Yea JBJ had a great spring last year and he wasn't really ready for MLB pitching. In addition to that JBJ had a major league ready glove last season, Cecchini doesn't.TOleary25 said:
Drew v. 2.0
- Thread starter lambeau
- Start date
- Status
The Yankees thus far have shown no interest in embracing reality and accepting the fact that Jeter can really only DH if they want him to make it through the entire season. Plus with Beltran and Tex the DH role will need to be a time share. Drew has said he only wants to play SS so unless he is going to come off that demand I don't see how the Yankees bite even if Arod gets slapped with a suspension. Should be drama filled regardless.
TomRicardo said:
What if ARod appeals, which it's my understanding people think he will? If the entire suspension is upheld, and he appeals to a higher court (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV) but can't this drag on well into the New Year?
Maybe the clarity he wanted was what if ARod is playing next year. Will the Yanks put him or CI at DH (yes, they have a cluter eff in the OF/DH spot) and guarantee Drew he will start at ONE of the two positions the whole year?
He's already appealed .. That's what the last hearing was about. He can, of course try to take this to the court system .. But that could take months if not years .. and just about every legal opinion I've heard so far is he has very very little chance of winning in a court of law.NDame616 said:
Selig has a "for the good of the game" clause that essentially allows him to suspend A-Rod regardless of how the appeal turns out. If it ends up going to the courts then the Yankees won't have to worry about this year because A-Rod won't be playing, his only recourse would be suing MLB for money later (as opposed to suing to get to keep playing).
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Even if he wins in court, a court will almost definitely not force MLB to let him play. His winning the civil suit just gets him paid, which probably doesn't impact the luxury tax since his getting paid would be a legal rather than a payroll expense.
Would the Red Sox be better off resigning Drew, moving Bogaerts to 3b, and trading Middlebrooks for a prospect OR obtain the 35th pick for Drew (approximately), play Bogaerts at SS and keep Middlebrooks at 3b?
The former contains less risk than the latter. In the first place, the prospect the Red Sox receive for Middlebrooks will be more established than the player the Red Sox draft with the Drew compensation pick. Moreover, there are fringy and problematic aspects to Middlebrook's game. His lack of plate discipline could derail his development and ability to hang on to a starting job.
But what kind of prospect would the Red Sox get for Middlebrooks and would this prospect be superior to the player they could obtain through the Drew compensation pick? If the Red Sox can obtain an excellent prospect for Middlebrooks, I think they should do it. Conversely, if the Red Sox can't get a top prospect for Middlebrooks, it makes sense to get the pick for Drew and start Middlebrooks at 3b.
The former contains less risk than the latter. In the first place, the prospect the Red Sox receive for Middlebrooks will be more established than the player the Red Sox draft with the Drew compensation pick. Moreover, there are fringy and problematic aspects to Middlebrook's game. His lack of plate discipline could derail his development and ability to hang on to a starting job.
But what kind of prospect would the Red Sox get for Middlebrooks and would this prospect be superior to the player they could obtain through the Drew compensation pick? If the Red Sox can obtain an excellent prospect for Middlebrooks, I think they should do it. Conversely, if the Red Sox can't get a top prospect for Middlebrooks, it makes sense to get the pick for Drew and start Middlebrooks at 3b.
Fangraphs adjusts shortstop at +7.5 WAR and third at +2.5. You can disagree with fangraphs and WAR, however there's no disagreeing that a SS is more valuable than a third baseman.
Moving Xander from short to third is like moving an apartment from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, KS.
Moving Xander from short to third is like moving an apartment from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, KS.
jimbobim said:
If the Yankees were to say, "we'll give you 4 years and a ton of money, the guy at SS will be lucky to play 60 games there anyway, and starting next year you'll be the starting shortstop," he might just be willing to be their A-Rod replacement a third for a little. If the suspension were to get reduced to, say, 50 games, though, it would be more problematic for Drew because he might be blocked at both positions, plus I think the Yankees would have a roster problem for a large chunk of the season.
Trautwein's Degree said:
This doesn't account for the fact that, for the very same reasons that short is inherently more valuable than third, any given player is more likely to be a superior defensive performer at third than at short. It's not necessarily going to work out that way in all cases, but it's a strong possibility. If Bogaerts is an average defensive shortstop but a +5 third baseman, the value advantage of keeping him at short neatly disappears. In that scenario, the question is "which position would it make the most sense to deploy him at, given the Sox' other left-side IF resources and long-term plans?". And I think the answer is indeed "shortstop, for now." But I don't think it's a simple question.
