Hot Stove Rumors - The Fenway Edition

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
Ben is looking for value. The Sox FO certainly had values attached to McCann, Salty, Hanigan via trade, etc. If the Yankees had somehow not been willing to go after McCann, the Sox would have jumped but I strongly suspect they pretty much knew he was Bronx-bound. The team's actions indicate to me that they are rolling the dice to try and land a guy they want at their price, but are otherwise willing to risk taking a step back at catcher in '14 as opposed to overpaying Salty in both dollars and years.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
chawson said:
With Ross and Lavarnway already on the roster, Kottaras seemed like a far more logical fit than Hanigan if the Sox were comfortable with a cheap defense-minded platoon at C. That they couldn't beat Theo's offer of "cash considerations" to the Royals suggests they're not considering that route.
 
Unless there's a weird trade (Webster and a C prospect for Jason Castro?), think it's gotta be Salty or Pierzynski at this point, and Pierzynski is a bad fit.
The love Kottaras received on here is baffling. He's a backup catcher who was DFA'ed. I would hope that MLB teams know more than the majority of posters here. Hanigan gets a great reputation as a defensive catcher (it's deserved) but you don't give up a prospect for that. Sign Salty for 2 years at 22 mil. Worst case is that Vazquez develops quick and Salty can be used as trade bait at the deadline.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,767
Tyrone Biggums said:
The love Kottaras received on here is baffling. He's a backup catcher who was DFA'ed. I would hope that MLB teams know more than the majority of posters here. Hanigan gets a great reputation as a defensive catcher (it's deserved) but you don't give up a prospect for that. Sign Salty for 2 years at 22 mil. Worst case is that Vazquez develops quick and Salty can be used as trade bait at the deadline.
 
If Salty takes 2/22, that's because no other team was willing to beat that offer (and that's without having to give up a pick or any prospects).
 
I'm not sure why he would suddenly have trade value making 11 million/season, particularly if his defense continues to be mediocre and BABIP falls back to expected levels, causing his OBP to return to the .300 range.  
 
I suppose other teams might have injuries and become desperate, but the worst case scenario isn't that he becomes trade bait. The worst case (and quite plausible scenario) is that Salty is significantly overpaid and we're stuck with him.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I have to say, I am truly enjoying the tepid FA market this offseason. Yes, there have been a couple deals where you wonder, but most of the "big name" free agents are sitting there watching their market shrink and their price go down. And this is gratifying not because I don't want those guys (whom I don't know personally) to not get paid (from someone else's bank account) -- that's none of my business. It's gratifying because it suggests some adjustment in the valuation of free agents generally. At first it was just money, and you could come up with a formula that, assuming the player reaches his expected performance level, made it profitable to sign guys regardless. Then it was money with a soft cap, which would increase the cost, but you could still do stupid shit like pay Albert Pujols into the next decade and assume it'll all work out. Now it's money, plus more money (cap), plus young talent, and suddenly GMs are hesitating. Next year the strategy could be completely different -- the Stephen Drews of the world won't be so quick to turn down qualifying offers, which in turn may mean that teams won't be so quick to offer them.
 
Ah, who am I kidding, the real reason I like this is because the agents are being made to look stupid. And when that happens, everyone else wins.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
I Think they see catcher as primarily a defensive position just as they did in the  2013 playoffs with regard to SS. This leads me to believe they will go for  Hanigan, and be satisfied with the OBP  bump  and less strike outs with runners in scoring position where Salty strikes out  at more than 33% of ABs over the last three seasons.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,679
I wasn't trying to advocate for Kottaras. I'm saying we could infer by their utter lack of interest that they're probably not considering graduating a career backup catcher to be the starter/strong side of a platoon.

If they were, they would have probably acquired Kottaras for nothing, as he's three years younger than Hanigan, has history in the organization (and the AL), projects to have a better WAR in 2014, is plus defensively, and is a better platoon fit with Ross/Lavarnway.

This is a fairly irrational comp, but you know who Ryan Hanigan makes me think of? Jason Michaels. An NL RHB with a sexy OBP/low ISO% that was completely exposed when he was used full time in the AL.

I could always be wrong, but I'm saying the "get-clever" option at C is a bad one in this market, and I'm suggesting the Sox think so too.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Devizier said:
Well, it's less, but that stat refers to all signings, as if I were talking about Brendan Ryan or Joe Smith. I was obviously talking about the effect qualifying offers has had, and of the 13 players turning down QOs, only McCann has signed. Moreover, it looks like the market is either slow to develop for many of these players, or in extreme cases like Drew there may be no market at all. If you think that's status quo, ok then.
 
