Hot Stove Wishes

[lxt]

Why Headley? If Middlebrooks turns around and becomes the player he was in 2012 then we have a solid performer that is inexpensive. Cecchini is likely not ready until 2015 or 2016, although a September call up in 2014 is likely. He hasn't even play AAA ball yet.
 
Keep Middlebrooks, expose him to 1B and have him ready to step in when Napoli moves on, assuming the Sox resign him and he's around through 2015. Then when Cecchini is ready to come up Middlebrooks takes over 1B. If Carp proves to be able to play at the level he did last season with consistency then move Middlebrooks to DH when Ortiz retires.
 
I like Headley, I think he's a "Lowell" type player but to trade for him for one, may be two years giving up Middlebrooks, Dempster, money and a prospect seems a little drastic. We got Middlebrooks with Cecchini in the wings let's take advantage of that combination rather than pulling off a trade that only gains us a draft pick and may be one year of service.

 

[NoXInNixon]

Why Headley? If Middlebrooks turns around and becomes the player he was in 2012 then we have a solid performer that is inexpensive. Cecchini is likely not ready until 2015 or 2016, although a September call up in 2014 is likely. He hasn't even play AAA ball yet.

Because Headley is, right now, the player we all hope WMB might become someday. With JBJ and X replacing big contracts, the Red Sox have to spend that money somewhere else to upgrade, and 3B is one of the few logical places to do that. 

 

[Dustin the Wind]

Why Headley? If Middlebrooks turns around and becomes the player he was in 2012 then we have a solid performer that is inexpensive. Cecchini is likely not ready until 2015 or 2016, although a September call up in 2014 is likely. He hasn't even play AAA ball yet.
 
Keep Middlebrooks, expose him to 1B and have him ready to step in when Napoli moves on, assuming the Sox resign him and he's around through 2015. Then when Cecchini is ready to come up Middlebrooks takes over 1B. If Carp proves to be able to play at the level he did last season with consistency then move Middlebrooks to DH when Ortiz retires.
 
I like Headley, I think he's a "Lowell" type player but to trade for him for one, may be two years giving up Middlebrooks, Dempster, money and a prospect seems a little drastic. We got Middlebrooks with Cecchini in the wings let's take advantage of that combination rather than pulling off a trade that only gains us a draft pick and may be one year of service.

 
I love Will but Chase Headley would be a fantastic acquisition. Yes he had a down year, but he played all year with a torn meniscus and didn't make any excuses. I think he would absolutely be the perfect addition to this lineup. He's a gold glove defender at third and he'd be able to handle a shift to first base in a few years if need be.

 

[Hoplite]

Why Headley? If Middlebrooks turns around and becomes the player he was in 2012 then we have a solid performer that is inexpensive. Cecchini is likely not ready until 2015 or 2016, although a September call up in 2014 is likely. He hasn't even play AAA ball yet.
 
Keep Middlebrooks, expose him to 1B and have him ready to step in when Napoli moves on, assuming the Sox resign him and he's around through 2015. Then when Cecchini is ready to come up Middlebrooks takes over 1B. If Carp proves to be able to play at the level he did last season with consistency then move Middlebrooks to DH when Ortiz retires.
 
I like Headley, I think he's a "Lowell" type player but to trade for him for one, may be two years giving up Middlebrooks, Dempster, money and a prospect seems a little drastic. We got Middlebrooks with Cecchini in the wings let's take advantage of that combination rather than pulling off a trade that only gains us a draft pick and may be one year of service.

 
Because if we're going to let Ellsbury and Drew walk (Napoli looks like he might walk too), we need to try to recoup some of that production somewhere. Middlebrooks projects to be one of our least productive position players next year, and the fact that his plate discipline is atrocious and he blocks one of our best prospects makes him somewhat expendable.

 

[bosockboy]

Headley is a perfect target. Worry about Cecchini later. He is a perfect hedge against handing over starting jobs to X and JBJ.

Resign Napoli and get Ruiz for 2 years. Love this lineup:

JBJ
Victorino
Pedroia
Ortiz
Napoli
Headley
Nava/Gomes
Bogaerts
Ruiz

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Headley is a perfect target. Worry about Cecchini later. He is a perfect hedge against handing over starting jobs to X and JBJ.

Resign Napoli and get Ruiz for 2 years. Love this lineup:

JBJ
Victorino
Pedroia
Ortiz
Napoli
Headley
Nava/Gomes
Bogaerts
Ruiz

I have to admit--this is a pretty sexy lineup

 

[JakeRae]

My suspicion is that Headley is likely still overvalued. He had one great season, which looks like a fluke right now, and is an otherwise good player. If he can be acquired as a guy who is a 3-4 win player, in terms of what needs to be given up, that's a good move for the Red Sox since Middlebrooks is the current weak link on the roster and Headley is as good now as we hope Middlebrooks can be. However, if the acquisition price for Headley includes the fact that a year ago he was one of the best players in baseball, I want no part of this team paying that price. 
 
Last year wasn't a down year for Headley. Last year was a normal year. 2012 was a crazy fluke great season where he hit for more a lot more power than he ever has before. That power came entirely from twice as many fly balls turning into HR as in his 2 other best seasons, and 5 times as many as in his lowest power season. He would be a great fit on the Red Sox roster but I fear he would come at too great a cost.

 

[Hoplite]

The more I look at his numbers, the more Ryan Hanigan interests me. The Reds are going to trade him and reportedly only want one prospect in return. We could send them someone like Britton, Brentz or Hassan (could be one less person we'd have to protect in the Rule V). On the surface, his offensive numbers look a bit underwhelming, but he did deal with a wrist injury last year. He has a career .359 OBP, has walked more than he's struck out and has seen 3.97 pitches per plate appearance. He doesn't have the power of Carlos Ruiz, but he also figures to cost 1/5 as much in salary.
 
