Bradley: Deal with It.

[bradmahn]

I'm beginning to like the idea of a five man outfield next year of Ramirez, Betts, Bradley Jr., Castillo, and a lhb, perhaps re-signing de Azar for two years. There would be enough plus defense to sub HR out late in games and there would be enough depth to guard against regression or further snags in development for Mookie, Bradley Jr., and Castillo. Holt remains as the sixth OF but is primarily the backup IF.

For an outlay of approximately $45m, you could have one of the better outfields in the game. With questions remaining about nearly all of these players and the possibility one could be selling low, I think this would be the sound way to allow their values to grow and field something competitive in the process.

 

[grimshaw]

 
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.

There is absolutely no chance the Rockies trade Gray.  He is exactly what that organization is desperate for and what they need to keep trading for.  Free agents will not sign there, so they have to get them through trade or draft them.

 

[WenZink]

 
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.

 
JBJ is the probable AL player of the week.  In his 5 games from Sunday through today, he's gone 13/23(.591), 11 R, 13 RBI, 4 2B, 2 3B, 3 HR,  Not to mention great defense in each of the 3 OF positions.  So whatever happens going forward, he'll always have this week.
 
Edit: Player of the week, where the "week" runs from Monday - Sunday.  So Jackie loses last Sunday and  a 2/3 (HR/3B/BB).So he still has some work to do tomorrow.  No problem.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

 
JBJ is the probable AL player of the week.  In his 5 games from Sunday through today, he's gone 13/22(.591), 11 R, 13 RBI, 4 2B, 2 3B, 3 HR,  Not to mention great defense in each of the 3 OF positions.  So whatever happens going forward, he'll always have this week.

Wow. What a crazy week.

 

[WenZink]

There is absolutely no chance the Rockies trade Gray.  He is exactly what that organization is desperate for and what they need to keep trading for.  Free agents will not sign there, so they have to get them through trade or draft them.

 
Every situation is unique, so you may be right about the Rockies.  But it seems in the last year, top "blue-chip" prospects have been moved for rentals.  Toronto moved Norris (top 20 consensus) to rent 2 months of David Price.  Last winter, the Dodgers traded Andrew Heaney (top 30 consensus) to rent the last year of Howie Kendricks.  And just over a year ago, Beane moved Addison Russell (top 5 consensus) for Hammels and Samardzija.
 
And, yes, all 3 of those trades involved some short-run incentive for contending teams, (which does not apply to the Rockies, per your point) but it seems that there has been some recent devaluation of prospects.

 

[soxhop411]

“@ScottLauber: Key to JBJ’s huge week? According to asst hitting coach Victor Rodriguez, it may be elimination of slight leg kick that slowed his swing”

 

[joyofsox]

Before his last at-bat, I found that, according to Baseball Reference's super-wonderful Play Index, Bradley was the first Red Sox player to have a game with at least 3 doubles, 4 runs, and 5 RBI. (Then he hit his second HR of the day, boosting his totals even higher!)
 
Bradley finished the afternoon with 14 total bases. Only three Red Sox have had more in a game: Fred Lynn (16, June 18, 1975), John Valentin (15, June 2, 1995), and Dustin Pedroia (15, June 24, 2010).

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

“@ScottLauber: Key to JBJ’s huge week? According to asst hitting coach Victor Rodriguez, it may be elimination of slight leg kick that slowed his swing”

Please God, let this miracle be a truly somewhat sustainable improvement.

The last week has been fun as hell, reminding me of a certain other RF with easy plus-plus defense, who was battered around by the fans and the press, but who could still carry a playoff team on his bat for a week or more.

Man on Fire, indeed.

 

[TimScribble]

@Shesta_Sox: Jackie Bradley Jr set Red Sox record with 5 XBH today

At 25 years 118 days old, became youngest major leaguer ever with 5 XBH

@EliasSports

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

If JBJ keeps hitting well like this he might win a Gold Glove.

 

[soxhop411]

@mikeaxisa: Oh wow, JBJs was only the eighth 5 XBH game in history. I would have guessed something like that happened once every 2-3 years.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
JBJ is the probable AL player of the week.  In his 5 games from Sunday through today, he's gone 13/23(.591), 11 R, 13 RBI, 4 2B, 2 3B, 3 HR,  Not to mention great defense in each of the 3 OF positions.  So whatever happens going forward, he'll always have this week.
 
Edit: correction/nm

 
Wow. Those counting numbers would look OK for a month.
 

