Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Red Sox agree to 1-year deal for Stephen Drew


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
210 replies to this topic

#1 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:10 AM

Per Heyman (money has yet to be confirmed)

Edited by MHead81, 17 December 2012 - 07:15 AM.


#2 sachilles


  • Rudy-in-training


  • 630 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:18 AM

9.5 m per Heyman.

#3 shepard50

  • 4327 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

Presumably this means Iglesias works his hitting in Pawtucket.

#4 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:20 AM

1-year, $9.5M per Heyman

#5 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1256 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:25 AM

If true, I'm not sure how I feel about this. At least with Iglesias we can put on our prospect blinders and imagine what he will develop into. With Drew, we already know what he is, and it's not that great. According to WAR, on both Fangraphs and BaseballReference he was replacement level last season. A 1 year stopgap isn't so bad, and he does hit righties a lot better than lefties, so maybe a platoon with Ciraco would be effective...

Still, I wanted to see what Iggy could do,

Edited by BosRedSox5, 17 December 2012 - 07:25 AM.


#6 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1256 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:38 AM


With a little help from the Globe, here's the list of guys who've started for the Red Sox at SS since 2003:


2004
Pokey Reese 56
Orlando Cabrera 58
Nomar Garciaparra 37
Cesar Crespo 7
Ricky Gutierrez 3
Mark Bellhorn 1


2005
Edgar Renteria 150
Ramon Vazquez 6
Alex Cora 5
Mark Bellhorn 1


2006
Alex Gonzalez 110
Alex Cora 47
Dustin Pedroia 5


2007
Julio Lugo 139
Alex Cora 22
Royce Clayton 1


2008

Julio Lugo 79
Jed Lowrie 45
Alex Cora 38


2009
Nick Green 74
Alex Gonzalez 43
Julio Lugo 27
Jed Lowrie 18


2010
Marco Scutaro 131

Jed Lowrie 21

Yamaico Navarro 6

Bill Hall 3

Angel Sanchez 1


2011
Marco Scutaro 102

Jed Lowrie 47

Mike Aviles 6

Drew Sutton 4

Yamaico Navarro 2

Jose Iglesias 1


2012

Mike Aviles 123
Jose Iglesias 23
Pedro Ciriaco 11
Nick Punto 5


#7 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4813 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:38 AM

Love this. Absolutely love it. Not necessarily love for Drew, but love for the fact that they're not handing the starting SS job over to a guy who hasn't proven able to OPS over .600 in over 700 PA at AAA, let alone at the big league level. I don't care how good his glove is when he's a total shitshow at the plate.

Drew is coming off an injury shortened season, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in WAR type numbers for him in 2012. He steadily improved as the season progressed and he got further from the ankle injury. On a one year deal, this is a fine stopgap/bridge to, hopefully, Bogaerts in 2014.

#8 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:39 AM

According to WAR, on both Fangraphs and BaseballReference he was replacement level last season.


It's always best to judge a player's season using WAR when he was injured and missed 83 games.

#9 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 5063 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:45 AM

His BA/OBP had risen at Pawtucket from .235/.285 in 2011 to .266/.318 last season (and IIRC was hitting well at the time of the call-up).

If he can make another .030 jump, it'll get interesting. Bring him up and "eat" the Drew money? Move Bogaerts to RF? No small if, granted. But I'd love to see it. He wasn't gonna improve at the plate facing David Price and the like.

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 17 December 2012 - 07:51 AM.


#10 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 7983 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:01 AM

I'll leave for others whether this is an overpay, underpay or just right pay. I'm simply delighted that the Sox are not going into the season with a guy who has yet to demonstrate that he has the promise of being able to hit major league pitching. This offense doesn't strike me as deep and relentless enough to hide a guy who very well could hit below .200. Indeed, not many offenses could do that.

And if Jose starts to show in Pawtucket that he is or might be ready at the plate and forces the issue a bit, so much the better.

That some the JD Drew Haters may get their panties in a bunch over this is just the cherry on top of the sundae.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 17 December 2012 - 08:02 AM.


#11 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4813 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

That some the JD Drew Haters may get their panties in a bunch over this is just the cherry on top of the sundae.


Hear hear. I first heard the report on D&C...they were apoplectic with "Drew" hate for this deal. Made me smile.