Trautwein's Degree said:
It would only be for one year, though. In 2015, Cecchini would start at 3b, with Bogaerts at SS, and Drew would be a valuable trade chip for the Red Sox (on the assumption that the Red Sox sign him to a 3 year deal and he has a strong season).
I think the big question is: as offensive players is Drew > Middlebrooks or is Middlebrooks > Drew (for the 2014 season)? True, Middlebrooks has more upside as an offensive player. But would anyone really be shocked if Middlebrooks has a dreadful 2014 season forcing the Red Sox to demote him to the minor leagues?
If the Red Sox can get a really good prospect for Middlebrooks, I think they should do it and resign Drew, and go with Drew and Bogaerts on the left side of the infield for 2014. Of course, this plan rests on the assumption that the Red Sox can get a really good prospect for Middlebrooks. I'm not sure if they can.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I just can't see any team signing Drew (with or without a Boras Contract) as anything but a full-time SS. To do something else is ridiculous, never mind that Drew would probably object.
Drew to the Yankees is absurd enough to have a ring of possibility to it - only because it's the Yankees.
The best Red Sox infield has Drew st SS. The question is only about what that upgrade is worth.
If the Red Sox can get Drew for the qualifying offer - 1 year at 14 million - while keeping under the luxury line, it would be quite the coup. Yes, that diminishes at-bats for Middlebrooks and possibly Bogaerts if he fails to perform, but I don't consider that a major problem. However, I think the chance of Drew re-signing with the Red Sox is 0, so it's not worth entertaining.
FanSinceBoggs said:
Not to state the obvious, but: Drew > Middlebrooks or is Middlebrooks > Drew (for the 2014 season)? is not the big question. assuming what they get in return for trading WMB is approximately equal to the supplemental pick.
You can't ignore the money that is needed to sign him over what Middlebrooks is paid. You can argue, the move forces a Dempster salary dump to stay cost neutral, but don't expect anything significant back unless the RS eat a large amount of salary and then money is back in the equation.
The RS are properly playing the waiting game for as long as they are able. They can't/won't take Drew on and push them above the 189M unless they know they have a taker for Demspter's salary + get something of value in return or Drew's price drops that signing him becomes a good use of their resources. That may not be possible at this moment and even if it possible is Drew upgrade the best use of approximately 12-15M of resources this year and possibly next since any money saved in dumping Dempster could be used in many other ways as well to improve the team.
Is WMB + supplemental pick + Dempster or the money saved in trading Dempster > Drew + player(s) obtained in trading WMB?
or
WMB + Dempster + supplemental pick > Drew + money paid to Drew + player(s) obtained in trading WMB?
Trautwein's Degree said:
Look at all the money the Red Sox would save. Seriously, as a hitter XB will be an elite SS. At 3B he may just be very good as a hitter. Might be cheaper to sign him to an extension if he moves to 3B.
Not that this will be a primary consideration of course. In fact, looking at Steamer projections at all positions the Red Sox stand to lose more than 12 WAR due to regression, age and downgrade of replacements at (CF, SS, C) . The Red Sox in 2014 will likely be a stronger team with Drew at SS and XB at 3B instead of WMB. I think that's their primary reason for wanting Drew back on a 1 yr deal. They are a better team with him.
Beyond 2014, maybe they are better off with XB at SS, so I don't think the Red Sox feel its the end of the world if they can't resign Drew, which means they won't overpay for him or give him more years than they want.
As for Drew, I am not sure why he would want to return to a team where one extended slump could land him on the bench in a contract year, so I would be surprised if he is back on a 1 yr, or even a 2 yr deal
... or that when you step out your front door, you are in NYC or Kansas.
Cecchini's plate discipline is not going to make him any better a defender at the hot corner. I have a very hard time seeing this FO, which seems to value defense highly, making roster moves under the assumption that they're reserving a slot for a mediocre (at best) defensive player in a year's time.
FanSinceBoggs said:
Cecchini's plate discipline is not going to make him any better a defender at the hot corner. I have a very hard time seeing this FO, which seems to value defense highly, making roster moves under the assumption that they're reserving a slot for a mediocre (at best) defensive player in a year's time.
