Bradley: Deal with It.

[Plympton91]

I see this suggested over and over again. I get that it's awesome defensively because it's got three centerfielders, but it's likely to be weak offensively, because it's got three centerfielders.
 
And fourth OF generally play in 100 games or more. If JBJ or Castillo ends up in that role, he'll get plenty of playing time. No one has to be traded.

Yeah, I agree with this. If JBJ is going to hit to his 2015 MiLB equivalent and Betts improves that might work, but Castillo seems like he'll be a weak corner. His projections were for a good hitter for centerfield with above average centerfield defense. That's a valuable package. But, I don't want a .270 / .310 / .420 guy as the guaranteed starter in a corner outfield slot.

Castillo seems to me like his greatest value is as a starting CF for someone. In Boston, he's third on the depth chart currently, and they have Margot as longer term depth there. If Rusnay can continue to play well down the stretch, he may build real value over the 5-$50 he's still owed and be a good trade chip, especially because they could use to reallocate that $10 million toward pitching.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

At this moment In time, Margot is looking more and more like a platoon partner for JBJ in RF, or a PR/5th OF option.

Benintendi seems to be the real "heir apparent" if one needed to be appointed when the starter's only 22 and still has 5 years of club control guaranteed.

That being said, moving Castillo (especially if a trade partner for one of Hanley or Sandoval can't be found), in order to free up money for pitching seems a very sound decision.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

I see this suggested over and over again. I get that it's awesome defensively because it's got three centerfielders, but it's likely to be weak offensively, because it's got three centerfielders.
 
And fourth OF generally play in 100 games or more. If JBJ or Castillo ends up in that role, he'll get plenty of playing time. No one has to be traded.

Is that so bad? When framed that way, it seems it. But thats focusing on one "con" when listing pros and cons.

This was the 2013 outfield:

OUTFIELDERS (6): Quintin Berry, Mike Carp, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonny Gomes, Daniel Nava, Shane Victorino.

Jonny Gomes led that group with 13 Home Runs. Shane Victorino led that group with 15 Home Runs.

Maybe the focus should just be on getting value out of all positions, regardless of how it is obtained.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Is that so bad? When framed that way, it seems it. But thats focusing on one "con" when listing pros and cons.

This was the 2013 outfield:

OUTFIELDERS (6): Quintin Berry, Mike Carp, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonny Gomes, Daniel Nava, Shane Victorino.

Jonny Gomes led that group with 13 Home Runs.

Maybe the focus should just be on getting value out of all positions, regardless of how it is obtained.

I agree.  And Gomes, Nava, Carp et al to my memory didn't make a habit of stealing runs defensively the way Bradley does.  An occasional noteworthy catch, but not a habit.  Ellsbury and Victorino did, but the others weren't making web gems.
 
There are at least some reasons why this kind of an alignment may not be such a bad thing:

• We are in a relatively down time offensively (which is why Hanley was considered an outlier - too bad he isn't working on his defensive shortcomings).  If we had a Trout we would all be thrilled - but again, he is a bit of an outlier himself.  But an outfield that steals runs on a regular basis as opposed to generating their own runs offensively isn't a bad strategy in the absence of strong two way performers.
• We don't have high end pitching - it seems as though the staff has been chosen either for contact or while acknowledging they aren't strikeout pitchers.  Given that, an emphasis on defense has to have a psychological value for the pitchers.  If I'm a pitcher I have to live in fear of any ball hit Hanley's way - conversely I'm begging the ball to be hit to Bradley.  An outfield of 3 centerfielders may have a larger impact than just the hard numbers on the page - but I acknowledge this is the wrong place to be valuing intangibles.
• This could be a cheap outfield for some time.  This money savings (if spent well, lol) could be utilized to cover current deficits in the pitching staff.
• Free agent attraction: if you are a higher end free agent pitcher would you sacrifice a bit of offense to know that you have an outfield that is going to keep your ERA lower?  That could be a powerful attraction for a pitcher.  Everyone knows a run not given up is a run that doesn't have to be scored.
• Road/home differences defensively are minimized - travelling to a larger park won't expose the defense in any way.  I remember a game or two with Carp playing in a large outfield and remember thinking that he was going to run a long long time trying to get to a ball hit by him.

