Drew v. 2.0

[Puffy]

 
# 3 is their likely scenario.  Drew really doesn't make that much sense for what he will cost.  If Iglesias and XB could play 3B so well last season with almost no experience, then a defense at ss first UIF (particularly someone who can play 2B also) is all they should be pursuing.  This is where Tejeda from the Mets are someone like that (with offense only a secondary concern) is probably what they seek.  Oddly, a Punto reboot might be what they want.  Punto was unnecessary tot he 2012 disaster but could be useful again to the prospective 2014 contender.  Here are possible free agent options still available:
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/available/position/ss
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/available/position/2b
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/available/position/3b
 
Someone available in a reasonable trade might be a better way to go.

 
Munenori Kawasaki seems like a nice fit on more of a minor league deal / spring training invite type situation, likely better suited as depth in Pawtucket, but a plausible bench player if WMB and Bogaerts are both playing well.  He's a slappy hitter, but does have a decent batting eye, good speed, and plays good defense at 2B/SS/3B.  You'd think they'd be looking for something a little more deluxe for this role, given the questions surrounding Middlebrooks and Bogaerts, but it's not a huge stretch if a minor league deal is his best option.
 
EDIT:  Meant to mention that his kooky personality might also be a fit in the clubhouse.

 

[joe dokes]

 
It is straightforward when you break it down like that; the complexity comes from hedging their bets.  They don't want to list their options, pick the top one, and roll.  They want #1, and to be able to fall to #2 if #1 doesn't work out, and fall to #3 blah blah blah.  
 
zThey're building for plan A/B/C all at the same time, which (maybe) creates a scenario where they DO believe that X is a future All-Star SS but they sign Drew anyways because at 2 years it doesn't really hurt that future and significantly decreases their '13/'14 risk.  Delaying or risking plan A slightly may be worth that.

 
 
I think this is what's going on, too.  They value Drew enough that if he is willing to come back at their price, they'll deal with having him here.

As I noted in another thread, I also think that WMB could quickly become overvalued on the market.  If he pops 18 HR by the ASB without having his AVG crater below 200 or something, he could possibly be traded for a ransom, even if Kevin Towers isn't involved, since young power seems to be all the rage.  So even if the 2014 team is better with Drew, your long-term organization is better with even a moderately successful WMB.  But a lot of this is post World Series win talk - normally I'm not for giving up wins in the present tense.  
 

Funny you mention Towers. If nothing changes, WMB is Trumbo with a glove. (A combination which, as you note, is not without value).

 

[dbn]

 
2. If they believe that X's future is at 3B and they can get Drew for a reasonable contract, then do it and move X there permanently.  And then get whatever they can for Middlebrooks.
 

 
I agree that #3 is most likely, but if #2 is in fact the case then Drew is a great answer.  He'll be 31 next year but I'd be willing to go up to 4 years.  SSs with his bat/glove combination are not easy to find.
 
However, I hope and suspect that they project that the production of Bogaerts at SS and Middlebrooks at 3B will be good enough that the age, length of control, and salaries of the two are such that the upgrade to Drew @SS and Bogaerts @3B is not worth it. 

 

[chawson]

If he doesn't take much to pry, Tejada is probably the right UIF target overall.
 
Among non-tenders who play decent defense at all three positions, I'm still into Nix and Santiago, but the former is mostly empty pop and the latter could be aging past dependability. Munenori's got a solid walk rate, and Elliot Johnson's got very good speed.

 

[mauf]

 
 
Let me know where the weakest part of my equation is?
 
#1) XB-SS ~= XB-3B
#2) WMB-3B ~= SD-SS
#3) Drew's dollars saved + pick > WMB trade/reserve value
 
 

 
Two thoughts on this:
 
1. WMB is a difficult player to project -- he might be a star in a couple years, or he might never be more than a fringe major leaguer. Uncertainty tends to depress trade value, so I agree with premise #3 but consider #2 nothing more than a wild-ass guess. (Not a knock on you -- any projection of WMB's future is going to be a WAG.)
 
2. #1 makes sense in general, but might not apply to X specifically. Some guys (Jeter being an example) aren't adequate defensively at SS because even though they are athletic and fundamentally sound enough for the position, they lack the instincts and quick first step that playing SS requires. Those attributes are no less important at 3B, and a SS with sketchy defense is obviously worth more than a 3B with sketchy defense, so if that's the reason X isn't good enough to hack it at SS, moving him to 3B would further decrease his value, because he wouldn't be good there either. (I don't know if any of this is true, but I do know that my eyes didn't like X's glove at 3B much.)

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I find this whole discussion a tad confusing.  It seems fairly straightforward to me:
 
1. If they believe that X can be a SS for the long term, then they leave him at SS and you don't sign Drew.
 
2. If they believe that X's future is at 3B and they can get Drew for a reasonable contract, then do it and move X there permanently.  And then get whatever they can for Middlebrooks.
 
3. If X is the SS and they believe that Middlebrooks can hit well enough to be the starting 3B, at least for 2014, then your infield is set and you only need a UI.  If there are doubts about that then they need to sign someone who can play 3B- not someone else who can only play SS and move X to 3B.
 
So unless #2 is true, and I've read nothing to suggest that it is, I see no reason to entertain signing Drew.  I like him as a player and in a vacuum I would have no problem seeing him back in Boston, but I don't think he's worth delaying or screwing with the future left side of the infield, whether that's X/Middlebrooks or X/Cecchini in another year.

 
Great summary.  I agree these are the options.  I think the first bolded statement is what number 2 versus number 3 hinges upon -- more so then their view about Xander being able to play third.
 
I would agree with you that number 3 is the most likely option, but I think some of the recent discussion in this thread and the reasons one wonders whether number 2 is in play is (1) a sense that the market for Drew is not as robust as people imagined, perhaps owing in part to the QO badge the Sox put on him, and (2) the initial (and later corrected) report that Drew had a multi-year option on the table from the Sox and later that Boras and Cherrington had met about Drew.  
 