The defense is what interests me the most. Over his career, he's thrown out 40.4% of baserunners and has a .995 FPCT. Since he became a regular player in 2009, fangraphs has his defensive rating at 48.5 (7th among all catchers) in 3350 innings. Everyone above him has at least 1,000 more innings. B-R has him with a 3.8 dWAR in 474 games.

 

[YTF]

My suspicion is that Headley is likely still overvalued. He had one great season, which looks like a fluke right now, and is an otherwise good player. If he can be acquired as a guy who is a 3-4 win player, in terms of what needs to be given up, that's a good move for the Red Sox since Middlebrooks is the current weak link on the roster and Headley is as good now as we hope Middlebrooks can be. However, if the acquisition price for Headley includes the fact that a year ago he was one of the best players in baseball, I want no part of this team paying that price. 
 
Last year wasn't a down year for Headley. Last year was a normal year. 2012 was a crazy fluke great season where he hit for more a lot more power than he ever has before. That power came entirely from twice as many fly balls turning into HR as in his 2 other best seasons, and 5 times as many as in his lowest power season. He would be a great fit on the Red Sox roster but I fear he would come at too great a cost.

 
This is the concern I have with acquiring Headley. He's def a better fit right now than Middlebrooks, offensively and defensively but is this going to be a one year fix and if so how much is THAT worth?
 

Headley is a perfect target. Worry about Cecchini later. He is a perfect hedge against handing over starting jobs to X and JBJ.

Resign Napoli and get Ruiz for 2 years. Love this lineup:

JBJ
Victorino
Pedroia
Ortiz
Napoli
Headley
Nava/Gomes
Bogaerts
Ruiz

 
I like this as well. I think with Pedroia, Victorino, Nava and perhaps even Bogaerts there is enough flexibility for Farrell near the top of that lineup IF JBJ struggles at the plate as well as flexibility with the guys at the bottom of the order. I see a lot of these guys being able to move up and down the lineup without fear of creating a "black hole" of suck.

 

[Hoplite]

 
This is the concern I have with acquiring Headley. He's def a better fit right now than Middlebrooks, offensively and defensively but is this going to be a one year fix and if so how much is THAT worth?
 
 
I like this as well. I think with Pedroia, Victorino, Nava and perhaps even Bogaerts there is enough flexibility for Farrell near the top of that lineup IF JBJ struggles at the plate as well as flexibility with the guys at the bottom of the order. I see a lot of these guys being able to move up and down the lineup without fear of creating a "black hole" of suck.

 
We could potentially work out an extension with Headley, since we aren't bound to San Diego's salary constrictions. There are mixed reviews on Cecchini's defense at third, he might be a better fit in left field. Or we could move Headley to left field. Worst case scenario, he walks and we get a draft pick. Barring some kind of catastrophic injury, he'll get a multiyear deal.

 

[YouLookAdopted]

I thought we were getting a bridge year this year and we ended up winning the Series. I'd be ok with no significant free agent signings in order to get some young guys ABs next season.

 

[YTF]

 
We could potentially work out an extension with Headley, since we aren't bound to San Diego's salary constrictions. There are mixed reviews on Cecchini's defense at third, he might be a better fit in left field. Or we could move Headley to left field. Worst case scenario, he walks and we get a draft pick. Barring some kind of catastrophic injury, he'll get a multiyear deal.

 
Exactly at what point during the season does this happen? The guy is going to be entering his first free agency. If he's off to a shit start the Sox aren't going to rush to an extension and if he gets off to a good to great start he's not likely to be in a rush to extend, looking toward that multiyear deal that you mentioned with MORE than one suitor.The good news I guess is that his agent isn't named Scott Boras.  

 

[Hoplite]

 
Exactly at what point during the season does this happen? The guy is going to be entering his first free agency. If he's off to a shit start the Sox aren't going to rush to an extension and if he gets off to a good to great start he's not likely to be in a rush to extend, looking toward that multiyear deal that you mentioned with MORE than one suitor.The good news I guess is that his agent isn't named Scott Boras.  

 
Most likely during the exclusive negotiating window we would have with him after the end of the season. If we don't work out an extension, we get a draft pick. It's a win-win.

 

[SoxLegacy]

[SIZE=medium]So let me get this straight…Headley is a nice player, but he’s 5 years older than Middlebrooks, has essentially the same numbers as WMB, and is in the last year of his contract and will be looking for a big payday at the end of next season.  And some of you want to swap WMB for him and then bid him a fair adieu at the end of 2014 when Cecchini is ready to assume his role as the next fulltime thirdbaseman? Do you really think that fits the front office’s vision of the next great Red Sox team? [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]I think that Headley is an above average player, but I’m not ready to give up on WMB just yet, and I don’t think that Ben and the front office is going to swap out a potentially good player in WMB for a one year deal with Headley—there’s way too much uncertainty to that deal from all parties involved. If Napoli goes elsewhere and if the Padres were to go for a swap of Headley for Dempster or Peavy and a lower prospect, and the Sox were to put Headley at 1B and see how he does in the AL East, I could see that. But the fact that he's got almost no experience at 1B, and is coming from the low expectations/lesser competition of the NL West makes me think that this is not a good idea. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]And as for Hoplite's suggestion that if we can't work out an extension after a big year or don't want to because Headley couldn't perform, that would leave the Sox looking for another player to take over at third.  [/SIZE]

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I love this Headley idea.  I'm not usually one to get into "contract year" ways of thinking, but how stoked would Headley be to have a chance to re-establish himself as an all-star caliber player in the small ballpark and big stage of Boston rather than the large ballpark and small stage of San Diego.  Headley replaces Napoli as another major bat in the middle of the lineup and he replaces Ellsbury as a guy who, while inconsistent, has the potential to put up a 7+ WAR season.  I'd happily give up 2 of our major league ready young pitchers along with Middlebrooks for Headley, especially given the draft pick we'll also net in return if we don't extend him.  

