124 replies to this topic

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

Do we really want a fly-ball lefty who has a fat platoon split in Fenway Park? I am not necessarily ruling it out but it's gonna require deeper analysis than just cooing over Holland being young and cost-controlled.

Andrus seems like a big ask, but with Profar almost ready Andrus is going to get dealt sooner or later. I would love to have shortstop locked up for the next several years. I'd like it even more than a new starting pitcher to play with,

In truth, I'd rather have Andrus than Holland as well, but what kind of a package are you willing to put together for him? A lot of teams will be thinking about how good Elvis would look in their uniforms.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 15 October 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

What's the max that Ellsbury's value could increase, 20% or so? Whatever it is, there remains a less than zero chance that he will get injured and we'll see his trade value crater to zero. Why risk losing it all for a chance at a small increase? The sooner you trade him, the better.

I think you mean "greater than zero," but regardless, note that this statement is just as true of Holland as Ellsbury.

Ellsbury's value may be higher if he plays better; but, I think that sentiment is vastly overblown. An extra 80-100 game sample (in a roughly 600 game career thus far) will change a projection, but not as dramatically as this implies.

I think this evaluation fails to look at the story arc. Ellsbury starts with a red-hot September at 23, then has a so-so age 24 year followed by a promising, but not overwhelming age 25 year. A freak injury shelves him for most of his age 26 year. Then at age 27 he explodes with a superstar-level performance that confirms all the promise of that first cup of coffee, and then some.

So far, the trend is clearly upward--interrupted, but upward. A year ago, I think the consensus was that while we had probably just seen his best year, he had established a new normal, and that normal was an above-average-to-excellent two-way player at a skill position.

Then he gets hurt again--and unlike the first time, he comes back in time to play for a while. Badly. It seems likely that the poor offensive performance in the last third of 2012 was due to aftereffects of the injury; but even assuming this is true, we don't know for certain that those aftereffects are temporary, or how long they might last.

So the first two-thirds of 2013 is no ordinary 80-100 game stretch for Ellsbury. It's a chance for him to either re-establish his status as one of the best CFs in the league, or brand himself as damaged goods. The potential swing in value is huge. Cashing him in this winter may be the safe bet, but if you're bullish on his recovery, it's selling low.

[Rudy Pemberton]

With no ability to offer arbitration, how much is a half-season of a red hot Ellsbury worth, though? The only reason to keep him is you think you're a contender and need him and / or you can resign him.

[Paul M]

If Texas trades Andrus, they will get someone better than we can provide. Someone like David Price or Justin Upton.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If Texas trades Andrus, they will get someone better than we can provide. Someone like David Price or Justin Upton.

I think you may be overvaluing Andrus just a bit here. I agree that Ellsbury isn't going to get it done alone, but I don't think it's a package we can't provide. The question is, is it a package we can be comfortable with? Obviously Ellsbury and a prospect the caliber of Bogaerts or Bradley is more than a team looking to rebuild should offer, but we could absolutely package enough to make a competitive run at Andrus.

The interesting question is can something in between the two extremes be made to work? Ellsbury, Webster and Swihart? Ellsbury, DLR and Cecchini? Ellsbury and Barnes? Ellsbury, Webster and Iglesias? I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to think that a middle ground can be reached considering Texas has arguably the best SS prospect in the game ready to crack the roster and nowhere to move Andrus to. He's certainly more valuable than Ellsbury, but the need to do something with the pair of Andrus and Profar does cut into Texas' leverage a little bit.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 15 October 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If Texas trades Andrus, they will get someone better than we can provide. Someone like David Price or Justin Upton.

Upton I can see...an escalating salary player for an escalating salary player, each one addressing a need for the receiving team. Price? I think that's both an over-valuation of Andrus and a poor read on what Tampa would seek if they were in a position to want to move Price. If the Rays are moving Price, it's because they can't afford to pay him in his late arbitration years. No way they take on a player in the exact same position salary-wise in return. If the Rangers want Price, I'd imagine they'd have to give up Profar+ rather than Andrus+.

Ellsbury strikes me as the kind of player Ron Washington would love to have patrolling CF for him, and the Rangers certainly have the payroll capabilities to pay Ellsbury a Boras-negotiated contract. Holland has his flaws, but he's a 25 year old veteran who is locked into a reasonable contract through age 32. I'm willing to gamble on that if the cost is a straight-up trade for Ellsbury.