I'm not saying zero offense is desirable - but I think there is a lot of positives to a 3 centerfield outfield alignment.  If Hanley were to successfully move to either first/third and Panda is in the other position, we could have an offensively mashing infield with plus offense at every position.  Ortiz being Ortiz gives an advantage at DH.  Swihart seems to be a potential plus offensively at catcher, or w/ Vazquez at a super premium defensively that sounds like a solid collection of position players.
 
</Removes rose colored glasses>

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The real value in JBJ becoming a passable offensive player is it then allows us the ability to include Betts in a blockbuster for a Sonny Gray-type pitcher maybe not this winter but possibly the following. If JBJ does figure it out at the plate he needs to play CF to maximize his defensive value which of course is his greatest asset.

 

[RetractableRoof]

The real value in JBJ becoming a passable offensive player is it then allows us the ability to include Betts in a blockbuster for a Sonny Gray-type pitcher maybe not this winter but possibly the following. If JBJ does figure it out at the plate he needs to play CF to maximize his defensive value which of course is his greatest asset.

I get that, but I believe we would live to regret that in a very Bagwellian way - and for just as long.  

 

[nothumb]

Is that so bad? When framed that way, it seems it. But thats focusing on one "con" when listing pros and cons.

This was the 2013 outfield:

OUTFIELDERS (6): Quintin Berry, Mike Carp, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jonny Gomes, Daniel Nava, Shane Victorino.

Jonny Gomes led that group with 13 Home Runs.

Maybe the focus should just be on getting value out of all positions, regardless of how it is obtained.

 
Yep. This is my take as well. Rusney putting up a .730 OPS with fairly good defense may seem a little "light" for a corner OF, but it still projects to be more valuable that running Hanley out there every day. If those three can all perform reasonably well, you can grab a couple high-SLG platoon types for the 4th and 5th spots without worrying about a backup CF. That's a luxury.
 
In a perfect world Hanley can become a passable 1B who you also stick in LF occasionally, the Sox add a LHB platoon OF who mashes RHP, and we have some real flexibility at the end of the bench. We also don't have to sink a bunch of money or prospects into position players this offseason and can focus on improving the pitching staff. Hanley to 1B is just such a fit from a cost and roster construction perspective that you have to aggressively try it as soon as he's healthy enough.
 
It it doesn't work out (and there's a real chance it doesn't - I don't think anyone is advocating against having a Plan B) then I agree that Rusney may be the most sensible piece to move for pitching. But given his contract he may also have a lower return. It's impossible to say what happens on the trade market or what interest exists, but suffice to say I don't think moving Betts or JBJ over Rusney or Hanley is likely to produce the outcome we want. Especially given my lack of trust in our ML talent evaluation in assigning value to any trade until someone gives me a reason to think otherwise.

 

[WenZink]

The real value in JBJ becoming a passable offensive player is it then allows us the ability to include Betts in a blockbuster for a Sonny Gray-type pitcher maybe not this winter but possibly the following. If JBJ does figure it out at the plate he needs to play CF to maximize his defensive value which of course is his greatest asset.

 
It's very painful to accept trading Mookie to both the fans and to the front office, but it's going to take something that bold to turn the team around for 2016.
 
Castillo's trade value is limited, since he's already guaranteed $60 million over the next 5 years, and I doubt that his perceived value has increased since he signed with the Sox last summer.  And only the Sox can be in position to evaluate JBJ's ability to hit MLB pitching over the next 6 weeks - has he finally figured it out.
 
If the Sox are adamant that they don't want to give long-term money to 30+ free agent pitchers, what other options do they have to get a top young pitcher?  I don't think you can get a Sonny Gray with a package of prospects still playing A/AA ball.

 

[finnVT]

I see this suggested over and over again. I get that it's awesome defensively because it's got three centerfielders, but it's likely to be weak offensively, because it's got three centerfielders.
 
And fourth OF generally play in 100 games or more. If JBJ or Castillo ends up in that role, he'll get plenty of playing time. No one has to be traded.

This was certainly true when you had guys that could hit like manny ramirez floating around.  In that case, the reasoning was that the difference between a great fielder and poor fielder in LF/RF wasn't as big as the difference between a great bat and a poor bat, because those positions are relatively easy to not screw up.  With offensive output down, I'm not sure that's as true.
 
To compare, 10 seasons ago (2005), the top corner outfielder produced ~40-50 runs above average (e.g., Bay, Ramirez, Cabrera, Dunn, Giles, Vlad), while the bottom regulars were right around 0, or a bit below.  By contrast, defensive runs above average (by UZR) ranged from a handful of guys in the +8-12 range to the bottom end -20 to -30.  So, the range from top to bottom in offense was ~50 runs, whereas top to bottom in fielding was maybe 35.  That means you'd be better off with a hypothetical best hitter/worst fielder (*cough* manny *cough*) than the opposite (pedro feliz).
 