#12 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7551 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:07 AM

His BA/OBP had risen at Pawtucket from .235/.285 in 2011 to .266/.318 last season (and IIRC was hitting well at the time of the call-up).

If he can make another .030 jump, it'll get interesting. Bring him up and "eat" the Drew money? Move Bogaerts to RF? No small if, granted. But I'd love to see it. He wasn't gonna improve at the plate facing David Price and the like.


Having too many guys who can both field the SS position and hit a baseball competently is like #14,283 on the list of things the FO has to worry about.

Essentially adds $8 million to the price tag for Farrell, although it's not my money. He'll do, I guess.

#13 In my lifetime

  • 364 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:15 AM

I like Ben's approach. Knowing there are shortstops in the system who are just not quite ready, he signs a very viable 1 year solution. He has put together a playoff competitive team, while
1. Staying under the luxury tax number
2. Not giving up any prospects
3. Not giving up any draft picks
4. Not handicapping the team regarding future signings
5. Allowing enough money to come off the books in 2-3 years, to allow larger signings when the free agent pool should be of higher quality

In other words --- RS are not willing to throw away 2013, but they also will not sacrifice 2014 -2017 just to add one or two big names at a high cost (players and/or long term $)

#14 mfried

  • 951 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:23 AM

Having too many guys who can both field the SS position and hit a baseball competently is like #14,283 on the list of things the FO has to worry about.

Essentially adds $8 million to the price tag for Farrell, although it's not my money. He'll do, I guess.


Farrell + Drew > Aviles, even if Drew = Aviles

#15 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 5063 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:35 AM

Having too many guys who can both field the SS position and hit a baseball competently is like #14,283 on the list of things the FO has to worry about.


Agree it's not something to worry about, such as Drew's money, etc. But answering the "Can Jose Hit?" question one way or the other is like #1 on the braintrust's mind. It affects everything, from possibly having MLB's best defensive SS to where to play the top prospect in their system and subsequently how that affects their approach to re-signing Ellsbury or not, where to play JBJ and any other OF domino decisions made via trades or free agency.

#16 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6808 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

The Beltre make good deal.....a weapon in the Boras playbook. A slight overpay but for one year who cares, with our financial flexibility.

Being LH adds some nice balance also.

#17 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1032 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:42 AM

I like this move, and it's putting them much closer to the luxury tax threshold for 2013. The problem is, I think it's reasonable to say that they're still a 4th place team despite a $160 million payroll.

I think offensively they're looking at the 2003 model with a solid player at every position and hope that they can turn the lineup over. The only deal that doesn't make sense in that context is Victorino over Swisher. I hope that they're correct in thinking that Victorino was playing hurt last year and he can return to a .350+ OBP guy.

#18 DanoooME


  • SoSH Member


  • 6111 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:44 AM

There's generally no such thing as a bad 1-year deal. I think he'll be the best hitting SS they've had since Nomar. I'm worried about the glove. He's pretty solid in the field in terms of not making physical errors. But has his range been completely destroyed by that broken ankle/torn ligaments from 2011? His UZR/150 went from 3.1, 10.0, 8.7 from 2009-11 to -10.7 last year. Is that a slow healing type of injury and it just takes time to come all the way back? Or will he have lost a step permanently?

#19 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 7983 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:48 AM

I like Ben's approach. Knowing there are shortstops in the system who are just not quite ready, he signs a very viable 1 year solution. He has put together a playoff competitive team, while
1. Staying under the luxury tax number
2. Not giving up any prospects
3. Not giving up any draft picks
4. Not handicapping the team regarding future signings
5. Allowing enough money to come off the books in 2-3 years, to allow larger signings when the free agent pool should be of higher quality

In other words --- RS are not willing to throw away 2013, but they also will not sacrifice 2014 -2017 just to add one or two big names at a high cost (players and/or long term $)

I don't disagree with your basic theme but I'm not so sure about the bolded point.

Ben has added a manager with a pitching coach pedigree, a pitching coach, one starting pitcher and one reliever, and re-inserted John Lackey into the equation. The Sox biggest problem in my book since September 2011 has been pitching, and it's not at all clear to me that those moves are sufficient to to address that.

#20 someoneanywhere

  • 3116 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

It's not an overpay. You pay more because it's a one year deal, and because you didn't guarantee Drew the starting job. Those things are tangible evn if they are not performance, and in the world of pro ball they cost money to acquire.