The hypothesis that the Sox are simply serving as a mystery team to ramp up interest in Drew is a potentially sound one.  But Cherrington and Boras meeting I think still puts option 3 in play and makes questions about their confidence in WMB worth monitoring and discussing.  I think some of the confusion is that the thread has drifted toward a discussion of UIs, which is likely a need whether or not Drew signs (because, as you note, if he does, WMB may well be traded (or go down).)  So, I think that's possibly cluttering the thread since it's sort of a separate though related discussion.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Or, they play Bogaerts at SS for the immediate future and then move him to 3rd base when Marrero is promoted, which I think was their plan a couple of years ago.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
Agree with this.  The other important factor, though, is Cecchini.  The reality is that if you have Bogaerts play 3B for the next couple years, he's probably a 3B for life, especially given that he doesn't have the strongest defensive skills for SS to begin with (If we're talking about a one year deal for Drew and just one year at 3B for XB then it may be a different story).  In theory he might be able to switch back to SS after several years of playing full time at 3B but that kind of move happens very rarely and I don't think you can plan on it occurring.  So signing Drew for multiple years and moving XB to 3B probably also means either moving Cecchini to a new position (at which he may be a much more marginal contributor) or dealing him to maximize value.
 
I like Drew a lot as a player but I think the value of a cost controlled Bogaerts/Cecchini combo on the left side of the infield through the early 2020s is pretty significant.  I'm not sure that I want to fuck with that just to upgrade from WMB to Drew in 2014.

Not adding much (or anything here) but I checked when the last time was that the Sox had a left side, or a right side of the IF for anywhere near that long. I see on BREF Everett Scott and Larry Gardner at short and third from 1914 through 1917. Burleson and Hobson were there for 1976 - 1979, but Hobson had only 76 games at third in 1976. On the right side, Pedey and Youks for 2007 - 2010. Did I miss any longer combos? Cronin, Pesky, Goodman, Malzone, Petrocelli, Boggs, Foxx, Vaugn and other guys with longevity had too many partners on their side to get to even 4 years.
 
The outfield would be a different story, of course. Yay Speaker, Hooper and Lewis for 1910 through 1915!

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
It is straightforward when you break it down like that; the complexity comes from hedging their bets.  They don't want to list their options, pick the top one, and roll.  They want #1, and to be able to fall to #2 if #1 doesn't work out, and fall to #3 blah blah blah.  
 
zThey're building for plan A/B/C all at the same time, which (maybe) creates a scenario where they DO believe that X is a future All-Star SS but they sign Drew anyways because at 2 years it doesn't really hurt that future and significantly decreases their '13/'14 risk.  Delaying or risking plan A slightly may be worth that.

 
Sure, but that's a pretty expensive hedge.  If we were talking about an older SS who would sign a fairly cheap one year deal to be a UI with the thought that he could end up taking over as the starter if Middlebrooks doesn't pan out then it makes sense.  But Drew would require a pretty expensive, multi-year contract.  If they do something like that I think it's safe to assume that they don't think X is the long-term solution at SS and/or they're worried that Middlebrooks won't be good enough to at least get them to Cecchini. 
 
That's the issue I have with signing Drew.  Signing him doesn't seem like a smart allocation of resources unless they're at least fairly confident that one of those two concerns will become reality.

 

[nattysez]

Ken Rosenthal:  "#Mets feel they would have to overpay to get Drew; otherwise, he would go back to #RedSox."
 
If (and there is no evidence of this) Drew said he's willing to play any position and will spend ST working on playing 2b, I wonder if the Sox would go 2/$26 with Drew as (1) a hedge against WMB being awful or an injury to Pedroia and (2) an enticing trade chip come July.

 

[ivanvamp]

I find this whole discussion a tad confusing.  It seems fairly straightforward to me:
 
1. If they believe that X can be a SS for the long term, then they leave him at SS and you don't sign Drew.
 
2. If they believe that X's future is at 3B and they can get Drew for a reasonable contract, then do it and move X there permanently.  And then get whatever they can for Middlebrooks.
 
3. If X is the SS and they believe that Middlebrooks can hit well enough to be the starting 3B, at least for 2014, then your infield is set and you only need a UI.  If there are doubts about that then they need to sign someone who can play 3B- not someone else who can only play SS and move X to 3B.
 
So unless #2 is true, and I've read nothing to suggest that it is, I see no reason to entertain signing Drew.  I like him as a player and in a vacuum I would have no problem seeing him back in Boston, but I don't think he's worth delaying or screwing with the future left side of the infield, whether that's X/Middlebrooks or X/Cecchini in another year.

 
And yet we keep seeing signals from the Red Sox that they want to re-sign Drew.  Why?

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
And yet we keep seeing signals from the Red Sox that they want to re-sign Drew.  Why?

 
Well we also heard they were looking at signing Beltran, and I never believed that for a second.

 

[koufax37]

 
And yet we keep seeing signals from the Red Sox that they want to re-sign Drew.  Why?

 
The same reasons they played him over WMB down the stretch.  Reliable glove and consistent veteran presence especially defensively.  They might still put Drew > WMB enough to tilt the equation, or have doubts about XB at SS and want to give him a Machado year in 2014.  I don't like this option because I think the dollars and pick are worth more to us, and I want to see if XB can stick at short and be a Hanley-type player, rather than move like Machado for our version of Hardy, but it is completely plausible if a couple of the FO's valuations are different from us.
 
Maybe they are also convinced that WMB has more value as a trade chip than a player, and that they can get a Trumbo-lite return for him and not a Youkilis-zero return, but it would be tough to tie this signing to another trade (although sending WMB plus Dempster to San Diego or Arizona could be interesting).
 
I think it is also hard for a pitching focused manager to prefer to start the younger, less defensively talented shortstop over the reliable slick fielding veteran, but I hope Ben is more immune to that irrational fear.
 
