Drew v. 2.0

[Rasputin]

I don't think it's hard to imagine how Drew would have a role on the team. 

 
I don't either. I think he'd be tremendous depth, but that role isn't the starting shortstop job.
 

The only way he'd struggle to find playing time would be if Bogaerts and Middlebrooks are immediately great both offensively and defensively.
 

 
No, no, a thousand times no. The Red Sox have repeatedly shown a lot of patience when handing a position to a young player. Just last year they gave Middlebrooks over 50 games. Dustin Pedroia had a total of four hits between April 6, 2007, and May 3, 2007, and was playing every damn day. At some point you have to give the kids the position and see what happens. The Sox are giving every single indication they possibly can that this is what they're doing this year. 
 

 As it stands now, I think there's a reasonable amount of uncertainty surrounding Bogaerts' defense at shortstop

 
No, there isn't. There's a reasonable amount of uncertainty surrounding Bogaerts' ability to stay at shortstop as he matures and his body thickens. And Brian Butterfield, who should know, said this:

 

“I’m convinced he’s going to be a shortstop until the day he retires,” Butterfield told The Boston Globe at Saturday’s Christmas at Fenway event. “I really feel strongly that he can be an outstanding shortstop in the big leagues.”
Read more at: http://nesn.com/2013/12/brian-butterfield-xander-bogaerts-will-be-a-shortstop-until-the-day-he-retires/
 

 
 

and Middlebrooks' defense and offense.

 
I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone question Middlebrooks' defense. Given that Drew has zero experience there, I don't see how anyone could suggest that he's going to waltz into the position and be better than Middlebrooks. And, just as clearly, the Sox are confident that Middlebrooks can do it. If they weren't, they'd have brought in someone by now because it's freakin' February.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't think it's hard to imagine how Drew would have a role on the team. The only way he'd struggle to find playing time would be if Bogaerts and Middlebrooks are immediately great both offensively and defensively. As it stands now, I think there's a reasonable amount of uncertainty surrounding Bogaerts' defense at shortstop and Middlebrooks' defense and offense.

 
I'm not sure there's much uncertainty about Middlebrooks' defense at 3B.  His glove is half the reason he deserves a decent amount of rope before he's declared a bust.  Above average defense and Mark Reynolds-ish offense is a valuable and productive combo, but it's definitely the latter that is in more doubt.
 
Bogaerts at SS is also not all that uncertain.  He's not gong to be as good as Drew or Iglesias, but he doesn't need to be to easily stick as a big league SS.  It's not like scouting reports indicate he's a butcher at SS.  The knock on him has always been a concern that he's going to continue to grow and add muscle mass that could cut down on his range and flexibility at SS.  That certainly isn't going to happen overnight at age 21.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Butterfield's quotes to NESN about Bogaerts future at SS really need to be taken for what they are...a Red Sox employee speaking to a Red Sox mouthpiece about someone he's going to have under his wing for a long time. What else would you expect him to say? "We think Drew is a better shortstop and Xander will outgrow that position and end up in his natural 3rd base spot anyway, so we prefer Drew..."? 

 

[Rasputin]

Butterfield's quotes to NESN about Bogaerts future at SS really need to be taken for what they are...a Red Sox employee speaking to a Red Sox mouthpiece about someone he's going to have under his wing for a long time. What else would you expect him to say? "We think Drew is a better shortstop and Xander will outgrow that position and end up in his natural 3rd base spot anyway, so we prefer Drew..."? 

 
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, what he said wasn't just on the optimistic end of the spectrum, it was far and away the most optimistic thing I've seen about his defense. If all he'd said was that the Sox are perfectly comfortable with Bogaerts sticking at short for a while, would anyone have actually taken that as an implied criticism?

 

[Hoplite]

I think there's a significant difference between how scouts think Bogaerts and Middlebrooks project defensively and how we can expect them to play next year. Most sources on Bogaerts suggest that he profiles down the road as an average defensive shortstop. Baseball Prospectus for example said:
 

Defensive profile at short is average; actions can get stiff; range isn’t ideal because of fringe run, but plays up because of instincts and good first step; over-the-fence pop still immature.
 

 
And having watched both Drew and Bogaerts down the stretch last year, Drew was clearly the better defensive shortstop. There were some plays that Xander was unable to make at shortstop down the stretch that I remember specifically, such as this infield single that he allowed to Matt Carpenter to lead off the 7th inning of Game 3.
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63106348/v31184917/ws2013-gm3-carpenter-reaches-on-an-infield-single
 
Drew would provide some defensive certainty at the position, which the front office has said that they're looking for (linked to upthread). He might also be able to work with Xander to improve his defense and help him become that average defensive shortstop that scouts are profiling him as.
 
Scouts are more optimistic about how Middlebrooks profiles defensively, I've read in multiple places that he profiles as an above average-plus defensive player which makes sense given his athleticism and strong arm. But that's very different from saying that he's currently an above average defensive player. There are currently question marks about his range to his left as Chis Mellen of Sox Prospects points out:
 

 
 
Can stand to improve range to his left by stabbing less at the ball and taking another step or continuing to become comfortable throwing on the move.

 
When he makes throws on the move, he's had a tendency to drop his arm angle which makes the throws go wide of the bag. He also has a tendency to stab at throws with his glove, such as the ill-advised but very catchable throw that Salty made to him on the Craig obstruction play.
 

