1019 replies to this topic

[MHead81]

Sorry, you're right--I conflated two different points you were making. My bad.

That said, is it really a better idea for us to pursue a short-term rather than long-term solution at 1B? It's not like our system is teeming with 1B prospects. OF, of course, is quite a different story, as is the left side of the infield. It's not clear to me how strong a defensive 1B Swisher is--the numbers suggest a little below average--or, for that matter, whether he'd be cool with signing a long-term deal with a team that intended to play him there. But it seems to me that if we're cool with the defense, and he's cool with the position, having Swisher on a multiyear deal as our 1B (and perhaps, by the end of the deal, DH) would make huge sense for us right now. I wouldn't go there for >$100M, but if his price slips to the 5/75 range, I would jump.

I have to admit that the more I let this idea process, the more I am really liking it. I have been expecting him to get something like 4/$60M or 5/$75M, and I think if his agent came to me with either of those options, I'd do it.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't like the idea is Swisher. A guy who loves being a Yankee coming here, that never works. Besides that, how will he age? Good, but not great offensive player who is mediocre defensively and has been a miserable post-season player? I think the Yankee effect will cause him to get more than he's worth. A good complementary player but is he a guy you want to commit 4-5 years to and who can bat in the middle of a lineup? I don't see it.

[DanoooME]

I don't like the idea is Swisher. A guy who loves being a Yankee coming here, that never works. Besides that, how will he age? Good, but not great offensive player who is mediocre defensively and has been a miserable post-season player? I think the Yankee effect will cause him to get more than he's worth. A good complementary player but is he a guy you want to commit 4-5 years to and who can bat in the middle of a lineup? I don't see it.

I agree wholeheartedly with this viewpoint. The issue is Swisher is an above average player looking for star money. Those deals always work out poorly.

The guy is a switch hitting JD Drew lite (lighter offense AND lighter defense). Swisher's career best is an 381 OBP, 870 OPS and a 129 OPS+. Drew had 7 seasons with a better OBP, 8 seasons with a better OPS, and 6 seasons with a better OPS+, so you could make the argument he's a lot better than Swisher offensively. Defensively, I would think most people anecdotally see Drew with an advantage. Their career UZR/150 bears this out in RF (7.1 for Drew, 4.5 for Swisher).

Granted they would be signing deals 6 years apart, and there would be some inflation involved, but more than a few people still think the Sox overpaid for JD Drew at 5/$70M (they didn't). Why on earth would they sign an inferior player for more money/years than Drew? Everyone laughs at the Jayson Werth contract of 7/$126M. You could make the argument that he's pretty equal to Werth both offensively and defensively (and I'm sure his agent will). Dave Cameron at Fangraphs thinks Werth is just a little bit better at everything. Cameron also makes the argument that Swisher is better than Andrew Ethier, who got 5/$85M. But doesn't Ethier's deal seem like too much money as well?

Swisher will probably get at least 5/$85M, but I just don't see why it should be the Red Sox that overpays for potentially 3 years of above average performance and 2 years of below average performance (kind of like Drew's performance). At this stage of the game, shouldn't they be looking more for bargains and only paying big for star-level talent?

[MoGator71]

Yea, I really don't like the Swisher idea. I mean as a player I like him, he does the things the Sox need to get back to, namely get on base and see pitches. For something like 3/36 sure, sign me up. But we're talking about 5+ years and $15M+ AAV's, no thanks.

I guess the question is, will Swisher get the kind of offer we're tossing around in here? Who's looking for a corner bat that's likely willing/able to throw $15M a year at Nick Swisher? Detroit maybe, they could hit him 2nd and he'd replace Delmon Young. And I guess that's my point; he's a nice complementary piece for a contender, but on the Red Sox he'd likely be expected to be more of an impact guy. And I don't think he's that.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Granted they would be signing deals 6 years apart, and there would be some inflation involved, but more than a few people still think the Sox overpaid for JD Drew at 5/$70M (they didn't). Why on earth would they sign an inferior player for more money/years than Drew?

One word: consistency. At his best, Drew was a significantly better player than Swisher. But we never knew whether we would get his best from one year to the next, on offense at any rate.

Over the past seven years, Swisher's numbers have been extraordinarily consistent, outside of one poor year with the White Sox. You can pencil him in for 150 starts, a 12-15% walk rate, .200-ish ISO and 3.5-4 fWAR and not worry about it. Especially for a team that's trying to retool around unpredictable young players, that kind of stable well-above-average performance is great to have.

Of course, he will decline sooner or later, and that's why I wouldn't want to go more than five years, but he's showing no sign that decline has begun.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 02 November 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[MHead81]

The guy is a switch hitting JD Drew lite (lighter offense AND lighter defense). Swisher's career best is an 381 OBP, 870 OPS and a 129 OPS+. Drew had 7 seasons with a better OBP, 8 seasons with a better OPS, and 6 seasons with a better OPS+, so you could make the argument he's a lot better than Swisher offensively. Defensively, I would think most people anecdotally see Drew with an advantage. Their career UZR/150 bears this out in RF (7.1 for Drew, 4.5 for Swisher).

Granted they would be signing deals 6 years apart, and there would be some inflation involved, but more than a few people still think the Sox overpaid for JD Drew at 5/$70M (they didn't). Why on earth would they sign an inferior player for more money/years than Drew? Everyone laughs at the Jayson Werth contract of 7/$126M. You could make the argument that he's pretty equal to Werth both offensively and defensively (and I'm sure his agent will). Dave Cameron at Fangraphs thinks Werth is just a little bit better at everything. Cameron also makes the argument that Swisher is better than Andrew Ethier, who got 5/$85M. But doesn't Ethier's deal seem like too much money as well?