Last season, the top end of the offensive spectrum was ~40, instead of 50, and only 5 guys were >30, with the bottom end still at or just below 0.  The defensive range hasn't changed much, though.  So while the best hitter/worst fielder might still be better than the reverse, the gap is now only about 5 runs, instead of 15 a decade ago.
 
This is a pretty qualitative take on it, but the point is basically since the top end of hitters has come down, the gap between good & bad hitter is smaller than it used to be.  In fact, it's almost, but not quite, as small as the gap between good & bad fielder.  The place were you can really find value now is getting some of both, i.e., a top end fielder that's middle of the pack as a hitter, or vice versa.  I think that's the hope for Bradley/Castillo.

 

[radsoxfan]

Bradley currently with a .743 OPS. Amazing how quickly things can change when you don't have many ABs 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I get that, but I believe we would live to regret that in a very Bagwellian way - and for just as long.  

You're equating Larry Andersen with someone like Sonny Gray? I'm certainly not saying give Betts away and I don't know how much I trust a late season surge by JBJ at the plate if this is what occurs. I'm only saying that this is precisely what the Red Sox need to extract the most value out of our players and Mookie is a player capable of headlining a deal to bring back a Gray.

 

[Rasputin]

The real value in JBJ becoming a passable offensive player is it then allows us the ability to include Betts in a blockbuster for a Sonny Gray-type pitcher maybe not this winter but possibly the following. If JBJ does figure it out at the plate he needs to play CF to maximize his defensive value which of course is his greatest asset.

 
No, this is madness. Trading Betts doesn't become a good idea just because Bradley can hit decently. Trading Bradley, sure. Trading Betts, not remotely.
 
There is no such thing as "A Sonny Gray type." There's Sonny Gray and people who are either a) not as good, b) older, or c) haven't proved themselves in the bigs yet.
 
 

 
It's very painful to accept trading Mookie to both the fans and to the front office, but it's going to take something that bold to turn the team around for 2016.

 
I don't think that's remotely true in at least two ways. I think it would be very hard to trade Betts and get closer to the World Series and I don't think making a huge trade is the only, or even the best way to get back to the World Series.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

No, this is madness. Trading Betts doesn't become a good idea just because Bradley can hit decently. Trading Bradley, sure. Trading Betts, not remotely.
 
There is no such thing as "A Sonny Gray type." There's Sonny Gray and people who are either a) not as good, b) older, or c) haven't proved themselves in the bigs yet.

Well you certainly could argue that Chris Sale and Matt Harvey, to name two, are "Sonny Gray types."

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Well you certainly could argue that Chris Sale and Matt Harvey, to name two, are "Sonny Gray types."

And another half dozen who are a tick below and would be our #1. If JBJ can hit a reasonable amount the gap then narrows between him and Betts......whereas the gap is ginormous between "a Gray type" and our #5 starter who would be the guy getting bumped out of the rotation.

 

[Rasputin]

Okay, maybe I was a bit overenthusiastic about Sonny Gray's uniqueness, but a) do you really see these guys getting traded, and b) the difference between Betts and Bradley is pretty big, too.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Betts is our CF for the next several years. His defense is good and still improving, his skillset as a table-setter is also invaluable to this team. The total package of speed/defense/contact/patience/power is probably as rare, if not more than a front-line pitcher.
 
He's a star, and cheap. He's the kind of guy you build around, not trade. 
 
The Sox have plenty of money to spend on a #1 type guy in a pitching rich FA market.

 

[Rasputin]

Betts is our CF for the next several years. His defense is good and still improving, his skillset as a table-setter is also invaluable to this team. The total package of speed/defense/contact/patience/power is probably as rare, if not more than a front-line pitcher.
 
He's a star, and cheap. He's the kind of guy you build around, not trade. 
 
The Sox have plenty of money to spend on a #1 type guy in a pitching rich FA market.

 
I don't think him playing CF is a given. If the recent offensive surge by Bradley is for real, Betts is going to have to find another position.

 

[The Boomer]

The real value in JBJ becoming a passable offensive player is it then allows us the ability to include Betts in a blockbuster for a Sonny Gray-type pitcher maybe not this winter but possibly the following. If JBJ does figure it out at the plate he needs to play CF to maximize his defensive value which of course is his greatest asset.
 