Really, Ben is one year too long on Victrola. He's one year too long on Napoli. But honestly, he's done an outstanding job. I will agree that he's built an Appeasement Team. I define that as a squad good enough to compete but perhaps not to contend, although we'll see what it looks like in July; it's a team the fans will like even if they're not winning at .580 or .590 clip. But I think he almost had to buy those kinds of players, such was the disgust with last year's crew.

#21 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11924 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

It's a one-year deal for a 30-year old shortstop who plays fringe-average defense and hit 278/352/458 as recently as 2010. Unless you're extremely bullish on Iglesias, what's not to like?

Agree it's not something to worry about, such as Drew's money, etc. But answering the "Can Jose Hit?" question one way or the other is like #1 on the braintrust's mind. It affects everything, from possibly having MLB's best defensive SS to where to play the top prospect in their system and subsequently how that affects their approach to re-signing Ellsbury or not, where to play JBJ and any other OF domino decisions made via trades or free agency.


Considering his age and level, and factoring in service time considerations, it's unlikely that Xander Bogaerts will arrive permanently in Boston before June 2014. Therefore, the Drew signing shouldn't block Iglesias -- it will just require him to demonstrate some competence at the dish in AAA before throwing him into the deep end.

I suppose I'd share your concern if I thought Iglesias's future dictated whether the club will re-sign Ellsbury, but I don't see the relationship you do between those questions.

Really, Ben is one year too long on Victrola. He's one year too long on Napoli. But honestly, he's done an outstanding job. I will agree that he's built an Appeasement Team. I define that as a squad good enough to compete but perhaps not to contend, although we'll see what it looks like in July; it's a team the fans will like even if they're not winning at .580 or .590 clip. But I think he almost had to buy those kinds of players, such was the disgust with last year's crew.


There's been a lot of talk about the tendency this winter to sign "dirt dogs." Most of the discussion has implied this is a p.dev. strategy, but I think the bolded part hits the nail on the head -- it's marketing. Indeed, the main argument I used to convince my wife to re-up for season tickets is that the 2013 Red Sox would be more fun to root for, even if they wouldn't be contenders.

Edited by maufman, 17 December 2012 - 08:59 AM.


#22 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27855 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:58 AM

Puzzling. Aviles level production for 3X the cost. Short term deal is fine, but that's the best thing you can say about all these deals, that the player won't be around long. Team talks about building from within and then blocks its most big league ready prospects. Team has spent a lot of money and has little in the way of potential impact players to show. It's an indictment of a system that can't develop or identify this type of talent, do they have to acquire a heap of 10-13M players in an attempt to get to average.

#23 Div School Sox Fan

  • 1571 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:03 AM

No one with a 624 OPS in the International League is major league ready. Iglesias still has tons to learn at the minor league level - he sucks at hitting AAA pitching. He needs to get good at that.

The Sox had a run of poor drafts / poor international signing periods, and then they traded away the cream of the system for Adrian Gonzalez. We knew a year or two ago that it'd be some time before good players started emerging from the minors, and the Sox top prospects will be ready 2014ish. (The Rubby acquisition gives us one legitimate prospect who should be ready this year. And the unexpected Middlebrooks breakout gave us a young talent at the major league level last year.)

#24 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27855 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:07 AM

I don't disagree that Iglesias can't hit (I doubt he ever will, but he will require hundreds of at bats at the big league level to find out), so why dump Aviles, who is cheaper, more versatile, and better defensively than Drew? Assuming there were other ways to get Farrell.

#25 Div School Sox Fan

  • 1571 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:10 AM

I assume it's because Mike Aviles is terrible. He was barely above replacement level with the bat last year. His defense rated extremely well in most pbp metrics, but I'm pretty skeptical he was actually any better than average. If Aviles isn't a significant plus defender, he's basically 32-year-old flotsam.

Drew, on the other hand, had a four-year run as an above average shortstop before his ankle injury, and he's two years younger.

#26 lexrageorge

  • 2996 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:12 AM

Puzzling. Aviles level production for 3X the cost. Short term deal is fine, but that's the best thing you can say about all these deals, that the player won't be around long. Team talks about building from within and then blocks its most big league ready prospects. Team has spent a lot of money and has little in the way of potential impact players to show. It's an indictment of a system that can't develop or identify this type of talent, do they have to acquire a heap of 10-13M players in an attempt to get to average.


That's a bizarre interpretation on several fronts.

