If we're sellers, who do we sell?

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 
Cherrington traded away FAs to be (and Lackey) for a bunch of stuff.  Eddie Rodriguez seems an absolute steal.  Craig and Kelly aren't that expensive and have/had upside and control.  Edwin Escobar looked good but started this year injured.  Lester got us Cespedes, who got us Porcello.  (Although Alex Wilson would look nice in the Boston pen right now.)   

Really? Where Alan Craig right now and how much is he getting paid and how many years left is on his contract?

Joe Kelly was on the verge of getting booted from the starting rotation and is maddeningly inconsistent. He has upside but he's only shown that in dribs and drabs. And I like Kelly.

Lackey is pitching well (last I saw) and is playing for $500k.

Cespedes was a bust here and was traded for Porcello who is fine. But he now has a four year, AAV contract of $20M.

So yeah, you're right he did trade away a bunch of FAs for some "stuff" and he's in the same position today as he was last year. Only the FAs this year aren't nearly as good as they were last year, so we will probably be getting worse stuff.

 

[JimD]

 
Plus with Clay, he's the ultimate sell high guy. He's put together three full seasons (170+ IP) in his career and of those three full seasons he's put together an ERA+ over 100 in 1 of them (2008 w/a 187 ERA+); in the other two seasons his ERA+ was 92 and 72. In every other seasons, whether excellent or terrible, he's put together only about 100IP per year. He's not reliable, consistent or young enough to not consider trading.  

This is where I'm at.  Buchholz hasn't been able to stay healthy during what should have been his peak productive years, so I'm not sure how anyone can look at his current performance and have faith that he'll be able to sustain this during his age 31 and 32 seasons.  The Sox shouldn't give him away, but if they get any seriously interesting offers I'd be Ok with moving him.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
 For whatever reason—be it scouting, stats, projections—the identification of major league talent in this front office has been shockingly poor. Every player acquired in the offseason has been a disaster on some level or another; last year's trade deadline moves, Miller for Rodriguez excepted, either didn't pan out or actively made the team worse. And it's not as if this team has much of value available in a deal.
 
At some point, the question shifts from "What can Cherington et al do to fix this team" to "Is this front office actually capable of fixing anything?" 2013 excepted—and that year feels more and more like a fluke with every passing day—it feels like the answer to that question is no.

 
2013 was keystoned by legacy players performing at or near their potential - Papi, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey. The terrific contributions of Victorino, Napoli, and Uehara were -- like Schilling, Cabrera, and Foulke in 2004 -- just right to put a very strong core group over the top.  But the key elements of player valuation had already been done long beforehand.
 
It's frankly, what makes 2011 so maddening.  If Koji (or even Joaquin Benoit) had been signed that offseason over Jenks, would that one difference in player valuation have been enough? The way that season progressed, it almost certainly would have.
 
Unfortunately, in 2015, the Sox are far removed from finding the last few pieces to tie everything together. But I'm convinced after last offseason that the Sox bias in player valuation, skewed as it is toward signing the "biggest" name out there, still remains.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

But I'm convinced after last offseason that the Sox bias in player valuation, skewed as it is toward signing the "biggest" name out there, still remains.
 

 
I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Do you think that the Sox are good at player valuations? 

 

[SoxLegacy]

For those of you suggesting that the Sox trade Pedroia, I would throw Eck's question of "Are you on acid" at you.

He's the cornerstone of the franchise, the player that ownership and management have publicly said they want to have for his career and a potential Hall of Famer. And he has a full NTC.

Even if you disregard the above, how does trading Pedroia make the Sox a better team? Moving Betts from the outfield to 2nd, where he hasn't played at all in the last year and calling up JBJ to play CF doesn't make the Sox better. The last time we saw Bradley he was failing miserably in trying to hit major league pitching. Oh, the Sox would lose their leadoff hitter as well.

And since the idea would be to package Pedey with someone the Sox want to move--Panda? Hanley? They would be looking to fill the hole left either in Left or at Third with an pact player in one of those positions. Who really fits that profile and is on a team that would trade them? The pickings are slim.

This team is not one player away from righting the ship, and trading the best player on the Red Sox doesn't make the team better now or in 2016.

Yes, this season sucks, but how much worse would it suck to see Pedroia in another uniform? You want to talk about regrets and bad feelings?

Ownership and the front office do need to fix this team, but dealing Pedey is not the answer. This place used to be filled with awesomeness, and I was (and still am in a few cases) in awe of the breadth and depth of the baseball knowledge found here, but this hand wringing and 'let's trade Player X because we need to do something' really is surprising.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I don't see how that's a point in Cherington's favor.

Trading for Porcello and signing him for four years are different things.  
 

Really? Where Alan Craig right now and how much is he getting paid and how many years left is on his contract?

Joe Kelly was on the verge of getting booted from the starting rotation and is maddeningly inconsistent. He has upside but he's only shown that in dribs and drabs. And I like Kelly.

Lackey is pitching well (last I saw) and is playing for $500k.

Cespedes was a bust here and was traded for Porcello who is fine. But he now has a four year, AAV contract of $20M.

So yeah, you're right he did trade away a bunch of FAs for some "stuff" and he's in the same position today as he was last year. Only the FAs this year aren't nearly as good as they were last year, so we will probably be getting worse stuff.

 
Well, we exchanged a pointless second half of the 2014 season for assets.  To do that we gave up mainly FA players who weren't, for whatever reasons, coming back.  And Lackey who may have indicated he wanted out and/or was going to make a stink about his contract if he stayed.  In any event, none of those acquired assets are crippling, while at least one, Eddie Rodriguez, looks to be excellent.  Jury's out on Craig and Kelly.  And Escobar.
 
So I'm not really sure what the complaint is.  I'm not saying the front office is immune from criticism, but the 2014 fire sale isn't something they handled poorly, even if all the pieces haven't panned out.  I mean, if Craig and Kelly were doing better (ML average) and Rodriguez were toiling in AAA, I don't think it should change how we view the trade.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
I'm curious what you mean by this statement? Do you think that the Sox are good at player valuations? 

 
Since the injury-plagued 2006 season, I've thought the Sox have done exceptionally well at amateur scouting, but that their pro scouting has left much to be desired. Specifically, it's easy when you have some of the deepest pockets out there, to simply target "proven" and "can't miss" All-Stars like Bobby Jenks, Carl Crawford, or Pablo Sandoval, and then outbid everyone else in dollars and years.  It's the Yankee way, after all, and 27 rings means it works often enough.
 