Swisher will probably get at least 5/$85M, but I just don't see why it should be the Red Sox that overpays for potentially 3 years of above average performance and 2 years of below average performance (kind of like Drew's performance). At this stage of the game, shouldn't they be looking more for bargains and only paying big for star-level talent?

I get the idea of comparing Swisher to Drew... if you are planning to play Swisher in RF. Savin & I have both been discussing him as though signing him would be for 1B, which make all defensive comparisons irrelevant.

I will say this: I would under no circumstance want Swisher here if it was to play RF. I used to get excited when a Sox player would hit one towards him because he often butchered plays.

I would like him for a maximum of 5/$75M to 5/$80M, but that would be the absolute highest I'd go. I think the reason I would do that is because of Savin's suggestion that he could probably be our DH after Ortiz retires, and it would provide nice roster flexibility to have a DH who could be the backup 1B & LF as well.

That said, I won't lose any sleep over it if he signs elsewhere. I am perfectly fine with many of the other 1B options available to us too.

[Jordu]

One word: consistency. At his best, Drew was a significantly better player than Swisher. But we never knew whether we would get his best from one year to the next, on offense at any rate.

Over the past seven years, Swisher's numbers have been extraordinarily consistent, outside of one poor year with the White Sox. You can pencil him in for 150 starts, a 12-15% walk rate, .200-ish ISO and 3.5-4 fWAR and not worry about it. Especially for a team that's trying to retool around unpredictable young players, that kind of stable well-above-average performance is great to have.

Of course, he will decline sooner or later, and that's why I wouldn't want to go more than five years, but he's showing no sign that decline has begun.

I've always disliked Swisher & considered him over-rated for reasons I can't quite describe, so I spent some time going through his career numbers every which way to find some stats I could post in this thread that would say, "See? Swisher ain't the answer."

Couldn't find any such stats. Savin is dead-on right about Swisher -- consistently above-average offensive performance and likely to stay at that level for a few more years. The Red Sox could do a lot worse, even at 5 years.

It must be the MFY stink on him that bothers me, because it isn't the numbers.

[SoxLegacy]

That said, this is an expensive solution to a non-problem. It will leave us a little stronger and a lot poorer, take a significant bite out of our prospect SP depth, and still leave us with major holes to fill at 1B and at least one of the outfield corners. I can see the temptation, but it just seems like the wrong move at the wrong time.

Definitely agree with this--trading WMB+a good prospect would not be a good move at all in my opinion. Stay away from this, Ben!

[kazuneko]

Definitely agree with this--trading WMB+a good prospect would not be a good move at all in my opinion. Stay away from this, Ben!

The only way that would make any sense at all is if the return was King Felix...

[DanoooME]

I've always disliked Swisher & considered him over-rated for reasons I can't quite describe, so I spent some time going through his career numbers every which way to find some stats I could post in this thread that would say, "See? Swisher ain't the answer."

Couldn't find any such stats. Savin is dead-on right about Swisher -- consistently above-average offensive performance and likely to stay at that level for a few more years. The Red Sox could do a lot worse, even at 5 years.

It must be the MFY stink on him that bothers me, because it isn't the numbers.

That's fine, but why would you pay star money over 5 years to get him here?

Some people are saying Ortiz is a small overpay at 2/$26-30M (depending on incentives) in the Ortiz thread and they are fine with that. In Ortiz' last three years, ALL of them had higher OPS and OPS+ and 2 out of 3 in OBP that Swisher's career high. Swisher's peak has laready passed. He'll generally only go downhill from here. It could be very gradual, I will grant you that. But think about it, why would you pay $17M a year for OPSes of 800-850 at 1B for 5 years? And that's likely best case scenario. And it's not like I'm discounting his glove since his career UZR/150 at 1B is slightly below zero. So do you really want to pay Swisher more money on an AAV than Ortiz given all of the variables over the next two years, let alone three more on top of that?

I know similarity scores get a bad rap around here sometimes, but they have some value from a trend perspective. Look at Swisher's top 10 through age 31:

1. Jermaine Dye - Done at 35 but was productive until then
2. Jose Cruz Jr - Done as a regular at 32, wasn't that great in his prime.
3. Bob Allison - Done as a regular at 33
4. Pat Burrell - Done as a regular at 33
5. Joe Carter - Played until 38, but was one of the more overrated players of the time.
6. Jesse Barfield - Done as a regular at 30
7. Danny Tartabull - Done as a regular at 33
8. Ron Gant - Done as a regular at 35
9. Dwight Evans - The one bright spot on the list
10. Roy Sievers - Done as a regular at 36

Some of these guys are less comparable to Swisher than others, because they were less walk-oriented in their OPS (Dye, Carter, Barfield, Gant). That's still a disturbing trend. Signing Swisher or 5 years gets somebody his age 32-36 years. Granted this is a small sample, but there's no guarantee that consistency is going to continue for the next 5 years.

There's something to be said for consistency and it has some value that does increase Swisher's market value. But paying 5/$85M or more for above average (at best) is something people around here would regret quickly IMO. There's virtually no upside (no strange splits to take advantage of, he's going to be 32 and on the downslope, etc) and plenty of downside here. I'd rather take my chances with Morneau in a trade or a smaller deal on a FA on the market.