 

[YTF]

 
Most likely during the exclusive negotiating window we would have with him after the end of the season. If we don't work out an extension, we get a draft pick. It's a win-win.

 
 
And with this we come full circle to the question I posed up thread when I asked about the cost of obtaining Headley. That's still an unknown, but let's suppose it's Middlebrooks, a SUBSIDIZED Dempster AND a prospect (yes the amount and player are unknowns as well) is that a win-win? It will be years before you have the answer and honestly I would like a return that's a bit more concrete.

 

[smastroyin]

I'm not a big fan of taking on Headley, especially with any kind of heady idea that he is going to be an All Star.  There was nothing in his track record that would have predicted his 2012 (age 28) season.  Calling 2013 a down year is fine after the 2012 but it is basically what his expectation should be based on his entire career.  Now, that will translate up a little bit coming out of Petco, but I am not really satisfied that guys manage to his to their translated stats just because they switch parks (this goes back and forth).  For 2011 and 2012 Headley was a lot better on the road but it's not a great expectation to think he will just be that guy.  Maybe he is one of those guys that finds his power at a late age but *expecting* a repeat of 2012 is a fool's errand.  His defense has also been up and down, though more up lately.
 
Regardless, he's a fine target if other things don't come into shape, but I wouldn't get excited about dealing 3 players for him nor would I be excited about offering him the QO if he is just the player that he was every year other than 2012, nevermind offering him a multi-year deal into his mid-30's.  As with all things, of course, the cost would be a deciding factor.

 

[JakeRae]

[SIZE=medium]So let me get this straight…Headley is a nice player, but he’s 5 years older than Middlebrooks, has essentially the same numbers as WMB, and is in the last year of his contract and will be looking for a big payday at the end of next season. [/SIZE]

 
Which numbers are those? Headley hits for average better, is one of the best OBP hitters in baseball, and has nowhere near the power that Middlebrooks does. Headley is also a much better player, period, right now due largely to the aforementioned OBP skill. Middlebrooks ceiling is having similar value to Headley. Middlebrooks is also coming off a season where he showed nothing that indicates movement toward that ceiling.

 

[radsoxfan]

[SIZE=medium]So let me get this straight…Headley is a nice player, but he’s 5 years older than Middlebrooks, has essentially the same numbers as WMB, and is in the last year of his contract and will be looking for a big payday at the end of next season.  And some of you want to swap WMB for him and then bid him a fair adieu at the end of 2014 when Cecchini is ready to assume his role as the next fulltime thirdbaseman? Do you really think that fits the front office’s vision of the next great Red Sox team? [/SIZE]
 

 
Headley is a far superior player than Middlebrooks, thats why you do the deal. I'm not sure what you mean by "essentially the same numbers", but I think Headley is a better offensive and defensive player.  
 
As I also mentioned, his floor is signficantly higher than WMB. The FO has a clear goal to build depth and consistency throughout he lineup (no weak links), and last season Middlebrooks was the obvious outlier. Depends on how much collateral cost there is, but I would do a Middlebrooks/Headley swap in a heartbeat. FWIW, I would do it even if Cecchini wasn't in the organization, since I just don't think long term Will is going to be the guy some people want him to be. It's nice to have young cheap players under team control, but thats only helpful if they turn out to be good. 
 
Also, there is nothing wrong with getting a guy in the last year if his contract. He'll be motivated, and if he plays well enough to earn a QO, you get a pick if you don't sign him.  I'd be happy to trade Dempster/WMB for the right to turn Headley into this year's Drew.

 

[Hoplite]

There are multiple people pointing out that Headley isn't the hitter he was in 2012, but I don't see anyone that suggested he was. Headley's projected to be worth 2.5 WAR more than Middlebrooks according to Steamer. In my proposal, we'd be giving up Middlebrooks, who has terrible plate discipline and would be blocking Cecchini. We'd be giving up Doubront, who's a borderline 5th starter on a team that currently has six major league starters. And we'd be giving up someone like Workman, who we expect to use as a middle reliever because we don't have room for him in a rotation above the AA level. In return, we'd get a draft pick and drafting pool money which could allow us to sign an overslot guy (like Ryan Boldt or Jon Denney last year) that plays a position of need for us.

 

[radsoxfan]

I'm not a big fan of taking on Headley, especially with any kind of heady idea that he is going to be an All Star.  There was nothing in his track record that would have predicted his 2012 (age 28) season.  Calling 2013 a down year is fine after the 2012 but it is basically what his expectation should be based on his entire career.  Now, that will translate up a little bit coming out of Petco, but I am not really satisfied that guys manage to his to their translated stats just because they switch parks (this goes back and forth).  For 2011 and 2012 Headley was a lot better on the road but it's not a great expectation to think he will just be that guy.  Maybe he is one of those guys that finds his power at a late age but *expecting* a repeat of 2012 is a fool's errand.  His defense has also been up and down, though more up lately.
 
Regardless, he's a fine target if other things don't come into shape, but I wouldn't get excited about dealing 3 players for him nor would I be excited about offering him the QO if he is just the player that he was every year other than 2012, nevermind offering him a multi-year deal into his mid-30's.  As with all things, of course, the cost would be a deciding factor.