RetractableRoof:
 
I get that, but I believe we would live to regret that in a very Bagwellian way - and for just as long.  

 
It's heresy but they probably need to seriously think about moving Pedroia.  The organization's greatest depth is at 2B with Betts probably more valuable there than in the OF ahead of Moncada's obvious upside.  Benintendi bolsters the OF depth.  Devers should stick as a corner IF.  Bogaerts will stay until free agency.  Patience has helped them develop Swihart, Castillo and possibly now Bradley.  They need to show similar patience with their 3 rookie starting pitchers.  Giving chances to this many youngsters could free up money to find their ace in free agency (despite its expense) if necessary.  Pursuing trades for the next Gray is smarter than actually acquiring Gray in terms of cost.
 
Pitchers are so much more uncertain than position players.  Miller for Rodriguez was the right idea.  They need to attempt another another Pedro style trade.  The can't make Bagwellian moves.  It's better to find more pitching depth going after a Heaney type pitching prospect before they are proven.  The Tigers did this when they stole Scherzer before anyone knew he was good.  The acquisition cost wasn't anything like sacrificing a Betts or a Bagwell.  This is probably the goal for Dipoto as a consultant.  Find the next big pitching thing without compromising your future core of players.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Okay, maybe I was a bit overenthusiastic about Sonny Gray's uniqueness, but a) do you really see these guys getting traded, and b) the difference between Betts and Bradley is pretty big, too.

I don't want to trade Betts for anyone. But I do think that there is the potential for one of these young pitchers getting traded, and it's obviously going to take a special package. Personally, I think it's going to be Swihart and Margot.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
I don't think him playing CF is a given. If the recent offensive surge by Bradley is for real, Betts is going to have to find another position.

 
IF the recent offensive surge from Bradley is real, I don't see why he can't play in a corner OF spot.
 
I'd honestly like to see Betts get more reps at 2B to back up Pedroia, and trade Holt while he still has value. 

 

[smastroyin]

If JBJ and Castillo both hit well enough to force the issue, I actually don't think it is prudent to keep all three of these players.
 
For all the talk of Fenway's RF, and I don't necessarily disagree, CF is still a marquee position compared to the corners.  Point being, these guys all have more value as a CF than as corner OF, and everyone in the league should recognize that.  Not that I trust the Red Sox ability to trade for major league players, but Betts has been good enough that moving him or JBJ to a corner probably means you aren't getting as much value out of the player as you would like.  And if you trade well, then you can get someone else's piece that they aren't getting value out of.  That said, you may also find that Betts, while a good CF, is a great corner OF and you make up some of the value that way.
 
Now, in my defense of David Ortiz I mention often that positional adjustment only has so much practical value because you have to fill out a lineup card.  And the Sox don't have a lot of replacement ideas for the OF and therefore it may be harder to execute this plan if they do intend to remove Hanley from the OF.  But, since I don't think Hanley is really going to move out of LF, the Red Sox will almost be forced to make some kind of trade in order to optimize the product on the field.  Again, though, this only makes sense if they can find a trade partner, which frankly I don't trust them to do right now, so this discussion is entirely theoretical.

 

[WenZink]

Betts is our CF for the next several years. His defense is good and still improving, his skillset as a table-setter is also invaluable to this team. The total package of speed/defense/contact/patience/power is probably as rare, if not more than a front-line pitcher.
 
He's a star, and cheap. He's the kind of guy you build around, not trade. 
 
The Sox have plenty of money to spend on a #1 type guy in a pitching rich FA market.

 
In your opinion the Sox may have plenty of money to sign a #1 FA pitcher, but it would run counter to their explicitly stated philosophy, not to mention that a long term deal with an AAV > $24 mil might put them over the cap and into the 50% CBT a couple years down the road.  I just don't see it happening.
 
Betts may become a star, and he is cheap.  Sonny Gray is already a star and he only has 1 more year of MLB service time than Betts.
 
If Cherington survives the off-season, he probably has one more year to show that the franchise is turning around.  If the Sox have another sub-.500 season in 2016, (counting on unproven kids like Owens, Johnson and Barnes to turn things around) then he's probably out.  If he's able to swap Betts (plus prospect) for Gray, and Gray helps lead the Sox to an above .500 season, Ben can survive, and hope that the prospects in the lower minors can fill the void left by Mookie.
 