“@ScottLauber: Key to JBJ’s huge week? According to asst hitting coach Victor Rodriguez, it may be elimination of slight leg kick that slowed his swing”

 
Is it too soon to tell Victor Rodriguez that he'll never have to buy a drink in this town again?

 

[Fishy1]

“@ScottLauber: Key to JBJ’s huge week? According to asst hitting coach Victor Rodriguez, it may be elimination of slight leg kick that slowed his swing”

 
I'm not sure what a "slight leg kick" is, but from a quick look at the video, it appears like he's just lifting up the leg and putting it down now. No more of the dreaded toe tap, which he was featuring in the minors even when he was hot this year.
 
Anyways, that was the coolest thing I've watched all fucking year. We absolutely should pay attention to small sample size caveats, but this isn't just a week of hot hitting. It's gotta be the best week anybody on the team has had all year, when you factor in the defense. It's encouraging, and a sign of life that's been downright Frankensteinian in its spectacle.
 
The ball to left and the ball to center would've been caught by better fielders, but he drove the ball with authority 4 times and has been terrifying pitchers all week. The K rate is still high, but not unsustainably so, especially since he's offsetting it by getting on base at a very good clip. Most encouraging of all is that he's been turning around fastballs (he seems to have finally gotten his timing down) and is laying off stuff in the dirt that might otherwise have ended at bats for him in the past (although he's still susceptible, as evidenced by the strikeout today).
 
Overall, very encouraging. It's a career day, and he'll almost certainly never have another one like it, but maybe he has some comparable weeks in his future.

 

[nothumb]

I'm beginning to like the idea of a five man outfield next year of Ramirez, Betts, Bradley Jr., Castillo, and a lhb, perhaps re-signing de Azar for two years. There would be enough plus defense to sub HR out late in games and there would be enough depth to guard against regression or further snags in development for Mookie, Bradley Jr., and Castillo. Holt remains as the sixth OF but is primarily the backup IF.

For an outlay of approximately $45m, you could have one of the better outfields in the game. With questions remaining about nearly all of these players and the possibility one could be selling low, I think this would be the sound way to allow their values to grow and field something competitive in the process.

 
After being pretty terrible in BAL, De Aza is on track to bounce back to a nearly 2 WAR season (even in limited playing time), with a 110 RC+ and decent OF defense. If they had extended him a week after they pulled him off waivers, they might have been able to get him for 5th OF money. Not now. Someone will sign him to be the strong side of a starting platoon, if not a full-time player.
 
And just talking about their value in the aggregate obscures a lot. There's still a good chance Hanley is the worst of the top 4 OF and is constantly hurt again, while you still have to either find a 1B, or roll with Travis Shaw. Whereas if you try Hanley successfully at 1B, you still have a very good OF, but now you also have a decent starter at 1B instead of a 20M bench player.

 

[The Boomer]

 
Every situation is unique, so you may be right about the Rockies.  But it seems in the last year, top "blue-chip" prospects have been moved for rentals.  Toronto moved Norris (top 20 consensus) to rent 2 months of David Price.  Last winter, the Dodgers traded Andrew Heaney (top 30 consensus) to rent the last year of Howie Kendricks.  And just over a year ago, Beane moved Addison Russell (top 5 consensus) for Hammels and Samardzija.
 
And, yes, all 3 of those trades involved some short-run incentive for contending teams, (which does not apply to the Rockies, per your point) but it seems that there has been some recent devaluation of prospects.

 
The Rockies are perpetually rebuilding.  This was accelerated by finally trading away Tulo.  The Sox have horded their prospects and could offer a nice package for a potential future ace who will have more difficulty fulfilling his potential in Colorado than almost anywhere else.  A package of Margot, Owens, Shaw and Marerro could make it easier for Benintendi, Kopech, Travis and Guerra to move up faster in the system.  None of the prospects on this list are untouchable except for Benintendi.  At his point, virtually anybody  still in the minors except Devers, Moncada and Benintendi could be sacrificed for a top young pitcher like Gray with ace potential.

 

[Super Nomario]

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

Sure, but I would argue there are many here who seem to be focused on the pros - maximizing the defense, getting everyday jobs for Bradley and Castillo - and ignoring the 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.

FWIW, he didn't - Victorino did, with 15 in just 122 games. The Sox got 38 HR out of their corner OF, which isn't too shabby. Point taken, however, that guys like Victorino and Nava were very valuable despite not being conventional corner OF bats. If we can get the kind of production from the 2016 OF that we got from the Ellsbury / Victorino / Nava / Gomes group, I think anyone will take that. I don't think that's impossible with Betts / Bradley / Castillo /4th OF X, but I certainly would want a pretty good backup plan if that's my group.
 