Devizier said:
The QO was declined. It is history.
The Red Sox are not bound by it and can create a new offer for him (if they choose to do so), and he is free to decline or accept it. But that new offer has nothing to do with the terms of the QO.
Especially when his offensive profile matches high OBP & questionable power. This is the kind of hitter that easily thrives in the low minors, but can wind up requiring more adjustment as advances pitcher in the high minors can throw strikes and are willing to challenge him.Rasputin said:
Cecchini is a nice prospect, but he is far from a sure thing to the point that the Sox are moving a cost controlled and superior defender off of 3B. Most prospect analysts think a move to 1B or LF are reasonable paths to the big leagues for him.
HriniakPosterChild said:
I think he meant that if the Sox can sign him for 1/14M they should (I suppose the theory is that hopefully Captain Jetes will hang them up after this season and if Drew duplicates this year he can go to NY on a, say, 3/45 deal)
Sampo Gida said:
It's been pointed out more than once in this thread that the difference is about 5 runs. That's half a win a season. Here's how Fangraphs breaks it down. I think the Drew ship has sailed at this point, unless the market for him completely evaporates and Boras comes back with his tail tucked between his legs (not likely), so this is likely a moot point, but the difference between Bogaerts at short and Bogaerts at third isn't really that big.
I think the future of the left side of the Red Sox infield will be:
(1) Bogaerts at SS; Cecchini at 3b
OR
(2) Marrero at SS; Bogaerts at 3b
To be sure, (2) is a better defensively than (1). While (1) is average defensively, it has the potential to be significantly above average offensively, especially if Cecchini can develop power to go along with his advanced approach at the plate. It is too early to say, but Cecchini could profile as a #3 hitter in a lineup while providing average defense at 3b.
Marrero has the glove, but he needs to make strides at the plate; maybe that will happen in 2014.
I don't believe Middlebrooks will be a long term starter for the Red Sox. There are mixed reports on his defense, and certain aspects of his offense are troubling, to say the least.
(1) Bogaerts at SS; Cecchini at 3b
OR
(2) Marrero at SS; Bogaerts at 3b
To be sure, (2) is a better defensively than (1). While (1) is average defensively, it has the potential to be significantly above average offensively, especially if Cecchini can develop power to go along with his advanced approach at the plate. It is too early to say, but Cecchini could profile as a #3 hitter in a lineup while providing average defense at 3b.
Marrero has the glove, but he needs to make strides at the plate; maybe that will happen in 2014.
I don't believe Middlebrooks will be a long term starter for the Red Sox. There are mixed reports on his defense, and certain aspects of his offense are troubling, to say the least.
FanSinceBoggs said:
Whether Cecchini or Bogaerts emerge as the long term 3B, Middlebrooks might end up as their future first baseman unless Shaw emerges as a relatively late bloomer or they don't seek to replace Napoli elsewhere. You could also have a scenario where Bogaerts, Marrero, Cecchini and Middlebrooks all stick with 3 of them improving their defense and 2 of them as the 1B and DH replacements for aging Napoli and Papi.
To revive the JBJ spring training argument:
If the Sox view Xander as a can't miss talent, wouldn't holding him back a year in AAA benefit the Sox? Xander is still very young (21). Assuming he'd peak at age 28 or so, wouldn't having him spend his age 22 season in AAA extend his the Sox control over him deeper into his prime years?
While I wouldn't expect the Sox to extend a 1 year offer to Drew for that reason alone, in combination with spreading the risk, it makes a lot of sense. You'd have Drew at SS, and Xander as a hedge against WMB underperforming. If all three are playing well, you can always trade Drew to another team, or, worse case, spell all 3 through 3B/SS.
Given how streaky WMB is, retaining Drew, odd as it sounds, makes a certain amount of sense. Most likely you'd get Drew at SS with Boegarts for depth at AAA, ready to be called up when WMB slumps. It makes even more sense with Napoli as the 1B - he's also streaky as hell. You don't want both Nap and WMB riding an epic slump at the same time with rookies at CF and SS. Nava/Carp can cover 1B to an extent.
If the Sox view Xander as a can't miss talent, wouldn't holding him back a year in AAA benefit the Sox? Xander is still very young (21). Assuming he'd peak at age 28 or so, wouldn't having him spend his age 22 season in AAA extend his the Sox control over him deeper into his prime years?