 
But really, I'm more concerned about the offense of Middlebrooks. I don't think you can look at his career average and say that we can expect him to be a .254/.294/.462 hitter going forward because baseball is a game of adjustments. Middlebrooks was relatively successful upon first being called up. He hit .316/.343/.579 (.393 wOBA) in May of 2012, but it's been downhill ever since (.353 in June '12, .339 in July '12, .298 in August '12 and then the .300 wOBA he had last year). He showed some life in 10-12 games in August when he had a .500 BABIP before going back in to a slump September-October. Pitchers have begun pounding Middlebrooks away and they've had a lot of success pitching to him that way. Whether that's a sign that Middlebrooks is struggling to adjust or whether Middlebrooks simply wasn't hitting those pitches due to an injury or a slump has yet to be seen. But given that he's striking out five times as often as he's walking, it's probably going to be an uphill battle for him offensively.
 
Given that Bogaerts is still a work in progress defensively at shortstop (and as great as he is, he might struggle to adjust to major league hitting as well), and Middlebrooks is still a work in progress offensively and defensively, I think Stephen Drew would have a very clear role as the primary shortstop. I'm not saying commit to Drew longterm, but it would be great to have him back for next year or even the next two years if the salary is right.

 

[Sampo Gida]

 
Very true.  But he was offered $14MM to suffer the ignomy of being passed by by a top-ranked prospect.  It was his choice to turn it down, knowing full well that his free agency would be burdened by the draft pick.  I just don't see his experience as evidence that the system is broken.  Rather, I see it as evidence that there are complex choices to be made.  If Drew was too proud to sit on the bench for $14MM, well that's up to him, but I'm shedding no tears for him. 

 
Players trade AAV for years and more guaranteed dollars all the time.   The 1st rd pick (outside of the top 10-15) is  worth about 5 million by most accounts I have read, so if Drew is worth say 3/35 w/o the pick and perhaps 3/30 with the pick (and most would have agreed this was a reasonable expectation a few months ago), why would he take a 1 yr 14 million deal?   Especially with a team where he would risk being a bench player, which would kill his market value next year. He would also risk a serious injury that could lower his market value drastically in coming years.
 
There are teams out there with protected 1st round picks or those who would lose only 2nd or 3rd round picks due to previous signings (Mets and Yankees), so his being unsigned is a bit of a puzzle.  I suspect he gets something better than 14 million in guaranteed money by waiting. 

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 I'm not saying commit to Drew longterm, but it would be great to have him back for next year or even the next two years if the salary is right.

 
That is a HUGE if.

 

[Hoplite]

 
That is a HUGE if.

 
Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise. I just think the people who are suggesting Drew wouldn't have a role on the team are exaggerating. I'm really not sold on Middlebrooks and I know this is kind of blasphemous, but Bogaerts could struggle as well. There's definitely some uncertainty in our infield for 2014.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise. I just think the people who are suggesting Drew wouldn't have a role on the team are exaggerating. I'm really not sold on Middlebrooks and I know this is kind of blasphemous, but Bogaerts could struggle as well. There's definitely some uncertainty in our infield for 2014.

Yes .. They might struggle .. So?? Are you going to bench Bogaerts and play Drew if if he's hitting 250/300/400 on June 1st? You have to live with the ups and downs when breaking in young guys.

 

[Hoplite]

Yes .. They might struggle .. So?? Are you going to bench Bogaerts and play Drew if if he's hitting 250/300/400 on June 1st? You have to live with the ups and downs when breaking in young guys.

 
No. I don't think anything will stop Bogaerts from getting his reps, even if he's struggling. But if Bogaerts and one of Bradley or Middlebrooks are struggling, or all three, it would be nice to have an adequate backup option. I imagine it will work a lot like it did last year when we had all three players on the roster. Drew would be the primary shortstop and start against righties. Bogaerts would start at third base against most righties and would move over to shortstop against lefties and Middlebrooks would start at third against lefties and work his way in to more playing time if he improves his plate discipline/ability to hit pitches on the outer third.

 

[Rasputin]

 
No. I don't think anything will stop Bogaerts from getting his reps, even if he's struggling. But if Bogaerts and one of Bradley or Middlebrooks are struggling, or all three, it would be nice to have an adequate backup option. I imagine it will work a lot like it did last year when we had all three players on the roster. Drew would be the primary shortstop and start against righties. Bogaerts would start at third base against most righties and would move over to shortstop against lefties and Middlebrooks would start at third against lefties and work his way in to more playing time if he improves his plate discipline/ability to hit pitches on the outer third.

 
It would be nice to have an adequate backup.
 
Drew is not adequate backup, he's much better than that.
 
We're not paying starting salary for a utility infielder.
 
Drew's not signing for utility money.
 
There's about a two percent chance he is even on the team, and that's combining the likelihood of a trade and the likelihood of his price falling to utility man levels.

 

[Hoplite]

 
It would be nice to have an adequate backup.
 
Drew is not adequate backup, he's much better than that.
 
We're not paying starting salary for a utility infielder.
 
Drew's not signing for utility money.
 
There's about a two percent chance he is even on the team, and that's combining the likelihood of a trade and the likelihood of his price falling to utility man levels.

 
It's hard to know what his asking price is given that there doesn't appear to be much interest in him. And I'd say there's a more than 50% chance that we trade a starting pitcher that would free up significant salary. I think Dempster's just on the roster as insurance in case Doubront shows up to camp out of shape again or there's an unforeseen injury. Not that we'd have to wait until that happens to sign Drew.
 
I doubt it's a coincidence that we got a utilityman with minor league options and now Middlebrooks is working on his defense at second base. It might not be Drew, but I'd be surprised if we don't add another infielder before the start of the season.

 

[Rasputin]

 
It's hard to know what his asking price is given that there doesn't appear to be much interest in him. And I'd say there's a more than 50% chance that we trade a starting pitcher that would free up significant salary. I think Dempster's just on the roster as insurance in case Doubront shows up to camp out of shape again or there's an unforeseen injury. Not that we'd have to wait until that happens to sign Drew.
 
I doubt it's a coincidence that we got a utilityman with minor league options and now Middlebrooks is working on his defense at second base. It might not be Drew, but I'd be surprised if we don't add another infielder before the start of the season.

