Drew v. 2.0
- Thread starter lambeau
- Start date
- Status
Eddie Jurak said:
I think it would be a stretch to say that Escobar was a top prospect.* And anyway they didn't use him the way you're proposing to use Xander. At no point in that rookie year did Escobar alternate regularly between SS and other positions in a platoon type arrangement. He played almost exclusively at 3B between June 2 and June 17, then almost exclusively at 2B from June 24 through August 1, then at SS from 8/3 to 9/7. Only in the final month of the season did he play multiple positions within a short time frame, and even then it wasn't a day-to-day thing.
Furcal's situation was different. He was being worked into the lineup to replace the aging Walt Weiss. For the first half of the season, while Quilvio Veras was healthy, Furcal made just two starts at 2B vs. 43 at SS. Then Veras tore up his knee, and after that they went with a three-man rotation of Weiss, Furcal and Keith Lockhart, with Furcal playing both 2B and SS. But that was making the best of an emergency. It wasn't the plan going into the season.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Huh? In what way did Iggy's usage last year resemble the platoon alternation that we're talking about? He was used at SS in long stretches when Drew was unavailable, and the rest of the time he was used almost exclusively at third.
*EDIT: to verify this, here's a quote from a Braves farm system fan blog from 2006:
"Yunel isn't great at anything but is good at everything and has good on base skills. I think he projects as a possible starter at SS or 3B but can definitely make it as a utility infielder."
Which is exactly how they used him in his rookie year. That's just not a good comp for Xander.
Reyes is another one, playing 43 games at 2B and 69 games at SS his first year. But as far as I know, none of these examples prove the point because all of these guys were pegged as SS for the following season and they were clearly intended to be at SS. The question I've asked is whether Boston sees X as a long-term SS. If they do, then I totally agree with Savin. If they think his future is at 3B that's another story and it also means they have to figure out what to do with both Middlebrooks and Cecchini.
I don't disagree that Xander moving between 3B and SS would be atypical (though not unheard of), and potentially less than ideal for his development.
Again, I still think the 2014 Boston Red Sox are a better team with Drew in the fold, and 10M is a reasonable price to pay for that improvement.
Is the FO willing to prioritize 2014 that highly? I'm not sure, but it is a realistic possibility. In the end, I don't think any hit to the future is really that substantial.
I still have a feeling it's more likely than not Boras finds something better than a 1 year deal for Drew. In that case, this is all pretty much irrelevant.
Again, I still think the 2014 Boston Red Sox are a better team with Drew in the fold, and 10M is a reasonable price to pay for that improvement.
Is the FO willing to prioritize 2014 that highly? I'm not sure, but it is a realistic possibility. In the end, I don't think any hit to the future is really that substantial.
I still have a feeling it's more likely than not Boras finds something better than a 1 year deal for Drew. In that case, this is all pretty much irrelevant.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Exactly. Drew/Xander/WMB represents an effective platoon preferably if Xander plays every day and Drew always starts against RHP (and comes back on a 1-2 year deal agreeing to forfeit his ABs against LHP).
Starting the kids on the left side and letting Drew walks is another logical and likely the plausible scenario. Many members here would agree to this and seem to have faith in WMB developing some form of consistency. I'm clearly bearish on WMB.
The beauty of financial responsibility and flexibility is the leverage it allows to sign players. Especially veteran players to short term deals. I understand that Xander is more valuable at SS and his development at the position should be a priority; however, when you have a player who is so young and may even project to play 3B one day, what exactly do you lose by having him rotate for a year or two? Maybe Cecchini is ready in two years to take over at 3B and Xander would shift to SS permanently at age 23. Ideally, resigning Drew would allow the team to maintain a key contributor from the 2013 team, give Xander 500abs, and allow more time to carefully evaluate WMB. It's a nice little hedge on the young talent with a short term, overpriced 2013 vet returning.
I am playing devil's advocate here and much of what I just said has been rehearsed throughout the 11 pages of content on this. The Xander/Drew/WMB platoon is an effective hedge of young talent and a proven veteran with the only disadvantages being Xander losing repetitions at SS and the price tag on Drew. With Xander's young age and the teams payroll flexibility, why not? WMB started 2013 at 3B and ended it on the bench. Why repeat that deployment?