[RedOctober3829]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal
Things change, but #RedSox currently disinclined to trade Ellsbury with value down. Club figures he will be highly motivated in FA year.

https://twitter.com/...184844504100864

[TheoShmeo]

If that's true about Ellsbury, I'm relieved.

I think that they're right that the return on him would be unacceptably weak right now. Keeping him on the team at the outset of 2013 allows them the flexibility of try to trade him mid-season, when he may have restored some of his value, or even re-signing him later. I know that people will trot out the Scott Boras card but it's not as if the Sox haven't done deals with Boras clients. And they get the benefit of Ellsbury's on field contributions in the meantime. We know that Ellsbury's record has been spotty but we also know that he has it in him to perform like he did in 2011. I'd rather bet on reaping the benefit of that upside in some way than selling way low.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The question is, how much better does he have to play, relative to 2012, to outweigh the loss of a draft pick that any team trading for him now would not get when they traded for him next year? Does he have to repeat his 2011? No, likely not. But he has to be significantly better than his 2012 for that lost value to be made up. There is a very real chance that he won't be more valuable at the deadline than he is now, even if he does improve from last year.

[mfried]

If that's true about Ellsbury, I'm relieved.

I think that they're right that the return on him would be unacceptably weak right now. Keeping him on the team at the outset of 2013 allows them the flexibility of try to trade him mid-season, when he may have restored some of his value, or even re-signing him later. I know that people will trot out the Scott Boras card but it's not as if the Sox haven't done deals with Boras clients. And they get the benefit of Ellsbury's on field contributions in the meantime. We know that Ellsbury's record has been spotty but we also know that he has it in him to perform like he did in 2011. I'd rather bet on reaping the benefit of that upside in some way than selling way low.

The extracurricular benefits (fanbase enthusiasm, clubhouse leadership) of Pedroia and Ortiz far outweigh those of Ellsbury. Therefore there HAS to be a return which justifies trading Jacoby. We shouldn't march into the offseason planning to trade him, but the prospect of an excellent young shortstop (Andrus) or first baseman (Butler) might justify this step.

[twothousandone]

Signing Swisher for 5 years gets somebody his age 32-36 years.

And a 31-year old who comfortably agrees to re-enter free agency as a 35-year old is making a big mistake for his bank account. Just as teams want to avoid it, players want exactly that.

It's tough to find someone younger than Swisher who looks lke a good bet on a five-year deal. But a 30-year old who comfortably signs a three or four-year deal probably isn't very good.

Other than Pedroia and Ortiz, Ellsbury is the only guy on the offense I think has a good chance of being better than league average, though some may argue catcher, as well. And it is tough to project much better than average, even if he was great two years ago. It's also tough to expect first full-year guys like Middlebrooks and Kalish to be better than league average. That leaves SS, OF, 1B. This is not an easy assignment.

Maybe the answer is dollars, but not years, to . . . Ludwick and Drew.? $11 million, 1-year for Ludwick, $6 million 1-year for Drew.

[mabrowndog]

Gordon Edes suggests 5 guys the Sox should explore trading for:

1. Alex Gordon, Royals, LF
2. Michael Morse, Nationals, 1B/LF
3. Derek Holland, Rangers, LHP
4. Josh Johnson, Marlins, RHP
5. Cliff Lee, Phillies, LHP

I'm especially intrigued by Morse, whose only mention on this board was a few weeks ago by gammoseditor. Here's Edes' blurb:

Morse, who turns 31 next March, is only a season removed from hitting 31 home runs for the Nats. He missed 50 games with a shoulder injury at the start of the 2012 season, so his power numbers were down, but the 6-foot-5, 245-pounder would give the Red Sox a potentially potent right-handed bat in the middle of the lineup. He's signed for a modest $6.75 million for 2013, then is eligible for free agency, so it shouldn't take a great deal to get him, especially if Nats GM Mike Rizzo re-signs Adam LaRoche and acquires a center fielder, moving Bryce Harper to left and leaving Morse as odd man out.

Fangraphs had a piece on Morse and LaRoche last month from a fantasy sports perspective:

[Morse] was coming off a season in which he hit .303/.360/.550 with 31 HR while starting more than half the Nationals’ games at first base. Unfortunately, a strained lat shelved Morse for the first two months of the season and thrust LaRoche into the Opening Day lineup. He went 0-for-3 with a walk and three strikeouts, playing perfectly into the narrative regarding his inability to hit before the All-Star break. The next day, LaRoche went 4-for-5 with his first home run, and the race to his best season ever was on.

Morse’s season seemed to go in fits and starts. While his overall line of .291/.321/.470 with 18 HR and 62 RBI in 102 games is certainly livable, an August-long slump caused by some combination of hand, thumb, or wrist injuries muted his overall production ... His strong September — .302/.330/.510 with 6 HR — was certainly an asset for the stretch run

That same article also notes:

Anthony Rendon is threatening to push Ryan Zimmerman off of third base, which could push Zimmerman into the first base mix.

Morse's defensive deficiencies in left field give me some pause (Fangraphs 2011 and 2012: -21.6 and -16.0 UZR/150; -13 and -8.9 FR). But I'd have no such worries over him playing 1B full time with some occasional games/innings in LF (Fenway's vast RF is a stretch). He's a strong rebound candidate at the plate for next season, which also helps mitigate those concerns. For a one-year commitment on short money in his age 31 season, I'm more than willing to roll the dice. And while the Nats obviously won't just give him away, it won't require a king's ransom either.