 
I wasn't talking about trading a pitcher, I was talking about trading one of Bogaerts or Middlebrooks and we aint trading Bogaerts and we don't wanna sell low on Middlebrooks and how the fuck are we still having this conversation?
 
Of course it's not a coincidence we got an infielder with options. Fungible guys with options are better than fungible guys without options 'cause you can bounce 'em around when you need to.
 
Middlebrooks is working at second because he knows his leash is pretty short and he can't afford to fuck shit up or he's gonna be sent off to an organization that won't be winning the world series more than three times in the next ten years and it's not because of Drew it's because he already got lapped by Bogaerts and Cecchini is crawling up his ass.
 
Also, I think I deserve mad props for spelling Cecchini right on one try at twenty minutes of four in the morning.

 

[Sprowl]

There's nothing to see here.
 

 
how the fuck are we still having this conversation?

 
This is what I'm wondering. I guess we're all just desperate for baseball to talk about, and the hot stove is down to cold ashes.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Thanks.  What I don't understand is the Yankees' supposed non-interest.  They've gone blazing past the $189mm in dramatic fashion, why not lay out a bit more for Drew who covers at least in part the almost inevitable breakdown of Jeter and/or Roberts at some point this year.  They're the logical fit - they can spend the money, they're already net in the hole on lost picks, and he meets a need.  Seems to make too much sense not to happen.

 
They are not a well-run team and they are unwilling to tell Derek Jeter he can't play SS anymore.  That is really all there is to it, I think.

 

[Rasputin]

How do we know the Yankees aren't interested? At this point, all we know is that he hasn't signed with anyone. I haven't seen any indication of what kind of contract Drew has been looking for; without that it's kind of hard to know what's going on.

 
I'm guessing that second point is the big indicator here.

 

[Hoplite]

For what it's worth, grain of salt, yadda yadda...
 

 
[David] Ross said Stephen Drew remains on the texting list, and there’s been a lot of back-and-forth.
 
“Stephen knows we want him back and how we feel about him,” Ross said. “We know as players that these are management decisions so we stay out of that, but Stephen knows how each and everyone on this team feels about him and the way he played the game. As someone who’s calling pitches and calling a game in general, I was always mindful that we had an outstanding defensive shortstop and I adjusted some of my calls based on that fact. He’s an outstanding player and everyone feels he’s one of us and we’d love to see him back.”

 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/02/02/sunball/qbZR3rJEoLrIHTAQj1t7cO/story.html

 

[Drek717]

 
I don't understand how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion.

Probably because it's the right conclusion.
 
Let's review:
 
Will Middlebrooks:
1. Played some 2B and 1B last year.
2. Was benched in favor of X for the tail end of the playoffs, at which point X acquitted himself rather well at the hot corner, while WMB continued to be the only backup infielder on the roster (i.e. the backup 2B/3B at that time already).
3. Jenny Dell reports that Will Middlebrooks has been working out at 2B this off-season.  Shortly after she was reassigned because she's currently dating one Mr. Will Middlebrooks.  I wonder who her source might have been.
 
So how is this an outlandish idea?  I'd say pretty much all signs point to it not only being a possibility, but to it happening as we speak.
 
Why WMB needs to expand his positional versatility to include 2B:
1. If Drew comes back he's playing SS and Bogaerts will see a bunch of starts at 3B.  WMB will need to make up for the reduced 3B time by relieving Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli.
2. Whether or not Drew comes back WMB learning to play 2B shifts the first 2B/3B depth move should Pedroia or WMB miss serious time from Herrara/Holt to Cecchini.  A pretty non-trivial upgrade.
 
I'd argue that #2 is at least as important as #1, and #2 is already a contingency the Sox have control over.  Bringing Drew back is a luxury that a wealthy team can afford should Drew choose a higher salary and familiar setting over the other 1-2 year deals he'll likely have available from other clubs.  The Sox can afford to splash the pot on a short deal to get that luxury and insulate themselves from failure/injury at all four infield positions, should Drew choose to take that deal.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Probably because it's the right conclusion.
 
Let's review:
 
Will Middlebrooks:
1. Played some 2B and 1B last year.
2. Was benched in favor of X for the tail end of the playoffs, at which point X acquitted himself rather well at the hot corner, while WMB continued to be the only backup infielder on the roster (i.e. the backup 2B/3B at that time already).
3. Jenny Dell reports that Will Middlebrooks has been working out at 2B this off-season.  Shortly after she was reassigned because she's currently dating one Mr. Will Middlebrooks.  I wonder who her source might have been.
 
So how is this an outlandish idea?  I'd say pretty much all signs point to it not only being a possibility, but to it happening as we speak.
 
Why WMB needs to expand his positional versatility to include 2B:
1. If Drew comes back he's playing SS and Bogaerts will see a bunch of starts at 3B.  WMB will need to make up for the reduced 3B time by relieving Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli.
2. Whether or not Drew comes back WMB learning to play 2B shifts the first 2B/3B depth move should Pedroia or WMB miss serious time from Herrara/Holt to Cecchini.  A pretty non-trivial upgrade.
 
I'd argue that #2 is at least as important as #1, and #2 is already a contingency the Sox have control over.  Bringing Drew back is a luxury that a wealthy team can afford should Drew choose a higher salary and familiar setting over the other 1-2 year deals he'll likely have available from other clubs.  The Sox can afford to splash the pot on a short deal to get that luxury and insulate themselves from failure/injury at all four infield positions, should Drew choose to take that deal.