If Drew's market collapses, who knows, but no matter how you slice it I think it comes down to how you project the very uncertain WMB.  With the probably starting of JBJ and XB as rookies, maybe they don't want to live with that uncertainty.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
And yet we keep seeing signals from the Red Sox that they want to re-sign Drew.  Why?

 
Because the media are whores that will run with any "rumor" fed to them, primarily by agents, in order to get clicks, followers, etc.  There is a prime benefactor when team names like the Red Sox or the Yankees are thrown around regarding a player, and that's the player himself.  Boras is the king of this tactic.  We should all be aware of this by now.

 

[glennhoffmania]

While the idea of defending the title is very appealing, is it possible that the FO wants to preserve and further develop the young guys even if it means 2014 might not be a great year?  Having a cost-controlled left side of the infield for 5 more years, plus JBJ, the two young catchers, all of the pitching, and Pedroia's team-friendly contract would give them a ton of flexibility to resign guys like Lester, Buchholz, Ortiz, etc. along with other FAs over the next few years.
 
This isn't to say they are punting or should punt 2014, as they could still turn out to be a great team with the current roster.  But maybe the gambles on X, Middlebrooks and JBJ are worth a shot given the potential upside.

 

[mauf]

 
And yet we keep seeing signals from the Red Sox that they want to re-sign Drew.  Why?

 
I would have agreed with you a couple days ago, but the report that said they have not made a formal offer (other than the QO) suggests to me that the Sox do not have any interest.
 
If Drew goes, I think it's worth overpaying a good utility IF, instead of dumpster diving for the likes of Elliot Johnson or Jayson Nix. With two projected infield starters who aren't established big leaguers, there's an above-average risk that our utility guy will be asked to contribute 400+ PAs. It would be nice to have someone in that role who doesn't suck. 
 
What do folks here think Juan Uribe is going to get? The crowdsourcing at Fangraphs projects 2/16, which is more than the Sox can fit in the budget for a utility guy, but if he would sign for Gomes money (2/10), I'd be all over that. (If they could fit $8mm, they'd probably be better off signing someone like Grant Balfour, but a good utility guy is probably worth more than what they could otherwise get for $5mm.)

 

[Drek717]

 
# 3 is their likely scenario.  Drew really doesn't make that much sense for what he will cost. 

Between 2B, 3B, and SS the Red Sox will compile over 2100 PAs.
 
Unless we think Pedroia, WMB, and Bogaerts all have 160 game seasons in them some portion of those ABs will go to someone else.
 
Assuming Pedroia continues to play 140+ games a year we're still talking about more human performances from Bogaerts and WMB, leaving ~1400-1500 PAs between the two.  If each plays about 124 games (Drew last year) they'll collect about 500 PAs, leaving between 400-500 PAs on the table.
 
In most years the composite "utility infielder" fill ins amount to nearly a full time player's share of PAs but give replacement player production because they fill defensively important positions.  Adding a player like Drew is a 1:1 replacement of replacement level production with someone significantly better than replacement level.
 
It goes back to the FO's citation of "deep depth".  That implies a deep 40 man roster, but it also implies a 25 man roster full of worthwhile guys, not sacrificing a spot to a glove only SS who can move to 2B or 3B in a pinch.  That kind of player is an insurance policy against disaster, not a guy who will see significant playing time as a relief valve for when positional players need time off, but the later is the primary job of a utility infielder.

 

[nattysez]

What do folks here think Juan Uribe is going to get? The crowdsourcing at Fangraphs projects 2/16, which is more than the Sox can fit in the budget for a utility guy, but if he would sign for Gomes money (2/10), I'd be all over that. (If they could fit $8mm, they'd probably be better off signing someone like Grant Balfour, but a good utility guy is probably worth more than what they could otherwise get for $5mm.)

 
I'm not sure about Uribe being able to play SS or 2b in 2014.  He hasn't played more than 4 games at SS since 2010 and hasn't played any 2b at all since 2011.  

 

[someoneanywhere]

While the idea of defending the title is very appealing, is it possible that the FO wants to preserve and further develop the young guys even if it means 2014 might not be a great year?  Having a cost-controlled left side of the infield for 5 more years, plus JBJ, the two young catchers, all of the pitching, and Pedroia's team-friendly contract would give them a ton of flexibility to resign guys like Lester, Buchholz, Ortiz, etc. along with other FAs over the next few years.
 
This isn't to say they are punting or should punt 2014, as they could still turn out to be a great team with the current roster.  But maybe the gambles on X, Middlebrooks and JBJ are worth a shot given the potential upside.

 
I think you hit it right on the head towards the end. I honestly believe them, and believe they are correct, when they assert they can go to war and compete with what they have now. Who, sincerely, is better? Maybe the Tigers. Everyone else has more questions on paper. They would be better, perhaps, if Drew were on board, and probably if they had some offensive certainty in CF. But the pitching is deep and the upside of the young guys, while potential, is also indisputable.
 
I think, however, that they are not done. Ben promised a Top 5 offense (a comment that remarkably has slipped through the cracks). They don't have that yet. 

 

[Puffy]

 
I would have agreed with you a couple days ago, but the report that said they have not made a formal offer (other than the QO) suggests to me that the Sox do not have any interest.
 
If Drew goes, I think it's worth overpaying a good utility IF, instead of dumpster diving for the likes of Elliot Johnson or Jayson Nix. With two projected infield starters who aren't established big leaguers, there's an above-average risk that our utility guy will be asked to contribute 400+ PAs. It would be nice to have someone in that role who doesn't suck. 
 
What do folks here think Juan Uribe is going to get? The crowdsourcing at Fangraphs projects 2/16, which is more than the Sox can fit in the budget for a utility guy, but if he would sign for Gomes money (2/10), I'd be all over that. (If they could fit $8mm, they'd probably be better off signing someone like Grant Balfour, but a good utility guy is probably worth more than what they could otherwise get for $5mm.)