Edited by mabrowndog, 07 November 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Gordon Edes suggests 5 guys the Sox should explore trading for:

1. Alex Gordon, Royals, LF
2. Michael Morse, Nationals, 1B/LF
3. Derek Holland, Rangers, LHP
4. Josh Johnson, Marlins, RHP
5. Cliff Lee, Phillies, LHP

Both Gordon and Lee would be great additions to the roster, but can anyone here really envision a scenario where the Sox weren't paying through the nose for them? Gordon has had two really nice seasons in a row and plays well above average defense in left. The Sox would have some of that defensive value dinged by him playing half his games in Fenway, so the value to them is probably a touch lower than it is to other clubs. Regardless, he's a good OBP hitter with a little pop (probably closer to his 2012 .455 than his 2011 .502) and the Royals don't have a ton of incentive to move him. He won't be cheap.

Lee is still one of the best pitchers in baseball, and while Philly will be looking to offload some payroll, they have better options than Lee for dumping money. He'd cost far too much to even start fantasizing about this.

I agree that Morse is a good bounce back candidate at the plate and shouldn't be too expensive. My concern with him is that he hasn't shown himself to be a strong defensive first baseman. At best, he'd be league average. His career UZR is -2.7 and his career UZR/150 is -3.6. His fangraphs page looks good when you scan his UZR/150's quickly, but when you look closer, he only has one meaningful sample in that list, which was 2011 where he was at -8.2. As a short term stop gap while they assess further options, he's probably a decent pick up. I would hope that if he's acquired, the plan is to shift him to a bench role as soon as they can find something better, though.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I agree that Morse is a good bounce back candidate at the plate and shouldn't be too expensive. My concern with him is that he hasn't shown himself to be a strong defensive first baseman.

That's one concern; another is that his offensive profile seems like a poor fit for Fenway. His power appears, from his 2012 home hit chart at least, to have a pronounced opposite-field tendency. And he has poor PD and mediocre contact numbers. Put that combination in a Sox uniform and he seems to me to be a pretty good candidate for a .250/.290/.450 kind of season, and while we could survive that, it would suck to give up anything substantial for it.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

https://twitter.com/...184844504100864

So in other words the Sox are floating his name out there and if someone offers them value somewhere near the midpoint between 2011 and 2012, they will move him.

[redsoxstiff]

If that's true about Ellsbury, I'm relieved.

I think that they're right that the return on him would be unacceptably weak right now. Keeping him on the team at the outset of 2013 allows them the flexibility of try to trade him mid-season, when he may have restored some of his value, or even re-signing him later. I know that people will trot out the Scott Boras card but it's not as if the Sox haven't done deals with Boras clients. And they get the benefit of Ellsbury's on field contributions in the meantime. We know that Ellsbury's record has been spotty but we also know that he has it in him to perform like he did in 2011. I'd rather bet on reaping the benefit of that upside in some way than selling way low.

What he says...

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald reports that the Red Sox are expected to pursue a trade for Justin Upton.
Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reported earlier Wednesday that, despite previous comments from their owner to the contrary, the D'Backs will shop Upton this offseason. The Red Sox are on the outfielder's no-trade list, but Silverman's source says that will not keep Boston from going after him. The Rangers would also make sense as a trade partner, with Rosenthal speculating that they could deal Elvis Andrus for Upton.

Quoting from Rotoworld.

From Cots... 13:$9.75M, 14:$14.25M, 15:$14.5M

Edited by HangingW/ScottCooper, 07 November 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[BoSox Rule]

I have a feeling they're going to come out of nowhere and sign Greinke for about $132M/6 and I honestly would love that. Despite his "issues" and ERA that doesn't reflect his FIP I feel that he's a true Ace. After that trade for Upton and Bauer and call it a day.

[OCD SS]

From Cots... 13:$9.75M, 14:$14.25M, 15:$14.5M

Not that it matters now, but it might in 2015: his AAV vs the CBT is only $8.54M.

[The Gray Eagle]

Pretty comprehensive look at what the Sox are looking to do from Joe McDonald on espn.com:
http://espn.go.com/b...m-meetings-wrap

What I personally liked reading:
On being asked by agents whether the Red Sox will be a competitive team this year: "I think you answer by telling people that you rely on the track record here and the commitment from ownership to put a lot of resources into the team, and the reality that this is Boston. We're going to build a team as quickly as we can. There's not a two-, three-, four-, five-year plan."

Along those same lines:
"I think we can work really hard and be aggressive in trying to put a good team on the field in 2013 while still being disciplined, and it's up to us to strike that balance," he said. "We'll see how we can do that this offseason.
"Our job is to look for alternatives and look for as many alternatives as possible through free agency or trades to address the needs we have so we can find fits that make our team better quickly but don't get in the way of the long term and fit with our goal of staying disciplined, so it's really doing both. It's a challenge, and it's up to us to do it."

I personally didn't like this:
"Cherington's main concerns this offseason are first base, the corner outfield positions and adding a pitcher to the starting rotation. As far as shortstop is concerned, Cherington said it's on the back burner for now." Yuck. We need a decent major league SS on a one-year deal who has a good chance of putting up a .300 OBP.

Good that we will be filling those other holes though. Clearly, management is going to try to compete this year, without doing anything that harms the future. They might succeed in that or they might not, but they are going to try. That is the best approach, and fans need to get their heads around it, whether they agree with it or not.