 
 
So .. lets see if we can summarize things given the scenario of Drew coming back and WMB as the pimary UI. Under this scenario - as proposed by numerous posters -WMB, X and Drew essentially split two positions - with WMB getting extra ABs spelling 2B and 1B 
 
Advantages :
 
- Improved defense at SS
 
- improved offense - Drew/WMB as the utility guy > Herrera
 
- improved depth in the highly unlikely event that either WMB or X has to go back to Pawtucket.
 
Disadvantages:
 
- major questions as to whether WMB can adequately play 2B
 
- reducing WMBs role down to < 400/350 Abs (at whatever position) restricts his development - increasing the likelihood of WMB as an open question as opposed to a long term answer in the event he struggles. This is the year the Sox have to find out if he's going to be a productive major league regular. Cecchini's roaring up behind him. This is his window,
 
- Having X play 3B for the vast majority of his playing time greatly restricts his development as a major league SS. Regardless of his success at 3B last year one has to think that things will be easier for him if he stays at his natural position. 
 
- A Drew/X/WMB job share reduces the ABs for X and WMB - they have to play as much as possible. 
 
- If WMB actually rakes out of the gate what do they do with Drew ? He's not going to be a happy camper if he only plays twice a week.
 
I can see the argument that the 2014 Boston Red Sox are a better team with Drew on board. But I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in the long term. My primary desire is to see X established as a major league SS . Secondly I think they have to find out if WMB can be what they hope him to be. Both of these outcomes are inhibited by having Drew on the team.

 

[In my lifetime]

You forgot probably the most important disadvantage - the salary expense. The 10 million or so that will require the Red Sox to shed some salary elsewhere to stay under the luxury tax. In all likelihood, this means also sacrificing starting pitching depth in what would be a trade out of a position of relative weakness.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

There's one more disadvantage BCMJY leaves out, which is that we give up any possibility of getting a draft pick for Drew.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

There's one more disadvantage BCMJY leaves out, which is that we give up any possibility of getting a draft pick for Drew.

My apologies for the obvious misses .. Of the two I failed to list the draft pick was the most egregious.

The scales seem to be rather heavily leaning toward the Nay option

 

[Hoplite]

Theoretically, we could offer Drew a theoretical QO at the end of whatever theoretical contract he theoretically signs.

 

[Drek717]

 

Disadvantages:
 
- major questions as to whether WMB can adequately play 2B
 
- reducing WMBs role down to < 400/350 Abs (at whatever position) restricts his development - increasing the likelihood of WMB as an open question as opposed to a long term answer in the event he struggles. This is the year the Sox have to find out if he's going to be a productive major league regular. Cecchini's roaring up behind him. This is his window,
 
- Having X play 3B for the vast majority of his playing time greatly restricts his development as a major league SS. Regardless of his success at 3B last year one has to think that things will be easier for him if he stays at his natural position. 
 
- A Drew/X/WMB job share reduces the ABs for X and WMB - they have to play as much as possible. 
 
- If WMB actually rakes out of the gate what do they do with Drew ? He's not going to be a happy camper if he only plays twice a week.
 
I can see the argument that the 2014 Boston Red Sox are a better team with Drew on board. But I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in the long term. My primary desire is to see X established as a major league SS . Secondly I think they have to find out if WMB can be what they hope him to be. Both of these outcomes are inhibited by having Drew on the team.

1. The Red Sox don't see a major question with WMB as a 2B.  They let him play regular season innings there during a pennant race.  They went into a locked roster situation during the playoffs with him as the only 2B option.  He's now apparently taking work there this off-season.  I doubt they'd do this if something in their scouting said he couldn't cut it.  Also, lets say he isn't a capable 2B and Pedroia does get hurt (only time it would even matter).  How long are they locked in to playing him there before getting one of the other backup 2B options (Herrera/Holt) up?  A few days?  Not a big threat.
 
2. Why would they reduce WMB's role to 350-400 ABs?  Drew played 124 games last year and was generally pretty healthy by any ML player's standards.  You could also argue that as a guy with a career .795/.681 RHP/LHP split that he should see a more or less straight platoon role.  Bogaerts is also a 21 year old kid who last season saw by far the most games of his young career at 146 and that required playing baseball all the way to the WS with large breaks in-between.  I don't see how it would be a bad idea to keep him in a rotation for the first year or so and help him avoid the rookie wall so many youngsters hit late in their first full season.  To that end, WMB has yet to make it through a full ML season himself.
 
Playing infield is a physical grind on the body.  Letting three guys share two spots to get roughly 1.5-2 days off per week doesn't sound like the worst idea at all if the goal is to have a healthy, highly productive team come September and October.
 
As for Cecchini, lets worry about where he goes in 2015 after he A. hits at AAA in 2014, B. proves himself a legitimate defensive 3B in 2014 and C. isn't an ideal fit for some other opening somewhere else (LF, 1B).
 
3. I think it would be pretty easy to manage a scenario where Bogaerts sees a 50/50 split between 3B and SS.  I'm suggesting all LHP starts at SS (so about 50 over the course of a year) with another 10 or so games against RHP.  Figure Drew gets 100, Bogaerts gets 62, basically.  Then WMB and X work a similar 60/40 split at 3B, giving WMB about 100 games there and Bogaerts another 62.
 
WMB would then pick up ~5-10 games at 2B and 5-10 games at DH against lefties Ortiz doesn't hit well.  So 100+5-10+5-10 and we're talking 110-120 games for WMB, assuming no injuries.  Bogaerts meanwhile timeshares into about 124 games, and Drew (the one with the lopsided platoon split) sees about 100 games.  The problem with this is Drew accepting what would more or less be a platoon role, but then if he's coming back he's intentionally choosing money and familiarity over PT so that's his call.
 