 
If you have to trade a bunch of top prospects based on his 2012 season, then I agree. But even if you throw out 2012 completely, Headley looks like a 3-4 win player next season (he has accumulated 10.3 WAR in 2010, 2011, 2013).  To me, thats a huge upgrade over Middlebrooks.  The 2012 season might make give you hope that theres a small chance you get much more than that, but 2012 is not the reason to do the deal.  Ignore that season completely, and he is still a very solid player.
 
Who knows what the Padres will ask for, so this whole conversation might be rendered irrelevant based on cost. I wouldn't give up Xander, Owens, JBJ, Cecchini, and probably a few other guys in the system.  But if a trade can be centered around WMB/Dempster and some mid-level prospects, i would be all over it. 

 

[Super Nomario]

There are multiple people pointing out that Headley isn't the hitter he was in 2012, but I don't see anyone that suggested he was. Headley's projected to be worth 2.5 WAR more than Middlebrooks according to Steamer.

Middlebrooks is projected at .9 wins - in 49 games, 202 PAs. Headley's projection of 3.5 wins assumes 146 games, 642 PA. Prorate Middlebrooks' rate to Headley's playing time, and you get 2.9 WAR, not much worse than Headley's projected 3.5. Steamer actually projects Middlebrooks as the better hitter - .332 wOBA vs. .328 for Headley.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Regardless, he's a fine target if other things don't come into shape, but I wouldn't get excited about dealing 3 players for him nor would I be excited about offering him the QO if he is just the player that he was every year other than 2012, nevermind offering him a multi-year deal into his mid-30's.  As with all things, of course, the cost would be a deciding factor.

 
Saying "just the player that he was every year other than 2012" prompts the question: which year other than 2012, exactly? Last year, when he had a 113 wRC+? 2011, when he had a 121? Or 2009 and 2010, when he was just barely above average (107, 104)? It's not as if he's had a steady, monolithic career except for that one 2012 outlier. He's been all over the place (it's interesting how similar Headley's career arc has been to Ellsbury's so far). But the mean point of the inconsistency has been pretty much the player he was this past year, and that's a player worth giving up WMB for--though not necessarily giving up a whole lot more for.
 

Middlebrooks is projected at .9 wins - in 49 games, 202 PAs. Headley's projection of 3.5 wins assumes 146 games, 642 PA. Prorate Middlebrooks' rate to Headley's playing time, and you get 2.9 WAR, not much worse than Headley's projected 3.5. Steamer actually projects Middlebrooks as the better hitter - .332 wOBA vs. .328 for Headley.

 
If you factor in park/league context, though, that difference does not make Middlebrooks the better hitter. Last year Headley had a .330 wOBA and a 113 wRC+. Ellsbury, playing half his games in Fenway, also had a 113 wRC+...but with a .343 wOBA.

 

[SoxLegacy]

WMB: .254/.294/.462 and with an OPS of .756 OPS+ is 102, but is skewed by the his terrible '13 season. His fielding % is .952
Headley: .269/.350/.415, OPS of .765 and OPS+ of 115. That is skewed by his outlier '12 season.  His fielding % is .965
 
That's what I meant by essentially the same numbers. Don't get me wrong, I think Headley is a good player, and could be a fit on the '14 Red Sox, but I don't see much difference statistically between him and WMB, with Middlebrooks having more potential to be as good a player as Headley.
 
Hoplite, you're talking like Cecchini is a write in at 3b, and he's not. And Doubront showed enough this season to me that he's much more than a borderline 5th starter.
 
Savin, thanks for that info on the pair, and I agree with you in that a 1-for-1 swap of WMB for Headley is about all I would do--adding in Doubront and a prospect seems a huge price to pay.
 
edit: spelling & clarification.

 

[Hoplite]

Middlebrooks is projected at .9 wins - in 49 games, 202 PAs. Headley's projection of 3.5 wins assumes 146 games, 642 PA. Prorate Middlebrooks' rate to Headley's playing time, and you get 2.9 WAR, not much worse than Headley's projected 3.5. Steamer actually projects Middlebrooks as the better hitter - .332 wOBA vs. .328 for Headley.

 
wRC+ is park adjusted and it has Headley at 112 to Middlebrooks' 105.

 

[YTF]

 
Headley is a far superior player than Middlebrooks, thats why you do the deal. I'm not sure what you mean by "essentially the same numbers", but I think Headley is a better offensive and defensive player.  
 
As I also mentioned, his floor is signficantly higher than WMB. The FO has a clear goal to build depth and consistency throughout he lineup (no weak links), and last season Middlebrooks was the obvious outlier. Depends on how much collateral cost there is, but I would do a Middlebrooks/Headley swap in a heartbeat. FWIW, I would do it even if Cecchini wasn't in the organization, since I just don't think long term Will is going to be the guy some people want him to be. It's nice to have young cheap players under team control, but thats only helpful if they turn out to be good. 
 
Also, there is nothing wrong with getting a guy in the last year if his contract. He'll be motivated, and if he plays well enough to earn a QO, you get a pick if you don't sign him.  I'd be happy to trade Dempster/WMB for the right to turn Headley into this year's Drew.

 
Question as far as Dempster goes.....Subsidized or unsubsidized? I ask because you mention Drew. The Sox paid him 9.5M last season. It's yet to be determined what Headley is going to be paid in the coming year, but he's likely to make at least that if not more. How much of a subsidized Dempster might the Sox be willing to pay on top of Headley's salary AND other cost controlled players for the "right" to a potential draft pick?  