[DLew On Roids]

So the first two-thirds of 2013 is no ordinary 80-100 game stretch for Ellsbury. It's a chance for him to either re-establish his status as one of the best CFs in the league, or brand himself as damaged goods. The potential swing in value is huge. Cashing him in this winter may be the safe bet, but if you're bullish on his recovery, it's selling low.

And if you're think of 2014 and beyond as the next window for this club, why bother with production from a player who's putting himself in the shop window, when he'll be full price during your next window, even assuming he sticks around?

Holland may not be the exact package you'd deal Ellsbury for, but he's the type of asset a team with the Red Sox's prospects should be looking to bring in for Ellsbury. If you're shooting for 2014 and beyond, he's a decent bet (as good as anyone else) to bring you 30 decent starts for $8.1M AAV from '14-'16. His performances were somewhat better this year after the DL stint, so I doubt he's a candidate for an undiagnosed problem that bites the team in the ass later.

The issue is home runs. His other peripherals have been progressing--K/9, BB/9 are OK--but the HR/FB was way up this year, so his HR/9 was up by 2/3s, and killed his value. He won't be a league-average pitcher giving up 32 homers in 175 innings. The next step would be to see if there was a pattern in his home run balls compared to previous years to see if that would point to a particular problem, so if someone has 4-5 hours to kill...

[Paul M]

Profar can play 2B and Andrus SS, with Kinsler to RF and Cruz to DH.

Boston could put something together but I just think the competition will be fierce for Andrus and Texas will want a guy that's a surer bet than Ellsbury is what I really wanted to get across.

[Rasputin]

With no ability to offer arbitration, how much is a half-season of a red hot Ellsbury worth, though? The only reason to keep him is you think you're a contender and need him and / or you can resign him.

A red hot Ellsbury is pretty damn valuable.

And, might I add, it's entirely possible that the Sox will be in a position to make the post season, an outcome which is highly dependent on Ellsbury being red hot.

[Rasputin]

And if you're think of 2014 and beyond as the next window for this club, why bother with production from a player who's putting himself in the shop window, when he'll be full price during your next window, even assuming he sticks around?

If you think of 2014 and beyond as the next window for this club you need to be slapped upside the head and reminded that every team that's over .500 is going to be within striking distance.

[DLew On Roids]

If you think of 2014 and beyond as the next window for this club you need to be slapped upside the head and reminded that every team that's over .500 is going to be within striking distance.

If you think that being above .500 is a sure thing, you're as delusional as the 100-WIN TALENT!!!! crowd.

That GFIN attitude got the club into this mess. Doubling down is as stupid as the Crawford contract.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If you think that being above .500 is a sure thing, you're as delusional as the 100-WIN TALENT!!!! crowd.

That GFIN attitude got the club into this mess. Doubling down is as stupid as the Crawford contract.

Thinking that this team can be an 80-85 win club in 2013 does not require a GFIN attitude. It requires some good but not necessarily all star acquisitions (via free agency or trade), a return to form for some incumbents and above all else, better overall team health. When Mike Aviles is second on the team in games played, it's a pretty telling sign that the roster wasn't all that healthy most of the season.

Also wouldn't hurt if they had someone remotely competent in the manager's spot.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Thinking that this team can be an 80-85 win club in 2013 does not require a GFIN attitude. It requires some good but not necessarily all star acquisitions (via free agency or trade), a return to form for some incumbents and above all else, better overall team health. When Mike Aviles is second on the team in games played, it's a pretty telling sign that the roster wasn't all that healthy most of the season.

Also wouldn't hurt if they had someone remotely competent in the manager's spot.

No it doesn't require a GFIN attitude, but thinking 80-85 wins are already in the bag, even assuming they bring back Papi and Ross, would require a ton of optimism. The current roster, with Papi and Ross, managed 69 wins while having Adrian Gonzalez in the lineup for 2/3 of the season. Granted, they'll get Middlebrooks back for sure, and could return Papi and Ross, but I'm not sure that's enough to guarantee an additional 11-16 wins... especially when you factor in the loss of Gonzalez.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable betting on that.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 15 October 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Paul M]

If they can't reasonably build a 95-game winner, then continuing to build the next long-term winner makes sense. Their stated goal is that going forward it's the division and not just the wild-card that they will aim for. They have plenty of work to do today just to win 80-82 games. I'm not confident 2013 is the year and if that means trading Ellsbury then so be it. Now, they could keep him and that's fine as well but two picks in 2014 is not worth much today.

[yecul]

Players in the post (heavy) steroids era are going to be healthier and more productive as they age?