So I agree that often, those really might be the best players on the market, and thus the moves appear to work out. However, there have been enough head-scratchers and recent "misses" in the Sox' Free Agent hirings, and I haven't seen anything to make me doubt my distrust of Allard Baird's ability to make good player valuations since his days leading the Royals across the bridge to nowhere.
 
I'll try to do a full write-up later, but I'm at work and it's gonna take a fair bit of research.

 

[dynomite]

 
Plympton makes a good point (DH3 was much easier to abbreviate, BTW). But I'm looking at a bleacher seat ticket from 1993 and it's $7. It's 300-400% higher than that now. Not to mention the prices for beers, sodas and hot dogs have gone through the roof. Do you really want to drop $50-75 watching bad baseball more than twice a season? Does a family want to blow $200 a game more than once a season? 

Great post.

This is for a separate thread, and it's one we've probably had on here a few times, but your post intrigued me. According to straight inflation calculators, $7 in 1993 is roughly $11.50 today.

So how did we go from that ticket in 1993 to 2015, where upper bleachers (looks like only 20% of bleacher seating at most) are $10-$20 and lower bleachers are $20-$40? And overall the Sox are #1 in average ticket price, trending toward close to double the average price of a team like the Giants, that also plays in a small stadium in the middle of an expensive city.

I don't have a fully formed opinion on this. Maybe I should write for the .com about this. But I think for me, every time I see the Sox sign a $100 million contract part of me wonders whether that comes at the expense of a stadium with more affordable prices.

It's probably much more complicated and less directly related. Still, interesting topic (to me).

 

[Al Zarilla]

Cespedes was a bust here and was traded for Porcello who is fine. But he now has a four year, AAV contract of $20M.

 

Cespedes played in 51 games for Boston last year, Sandoval 52 this year. So, they're easy to compare, last year vs. this. Cespedes last year  exceeded Sandoval in OPS and Avg., trailed in OBP. FWIW, not a lot of games for dWAR for either, Cespedes was better. So, when do you declare this year Sandoval a bust? And, Cespedes is exceeding his career numbers so far this year, giving warm fuzzies that he might have some very good years ahead. Sandoval, OTOH, could be showing signs of really falling off a cliff.
 
Went off on another Panda tangent. Sorry.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Trading for Porcello and signing him for four years are different things.  
 
 
Well, we exchanged a pointless second half of the 2014 season for assets.  To do that we gave up mainly FA players who weren't, for whatever reasons, coming back.  And Lackey who may have indicated he wanted out and/or was going to make a stink about his contract if he stayed.  In any event, none of those acquired assets are crippling, while at least one, Eddie Rodriguez, looks to be excellent.  Jury's out on Craig and Kelly.  And Escobar.
 
So I'm not really sure what the complaint is.  I'm not saying the front office is immune from criticism, but the 2014 fire sale isn't something they handled poorly, even if all the pieces haven't panned out.  I mean, if Craig and Kelly were doing better (ML average) and Rodriguez were toiling in AAA, I don't think it should change how we view the trade.  

 
Right. The Sox got assets, but they weren't very good. My point is pretty clear: the Sox had three very good chips to trade last year in Lester, Lackey and Miller (the Drew trade was a Yankee favor) and the Sox whiffed badly on two out of the three, though I will conceded that there is time for Kelly and Porcello to turn it around and be average major leaguers. I'm not even sure the Red Sox got the best deal for Lester, according to rumors the Pirates and the Dodgers both offered better packages -- but again that's not the point.
 
So last year, the Red Sox had a bushel of good, useful players and got one blue-chip player. This year they have a bushel of players that are worth even less, what are they going to get for them? I don't have a ton of faith that the Boston Red Sox front office understands who is a good player any more. Since 2013, they've had more misses than hits. 
 
And seriously, Craig is worthless. Actually, he's worse than worthless, he's a salary albatross and while he's not going to really hinder the Red Sox from making any future moves, he's done nothing for the big league club the minute he put on a Red Sox uniform. Using Alan Craig is a positive (what if he was doing better?) completely destroys your argument. 

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Cespedes played in 51 games for Boston last year, Sandoval 52 this year. So, they're easy to compare, last year vs. this. Cespedes last year  exceeded Sandoval in OPS and Avg., trailed in OBP. FWIW, not a lot of games for dWAR for either, Cespedes was better. So, when do you declare this year Sandoval a bust? And, Cespedes is exceeding his career numbers so far this year, giving warm fuzzies that he might have some very good years ahead. Sandoval, OTOH, could be showing signs of really falling off a cliff.
 
Went off on another Panda tangent. Sorry.

 
I would declare Sandoval a bust or a good contract after his tenure as a Red Sox player ends. As for a year-to-year evaluation, when the Sox stop playing, I guess. Sandoval is notoriously streaky and has looked good for stretches, you're not going to be able to make a competent evaluation until the year is over. Cespedes is no longer a Boston Red Sox and he was okay (maybe bust is a bit strong) but whether it was due to attitude or they got an offer they couldn't refuse or maybe they soured on him, the Sox (it seems) agree because they shipped him out of here very quickly. 
 
I get why the Red Sox signed Sandoval and Ramirez this offseason, they needed hitting and they were the two best hitters on the free agent market and they didn't have to trade any young assets, it just cost them cash. I don't fault them for that, I really don't. Sometimes even the "right" decision blows up in your face. But my main point is something that BK Pauley succinctly wrote:
 

Since the injury-plagued 2006 season, I've thought the Sox have done exceptionally well at amateur scouting, but that their pro scouting has left much to be desired. Specifically, it's easy when you have some of the deepest pockets out there, to simply target "proven" and "can't miss" All-Stars like Bobby Jenks, Carl Crawford, or Pablo Sandoval, and then outbid everyone else in dollars and years.  It's the Yankee way, after all, and 27 rings means it works often enough.
 
So I agree that often, those really might be the best players on the market, and thus the moves appear to work out. However, there have been enough head-scratchers and recent "misses" in the Sox' Free Agent hirings, and I haven't seen anything to make me doubt my distrust of Allard Baird's ability to make good player valuations since his days leading the Royals across the bridge to nowhere.
 