Also would like to thank Savin Hillbilly for coining the term "Jhunch88."
glennhoffmania said:
BBref says he played only SS his first year (69 starts) and then mostly 2B his second year (41 starts 2B, 7 SS).
But I'm not looking for examples of young SS prospects who played multiple positions in their first year. I'm looking for examples of young SS prospects whose default role in their first year was to shuffle between multiple positions on a platoon or some other regular basis. Who were, to put it another way, everyday players whose position was "SS/3B" or "SS/2B" -- not guys who played SS when there was an opening there, and 2B when there was an opening there. To me, the latter seems like a more reasonable role for a young player, because he can focus on one position at a time. I would think it's more challenging mentally to know that you'll be playing SS on Tuesday and Thursday, and 3B on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Credit where due: that was Sprowl.jhogan88 said:
jhogan88 said:
Adding to the "waiting for an answer" list in terms of those advocating this "effective" 3-way platoon (Drew/X/WMB) for the left side is what happens when Dustin Pedroia wants/needs a day or two off. And by that I don't mean an inning or two at the end of a blowout, I mean a start and nine full innings of defense at second. Because a roster with Drew, Bogaerts, and Middlebrooks on it lacks a player with any experience playing second base (sorry, 4 innings isn't enough experience to be worth anything).
Rudy Pemberton said:
21YO Cal Ripken, 94 SS, 71 3b, on a team where a few guys played two infield positions; one LHH faced almost no lefties:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1982.shtml
That team also had great OF platoons.
BBref says he played only SS his first year (69 starts) and then mostly 2B his second year (41 starts 2B, 7 SS).
Yup, I misread. I agree with your point. Reyes just came to mind because I remember him playing some 2b when he was young but not the way some people are suggesting X be shuffled around next year
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I agree that it would slow his adjustment to either position, but I think it would be more of a short-term problem. Eventually he will either get his innings at SS or be shifted to 3B.
A strict platoon of Drew with WMB seems far-fetched. But if they enter next season with Drew, WMB, and Xander in the organizations, then Xander will either log time at both SS and 3B, and perhaps other positions, or he will log time in AAA.
Regardless of what happens, I don't think it will have any long term consequences for Xander. If they see him as their SS of the future, signing Drew short-term won't change that.
Bobby Grich switched between 2B and SS in 1972 (replacing either Dave Johnson or Mark Belanger). He was the best of the three players by far, but he was the one who did the moving. After the season they traded Johnson and he became a second baseman.
Why do we need to find an example that matches perfectly? The Red Sox like to think outside the box so if they think they can maximize the value of their roster spaces by shifting Bogaerts back and forth they will.
Whether they feel this would maximize the value of those spots or not is up for debate but I don't think there's any reason to believe they wouldn't be willing to be the first to try something that hasn't really been done before.
Whether they feel this would maximize the value of those spots or not is up for debate but I don't think there's any reason to believe they wouldn't be willing to be the first to try something that hasn't really been done before.
LahoudOrBillyC said:
Yup, good catch. Even here the alternation is mostly in blocks of several games rather than the two-here-one-there pattern you'd expect in a platoon arrangement. But outside of July, where he played almost exclusively at SS, he was going back and forth pretty frequently. Best example so far.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Unless it hasn't been done before for sound developmental reasons. I wanted examples because people were talking as if this were an obvious and non-controversial option, and it seemed to me that if that were so, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with examples of it being done before. We still haven't really done that, though Grich is damn close. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably would have trouble finding examples of it at any position, not just SS--the "it" in question being an arrangement where a high-ceiling rookie is moved from one position to another on a daily basis to facilitate a platoon between two other players who each play one of those positions. It may well have been done, but I suspect it's been rare, and I suspect this is because it's not seen as a developmentally smart strategy.
I think that there was some talk from Farrell and others last season about platooning shortstop being suboptimal from a defensive standpoint, and that may be why teams don't do it more often rather than developmental concerns.
Profar bounced around 4 positions last year; 2B, SS, 3B and LF.
If the Sox were to sign Drew, I can see them stepping way out of the box and using Xander in this fasion; with him being the RH option for CF, in addition to SS and 3B.