I'm with Paul. The notion that this team should place climbing back to .500 as a goal seems silly to me. There's some level of respectability they should pursue to keep ratings and whatnot. Guys like DH3 and other "fans" have explicitly said that they will drop off if the team doesn't perform. So you need to throw those guys a bone. Long term the organization will see greater returns from sustained success. That should be the goal and, again as Paul said, is something they have been very open about.

Worrying about losing Ellsbury and the impact it will have on their push to .500 is way off base, IMO. If you want to resign him to a 6-8 year deal rather than let him walk, then you have some ground to stand on. I disagree with that decision, but at least it would make sense.

I'd rather watch them truck out JBJ and other young guys next year than to patch things up and play .500 ball all year, but that's me. If you see a .500 club right now that can be tweaked up to 88-92, then I totally disagree with you. Anything is possible (Hi Baltimore), but we're talking low percentage plays here.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

No it doesn't require a GFIN attitude, but thinking 80-85 wins are already in the bag, even assuming they bring back Papi and Ross, would require a ton of optimism. The current roster, with Papi and Ross, managed 69 wins while having Adrian Gonzalez in the lineup for 2/3 of the season. Granted, they'll get Middlebrooks back for sure, and could return Papi and Ross, but I'm not sure that's enough to guarantee an additional 11-16 wins... especially when you factor in the loss of Gonzalez.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable betting on that.

Guess I'm buying into the "their manager cost them games" theory to a certain degree. I don't think a new manager is necessarily going to wring more wins out of the roster than is reasonable, but he's not going to cost them wins. So I think it's only 5-10 wins needed out of lineup improvements and better pitching to get to that 80-85 win level.

[Plympton91]

I'm with Paul. The notion that this team should place climbing back to .500 as a goal seems silly to me. There's some level of respectability they should pursue to keep ratings and whatnot. Guys like DH3 and other "fans" have explicitly said that they will drop off if the team doesn't perform. So you need to throw those guys a bone. Long term the organization will see greater returns from sustained success. That should be the goal and, again as Paul said, is something they have been very open about.

Yeah, the team had absolutely no sustained success between 1998 (when they decided to act like a big-market team again) and 2012. None whatsoever. They only won 2 world series, make it to the LCS in 3 other years, and 4 other playoff appearances. Who wants THAT! Next year's starting lineup should include Pedro Ciriaco, Mauro Gomez, and Daniel Nava. Sign me up.

[Paul M]

The roster has few sure-things right now--Pedroia...and who else? Salty, Tazawa, Doubront? Maybe but I see elevated risk from these guys and almost everywhere this is a far cry from the kind of roster we're used to so It makes it really hard to plan when there is huge variance in at least half the rotation, the bullpen, and almost all corner bats. Between the injuries and the lack of guys who have had strong ends to the 2012 year, it's a tough GM job. With so many questions and holes to fill there are merits to selectively making deals. Ortiz at DH fixes a lot but it's a .500 team with him like it was last year. Lackey is unlikely to be a #1 or #2 and even Lester and/or Buchholz don't compare to the other #1s in the AL. If they won't have that #1, then the bullpen needs to be insanely good and no one can assemble one of those: they just kind of happen. It's also not as prudent to just hope 5-6 kids all develop by mid-2014. The odds are at least one gets hurt, and at least one stagnates. I'm not saying they couldn't win 95 next year and keep Ellsbury in the process but I jsut wouldn't bet the house on it. Too bad they couldn't get what Detroit got for Granderson.

[GreenMonsterVsGodzilla]

Can someone explain all the love for Elvis Andrus? I haven't seen the guy play much, but what's the huge appeal? Mike Aviles has a better career OPS and OPS+, as do at least half a dozen SS's in the AL alone. I do see that he had a god-awful 2010, and I suppose that brings the career stats down...and he's young. But seems pretty pedestrian to me.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Yeah, the team had absolutely no sustained success between 1998 (when they decided to act like a big-market team again) and 2012. None whatsoever. They only won 2 world series, make it to the LCS in 3 other years, and 4 other playoff appearances. Who wants THAT! Next year's starting lineup should include Pedro Ciriaco, Mauro Gomez, and Daniel Nava. Sign me up.

False dichotomy alert.