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

I agree, but I guess I feel like that's not what I'm seeing in the "Hanley to 1B / Betts-Brady-Castillo OF" solution. It feels more like trying to clean up some messy roster items rather than actually building the best team.

 

[The Boomer]

An indication that the pitch count for Jon Gray was better managed than for Sonny:
 
http://blogs.denverpost.com/rockies/2015/08/15/jon-gray-remains-on-strict-pitch-count-rockies-walt-weiss-says/20744/
 
This also suggests they are carefully protecting him as their keeper.  

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Mookie has the arm for LF.  

 
And he'd be able to play 3B at the same time (particularly since Sandoval likes to play between home and 3rd). 
 
Betts in LF would be able to see if the batter flossed before the game.

 

[WenZink]

 
The Rockies are perpetually rebuilding.  This was accelerated by finally trading away Tulo.  The Sox have horded their prospects and could offer a nice package for a potential future ace who will have more difficulty fulfilling his potential in Colorado than almost anywhere else.  A package of Margot, Owens, Shaw and Marerro could make it easier for Benintendi, Kopech, Travis and Guerra to move up faster in the system.  None of the prospects on this list are untouchable except for Benintendi.  At his point, virtually anybody  still in the minors except Devers, Moncada and Benintendi could be sacrificed for a top young pitcher like Gray with ace potential.

 
I'm not sure that Jon Gray is a "potential future ace."  He's just a good young pitching prospect that's made two good starts in the majors.  In the recent MLB, midseason top 50, Gray has just about the same rank as Brian Johnson, and just a few spots above Henry Owens.  Now Owens doesn't sound like a good fit for Coors Field, since he really seems to end up throwing high in the zone.  But I don't think any of us believe Owens or Johnson to be potential aces.  (I haven't seen Jon Gray pitch, btw.)
 
Owens(if he wasn't such a bad fit for Coors) and Margot might get it done, but I don't think the Sox would be solving any problems for 2016,so they probably wouldn't make that deal.  (Marrero and Shaw would just be throw ins, btw.)

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I agree, but I guess I feel like that's not what I'm seeing in the "Hanley to 1B / Betts-Brady-Castillo OF" solution. It feels more like trying to clean up some messy roster items rather than actually building the best team.

 
"Clean up some messy roster items" is just a more pejorative-sounding way of saying "make the best of what you've got." How would you go about building the best team, starting from where the Sox actually are?

 

[phrenile]

@mikeaxisa: Oh wow, JBJs was only the eighth 5 XBH game in history. I would have guessed something like that happened once every 2-3 years.

The last* guy to hit two home runs and three doubles in a game was... Kelly Shoppach.



* More recently, Hamilton hit one double and four home runs but for some reason didn't stop at second.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

JBJ had the two long HR's plus 2 legit wall balls (CF and LCF) and then the one down the line that may have been technically a wall ball, but I didn't see a good replay.
 
But if he truly had 2 HR's and 3 wall balls, that is rare.  

 

[threecy]

 
I'm not sure what a "slight leg kick" is, but from a quick look at the video, it appears like he's just lifting up the leg and putting it down now. No more of the dreaded toe tap, which he was featuring in the minors even when he was hot this year.

FINALLY.  I don't understand why it took this long to address that hitch.

 

[Ale Xander]

@mikeaxisa: Oh wow, JBJs was only the eighth 5 XBH game in history. I would have guessed something like that happened once every 2-3 years.

And he was the 3rd ever with a line of 5 XBH that included 2 HR, with 7RBI, and remarkably (out of the 9 spot), 5R.
 
Other 2 were Joe Adcock and Shawn Green

 

[Wake's knuckle]

... to think that last week at some point he was batting something like .122. A hot week, and his OPS is up to 840. Amazing.

 

[nothumb]

 
I agree, but I guess I feel like that's not what I'm seeing in the "Hanley to 1B / Betts-Brady-Castillo OF" solution. It feels more like trying to clean up some messy roster items rather than actually building the best team.

 
Isn't trying Hanley at 1B a textbook example of trying to get the most value at each spot? You have three young OFs who all reasonably project to be better than Hanley (not a lock by any means, but a real argument can be made). However, if Hanley can play a mediocre 1B (which his track record as an IF suggests is at least possible) and stay a bit healthier in the process, you now have a starting caliber 1B in addition to a good OF - with no acquisition cost.
 