While I wouldn't expect the Sox to extend a 1 year offer to Drew for that reason alone, in combination with spreading the risk, it makes a lot of sense. You'd have Drew at SS, and Xander as a hedge against WMB underperforming. If all three are playing well, you can always trade Drew to another team, or, worse case, spell all 3 through 3B/SS.
Given how streaky WMB is, retaining Drew, odd as it sounds, makes a certain amount of sense. Most likely you'd get Drew at SS with Boegarts for depth at AAA, ready to be called up when WMB slumps. It makes even more sense with Napoli as the 1B - he's also streaky as hell. You don't want both Nap and WMB riding an epic slump at the same time with rookies at CF and SS. Nava/Carp can cover 1B to an extent.
I would hope the Sox aren't even remotely considering sending Xander down to AAA to start the year. Unlike Bradley in spring training last year X has proven he is ready to contribute against the best and in the highest pressure situations. Trying to delay his arb clock and keeping him in the Bucket i think is trying to get way too cute. The Red Sox are not the Rays who constantly choose an additional affordable year in the future over wins in the current year because they HAVE to.
Additionally, you could argue very convincingly that X has performed far better then WMB or Bradley in his MLB exposure and it's counter productive to the organization both short term and long term to delay his full integration to bring back a slick fielding streaky SS who can't hit lefties at all.
Additionally, you could argue very convincingly that X has performed far better then WMB or Bradley in his MLB exposure and it's counter productive to the organization both short term and long term to delay his full integration to bring back a slick fielding streaky SS who can't hit lefties at all.
It's a fair question, but it's tough to compare X with JBJ when the latter struggled mightily in MLB and the former looked every bit a major league player on both sides of the ball while winning a starting job in the middle of a WS run. Last season, JBJ was a good prospect with very little pro experience. X is leagues ahead of that right now.
I'd also offer an argument (albeit one that hasn't been thought out) that it could be better to get him to free agency sooner, particularly if he is everything we've dreamed of. If X is a guy we want to splurge for, it would be a lot easier to do so the farther away from 30 he is. Again, this is sort of a wacky thought that came to mind but it makes a bit of sense to me in light of all the megacontracts out there for guys that are being paid for too many 30+ seasons.
I'd also offer an argument (albeit one that hasn't been thought out) that it could be better to get him to free agency sooner, particularly if he is everything we've dreamed of. If X is a guy we want to splurge for, it would be a lot easier to do so the farther away from 30 he is. Again, this is sort of a wacky thought that came to mind but it makes a bit of sense to me in light of all the megacontracts out there for guys that are being paid for too many 30+ seasons.
The argument for JBJ not starting his service time last spring was rooted in the fact that he hadn't even been added to the 40-man roster and hadn't seen a day above AA. There was reason to think, despite his hot spring, that he wouldn't be ready for a cup of coffee until later in the season...a timetable along the lines of what we actually saw with Bogaerts. Were it not for Ortiz being on the DL and the 40-man being somewhat short of healthy bodies other than catchers, that's exactly what would have happened with Bradley. He was clearly not ready and arguably it didn't make sense to rush him and start his clock early like they did. It worked out but they burned an option they may not have needed to burn.
Bogaerts' clock is started. He's on track with where they likely expected him to be since last winter. And above all, he showed signs of being ready to contribute at the big league level with his performance in September and October. There's absolutely zero reason to hold him back any more.
Bogaerts' clock is started. He's on track with where they likely expected him to be since last winter. And above all, he showed signs of being ready to contribute at the big league level with his performance in September and October. There's absolutely zero reason to hold him back any more.
Don't forget that a half a win in Kansas is worth just as much as a win in NY because of tax rates.mt8thsw9th said:
I think this thread truly mirrors the discussion that has already taken place in the front office(albeit less argumentative). The part of the conversation here that I think is missing is the politics of the situation with Boras. The Red Sox gain NOTHING by showing no interest in Stephen Drew. By saying, "We're out. We're rolling with the kids," risks alienating the most powerful agent in the game, not to mention it's just bad business.