It's unreasonable to think the team is going to go, in one year, from 69 wins to the 96-100 necessary to win the division. Since the WC has now been reduced to a 50/50 chance of having your postseason last exactly one game, it seems that the prudent thing to do is to play for the division every year. They're about 12489394203402 miles away from that level right now, so gearing up the talent level incrementally seems to be the wise course of action.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

Can someone explain all the love for Elvis Andrus? I haven't seen the guy play much, but what's the huge appeal? Mike Aviles has a better career OPS and OPS+, as do at least half a dozen SS's in the AL alone. I do see that he had a god-awful 2010, and I suppose that brings the career stats down...and he's young. But seems pretty pedestrian to me.

He's going to give you an OBP of .350ish and a UZR/150 of 8ish. He can't hit for power? Who gives a rat's ass?

ETA--I don't think he's a guy you build around, but he's cost controlled and a step up from Aviles while we wait around to see if Iglesias learns to hit or Bogaerts can stick at short.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 15 October 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[Fishercat]

Can someone explain all the love for Elvis Andrus? I haven't seen the guy play much, but what's the huge appeal? Mike Aviles has a better career OPS and OPS+, as do at least half a dozen SS's in the AL alone. I do see that he had a god-awful 2010, and I suppose that brings the career stats down...and he's young. But seems pretty pedestrian to me.

Some of it is the defense, where he's generally accepted to be a well above average defensive shortstop (I've heard Profar is better, which is terrifying). Some of it is the speed, and even though he had an off year this year, he can steal bases and be a good baserunner. Some of it is that his OPS/OPS+ numbers are heavily weighted toward OBP for him, to where he gets on base a lot more than the usual guy with his OPS/+ numbers. Add in that he's young, could grow into more power, and is cost controlled for a couple years at a very weak MLB position, he's a nice prize.

[Marbleheader]

Can someone explain all the love for Elvis Andrus? I haven't seen the guy play much, but what's the huge appeal? Mike Aviles has a better career OPS and OPS+, as do at least half a dozen SS's in the AL alone. I do see that he had a god-awful 2010, and I suppose that brings the career stats down...and he's young. But seems pretty pedestrian to me.

I think some of it comes from the fact that SS has been a weak position for this franchise for the better part of a decade, and that Andrus has a. 919 OPS against Boston over the past few years.

[Plympton91]

False dichotomy alert.

It's unreasonable to think the team is going to go, in one year, from 69 wins to the 96-100 necessary to win the division. Since the WC has now been reduced to a 50/50 chance of having your postseason last exactly one game, it seems that the prudent thing to do is to play for the division every year. They're about 12489394203402 miles away from that level right now, so gearing up the talent level incrementally seems to be the wise course of action.

I think going in with that kind of preconceived notion can cause you to miss opportunities. They need to make smart signings of and trades for quality ballplayers when they are presented with the chance to do so. Adding Choo and Morneau in trades, signing one of the #3 starters available in FA to a 3 year deal, resigning Ortiz and Ross, getting a full year out of Middlebrooks, and working in Bradley and Bogearts over the next 2 seasons will make the team watchable and not cripple them long-term.

[Paul M]

Andrus: a 3-4 win player who just turned 24. He's also signed well below market value for two more years. Probably aren't 10 more valuable players at that age or younger in baseball right now.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I think going in with that kind of preconceived notion can cause you to miss opportunities. They need to make smart signings of and trades for quality ballplayers when they are presented with the chance to do so. Adding Choo and Morneau in trades, signing one of the #3 starters available in FA to a 3 year deal, resigning Ortiz and Ross, getting a full year out of Middlebrooks, and working in Bradley and Bogearts over the next 2 seasons will make the team watchable and not cripple them long-term.

That's undoubtedly the plan in some regard, assuming that Cleveland and Minnesota would be willing to deal. But again, they have to work on a mutli-year plan. It's extremely unlikely that they'll be a playoff team in 2013 because they were so far from completing successfully in 2012. Going from 69 wins to 95 is difficult enough; doing so and then sustaining that level of play from there on is almost impossible.

Even the Rays, who went from 66 to 97 wins over the course of one year, couldn't sustain that level of play immediately afterwards, dropping to 84 wins the year after that.

[DLew On Roids]

Guess I'm buying into the "their manager cost them games" theory to a certain degree. I don't think a new manager is necessarily going to wring more wins out of the roster than is reasonable, but he's not going to cost them wins. So I think it's only 5-10 wins needed out of lineup improvements and better pitching to get to that 80-85 win level.

...and then hope for a couple of breaks to get them a 50/50 shot at playing in the Division Series?