We have lots of money to spend and hope to do it wisely, and we have lots of space on the roster to add new players. This is good news. A hole on your roster during the season is a problem, but if you have plenty of money to spend, then a hole in your roster in the offseason is an opportunity.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I actually think Cherington has defined the main priorities very well: 1B, corner OF and SP, in that order. As skeptical as I am about Iglesias' offense, at least we know he can do one thing well, and maybe 2013 is as good a time as any to see whether there's a chance he'll ever do the other thing well. I'd be all for us signing Drew instead if we could get him on a one-year deal, but I do think that's a Tier 2 kind of priority.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I actually think Cherington has defined the main priorities very well: 1B, corner OF and SP, in that order. As skeptical as I am about Iglesias' offense, at least we know he can do one thing well, and maybe 2013 is as good a time as any to see whether there's a chance he'll ever do the other thing well. I'd be all for us signing Drew instead if we could get him on a one-year deal, but I do think that's a Tier 2 kind of priority.

I can agree with Cherington's prioritizing too, as much as I dread the idea of Iglesias being the starter in 2013. Theo was able to snap up Alex Gonzalez in February 2006, and he filled the need adequately when he was healthy. There may be some equivalent available late in the off-season this winter as well. One that doesn't excite anyone but might represent an upgrade over noodle-bat Jose.

[sachilles]

It may also be a case of his perception of what is available to fill the roll of SS on the open market. Iglesias isn't the ideal, but you give him a chance to prove himself and if his lack of bat harms the team long term, look for a trade deadline deal to solve that issue. The other holes really need to be addressed from game one.

[mabrowndog]

I think the shortstop question will hinge in part on the makeup of the 2013 rotation. We already know one lefty is locked in. Barring a trade, Doubront will be another. If the Sox go get a third southpaw, then IMO having Iglesias at short trumps all else. If they were to acquire a league-average offensive shortstop, the marginal increase in the club's run production relative to the league will be minuscule compared to what an armor-plated left side of the infield will do for a lefty-heavy starting staff -- especially if the other positions of need (LF, RF, 1B) are addressed properly.

[gammoseditor]

After listening to the Alex Speier/Jim Callis podcast ilnked in the minor league forum, I'm really starting to wonder if Xander Bogaerts is part of their 2013 plans at SS. Jim and Alex both seem to believe he can handle the position. It's possible to start the year with Iglesias and go to Xander if he's looking good in the minors and Iglesias is struggling sometime in late May/early June. John Sickels had Xander third on his prelim hitters list. He's young but other elite prospects have made the jump at his age.

linked by SoxScout in the minor league forum, but in case anyone is interested: http://audio.weei.co...-jim-callis.htm

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm starting to feel the same way. I thought giving Xander an outside chance at a late season call up (July or August at the earliest) was incredibly optimistic, but not impossible. If he continues to crush the ball in AA and AAA this year, why wouldn't they give him that shot? The biggest reason not to give him the job in a transition year is to avoid starting his Arb clock, but if they call him up late enough, that's not an issue. If the plan is for him to be the opening day starter in 2014, it makes all the sense in the world to start 2013 with Iglesias to see if A.) his bat can improve and B.) if Bogaerts continues to destroy minor league pitching to the degree that he forces a call up this year.

With Bradley, it's a bit different. Ellsbury is likely gone next year anyway, so picking up another corner outfielder is going to be necessary at some point. Might as well look to do it now if the team wants to at least appear as though they intend to compete.

I'm OK with Ben's priorities here.

[E5 Yaz]

Uncertain of how long Insider will be on free preview, but goofy Jim Bowden has seven suggested Ellsbury deals:

http://insider.espn....jacoby-ellsbury

Teams: Braves, Angels, Dodgers (for Ethier), Cardinals, Giants, Mariners, Nationals

[dylanmarsh]

Uncertain of how long Insider will be on free preview, but goofy Jim Bowden has seven suggested Ellsbury deals:

http://insider.espn....jacoby-ellsbury

Teams: Braves, Angels, Dodgers (for Ethier), Cardinals, Giants, Mariners, Nationals

I especially like his thoughts on trading Ellsbury for a reliever(s). You can never have too many relievers when you're short outfielders.

[yecul]

Sounds like they are really going to make a push for a marked improvement next year. Not a tough goal considering how bad they were and all the bad luck (on top of bad managing and flat out bad performance), but I really hope they balance short/long term goals. Even plugging all those holes would leave a lot of question marks and uncertainties.

That aside, I concur with BC's priority list. While Iglesias is a big concern I think his defense is so good that, while he would be a net negative if he can't hit more, the gain made to another SS would likely be marginal. There are no great options out there, so at best you're going from bad to meh. XB is a real wildcard here. Not necessarily to start the year, but perhaps as a mid-year option. Yes, that would be aggressive, but young potentially-elite(ish) talent is where you get aggressive.

I am sticking to my hope that they do not sacrifice signifciant assets for 2014+ for short term gains. A guy like Morneau is at the top of many people's list as a logical target and he would be a great fit, but that heavily depends on the cost. He is a short term patch that could be available for little talent and a lot of money. That's the exact recipe that Boston should be looking for.

Ellsbury is going to be an interesting one to watch this year. I would never sign him long term if it were my team. I'd explore a deal this offseason. If nothing pans out I would 100% deal him by the deadline unless they are on some 95 win pace. We will see.

[The Gray Eagle]

I like Iglesias and want us to fill those other holes that we have too, for sure.