 

[Hoplite]

WMB: .254/.294/.462 and with an OPS of .756 OPS+ is 102, but is skewed by the his terrible '13 season. His fielding % is .952
Headley: .269/.350/.415, OPS od .765 and OPS+ of 115. That is skewed by his outlier '12 season.  His fielding % is .965
 
That's what I meant by essentially the same numbers. Don't get me wrong, I think Headley is a good player, and could be a fit on the '14 Red Sox, but I don't see much difference statistically between him and WMB, with Middlebrooks having more potential to be as good a player as Headley.
 
Hoplite, you're talking like Cecchini is a write in at 3b, and he's not. And Doubront showed enough this season to me that he's much more than a borderline 5th starter.

 
I'm not sure you can claim that a hitter's stats are skewed by a sample size that accounts for the majority of their career.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Question as far as Dempster goes.....Subsidized or unsubsidized? I ask because you mention Drew. The Sox paid him 9.5M last season. It's yet to be determined what Headley is going to be paid in the coming year, but he's likely to make at least that if not more. How much of a subsidized Dempster might the Sox be willing to pay on top of Headley's salary AND other cost controlled players for the "right" to a potential draft pick?  

 
Assuming SD wants Dempster, but only with some money thrown in, I would probably offer around 1-2M, which makes the Dempster/Headley portion of the swap essentially cost neutral. A least that would be my starting point.  Might go a tad higher, particularly if it lowers the prospect demands, but probably wouldn't pay half his contract under any circumstances. Dempster really isn't that overpaid on a 1 year deal.
 
 
On a separate note.... I'm not sure why people are using fielding percentages as some sort of important fielding metric. 

 

[smastroyin]

 
Saying "just the player that he was every year other than 2012" prompts the question: which year other than 2012, exactly? Last year, when he had a 113 wRC+? 2011, when he had a 121? Or 2009 and 2010, when he was just barely above average (107, 104)? It's not as if he's had a steady, monolithic career except for that one 2012 outlier. He's been all over the place (it's interesting how similar Headley's career arc has been to Ellsbury's so far). But the mean point of the inconsistency has been pretty much the player he was this past year, and that's a player worth giving up WMB for--though not necessarily giving up a whole lot more for.
 


I'm not sure why all the snark just to come to essentially the same conclusion.

Headley of 2007-2010 is not a player I would put much higher than "look into it if all else fails." In 2011 we have him gaining a huge BABIP spike kicking up his average while his power sputtered and he dealt with injuries. In 2012 he had a huge power spike, a jump of about 100 ISO and a year in which he hit about 40% of his career HR in about 20% of his career playing time. Now, in this thread we have people taking about him playing through the meniscus problem as being the reason his year was disappointing. But honestly, take out 2012 and 2013 looks like about what you would expect given the rest of his career. At least, it's not out of line.

This doesn't change my point though, about his play going forward. A player with his ups and downs is not someone I want to bet on being useful for the next five years. I'm all good with the idea that he could fill in this year, as well maybe you get a look at how he performs outside of the NL West and then you can decide to QO him. But my pessimism is more targeted toward the idea that he'll necessarily be useful to the Red Sox past 2014.

 

[SoxLegacy]

 
I'm not sure you can claim that a hitter's stats are skewed by a sample size that accounts for the majority of their career.

Right, because Middlebrooks 94 games in '13 is so much more than the 75 he played in '12. Look, you like Headley in a Sox uni, and I think that while he might be a good addition at the right price, I think there are enough questions concerning a deal that I would rather see what WMB can do going forward.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

If they do trade for Chase Headley, can we all agree that every time he gets a hit or makes a good defensive play, the board in center should play a clip from Blazing Saddles where Harvey Korman corrects someone misidentifying him (as "Heddy") with a shout of "That's Headley!"

 

[SoxLegacy]

If they do trade for Chase Headley, can we all agree that every time he gets a hit or makes a good defensive play, the board in center should play a clip from Blazing Saddles where Harvey Korman corrects someone misidentifying him (as "Heddy") with a shout of "That's Headley!"

You know, I had a similar thought earlier today and then my train of thought went off the tracks and I never posted it. Great idea...great movie.

 

[JakeRae]

Right, because Middlebrooks 94 games in '13 is so much more than the 75 he played in '12. Look, you like Headley in a Sox uni, and I think that while he might be a good addition at the right price, I think there are enough questions concerning a deal that I would rather see what WMB can do going forward.

 
It's not the position that is a problem. It is justifying it via a comparison of statistics like OPS and fielding percentage. (OPS is a terrible measure of the offensive difference between Middlebrooks and Headley because it overweights slugging and underweights OBP and that is where the principle difference between the two players is. Fielding percentage doesn't even have the claim to being a generally useful first glance statistic that OPS does.) Also, 94 games counts as the majority of a 169 game career and the counter argument was not that we should only look at those 94 games, but that they do not skew Middlebrooks stats. (One could make the same argument for Headley, if using career stats. Headley's career year does skew his stats if we only look at a more recent sample like the last 3 years though. That could be appropriate or not, depending on one's view of Headley's true ability to hit for power.) 
 
I generally agree with you that Headley is not the answer. But, your framing of why you think he is not relies on using statistics that are misleading rather than informative. I don't think I would trade Middlebrooks for Headley straight up. But, if I could acquire Headley at a reasonable price I'd gladly play him over Middlebrooks.

 

[koufax37]

Having seen a lot of Headley here in San Diego, I am underwhelmed.  He is a good player, but going into his 30 year old season, I think he is a lot more of his 2011 and 2013 seasons than his 2012.
 
I think this comes down to how you evaluate Middlebrooks and his chance to be a decent hitter.  Chase is much more well rounded, but lacks WMB's big power, and lacks his 24 year-oldness.  I remain more optimistic on WMB being a genuinely useful major leaguer, progressing with his plate discipline enough to make his power skill more valuable.
 