On further reflection though, maybe it's more accurate to say that the market appears to be slow because of the particulars of this year rather than any long-lasting trend. It's a shitty market (Shin-soo Choo?), there is an abundance of fresh cautionary tales, and there's also the well-known increase in teams trying to buy out a few years of arbitration and free agency early on for the best young talent. By next fall Arte Moreno will have lost his mind again and will pay Hanley Ramirez $200 mil.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
chrisfont9 said:
Well, it's less, but that stat refers to all signings, as if I were talking about Brendan Ryan or Joe Smith. I was obviously talking about the effect qualifying offers has had, and of the 13 players turning down QOs, only McCann has signed. Moreover, it looks like the market is either slow to develop for many of these players, or in extreme cases like Drew there may be no market at all. If you think that's status quo, ok then.
 
On further reflection though, maybe it's more accurate to say that the market appears to be slow because of the particulars of this year rather than any long-lasting trend. It's a shitty market (Shin-soo Choo?), there is an abundance of fresh cautionary tales, and there's also the well-known increase in teams trying to buy out a few years of arbitration and free agency early on for the best young talent. By next fall Arte Moreno will have lost his mind again and will pay Hanley Ramirez $200 mil.
 
It's not unusual for free agents going after the biggest dollars to get signed in December/January, trying to get a bidding war going and waiting for teams who lose out on other free agents to enter the market for their player.  Some teams may think they get a better deal jumping in late, and others want more time for due diligence and review of medicals.  
 
I remember the glee folks had last year at this time about all of Boras unsigned free agents and he found most of them a home with a  decent payday come January, and in Lohses case March 25.
 
The market is flush with new TV money, RSN and national TV (25 million a year).  The additional WC makes the playoffs within reach to more teams, and hence the marginal value of a win should creep up.
 
The market is probably being held up a bit with the delay in the posting of Tanaka, as well as Cano.  Once interested teams lose out on Tanaka and fall out on Cano they may chase after the other available free agents. 
 
According to this teams are paying about 6.2 million per projected win thus far, and probably a higher amount for actual wins.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/an-early-look-at-the-price-of-a-win-this-off-season/
 
Sounds like the agents are doing ok so far.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Yes i thought the same when i read that gammons tidbit. I'll gladly package Cecchini into a deal for Stanton, but sans bringing back an impact young controllable power bat he's staying put. A very nice safety option if WMB can't pull it together or he can slide over to 1B. 
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,977
Maine
BeantownIdaho said:
Bringing back Drew a plausible option for Sox? Using Bogaerts as insurance as SS and 3rd if WMB collapses.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2013/11/bringing_back_veteran_ss_stephen_drew_makes_sense_for_sox
 
It's only plausible if you believe that Drew can't get a deal anywhere, be it for one year or multiple years.  I have my doubts that he'd be willing to sign another pillow contract to return to a team he knows has a young SS that isn't going to be pushed to the bench.
 
I don't like Tomase's example of another situation where the draft pick attached to a Red Sox free agent depressed his market enough for him to sign a lesser deal to return to Boston.  Varitek was a 36 year old catcher who was not going to find a long-term deal no matter the price (or the draft pick) and he truly wanted to stay in Boston.  The Red Sox brought him back because they didn't have a 21-year-old phenom (or any aged replacement period) waiting in the wings to take his place.  Obviously they do have that in Bogaerts.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,452
Boston, MA
I found that article to be really, really stupid.  
 
First of all, this:

The Red Sox made him a one-year qualifying offer of $14.1 million, which Drew rejected to enter free agency. Agent Scott Boras has trumpeted his credentials on both sides of the ball and believes there’s a multi-year deal out there.
 
But what if there isn’t? In that case, a Red Sox reunion makes a lot of sense.
 
In a true free market, Drew would get a three- or four-year deal and that’d be the end of that. But signing Drew will cost his new team a draft pick, along with its bonus allotment. That’s a huge consideration for a second-tier free agent.
 
The Cardinals, for instance, used the draft pick they obtained from the Angels after losing Hall of Fame first baseman Albert Pujols to draft right-hander Michael Wacha. They wouldn’t even consider a straight-up swap now.
 
At least the Halos have Pujols. Imagine saying you traded Michael Wacha for Stephen Drew. Fear is a powerful motivator in baseball, and no executive wants to be on the wrong side of that transaction. 
 
The Red Sox are the one team that can sign Drew without forfeiting a pick. That gives them leverage.
 
 
is a classic example of loss aversion fallacy.  If the Cardinals sign Drew, they lose a pick.  If the Red Sox sign Drew, they don't gain a pick.  Either way, to both teams, signing Drew means one less first round draft pick.  
 
