season.

[nvalvo]

The irony being that one of the deals they have to consider is -- yes, I think -- trading for V-Mart. I know the risks; I know the age; and I know most of all that it's hard to even consider one deal in isolation from the three or four that are necessary to make this club into a contender in 2013. But he's high character, a true pro, and if healthy perhaps the kind of thing the Red Sox can do with the financial flexibility. If you take him and his contract, you lessen the costs in prospects -- who right now, in many ways, are even more valuable than the financial flex.

Why? He's not a catcher any more. He's a terrible 1B. He's good for one thing and one thing only at this point in his career, and that's DH. And we already have one of those who is an even better hitter, at about the same price, and hasn't missed the whole last year.

I think both of you are right, actually. Someone Anywhere is right that the key thing the team needs to do is make short term moves that allow them to hang onto the farm, but Savin, I think, is right that Martinez isn't the first choice for the first base job.

Perhaps it was just a product of the steroid era, but for a long time it seemed that potentially decent first base production was readily available on the waiver wire: players like Carlos Peña, Hee-Seop Choi, Roberto Petagine, Chris Carter, who had shown flashes, but never really gotten a chance due to injury or need — at least until Peña did, and put a few nice seasons together. We need a few 2012 editions of that guy. But I can't think of too many who are both attractive and available.

[someoneanywhere]

Why? He's not a catcher any more. He's a terrible 1B. He's good for one thing and one thing only at this point in his career, and that's DH. And we already have one of those who is an even better hitter, at about the same price, and hasn't missed the whole last year.

Right you are -- he's only missed a third of it.

You have a bunch of circumstances to consider here. One is the contention gap: there is a lot of ground between the Boston Red Sox and the best teams in the major leagues. But you also have a credibility gap -- among the players, among peers, and most of all with the fans. That gap is partially about the contention gap, but it is also about other things, among them professionalism and likeability, that have to be -- and you can bet will be -- considered this offseason.
Right now your first baseman is James Loney. He is not the answer. Vic may not be the answer either, but I think you'd have to consider him -- provided you are making other moves to offset the weaknesses of this one -- in light of all the things that need fixing.

As a baseball move, it's open for debate. I agree with that. But you can say the very same about tying up Ortiz for two years. There are other issues that need assessing, and while they may not be pure baseball issues, are issues that affect performance.

[Plympton91]

No one is suggesting the Red Sox don't spend money. People are advocating not jumping to spend it all again right away, especially in a weak free agent year. Being restrained in 2013 allows the prospects currently in AA or AAA to develop for another year so the team can see what kind of help they can get from the farm before going out and plugging holes with the money they have available.

Not every prospect will pan out. The vast majority of them won't. But if one of Bradley or Brentz becomes an every day regular and if Bogaerts (arguably the best short stop prospect the team has had since Nomar) doesn't derail, they could have some really cheap and impressive contributions at shortstop and center field in two years. Why not wait to see if that happens? There's no plausible path to becoming a division favorite in 2013 without emptying the farm. Just a few months ago the biggest complaint around here was that the farm system was too thin at the top and they had no real depth for the bloated major league roster because of the trades they'd made in the previous years.

Why would you advocate going down the same road again the moment they have a chance to stop and consider trying something a little different?

Also, Bradley and Bogaerts are in AA and Brentz is in AAA and had 456 ABs in AA before being promoted. Allen Webster is in Portland as well. Hardly the A and High-A wishcasting you're describing here.

If you read through the first-hand reports of Bogaerts at SS, you'll see precisely no one who thinks he can play a passable shortstop in the major leagues. I have a very high preference for offense over defense, and I still say no. He's just not a SS at the major league level. Given Middlebrooks at 3B and Pedroia at 2B, he'll have to play LF or RF, which substantially raises the bar for his offense, which while it projects to be spectacular, probably won't play at a corner outfield spot until 2015 or so. Thus, there's no reason to concern ourselves with "blocking" Bogaerts by signing someone to a 3 year contract to play LF.

Brentz doesn't impress me at all. A low batting average because of a lot of strikeouts and only a mediocre walk rate. Sure, he could improve, so could have Dernell Stenson or Phil Plantier.

I'm also having difficulty seeing what's supposed to be so special about Allen Webster. He seems indistinguishable from the rest of the 5th starter, middle reliever types wandering around Pawtucket and the back of the Boston bullpen these days. His career to date reminds me most of Michael Bowden.

[Manramsclan]

I've said on more than one occasion that I'd rather see them rebuild from within but then I'd say I am in the minority.

I wonder if you are in the minority, at least when it comes to this board.

I wholeheartedly agree with you if by rebuilding you mean holding on to the current inventory of prospects to maximize the odds of hitting above-average major league paydirt(or better), keeping the current core who is under control for the next three years (Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia) and then reassessing at that time.