 
For the first time, in a long time (I'm talking the Lou Gorman era and maybe the Mike Port year), I've really lost faith in the Red Sox acquiring major league talent. It seems as if the vast majority of players they get don't do really well as soon as they put on the Red Sox uniform. 

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

 
Since the injury-plagued 2006 season, I've thought the Sox have done exceptionally well at amateur scouting, but that their pro scouting has left much to be desired. Specifically, it's easy when you have some of the deepest pockets out there, to simply target "proven" and "can't miss" All-Stars like Bobby Jenks, Carl Crawford, or Pablo Sandoval, and then outbid everyone else in dollars and years.  It's the Yankee way, after all, and 27 rings means it works often enough.
 
So I agree that often, those really might be the best players on the market, and thus the moves appear to work out. However, there have been enough head-scratchers and recent "misses" in the Sox' Free Agent hirings, and I haven't seen anything to make me doubt my distrust of Allard Baird's ability to make good player valuations since his days leading the Royals across the bridge to nowhere.
 
I'll try to do a full write-up later, but I'm at work and it's gonna take a fair bit of research.

If the Sox were really as star struck as you suggest, wouldn't they have gone the extra mile to resign Lester or bring in Scherzer?  Everybody thought the rotation was a biggest question mark on this team and they tried to fix it on the cheap - Porcello, Miley & Masterson instead of Lester/Scherzer.

 

[threecy]

I think few will dispute that the Red Sox need to be competitive next year.  Much of the core isn't going anywhere (youth under team control, recently signed multi-year contracts, or franchise players), so a 2014 blow up doesn't seem at all realistic.

Of starting talent, the only ones that seem to be candidates to unload to me:
- Koji (I don't think we can expect 2013-caliber performance in 2016 if he stays)
- Napoli
- Nava
- Victorino
- Masterson
Koji wasn't worth enough to move last year.  Napoli needs to show he can maintain a pulse at the plate for more than a series.  Nava/Victorino/Masterson will need to get it together ASAP to be worth much of anything.  So in reality, there isn't that much to move unless they pull off a Punto trade to dump their new contracts, or if they start selling the farm.
 
If anything, I think the Red Sox could buyers (with line of site of 2016) if the deal is right.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

For those of you suggesting that the Sox trade Pedroia, I would throw Eck's question of "Are you on acid" at you.

 
Hear, hear.
 
The Punto trade is simultaneously one of the best things to happen to this team and the worst.  It cleared out a bunch of salary that allowed them to make sweeping changes to the roster and produce a World Series title the following year.  That's obviously the best part.
 
The worst is that in its aftermath, some fans seem to think that every bad or seemingly bad contract can be dumped, Punto-trade-style, simply by tacking on a useful player to make it more appealing to the acquiring team.  Tacking on Gonzalez rid the team of Crawford and Beckett, so tacking on Pedroia can rid the team of Hanley and/or Panda.  It's idiotic.
 
That deal happened how it did and when it did because of a unique set of circumstances.  The new Dodger owners were trying to make an impact by throwing million dollar bills around like they were ones, and (foolishly) took on double the salary commitment and a couple pieces of junk to get the one player that they wanted and felt would be the difference maker for them.
 
If there are teams out there that want(ed) Hanley or Sandoval that badly, they'd have outbid the Red Sox back in December.  I don't think anything's changed so much that they'll trade useful assets for one of those guys three months into the contracts, even if you dangle a sweetheart deal like Pedroia's as incentive.
 
There isn't going to a Punto trade v2.0 anytime soon.  There is no insta-fix for this team now, nor do they have to "blow it up" in order to reload for the next 1-3 years.  After 2012, weren't we preparing for a down 2-3 years as the team "bridged" to the next generation (epitomized by Bogaerts, Bradley, et al)?  Why has that time table changed?  Because everything broke perfectly in 2013?  Because they threw a bit of money around this winter at Panda/Hanley/Porcello?
 
I think all they can do, really, is ride it out with what they have for now.  Give the young guys like Betts and Swihart more time to grow into their roles.  Let the young arms work their way into the rotation at their own pace.  If there's a market for FA-to-be players, move him for the best deal.  But don't expect that the best deal is going to be a treasure trove of young talent.  Frankly, that they got one Eduardo Rodriguez level talent out of dealing Lester, Lackey, Peavy, and Miller is bordering on miraculous.  Bellyaching that they didn't get more strikes me as entitled whining.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Right. The Sox got assets, but they weren't very good. My point is pretty clear: the Sox had three very good chips to trade last year in Lester, Lackey and Miller (the Drew trade was a Yankee favor) and the Sox whiffed badly on two out of the three, though I will conceded that there is time for Kelly and Porcello to turn it around and be average major leaguers. I'm not even sure the Red Sox got the best deal for Lester, according to rumors the Pirates and the Dodgers both offered better packages -- but again that's not the point.
 
So last year, the Red Sox had a bushel of good, useful players and got one blue-chip player. This year they have a bushel of players that are worth even less, what are they going to get for them? I don't have a ton of faith that the Boston Red Sox front office understands who is a good player any more. Since 2013, they've had more misses than hits. 
 
And seriously, Craig is worthless. Actually, he's worse than worthless, he's a salary albatross and while he's not going to really hinder the Red Sox from making any future moves, he's done nothing for the big league club the minute he put on a Red Sox uniform. Using Alan Craig is a positive (what if he was doing better?) completely destroys your argument. 

I think we're talking past each other somewhat; I agree with the bolded.  
 
Also since 2013 I agree the signings haven't seemed to produce any immediate results.  I'm not sure they're bad though, or that the Sox can't judge talent.   In one sense, the Sox passed on Salty and Ellsbury and Lester/Ross (all justifiable and seemingly good).  
 
As far as the positive signings: Nap didn't seem like a bad sign for 2014.  AJP was the best short term deal on the market, and Sizemore was signed as Victorino insurance.  2014 tanked because the Sox basically didn't have an OF for the first half - Nava imploded, JBJ failed to hit, Carp imploded, Vic was on the DL, and Gomes was ineffective.  Couple that with a mediocre Nap, Pedroia, Xander, and the black hole at 3B (WMB), and the post-WS hangover and it wasn't happening.  But at the end of the year we had Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, etc. 
 