If we have reason to believe that this hope is off base and he really is going to be a low value player until he is replaced, then take what you can get for him, and Headley could be a definite upgrade over that baseline, and Dempster could play well in Petco, and the Padres would like the stadium-independent power WMB offers and this deal could happen.
 
So it is tempting if you think WMB is a plate discipline problem child who will never be able to turn into a solid 150 game player for us, but I think it is more likely WMB's power and youth prove valuable rather than him being a complete bust and/or Headley proving 2012 wasn't a big outlier.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm not sure why all the snark just to come to essentially the same conclusion.

 
Sorry, I wasn't really going for snark, though on second read I can see how it appeared otherwise.
 
I agree that 2013 is roughly what to expect from Headley going forward--but it's also close to the minimum I'd expect. Like Ellsbury, he seems to have finally settled down in 2013 to a level near his true talent, and that level of offense (113 wRC+) seems like WMB's upside unless he makes really dramatic strides in BB or K rate. Likewise, Headley's defense seems like WMB's ceiling.
 
So I don't think there's much question that we'd rather have Headley than WMB for 2014. But that difference is offset by the value of a cost-controlled WMB from 2015 through 2018, versus Headley in a costly multiyear deal into his mid-thirties, or the delayed and more uncertain value of the draft pick we'd get for Headley if we don't sign him. I'm not sure how to cost that out. I suspect Headley is still worth a bit more than WMB, but not necessarily a lot more.
 
As lxt suggested, there's also the issue of giving up the organizational depth at 3B. Yes, we have Cecchini coming. But in trading WMB for Headley we put ourselves in a position where we're committing ourselves to penciling Cecchini in for 2015 if we can't sign Headley to a long-term deal. That's a considerable risk. OTOH, if we hang onto WMB, he doesn't progress, and Cecchini takes his job in 2015, then we'll be lucky to get a bag of balls for him. It's a tough call, and I'm glad I'm not paid to make it.
 
(This is all assuming, of course, that SD would do a Headley-for-WMB-plus deal.)

 

[DourDoerr]

Is it crazy to see WMB as this year's version of Josh Reddick?  Touted prospect, flashes power but projects plate discipline issues.  If so, would we want to go the Andrew Bailey/Chase Headley route of the 29-30ish player with injury problems as a return?  Not everyone has problems with low OBP when you can flash 25+ homers in front of their eyes.  Out here in Oakland, fans were thrilled with the Reddick of 2012 and someone will value WMB if he too can reach 25 homers again.  Especially given his contract and age.
 
If we had a very short window, then you might convince me that getting Headley would be worth it, but since it looks like the Sox will be around awhile, I'd rather wait and see if we can sell WMB high.  The best news is if it all goes blooey, you still have Cecchini coming along and you still might be able to get back a useful piece for a cheap and young WMB perceived as being given up on too quickly.

 

[Puffy]

Is it crazy to see WMB as this year's version of Josh Reddick?  Touted prospect, flashes power but projects plate discipline issues.  If so, would we want to go the Andrew Bailey/Chase Headley route of the 29-30ish player with injury problems as a return?  Not everyone has problems with low OBP when you can flash 25+ homers in front of their eyes.  Out here in Oakland, fans were thrilled with the Reddick of 2012 and someone will value WMB if he too can reach 25 homers again.  Especially given his contract and age.
 
If we had a very short window, then you might convince me that getting Headley would be worth it, but since it looks like the Sox will be around awhile, I'd rather wait and see if we can sell WMB high.  The best news is if it all goes blooey, you still have Cecchini coming along and you still might be able to get back a useful piece for a cheap and young WMB perceived as being given up on too quickly.

 
For a team that appears willing to take the risk of breaking in rookies at SS and CF (with potential risk at 1B and C, depending on what they decide to do there) I think a trade for Headley would simply be a hedge move to remove some uncertainty from offense.  In a vacuum, it would make sense to sink or swim with Will Middlebrooks next year to see if can live up to his power potential over the course of a whole season. In practice, the Red Sox have to be worried about having a bottom of the order including Bradley, Middlebrooks, and Bogaerts (as legit as Bogaerts looks to be), particularly if folks like Carp and Lavarnway/Ross are also going to be given prominent roles.  
 
Another possibility would be to trade for Headley, but keep Middlebrooks at AAA again as 1B/3B depth, perhaps giving him some reps at another position as well (LF? 2B?). If his offensive ceiling is lower than we thought, positional versatility could make up some of it. If the offense were otherwise stacked, I could see going with Middlebrooks on opening day. But the decision may come down to how much uncertainty Ben Cherington can tolerate in the lineup.

 

[Devizier]

I get the hedge argument -- I'm a big believer in it. But wouldn't hedging on Ellsbury be more straigthforward? They lose the draft pick, but keep the higher level prospects and lack the worry about free agency in a year.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I get the hedge argument -- I'm a big believer in it. But wouldn't hedging on Ellsbury be more straigthforward? They lose the draft pick, but keep the higher level prospects and lack the worry about free agency in a year.

 
I don't know that there's a context in which re-signing Ellsbury could be considered a hedge against JBJ struggling or failing.  That's more like removing any concern at all whether JBJ plays at all, let alone plays well.  Ellsbury returning more or less takes JBJ out of the discussion as a starting OF, at least in 2014.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
If we had a very short window, then you might convince me that getting Headley would be worth it, but since it looks like the Sox will be around awhile, I'd rather wait and see if we can sell WMB high.  The best news is if it all goes blooey, you still have Cecchini coming along and you still might be able to get back a useful piece for a cheap and young WMB perceived as being given up on too quickly.