I have no need for a compliment for Xander Boegarts, and I doubt that Stephen Drew is at a stage in his career when he wants his playing time cut because he's really second fiddle to one of the top prospects in baseball.  
 
 

MoGator71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,117
There was a scenario where the Sox ended up having a player come back where it was widely reported/assumed it was because they offered arb and teams didn't want to surrender a pick. I can't remember who it was, though Tony Graffanino's name sticks out.
 
I can't imagine that a team would be willing to make a 4 (or even 3) year commitment to a player but balk at surrendering a pick. Maybe if you're looking at a guy to be a stopgap for you for a year or 2 you maybe look elsewhere rather than lose your pick, but if you're talking about 4/50 to a player I can't see the pick being a dealbreaker.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,954
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
PrometheusWakefield said:
 
I found that article to be really, really stupid.  
 
First of all, this:

is a classic example of loss aversion fallacy.  If the Cardinals sign Drew, they lose a pick.  If the Red Sox sign Drew, they don't gain a pick.  Either way, to both teams, signing Drew means one less first round draft pick.  
 
I have no need for a compliment for Xander Boegarts, and I doubt that Stephen Drew is at a stage in his career when he wants his playing time cut because he's really second fiddle to one of the top prospects in baseball.  
 

 
 I also doubt Stephen Drew would sit for Middlebrooks if he were to return to Boston. I don't think it makes a ton of sense for the Red Sox to bring him back, but if they do, he'll be starting.
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
10,462
BeantownIdaho said:
 
For all the points-counterpoints-data points in the various Hot Stove threads (X-WMB or Drew-X with WMB at 1B, yay Hart, trade Nava, Beltran for two years but not three, on and on), ultimately with FAs the players have to want to tango, too.
 
Using Speier's $32M to spend, Ben knows he's got that much and presumably another $10M+ from "Dumpster" money if he needs it, so I'm sure he's got paths plotted that begin with each of Ellsbury, Drew, Napoli and Salty and he's waiting to see who comes back first with an offer to match that will get it done. (Well, maybe Salty he keeps on hold.)
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,838
If they're going all in on Xander, I suppose it makes sense. He would serve as the starting SS and the backup 3B, with Furcal backing up X at SS.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Guessing Furcal is looking to make more $$$ starting for someone than what the Sox might offer him as a back up. Also thinking the Sox are going to require each bench player be a bit more flexible other than the back up catcher.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,977
Maine
YTF said:
Guessing Furcal is looking to make more $$$ starting for someone than what the Sox might offer him as a back up. Also thinking the Sox are going to require each bench player be a bit more flexible other than the back up catcher.
 
The default UI at the moment is Brock Holt, who can play 2B, SS, and 3B as needed.  If they're bringing in someone else for that role, he's the guy they have to upgrade from.  So either this mystery UI has to be a superior defender to Holt at all three positions (not necessarily a high bar to clear) or he has to be superior at the plate (a bit taller order because good hitters tend to stick as starters somewhere).
 
The whole Furcal thing strikes me as simply leaving no stone unturned.  I'd imagine Ben is checking in with any and every potential option for every roster spot not filled by a Sox lifer (i.e. 2B & DH).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,302
YTF said:
Guessing Furcal is looking to make more $$$ starting for someone than what the Sox might offer him as a back up. Also thinking the Sox are going to require each bench player be a bit more flexible other than the back up catcher.
 
But if they decide they just don't want to give a zillion dolars to Ellsbury or Beltran, maybe the best way to take advantage of their payroll is to kick an extra million or two to Furcal to get him to be a backup.  Kind of like they did with Gomes last year.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,197
New York, NY
JimD said:
Given their aversion to overpaying Salty, this deal makes no sense. Might as well drop that $4 mil from the top of the Pru.
 
They are completely different situations. In Salty's case, the organization believes that his expected performance, even if healthy, is not worth the amount in question. In the latter case, the organization likely believes that, if healthy, Bailey will be worth more than the contract offer. They might be wrong about either or both, but the scenarios are not analogous and the logic behind both decisions is not in conflict. 
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,452
Boston, MA
JimD said:
Given their aversion to overpaying Salty, this deal makes no sense. Might as well drop that $4 mil from the top of the Pru.
Isn't that the logical step for John Henry's career anyway?