But SS should be also upgraded with a guy on a one-year deal. Iglesias isn't ready to put up a .280 OBP in the majors at he start of next year. I think he could be after maybe another half season in the minors, but he certainly doesn't look ready to now. If he started the season in the majors, he'd be quite likely to flop. Not only will that hurt the Red Sox, it will likely hurt Iglesias's development. And worst of all, if he flops, which is really likely, it will make it more likely that the Sox will then rush Bogaerts to the majors before he is ready and hurt his development too.

We need someone decent at SS who only has a one-year deal, so that we get at least decent performance there, and we don't rush the prospects who aren't ready yet. If one of the kids earns playing time by actually playing well in AAA, and looks like they are ready, then we shouldn't have a problem moving the vet who is on a one-year deal or sitting them for a month or two at least.

That way the Red Sox are likelier to have better production, the prospects won't be rushed, and they can still take the job away if and when they are ready. Handing the SS job to Iglesias from day one is unnecessarily risky in every way. He's not going to hit, so whenever he makes an error or fails at the plate in a big spot, he is going to be feeling the heat from the fans and the media. If Bogaerts isn't hitting early on in the minors, he can't help. If he does have a good start, then he will be rushed up to the majors before he is ready. All this, instead of bringing in a decent but not great one-year placeholder, doesn't make any sense.

Drew on a one-year deal would be perfect. If he gets two years somewhere else that's fine. In that case, maybe it's time for Alex Gonzalez III: Beneath the Planet of Alex Gonzalez. Start the season with someone like that to keep the pressure off Iglesias and let him prove that he can get on base at all in AAA. Gonzalez or some other old guy would probably break down after a couple of months anyway but would at least make us less likely to damage the prospects by rushing them too soon. (Lowrie would have been perfect for this role-- start him until he gets hurt, then bring up Iglesias after more time in AAA, without the pressure and expectations. But Lowrie's long gone unless Houston would trade him to us for Mark Melancon, ha-ha.)

I want Iglesias or Bogaerts to play well enough to beat out a decent veteran for the starting SS job. That's the best case scenario. But it's hardly likely to happen at the start of 2013. And if they are rushed, then that makes it less likely to happen even in 2014.

[Rudy Pemberton]

There's been some suggestions from scouts that Drew can no longer play SS full time, and his OBP the last three years is 352, 317, 309. Agree that if you can get him for 1 year, $5M than it's worthwhile but I tend to think he gets more than that. If so, who else is an option? I tend to think it's Igelsias, unless they can trade for someone really good, or they would have kept Aviles.

[Corsi]

INDIAN WELLS -- According to executives here, free-agent center fielder Michael Bourn is among the most popular available players, so popular he's getting interest from teams that are completely unexpected, including even the Red Sox.

The Nationals and Phillies have long been seen as among the favorites to land the speedy center fielder, but Danny Knobler identified on Friday the Reds are another possibility, and sources suggest even the Red Sox are considering Bourn.
Boston may be figuring it's only likely to have one more year with center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, who's a free agent after the 2013 season, and so Bourn could become a ready-made replacement, just a year ahead of time.

The Red Sox are in the market for outfielders, but it has been assumed they are looking more at corner guys, like Torii Hunter and Cody Ross.

http://www.cbssports...ooking-at-bourn

[dylanmarsh]

http://www.cbssports...ooking-at-bourn

Is there anyone the Sox are not connected to besides Greinke? Wouldn't Denard Span be a more cost-effective and younger replacement for Ellsbury than Bourn? I'm a terrible judge on trade considerations so I won't go there but the Twins are said to be looking for pitching. They have Ben Revere ready to take over CF for Span and his 2yr/$11MM contract.

Edited by dylanmarsh, 09 November 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[DanoooME]

I like Iglesias and want us to fill those other holes that we have too, for sure.

But SS should be also upgraded with a guy on a one-year deal. Iglesias isn't ready to put up a .280 OBP in the majors at he start of next year. I think he could be after maybe another half season in the minors, but he certainly doesn't look ready to now. If he started the season in the majors, he'd be quite likely to flop. Not only will that hurt the Red Sox, it will likely hurt Iglesias's development. And worst of all, if he flops, which is really likely, it will make it more likely that the Sox will then rush Bogaerts to the majors before he is ready and hurt his development too.

We need someone decent at SS who only has a one-year deal, so that we get at least decent performance there, and we don't rush the prospects who aren't ready yet. If one of the kids earns playing time by actually playing well in AAA, and looks like they are ready, then we shouldn't have a problem moving the vet who is on a one-year deal or sitting them for a month or two at least.

That way the Red Sox are likelier to have better production, the prospects won't be rushed, and they can still take the job away if and when they are ready. Handing the SS job to Iglesias from day one is unnecessarily risky in every way. He's not going to hit, so whenever he makes an error or fails at the plate in a big spot, he is going to be feeling the heat from the fans and the media. If Bogaerts isn't hitting early on in the minors, he can't help. If he does have a good start, then he will be rushed up to the majors before he is ready. All this, instead of bringing in a decent but not great one-year placeholder, doesn't make any sense.

Drew on a one-year deal would be perfect. If he gets two years somewhere else that's fine. In that case, maybe it's time for Alex Gonzalez III: Beneath the Planet of Alex Gonzalez. Start the season with someone like that to keep the pressure off Iglesias and let him prove that he can get on base at all in AAA. Gonzalez or some other old guy would probably break down after a couple of months anyway but would at least make us less likely to damage the prospects by rushing them too soon. (Lowrie would have been perfect for this role-- start him until he gets hurt, then bring up Iglesias after more time in AAA, without the pressure and expectations. But Lowrie's long gone unless Houston would trade him to us for Mark Melancon, ha-ha.)