I like the idea of a Headley acquisition in the context of what I'll call the mega-draft offseason plan - as in the plan in which we let all our QO free agents walk and sign no QO free agents of our own.  The problem with that plan of course is how do you keep our current roster from declining in the mean time.  The answer is that we trade from our glut of prospects and players who are superfluous or expendable to replace the guys who leave.  
 
RDLR is a guy who at 25 headed into next season really needs to have a MLB starting job or his value will start to decline.  WMB is probably our weakest position player going into 2014 (depending on what happens at catcher) and has already been passed in our long-term planning by Cecchini.  Dempster is currently a sixth starter on a team with a bunch of guys like Webster or Workman who could probably fill that role adequately on their own.  If we could put those three guys together for Headley, we really haven't lost very much other than depth, and we've gained a guy who is certainly at least an upgrade and maybe a big upgrade.  That makes it easier to let Napoli walk, which in turn means that we're also building the next crop of prospects with a new first round pick in June.  
 
It might not be Headley, but this is the direction I think the Sox will go this offseason - let the FAs walk, use trades or non QO signings to fill holes, plan for a huge draft in June.

 

[Puffy]

I like the idea of a Headley acquisition in the context of what I'll call the mega-draft offseason plan - as in the plan in which we let all our QO free agents walk and sign no QO free agents of our own.  The problem with that plan of course is how do you keep our current roster from declining in the mean time.  The answer is that we trade from our glut of prospects and players who are superfluous or expendable to replace the guys who leave.  
 
RDLR is a guy who at 25 headed into next season really needs to have a MLB starting job or his value will start to decline.  WMB is probably our weakest position player going into 2014 (depending on what happens at catcher) and has already been passed in our long-term planning by Cecchini.  Dempster is currently a sixth starter on a team with a bunch of guys like Webster or Workman who could probably fill that role adequately on their own.  If we could put those three guys together for Headley, we really haven't lost very much other than depth, and we've gained a guy who is certainly at least an upgrade and maybe a big upgrade.  That makes it easier to let Napoli walk, which in turn means that we're also building the next crop of prospects with a new first round pick in June.  
 
It might not be Headley, but this is the direction I think the Sox will go this offseason - let the FAs walk, use trades or non QO signings to fill holes, plan for a huge draft in June.

 
This line of thinking makes sense, especially targeting non-QO free agents.  This is why I could see a signing like Corey Hart.  You get Hart for 1 year, plus a draft pick for Napoli (not to mention a draft pick in 2015 if Hart is good enough for a QO).  Is Hart + top draft pick superior to Napoli?

 

[nvalvo]

I wonder if rookies are really that much more uncertain than veterans, which a lot of these arguments seem to be assuming. A lot of this angst seems to be unexamined AAAA player theory. Do rookies collapse? Sure, sometimes. But in aggregate, rookies play to their major league equivalent lines. Veterans have terrible years, sometimes, too. But with veterans, we have a stronger sense of who the player was before an off year, so it's easier to distinguish the slump from the player.
 
I think as Sox fans we've lost some perspective, because we haven't had many prospects as highly-rated league wide as Bogaerts in a long time — at eighth, he is the third highest Red Sox prospect in Baseball-America's list since they started in 1990, after Matsuzaka (#1 in 2007, but shouldn't really count) and Buchholz (#4 in 2008). Garciaparra and Vaughn and Hanley all topped out at #10. At the top-10 level, very few of the prospects flop. Look through the lists: the Brandon Wood/Andy Marte-type total flameouts from top ten prospects are extremely rare, maybe 1 in 10. There are a few more Joba Chamberlain/Travis Snider-type disappointments, but the prospects at this level are more likely to turn into stars than busts. 
 
I guess what I'm asking is this: do people really think we need to hedge against Bogaerts and Bradley just because they're rookies? 

 

[DanoooME]

Brendan Ryan and Carlos Ruiz are off the board for backup UI and C options respectively.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Brendan Ryan and Carlos Ruiz are off the board for backup UI and C options respectively.

3-year deal(with a 4th year option) for Ruiz is probably why Phillies got him.  I can imagine Red Sox offered him more AAV for 2 years.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I wonder if rookies are really that much more uncertain than veterans, which a lot of these arguments seem to be assuming. A lot of this angst seems to be unexamined AAAA player theory. Do rookies collapse? Sure, sometimes. But in aggregate, rookies play to their major league equivalent lines. Veterans have terrible years, sometimes, too. But with veterans, we have a stronger sense of who the player was before an off year, so it's easier to distinguish the slump from the player.
 
I think as Sox fans we've lost some perspective, because we haven't had many prospects as highly-rated league wide as Bogaerts in a long time — at eighth, he is the third highest Red Sox prospect in Baseball-America's list since they started in 1990, after Matsuzaka (#1 in 2007, but shouldn't really count) and Buchholz (#4 in 2008). Garciaparra and Vaughn and Hanley all topped out at #10. At the top-10 level, very few of the prospects flop. Look through the lists: the Brandon Wood/Andy Marte-type total flameouts from top ten prospects are extremely rare, maybe 1 in 10. There are a few more Joba Chamberlain/Travis Snider-type disappointments, but the prospects at this level are more likely to turn into stars than busts. 
 
I guess what I'm asking is this: do people really think we need to hedge against Bogaerts and Bradley just because they're rookies? 

I don't think we need to hedge against Boegarts at all.  And actually I don't think we need to hedge against Bradley either, in that given his defense his floor is probably close to an average player (although FWIW I think the lineups that have Bradley Jr leading off are nuts).
 