For the 2015 season, everything was revamped.  Koji was a good/fair signing.  Pablo and Hanley seemed to fit (though with some concerns).  Cespedes was traded to shore up our non existent pitching staff (Porcello is what he is), but we had an OF of Betts, Castillo, Nava (who finished strong in 2014), Victorinio, JBJ and Craig.   Miley was meant to be a #3 type and we traded the now injured Webster and the quasi-ineffective RDLR for him (with E.Rod and Owens in the minors).   WMB for Hanigan was a good trade in light of Sandoval and our catching situation.  
 
Sometimes things just play out badly.  The main problem with this team is that they seem to find a way to lose/underperform.  

 

[bosockboy]

I think few will dispute that the Red Sox need to be competitive next year.  Much of the core isn't going anywhere (youth under team control, recently signed multi-year contracts, or franchise players), so a 2014 blow up doesn't seem at all realistic.

Of starting talent, the only ones that seem to be candidates to unload to me:
- Koji (I don't think we can expect 2013-caliber performance in 2016 if he stays)
- Napoli
- Nava
- Victorino
- Masterson
Koji wasn't worth enough to move last year.  Napoli needs to show he can maintain a pulse at the plate for more than a series.  Nava/Victorino/Masterson will need to get it together ASAP to be worth much of anything.  So in reality, there isn't that much to move unless they pull off a Punto trade to dump their new contracts, or if they start selling the farm.
 
If anything, I think the Red Sox could buyers (with line of site of 2016) if the deal is right.

Totally agree.  They need to get a frontline starter at some point, and if they want Hamels or similar who is signed long term, you get him now or someone else will.
 
They need to buy for next year.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

If the Sox were really as star struck as you suggest, wouldn't they have gone the extra mile to resign Lester or bring in Scherzer?  Everybody thought the rotation was a biggest question mark on this team and they tried to fix it on the cheap - Porcello, Miley & Masterson instead of Lester/Scherzer.

 
No, I don't think that. For Lester, the reason I don't is that I don't believe the Sox send their pro scouts to scout their own MLB players. If they did, then I doubt Lester would have been low-balled before 2014, because the Sox valuation of players outside the organization appears to skew so highly when assessing other teams' Free Agents in comparison to those who become Free Agents with the Sox. And besides, even after they traded Lester, the Sox did try to re-sign him; unfortunately, they were bidding against one of their own in Theo, who also went the extra mile.
 
As for Scherzer, the Sox -- unlike the Yankees or Dodgers -- don't really have bottomless pockets. Besides, at the time Scherzer signed, this upcoming Free Agent class promised to be a better one for pitching, and weaker for hitting.

 

[TheYellowDart5]

Also since 2013 I agree the signings haven't seemed to produce any immediate results.  I'm not sure they're bad though, or that the Sox can't judge talent.   In one sense, the Sox passed on Salty and Ellsbury and Lester/Ross (all justifiable and seemingly good).  
 
As far as the positive signings: Nap didn't seem like a bad sign for 2014.  AJP was the best short term deal on the market, and Sizemore was signed as Victorino insurance.  2014 tanked because the Sox basically didn't have an OF for the first half - Nava imploded, JBJ failed to hit, Carp imploded, Vic was on the DL, and Gomes was ineffective.  Couple that with a mediocre Nap, Pedroia, Xander, and the black hole at 3B (WMB), and the post-WS hangover and it wasn't happening.  But at the end of the year we had Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, etc. 
 
For the 2015 season, everything was revamped.  Koji was a good/fair signing.  Pablo and Hanley seemed to fit (though with some concerns).  Cespedes was traded to shore up our non existent pitching staff (Porcello is what he is), but we had an OF of Betts, Castillo, Nava (who finished strong in 2014), Victorinio, JBJ and Craig.   Miley was meant to be a #3 type and we traded the now injured Webster and the quasi-ineffective RDLR for him (with E.Rod and Owens in the minors).   WMB for Hanigan was a good trade in light of Sandoval and our catching situation.  
 
Sometimes things just play out badly.  The main problem with this team is that they seem to find a way to lose/underperform.  

 
But that's the thing: Are things just playing out badly, or were these poor moves from the outset?
 
Just look at the results of this winter's spending spree. Hanley Ramirez is a great hitter when healthy, but he's a horrendous defender at any position. I'm not going to blame the Red Sox for the shoulder injury that's sapped his power, but it is alarming that the FO apparently didn't care or realize that Ramirez would be this bad in the outfield. Same with Sandoval: I won't judge his entire season after just two months, but he is a bad-body player who seemingly refuses to stay in shape, has seen his power go in the toilet and can't hit lefties any more. Everything about that screams "stay away," so why did the FO go forward with him? Are Sandoval's struggles bad luck or the expected results for someone with that many red flags?
 
I won't pretend to know more than the Red Sox, but as JMOH said, it's frustrating that the players they do get—be it via trade, free agency or internally—seem to fall apart or underperform. But is that bad luck, or is this FO doing a poor job of evaluating talent and performance? It's starting to feel a lot like the latter.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Since the injury-plagued 2006 season, I've thought the Sox have done exceptionally well at amateur scouting, but that their pro scouting has left much to be desired. Specifically, it's easy when you have some of the deepest pockets out there, to simply target "proven" and "can't miss" All-Stars like Bobby Jenks, Carl Crawford, or Pablo Sandoval, and then outbid everyone else in dollars and years.  It's the Yankee way, after all, and 27 rings means it works often enough.
 
So I agree that often, those really might be the best players on the market, and thus the moves appear to work out. However, there have been enough head-scratchers and recent "misses" in the Sox' Free Agent hirings, and I haven't seen anything to make me doubt my distrust of Allard Baird's ability to make good player valuations since his days leading the Royals across the bridge to nowhere.
 
I'll try to do a full write-up later, but I'm at work and it's gonna take a fair bit of research.