 
I don't think there are any "good" utility IF left on the free agent market. What is the line between good utility player and potential starter? Somewhere after Bloomquist or Punto or Furcal (three premium utility signings this winter), but before, what, Uribe?
 
In any case, to find a "good" utility player would probably require a trade, probably for a guy like Tejada from the Mets or similar younger player with some warts, but upside.

 

[Reverend]

Ken Rosenthal:  "#Mets feel they would have to overpay to get Drew; otherwise, he would go back to #RedSox."
 
If (and there is no evidence of this) Drew said he's willing to play any position and will spend ST working on playing 2b, I wonder if the Sox would go 2/$26 with Drew as (1) a hedge against WMB being awful or an injury to Pedroia and (2) an enticing trade chip come July.

 
 
You're talking about the guy who gave up two and a half million dollars last year--a pay cut of 20%--because he wanted to play short stop.
 
I don't know why some of these things need to keep being repeated.
 
 

I think John promised the top 5 offense, but that's picking nits. And frankly without another move I don't see why that isn't possible if not probable. Even if we lost 100 runs, we would still be a top 5. Assuming slights declines at DH, RF and C, and noticeable at CF, I think 3B, SS should improve. 1B and LF could go either way but not by much really. Pedey could bring more power with a healthy thumb.

I don't see the offense dropping by a whole lot, certainly not more than the 100 runs it would take to drop from top 5. If a healthy Kemp or someone else to improve LF (Braun?) becomes available sure, but I think the lineup is set except for a UI.

 
Yeah, I mean, nothing's certain, but the team is really, really solid. It's also: 1) built for Fenway which matters (obviously); and 2) may be built for the players to complement themselves based on the hitting environment the lineup creates. This piece by Staude at FanGraphs discusses how an OBP rich lineup can score runs even in the absence of power hitters and, relatedly, power becomes less important in such a lineup, which is significant since it seems young power is getting a premium right now (Of course, what isn't in this market?). If this is the approach the Red Sox are taking, many of their players may be quite appropriate for their lineup offensively, but not as valuable to a lot of other teams, which works out really well for the Red Sox from a market perspective.

 

[mauf]

I think John promised the top 5 offense, but that's picking nits. And frankly without another move I don't see why that isn't possible if not probable. Even if we lost 100 runs, we would still be a top 5. Assuming slights declines at DH, RF and C, and noticeable at CF, I think 3B, SS should improve. 1B and LF could go either way but not by much really. Pedey could bring more power with a healthy thumb.

I don't see the offense dropping by a whole lot, certainly not more than the 100 runs it would take to drop from top 5. If a healthy Kemp or someone else to improve LF (Braun?) becomes available sure, but I think the lineup is set except for a UI.

 
This is a very optimistic outlook.
 
Expecting improvement from Napoli is crazy -- he set a career high for games played and posted a 367 BABIP. The two projections available at Fangraphs (Steamer and Oliver) forecast a 35-45 point decline in OPS this season.
 
 
I don't share your optimism about LF not declining either. Nava was the strong half of the platoon last year, and Steamer and Oliver both forecast roughly a 65-point decline in his OPS. Gomes might improve his rate stats if he's used exclusively as a platoon guy, but not by enough to offset Nava's forecasted decline.
 
Drew posted a 786 OPS last season. That's roughly equal to the higher of FG's two projections for X (788 Oliver, 738 Steamer). Even if matching Drew's rate stats is too optimistic, however, X might make up the difference by beating Drew's 124 GP last year.
 
Ortiz and Victorino both greatly exceeded expectations last year, both in terms of production and games played. Forecasting "slight" declines for both of them is optimistic. So is forecasting only a "slight" decline by replacing Salty's BABIP-fueled 2013 season with whatever Pierzynski puts up in 2014.
 
And Pedroia's 2013 BABIP was his highest since his MVP season in 2008. Perhaps he was lucky, but I suspect he wasn't that limited by the thumb injury.
 
So really, the only place I think improvement is likely is at 3B. A couple other guys may well exceed expectations, but it's equally likely that a couple guys will fall off a cliff. Put it all together, and a big drop in offense is likely. None of which is to place blame on the FO -- they would also be likely to score fewer runs if they had stood pat, and they would have screwed their long-term payroll flexibility in the process.
 
If the Sox win 90+ games next season, it will be because the pitching improved. Fortunately, there are good reasons to expect better pitching in 2014.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I think it's kind of difficult to gauge what the total offense is going to be by looking at individual numbers. Suppose they all have streaks at the same time or separate times, that's going to change how much the team as a whole produces. I can see WMB overcoming the sophomore mini-slump. Victorino may regress. Not sure about Papi, the guys a machine. Pedroia's likely to see an increase. Nap could increase even with the crazy BABIP numbers. X is likely to be better than Drew offensively. AJ, JBJ, and LF are all question marks in my eyes.
 
I will agree that pitching will have the biggest affect on the win-loss for the 2014 Sox. The offense will be there.

 

[InsideTheParker]

 
Yeah, I mean, nothing's certain, but the team is really, really solid. It's also: 1) built for Fenway which matters (obviously); and 2) may be built for the players to complement themselves based on the hitting environment the lineup creates. This piece by Staude at FanGraphs discusses how an OBP rich lineup can score runs even in the absence of power hitters and, relatedly, power becomes less important in such a lineup, which is significant since it seems young power is getting a premium right now (Of course, what isn't in this market?). If this is the approach the Red Sox are taking, many of their players may be quite appropriate for their lineup offensively, but not as valuable to a lot of other teams, which works out really well for the Red Sox from a market perspective.

I don't see how WMB contributes to an OBP rich lineup. 

 

[nattysez]

 
 
You're talking about the guy who gave up two and a half million dollars last year--a pay cut of 20%--because he wanted to play short stop.
 
I don't know why some of these things need to keep being repeated.
 