There would be a number of advantages to this approach:
- provides another year to properly evaluate Wombat and Cecchini
- assures there is better than replacement level on the field more often
- places Harrera in AAA to deepen the organizational depth
- should be able to get 500 ABs for Xander with him taking the starts against the toughest lefties
I would only see them doing this for 2014. By 2015, Bogaerts would have a position.
If they don't sign Drew, it aligns as we all see it, with X at SS and WMB at 3B and Herrera as utility.
If the Sox were to sign Drew, I can see them stepping way out of the box and using Xander in this fasion; with him being the RH option for CF, in addition to SS and 3B.
There would be a number of advantages to this approach:
- provides another year to properly evaluate Wombat and Cecchini
- assures there is better than replacement level on the field more often
- places Harrera in AAA to deepen the organizational depth
- should be able to get 500 ABs for Xander with him taking the starts against the toughest lefties
I would only see them doing this for 2014. By 2015, Bogaerts would have a position.
If they don't sign Drew, it aligns as we all see it, with X at SS and WMB at 3B and Herrera as utility.
I think you needed to 'wait for an answer' since its pretty obvious that DP doesn't want/need days off.Red(s)HawksFan said:
DP played/started in 160 of the first 161 games last year with a thumb that needed surgery.
So you are concerned about the difference of WMB or Xander's defensive ability to play 2nd VS. a utility infielder for 1 game?
I'm pretty sure X/WMB bats would make up for any fielding deficiency for that 1 ballgame.
67WasBest said:
Profar put up a .644 OPS in 2013. Maybe bouncing around four positions wasn't the best thing for him.
And not to be snarky, but you what position do you see Bogaerts having in 2015? If it's third base or center field, you are counting on Middlebrooks and Bradley to fail. If it's left field, you're decreasing his value moving him to an outfield corner, and the easier one at Fenway to boot. And if it's shortstop, that happens only if they can get Drew on a one-year contract. Boras could go all the way to spring training trying to get him a multi-year deal before settling for one year.
benhogan said:
Using one year as your baseline is probably not the best idea. Pedroia missed 21 games in 2012 and almost 90 in 2010. He's durable, but he's not invulnerable, and he's not going to get any more so as he enters his 30s.
It's possible that having a credible 2B sub in Pawtucket is enough, and we can get away with having WMB or Xander fill in at 2B in an emergency, but the idea that Pedroia is bankable for 160-ish games seems like a fantasy to me. That isn't true of anybody, least of all a 5-8-on-tiptoes middle infielder who plays like a maniac and is on the wrong side of 30.
I'm not passing judgement on the wisdom of Ron Washington and how that wisdom impacts his teams performance.curly2 said:
Far too many iterations of how this could play out to define anything for the future. That is one of the reasons to make the move however. It buys another year to look at WMB and Bogaerts. In the end, I would assume his position will be at shortstop or 3B, not in the OF.
On Drew going to ST to sign. The lost draft pick will still be there to depress interest in Drew by ST. They'll have to wait until Draft day to sign elsewhere without the risk of the lost pick.
Like I wrote, it's way out of the box and likely never to happen, but it does put all the pieces together for 2014 in a very attractive way.
This has been answered previously in this thread multiple times.Red(s)HawksFan said:
1. WMB has actually played in real ML games at 2B. It was only 4 innings but they didn't need him to play any more there. The organization obviously thinks it's within his athletic wheelhouse otherwise they'd have never tried it in the first place.
2. Without Drew the backup 2B is Herrera or Holt, who would be on the 25 man roster as the utility. Do you really think the gap against Middlebrooks compared to Herrera/Holt defensively will be bigger than the gap Middlebrooks will likely hold over them offensively? Herrera posted a career best OPS+ of 83 last year playing in Coors half the time. Holt has an incredibly small (but absolutely terrible) ML sample and last year in AAA his OPS was .636. Middlebrooks was better than that from April to May last year at the ML level.
We're talking about sub-80 OPS+ offensive players if we're being generous here. Middlebrooks had a dogshit year in 2013 and still put up an 88 OPS+. He would probably be a better all around 2B answer than either Herrera or Holt if you replaced his cleats with clogs and his glove with a children's size mitten.