But Ellsbury led the team in WAR last year, and Napoli was 5th, so if we are letting both of those guys go we have to improve in other areas to even stay even on-field for next year (and of course we should be trying to get better).  Boegarts might improve on Drew's 3.4 WAR last year, but it seems like it's asking a lot for him to be much better than that, and Bradley even in a breakout season is still going to be a pretty big downgrade from Ellsbury.  

 

[Super Nomario]

I wonder if rookies are really that much more uncertain than veterans, which a lot of these arguments seem to be assuming. A lot of this angst seems to be unexamined AAAA player theory. Do rookies collapse? Sure, sometimes. But in aggregate, rookies play to their major league equivalent lines. Veterans have terrible years, sometimes, too. But with veterans, we have a stronger sense of who the player was before an off year, so it's easier to distinguish the slump from the player.

The problem is with their major league equivalent lines. Xander's MLE for 2013 (including his AA and AAA MLEs and his MLB and postseason performances) lines is .258/.332/.400 - good production for a SS, but a downgrade from what Drew gave them (.253/.333/.443) even without considering his glove. JBJ's MLE (including his AAA MLE and his MLB performance) is .228/.311/.387. All MLEs from http://mlsplits.drivelinebaseball.com/mlsplits/mlecalc
 
The problem with prospects is that, almost by definition, they're players who aren't good enough to be major league players yet. It's not just a matter of MLEs - it's a matter of improvement. In Bogaerts' case, he's so good and such an uber-prospect that it's hard to imagine he won't at least be decent - but at the same time, expecting him to be a middle-of-the-order bat day one seems premature. In JBJ's case, we need a healthy amount of improvement to be a contributing player - and of course, it doesn't help that he's replacing Ellsbury, one of the best players on the team.
 
Will Middlebrooks' 2013 should remind all of us that young player improvement is not necessarily linear and not to be taken for granted. He was probably considered about as good as prospect as JBJ at the point he was promoted - SoxProspects.com had him as the #1 prospect in the system (ahead of both Bogaerts and Bradley) as of their 6/8/2012 rankings, which was probably the last one for which he was eligible.
 

I guess what I'm asking is this: do people really think we need to hedge against Bogaerts and Bradley just because they're rookies?

Bogaerts no, Bradley probably, but it depends. If opening day was tomorrow, we'd be starting not just Bradley and Bogaerts, but Middlebrooks, Carp, and Lavarnway. That's too many question marks.

 

[Joshv02]

Will Middlebrooks' 2013 should remind all of us that young player improvement is not necessarily linear and not to be taken for granted. He was probably considered about as good as prospect as JBJ at the point he was promoted - SoxProspects.com had him as the #1 prospect in the system (ahead of both Bogaerts and Bradley) as of their 6/8/2012 rankings, which was probably the last one for which he was eligible.

That's probably about right, though I think Bradley is likely a touch better.  According to BA, Middlebrooks was the #51 prospect in baseball in the year prior to his first promotion, while while Bradley was #31.  The lists all change, 30 is close to 50 as we are really talking about clusters, etc etc. - but its likely a slight nod to Bradley.  
 
Anyway, yes, they should hedge the bets on all rookies, but for Bogaerts it should be merely a good backup.  They already covered their bets on Bradley with Victorino (certainly that was the thought, though people may disagree on if he can be considered a real alternative to play CF). The bet hedging should be competent backups, which for an OF really shouldn't be that big a deal.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

In a perfect world you would only be breaking in one rookie a year. But the Sox are facing greater turnover than optimal
 
So the question is Why is it too many question marks? In order for Bogaerts, Bradley and WMB to become contributing major league regulars  they have to play. Sometimes it's necessary to take a small step back in order to take larger steps forward. This is the perfect year for it .. what's wrong with a 91-92 win year and X, WMB and Bradley with a full year of experience under their belt? The downside is arguably negligible (92 wins gets you into the tournament most years) - the upside is massive - a third of the lineup consisting of cost controlled, contributing youngsters. And if any of them flame out after a decent trial then the FO knows what it's got. Giving X, WMB or Bradley 250 ABs while riding the shuttle to Pawtucket is not a good solution for anyone. It hurts the player's development and leads to uncertainty about the player's future value. Give them the job and let them run with it. Ride out the slumps. We just won the World Series !

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't think we need to hedge against Boegarts at all.  And actually I don't think we need to hedge against Bradley either, in that given his defense his floor is probably close to an average player (although FWIW I think the lineups that have Bradley Jr leading off are nuts).

 
It really all depends on how quickly he adjusts to ML pitching. He certainly profiled in the minor leagues as a leadoff hitter type, and there's no reason to assume he can't become at least a reasonable facsimile of that guy in the majors. It's asking a lot for him to progress far enough next year to make slotting him leadoff a good idea, so I agree the smart money would be against it. But I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, so "nuts" seems a bit harsh.

 

[Super Nomario]

In a perfect world you would only be breaking in one rookie a year. But the Sox are facing greater turnover than optimal
 
So the question is Why is it too many question marks? In order for Bogaerts, Bradley and WMB to become contributing major league regulars  they have to play. Sometimes it's necessary to take a small step back in order to take larger steps forward. This is the perfect year for it .. what's wrong with a 91-92 win year and X, WMB and Bradley with a full year of experience under their belt? The downside is arguably negligible (92 wins gets you into the tournament most years) - the upside is massive - a third of the lineup consisting of cost controlled, contributing youngsters. And if any of them flame out after a decent trial then the FO knows what it's got. Giving X, WMB or Bradley 250 ABs while riding the shuttle to Pawtucket is not a good solution for anyone. It hurts the player's development and leads to uncertainty about the player's future value. Give them the job and let them run with it. Ride out the slumps. We just won the World Series !

You're assuming you can take a 91-92 win season for granted. I do not.