 
I agree with this - I think they've done a decent job of acquiring minor-league talent. But what is so strange to me is that very few of the Major-League moves have worked out despite almost always seeming no worse than defensible on paper. I get why they got Sandoval, Ramirez, Cespedes, Porcello, Craig, Miley, Mujica, Victorino, Pierzynski, Peavy, Drew, Napoli, Uehara, Gomes, Ross, Hanrahan, etc., even if I didn't necessarily personally agree with those moves. Similarly, I get why they chose not to re-sign Lester (not a direct re-signing, but you know what I mean) or Ellsbury. And in many cases, the "experts" agreed. But so many of them have worked out at the low or even lowest end of expectations, especially if you look at more than just 2013 (which, I get it, it's tough to do). Why does that happen so frequently? Bad scouting in the first place? Failure of players to adapt to new circumstances? Poor conditioning or management of injuries both major and minor? Bad coaching? Flaw in the internal number-gathering or projection systems? Is it just perception on my end?
 
EDIT: Or what TheYellowDart said.

 

[jasail]

Totally agree.  They need to get a frontline starter at some point, and if they want Hamels or similar who is signed long term, you get him now or someone else will.
 
They need to buy for next year.

 
The bolded is a point I had not fully considered when I made my previous post, which was skeptical of their ability to compete next year given the roster construction, and I find it intriguing. The Sox may be in a unique position given their farm system and their payroll to be both buyers and sellers with an eye towards 2016. Meaning, they have some MLB assets they could sell, which may bring back something useful (e.g., Buchholz, Taz, Uehara, Napoli), they also have a farm system that features some talent that does not have an immediate place on the 25 man roster but may be intriguing to other teams (e.g., Owens, Barnes, Margot, Devers, Marrero, et al). So, they could very well potentially sell off some MLB talent that and some farm talent and begin to build a more competitive roster for 2015. 
 
This prompts the question, so what would this look like? I imagine this would involve selling off some minor league talent to non-competitive teams for a front line starter, an elite reliever or perhaps an upgrade in RF or 1B. Then they could also use what they have at the MLB level to potentially re-stock the farm system or address some of the above mentioned holes. I'd rather not propose explicit deals because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole and prompt an argument about the feasability of certain deals. So instead, I'm thinking about it more generally, and it may be entirely possible that if this level of play continues for another month they can sell off both their MLB and farm assets to build a more competitive roster for 2016 even given the roster constraints posed by players under contract and do so without entirely gutting the system.
 
Edited for ands and ors.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
But that's the thing: Are things just playing out badly, or were these poor moves from the outset?
 
Just look at the results of this winter's spending spree. Hanley Ramirez is a great hitter when healthy, but he's a horrendous defender at any position. I'm not going to blame the Red Sox for the shoulder injury that's sapped his power, but it is alarming that the FO apparently didn't care or realize that Ramirez would be this bad in the outfield. Same with Sandoval: I won't judge his entire season after just two months, but he is a bad-body player who seemingly refuses to stay in shape, has seen his power go in the toilet and can't hit lefties any more. Everything about that screams "stay away," so why did the FO go forward with him? Are Sandoval's struggles bad luck or the expected results for someone with that many red flags?
 
I won't pretend to know more than the Red Sox, but as JMOH said, it's frustrating that the players they do get—be it via trade, free agency or internally—seem to fall apart or underperform. But is that bad luck, or is this FO doing a poor job of evaluating talent and performance? It's starting to feel a lot like the latter.

 
We can't judge the moves solely based on the current result.  For example, we can't argue that signing Koji for the 2013 season was a great move just because he turned out to be an historically good closer.  Who trumped it at the time?  He was third on the depth chart behind Hanrahan and Bailey.  We also can't argue that acquiring Harahan and Bailey were a mistake because they picked up some injuries.   Signing Koji in 2013 made sense at the time given the circumstances.  It turned out well, but it does not make more or less sense because of the result. 
 
Hanley and Sandoval had their pros and cons prior to signing.  But they were long term contracts, so presumably there was some thought as to how they'd fit in for the 2016-18 seasons, not just this year.  
 
Here, we've got chronic underperformance.  Who knows why? Perhaps it's organizational - but not in limited to player acquisition. Regardless, most of this is on the players.  They're signed with the expectation they'll deliver the goods - to do that they have to stay in shape, make adjustments, and not hurt the team by "figuring things out" on the field.  (Caveats about injuries apply.) 

 

[JayMags71]

Here, we've got chronic underperformance.  Who knows why? Perhaps it's organizational - but not in limited to player acquisition. Regardless, most of this is on the players.  They're signed with the expectation they'll deliver the goods - to do that they have to stay in shape, make adjustments, and not hurt the team by "figuring things out" on the field.  (Caveats about injuries apply.)

What you see as "chronic underperformance" a lot of us see as "possibly the new ceiling for certain players going forward." Based on age and body type, it's not out of the question that Sandoval (to cite one example) is cooked. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[FlyBono]

Betts and Swihart for Cole Hamels.

 
Betts is a keeper. Lightning quick hands, should only get better in CF much like XB at ss.
 
YES, I would trade Swihart. I said in another thread, MLB is trending towards a pitching and defensive dominate league. Vazquez provides D behind the plate. I would build a deal involving Swihart and anyone else Amaro wants in the low minors for Hamels.
If you were to trade, designate or let the deal expire  with CBuc, Koji, Napoli, Victorino, Nava, Masterson, Miley and possibly Ortiz that sheds roughly 64 million. Hamels at 22.5 for 2016, savings of 40.8 million or little less.. I said it once I'll say it again, Sandoval has value to an NL club, see where it leads. Possible savings of another 17 mill.
Far as trades, You cannot be the last Team to the dance. Cubs dumped Smarj early last yr and arguably received one of the best young SS in the minors in Russell. Even if these players fetch u a B prospect your clearing payroll for 16 to make a run at Price, Cueto or JUpton to play LF...
 
I understand Ortiz is an Icon. You have to think long term.

 

[FlyBono]

 
We can't judge the moves solely based on the current result.  For example, we can't argue that signing Koji for the 2013 season was a great move just because he turned out to be an historically good closer.  Who trumped it at the time?  He was third on the depth chart behind Hanrahan and Bailey.  We also can't argue that acquiring Harahan and Bailey were a mistake because they picked up some injuries.   Signing Koji in 2013 made sense at the time given the circumstances.  It turned out well, but it does not make more or less sense because of the result. 
 
Hanley and Sandoval had their pros and cons prior to signing.  But they were long term contracts, so presumably there was some thought as to how they'd fit in for the 2016-18 seasons, not just this year.  
 