 
You're ignoring that (1) the market for him appears pretty depressed this off-season and (2) it doesn't seem like any other top-echelon teams are competing for his services.  His current choice appears to be between playing for a very bad team (Mets or Marlins) or agreeing to be a utility INF on the Sox for similar money.  You may be right that playing SS is of overriding importance to him, but given the changed circumstances, your suggestion that the choice he made last year is the only data point needed to determine what he'll choose to do this year may be overstating the case.  

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

ITP, WMB's second half OBP was .329.

 

[InsideTheParker]

ITP, WMB's second half OBP was .329.

Good enough, I just looked up the total for 2013. Thanks.

 

[The Boomer]

Between 2B, 3B, and SS the Red Sox will compile over 2100 PAs.
 
Unless we think Pedroia, WMB, and Bogaerts all have 160 game seasons in them some portion of those ABs will go to someone else.
 
Assuming Pedroia continues to play 140+ games a year we're still talking about more human performances from Bogaerts and WMB, leaving ~1400-1500 PAs between the two.  If each plays about 124 games (Drew last year) they'll collect about 500 PAs, leaving between 400-500 PAs on the table.
 
In most years the composite "utility infielder" fill ins amount to nearly a full time player's share of PAs but give replacement player production because they fill defensively important positions.  Adding a player like Drew is a 1:1 replacement of replacement level production with someone significantly better than replacement level.
 
It goes back to the FO's citation of "deep depth".  That implies a deep 40 man roster, but it also implies a 25 man roster full of worthwhile guys, not sacrificing a spot to a glove only SS who can move to 2B or 3B in a pinch.  That kind of player is an insurance policy against disaster, not a guy who will see significant playing time as a relief valve for when positional players need time off, but the later is the primary job of a utility infielder.

 

Between 2B, 3B, and SS the Red Sox will compile over 2100 PAs.
 
Unless we think Pedroia, WMB, and Bogaerts all have 160 game seasons in them some portion of those ABs will go to someone else.
 
Assuming Pedroia continues to play 140+ games a year we're still talking about more human performances from Bogaerts and WMB, leaving ~1400-1500 PAs between the two.  If each plays about 124 games (Drew last year) they'll collect about 500 PAs, leaving between 400-500 PAs on the table.
 
In most years the composite "utility infielder" fill ins amount to nearly a full time player's share of PAs but give replacement player production because they fill defensively important positions.  Adding a player like Drew is a 1:1 replacement of replacement level production with someone significantly better than replacement level.
 
It goes back to the FO's citation of "deep depth".  That implies a deep 40 man roster, but it also implies a 25 man roster full of worthwhile guys, not sacrificing a spot to a glove only SS who can move to 2B or 3B in a pinch.  That kind of player is an insurance policy against disaster, not a guy who will see significant playing time as a relief valve for when positional players need time off, but the later is the primary job of a utility infielder.

 
Here is a post-hype sleeper UIF candidate who hits lefty, is a good infielder and brings Ellsbury type speed to the table (though he hasn't been able to steal first too well yet in the majors):
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gordode01.shtml
 
Flash's son would be a nice legacy player.  He had a decent minor league career that has been on display only in short bursts in the majors. He is stuck behind Hanley Ramirez and there is already some depth of UIF players with the Dodgers.  Somebody like Lavarnway might be a match as a stalled player who might fulfill his potential with a change of scenery.  
 
Such a UIF is still Plan B if they can't dump one of the SP salaries to pay the premium for Drew.

 

[JimD]

While the idea of defending the title is very appealing, is it possible that the FO wants to preserve and further develop the young guys even if it means 2014 might not be a great year?  Having a cost-controlled left side of the infield for 5 more years, plus JBJ, the two young catchers, all of the pitching, and Pedroia's team-friendly contract would give them a ton of flexibility to resign guys like Lester, Buchholz, Ortiz, etc. along with other FAs over the next few years.
 
This isn't to say they are punting or should punt 2014, as they could still turn out to be a great team with the current roster.  But maybe the gambles on X, Middlebrooks and JBJ are worth a shot given the potential upside.

 
I would be more than OK with this.  Barring a run of injuries or significant declines, this team will be competitive as currently structured.  If the FO thinks they can pull off a significant upgrade through a trade or reasonably-price free agents, I'll trust them.  But if they are bullish on X, JBJ and WMB, I would hope that they have the guts to realize that the year after a WS win by a really likeable team is the perfect time to take a half-step back in order to potentially take several major steps forward in the long run.  There is zero backlash that I see coming from the genral fanbase right now over losing Ellsbury to the Yankees and Bradley stepping in, and most are psyched to see what Bogaerts will do next.  I can't stand the fools like Lou Merloni on WEEI bashing the team because 'You can't introduce three rookies to the lineup at the same time!'.  Fearing a dropoff from a surprise contender like the 2013 team is only going to lead to bad, reactionary decisions. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
  I can't stand the fools like Lou Merloni on WEEI bashing the team because 'You can't introduce three rookies to the lineup at the same time!'. 
 

 
Prize to the first co-host who simply responded, "why not?" 

 

[Drek717]

 

 
 
Here is a post-hype sleeper UIF candidate who hits lefty, is a good infielder and brings Ellsbury type speed to the table (though he hasn't been able to steal first too well yet in the majors):
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gordode01.shtml
 
Flash's son would be a nice legacy player.  He had a decent minor league career that has been on display only in short bursts in the majors. He is stuck behind Hanley Ramirez and there is already some depth of UIF players with the Dodgers.  Somebody like Lavarnway might be a match as a stalled player who might fulfill his potential with a change of scenery.  
 
Such a UIF is still Plan B if they can't dump one of the SP salaries to pay the premium for Drew.

Gordon's minor league numbers are dubious in my opinion.  His up years have all come in the PCL with inflated BABIP numbers.  His K% and BB% numbers are all over the map too.
 