First, Mike Aviles will never exceed an 0.700 OPS again. Last season showed his 0.340 OBP in a short sample in 2011 was the classic short sample fluke.

Stephen Drew is only a couple of seasons removed from putting up 0.750-0.800 level OPS production. He's healthy, 2 years younger than Aviles, and has a chance to play for a bigger payday down the road.

He blocks noone. Iglesias has yet to show he's their "most big league ready prospect". Even if he spent some time at BALCO this offseason and suddenly started mashing the ball in Pawtucket, they can always call him up and make Drew their utility infielder.

It's a stopgap, but sometimes a stopgap is what's needed.

#27 bombdiggz

  • 986 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:19 AM

Puzzling. Aviles level production for 3X the cost. Short term deal is fine, but that's the best thing you can say about all these deals, that the player won't be around long. Team talks about building from within and then blocks its most big league ready prospects. Team has spent a lot of money and has little in the way of potential impact players to show. It's an indictment of a system that can't develop or identify this type of talent, do they have to acquire a heap of 10-13M players in an attempt to get to average.


You just don't pick up impact players for short years and dollars. Who are they blocking that is big league ready?

The plan is shockingly clear. It is to supplement the proven core with good but not great players to create a competitive team. I'm not arguing that it has been sexy, but these team has gotten much better. I'm sorry you aren't on board with that plan, but every move continues to reinforce it. They are not blocking players at all, they are doing exactly the opposite, bringing in players that can be moved easily.

Did you really want to see Iglesias start 100+ games this year. Really?

#28 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27855 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:24 AM

Stephen Drew hit 223 / 309 / 348 last year. His slugging has gone from 458 to 396 to 348 in the past three years. His fielding metrics are all trending in the wrong direction. Sorry if I'm just not excited about this acquisition.

(Then again, he's only 29, and was great a few years ago. So maybe they'll get lightning in a bottle.)

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 17 December 2012 - 09:37 AM.


#29 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15210 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:38 AM

Aviles was also one of the worst baserunners I've seen in Boston, and that is saying something. Guy would get lost running a 40 yard dash.

Adequacy against RHP is pretty key here. Ben just upgraded a major weak spot position-wise and team-wise after adding three guys who struggle against righties. They needed to make this move. I don't think there is such a thing as a one year overpay..

As for developing shortstops, it's difficult for most teams. It's why Jeter will be playing ss in a wheelchair, and why Arizona traded a #3 pick for an okay prospect after already dealing for Cliff Pennington. It's also why Ben has been adding shortstops like crazy recently.

#30 curly2

  • 2670 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

Considering his age and level, and factoring in service time considerations, it's unlikely that Xander Bogaerts will arrive permanently in Boston before June 2014. Therefore, the Drew signing shouldn't block Iglesias -- it will just require him to demonstrate some competence at the dish in AAA before throwing him into the deep end.


The way Bogaerts has progressed, if he can show any discipline in the upper minors this year, I think he could have a cup of coffee in Boston in September and be ready to open the 2014 season in Boston. Since the talk changed in 2012 from "Bogaerts will never stick at short" to "Bogaerts might stick at short" it could end any chance of Iglesias ever being a starter.

Regardless if where is plays, if Bogaerts IS ready to open the season in 2014, I hope the Sox don't delay his arrival for service time reasons. They're not the Royals or Pirates.

The Drew signing isn't bad, and it's good to know Iglesias is a quick drive up I-95 if Drew gets hurt. Ben just needs to make sure he allows himself enough room in the payroll to add a salary at the trade deadline if the Sox are in contention.

Really, Ben is one year too long on Victrola.


He probably figures he'll get cranked up again in Boston.

#31 Joe D Reid

  • 2592 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

I don't disagree that Iglesias can't hit (I doubt he ever will, but he will require hundreds of at bats at the big league level to find out), so why dump Aviles, who is cheaper, more versatile, and better defensively than Drew? Assuming there were other ways to get Farrell.

Because even if Aviles and Drew are roughly equivalent offensively, platoon splits make Drew considerably more valuable to this particular Sox team than Aviles would be. Aviles (like Victorino and Napoli and seemingly about half the team) can only hit LHP. Drew hits RHP. Acquiring a reasonable bat at SS against RHP fills two holes at once, and doing that without blocking anybody in the minors long-term hits the trifecta.