Barring going into the FA market, what else do the Sox have to trade to bring in an impact starting pitcher?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If JBJ and Castillo both hit well enough to force the issue, I actually don't think it is prudent to keep all three of these players.
 
For all the talk of Fenway's RF, and I don't necessarily disagree, CF is still a marquee position compared to the corners.  Point being, these guys all have more value as a CF than as corner OF, and everyone in the league should recognize that.  Not that I trust the Red Sox ability to trade for major league players, but Betts has been good enough that moving him or JBJ to a corner probably means you aren't getting as much value out of the player as you would like.  And if you trade well, then you can get someone else's piece that they aren't getting value out of.  That said, you may also find that Betts, while a good CF, is a great corner OF and you make up some of the value that way.
 
Now, in my defense of David Ortiz I mention often that positional adjustment only has so much practical value because you have to fill out a lineup card.  And the Sox don't have a lot of replacement ideas for the OF and therefore it may be harder to execute this plan if they do intend to remove Hanley from the OF.  But, since I don't think Hanley is really going to move out of LF, the Red Sox will almost be forced to make some kind of trade in order to optimize the product on the field.  Again, though, this only makes sense if they can find a trade partner, which frankly I don't trust them to do right now, so this discussion is entirely theoretical.

If nothing else, Mookie could play some first (and second after Pedroia's inevitable injury).

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 

Barring going into the FA market, what else do the Sox have to trade to bring in an impact starting pitcher?

Multiple prospects from a top ranked farm system, including seven or so top 100s, which is also about to add a top 5 pick plus have one of the accordingly larger draft pools in the league. There's plenty of ammo without moving Betts.

 

[Rasputin]

Barring going into the FA market, what else do the Sox have to trade to bring in an impact starting pitcher?

 
I'm not advocating doing so, but in addition to Betts, and, of course, Eduardo Rodriguez, you're looking at Swihart, Owens, Johnson, Moncada, Devers, Margot, Benintendi, Espinoza, Guerra, Chavis, Kopech.
 
I mean, really, the system was just rated the best in baseball. If a team is in a position to trade a good young pitcher, we've got the kind of prospects they're going to want.

 

[Byrdbrain]

The BABIP gods are with Jackie lately, he obviously has been hitting the ball well but several of his hits over the last few days could have been outs.
 
Really what else do the Sox have to trade? They have the consensus #1 farm system in baseball, yes not much help for next year but there is plenty to trade if they go that way.
 
Edit:I see I wasn't the only person to think that statement was lunacy.

 

[soxhop411]

Looks like the sox fixed his swing
“@ScottLauber: AL scout on difference in Jackie Bradley Jr.‘s swing this season: ”Shorter, more direct, level. All the proper stuff. None of the bad stuff“”

 

[WenZink]

 
I'm not advocating doing so, but in addition to Betts, and, of course, Eduardo Rodriguez, you're looking at Swihart, Owens, Johnson, Moncada, Devers, Margot, Benintendi, Espinoza, Guerra, Chavis, Kopech.
 
I mean, really, the system was just rated the best in baseball. If a team is in a position to trade a good young pitcher, we've got the kind of prospects they're going to want.

 
Beane is unique, and maybe he goes for a big package of "maybes", but, in Gray, we are talking about the league leader in ERA, and a 25 year old pitcher that's thrown 400+ innings in the least two years.  I don't think the kids in the low minors get it done, and the prospects at MLB level or close to it, aren't appealing enough (or worse, you may be selling well below peak value.)

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
In your opinion the Sox may have plenty of money to sign a #1 FA pitcher, but it would run counter to their explicitly stated philosophy, not to mention that a long term deal with an AAV > $24 mil might put them over the cap and into the 50% CBT a couple years down the road.  I just don't see it happening.
 
Betts may become a star, and he is cheap.  Sonny Gray is already a star and he only has 1 more year of MLB service time than Betts.
 
If Cherington survives the off-season, he probably has one more year to show that the franchise is turning around.  If the Sox have another sub-.500 season in 2016, (counting on unproven kids like Owens, Johnson and Barnes to turn things around) then he's probably out.  If he's able to swap Betts (plus prospect) for Gray, and Gray helps lead the Sox to an above .500 season, Ben can survive, and hope that the prospects in the lower minors can fill the void left by Mookie.
 
Barring going into the FA market, what else do the Sox have to trade to bring in an impact starting pitcher?