Here, we've got chronic underperformance.  Who knows why? Perhaps it's organizational - but not in limited to player acquisition. Regardless, most of this is on the players.  They're signed with the expectation they'll deliver the goods - to do that they have to stay in shape, make adjustments, and not hurt the team by "figuring things out" on the field.  (Caveats about injuries apply.) 

 
I don't believe any of us thought HRam or Sandoval would be this bad playing Defense

 

[TheYellowDart5]

Here, we've got chronic underperformance.  Who knows why? Perhaps it's organizational - but not in limited to player acquisition. Regardless, most of this is on the players.  They're signed with the expectation they'll deliver the goods - to do that they have to stay in shape, make adjustments, and not hurt the team by "figuring things out" on the field.  (Caveats about injuries apply.) 

 
But that's the thing: How do we know this is underperformance? Again, Sandoval is fat and on the wrong side of 30 and has shown problematic declines in his power output and ability to hit lefties. Why would things suddenly change as he gets older? Ramirez is an injury-prone player who is bad at defense literally anywhere. Is there any reason to believe that's going to reverse itself?
 
Just because these guys were good before doesn't mean they'll stay good forever, and the peripherals for those players struggling aren't exactly encouraging, Ortiz excepted. Buchholz is the only member of the pitching staff you could say is unlucky; everyone else just seems to be, well, not good. Is Rick Porcello a 5.50 ERA pitcher? Probably not, but his peripherals suggest he's a 4.50+ ERA pitcher, and that's not particularly good. Same with Kelly and Miley and Masterson and most of the bullpen: The underlying numbers suggest that this isn't underperformance, but rather exactly where they should be given their stuff.
 
I agree this is on the players, but the front office deserves some serious questioning over their player acquisition strategy. Nothing this team did all winter has worked out; you can call that bad luck, but at a certain point, that doesn't hold water. And that's especially true given that this is now year three of four in which the Cherington front office has assembled a last-place squad.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
But that's the thing: How do we know this is underperformance? Again, Sandoval is fat and on the wrong side of 30 and has shown problematic declines in his power output and ability to hit lefties. Why would things suddenly change as he gets older? Ramirez is an injury-prone player who is bad at defense literally anywhere. Is there any reason to believe that's going to reverse itself?
 
Just because these guys were good before doesn't mean they'll stay good forever, and the peripherals for those players struggling aren't exactly encouraging, Ortiz excepted. Buchholz is the only member of the pitching staff you could say is unlucky; everyone else just seems to be, well, not good. Is Rick Porcello a 5.50 ERA pitcher? Probably not, but his peripherals suggest he's a 4.50+ ERA pitcher, and that's not particularly good. Same with Kelly and Miley and Masterson and most of the bullpen: The underlying numbers suggest that this isn't underperformance, but rather exactly where they should be given their stuff.
 
I agree this is on the players, but the front office deserves some serious questioning over their player acquisition strategy. Nothing this team did all winter has worked out; you can call that bad luck, but at a certain point, that doesn't hold water. And that's especially true given that this is now year three of four in which the Cherington front office has assembled a last-place squad.

 
Since when is 28 on the "wrong" side of 30?

 

[TheYellowDart5]

 
Since when is 28 on the "wrong" side of 30?

 
D'oh, I could've sworn he was past 30—at least, he looks the part. Still, rest of the point still stands.

 

[soxhop411]

If you trade Ortiz to a contender he might waive his rights. "Ortiz we love you but we want to you get one more ring before you retire"

 

[Luis Taint]

Only untouchables for me are X and EdRo.if you get a good deal on anyone else, fine.

 

[lexrageorge]

:barf:
 
How about a 25 for the price of 1 sale?  Yeah, I know, there are some keepers in the 25.  I'll settle for 20 for the price of 1.  
 
\game thread mode

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Only untouchables for me are X and EdRo.if you get a good deal on anyone else, fine.

You have to build for the future at this point.

Kopech, Devers, Guerra, Moncada, and Espinoza should all be treated as "untouchables", if only because there's no trade that could make this sorry excuse for an MLB club into a contender, even if it included one or more of them.

Gotta hold onto the lottery tickets until the drawing, you know.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

If you trade Ortiz to a contender he might waive his rights. "Ortiz we love you but we want to you get one more ring before you retire"

 
Gotta be an AL contender, though. 

 

[catomatic]

 
Betts is a keeper. Lightning quick hands, should only get better in CF much like XB at ss.
 
YES, I would trade Swihart. I said in another thread, MLB is trending towards a pitching and defensive dominate league. Vazquez provides D behind the plate. I would build a deal involving Swihart and anyone else Amaro wants in the low minors for Hamels.
If you were to trade, designate or let the deal expire  with CBuc, Koji, Napoli, Victorino, Nava, Masterson, Miley and possibly Ortiz that sheds roughly 64 million. Hamels at 22.5 for 2016, savings of 40.8 million or little less.. I said it once I'll say it again, Sandoval has value to an NL club, see where it leads. Possible savings of another 17 mill.
Far as trades, You cannot be the last Team to the dance. Cubs dumped Smarj early last yr and arguably received one of the best young SS in the minors in Russell. Even if these players fetch u a B prospect your clearing payroll for 16 to make a run at Price, Cueto or JUpton to play LF...
 
I understand Ortiz is an Icon. You have to think long term.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time understanding why this team should trade for a top-flight starter right now. That's the kind of thing you do when you're on the cusp of contending. From all the evidence, this team is reevaluating every position on the diamond in preparation for an agonizing rebuild. They are not a starter away from contention. Keep the assets, please.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm sorry but I have a hard time understanding why this team should trade for a top-flight starter right now. That's the kind of thing you do when you're on the cusp of contending. From all the evidence, this team is reevaluating every position on the diamond in preparation for an agonizing rebuild. They are not a starter away from contention. Keep the assets, please.

 
Agreed. It's time to declare this a bridge year, even though the casual fans and the dumbass media will howl about it. There are actually a lot of things to be encouraged about, but they don't add up to 2015 contention. It might be a bit soon to give up on this year entirely, but the FO should start focusing on 2016 or even 2017 in their strategy at this point.

 

[OCD SS]

This team is not going to rebuild, it is going to develop. C, SS, and CFare being manned by players under 24 yrs old. The player who should be starting in RF is coming off several years of limited playing time and is adjusting to American baseball. LF is being manned by a player who's never played in the OF before and has to learn the position in the closest thing MLB has to a funhouse. The best chance for improvement is to let experience catch up with Talent.