4. Again, I don't see the benefits to playing WMB and X as much as possible.  Why?  So they're ran into the ground come September?  From a development and evaluation standpoint is 600 ABs tangibly better than 500 ABs?  I just don't see it.  Drew is nearly an .800 career OPS hitter against RHP, pretty comparable to what we could expect from either Bogaerts or WMB.  Therefore Drew is an ideal way to lighten the workload, keep WMB and X healthy and fresh, and insure a highly competitive team against at least one major catastrophic injury or flame out form any of it's infielders.  WMB and X are under team control.  They aren't going anywhere.  Embrace it and let them develop over multiple seasons instead of thinking the more ABs we shove down their throats in 2014 the more "definitive" the answer about their ability to stick will become.  Same goes for X at SS.  From a scouting standpoint I'd imagine 60+ games is a pretty worthwhile sample to see if they guy has the tools or if he's just lost there.  Meanwhile it would also give the team an "all factors being equal" view of what both X and WMB can do at 3B.

 
 

You forgot probably the most important disadvantage - the salary expense. The 10 million or so that will require the Red Sox to shed some salary elsewhere to stay under the luxury tax. In all likelihood, this means also sacrificing starting pitching depth in what would be a trade out of a position of relative weakness.

 
Dempster's money is a pretty nice 1:1 swap for Drew and I don't think the gap between Workman, Webster, et al and Dempster is anywhere near the gap between Drew and Herrera/Holt.  So wouldn't the smart use of money be Drew?

 

[Burgmeier In LF]

WMB is 6'3" 220lbs. Doesn't seem like the most ideal 2B attributes, but then again how much would he play there anyways with Pedey playing 155-160 games?

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

WMB is 6'3" 220lbs. Doesn't seem like the most ideal 2B attributes, but then again how much would he play there anyways with Pedey playing 155-160 games?

 
Jeff Kent was 6'2" 210 lbs. (source: Fangraphs)  He was a solid 2b.  

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
 
 
Dempster's money is a pretty nice 1:1 swap for Drew and I don't think the gap between Workman, Webster, et al and Dempster is anywhere near the gap between Drew and Herrera/Holt.  So wouldn't the smart use of money be Drew?
 

 
I don't think you can look at it this way.  First, deep pitching depth is more important than deep SS depth.  Second, Drew wouldn't be replacing Herrera/Holt.  He'd be replacing X, who would be replacing Middlebrooks, who would be replacing Herrera/Holt.

 

[Hoplite]

 
Jeff Kent was 6'2" 210 lbs. (source: Fangraphs)  He was a solid 2b.  

 
I feel like second basemen are getting bigger. Utley, Zobrist, Carpenter, Murphy and Walker are all 6'+, 200 lbs. or more. Not that this is really relevant to who our backup is, since Pedroia will play 150 games.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 

1. The Red Sox don't see a major question with WMB as a 2B.  They let him play regular season innings there during a pennant race.  They went into a locked roster situation during the playoffs with him as the only 2B option.  He's now apparently taking work there this off-season.  I doubt they'd do this if something in their scouting said he couldn't cut it.  Also, lets say he isn't a capable 2B and Pedroia does get hurt (only time it would even matter).  How long are they locked in to playing him there before getting one of the other backup 2B options (Herrera/Holt) up?  A few days?  Not a big threat.

 
They let him play FOUR INNINGS at 2B.  Both instances in blow-out games to give Pedroia a little bit of a break.  Both instances also came in the short 10 days or so at the end of August that they decided having Bogaerts up was more important than a true utility infielder.  That's hardly definitive proof that they trust Middlebrooks there for any significant length of time (or in a close/important game either).
 
The playoff roster thing, also not proof of much.  The only way anyone other than Pedroia would be playing an inning at 2B in a playoff game is if Pedroia was hurt.  Finishing a game with WMB in that case is an emergency-only type situation, like sticking a pitcher in the outfield in the 15th inning because you're out of bench players.  If Pedroia couldn't make the next game, they'd probably have made a roster move.
 
Callng up a 2B replacement for Pedroia could be done in a day.  The problem is that it requires an additional roster move. Which means that either Pedroia is hurt enough to DL him and he's gone for a minimum of two weeks, or you option another player down (WMB and X are the only ones with options on the projected roster) and lose them for a minimum of 10 days.  Just seems short-sighted to me.

 

[IpswichSox]

Gammons was just on MLB radio, and he was asked about Boston resigning Drew, moving X to 3B and having WMB be a kind of super utility infielder for a year. Gammons said immediately that Boston has told Drew that Bogaerts is definitely starting a shortstop, kind of putting cold water on the idea of Drew coming back -- ie, Drew wouldn't want to play anywhere but SS, and the Sox would be unlikely to offer Drew starter money to play backup (Gammons didn't say this last part, just my inference).

It's an interesting juxtaposition to the earlier comments from Farrell et al about the team wanting Drew to come back. I wonder what they would have done had Drew accepted the QO. Or given Boras they just assumed it was a more than acceptable risk to take.

 

[soxhop411]

Via mlbtraderumors

The Red Sox have made a two-year offer to Stephen Drew, one source told Bowden. The value of that reported offer is unclear, as is the date on which it was made.
http://bit.ly/1fUu2vv

 

[Rasputin]

Probably because it's the right conclusion.
 
Let's review:
 
Will Middlebrooks:
1. Played some 2B and 1B last year.
2. Was benched in favor of X for the tail end of the playoffs, at which point X acquitted himself rather well at the hot corner, while WMB continued to be the only backup infielder on the roster (i.e. the backup 2B/3B at that time already).
3. Jenny Dell reports that Will Middlebrooks has been working out at 2B this off-season.  Shortly after she was reassigned because she's currently dating one Mr. Will Middlebrooks.  I wonder who her source might have been.
 
So how is this an outlandish idea?  I'd say pretty much all signs point to it not only being a possibility, but to it happening as we speak.
 