The goal here has to be 95-win talent that makes the WC a disappointment, not a patchwork team/lottery ticket. Holland probably can't be a rotation-topper on a 95-win team, but we know can be an innings-eater on a 98-win Pythag team. Ellsbury will never be on another 95-win team in Boston, because he'll be somewhere else in 2014.

[yecul]

Yeah, the team had absolutely no sustained success between 1998 (when they decided to act like a big-market team again) and 2012. None whatsoever. They only won 2 world series, make it to the LCS in 3 other years, and 4 other playoff appearances. Who wants THAT! Next year's starting lineup should include Pedro Ciriaco, Mauro Gomez, and Daniel Nava. Sign me up.

A baseball team is like a cruise liner, not a speed boat. My premise is to accept the reality that 2013 is too soon to get that on paper, so you don't sacrifice 2014+ for 2013 alone.

I think going in with that kind of preconceived notion can cause you to miss opportunities. They need to make smart signings of and trades for quality ballplayers when they are presented with the chance to do so. Adding Choo and Morneau in trades, signing one of the #3 starters available in FA to a 3 year deal, resigning Ortiz and Ross, getting a full year out of Middlebrooks, and working in Bradley and Bogearts over the next 2 seasons will make the team watchable and not cripple them long-term.

That helps 2013 by help I don't mean getting to 88-92+ wins, but it helps push them to low/mid 80s in wins. Doesn't address many long term questions.Unless people want to hand out 5-8 year deals to guys like Choo as they enter their 30s. Though, of course, Choo is already >30.

Post heavy steroid use I think those deals will almost universally not pan out. I would develop my roster and strategies to avoid anything to do with those.

The fundamental issue here is that some people look at this team and see ~85 wins that can be improved to 90+. Others see, what, 70, 75 that can be upgraded to 83. Which camp you are in will impact where you come out in these decisions.

The one thing I notice is that even the positive folks are eyeing short term unimpressive moves. No one seems interested in heavy investment just yet.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The one thing I notice is that even the positive folks are eyeing short term unimpressive moves. No one seems interested in heavy investment just yet.

I think a lot of people recognize that long term development is a bit safer from within. The Sox have an excellent farm system with some really exciting high ceiling prospects. Hanging onto the best of them is an investment in the future. It may not pan out, but it is certainly a long term strategy and an investment.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

...and then hope for a couple of breaks to get them a 50/50 shot at playing in the Division Series?

For 2013, why the hell not? This team is not going to be a 95-game winner in 2013 without a HUGE overhaul and a metric shit-ton of luck. But there's plenty of reason to think that in the process of building toward becoming a perennial 95-win per season kind of team again, they can get to that 80-85 win plateau in 2013.

The one way they won't become a team with long-term, sustained 95-win potential anytime soon is by selling out trying to be that team in 2013.

[yecul]

Either you are wrong and people do not recognize that or people are missing the next steps in this analysis. You can't talk about acquiring short term fix A without considering what A will cost and what you are going to do with him once the contract is up.

I don't imagine the Indians will be giving Choo away without getting a piece of that excellent farm system since he's likely to garner multiple bidders. And, as a 30+ year old is he someone you want to pay prospects for 1 year of his services (is it 2?)? Is it a good idea to give him 4-7 years?

Morneau, Choo, etc. Those are all moves for the short term at the expense of the long term. To what extend that sacrifice is remains unknown, but you are trading future assest for current ones any way you slice it. Maybe they're future non-assets, but I'd find that a bit surprising. Morneau should come cheaper, but not Choo.

[DLew On Roids]

For 2013, why the hell not? This team is not going to be a 95-game winner in 2013 without a HUGE overhaul and a metric shit-ton of luck. But there's plenty of reason to think that in the process of building toward becoming a perennial 95-win per season kind of team again, they can get to that 80-85 win plateau in 2013.

The one way they won't become a team with long-term, sustained 95-win potential anytime soon is by selling out trying to be that team in 2013.

So bringing it back to the mooted deal, do you sacrifice some of 2013's opportunity for improved prospects in 2014-16? Assuming that short series makes the playoffs a crapshoot, a WC spot gives you about a 6% chance of winning the WS. Hypothetically, then, if keeping Ellsbury bumps the needle on 2013 from a 2% at the WS title to 3% (basically, taking you from a 1-in-3 shot at the WC to 1-in-2, and before the Pedants' Peanut Gallery gets going, I did say hypothetically), do you do that in the knowledge that you've passed on an asset for the next three years? I'd be inclined to deal him.