 

[threecy]

If you trade Ortiz to a contender he might waive his rights. "Ortiz we love you but we want to you get one more ring before you retire"

 

 
Gotta be an AL contender, though. 

 
What else happens in this fantasy world?
 
The only way Ortiz gets dealt is if there's bad blood.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This team is not going to rebuild, it is going to develop. C, SS, and CFare being manned by players under 24 yrs old. The player who should be starting in RF is coming off several years of limited playing time and is adjusting to American baseball. LF is being manned by a player who's never played in the OF before and has to learn the position in the closest thing MLB has to a funhouse. The best chance for improvement is to let experience catch up with Talent.

 
Well said.  It's a shitshow and ugly to watch now, but staying the course for now should eventually pay dividends.  Maybe the result isn't a post-season berth in 2015, but it could be one in 2016...and one in 2017...and one in 2018.  With this much young talent mixed with aging into the twilight vets, patience is the name of the game.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Well said.  It's a shitshow and ugly to watch now, but staying the course for now should eventually pay dividends.  Maybe the result isn't a post-season berth in 2015, but it could be one in 2016...and one in 2017...and one in 2018.  With this much young talent mixed with aging into the twilight vets, patience is the name of the game.

 
Yes it is.  And frankly, I'm willing to be patient.  Because if this works out, they'll be set up for a LONG run of success.  Who knows if they'll win any more WS with this group (that's really hard to do), but they should be a top tier team for many, many years.  

 

[irinmike]

Yea this team is developing alright, developing a penchant for losing.  

 

[Green Monster]

Great post.

This is for a separate thread, and it's one we've probably had on here a few times, but your post intrigued me. According to straight inflation calculators, $7 in 1993 is roughly $11.50 today.

So how did we go from that ticket in 1993 to 2015, where upper bleachers (looks like only 20% of bleacher seating at most) are $10-$20 and lower bleachers are $20-$40? And overall the Sox are #1 in average ticket price, trending toward close to double the average price of a team like the Giants, that also plays in a small stadium in the middle of an expensive city.

I don't have a fully formed opinion on this. Maybe I should write for the .com about this. But I think for me, every time I see the Sox sign a $100 million contract part of me wonders whether that comes at the expense of a stadium with more affordable prices.

It's probably much more complicated and less directly related. Still, interesting topic (to me).

 
Agree that this should be broken off into seperate thread, but don't see anything at this time......Here are a few sources that rank the Red Sox fan experience the most expensive in baseball.  That coupled with a last place product is not a good combination
 
http://www.statista.com/statistics/202611/fan-cost-index-of-the-major-league-baseball/
 
https://www.teammarketing.com/public/uploadedPDFs/2015%20mlb%20fci%20%281%29.pdf

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Agreed. It's time to declare this a bridge year, even though the casual fans and the dumbass media will howl about it. There are actually a lot of things to be encouraged about, but they don't add up to 2015 contention. It might be a bit soon to give up on this year entirely, but the FO should start focusing on 2016 or even 2017 in their strategy at this point.

You should bring to add for 2016. If Hamels is available then you go for it as long as the price is not insane. A very reasonable contract with a few years on it. In terms of a guy who has a year left on his deal, I agree they shouldn't pursue anyone like that. But a situation like Hamels is very different.

 

[Plympton91]

 
Yes it is.  And frankly, I'm willing to be patient.  Because if this works out, they'll be set up for a LONG run of success.  Who knows if they'll win any more WS with this group (that's really hard to do), but they should be a top tier team for many, many years.  

 
On the offensive side of the ball, I agree.   This team has the assets it needs to develop a very good offense.  On defense, that remains to be seen.  dWAR seems to love Betts in CF, i'm unconvinced.  On the mound, the team needs a complete rebuild.  EdRod has been a revelation, but every other pitching prospect except Johnson is underperforming.  Owens in particular has been disappointing, and making his critics look right. He has been almost as bad on the mound as Brentz and Cecchini have been at the plate for Pawtucket; I half expect to see news any day now that he'lll be shut down and travelling to Alabama. 

 

[mwonow]

All the talk about trading major league pieces for futures seems to be unrealistically optimistic. Last year, the pieces being sold were better and had the "World Series Champions" halo. This year, the pieces are worse and have the "Last Place Losers" stench.
 
The talk about trading minor league prospects for major leaguers to build towards 2016 makes my stomach churn. I have the same reaction that I get when the government wants to sell off fixed assets to reduce operating deficits - it helps the guys currently in management jobs to look a little better on current metrics, but dissolves the benefit of longer-term investments. Plus, as with the government generally, I don't trust the current FO to do a good job of accurately assessing value vs. future performance. The odds of parting with a Rizzo and eventually ending up with - Panda, or, well, name your favourite underperforming vet, it's all the same - are just too high.
 
I'm definitely on board with a "start the development" approach that OCD references above. Trade or just sit the vets, play the young'uns. JBJ can't hit major league pitching for 100 ABs? Give him 200 more, what the hell, it isn't as if our OF is producing runs as is, and at least we'll have the potential of seeing web gems if/when we turn on the TV or show up to sit in an expensive seat and drink expensive beer. Can Brian Johnson get ML hitters out consistently? Give him some starts to find out - heck, we KNOW Joe Kelly can't get ML hitters out consistently.
 
The biggest problem I see is Panda. People here keep lumping him in with Hanley, but Hanley has an elite skill. Panda doesn't, and thus far, he seems pretty sub-average in all aspects of the game. But there's no kid pressing him for playing time. If I were looking for a trade, it would be for a 3B. But - I'm not really looking for a trade. IMO, the single best move the Sox could make would be to give BC & co the rest of the year off, so that they aren't trading future assets for current dreck to move the team performance needle from "dreadful" to "not quite as bad as the really dreadful teams." 

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

We're getting a little carried away in thinking that the Red Sox must hold on to their starting pitchers as if they are gold.  In actuality, the front office put together a middling pitching staff (at best) and losing a couple of starters at the trade deadline wouldn't matter very much.

I think the Red Sox have to dangle Buchholz at the trade deadline (or sooner).  Teams will like his contract and the way he is currently pitching.  The Red Sox would be selling high.  It wouldn't surprise anyone, for example, to see Buchholz spend 4 months of the 2016 season on the DL.  It wouldn't surprise anyone if Buchholz has a down year in 2016.  The Red Sox aren't losing very much in trading Buchholz, and maybe they can find a team that will be desperate enough to overpay.