Why WMB needs to expand his positional versatility to include 2B:
1. If Drew comes back he's playing SS and Bogaerts will see a bunch of starts at 3B.  WMB will need to make up for the reduced 3B time by relieving Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli.
2. Whether or not Drew comes back WMB learning to play 2B shifts the first 2B/3B depth move should Pedroia or WMB miss serious time from Herrara/Holt to Cecchini.  A pretty non-trivial upgrade.
 
I'd argue that #2 is at least as important as #1, and #2 is already a contingency the Sox have control over.  Bringing Drew back is a luxury that a wealthy team can afford should Drew choose a higher salary and familiar setting over the other 1-2 year deals he'll likely have available from other clubs.  The Sox can afford to splash the pot on a short deal to get that luxury and insulate themselves from failure/injury at all four infield positions, should Drew choose to take that deal.

 
You're not even addressing the right conclusion.
 
The conclusion you're supposed to be addressing is the one that results in Stephen Drew being the starting shortstop. You cannot address that one by saying maybe Middlebrooks could play second. Even the stupid teams aren't going to move Middlebrooks to a utility guy at this point in his career unless they think long term the team is better with Drew at short, Bogaerts at third, and Middlebrooks at utility. That is a decision largely driven by Bogaerts (because he's the highest ceiling player among them) and Drew (because he plays Bogaert's position.)
 
Here's a given. If you want to have young, cost controlled players on your roster, at some point you have to take a young, cost controlled player, and give him a position.
 
If you had a recipe for when a team with the expectations Red Sox fans have could hand a position to a young player and ride out the bumps even if it costs them a ticket to the post season, wouldn't that be a season after the team just won the world series, reinvigorating the fan base with an unanticipated success?
 
So, please, if you're going to make an argument for Drew being the starting shortstop in 2014, you have to address the following points.
 
1) If you're not handing the postion to Bogaerts now, when are you doing so, and why is that a better time than now? You answer should address the issue from the team aspect (see above) and the player aspect.
 
2) If the discussion of the above includes moving Bogaerts to third, you're going to have to address why you think the team is going to move him when everything they say about him indicates that the's a shortstop at least for the next several years.
 
3) You're going to have to address why, when the weakness in the Sox system is power bats, you're going to take the young, cost controlled guy who has the most power and move him to a utility position before giving him every possible chance to be an every day player.
 
4) You're going to have to address why, if Drew is the better long term option, the biggest offer we've heard about is two years at unspecified dollars.
 
And you're going to have to do this because here's the bottom line that none of you seem to be addressing. XANDER BOGAERTS IS THE SHORTSTOP OF THE FUCKING FUTURE. HIS UPSIDE IS THAT OF THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE and while he isn't terribly likely to reach that upside, he is terribly likely to be an outstanding offensive player at the position at which it is the hardest to find offense. And, mind you, all of the scouts are saying that his defense is good enough to play the position.
 
If Xander Bogaerts isn't the Red Sox starting shortstop this season, there's going to have to be a very good reason, and Stephen Drew isn't it.
 
 

That assumes that someone is willing to assume all of Dempster's contract, which seems highly unlikely. 

 
He's due to be paid thirteen million t be a near average pitcher. Finding someone who is willing to assume that contract doesn't seem all that unlikely. I rather suspect, though, that the Sox would rather send a little money the other way and get some actual talent back, even if it's just a lottery ticket.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Gammons was just on MLB radio, and he was asked about Boston resigning Drew, moving X to 3B and having WMB be a kind of super utility infielder for a year. Gammons said immediately that Boston has told Drew that Bogaerts is definitely starting a shortstop, kind of putting cold water on the idea of Drew coming back -- ie, Drew wouldn't want to play anywhere but SS, and the Sox would be unlikely to offer Drew starter money to play backup (Gammons didn't say this last part, just my inference).

It's an interesting juxtaposition to the earlier comments from Farrell et al about the team wanting Drew to come back. I wonder what they would have done had Drew accepted the QO. Or given Boras they just assumed it was a more than acceptable risk to take.

 
 
It was a pretty safe bet Drew would not accept the QO. They supposedly made him a 2 yr offer so his accepting the QO may not have been entirely unwelcome, except for its AAV implications.  If he did accept it, and they were not happy about that, it probably would have just meant WMB would start the season in AAA until they traded Drew in June.
 
Drew has said he will consider playing other positions, but I believe that was in the context of a 3 yr deal. not a short term deal where he would soon be entering free agency again with a lower market value as a result of playing out of position,
 
The Red Sox could consider playing Drew at 3B instead of WMB, or perhaps platooning the two.  This provides insurance in case XB proves to be a defensive liability at SS (not that I am predicting he will) and has them change their thinking on XB eventual positioning ( SS to 3B).  This is kind of what I thought the Yankees would do with Drew, which was to sign him to play 3B to start and then move him to SS when Jeter proved unable to handle SS.  Again, that's something Drew would probably be willing to do on a 3 yr deal but not a 1-2 yr deal

 

[jimbobim]

I guess it comes down to how much do you pay for a  two year insurance policy on Cecchini/ WMB to fill 3B/ utility INF role for the next two years?  
 
Xander has his most value as a SS and it seems the team intends  find out what they have defensively at SS with X. 
 
Therefore the platoon situation at 3B seems the most probable idea.  
 
I struggle to see how they would want to pay him 10 million a year to have a reduced role from last season. I'd imagine their offer would be 2 for 12-14ish 6-7 AAV. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Thing is, though, it really doesn't make sense to sign Drew and then play him at 3B while Xander plays SS, because Drew is a really good SS who has never played 3B, whlie Xander is, by all acounts, a pretty good SS who has played some 3B and looked OK there.
 