 
Given the fungible nature of SP health and performance I think it would be a huge risk to ship a position player of Betts' caliber. If the trade backfired it would be a crippling blow to this organization, ranking among the worst trades in recent Sox history. I'm willing to admit I could be in the minority with this opinion. 

 

[Byrdbrain]

"Barring going into the FA market, what else do the Sox have to trade to bring in an impact starting pitcher?"
 
You didn't say what else do the Sox have to trade for Gray so why should others assume that is what you meant? If your position is Gray or bust then very likely it will be bust, if they are looking to trade for a pitcher they have to be open to other deals.

 

[tbrown_01923]

Looks like the sox fixed his swing
“@ScottLauber: AL scout on difference in Jackie Bradley Jr.‘s swing this season: ”Shorter, more direct, level. All the proper stuff. None of the bad stuff“”

 
Can someone post this on his locker.  I am pulling for him  - and this is who he needs to be.  Emphasize the happits that lead to success for him.  

 

[ishmael]

Bradley currently with a .743 OPS. Amazing how quickly things can change when you don't have many ABs 

Make that .789

 

[Rasputin]

They have the consensus #1 farm system in baseball, yes not much help for next year but there is plenty to trade if they do that way.

 
This whole notion that there's not much to help for next year really needs to die a horrible death. 
 
Owens, Johnson, and Wright should all be considered guys at AAA with Owens and Wright just getting a little major league audition. Unless Johnson's elbow tightness is more than just elbow tightness, all three are probably going to be AAA depth going into 2016 and will probably get used at the major league level in 2016. 
 
On the offensive side, the same is true of JBJ. He was at AAA pretty much all year, is getting a late season audition, and is probably going to be used as depth--if not more--in 2016.
 
If you've given up on Barnes, Aro, Noe Ramirez and the like, you've done so prematurely.
 
Sure, none of these guys are likely to be studs, but the guys we had in the high minors who are studs are already in the bigs in Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, and Eduardo Rodriguez. Swihart in particular is up ahead of his time.

 

[Byrdbrain]

I essentially agree with you, what I should have said was not much more than we've seen. The guys who could impact the team are on the team or the DL, they aren't on the PawSox.
 
One minor quibble is I've pretty much given up on Aro and Noe, I have some hope left for Barnes but I was hoping he would have shown more by now(as I'm sure we all did).
 
Holy hell Bradley is on fire.
 
Edit:I wasn't really paying attention and didn't notice Bradley hit that homerun off a catcher, but the point stands.

 

[rlsb]

Wow 7 RBI

 

[Drek717]

 
Beane is unique, and maybe he goes for a big package of "maybes", but, in Gray, we are talking about the league leader in ERA, and a 25 year old pitcher that's thrown 400+ innings in the least two years.  I don't think the kids in the low minors get it done, and the prospects at MLB level or close to it, aren't appealing enough (or worse, you may be selling well below peak value.)

So Manuel Margot then?  20, just got moved to AA a few months ago, doesn't strike out, projects as an elite defensive CF himself.
 
Margot + one of Johnson/Owens/EdRod + Brock Holt is a pretty compelling offer really.  Sogard can't hit and is into his arb. years, they'd get a young starter who lets them effectively reset the service clock, and Margot is the prospect prize.  They aren't in desperate need of a CF right now, Billy Burns has a >.700 OPS and adds value as a real base stealing threat (82% clip so far this year with 23 SBs).  If they're getting a CF as part of the package I'd imagine maximum control plus upside would be their focus.  
 
In classic Beane fashion he would want to parlay one piece into potential solutions to multiple holes.  One of the good young starters plus Holt does just that, filling the rotation spot Gray would vacate while putting a potentially real strong answer into the 2B hole and getting a real nice CF prospect when that is where their farm is most empty (Burns was their 18th prospect by MLB.com and the highest ranked OF in the group).
 
Meanwhile, the Sox can then call Marrero up as the MI, since Marrero's AAA season hasn't done his trade value any favors, he's getting a little old, and he's got one hell of a glove.  Maybe he Brock Holts it and puts together enough hot streaks at the ML level to force his way into more playing time, maybe he doesn't.  If he sucks it's a lot easier to trade for a MI at the deadline than a SP.
 
Maybe they need to sort out some filler pieces, but really, that's a pretty idea swap for both teams if Oakland feels like they need to move Gray, which I'm not quite sure why they would as sure, he'll be a super 2 but it isn't like he's suddenly going to get a $15M arb award or something.  They could keep him for another year or two before it gets cost prohibitive.