#32 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 37116 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

His BA/OBP had risen at Pawtucket from .235/.285 in 2011 to .266/.318 last season (and IIRC was hitting well at the time of the call-up).

If he can make another .030 jump, it'll get interesting.


Bear in mind that while Iglesias' AAA hit total improved from 84 to 94 (in 4 fewer ABs), his bunt singles went from 7 to 12. A good thing? Well, they represent about 14 points of his BA jump and 13 of his OBP increase, or a little less than half of each. If that makes you feel better about his hitting, fine.

Projectible for improved success against big league pitching and fielding? Not at all. They tell us nothing about his quality of contact. In fact, his line drive % fell from 18.1% to 13.1%. However I was somewhat encouraged by his reduction in strikeouts from 15% to 11.6%, while his walk right improved slightly (5.4% to 6.8%).

#33 sfip


  • directly related to Marilyn Monroe


  • 7358 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:47 AM

I don't expect him to hit well against LHP but FWIW he hit .272/.359/.427 against RHP after getting traded to Oakland.

#34 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5155 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:47 AM

Stephen Drew hit 223 / 309 / 348 last year. His slugging has gone from 458 to 396 to 348 in the past three years. His fielding metrics are all trending in the wrong direction. Sorry if I'm just not excited about this acquisition.

(Then again, he's only 29, and was great a few years ago. So maybe they'll get lightning in a bottle.)

Look at his monthly splits from last season, as he came back from injury. He slugged .421 in Sept/Oct.

#35 Rovin Romine

  • 2853 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

Nice! A one year deal is great - and he's highly motivated to turn in a good year.

I am not worried about a log jam, as no prospect is a sure thing. Having Drew gives us the option of not burning Iggys remaining option if we don't have to - i.e., keep Iggy in AAA for 2013, then use the option as a safety net in 2014.

However, if there *were* a logjam, can anyone opine on how Drew works as a pinch hitter, off-SS fielder, or pinch runner?

#36 Toe Nash

  • 2934 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

Stephen Drew hit 223 / 309 / 348 last year. His slugging has gone from 458 to 396 to 348 in the past three years. His fielding metrics are all trending in the wrong direction. Sorry if I'm just not excited about this acquisition.

(Then again, he's only 29, and was great a few years ago. So maybe they'll get lightning in a bottle.)

He was hurt with a badly broken ankle. Presumably the FO believes he has recovered. He got better as the season went on and had a .750 OPS in September.

#37 JMDurron

  • 4249 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:54 AM

The funny thing about the team roster construction strategy for this offseason is that it seems designed to be logical, while making neither type of extreme fan happy. The "I want STARS! I want them NOW!" types are not satisfied by short-term (relatively speaking) deals to middle tier players like Napoli and Victorino, while the Prospect Fanboys can be angry that guys like Iglesias and Kalish are losing playing time to those same middle tier, proven MLB players. The roster is being patched to be functional, but exciting for absolutely nobody. It makes sense, but I'd hate to have to try to market this team.

#38 Dewy4PrezII


  • Very Intense


  • 2673 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

I like this move. Iglesias is clearly not ready with the stick, this is a low risk move since it is just for one year and it fills a need without blocking anyone. If Iglesias shows an ability to hit or X knocks the cover off the ball and forces his way to fenway they will have no problem moving or releasing Drew or putting him on the bench. One year "prove yourself" deals for established ML players coming off injuries or down years are low risk, hi reward and perfect for a transition year like 2013 for the Red Sox.

#39 Plympton91


  • loves a good bowl haircut


  • 5900 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:01 AM

Love it! Exactly the stopgap they needed, especially with the signs of life last fall in Oakland. Iglesias belonged in AAA, and as someone else noted, you can spot Ciriaco (if he wins the utility infield job) against lefthanders to keep Drew's ankle sound and maximize the platoon differential.

#40 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16408 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:05 AM

I wouldn't necessarily be a huge fan in a vacuum but given the other moves that have been made this is solid. One of the problems of adding a bunch of pretty good not great players is that you can't easily absorb gigantic gaping suck holes in the lineup, so relying on Iglesias in 2013 would have been a mistake and counter to the idea of adding Napoli and Victorino.

#41 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4813 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:10 AM

Nice! A one year deal is great - and he's highly motivated to turn in a good year.