I would trade Miley if the Red Sox can get fair trade value for a middle-of-the-rotation starter.  The Red Sox don't need the lefty.  Rodriguez and Johnson should be in the rotation next season and Owens will be in AAA providing depth.

My plan for the 2016 rotation would be something like:
Cueto OR Zimmerman
Rodriguez
Porcello
Johnson
Kelly/Barnes/Wright

Along with Buchholz and Miley, Uehara should be traded.  He doesn't have to close--he could be traded to a team that uses him as a 7th or 8th inning reliever.  

The Red Sox OF is such a clusterfuck, making it hard to figure what the Red Sox should do about it.  It sounds like Hanley does not want to play 1b.  He either plays LF or is the Red Sox DH for 2016.  The Red Sox need Ortiz to retire--that would open up a spot for Hanley and solve a major problem.

There is no point to holding on to Napoli.  The Red Sox need Napoli to get hot to increase interest and trade value.

I can't think of anyone else--the Red Sox can't move Craig or Castillo.  It makes sense to trade Victorino for nothing, letting the other team pick up a million or two of his remaining contract.

Some say it will be a seller's market, and thus a good time to shop players like Buccholz, Miley, Uehara, and Napoli (if he starts hitting).

 

[Plympton91]

 

The Red Sox OF is such a clusterfuck, making it hard to figure what the Red Sox should do about it.  It sounds like Hanley does not want to play 1b.  He either plays LF or is the Red Sox DH for 2016.  The Red Sox need Ortiz to retire--that would open up a spot for Hanley and solve a major problem.
 

 
Yes, I agree.  A franchise icon with a 870 OPS against righthanders needs to retire in order to free up space at DH for the front office's latest poorly thought through shiny new object who apparently refuses to put in the work necessary to improve his defense at his current position and says he won't learn a position that the Red Sox actually need filled for 2016.
 
That's no way to run a railroad. Even if he'd be a great DH, you're reestablishing the 25 guys in 25 cabs mentality and encouraging other players to be just as selfish.  If Ramirez can't play LF and won't play 1B if he's actually ever asked to do so by management rather than message board posters and WEEI callers, then subisize his contract to the extent necessary send him out of town.
 
With the lack of offense around the league and only three years remaining on that deal after this one, they may not have to subsidize very much actually.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

 
Yes, I agree.  A franchise icon with a 870 OPS against righthanders needs to retire in order to free up space at DH for the front office's latest poorly thought through shiny new object who apparently refuses to put in the work necessary to improve his defense at his current position and says he won't learn a position that the Red Sox actually need filled for 2016.
 
That's no way to run a railroad. Even if he'd be a great DH, you're reestablishing the 25 guys in 25 cabs mentality and encouraging other players to be just as selfish.  If Ramirez can't play LF and won't play 1B if he's actually ever asked to do so by management rather than message board posters and WEEI callers, then subisize his contract to the extent necessary send him out of town.
 
With the lack of offense around the league and only three years remaining on that deal after this one, they may not have to subsidize very much actually.

 
I was thinking about the idea of trading Hanley at the deadline, and then signing Upton in the off-season, a guy who can actually play the OF.  While I would love to see this happen, moving Hanley won't be easy.  They would need to trade him to an AL team that has a hole at DH, financial flexibility, and dreams of winning a championship.  Of course, the Red Sox could make it a little easier by kicking in money to pay off a percentage of the contract.  The fact that we are talking like this about Hanley does indeed suggest that his acquisition was, as you say, "poorly thought through."

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I was thinking about the idea of trading Hanley at the deadline, and then signing Upton in the off-season, a guy who can actually play the OF.  While I would love to see this happen, moving Hanley won't be easy.  They would need to trade him to an AL team that has a hole at DH, financial flexibility, and dreams of winning a championship.  Of course, the Red Sox could make it a little easier by kicking in money to pay off a percentage of the contract.  The fact that we are talking like this about Hanley does indeed suggest that his acquisition was, as you say, "poorly thought through."

The highly paid designated hitter, like Edgar Martinez in his day or Papi now is a dying breed. Sox would have to pick up a whole lot of Hanley's contract. The thing about Hanley is that he's a terrible baserunner as well as a terrible fielder. If a player has multiple serious warts, I think he gets to a serious unwanted classification. BTW, did anybody hear any loud lamenting from Dodgers fans when he left LA? I didn't.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
Yes, I agree.  A franchise icon with a 870 OPS against righthanders needs to retire in order to free up space at DH for the front office's latest poorly thought through shiny new object who apparently refuses to put in the work necessary to improve his defense at his current position and says he won't learn a position that the Red Sox actually need filled for 2016.
 
That's no way to run a railroad. Even if he'd be a great DH, you're reestablishing the 25 guys in 25 cabs mentality and encouraging other players to be just as selfish.  If Ramirez can't play LF and won't play 1B if he's actually ever asked to do so by management rather than message board posters and WEEI callers, then subisize his contract to the extent necessary send him out of town.
 
With the lack of offense around the league and only three years remaining on that deal after this one, they may not have to subsidize very much actually.

You literally just said in another thread we need to be more patient with Hanley learning left field. Which is it? Let him learn LF or subsidize his trip out of town?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I would trade Miley if the Red Sox can get fair trade value for a middle-of-the-rotation starter.  The Red Sox don't need the lefty.  Rodriguez and Johnson should be in the rotation next season and Owens will be in AAA providing depth.

I disagree on Johnson. He needs a bullpen audition, though. But not one of his pitches are anywhere near as good as EdRo's fastball, and his future as a starter should not be assumed.

I say release Breslow to play with his newborn and cure cancer or whatever, and give Johnson the rest of the season to prove he can get MLB hitters out in the 6th-7th innings.

 

[Plympton91]

You literally just said in another thread we need to be more patient with Hanley learning left field. Which is it? Let him learn LF or subsidize his trip out of town?

 
I'm absolutely willing to give Ramirez time to learn LF, or time to learn 1B.  The Red Sox need help at those positions this year and next.  I'm not willing to poison the end of David Ortiz's Red Sox career to make room for Hanley to be the DH.