[Paul M]

If you are Cleveland, you'll ask for Matt Barnes and treat Boston like Boston will treat Ellsbury suitors except Choo has had better production than Ellsubury over the last 3 years, but Choo probably has peaked. Still, he's worth at least one B+ prospect and Cleveland needs pitching badly. He's not a guy that comes cheaply. Morneau shouldn't cost a lot but do the Sox add both of these guys in the same year? I'd rather get the future 1B of the Sox now if possible and look at younger bats.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

So bringing it back to the mooted deal, do you sacrifice some of 2013's opportunity for improved prospects in 2014-16? Assuming that short series makes the playoffs a crapshoot, a WC spot gives you about a 6% chance of winning the WS. Hypothetically, then, if keeping Ellsbury bumps the needle on 2013 from a 2% at the WS title to 3% (basically, taking you from a 1-in-3 shot at the WC to 1-in-2, and before the Pedants' Peanut Gallery gets going, I did say hypothetically), do you do that in the knowledge that you've passed on an asset for the next three years? I'd be inclined to deal him.

I'm on record saying I do the deal straight up. I don't think doing the deal or not doing the deal is in any way tied directly to the notion of GFIN vs build for the future. Frankly, I think whatever bump you lose by trading Ellsbury can likely be mitigated by whatever bump you do get from having Holland in the rotation for 180+ innings. In other words, you can do the deal without sacrificing the future OR your chances in 2013.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I agree that Choo is a poor long term investment. He'll cost more prospects than Morneau and is less likely to stay in right than Morneau is to stay at 1st. I do think Morneau can be had without expending any of the big names in the system (Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, DLR, Swihart) and that he might be worth picking up as a bridge to 2014. Hell, he might even be worth extending for an additional 2 or 3 years to help the team transition into the long term future.

While I'm firmly in the long term moves camp, I do recognize that they need to be as competitive as possible in 2013 while hanging on to as many long term pieces from the farm as possible. They have the chips, so they need to use some of them. The trick will be evaluating them properly and expending the right ones.

I think there's room for balance between holding onto all the kids and GFIN in 2013. Sounds like you fall in this camp too, yecul. It's just a matter of where along that spectrum we each fall. The people like Plympton, who seem to be advocating for blowing a crater in the farm to try and win as many games as possible in 2013 don't fall into the "a lot of people" I mentioned above, and I would argue are probably in the minority.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 15 October 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Plympton91]

The other point to consider is the depth chart. For instance, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini are all 3B men long-term. Iglesias and the first-round pick this year are exactly the same player. At some point, your best option is to trade at least one of each. The key will be optimizing that trade value. Maybe the best trade is available now, who knows. Middlebrooks and his lack of plate discipline may never be more valuable. Explore what you can get, do a cost-benefit analysis. Don't preempt the discussion just because you didn't have a good record last year.

[Paul M]

I just wouldn't deal Boegarts, for example, because of a log jam and he's 4 years younger than Middlebrooks. Maybe he plays SS for 3-4 years, and by then slides to 3B? Cecchini maybe plays 2B in 3 years? That said, stockpiling guys is a delicate balance and you want to transform that into value and not dump guys after the bloom has worn off.

[PandaSox]

I agree that Choo is a poor long term investment. He'll cost more prospects than Morneau and is less likely to stay in right than Morneau is to stay at 1st. I do think Morneau can be had without expending any of the big names in the system (Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes, DLR, Swihart) and that he might be worth picking up as a bridge to 2014. Hell, he might even be worth extending for an additional 2 or 3 years to help the team transition into the long term future.

While I'm firmly in the long term moves camp, I do recognize that they need to be as competitive as possible in 2013 while hanging on to as many long term pieces from the farm as possible. They have the chips, so they need to use some of them. The trick will be evaluating them properly and expending the right ones.

I think there's room for balance between holding onto all the kids and GFIN in 2013. Sounds like you fall in this camp too, yecul. It's just a matter of where along that spectrum we each fall. The people like Plympton, who seem to be advocating for blowing a crater in the farm to try and win as many games as possible in 2013 don't fall into the "a lot of people" I mentioned above, and I would argue are probably in the minority.

The Twins are looking for "affordable" pitching per MLBTR.

Would they be interested in Morales? I think it would be a fair swap, considering the Morneau seems to have (finally) come back from that awful concussion.

[dynomite]

The Twins are looking for "affordable" pitching per MLBTR.

Would they be interested in Morales? I think it would be a fair swap, considering the Morneau seems to have (finally) come back from that awful concussion.