I am not worried about a log jam, as no prospect is a sure thing. Having Drew gives us the option of not burning Iggys remaining option if we don't have to - i.e., keep Iggy in AAA for 2013, then use the option as a safety net in 2014.

However, if there *were* a logjam, can anyone opine on how Drew works as a pinch hitter, off-SS fielder, or pinch runner?


You have that backwards. They use an option if they put Iglesias in AAA. The only way to not burn it is to keep him in the big leagues all year.

#42 Buck Showalter


  • SoSH Member


  • 5002 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

That some the JD Drew Haters may get their panties in a bunch over this is just the cherry on top of the sundae.


FWIW - I hated the JD Drew signing but love this one.

This is a good move in an off-season that has seen a couple of duds.

#43 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7204 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:29 AM

You have that backwards. They use an option if they put Iglesias in AAA. The only way to not burn it is to keep him in the big leagues all year.


And that would leave a bench of:

catcher
Ciriaco
Iglesias
outfielder.

If they keep Saltalamacchia, then they use an option on Lavarnway.

#44 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11178 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:30 AM

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that Drew is a good plate discipline guy, especially for a shortstop. Drew's career walk rate is 8.6% and it was over 11% last year. And his P/PA has steadily improved in recent years--his past three years it's been 3.95, 4.01, 4.20.

Ben continues to build a team of grinders. I like it.

#45 Drek717

  • 1923 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

Excellent deal. The money won't take us over the luxury tax so it's pretty near irrelevant. Buys Iglesias one more season in AAA where he can just focus on his bat, meanwhile if Drew bounces back to even .750 OPS numbers he's likely a hot commodity a the deadline. Hell, if his defense is solid and he puts up a .750 OPS he might well be worth a qualifying offer next winter to recoup a couple extra picks.

He's a real good stop gap/lottery ticket purchase that requires nothing but money we already had readily available.

#46 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16408 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

They shouldn't care about Iglesias's option, frankly. He needs to be swinging the bat, not sitting on the bench, so I hope he is in Pawtucket. Holding back his development a year just to maintain control over him is counterproductive to the team and to the player, and probably isn't going to make him a better player next year.

#47 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4967 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:38 AM

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that Drew is a good plate discipline guy, especially for a shortstop. Drew's career walk rate is 8.6% and it was over 11% last year. And his P/PA has steadily improved in recent years--his past three years it's been 3.95, 4.01, 4.20.

Ben continues to build a team of grinders. I like it.


I'm 5 minutes too late to post this. You pay more for a shorter term deal. If Drew rebounds he's a solid B+/A- level shortstop. This also gives Iggy another year to work on his bat. I really like this deal.

#48 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 13493 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:39 AM

Did you really want to see Iglesias start 100+ games this year. Really?


I did - in Pawtucket. I pushed for Iglesias last offseason and his 2012 showed that was a bad idea.

Drew plus Ciriaco in Boston for one season makes sense. Iglesias either shows vast improvement at the plate in Pawtucket or the organizational focus shifts to Bogaerts (21) or Marrero (23) in 2013. Iglesias' defense is excellent and maybe enough to equal Brendan Ryan (~2 wins, per Jonah Keri) and Didi Gregorious or Cliff Pennington but if his bat is ever going to develop, he needs to start 150 games this season and that's going to be easier in Pawtucket than in Boston.

I'm unsure if new PawSox hitting coach Dave Joppie overlapped with Iglesias' tenure or not but Gerald Perry is gone (as is Arnie Beyeler, who had shepherded Iglesias through multiple years).

I am sure that if the Red Sox try to play Iglesias everyday and let him hit like Brendan Ryan did last year that it'll become a media shitstorm that will hurt the player's confidence.

#49 Rovin Romine

  • 2853 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

You have that backwards. They use an option if they put Iglesias in AAA. The only way to not burn it is to keep him in the big leagues all year.


Damn. Thanks for the correction.

#50 Joshv02

  • 1396 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:01 AM

I don't disagree that Iglesias can't hit (I doubt he ever will, but he will require hundreds of at bats at the big league level to find out), so why dump Aviles, who is cheaper, more versatile, and better defensively than Drew? Assuming there were other ways to get Farrell.

Even if you assume that Aviles and Drew are the same (they aren't), and you assume that there is a $5mm difference in cost between the two, you are arguing against the Red Sox paying $5mm to get Ferrell.

I don't see the point. If you trade a replaceable player for something, then you replace him, who cares?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users