You can make the argument that they're better of jettisoning Hanley entirely and bringing in a different 1B. And I would be happy for them to do that, but at this point I doubt you find a taker without eating his salary or stapling a couple live arms to his suitcase. You can also make the argument that we should trade Castillo for pitching, or at least explore it, because he may well be a starting CF on many teams but he's probably our 3rd best CF. But the argument for moving Rusney has nothing to do with the presence of Hanley, and everything to do with maximizing his value and addressing a different area of need (pitching). Even if Castillo is off the roster tomorrow, Alejandra de Aza is a better LF than Hanley Ramirez, and, importantly, probably will be next year too.
 
So the argument for trying Hanley at 1B is not that he will be the best possible 1B the team can get. It's that he's probably the worst OF on our team, is very hard to move, but could end up being an average 1B. And since the team probably won't get rid of him, let's try and find something he can do that at least isn't actively making the team worse. Moving Hanley off LF is an imperative no matter what. He's not even replacement level and probably never will be in the OF, especially because he can't stay healthy out there. Of all the imperfect options out there, expecting an injury-prone 32 year old DH-in-waiting to become a better fielder, more durable, AND to bounce back with the bat all at once is the worst.

 

[MikeM]

 
"Clean up some messy roster items" is just a more pejorative-sounding way of saying "make the best of what you've got." How would you go about building the best team, starting from where the Sox actually are?

 
I obviously don't speak for him, but a lot there would ride on just how much the pitching can be expected to improve, and what surrounding options one would have on the Castillo front. I mean if i go into this winter wanting a more offensive option at a corner then what we'd already have (since i'm not sold the pitching would improve enough), and end up liking Bradley more then Castillo at face value after Hanley is moved to first, am i being given a get out of jail free card on Castillo's contract in that building process?
 
Kind of hard to make a reasonable projection on some of those details atm. Bradley upping his value as a rather interesting piece of MLB-ready trade bait is great to see regardless though. Unlike the # in itself that BA decides to rank our system as a whole, it's stuff like that which is going to turn talking about cost controlled trade possibilities into a scenario that might actually see something happen.  

 

[bradmahn]

 
After being pretty terrible in BAL, De Aza is on track to bounce back to a nearly 2 WAR season (even in limited playing time), with a 110 RC+ and decent OF defense. If they had extended him a week after they pulled him off waivers, they might have been able to get him for 5th OF money. Not now. Someone will sign him to be the strong side of a starting platoon, if not a full-time player.
 
And just talking about their value in the aggregate obscures a lot. There's still a good chance Hanley is the worst of the top 4 OF and is constantly hurt again, while you still have to either find a 1B, or roll with Travis Shaw. Whereas if you try Hanley successfully at 1B, you still have a very good OF, but now you also have a decent starter at 1B instead of a 20M bench player.

I really don't have a problem paying him as insurance, insurance that is essential when, as you point out, there are valid concerns about Ramirez's health. Factor in the possibility that Mookie/Castillo/Betts are no sure things to show improvement and you have enough justification to splurge a little. It's not a problem when Betts and Bradley Jr. make about $1.5m between them.

There are 486 games to be divvied up in the OF. Hanley's health needs to be managed if we're going to take full advantage of his bat and that, to me, means you give him maybe 30 starts at DH and 100 in the field, with as many defensive substitutions as possible in those 100. If Betts and Bradley can handle 130 apiece, that leaves 126 for Castillo and the no. 5 guy, plus substitutions.

You can adjust the number of games played and by whom, but the point remains: there are plenty of games to share amongst this group without even factoring in missed time due to injuries.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I really don't have a problem paying him as insurance, insurance that is essential when, as you point out, there are valid concerns about Ramirez's health. Factor in the possibility that Mookie/Castillo/Betts are no sure things to show improvement and you have enough justification to splurge a little. It's not a problem when Betts and Bradley Jr. make about $1.5m between them.

There are 486 games to be divvied up in the OF. Hanley's health needs to be managed if we're going to take full advantage of his bat and that, to me, means you give him maybe 30 starts at DH and 100 in the field, with as many defensive substitutions as possible in those 100. If Betts and Bradley can handle 130 apiece, that leaves 126 for Castillo and the no. 5 guy, plus substitutions.

You can adjust the number of games played and by whom, but the point remains: there are plenty of games to share amongst this group without even factoring in missed time due to injuries.