I want Iglesias or Bogaerts to play well enough to beat out a decent veteran for the starting SS job. That's the best case scenario. But it's hardly likely to happen at the start of 2013. And if they are rushed, then that makes it less likely to happen even in 2014.

The only problem I see with this plan is if you sign someone like Drew, it doesn't benefit Iglesias to stay on the ML roster, so he goes down to Pawtucket. Xander does have only 97 PA at Portland, so you could say he starts the season there. But what if he has a big spring and they want to test him further? You can't really bump him up to Pawtucket with Iglesias there. I'd rather see the Sox take the chance on Iglesias as the starter and they have the flexibility to plug Xander in at either Portland or Pawtucket depending on his spring, since long-term he's really the more important asset. And there's always the real long shot that Xander does well enough to make the big club out of the spring or more likely a month into the season,like Bryce Harper last year, so if you know that, you can start Iglesias for the first month and then swap him and Xander assuming Iglesias doesn't hit .320 or draw 25 walks in April or have a 750 OPS out of the gate or something..

[JimBoSox9]

You can't really bump [Boegarts] up to Pawtucket with Iglesias there.

Disagree with this. X needs to be starting nearly every day at SS, to be sure - improvement there is his best path to superstar. Iglesias, on the other hand, could survive spending some time as the Angels-era Chone Figgins of the PawSox. If he doesn't hit his ceiling with the bat, his career is a utility infielder. Add in that he is MLb-ready at SS already and getting him some reps elsewhere on the field isn't a bad outcome. It's not a situation I'd want to run with for most of the season, but for a month or two they could make it work.

[Rovin Romine]

I mentioned this in the 1B thread as an aside, but thought I'd post it here. I know we're focused on free agents, mostly, but this free agent class isn't great. Seems like the better players all have question marks in general and/or seem to be poor fits for Boston.

Seems like our main resources are cash (a lot of it) and some trade-able players: Salty in particular, Sweeney. In the second tier (maybe keep, maybe trade) we have Ells, Aceves. While everyone is potentially trade-able, those seem to be potentially redundant parts. We also have a lot of young prospects, but I'm hesitant to advocate trading the top prospects as they seem to be the key to the 2014 season. JBJ, Barnes, X-Bogs. And, it's because of this 2014 window (possible window) and our current ?-mark roster that I don't think we should spend money on Laroche types, who may just be placeholders but will stick around past 2014.

So, how do we maximize our cash, which is considerable? I'm hoping we see the following type of trade. Sox send fringe prospect(s) or redundant players and get 1) promising young player, 2) older player with bad contract (who can hopefully be marginalized or released.) It would essentially be converting cash into a good young player prior to their free agency. Another way of saying it is assuming the bad contact player and the fringe prospect has no intrinsic value to the Sox, how much would you flat out pay for the good young player on the open market? If you can identify that, you can figure out what bad contracts you can take on board.

I think it's potentially a better option than overpaying for "B" level free agent talent, especially if there's no guarantee that "B" level talent will make you truly competitive (instead of merely non-embarassing).

We could also do a Josh Beckett 1 type trade: Sox get 1) excellent established player projected to be around past 2014, 2) bad contract player, Sox give 1) prospects, quality dependent on what's coming back in terms of talent/cash.

Are there any teams out there who fit this bill? I'm thinking the bad contract player needs to be a player who won't block a younger player, and/or could be released. Perhaps an expensive pitcher who can be starter #5 or sent to the bullpen for a bit?

Anyway, thoughts on this approach would be appreciated.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Seems like our main resources are cash (a lot of it) and some trade-able players: Salty in particular, Sweeney.

Wouldn't the sets "non-tender candidate" and "tradeable player" have a pretty nearly null intersection? OF defense is nice, but when it comes in the form of a third-year arb guy whose offense has declined for four straight years to utility IF levels, I'm not sure there's much of a market for it.

And, it's because of this 2014 window (possible window) and our current ?-mark roster that I don't think we should spend money on Laroche types, who may just be placeholders but will stick around past 2014.

Except that the 1B slot is really outside the whole "build from within/give the kids a chance" conversation. We can comfortably seek whatever outside solution we want there without fear of blocking anybody (unless you really think Travis Shaw has a high enough ceiling to worry about blocking him, which is not the impression I get). If LaRoche costs too much in dollars/years, don't go there, but there's no reason to avoid him for fear of pre-empting the transition to the homegrown team of 2014 & beyond.

That aside, I think your "use payroll flexibility to buy bad contract joined at hip to good young player" concept is intriguing as a way to fill short-term holes (particularly in the OF) without paying through the nose in talent. Whether there's a workable deal of that kind out there I don't know, but it's certainly worth exploring, and I assume Ben & co. have been exploring it.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

That aside, I think your "use payroll flexibility to buy bad contract joined at hip to good young player" concept is intriguing as a way to fill short-term holes (particularly in the OF) without paying through the nose in talent. Whether there's a workable deal of that kind out there I don't know, but it's certainly worth exploring, and I assume Ben & co. have been exploring it.

Cuddyer and Willingham fit this bill for the OF, Morneau at 1B. To throw a completely new name out there, what about Soriano since the Cubs would pay most of the freight?

[nvalvo]

Cuddyer and Willingham fit this bill for the OF, Morneau at 1B. To throw a completely new name out there, what about Soriano since the Cubs would pay most of the freight?