He would definitely be a worthwhile plan B if they can't bring Drew back, but the best way to fight offensive regression is to replace about 400 ABs that went to guys like Ciriaco, Brandon Snyder, Brock Holt, and Jose Iglesias last year with Drew.  There will be regression from a bunch of other guys to at least some degree, but the Sox aren't replacing Victorino, Napoli, Ortiz, etc. just because they're unlikely to be as good as they were in 2013 next year.  Getting rid of replacement level players seeing a significant number of ABs is the best way to fight offensive regression, while also minimizing risk.

 
 

 
You're ignoring that (1) the market for him appears pretty depressed this off-season and (2) it doesn't seem like any other top-echelon teams are competing for his services.  His current choice appears to be between playing for a very bad team (Mets or Marlins) or agreeing to be a utility INF on the Sox for similar money.  You may be right that playing SS is of overriding importance to him, but given the changed circumstances, your suggestion that the choice he made last year is the only data point needed to determine what he'll choose to do this year may be overstating the case.  

 
And you're ignoring that if Stephen Drew is on the 2014 Red Sox he's the best SS they've got by a decent margin.  So what is the scenario where we play Drew at 3B and Bogaerts at SS when 1. Drew is a better SS defensively and 2. Bogaerts has actually already played 3B at the ML level?
 
Or the situation where Drew spells Pedroia instead of Middlebrooks, with Bogearts moving to 3B and Drew at SS?  The Bogaerts/Drew end of that equation is the same reasoning as above, but with the added layer that last season when Drew, Bogaerts, and Middlebrooks were all on the team Middlebrooks was the emergency 2B, not Bogaerts or Drew.
 
A meaningful bit of Drew's value comes from him being an above average SS defender, which is a non-trivial skill set in MLB.  If he's on the team he's at short whenever he's in the lineup, not because it's his preference but because the Red Sox are better with him there and the other guys moving.

 

[BigJimEd]

 
Prize to the first co-host who simply responded, "why not?" 

Merloni has said why he thinks that. He feels Bradley and WMB are too risky. He thinks they have a good chance to develop but he believes there are more growing pains.

I may not necessarily agree but he has his reasoning.

 

[Rasputin]

Merloni has said why he thinks that. He feels Bradley and WMB are too risky. He thinks they have a good chance to develop but he believes there are more growing pains.

I may not necessarily agree but he has his reasoning.

 
We just won the World Goddamn series, it won't kill us if the kids suffer some growing pains.
 
But if Kirk Cameron shows up, I'm gonna need to borrow a shiv.

 

[BigJimEd]

 
We just won the World Goddamn series, it won't kill us if the kids suffer some growing pains.
 
But if Kirk Cameron shows up, I'm gonna need to borrow a shiv.

I agree but he feels to field the best competitive team at least one of those guys should be providing depth.

I for one would be OK if it means the team takes a small step back.

 

[Reverend]

 
You're ignoring that (1) the market for him appears pretty depressed this off-season and (2) it doesn't seem like any other top-echelon teams are competing for his services.  His current choice appears to be between playing for a very bad team (Mets or Marlins) or agreeing to be a utility INF on the Sox for similar money.  You may be right that playing SS is of overriding importance to him, but given the changed circumstances, your suggestion that the choice he made last year is the only data point needed to determine what he'll choose to do this year may be overstating the case.  

 
I never meant to imply that that was the only data point that ought to be considered and was determinative of the matter, but that it was a data point not being sufficiently considered. Drew and Boras were publicly vocal about how Drew was signing with the Red Sox last year to showcase Drew's ability at SS in an effort to get a long term contract--Boras led this off-season with the goal of a 4-year deal which itself might be a stumbling block for signing with the Red Sox if they were to actually stick to it given what the FO seems to project as their future infield.
 
Will he get that? Maybe not. And it's possible Boras underestimate the effect the QO issue would have on the market for Drew. I wouldn't be surprised if Drew is himself a bit surprised and frustrated with whatever offers he is or is not getting given the season he just had. But then again, it's still pretty early. That said, I'm in no way saying that he couldn't end up back on the Red Sox, but if he does, it will be on terms and in a situation that is very far from his goals and, indeed, his not unreasonable (to my thinking anway) expectations.
 
 

ITP, WMB's second half OBP was .329.

 
Yep. This is why in all the charts about the offense I posted late in the season/post-season, I had WMB and WMB 2.0. I think the pre- and post-call-up numbers are what is creating such a divide on what Middlebrooks's value is because it makes him very difficult to project.
 
For anyone interested, we had some nice discussion of him in August here, with Scub especially doing some very thorough digging. The short version is that it looks like he may have learned to lay off some pitches that he isn't any good at hitting, but the sample sizes are obviously small. They are necessarily small, though, because, for example, to use the entire 2013 season is to increase sample size at the expense of ignoring information that we have every reason to believe matters, i.e. he was sent down because opponents had the book on his weaknesses as a hitter and he was sent down to work on that.
 
In addition to the radical difference in his OBP of .228 to .329 pre- and post-call-up, his K% went from 27.8% to 24.1% and his BB% from 4.2% to 7.0% which are not huge but consistent with better discipline. But his BABIPs are so wildly different (.221 v. .320) that he had really different feels as a hitter so it's hard to make sense of it.
 
My general feeling is that the team hasn't given up on WMB as the future at third yet--he's 25 and cost controlled. They may still manage to sign Drew, but Drew's decision will be highly influenced by what Boras thinks the Red Sox think of WMB as that obviously affects the daily lineup and Drew wants to play--which makes sense, because as Devizier said, he's a really good short stop. Frankly, I think it would be kind of weird to have that good a short stop kicking around as a utility infielder; but that gets back to what the Red Sox see in WMB.

 

[Doctor G]

 
I never meant to imply that that was the only data point that ought to be considered and was determinative of the matter, but that it was a data point not being sufficiently considered. Drew and Boras were publicly vocal about how Drew was signing with the Red Sox last year to showcase Drew's ability at SS in an effort to get a long term contract--Boras led this off-season with the goal of a 4-year deal which itself might be a stumbling block for signing with the Red Sox if they were to actually stick to it given what the FO seems to project as their future infield.
 