Emptying the farm for Felix Hernandez is not a move I advocate not because I don't think as a pitcher he is worth it. I am not in favor because I don't see the Red Sox having the long-term sustained success as a franchise that I want to see and experience without continuing to stock the farm and letting organizational development of players pan out.

The quick turnaround from 2004 to 2007 was a masterful transition, but that will not work this time. There are no supernovas like Manny to build around. The Punto trade gives them a huge opportunity which is best seized by scouting and development and holding onto all assets and refraining from FA splashes that don't make any sense in the long-term.

If the Sox I would rate them HOLD, as in hold onto all your prospects and your tradeable assets(not the Aviles' of the world, but the Ellsbury's of the world) until next year's trade deadline until you are absolutely bowled over by an offer.

The Sox may improve with an injection of youth next year and the return of some players from injuries, and they may not. The bottom line is in the meantime another club could be in a situation where GFIN puts the Sox on the other side of a Bagwell deal, and if they do suck and the tradeable assets don't regain value they are in the same place they are now EXCEPT that they will be on the fast track to another Top 10 pick.

The last time the Sox had two picks even close to the top 10 within a few years of each other they picked Trot Nixon, Nomar, and Andy Yount. Two out of three ain't bad, but ultimately with every pick the odds of sustained success increase.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

It's not an either or scenario.... It's not let's sign Mauer, trade for Felix and win a World Series next season OR a stand pat, let the kids play hold on to the prospects sign a bunch of Minor League deals throw a lot of shit against the wall and see what sticks. The latter scenario would have us coming in at the bottom of the division for awhile stacking up draft picks and doing the 5 year rebuilding plan.

There is a middle ground: ie. build around the core of Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lester and Pedroia, trade from strength like our glut of above average right handed relief pitching (Carpenter, Kurcz, Fields, Beato, Hazelbaker, Olmstead, Wilson). Make a couple of key aquisitions that make sense fiscally and talent wise. For example fill in 1stbase, Left field with mid- level guys who can get on base.... more like 2003 when Theo picked up Mueller, Millar, Giambi etc. (Giambi didn't work out but still).

The starting pitching is a much tougher nut to crack and in my opinion much more important. Do your best to get a 1 or 2 type, search the trade market and FA, but don't get caught overpaying for mediocrity. If you can't get an elite to above average starter than go with what you have and see if Barnes is ready in 2014 when there should be a better FA class.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 11 September 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

I've said on more than one occasion that I'd rather see them rebuild from within but then I'd say I am in the minority.

I also don't think you're in the minority. I think the division, where it occurs, has to do with what is meant by rebuilding. I don't think it's reasonable to expect this ownership group, as hyper-competitive as they are, to sit through another two or three years of the garbage we've seen for the last year. But I also don't think it's reasonable to ignore their words and their actions. The team is going to get younger, and while it will spend some of the savings of the Punto deal on some worthy personages (Papi, maybe Ellsbury), the days of the mega contract are over. So, for me, rebuilding means deploying that strategy on both long and short term tracks, so that the club contends in 2013 and 2014 -- and is just a pain in the ass powerhouse every year thereafter.

Not easy, and not your typical rebuild. We are not talking Theo's Cubbies here. But if getting rid of Adrian tells us anything, it's that any deal can be done if the pieces can be aligned just right.

[Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat]

I also don't think you're in the minority. I think the division, where it occurs, has to do with what is meant by rebuilding. I don't think it's reasonable to expect this ownership group, as hyper-competitive as they are, to sit through another two or three years of the garbage we've seen for the last year. But I also don't think it's reasonable to ignore their words and their actions. The team is going to get younger, and while it will spend some of the savings of the Punto deal on some worthy personages (Papi, maybe Ellsbury), the days of the mega contract are over. So, for me, rebuilding means deploying that strategy on both long and short term tracks, so that the club contends in 2013 and 2014 -- and is just a pain in the ass powerhouse every year thereafter.

Not easy, and not your typical rebuild. We are not talking Theo's Cubbies here. But if getting rid of Adrian tells us anything, it's that any deal can be done if the pieces can be aligned just right.

But how do these two things co-exist? Ellsbury is likely going to get a mega contract from someone--he's a leadoff hitting CF who has shown real power. As much as I like Ellsbury, I don't see how signing him to a big money, long term deal starting in the season that he turns 31 makes any sense at all.

[Rudy Pemberton]

There is a middle ground: ie. build around the core of Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lester and Pedroia, trade from strength like our glut of above average right handed relief pitching (Carpenter, Kurcz, Fields, Beato, Hazelbaker, Olmstead, Wilson). Make a couple of key aquisitions that make sense fiscally and talent wise. For example fill in 1stbase, Left field with mid- level guys who can get on base.... more like 2003 when Theo picked up Mueller, Millar, Giambi etc. (Giambi didn't work out but still).