Stephen Drew is a shortstop. That's what he's good at. And he is good at it. If you sign Stephen Drew and don't play him at shortstop, you're making poor use of resources. Drew is not a significantly better hitter than Middlebrooks. They're both more or less average offensively. What distinguishes them is (1) WMB's offense has a pretty good chance of improving; (2) Drew is a very good defender at the toughest position on the field. Signing Drew for multiple years and then playing him at 3B two-thirds of the time basically ignores both these distinctions. It would be inexplicably stupid.
 
I think Xander should be our starting shortstop this year. Unless we sign Stephen Drew.

 

[Hoplite]

There's really not a whole lot to discuss here. There are a ton of conflicting reports about how the team's preferred position for Bogaerts, how the team views Middlebrooks, what the market is for Drew, etc. and people are just believing what they want to believe. 

 

[Rasputin]

There's really not a whole lot to discuss here. There are a ton of conflicting reports about how the team's preferred position for Bogaerts, how the team views Middlebrooks, what the market is for Drew, etc. and people are just believing what they want to believe. 

Where are these tons of reports that suggest the Sox think Bogaerts isn't a shortstop?

Also, the actions the team has taken aren't remotely ambiguous.

 

[Hoplite]

Where are these tons of reports that suggest the Sox think Bogaerts isn't a shortstop?

Also, the actions the team has taken aren't remotely ambiguous.

 
There are reports that go both ways as to what his role would be in 2014. Against my better judgement...
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/7417714/v31325467/jon-heyman-chats-about-the-remaining-free-agents
 
http://nesn.com/2013/12/john-farrell-red-sox-stephen-drew-still-would-like-to-strike-deal/
 
And no, this isn't an invitation to explain why these reports should be disqualified but Butterfield should be taken at face value because you really "get" this front office. I'm simply providing some reports in case you were legitimately curious.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Thing is, though, it really doesn't make sense to sign Drew and then play him at 3B while Xander plays SS, because Drew is a really good SS who has never played 3B, whlie Xander is, by all acounts, a pretty good SS who has played some 3B and looked OK there.
 
Stephen Drew is a shortstop. That's what he's good at. And he is good at it. If you sign Stephen Drew and don't play him at shortstop, you're making poor use of resources. Drew is not a significantly better hitter than Middlebrooks. They're both more or less average offensively. What distinguishes them is (1) WMB's offense has a pretty good chance of improving; (2) Drew is a very good defender at the toughest position on the field. Signing Drew for multiple years and then playing him at 3B two-thirds of the time basically ignores both these distinctions. It would be inexplicably stupid.
 
I think Xander should be our starting shortstop this year. Unless we sign Stephen Drew.

 
Nobody says you would be locked into Drew for the entire length of whatever deal you sign him at, as he would have significant trade value.  Like with all insurance policies it looks like a waste of money or resources if you don't need to collect on it.  The value in the policy comes if XB does not get the job done defensively (scouts say he can but they are not infallible).  While WMB may improve offensively over time, it's not clear he is the 3Bman of the future, as that seems to be Cecchini, so his development is probably not a priority. 
 
Drew could be a 1 yr insurance policy at SS for XB and a stop gap measure that improves the team at 3B in a platoon situation with WMB.  A bridge to Cecchini if you will. Its not about maximizing Drews value which is clearly at SS, but improving the team,  both in the short run and the long term.  Giving up on XB at SS or retarding his development at SS just because you have Drew is incredibly short sighted.

 

[Sprowl]

Via mlbtraderumors

The Red Sox have made a two-year offer to Stephen Drew, one source told Bowden. The value of that reported offer is unclear, as is the date on which it was made.
http://bit.ly/1fUu2vv

 
I read this rumor as the Red Sox trying to help Drew get a three-year offer from some other team. The value is unclear, the position is unclear, and the other team is unclear.
 
I'll hazard that the value over 2 years is more than 14 million (but not much), the position is utility infielder (until one of Boegarts and Middlebrooks demonstrates the need for more seasoning), and the other team is other than the Yankees.

 

[Rasputin]

 
There are reports that go both ways as to what his role would be in 2014. Against my better judgement...
 
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/7417714/v31325467/jon-heyman-chats-about-the-remaining-free-agents
 
http://nesn.com/2013/12/john-farrell-red-sox-stephen-drew-still-would-like-to-strike-deal/
 
And no, this isn't an invitation to explain why these reports should be disqualified but Butterfield should be taken at face value because you really "get" this front office. I'm simply providing some reports in case you were legitimately curious.

 
Is that the best you can offer?
 
I'm trying not to be an asshole here, but I think you need to pay more attention to the media that you're consuming. Heyman does not work in the Red Sox front office. Even if you ignore all the stuff that says he's a Boras mouthpiece, do you know what he didn't do in that piece? He didn't quote a single thing from the Red Sox front office. Everything he says is his opinion. Now maybe he came to the opinion because several people in the front office told him that the Sox don't view Bogaerts as a shortstop, but unless and until he actually offers quotes to that effect, that's a hell of an assumption to make.
 
The Butterfield piece should be taken much more seriously than the Heyman piece not because I get the organization in any way, but because Butterfield is part of the organization and Heyman isn't.
 
The NESN piece doesn't even address the question of where Bogaerts would play. The only mention of him is that with him and Middlebrooks on the left side, they'd like to get more experience over there. Unless you suddenly think Middlebrooks is going to play short, doesn't pairing the two rather strongly suggest that they do see Bogaerts as a shortstop? And, considering that the two of them combine for barely over one season's worth of games played, who the hell wouldn't want more experience?
 
And yes, it says they would like to sign Drew. Big deal. I'd like for them to sign Drew. Signing Drew doesn't mean the Sox think Bogaerts isn't a shortstop. It didn't in December when that thing was written, and it sure as shit doesn't in February when Drew is still sitting out there unsigned.
 