To further flog the dead horse, if we bring Drew back and go with WMB as the emergency 2B you would STILL have the current backup 2B options in-house at AAA, demoting Herrera into a still open SS starting job in Pawtucket. If the team really doesn't like the idea of WMB playing more than a few games at 2B it's not very hard to find a way to make a roster move mid-season and bring up the very guys we'd currently have as Pedroia's backups. But by bringing Drew back another option is added to that depth chart (WMB) without costing roster flexibility.
If Drew will take a one or two year deal it's a good scenario for the Red Sox to insulate themselves from both injury and too many replacement level ABs going to middle infield depth. It also lengthens the AAA roster. It's a pretty nice outcome for the Sox with the only real negative drawback being the ability to find more than ~450 ABs each for three quality bats. Not exactly what I'd call a problem you bitch about, especially given the very likely chance that one of them will spend some time on the DL in 2014.
I think you're taking a leap of faith here. As opposed to being confident 2B is in WMB's wheelhouse, this could very much as easily suggest they took a look at him there and decided it probably wasn't a good idea.Drek717 said:
Your point about having Brock/Hererra stashed at AAA still holds, but a.) having no backup 2B on the active roster is something of a risk, and b.) if you need to call up one of those guys for anything less than Pedroia going on the DL, you're right back where you started with excess on the left side of the infield.
I love me some Pedroia, but I'm not sure his bullheadedness about playing every inning is sustainable, and even if so if it's a good idea. I'd love to see Farrell crazy glue his ass to the bench once every couple of weeks to save some wear and tear. (The guy plays pretty hard, you know?)benhogan said:
Drek717 said:
The horse is beyond flogged. Dogs throughout the world have already eaten it. But anyway . . . .
Its not really disputed that WMB is a better baseball player than Herrera or Holt. And I'll even go along with the idea that it's OK to have him as the emergency/really short-term backup 2B. But in my view the other side of the equation isn't whether WMB can back up 2B, its whether WMB plus others have enough trade value to bolster the team and organization sufficiently to offset the likely dropoff from WMB to Herrera and the potential issue if Drew or XMB sucks balls or suffers a season-ending injury. Is having WMB as a backup/part-timer/insurance his best use?
My view depends on an assumption that Drew at SS and X at 3B is a slightly better lineup in 2014 that X at SS and WMB at 3B. The Sox are probably pretty close to agnostic on that part of it, and its admittedly close, if you consider the probablitities and possibilites of performance. But I would be very surprised if the Sox sign Drew and then don't use WMB as part of a deal. OTTH-- I also think its a fair point to not want to lose WMB's RH power potential, now a scarce commodity. OTFH--It might make him even more valuable in trade, and expendable if the Sox have X (for a long time) and Drew (for 2 years) and possibly Cecchini (down the road).
Its so close that I can't imagine getting really pissed at any of the likely outcomes being discussed here.
I think the reason this is being beaten to death is that the 2-4 possibilities are all plausible, realistic enough, and contain both risks and rewards of roughly even dimensions. Its a pretty unusual situation.
Yes, it was Middlebrooks and not Inglesias. Will admitted to be depressed about being sent down and did not have his head on straight.genivive said:
Oi...the point I was making is if Pedroia is not on the DL, and the team is contending, he will play. I'm not saying he isn't susceptible to injury. Being concerned about having a back up for DP on the 25-man roster is not an efficient way to build a bench.Savin Hillbilly said:
Also if we do sign Drew, you don't immediately deal WMB. If you are concerned about injuries to infielders, as we all should be, then signing Drew and rotating WMB in to the mix is a good way to retain 'deep depth' at the ML level.
I think we agree, keep Herrera/Holt stashed at AAA to supply infield depth, and they only see the 25-man roster if their is an injury to DP, X, WMB and Drew.
benhogan said:
No, relying on any player, Pedroia or otherwise, to play every single day is a poor way to plan for a season. Even at his peak, the Orioles still carried a player capable of spelling Cal Ripken. And Pedroia has never been a 162-game iron horse in the Ripken mold, no matter how hard-nosed he may be.