I gotta think there's some reliever out there for $4 million who is a better bet to provide value than Andrew Bailey.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,626
Somewhere
JakeRae said:
 
They are completely different situations. In Salty's case, the organization believes that his expected performance, even if healthy, is not worth the amount in question. In the latter case, the organization likely believes that, if healthy, Bailey will be worth more than the contract offer. They might be wrong about either or both, but the scenarios are not analogous and the logic behind both decisions is not in conflict. 
 
That's obvious, isn't it? Equally obvious is the fact that JimD feels that the organization is wrong here. I tend to agree; $4 million for a roll of the dice on a player whose upside is good setup man, but whose median is closer to mediocre reliever, or 60-day designated list assignee.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
PrometheusWakefield said:
Isn't that the logical step for John Henry's career anyway?

I gotta think there's some reliever out there for $4 million who is a better bet to provide value than Andrew Bailey.
I have to say I agree--seems quite silly to spend $4 million on a reliever with a checkered injury history like Bailey, especially given the depth of right-handed relievers already in the organization, and not be willing to risk committing $14.1 million for a year of Salty when your best internal and MLB-ready options there are David Ross, Dan Butler and Ryan Lavarnway. 
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,084
St. Louis, MO
Really puzzling. Gotta think they look at him as their July trade deadline relief acquisition, and would rather spend cash now than prospects then. That's all I got.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,733
Relievers have the greatest season-to-season variation in performance of any type of player, and the FO/management has discussed the problems of dealing with that unreliability. Their approach to the problem appears to be to sign a metric shit-ton of them and see who works out.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
The Sox also know specifics of Bailey's rehab and his progress.

Otherwise, this is puzzling. I think, however, they can tender and cut during spring and not have to pay more than 1/8 of the guarantee. Or something like that.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Agreed catcher and Bullpen arms are not positions that can be looked at filling the same way. They have done a pretty good job not wasting money(not necessarily prospects they've done that( Murphy,Reddick, Lowrie)  on terrible or ineffective help. Obviously, the profile might bear a disconcerting injury parallel to Jenks and Hanrahann. 
 
The level of performance you can expect from Koji when he pitches is obviously going to be high with an expectation of some regression and he's on the older side so you worry about injury or fatigue. Whatever he pitches to you'd like to preserve that high value and limit his usage a bit more this year. If Bailey pitches at all next year he's at the very most a high leverage guy behind the combos of Koji and Tazawa/Breslow and Miller.  (not making a ton of money) .  4mill is a pretty low risk for back end protection against bullpen attrition. 
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,318
Ann Arbor
Re: Bailey. I'm equally puzzled (like everyone else).
 
Does anyone know if the new CBA precludes the old loophole of...
 
A.) tender/agree to arb amount
B.) cut for fraction (1/3rd? 1/6th?) of guaranteed money before April 1st.
 
If that loophole still exists, it's possible the Sox are willing to gamble a million or so on seeing how Bailey's rehab progresses over the next 4 (additional) months.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,557
Does this Fister trade hurt the Cubs and the Sox in regards to trading SP? KC gave up more for Shields, and Texas gave up more it seems for Garza
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
BeantownIdaho said:
A reversal of earlier reports....I wonder what the reason is behind Kalish...I thought they would stick with him a little longer.
 
True. Although he hasn't played in two years and has probably been passed on the depth chart by Hassan and Brentz at this point. Still wouldn't be shocked to see both back on minor league deals. 
 
I wonder if Farrell could fix Tommy Hanson. That could be an interesting target 
 

BeantownIdaho

New Member
Dec 5, 2005
481
Nampa, Idaho
I would like to see Kalish back on a minor league deal....I really liked that kid when he came up briefly. He has had some hard luck. I wondered the same about Hanson, but given our log jam of starters I wonder if Hanson would even come to Boston and if so would he be better than anyone else we have on the roster at this point. Definitely deserves some thought. The non-tenders should be pouring in for awhile now.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,723
Oregon
RedOctober3829 said:
@PeteAbe: Two sources say it's unlikely catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia will return to the #RedSox.
 
Gammons said tonight on a MLBN show that Boston could sign AJP in the next week to 10 days
 

CaskNFappin

rembrat's protegé
May 20, 2013
254
Woonsocket, RI
I've got this unshakable feeling that AJP is coming to town. And if so, lets root for a feel good story like Lackey's this year....a guy with a shithead reputation becomes likable and productive. Some other team will see nothing wrong with giving Salty 3 years and the FO believes in Swihart/Vasquez/Lavarnaway enough that they won't budge.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
God, I hope not. He is just awful. Seems like he's pretty good defensively but if they want a defense first catcher, I'd really rather they explore Hanigan first, at he knows how to take a walk.