Morneau makes more sense than almost anyone else, to my mind.

The 2013 Twins have no use for a $14 million 1B, especially with nowhere else to play top prospect Chris Parmelee (1.100 OPS in AAA this year), while the Red Sox desperately need another power bat at 1B and can easily afford the salary.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Twins are willing to take something reasonable in return (Franklin Morales, as suggested above? Toss in Zach Stewart?)

[Rudy Pemberton]

I suspect that they'd be a lot more interested in Doubront. Morales probably makes $1.5-$2M next year, $4-5M the year after (if he's a starter), and then he's a FA. Not a ton of value for the Twins there.

[someoneanywhere]

The other point to consider is the depth chart. For instance, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, and Cecchini are all 3B men long-term. Iglesias and the first-round pick this year are exactly the same player. At some point, your best option is to trade at least one of each. The key will be optimizing that trade value. Maybe the best trade is available now, who knows. Middlebrooks and his lack of plate discipline may never be more valuable. Explore what you can get, do a cost-benefit analysis. Don't preempt the discussion just because you didn't have a good record last year.

I don't think any of that is set in stone, except that WMB will stay at third. People will be surprised at how good he is defensively once he gets his feet on the ground at the ML-level. He didn't show it this year, but he's a gold-glover. Cecchini also has potential there, but if it looks like he will develop, he can move to first. He's got the feet and the chops to play over there. I still maintain Bogaerts will have to move off short, although a lot of people have softened on that. But he's athletic enough to move to the OF, and has the arm to play right.

Now, it's true there are a ton of SS options. But the best options -- after Iglesias and assuming Bogaerts moves -- are all in the low minors. There's too much time in front of them to talk about logjams. (It's hard to call a guy in Lowell "exactly" the same as a guy who's on the 40-man, I think.) Marrero could end up at second, as could Vinicio, for instance. Maybe one of them becomes a CF. They are going to have to trade some of these guys, sure. But development is about time, and I don't think we can jump to this or that conclusion about a player's career path when so much time remains in front of him.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 15 October 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[gammoseditor]

I suspect that they'd be a lot more interested in Doubront. Morales probably makes $1.5-$2M next year, $4-5M the year after (if he's a starter), and then he's a FA. Not a ton of value for the Twins there.

Of course they would be, but why on earth would any team trade a cost controlled starting pitcher for an old first basemen making 14 million for one year coming off of a .773 OPS with a terrible platoon split?

The value to the Twins in trading Morneau is to save money on an aging player that's not that good and no one else would take.

Edited by gammoseditor, 15 October 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Of course they would be, but why on earth would any team trade a cost controlled starting pitcher for an old first basemen making 14 million for one year coming off of a .773 OPS with a terrible platoon split?

The value to the Twins in trading Morneau is to save money on an aging player that's not that good and no one else would take.

Why the hell do we want this guy then?

Twins only have $65M committed to next year, I don't think they'll just dump Morneau for the sake of getting rid of him,he's not that bad.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 15 October 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Rasputin]

If you think that being above .500 is a sure thing, you're as delusional as the 100-WIN TALENT!!!! crowd.

I rather suspect that most people would put me in the 100 win talent crowd and I'm telling you now that thinking that being above .500 is a sure thing is much less supportable than the notion that the Sox had 100 win talent coming in to the season.

Fact is, the Sox don't have a left fielder, right fielder, first baseman, or DH at the moment. That means any projection made at this point is entirely bullshit whether it's a projection of 65 wins or 95 wins.

That said, it needs to be remembered that the bar for being a competitive team is not that high, especially for a team with the resources the Sox have.

Point being, if you're writing off any hope of competitiveness in the next couple seasons, you're making a mistake.

That GFIN attitude got the club into this mess. Doubling down is as stupid as the Crawford contract.

The Red Sox can make the post season, even win the World Series without any ridiculous long term contracts. All it requires is filling in left, right, and first with competent players, re-signing Ortiz, and getting good years from Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lester, and Buchholz. It's not guaranteed, of course, but neither is it all that much of a stretch.

[gammoseditor]

Why the hell do we want this guy then?

Twins only have $65M committed to next year, I don't think they'll just dump Morneau for the sake of getting rid of him,he's not that bad.

I think that's a good question. But if we were to go after him it would be because the 1B market is awful right now. That doesn't mean we give up a good home grown SP for him. I'd rather they go after Michael Morse or Ike Davis. But the important thing is to explore all options and not overpay for anyone. I'd strongly consider bringing Youkilis back before giving up anything of value for Morneau.