If the plan is to go without a viable back-up at 2B on the roster (and I still refuse to go along with WMB as anything but an emergency option), then you are banking on Pedroia staying healthy for the full 162 OR if he goes down, that it is a DL-worthy injury that locks you into losing him for a minimum of two or three weeks. There's no margin at all for a tweaked hammy or a twisted ankle or the flu that would only reasonably keep him off the field for 2-3 games. That's the kind of thing you can gamble on for a 10-day stretch during the season or during the playoffs where there are built in days off and you'd rarely need to give your best players a game off. You don't do that as the primary plan for a full 162-game season.
Reverend said:
I blame Scott Boras for priortizing the likes of Ellsbury and Choo instead of Stephen Drew.
Reverend said:
Would be more likely, or at least more correlative to mainstream dogma, if the thread were Drew v. 3.0.
Do you seriously think the Red Sox:Mugsys Jock said:
1. Aren't able to assess WMB's ability to play 2B during practice/warm ups?
2. CAN assess WMB's ability to play 2B during 4 innings of mistake free play there in ML games?
3. Would ever put a player into a live ML game at a position they haven't verified at least passing ability to cover before the fact?
If they were willing to put him into ML games at 2B it's likely because they had done some preliminary work there any where convinced that it was viable. I don't see them sticking him out there blind on a lark.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
So you're unwilling to even have a legitimate discussion then. WMB played at three different ML positions during the 2013 season, one of them was 2B. Guys developing positional versatility starts somewhere, typically either in the high minors or early in their ML career, almost always when they're either A. blocked by a better player or B. scuffling and looking for another way to help the team.
What's the magic wrinkle about playing 2B that makes it impossible for WMB to handle the job? The reaction time down the 3B line is shorter than at 2B. His range (when healthy) has always been considered very good by 3B standards. The arm is obviously more than up for it. It's a matter of technique, namely turning DPs and the like. Something the team felt he was capable enough to let him try in two real ML outings, where he did actually turn a double play I might add.
Saying it's not even an option is a logically bankrupt argument.
joe dokes said:
Valid points, though I don't see where the team can do better for itself at the ML level or high minors via a WMB trade.
Where are the needs that they could legitimately address with a trade? Some AAA OF depth maybe? At this point the team has good options nearly everywhere else, and isn't even too bad off in terms of corner OF depth. Short of getting an elite prospect back from someone I don't see how the return is greater than what WMB could provide the Red Sox.
Meanwhile, my view is that if the Red Sox knew that they had a hypothetical starting position player who would post an OPS+ below 80 I and everyone else would expect them to do everything possible to replace that player. So why should we overlook and devalue ~400 ABs (or more, depending on injury) at that level simply because it's a "utility" player when a clear path to eliminate that weakness, for at least a season or two, is readily available? Tradition of blowing a roster spot on this year's Pedro Sririacha?
It isn't a hard thought project to construct a model where all of WMB, X, and Drew get >400 ABs between them without serious injuries in 2014. Sacrificing ~100 ABs of the best hitter in the bunch (who we can't even predict right now mind you, as their projections are all pretty closely grouped together) in order to have the layers of injury protection and the complete removal of sub-replacement level scrubs from daily use is a pretty small price to pay.
Also, to me the single biggest organizational value the Red Sox need to focus on right now is answering SS and 3B long term (3-4 years) in 2014. That means deciding if X can play SS, if so who of WMB and Cecchini is the long term 3B, and if not how do the three of them shake out into their ML roles. If it's the later Drew would also be the best option for SS the next couple years. So as far as I can see, if a one or two year overpay on Drew can buy them the 2014 season to sort out the left side of the infield there isn't a whole lot of opportunity cost they could possibly lose from that scenario. The two most important things to have figured out organizationally coming out of 2014 are who the every day guys on the left side infield will be and which starters get first crack at replacing Peavy/Dempster/maybe Lester in 2015.
Drek717 said:
Not saying it isn't an option. I'm saying it's a piss poor choice as the primary option for a full season.
There's also the fact that of Bogaerts, Drew, and Middlebrooks, Middlebrooks is easily the best defensive option at 3B. So if he's on the field, I'd much prefer he play his regular and best position. So I guess the next logical question is why can't Bogaerts be the alternate 2B in this cockamamie scenario? He's the one who is the inferior defender at both SS and 3B relative to the alternatives. I would think that if all three have to play, optimal deployment would be to have as many positions as possible manned by the best available defender at the position.