Will he get that? Maybe not. And it's possible Boras underestimate the effect the QO issue would have on the market for Drew. I wouldn't be surprised if Drew is himself a bit surprised and frustrated with whatever offers he is or is not getting given the season he just had. But then again, it's still pretty early. That said, I'm in no way saying that he couldn't end up back on the Red Sox, but if he does, it will be on terms and in a situation that is very far from his goals and, indeed, his not unreasonable (to my thinking anway) expectations.
 
 
 
Yep. This is why in all the charts about the offense I posted late in the season/post-season, I had WMB and WMB 2.0. I think the pre- and post-call-up numbers are what is creating such a divide on what Middlebrooks's value is because it makes him very difficult to project.
 
For anyone interested, we had some nice discussion of him in August here, with Scub especially doing some very thorough digging. The short version is that it looks like he may have learned to lay off some pitches that he isn't any good at hitting, but the sample sizes are obviously small. They are necessarily small, though, because, for example, to use the entire 2013 season is to increase sample size at the expense of ignoring information that we have every reason to believe matters, i.e. he was sent down because opponents had the book on his weaknesses as a hitter and he was sent down to work on that.
 
In addition to the radical difference in his OBP of .228 to .329 pre- and post-call-up, his K% went from 27.8% to 24.1% and his BB% from 4.2% to 7.0% which are not huge but consistent with better discipline. But his BABIPs are so wildly different (.221 v. .320) that he had really different feels as a hitter so it's hard to make sense of it.
 
My general feeling is that the team hasn't given up on WMB as the future at third yet--he's 25 and cost controlled. They may still manage to sign Drew, but Drew's decision will be highly influenced by what Boras thinks the Red Sox think of WMB as that obviously affects the daily lineup and Drew wants to play--which makes sense, because as Devizier said, he's a really good short stop. Frankly, I think it would be kind of weird to have that good a short stop kicking around as a utility infielder; but that gets back to what the Red Sox see in WMB.

If Drew is willing to accept that role my guess is he would sign on with the Yankees.

 

[Reverend]

If Drew is willing to accept that role my guess is he would sign on with the Yankees.

 
2012 called--it wants your post back.

 

[nattysez]

 
And you're ignoring that if Stephen Drew is on the 2014 Red Sox he's the best SS they've got by a decent margin.  So what is the scenario where we play Drew at 3B and Bogaerts at SS when 1. Drew is a better SS defensively and 2. Bogaerts has actually already played 3B at the ML level?
 
Or the situation where Drew spells Pedroia instead of Middlebrooks, with Bogearts moving to 3B and Drew at SS?  The Bogaerts/Drew end of that equation is the same reasoning as above, but with the added layer that last season when Drew, Bogaerts, and Middlebrooks were all on the team Middlebrooks was the emergency 2B, not Bogaerts or Drew.
 
A meaningful bit of Drew's value comes from him being an above average SS defender, which is a non-trivial skill set in MLB.  If he's on the team he's at short whenever he's in the lineup, not because it's his preference but because the Red Sox are better with him there and the other guys moving.
 

 
I've never advocated playing Drew at 3b.   I think it's pretty obvious that if we're trying to maximize the value of all players in a situation where Drew's on the team, Drew should play SS and 2b, Bogaerts should play SS and 3b, and WMB plays third and an occasional first if needed (for example, if he's hot and Napoli gets hurt).   I'll defer to others whether moving Bogaerts between 3b and SS is too much to ask from a young player, but he seems to have handled it with aplomb thus far.

 

[Reverend]

I'll grant you that it may well be that, as the players are currently constituted, Drew at SS and XB at 3rd might be their best possible starting lineup in a vacuum. However, that would be in a vacuum, and doesn't include how they might otherwise spend the money it would take to sign Drew. That (in addition to the years), of course, remains to be seen.

 

[koufax37]

 
 
Here is a post-hype sleeper UIF candidate who hits lefty, is a good infielder and brings Ellsbury type speed to the table (though he hasn't been able to steal first too well yet in the majors):
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gordode01.shtml
 
Flash's son would be a nice legacy player.  He had a decent minor league career that has been on display only in short bursts in the majors. He is stuck behind Hanley Ramirez and there is already some depth of UIF players with the Dodgers.  Somebody like Lavarnway might be a match as a stalled player who might fulfill his potential with a change of scenery.  
 
Such a UIF is still Plan B if they can't dump one of the SP salaries to pay the premium for Drew.

 
I root for him, but a no power .300 OBP infielder with a consistently negative dWAR isn't worth it for the speed.  I've seen him play a lot with the Dodgers and really want him to turn the corner at some point, but I have seen no evidence of it visually or statistically.  Sadly I would rather have Nick Punto, but I think we might creatively do better.
 
Drew's pedigree and past inclinations indicate that he isn't interested in being a utility infielder yet, so I expect he either is our starting shortstop at WMB's expense, or he plays for another team.
 
A utility infielder could be part of our return for Dempster, but we probably won't make a move like that until they have pretty good confidence in 180+ IP from Clay, and see what shakes out with Tanaka.  We clearly need another infielder, but it is probably a role we can fill very late in the process, including in spring training when another team has an infield prospect emerge for playing time and a lack of pitching depth, etc.

 

[Drek717]

 
I've never advocated playing Drew at 3b.   I think it's pretty obvious that if we're trying to maximize the value of all players in a situation where Drew's on the team, Drew should play SS and 2b, Bogaerts should play SS and 3b, and WMB plays third and an occasional first if needed (for example, if he's hot and Napoli gets hurt).   I'll defer to others whether moving Bogaerts between 3b and SS is too much to ask from a young player, but he seems to have handled it with aplomb thus far.