And yet, this plan somehow completely ignores ALL-STAR BROCKHOLT!

Seriously, though, there are two things the Sox pitching staff has to be begging for in this offseason: first that Hanley stops playing left field, and second that Panda loses enough weight to field his position. Fixing those two defensive liabilities would shave off a lot of runs off the team ERA.

As for JBJ, even after he comes back to earth, he's at least now shown that he belongs in the conversation for next year's plans. Other than as a throw-in for some trade that leaves us rending our garments and gnashing our teeth.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

And yet, this plan somehow completely ignores ALL-STAR BROCKHOLT!

Seriously, though, there are two things the Sox pitching staff has to be begging for in this offseason: first that Hanley stops playing left field, and second that Panda loses enough weight to field his position. Fixing those two defensive liabilities would shave off a lot of runs off the team ERA.

As for JBJ, even after he comes back to earth, he's at least now shown that he belongs in the conversation for next year's plans. Other than as a throw-in for some trade that leaves us rending our garments and gnashing our teeth.

 
While Holt has filled in admirably in the outfield when needed, there's no harm in him being the roster's primary utility infielder and defacto 6th outfielder.  While he played well enough to make the All Star team, he's slowed down considerably in the last month or so.  Two years in a row he's had a hot first half and cooled noticeably with exposure and regular playing time.  Perhaps he isn't a guy they need to find 4-5 games a week worth of playing time.  Maybe 2-3 games a week primarily filling in in the infield is what he needs to do to maximize his production.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The thing is, Shaw allows the Sox to keep a bench 1B/3B, so Holt may only be subbing for 2B/SS in this scenario, assuming no significant trades.

Which I don't think should be a given, but it's too hard to speculate what such a trade would look like.

 

[ivanvamp]

... to think that last week at some point he was batting something like .122. A hot week, and his OPS is up to 840. Amazing.

 
On the morning of August 9, his 2015 stat line was:  .121/.254/.172/.426, 6 r, 0 2b, 0 3b, 1 hr, 4 rbi
 
Over the last 5 games, he has put up this line:  .591/.609/1.364/1.972, 11 r, 4 2b, 2 3b, 3 hr, 13 rbi
 
So that makes his season stat line this:  .250/.340/.500/.840, 17 r, 4 2b, 2 3b, 4 hr, 17 rbi in 29 games.  If he played 150 games, that projects to 87 r, 21 2b, 10 3b, 21 hr, 87 rbi, .250/.340/.500/.840, 127 ops+
 
If he could ever put up those offensive numbers, while being the best defensive CF in baseball, he'd be a ridiculously great player.  I don't see those offensive numbers over a full season, but still, there's hope that he can end up being an average or maybe even an above average hitter.  Which would make his overall value phenomenal.

 

[jscola85]

Since his recall JBJ has an OPS over 1.000. Just an incredible turnaround. He obviously can't keep this up but hopefully the confidence carries on and he proves he belongs up in the majors for good.

We saw a guy even more talented in Bogaerts have a 300+ PA stretch of suckitude last year only to break out this year - perhaps we are seeing the same breakout for JBJ.

 

[RG33]

If JBJ shows any sort of continued offensive improvement through the remainder of the season, he has to go into 2016 being your top choice for CF. The guy is so good defensively.

Moving Betts to LF and having Castillo in RF gives you a pretty potent offensive/defensive OF, perhaps one of the best in MLB. I don't see how the Sox can NOT have Hanley already thinking about breaking in a 1B mitt. As others have stated, it solves two huge problems and significantly improves LF while hopefully providing replacement level 1B on defense with the potential for + offense.

The Sox are in a good position with problems like this. They need to go get some damn pitching.

 

[Montana Fan]

If JBJ shows any sort of continued offensive improvement through the remainder of the season, he has to go into 2016 being your top choice for CF. The guy is so good defensively.

Moving Betts to LF and having Castillo in RF gives you a pretty potent offensive/defensive OF, perhaps one of the best in MLB. I don't see how the Sox can NOT have Hanley already thinking about breaking in a 1B mitt. As others have stated, it solves two huge problems and significantly improves LF while hopefully providing replacement level 1B on defense with the potential for + offense.

The Sox are in a good position with problems like this. They need to go get some damn pitching.

 
 
I agree that they must be thinking about it but sextupling (sic) the number of times he handles the ball seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

[ehaz]

 
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.