For many of the reasons discussed already, the Sox best play here is to sit back and watch this all unfold. The best case scenario for them long-term as an organization is probably getting the draft pick and seeing how the WMB, X, JBJ situation pans out. The best case scenario for them short term, and really for 2014, is probably to sign Drew, wait for the Tanaka situation to settle and then see what the trade market looks like for a package centered around Middlebrooks and Dempster. Their best bet to find their comfort level in each of these scenarios is to let the market help them decide what their path is.
Therefore, publicly they need to continue to say how much they love having Stephen Drew on the club(true), and that they think he is an asset (true) to throw a bone to Boras whether or not they think that the long-term scenario stated above is the best choice or not. Even if they are 100% certain that the long-term scenario is the right choice, coming out and saying as much would be foolhardy because it could hurt business relationships and limit the possibilities of what may be the team's best path to success in the short-term.
I love how Ben is operating, with an assist from Farrell. From above, reading all that has been said in the papers there is a unified message from everybody including Lucchino. This has not been as true in the past with Theo and the current regime. There always seemed to be some element of the organizational divide seeping out into comments and interviews. I have no doubt that the push and pull between these forces still exists. Thankfully, now the discussion that we have had in this thread has gone on behind closed doors, and I have no doubt that all of these scenarios and their relative merits have been considered. That will ensure the best outcome for the club whichever path they end up taking.
The other problem with the comparison between JBJ last year and Bogaerts this year is that last year many of us believed it was going to be a down year for wins and that the team wasn't a real threat to win the World Series. We were wrong. Horribly, laughably, and spectacularly wrong. This year we're looking at a club we expect to compete for the division and an AL East that is going to be tougher than it was last year. That fraction of a win he may provide in April could be a big factor down the stretch. The time for setting up for the next great run is over. The team should be looking to maximize it's production as best it can without blowing the long term plan up. In April that will mean having Bogaerts on the field, not in Pawtucket.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Is the AL East going to be tougher? In the sense of it being tougher for the Red Sox to win, I might buy that, just because the Red Sox are likely to be less good in 2014 than 2013 and whether the Sox win is going to depend largely on the adjustment periods of Bradley, Bogaerts, and well, adjustment period isn't really the right word for him, but the performance of Middlebrooks.
But, if you look at the other teams, the Rays--if they do in fact trade Price--are likely to be less good and their pythag was 87 wins. The Yankees would have to be incredibly lucky to avoid getting worse and, BTW, their pythag was 79 wins. I haven't paid all that much attention to Baltimore, but they hit their pythag at 85 wins with Chris Davis going a little bit insane. Are they going to be better in 2014? The Blue Jays got killed by injuries so they'll probably be better but are they going to get into the mid nineties? I'm not sure I see it.
These two sentences only make sense to me with the bolded additions:
The first sentence in its original form reads to me like a call for the FO to do exactly what I hope and pray they won't do--use the 2013 championship as an excuse to return to perpetual GFIN mode. Yet your second sentence says exactly the opposite, and describes what I think a good organization is always doing.
To me the bottom line can be summed up in three words: 2013 changes nothing. (Aside, of course, from adding a lot of happiness to our hearts.)
Snodgrass'Muff said:
The first sentence in its original form reads to me like a call for the FO to do exactly what I hope and pray they won't do--use the 2013 championship as an excuse to return to perpetual GFIN mode. Yet your second sentence says exactly the opposite, and describes what I think a good organization is always doing.
To me the bottom line can be summed up in three words: 2013 changes nothing. (Aside, of course, from adding a lot of happiness to our hearts.)
Snodgrass'Muff said:
That's the positional adjustment. I don't know that anyone knows for sure what XB's true talent fielding SS is relative to 3B, and Drew could be as much as 10 runs better defensively than XB at SS. Like you said, its probably a moot point since Drew is unlikely to return unless Boras fails miserably, and I find it hard to believe he will.
The battle is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift nor the big contract to the Boras client. But that's the way to bet.
Xander is so young that bringing Drew back for 2 years would ultimately mean Xander is the full time SS at age 23 with extensive experience at 3B. Perhaps Xander fills out and sticks at 3B? Regardless, Xander plays SS against LHP with WMB at 3B and plays 3B with Drew at SS against RHP. Xander is young enough and WMB is sketchy to the poiny where id rather have Drews glove and bat against righties.
I dont think the FO really wants WMB, JBJ, and Xander playing every day.
I dont think the FO really wants WMB, JBJ, and Xander playing every day.
jhogan88 said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
I think it's just a jhunch88, but a plausible one.