 

[nothumb]

If JBJ and Castillo both hit well enough to force the issue, I actually don't think it is prudent to keep all three of these players.
 
For all the talk of Fenway's RF, and I don't necessarily disagree, CF is still a marquee position compared to the corners.  Point being, these guys all have more value as a CF than as corner OF, and everyone in the league should recognize that.  Not that I trust the Red Sox ability to trade for major league players, but Betts has been good enough that moving him or JBJ to a corner probably means you aren't getting as much value out of the player as you would like.  And if you trade well, then you can get someone else's piece that they aren't getting value out of.  That said, you may also find that Betts, while a good CF, is a great corner OF and you make up some of the value that way.
 
Now, in my defense of David Ortiz I mention often that positional adjustment only has so much practical value because you have to fill out a lineup card.  And the Sox don't have a lot of replacement ideas for the OF and therefore it may be harder to execute this plan if they do intend to remove Hanley from the OF.  But, since I don't think Hanley is really going to move out of LF, the Red Sox will almost be forced to make some kind of trade in order to optimize the product on the field.  Again, though, this only makes sense if they can find a trade partner, which frankly I don't trust them to do right now, so this discussion is entirely theoretical.

 
on the last paragraph: if you're right that they need to keep hanley in LF rather than 1B for his own sake / value, it's probably still just for one more year. it doesn't make sense to move a really good cost-controlled asset like betts or bradley to "optimize" for one year unless you are getting a great return. and there's a very real, non-theoretical possibility - hell, practically a likelihood - that hanley is less valuable in LF than castillo or betts next year. in which case you'd be optimizing the positional fit of your overall roster but actually making your OF worse. and, in regards to the lack of trust in making a major, high-value trade: i would go one step further and say that they should be disinclined to make a trade involving high-end ML talent on either side because of that lack of confidence.
 
on the flip side, moving hanley to 1B does not require us to make any major moves involving position player talent - it's an internal move that affects money already committed.

 

[nvalvo]

14 total bases today.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Multiple prospects from a top ranked farm system, including seven or so top 100s, which is also about to add a top 5 pick plus have one of the accordingly larger draft pools in the league. There's plenty of ammo without moving Betts.

 
They actually have 7 on two different top 50 lists. It wouldn't surprise me if they have 9 or 10 top 100 players on multiple lists.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
IF the recent offensive surge from Bradley is real, I don't see why he can't play in a corner OF spot.
 
I'd honestly like to see Betts get more reps at 2B to back up Pedroia, and trade Holt while he still has value. 

 
He's the best defensive CF in the organization.  Arguably the best in the league.  If the offense is real and he's going to be a starter, he should be the starting CF.  Maybe you slide him to RF in Fenway, but in most parks, he's best utilized in center.

 

[Rasputin]

So Manuel Margot then?  20, just got moved to AA a few months ago, doesn't strike out, projects as an elite defensive CF himself.
 
Margot + one of Johnson/Owens/EdRod + Brock Holt is a pretty compelling offer really.  

 
I'm not trading Eduardo Rodriguez and a package of Margot, Johnson, and Holt isn't remotely compelling for Sonny Gray.
 
A package of Margot, Johnson, Owens, and Guerra might be compelling, but I tend to doubt it.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
He's the best defensive CF in the organization.  Arguably the best in the league.  If the offense is real and he's going to be a starter, he should be the starting CF.  Maybe you slide him to RF in Fenway, but in most parks, he's best utilized in center.

 
I'm not arguing that JBJ isn't a superior defender in CF. My issue is that Mookie doesn't really have the arm for a corner OF spot.
 
If they put Mookie to RF and he takes a defensive hit, it might some of the value that JBJ has in CF over Betts. Whereas the opposite scenario might provide the team with better net defense. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
I'm not arguing that JBJ isn't a superior defender in CF. My issue is that Mookie doesn't really have the arm for a corner OF spot.
 
If they put Mookie to RF and he takes a defensive hit, it might some of the value that JBJ has in CF over Betts. Whereas the opposite scenario might provide the team with better net defense. 

Mookie has the arm for LF.  

 

[The Boomer]

 
Beane is unique, and maybe he goes for a big package of "maybes", but, in Gray, we are talking about the league leader in ERA, and a 25 year old pitcher that's thrown 400+ innings in the least two years.  I don't think the kids in the low minors get it done, and the prospects at MLB level or close to it, aren't appealing enough (or worse, you may be selling well below peak value.)