I think there is no way you get Gray without at least two of Devers/Moncada/Swihart/Margot/EdRo group if you're not including Betts. And I'm OK with that.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I think there is no way you get Gray without at least two of Devers/Moncada/Swihart/Margot/EdRo group if you're not including Betts. And I'm OK with that.

They have to roll the dice on their ages and get one of Price or Cueto.

 

[Laser Show]

They have to roll the dice on their ages and get one of Price or Cueto.

I tend to agree with this. I'll fully admit I probably value prospects too much but: EdRo could yet be our own cost-controlled ace, Swihart is needed catcher depth with Vazquez less than a year from TJS, and they spent an absurd amount of money on Moncada to use him as a trade chip this early. I think Devers is a special talent, but even if you want to argue he's too far away, I think that's a good justification to wait, since his value will continue to rise as he moves up through the system.
 
I think I'm ok with dealing Margot, but that's hugely dependent on JBJ and Castillo.

 

[nothumb]

I really don't have a problem paying him as insurance, insurance that is essential when, as you point out, there are valid concerns about Ramirez's health. Factor in the possibility that Mookie/Castillo/Betts are no sure things to show improvement and you have enough justification to splurge a little. It's not a problem when Betts and Bradley Jr. make about $1.5m between them.

There are 486 games to be divvied up in the OF. Hanley's health needs to be managed if we're going to take full advantage of his bat and that, to me, means you give him maybe 30 starts at DH and 100 in the field, with as many defensive substitutions as possible in those 100. If Betts and Bradley can handle 130 apiece, that leaves 126 for Castillo and the no. 5 guy, plus substitutions.

You can adjust the number of games played and by whom, but the point remains: there are plenty of games to share amongst this group without even factoring in missed time due to injuries.

 
Just to be clear, you're talking about paying De Aza starter money to be a 5th OF so he can play behind a guy who is worse than he is?
 
De Aza 2015 OPS: .782
Ramirez 2015 OPS: .748
 
Why are we still talking about finding a way to keep Hanley's bat in the lineup at the expense of other OFs? What kind of offensive output do you expect him to bounce back with in 2016 that playing him over Betts or Castillo would be worthwhile? With no defensive improvement, he would need to put up something like .850 just to be REPLACEMENT LEVEL in left field. He could maybe do that... though his last season with an .850 OPS and 100+ games played was in 2010... but then you've got a 20M replacement level LF instead of a ~2 win LF who costs half as much... or a lot less.

 

[WenZink]

 
Just to be clear, you're talking about paying De Aza starter money to be a 5th OF so he can play behind a guy who is worse than he is?
 
De Aza 2015 OPS: .782
Ramirez 2015 OPS: .748
 
Why are we still talking about finding a way to keep Hanley's bat in the lineup at the expense of other OFs? What kind of offensive output do you expect him to bounce back with in 2016 that playing him over Betts or Castillo would be worthwhile? With no defensive improvement, he would need to put up something like .850 just to be REPLACEMENT LEVEL in left field. He could maybe do that... though his last season with an .850 OPS and 100+ games played was in 2010... but then you've got a 20M replacement level LF instead of a ~2 win LF who costs half as much... or a lot less.

 
I'd hope* for a 130 OPS+ which, in Fenway is around .840 OPS.  I'd also expect him to continue to improve on his defense in LF.  (And bear in mind the defensive metrics have always had a hard time dealing with LF in Fenway.)  The problem with having 3 outfielders that can play CF (Bradley, Betts, Castillo) is that you have a surplus that cannot be used to advantage, since you can only have one CF at any given time.  That suggests to me that one of them will be traded this off season to get pitching.  With only two of three remaining, there's room for Hanley and De Aza and Holt.
 
Edit: my hope/team expectations

 

[AB in DC]

Since his recall JBJ has an OPS over 1.000. Just an incredible turnaround. He obviously can't keep this up but hopefully the confidence carries on and he proves he belongs up in the majors for good.

We saw a guy even more talented in Bogaerts have a 300+ PA stretch of suckitude last year only to break out this year - perhaps we are seeing the same breakout for JBJ.

 
Meanwhile, that other lost cause, Castillo, has had an OPS of about .900 over the same time.
 
Perhaps the Sox OF isn't as hopeless as we thought it was.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

All the kids have been killing it since the season ended.  Shaw, Swihart, JBJ, Mookie has been very good since his return.  X has been great.  I'm adding Castillo to this group of "kids" too!  Been something to get excited about.....  (not including the kid pitchers here though.... :gonk:  

 

[bradmahn]

 
Just to be clear, you're talking about paying De Aza starter money to be a 5th OF so he can play behind a guy who is worse than he is?
 