I'm ready for a XBH-JBJ-WMB lineup, myself, or more precisely a Wiktor-Pedroier-Papi-Vesuvius-Gnomes-XBH-AJP/Ross/Lavarnway-WMB-JBJ lineup, but then I have the luxury of a long-term view.
Fortunately, I think Ben Cherington has earned himself the right to a long-term view too.
Call it a Juhunch88. WMB was sent down for maturity reasons. Im fine with X and JBJ getting 500abs. WMB worries me.
jhogan88 said:
By maturity reasons, you mean, being unable to lay off pitches he couldn't possibly hit, right?
He was benched in AAA this year when he was demoted for not always being prepared or whatever so there are maturity issues.
He was benched in AAA this year when he was demoted for not always being prepared or whatever so there are maturity issues.
Are you sure that was Middlebrooks? I thought that was Iglesias.
Are you sure that was Middlebrooks? I thought that was Iglesias.
Dont have the link to hand but I'm pretty sure I read an interview where WMB was quoted as saying that he'd had issues with preparation, thinking he'd "made it" to the bigs etc and as a result had not gone about things as a professional should, rather than getting a bit carried away that he was this ace prospect.
Middlebrooks had some adjustment moments at Pawtucket...nothing that makes him seem like a bad guy or a less-than-dedicated worker, but understandably frustrated at his circumstances.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/07/11/will-middlebrooks-having-humbling-experience-pawtucket/ySqF1ADP4F7Ur1N8cJXaAO/story.html.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/07/11/will-middlebrooks-having-humbling-experience-pawtucket/ySqF1ADP4F7Ur1N8cJXaAO/story.html.
I find it hard to believe WMB would just shrug and say " I understand" if they signed Drew to a two year deal moved X to third and sent him to AAA. WMB has his patient and optimistic defenders on this board and also those detractors who wonder if he'll continue to hack away at balls too frequently and hurt his OBP too much. I would not be surprised if the Sox already have gauged the return he could bring if Drew does indeed fall into their laps for cheap on a 1 year(more likely 2 year deal).
On the other hand signing Drew trading WMB and losing the draft pick comp in what is supposedly a deep draft would require a pretty significant return for it not to be considered a net loss.
On the other hand signing Drew trading WMB and losing the draft pick comp in what is supposedly a deep draft would require a pretty significant return for it not to be considered a net loss.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Well who knows what Drew would agree to, I think we all assume he is only coming back if the rest of the market completely dries up.
But I don't think it's hard at all to rationalize spending 10M on Drew in a vacuum for the 2014 season. It's pretty clear the team thinks Drew/Xander is better overall value offensively and defensively vs. right handed starters. This was true in October 2013, and is unlikely to change in April 2014. I think that upgrade alone could be worth a win or more over the course of the season, though of course that heavily depends on how WMB bounces back.
Perhaps just as importantly, Drew gives the Sox great depth on the left side of the infield. With Xander's flexibility, you have 2 guys to play SS, 2 guys to play 3B, and guys who hit both righties and lefties well. Plus you hedge against Middlebrooks not bouncing back. This insurance has real value. Xander/WMB/Herrera/Holt isn't nearly as good of a situation over 162 games. That insurance I think is probably worth at least a few million alone to the 2014 Red Sox, if not more.
Now all that gets balanced against getting a draft pick, giving WMB more time to reestablish himself, seeing how Xander does at SS full-time, and saving some money. Given that, I have no problem letting Drew go and seeing how the season goes. But I think it all depends on how much the FO prioritizes the future over the 2014 season.
If you want to give more weight to 2014, it's not hard at all for me to see how signing Drew for 10M would be a very good and valuable move, even if he only starts 4 times a week (barring injury/WMB underperformance).
I think it looks even better if you can get rid of 10M of Dempster's contract and shift that to Drew in 2014. I would strongly prefer the infield insurance and production vs. right handed pitching over what Dempster would likely provide for this upcoming year. But again, thats only the smart way to go if the foremost concern is the 2014 season, not a few years down the line.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'm also still waiting for someone taking this stance to provide an example of a top prospect who was asked to bounce back and forth between shortstop and another infield position on a daily basis in their first full season. Again, this works fine in fantasy ball, but you don't normally see it in real life, and I think there's probably a reason.
- Status