[Paul M]

A lot depends on if they move Ellsbury. Morneau + Holland + $5 million for Ellsbury and Doubront. Sign a short-term CF option.

Expecting 4 players of varying levels of age to all have good years AND to get lucky with health in other places AND to sign 3-4 starting players (1 SP, 3 bats, and a RP) is a stretch. Plus, who plays shortstop? Who's the closer?

[PandaSox]

Why the hell do we want this guy then?

Twins only have $65M committed to next year, I don't think they'll just dump Morneau for the sake of getting rid of him,he's not that bad.

The Twins are notoriously cheap and have made it clear that they intend to reduce payroll for next year. As mentioned up-thread, they have a clear successor to Morneau already rising through their minor league system (Parmelee), and are on the hunt for "affordable" starting pitching. Trading Morales (who is likely to be left on the "outside" of the projected 2013 rotation, particularly if the Sox sign a veteran free agent), clears roster space and gives the Twins something that they've said they're publicly looking for (not a free agent, but a respectable, albeit in a SSS, young, effective starting pitcher). The alternative, as pointed out in the MLBTR post I posted upthread, is someone like Joe Saunders or Joe Blanton. Not particularly inspiring.

As for Morneau, prior to his concussion in July 2010, he was one of the most valuable players in baseball, posting the following WAR figures (all from Fangraphs):

2006: 4.0
2007: 2.3
2008: 3.5
2009: 3.6
2010: 5.1

He was below-replacement in 2011 as he recovered from the concussion, but recovered nicely this year.

To be fair, at this stage in his career, Morneau is likely a platoon player (2012: .902 OPS vs RHP / .569 OPS vs LHP). But that .902 OPS vs RHP is a tremendous performance, and he did it in a much tougher hitting environment than Fenway. Partnered with a lefty-mashing platoon partner (Jerry Sands? Mauro Gomez?) he could do a lot of damage in Fenway.

Since he is only 31, it is possible that he continues to recover from the nasty concussion and post good numbers. This is likely his last chance at a "big" free-agent contract, so it could be a similar situation to Beltre's "pillow" contract.

[dynomite]

Twins only have $65M committed to next year,

... before filling any of their gaping holes as a small market franchise. They just lost 3/5 of their starting rotation to free agency (4/5 if they decline Baker's $9M option), and have additional holes to fill all over the field.

Why the hell do we want this guy then?

The Twins want to dump Morneau -- a solid hitter and fielder who's only 32 -- because:

1) They can't afford him
2) Their top prospect also plays 1B

The Red Sox want Morneau because:

1) They can afford him
2) They have no internal 1B options

(Note that the Twins can, in a literal sense, "afford" Morneau, but with FA looming I don't think he makes sense for them for 2013)

[Rasputin]

No it doesn't require a GFIN attitude, but thinking 80-85 wins are already in the bag, even assuming they bring back Papi and Ross, would require a ton of optimism. The current roster, with Papi and Ross, managed 69 wins while having Adrian Gonzalez in the lineup for 2/3 of the season. Granted, they'll get Middlebrooks back for sure, and could return Papi and Ross, but I'm not sure that's enough to guarantee an additional 11-16 wins... especially when you factor in the loss of Gonzalez.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable betting on that.

Why is it that people forget that the Sox didn't even try to field a major league team for two months?

This team was 53-51 at the end of July. Middlebrooks last played on Aug 10 and David Ortiz only played one game after July 16.

The guys who were playing were, for the most part, not major league players. Pedro Ciriaco played 73 games in the second half for christ sakes. They sent out Dice K with his 8+ ERA and Aaron Cook with his utter suckage.

The 69 win total is completely irrelevant. The players who led to that win total mostly aren't going to be on the team and the ones who are on the team won't be in the same roles.

Also, need I remind you, the Sox underperformed their pythag by five games.

Getting from where the Sox are to a team that can be expected to win 80-85 games is not terribly hard, and the difference between that team and the 89-93 win team that is a serious playoff contender is only a matter of better performance from Ellsbury and Lester.

[strek1]

A red hot Ellsbury is pretty damn valuable.

And, might I add, it's entirely possible that the Sox will be in a position to make the post season, an outcome which is highly dependent on Ellsbury being red hot.

He can be great, up until the time he gets a hang nail and goes on the DL for 3 months. I'm down for moving him for a decent arm.