I was thinking about Soriano also. The difficulty with this is that the Cubs and Red Sox are too close together on the success cycle.

I'm not sure who the Cubs could offer to entice Boston to take some of Soriano's money who they don't themselves need for their own rebuild. Bryan Lahair is the one guy I was thinking of, but, one good year aside, he probably isn't very good. They've already traded the rest of the spare parts, so far as I can tell.

So probably not a good match.

[Rovin Romine]

Wouldn't the sets "non-tender candidate" and "tradeable player" have a pretty nearly null intersection? OF defense is nice, but when it comes in the form of a third-year arb guy whose offense has declined for four straight years to utility IF levels, I'm not sure there's much of a market for it.

Except that the 1B slot is really outside the whole "build from within/give the kids a chance" conversation. We can comfortably seek whatever outside solution we want there without fear of blocking anybody (unless you really think Travis Shaw has a high enough ceiling to worry about blocking him, which is not the impression I get). If LaRoche costs too much in dollars/years, don't go there, but there's no reason to avoid him for fear of pre-empting the transition to the homegrown team of 2014 & beyond.

Well, it's not so much to suggest that Sweeney has any real value, but could be a body going back the other way (whereas Ells obviously more than a body).

I agree with you about the first base slot - if they have the right candidate at the right price they should pull the trigger. I don't think LaRoche is the solution though. I suspect his career year and the thinness of this year's free agent class will drive up the cost. While there is a certain amount of money in the budget which should "be spent anyway," like many here, I'm not sure we want him signed to an expensive contract in 2015/16. Have to keep looking ahead.

That said, Sands and Gomez are not solid options. We could get lucky, I suppose, but I'd certainly choose LaRoche on a short contract over their uncertainty. However, if Sands continues his 2012 second half success in Pawtucket, we'll need to find a spot for him in Boston. 1B seems like the logical spot.

[RedOctober3829]

Jim Bowden had this to add to the Marlins firesale. Not sure whether to applaud the caller for suggesting this or make fun of Bowden to actually take this seriously. No way do they trade for all 3 of these players.

A caller to our INSIDE PITCH just called and suggested a Nolasco, LoMo & Escobar deal to Boston....would solve 3 needs of Red Sox

https://twitter.com/...197631673208832

[SoxScout]

If Hamilton’s market fails to materialize, would he consider a one-year deal for $30 million? How about $18 million for Kuroda and $16 million apiece for Napoli and Haren? Throw another $5 million at PED question mark Melky Cabrera and suddenly the Red Sox boast a deep lineup and a rotation capable of competing with Tampa, Toronto, or anyone else.

The beauty of the approach is it gives fans a reason to come to Fenway next season, it protects the team’s best prospects (Xander Bogaerts, Jackie Bradley Jr., Matt Barnes), it makes the Red Sox instantly competitive in a deep but relatively even AL East, and it doesn’t contradict the mission of maintaining long-term financial flexibility.

Here is Tomase's 2013 plan

[redsoxstiff]

I like Iglesias and want us to fill those other holes that we have too, for sure.

But SS should be also upgraded with a guy on a one-year deal. Iglesias isn't ready to put up a .280 OBP in the majors at he start of next year. I think he could be after maybe another half season in the minors, but he certainly doesn't look ready to now. If he started the season in the majors, he'd be quite likely to flop. Not only will that hurt the Red Sox, it will likely hurt Iglesias's development. And worst of all, if he flops, which is really likely, it will make it more likely that the Sox will then rush Bogaerts to the majors before he is ready and hurt his development too.

The Eagle has landed on some good points...IIRCC...Sweet Lou brought up A-Rod at eighteen...I guess there is a oner every now and then...

If Eglesias has worked hard this off season on his strength and has a ST with a few nuggets to build on...I'd start him next season...
If the Red Sox aren't working feverishly with him now ...WTF?

[Green Monster]

The Royals are listening to offers for Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Alex Gordon, Billy Butler, and even Wil Myers. The Rays, meanwhile, are listening on James Shields and Jeremy Hellickson.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com

Not sure I understand KC's motivation here as these names seem like the guys they should be building their team around, but If the Sox are shopping for a package deal to adress multiple needs in one shot, I sure hope the are talking to KC......some combination of Hosmer, Gordon, and even Myers would fit well. These guys are young enough that giving up some young talent could still fit the long term strategy and improve next years team at the same time.

Edited by Green Monster, 18 November 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[erfus]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com

Not sure I understand KC's motivation here as these names seem like the guys they should be building their team around, but If the Sox are shopping for a package deal to adress multiple needs in one shot, I sure hope the are talking to KC......some combination of Hosmer, Gordon, and even Myers would fit well. These guys are young enough that giving up some young talent could still fit the long term strategy and improve next years team at the same time.

The Silverman article mlbtr links to indicates KC is talking to TB about Hellickson...the context is lost a bit in the summary piece.

http://bostonherald....mlb#articleFull

The Rays and Royals should be able to strike some sort of deal. The Royals need pitching and are listening on first baseman Eric Hosmer, third basemanMike Moustakas, outfielder Alex Gordon, DH Billy Butler and even outfield prospect Wil Myers. The Rays need offense and are listening to offers onJames Shields and Jeremy Hellickson. . . .

[SoxScout]

I would start a package with Buchholz for Hosmer and I'd add more as needed. Then you come out of the winter meetings with Floyd / Haren / Marcum and you're in business.

Edited by SoxScout, 18 November 2012 - 01:44 PM.