What is the hypothetical in which you play Drew at 2B then?  Pedroia goes down so you move the best SS on the roster to 2B?  Advocating for Drew to play somewhere other than SS when healthy is the problem, not 3B or 2B in particular.  He's a better defender than Bogaerts and there is a legitimate chance it won't be that close of a gap.
 
Middlebrooks is the guy with positional flexibility here.  We saw that last season when he was the emergency 2B late in the year and played a few games there with little prep down the stretch.  He's the guy you move about if Drew re-signs.  Not move him out of town mind, because Drew is only worth resigning on a 1 or 2 year deal and WMB might be the best long term 3B when he's gone, but let him work around the diamond for a year while he acclimates to ML pitching a bit more.

 

[nattysez]

It is very hard for me to believe that a defensive lineup with wmb at 3b, x at SS and Drew at 2b is inferior to x at 3b, Drew at SS and wmb at 2b.

 

[Otis Foster]

What is the hypothetical in which you play Drew at 2B then?  Pedroia goes down so you move the best SS on the roster to 2B?  Advocating for Drew to play somewhere other than SS when healthy is the problem, not 3B or 2B in particular.  He's a better defender than Bogaerts and there is a legitimate chance it won't be that close of a gap.
 
Middlebrooks is the guy with positional flexibility here.  We saw that last season when he was the emergency 2B late in the year and played a few games there with little prep down the stretch.  He's the guy you move about if Drew re-signs.  Not move him out of town mind, because Drew is only worth resigning on a 1 or 2 year deal and WMB might be the best long term 3B when he's gone, but let him work around the diamond for a year while he acclimates to ML pitching a bit more.

 This.
 
We need to see how WMB has adjusted going into ST before we throw him overboard. It's not like we have all that much RH power lurking around the system. Lavarnaway has gone into hibernation, Hassan is a work in progress and Cecchini, for all his other skills, hasn't shown any yet.

 

[4-6-3]

This.
 
We need to see how WMB has adjusted going into ST before we throw him overboard. It's not like we have all that much RH power lurking around the system. Lavarnaway has gone into hibernation, Hassan is a work in progress and Cecchini, for all his other skills, hasn't shown any yet.

More so to your point about lack of RH power, I believe Cecchini bats from the left side.

 

[Drek717]

 

It is very hard for me to believe that a defensive lineup with wmb at 3b, x at SS and Drew at 2b is inferior to x at 3b, Drew at SS and wmb at 2b.

Why?
 
Because right out of the gate you're downgrading the most important position of the three by playing Bogaerts at SS instead of Drew.  We're all hoping Bogaerts is a league average SS defensively and that he'll be carried by his bat.  Stephen Drew's last 5 seasons at SS in UZR/150 numbers have been: 3.0, 10.1, 8.4, -14.4, and 6.7.  That lone -14.4 was when he was fresh off a catastrophic ankle injury.  Drew is a well above average defender at SS, Bogaerts has little chance of being as good even for a few years.
 
Are you assuming that 2013 WMB with back injury and all is the real WMB and not the average to slightly above average 3B defender he was all through the minors and in 2012 at the ML level?  WMB's 2012 was a UZR/150 of +2.4, his 2013 was -8.3.  We know this coincided with a back problem that persisted all season.  So assuming he'll ever get healthy from that ailment (if not he's probably not an ML player period and Drew should be signed to play SS full time) he's likely equal to or better than Bogaerts at 3B given that he's got a ton more experience there and comparable tools.
 
The only way it would make sense is if the 2B gap between Drew and WMB is absolutely massive.  Like massive negative defender v. gold glover levels of massive.  Given that WMB has all the tools to be a league average or better 2B when healthy, and that Drew isn't likely to suddenly be Pokey Reese at 2B I don't really see how that's much of a possibility.

 

[jacklamabe65]

Given the injuries situation that makes baseball team predicting so capricious, I would sign Drew if I could because he would be one more solid glove and a decent bat to throw in there during the long season ahead. These things tend to play themselves out when you have the options.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

At the risk of sounding like a moron, if it's believed any SS can play 2b, why not Xander at 2b when Pedey needs a day off? Maybe I'm missing something. He had no experience at 3b until last year.

Other than WMB being the emergency 2b, is there reason to believe he'd be better than Bogaerts?

 

[Dionysus]

I'd imagine the reason there is that Xander is the future. The organization has big hopes for his future as a player and is imagine they'd want to limit jerking him around the diamond as much as possible while still being competitive.

Plus, I doubt "any SS can play 2B" is even remotely true

 

[Al Zarilla]

Second basemen are also taking throws at the bag blind which increases chance of injury. There is a knack to be learned of getting out of there ASAP. When Pedey needs a day, put some flotsam at second.

 

[Drek717]

At the risk of sounding like a moron, if it's believed any SS can play 2b, why not Xander at 2b when Pedey needs a day off? Maybe I'm missing something. He had no experience at 3b until last year.

Other than WMB being the emergency 2b, is there reason to believe he'd be better than Bogaerts?

No, but the goal would be to have Xander at his two most likely positions long term.  Assuming he lives up to the offensive potential he's a regular, and 2B is filled by Pedroia for just shy of the next decade now.  Not to mention two of the better infield prospects behind Cecchini are both 2Bs (Betts and Coyle).  Long term there is very little value in him knowing how to play 2B until there is reason to think he won't be a regular.
 
Which is why WMB is a good fit for the utility man role.  There is some legitimate doubt about him being a ML regular.  He might be Mark Trumbo plus defensive value.  That isn't a bad player by any stretch, but you don't extend him long term.  And if you don't do that he's got a lot more trade value as a guy who can play 3B, 2B, and 1B instead of just 3B when he gets into his arb. years.  That's also about when Cecchini might have locked him out of playing 3B with any regularity, and when Betts/Coyle/Marrero are ready to take the utility man role from him.
 
Bogaerts long term value is at 3B/SS until he shows a reason to question his projections as a full time starter.  Middlebrooks has already supplied those reasons, so while I'm a WMB supporter he's the guy you build versatility into because versatility = trade value.