And let me ask this question. If the Red Sox don't see Bogaerts as a shortstop, then why haven't they done a single thing to address the gaping hole at shortstop?
 
It's February. Most of the off season shuffling has been done. If the Sox didn't see Bogaerts as a shortstop then there would be another shortstop in the organization and Jonathan Herrera aint it.

 

[mBiferi]

According to Francesa (I know), the Mets made Drew an offer:
 

 
The Mets have made an offer to free-agent shortstop Stephen Drew, WFAN host Mike Francesa said on the air on Tuesday.
According to Francesa, the shortstop and the club are negotiating over the length of the deal.

 
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/francesa-mets-have-made-an-offer-to-shortstop-stephen-drew/

 

[mabrowndog]

According to Francesa (I know), the Mets made Drew an offer:
 
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/francesa-mets-have-made-an-offer-to-shortstop-stephen-drew/

 
It would only cost them their 3rd rounder. Their #1 is protected, and they already gave up their #2 for Granderson.

 

[bosockboy]

Drew to the Mets is completely logical.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
I read this rumor as the Red Sox trying to help Drew get a three-year offer from some other team. The value is unclear, the position is unclear, and the other team is unclear.
 
I'll hazard that the value over 2 years is more than 14 million (but not much), the position is utility infielder (until one of Boegarts and Middlebrooks demonstrates the need for more seasoning), and the other team is other than the Yankees.

 
It would make little sense that I can see for Sox to be the one who leak that info---it is a lot less interesting for a new team to negotiate with Drew if he wants three years, or even has a strong two-year offer on the table from the Sox, and teams who are already negotiating with him aren't going to be moved by that rumor at this late point in the process, since they already understand Drew's parameters.  
 
The Sox want him to either take their deal or sign elsewhere to generate the draft pick, and leaking a two-year offer doesn't really help further either interest in any way I can see; I guess if you believed the only interested teams were limited to one-year offers AND the Sox badly wanted him it would make sense, but none of those limitations are true.   I think the logic you suggest above works for guys who are in high demand, perhaps, but we know at this point that Drew is not one of those--if he were, he'd have been signed before New Year's!  
 
Drew's camp has a lot more to gain from leaking info on a two-year offer, to try and drive up a known bidder.  That's likely where the story comes from.

 

[Corsi]

According to a source with knowledge of the situation, NO offer has been made by #Mets to Stephen Drew as of this moment
 

https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/430798246525431809

 

[SeanBerry]

I've been advocating for Drew to join the Mets since last year. He makes a ton of sense. Here's how the Mets are trying to spin why it doesn't make sense (either to bring down Drew's value or the Wilpon's are too broke to afford him:
 
Ruben Tejada is the starting shortstop! 
Ugh. Tejada was insanely bad last year and Terry Collins hates him. Tejada came in on time to Spring training in 2012 and that pissed off Collins because he thought his starting SS sjhould be there early. Tejada actually played well in 2012 but did miss time due to a hamstring/quad issue that popped up after trying to run out a groundball mid-season. 
 
2013 was a fucking nightmare. He came into camp slightly out of shape (but early!) and was awful right from the start. he played in the 1st 50 games of the season and then got hurt in game #50 and by then the season was already lost. Sandly Alderson more or less said publically that Tejada wouldn't/couldn't be the starter in 2014 but here we are. To Tejada's credit, he has attended a team-run boot camp (he actually went twice) this off season and seems committed to having a bounce back but you hear that shit all the time going into a season. Jason Bay said he was ready for the best year of his career going in 2012. He had the opposite of the word "best".
 
There are better SS free agent options next year!
Hanley Ramirez and Jed Lowrie leads the class next year and Alderson is said to be in love with JeDLowrie. But even so, will any SS more a better value than Drew is considering how much his stock has dropped?
 
Stephen Drew has hip problems!
Someone has been leaking he may have hip issues but doctors quickly come on record to refute this whenever these rumors pop up. I have no idea if this is the Mets doing this shit but it would be typical with their MO.
 
I'd gladly take Drew with a 3yr/30 million contract. It would be great for the Mets. But after the Bourn flirting all last year that led to nothing, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[SeanBerry]

https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/430798246525431809

 
 
Yeah...they aren't going to say they have an offer out there. Take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Average Reds]

 I read the qualifier "as of this moment" as an implicit admission that the Mets are in talks with Drew but nothing is finalized.  (Otherwise why add it?  Just say that there is no offer.)

 

[Hairps]

Gammons:
 

Red Sox General Manager Ben Cherington made it clear a month ago that Xander Bogaerts is going to be Boston’s shortstop; he wants Drew back, could use his talent in a number of roles, but fielding professor Brian Butterfield has already laid out a number of creative footwork drills for Bogaerts at short and insists Will Middlebrooks “will turn out to be a good defensive third baseman.” Butterfield has studied overhead video of Middlebrooks to find ways of quickening his first step and breaks on balls off the bat. And Boston needs his righthanded corner power, which he showed when he made adjustments after being recalled from Pawtucket, improving his OBP by 70 points and beginning to drive balls to center and right center.
 
One report had Drew going back to Oakland. “Not a chance in the world,” said Billy Beane. “Jed Lowrie is our shortstop. With Addison Russell on the way. We like Eric Sogard and Nick Punto at second. The Drew thing makes no sense.” Russell will be making $50-0,000 in 2015.
 
Scott Boras has been an opponent of the system for more than year, and was critical of the late Michael Weiner. He is invested in getting Drew to Boston on a three year deal with an opt-out that would clear the way for Deven Marrero, another client. He’s usually won big on these gambles, but, right now, there doesn’t appear to a guardian angel, as there was for Kyle Lohse.
 

 
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/gammons-notes-braves-extend-heyward-freeman-free-agency-and-the-system/