De Aza 2015 OPS: .782
Ramirez 2015 OPS: .748
 
Why are we still talking about finding a way to keep Hanley's bat in the lineup at the expense of other OFs? What kind of offensive output do you expect him to bounce back with in 2016 that playing him over Betts or Castillo would be worthwhile? With no defensive improvement, he would need to put up something like .850 just to be REPLACEMENT LEVEL in left field. He could maybe do that... though his last season with an .850 OPS and 100+ games played was in 2010... but then you've got a 20M replacement level LF instead of a ~2 win LF who costs half as much... or a lot less.

If you want to bank on de Aza being a better offensive player next year, you are welcome but I think it's completely out of line with their histories, withstanding even a year where HR played through a shoulder injury, adjusted to a new league, and has been tasked with learning to field a new position.

I mean, I get we have to hate our own, but this would be rightly laughed out of consideration during any other season of their careers. Especially if half of your valuation model is relying on a partial season's worth of data about a player who spends more time in front of the Green Monster than anywhere else.

If you make Hanley the primary first baseman, you're going to have to layer quality depth behind him and hope that the increased opportunities in the field don't result in 1. a higher probability of injury and 2. worse defensive results. Considering they already have good depth behind him in the OF, I'm okay with allowing him an offseason to improve in the field, get healthy, and be the primary left fielder next year. Paying for a quality backup in de Aza or the like when the other three outfielders total about $13m in salary for 2016 is not a problem. In fact, if they want to continue to allow for the maturation of the young guys but not punt another season, it's a great way to do so.

 

[bradmahn]

And yet, this plan somehow completely ignores ALL-STAR BROCKHOLT!

Seriously, though, there are two things the Sox pitching staff has to be begging for in this offseason: first that Hanley stops playing left field, and second that Panda loses enough weight to field his position. Fixing those two defensive liabilities would shave off a lot of runs off the team ERA.

As for JBJ, even after he comes back to earth, he's at least now shown that he belongs in the conversation for next year's plans. Other than as a throw-in for some trade that leaves us rending our garments and gnashing our teeth.

As Red(s) said, Holt is the primary backup INF in this scenario. If he's your fifth outfielder and hypothetically replaces de Azar, I'd be worried about the bench being left shorthanded when two OF are unavailable on a given day. On the other hand, penciling him in as the fifth outfielder opens up a roster spot to have a timeshare at 1B.

That is unless there are too many projected games where they're down two regular OF and Holt has to start in the OF, which would necessitate another guy who can play SS in a pinch (I consider it likely, for the record). That sort of eats up any roster flexibility Holt provides as the fifth OF.

Best case scenario, I think, has Ramirez learning to play some first and being part of a loose platoon there but still getting time in left. It would open up even more PT for Castillo and hypothetical fifth OF not named BrockHOLT! To make that happen you need to sign a competent lhb OF and a competent lhb 1B, neither of which would require breaking the bank on long-term commitments.

 
While Holt has filled in admirably in the outfield when needed, there's no harm in him being the roster's primary utility infielder and defacto 6th outfielder.  While he played well enough to make the All Star team, he's slowed down considerably in the last month or so.  Two years in a row he's had a hot first half and cooled noticeably with exposure and regular playing time.  Perhaps he isn't a guy they need to find 4-5 games a week worth of playing time.  Maybe 2-3 games a week primarily filling in in the infield is what he needs to do to maximize his production.

 

[In my lifetime]

As Red(s) said, Holt is the primary backup INF in this scenario. If he's your fifth outfielder and hypothetically replaces de Azar, I'd be worried about the bench being left shorthanded when two OF are unavailable on a given day. On the other hand, penciling him in as the fifth outfielder opens up a roster spot to have a timeshare at 1B.

That is unless there are too many projected games where they're down two regular OF and Holt has to start in the OF, which would necessitate another guy who can play SS in a pinch (I consider it likely, for the record). That sort of eats up any roster flexibility Holt provides as the fifth OF.

Best case scenario, I think, has Ramirez learning to play some first and being part of a loose platoon there but still getting time in left. It would open up even more PT for Castillo and hypothetical fifth OF not named BrockHOLT! To make that happen you need to sign a competent lhb OF and a competent lhb 1B, neither of which would require breaking the bank on long-term commitments.
 