 
A little devil's advocacy.  Pitching more than 200 innings in a season before age 25 correlates highly with future arm problems.  Steadily increasing innings up to that age before allowing a 200 IP season is sounder development.  Pitches thrown probably matter more than innings but there are probably more examples of hurlers who burned out too quickly with a heavy workload than there are of those who didn't.  Frank Tannana, Steve Avery and many others broke hearts after such promising beginnings.  Sonny Gray is on track to do this twice at barely age 25 (though he is out with a back injury at the moment):
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grayso01.shtml
 
The Mets with their surplus of young pitching might make some sense although Harvey and Wheeler have already suffered arm injuries.  DeGrom or Matz (coming back from an oblique but not an arm injury) have better mileage.  Syndergaard would be safe too but all 5 of the young Mets studs are probably untouchable. Lower on their depth chart Marcos Molina had an arm injury this year.  A Dodgers pitcher like Urias is likewise untouchable. 
 
What you look for is a young pitcher who needs a change of scenery.  Scherzer started slowly with the Diamondbacks and became available to the Tigers.  Heaney struggled during his first big league attempt with the Marlins.  Rodriguez was struggling in the minors when the Red Sox stole him from the Orioles.
 
My candidate for a pitcher to target, shares a last name with Sonny but will be a steal for any team who ignores the tough pitching environments in the PCL and Colorado that distorted his pitching stats:
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gray--001jon
 
I think he could be acquired for a trade centerpiece of less than Mookie Betts.  Considering ballpark effects, he looks to be like Bagwell in reverse whose value was recognized by the Astros though he played in cavernous New Britain back then.  The Sox guessed historically wrong when they kept the immortal Scott Cooper when they acquired Larry Anderson.  This is where scouts are supposed to shine.  They hit a home run with Eduardo Rodriguez last year.  Unproven pitchers like Jon Gray (and prospects like him) should be their targets.

 

[Rasputin]

 
I'm not arguing that JBJ isn't a superior defender in CF. My issue is that Mookie doesn't really have the arm for a corner OF spot.
 
If they put Mookie to RF and he takes a defensive hit, it might some of the value that JBJ has in CF over Betts. Whereas the opposite scenario might provide the team with better net defense. 

 
 

Mookie has the arm for LF.  

 
Seriously. The fact that Fenway can do something to hide a sub par fielder doesn't mean it won't benefit from a good fielder. It won't benefit as much as center or right, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure everyone remembers the concept of deep depth and if Betts is the every day left fielder, he's also the de facto back up for any long term injury to the center or right fielder.

 

[shaggydog2000]

 
What are you talking about?  He has an .840 OPS!!!  
 
And he's our best hitter when the opposing team has their back up catcher on the mound.  

 
He just went from an 80 wrc+ to 126 in one day. Absurd. He's still no Travis Shaw though (134 wrc+ after his o-fer today). You have to love small sample sizes.

 

[chrisfont9]

Jeezus Jackie, way to step on the throat.
 
[Edit] Adding, if any one thing has gone right this year, it may be not dumping JBJ for pennies on the dollar, when the entire Globe staff was suggesting it. Obviously this story isn't written yet, but if he were hitting bombs in Oakland this week (or wherever) I think I would have torn out the rest of my hair. 

 

[The Boomer]

I don't think anybody yet mentioned that this was the line for the Mariners's ace today:
 
Seattle Mariners PITCHERS IP H    R ER BB SO HR ERA
Felix Hernandez (L,14-7)    2.1 12 10 10   1     2  3   3.65
 
The Sox youngsters, JBJ in particular, started to do their damage against a bona fide major leaguer.

 

[RetractableRoof]

 
He just went from an 80 wrc+ to 126 in one day. Absurd. He's still no Travis Shaw though (134 wrc+ after his o-fer today). You have to love small sample sizes.

Which is no different than him having only 10 games in Boston this year and people projecting him as DOA.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I don't think anybody yet mentioned that this was the line for the Mariners's ace today:
 
Seattle Mariners PITCHERS IP H    R ER BB SO HR ERA
Felix Hernandez (L,14-7)    2.1 12 10 10   1     2  3   3.65
 
The Sox youngsters, JBJ in particular, started to do their damage against a bona fide major leaguer.

Even Pedro had bad days.