Bottom line, really, is whether the increase in offensive productivity having Drew, Bogaerts, and Middlebrooks sharing the left side is worth the extra cost over having Bogaerts and Middlebrooks get the bulk of the starts while Herrara or Holt serves as utility. No denying that the lineup with Drew/Bogaerts vs RHP and Bogaerts/Middlebrooks vs LHP is objectively better. But is that worth paying an extra $10M or whatever it will cost to "overpay" Drew on a short-term deal? I'm not at all convinced that that money couldn't be spent more effectively elsewhere, including pocketing it until mid-season in order to address roster short-comings (due to injury or underperformance) at the trade deadline.
Because Drew hasn't signed yet, and we don't have a whole lot else to talk about.Reverend said:
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think it's a stretch to treat it as established fact that WMB is a better 3B defender than Bogaerts, let alone "easily" better. Granted, he has much more experience there, but in theory, as a more-or-less-average defensive SS Bogaerts should have the tools to be a very good 3B. It doesn't always work that way, but it's a good bet. And I thought Xander looked pretty good in his limited 3B duty last year. So I'm curious why you seem so sure that WMB will be better.
Well isn't that exactly what you are doing by not signing Drew?Red(s)HawksFan said:
You are keeping your fingers crossed that WMB turns back into 2012 version. PLUS you're also planning/hoping that WMB and Xander don't get injured in 2014. Herrera or Holt are sizable downgrades in that event.
Does anyone know the actual rules about re-sign and trade? It's been stated that an obvious agreement to re-sign a player and trade him (right away) will be seen as collusion and not allowed. But if you resign a player in February can you trade him in March, as long as it's clear you did not collude with the other club? I know you also need permission to trade a FA before a certain date, but that's not what I mean.
Just a quick comment: I don't understand why Drew is not a top priority signing for the Mets. It seems to me that he's exactly what they need at this point.
benhogan said:
Not signing Drew is not hoping for or relying on anyone to play 162 games without rest or injury. By not signing him, you have a roster spot for a true utility player who can back up Pedroia at 2B, Bogaerts at SS and Middlebrooks at 3B. NONE of them are needed to play 162. In fact, in a typical season, you expect that each of those players are, if healthy, going to play 145-155 games with utility players picking up the difference.
This whole thing with signing Drew being some kind of necessity strikes me as rotisserie baseball logic rather than actual baseball logic.
Depending on the prospect price of course, trading for Headley is more desirable than resigning Drew. Keeps X at SS, and upgrades 3B dramatically. Headley seems like a perfect fit in our lineup and is a plus defender. His struggles in 2013 seem to have been injury related.
Didn't they do exactly that with Bronson Aroyo?ji oh said:
Don't know if that was addressed in a subsequet CBA, but it has happened.
To me the question is are the Red Sox comfortable with around 15 more errors from their SS position than last year. 2013 total errors from the left side was 32 with 12 total from SS of which 8 were Drew's. here is no way that they can expect that performance from XB who has a career fielding % of ~.950.
Larkin Ripken Tejada and even Jeter had seasons with 20 + errors early in their careers.
I love Drew's reliability as much as anyone but I really think this year is a great opportunity for the Red Sox
to develop a left side that is at least up there with Baltimore offensively.
The double plays might be down a little but the pitchers should have more run production to diminish the pain.
Better to save the money for a rainy day.
Larkin Ripken Tejada and even Jeter had seasons with 20 + errors early in their careers.
I love Drew's reliability as much as anyone but I really think this year is a great opportunity for the Red Sox
to develop a left side that is at least up there with Baltimore offensively.
The double plays might be down a little but the pitchers should have more run production to diminish the pain.
Better to save the money for a rainy day.
How do you get more run production out of replacing Ellsbury with JBJ and Drew with Boegaerts. That's expecting a lot from rookies, where a best case scenario has them maybe matching the production on average, with a moderate downgrade via JBJ (same OPS less 40 steals) matched by a moderate upgrade from XB (maybe 50 points of OPS).
- Status