 
 
I think you are expecting way to much from Ramirez. Let him get 100% reps at one position or the other. so he can hopefully become an adequate fielder in either LF or 1B instead of just horrendous at 2 positions.  After watching him this year and with the free agents and in house outfielders available, I personally would prefer his position to be 1B, but being competent at either place would be great.  Then sign a league average player in whatever position Ramirez is not playing either corner OF in case either JBJ or Castillo proves not to be the answer or 1B where I am not buying Shaw as a starting first baseman. 

 

[nvalvo]

Bradley just played a double into a triple in LF by leaping for a ball that was too high for him, although in his defense, the ball was only a few inches out of his reach. 

 

[Byrdbrain]

In looking at the replay I'm surprised he didn't catch that, he had it timed pretty well.
I'm also surprised X wasn't backing him up there(at least at first), you can bet he would have been if that were Hanley out there. Maybe since JBJ is so good he figured he didn't need to.

 

[nothumb]

If you want to bank on de Aza being a better offensive player next year, you are welcome but I think it's completely out of line with their histories, withstanding even a year where HR played through a shoulder injury, adjusted to a new league, and has been tasked with learning to field a new position.

I mean, I get we have to hate our own, but this would be rightly laughed out of consideration during any other season of their careers. Especially if half of your valuation model is relying on a partial season's worth of data about a player who spends more time in front of the Green Monster than anywhere else.

If you make Hanley the primary first baseman, you're going to have to layer quality depth behind him and hope that the increased opportunities in the field don't result in 1. a higher probability of injury and 2. worse defensive results. Considering they already have good depth behind him in the OF, I'm okay with allowing him an offseason to improve in the field, get healthy, and be the primary left fielder next year. Paying for a quality backup in de Aza or the like when the other three outfielders total about $13m in salary for 2016 is not a problem. In fact, if they want to continue to allow for the maturation of the young guys but not punt another season, it's a great way to do so.

 
I'm not banking on de Aza being a better offensive player, but I'm also telling you not to bank on Hanley being a stud on offense. You're the one making a case to bring de Aza back as a 5th OF on starter money, when we have gaping holes in the rotation and bullpen. My main point is that regardless of any other plans, continuing to play Hanley in LF is not a possibility. In terms of overall value - not just offense - he is the worst OF on the team this year and probably will be next year too. Play around with the projections if you don't believe me, and tell me what you think his midpoint production in LF (offense and defense) is likely to be.
 
In three of the last five seasons, Hanley has put up a wRC+ of 110 or less (assuming he doesn't go on a complete tear between now and September). He had a crazy outlier year in 2013 (but couldn't stay healthy) and a very good contract year in 2014. The average of the three major projection systems for him in 2015 was 118 wRC+ ... in 2016 he will be a year older and with a much worse 2015 under his belt.
 
Let's not fall back on the perceived inconclusiveness of defensive metrics, either. We know Hanley is a horrible LF. The only question is how horrible, and how much he might improve. Manny was good for around -20 UZR/150 in most seasons, but was putting up 150 wRC+ every year, something Hanley has never done over a full season. UZR thinks Hanley is more than half as bad over again as Manny (-32 UZR/150). Suppose Hanley gets to -20 UZR/150 in 2016, and puts up what is likely to be his midpoint offensive projection at around 115 wRC+. That's a relatively optimistic scenario that assumes defensive improvement, offensive rebound and improved health - and it's not even a 1 win player. It's basically replacement level.
 
I'm also not saying write Hanley's name in ink at 1B now. I'm saying TRY him there, because if he can be decent, he has a chance to not actively hurt the club. That same 115 wRC+ combined with mediocre 1B defense (say, bottom third of the league in UZR, rather than the basement as he currently is in LF) is probably still a 1 win player. And unlike in the OF, where we have a bunch of in-house options who project to be more valuable than Hanley, we have nobody else on the roster who projects to be a 1-win 1B, unless you buy what Travis Shaw is selling.
 
So try him at 1B now, because it also gives you some idea of whether it could work before you have to formulate plans for the winter. Then you either find a way to dump him, include him in the 1B mix with some other options in the spring, or you turn him into a 20M bench player / platoon DH / emergency LF. But you DON'T play him in LF 100 games a year. 

 

[keninten]

Bradley just played a double into a triple in LF by leaping for a ball that was too high for him, although in his defense, the ball was only a few inches out of his reach. 

I thought he over ran it

 

[Rasputin]

I thought he over ran it

He did. It was just a little behind him and right about at the limit of catchable height.