Regarding the core; Ortiz is a FA. Ellsbury has 1 year left; Lester 2. The biggest problem I have is that the core is basically Pedroia, Middlebrooks, Buchholz, perhaps Lester...and a bunch of guys in AA or lower. Those relievers you mention aren't going to have any value in the marketplace, frankly. The good news is that the Sox have a ton of payroll flexibility; the bad news is they have a massive amount of holes.

At this point, I think we need to look at who we are building around...who will be here in 2014?

[amfox1]

2014 (age as of 3/31/14):

Starters:
Lester* (30) (option year)
C.Buchholz (28) (2015+2t)
De La Rosa (25)
Barnes (23)
Doubront* (26) (2017 control)
(assume Lackey (35) (2014) and Morales (28) (2014 control) are gone)
(assume Stewart (27) doesn't stick)

Bullpen:
Bailey (29) (2014 control)
Tazawa (27) (2016 control)
Bard (26) (2015 control)
A.Wilson (27) or Workman (25)
Olmsted (26)
Webster (25)
Britton* (24)
(assume Aceves (31) (2014 control), Miller (26) (2014 control), Melancon (27) (2016 control), Atchison (36) (2015 control) andMortensen (26) (2017 control) are gone)
(assume Pimentel (24), Carpenter (28), Beato (27) don't stick)

*LHP

Starting position players:
C – Lavarnway (26) (2017 control)
1B – (FA/not in the system)
2B – Pedroia (30) (2014+t)
SS – Bogaerts (21)
3B – Middlebrooks (25) (2017 control)
LF – Kalish^ (26) (2016 control)
CF – Bradley, Jr.^ (23)
RF – Brentz (25)
DH – (to be used via a rotation of players)

Bench:
MI – Iglesias (24) (2017 control)
Other spots – (too speculative to identify at this time)

^ LHH

Edited by amfox1, 11 September 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[OttoC]

I wonder if you are in the minority, at least when it comes to this board.

I wholeheartedly agree with you if by rebuilding you mean holding on to the current inventory of prospects to maximize the odds of hitting above-average major league paydirt(or better), keeping the current core who is under control for the next three years (Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia) and then reassessing at that time.

Emptying the farm for Felix Hernandez is not a move I advocate not because I don't think as a pitcher he is worth it. I am not in favor because I don't see the Red Sox having the long-term sustained success as a franchise that I want to see and experience without continuing to stock the farm and letting organizational development of players pan out.

The quick turnaround from 2004 to 2007 was a masterful transition, but that will not work this time. There are no supernovas like Manny to build around. The Punto trade gives them a huge opportunity which is best seized by scouting and development and holding onto all assets and refraining from FA splashes that don't make any sense in the long-term.

If the Sox I would rate them HOLD, as in hold onto all your prospects and your tradeable assets(not the Aviles' of the world, but the Ellsbury's of the world) until next year's trade deadline until you are absolutely bowled over by an offer.

The Sox may improve with an injection of youth next year and the return of some players from injuries, and they may not. The bottom line is in the meantime another club could be in a situation where GFIN puts the Sox on the other side of a Bagwell deal, and if they do suck and the tradeable assets don't regain value they are in the same place they are now EXCEPT that they will be on the fast track to another Top 10 pick.

The last time the Sox had two picks even close to the top 10 within a few years of each other they picked Trot Nixon, Nomar, and Andy Yount. Two out of three ain't bad, but ultimately with every pick the odds of sustained success increase.

I suspect that I am in a minority in this respect and I am probably more pessimistic about the strength of the Red Sox farm system than most. Emptying the farm to get Felix Hernandez will turn a club struggling to win 70 games this year into one that struggles to get to .500 if other remaining parts don't start producing...and they would still have holes to plug. They will be right back in the same boat they just got out of with high-cost, long-term contracts trying to fill holes. Building from within helps keep the payroll down because free agency is six years away for rookies.

They are looking for "permanent" solutions at shortstop and first base, at least one catching slot, two and maybe three starting outfielders, and a DH down the road. Let's say that Lester and Buchholz pitch up to their capabilities and each go 20-10. If the rest of the staff comes in at .500, that puts the club 20 games over .500 at 91-71. Add a solid number-3 starter and that could easily push the club up to 95 wins.

Something no one has really talked about is what the effect of last September, followed by the winter of dithering, followed by the summer of dis- and malcontent, will have on potential free agent signings. Of course, money talks but unless the players are happy here, will there be an improvement? Take the time to see if Bogaerts and Bradley are the real thing, see if any of the arms on the farm are really strong. Look for aging starts. They might want a lot of money but they are also willing to sign for a year or maybe two. One thing they can do since Ellsbury is under control for next season is keep him. If he begins next year on a pace approaching that of 2011, they then can trade him if the club is out of it. If they don't think he can come back somewhere between his 2009 and 2011 paces, then they should see what they can get this winter.