Should the Red Sox consider Jose Bautista?

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If JB is deemed the signing that puts you over the top, then sure you entertain the idea. If they didn't see EE as "that guy" they're not going to see Bautista as "that guy". "That guy" will taking the mound every five days. I agree with those who say there should be enough offense here. Yes Ortiz is gone, but you're not likely to find anyone who puts up those numbers this off season so it's likely the offense was already going to take a dip this season. With the exception of Ortiz, the offense remains the same. Will everyone else hit at the same level this season? Perhaps not, but we have to hope that a healthy and more fit Sandoval gives us more offensively than we got from 3rd base last year and a full season of Benintendi and Young in the outfield give us more than we got for most of the season out of LF. I'm also hopeful that Holt not being pressed into everyday service benefits him at the plate and that the DH slot can be used to give guys a partial day off from time to time. Catcher is probably still a bit of a crap shoot offensively, but as long as you can avoid a black hole in the bottom 3rd of the order, you can afford that. It is a bit unrealistic to expect 1-9 to be elite.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,788
I seriously doubt that anyone is suggesting the Sox should sign Bautista and put him in RF. Conceivably LF, if they decide Benintendi needs AAA time despite his showing last year
You don't seriously think Benintendi will be at AAA this year to start the season do you? Barring a 1-20 spring or an injury, he's our starting LF. He hit nearly .300 last year and the last time we saw him, he was one of the few bats who showed up in the ALDS
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
. With the exception of Ortiz, the offense remains the same. Will everyone else hit at the same level this season? Perhaps not, but we have to hope that a healthy and more fit Sandoval gives us more offensively than we got from 3rd base last year
140-587; 32 2B, 2 3B, 15 HR, 52 BB.

239 / 300 / 376

That was last year's composite line for 3B for the Red Sox.

Panda's last full season, 2015, was actually worse.

Sandoval hasn't had 50 XBH since 2011; he has BB more than 50 times only once in his career, and that was in 2009.

There is absolutely no good reason to think that Panda can provide more production in 2017 than Travis Shaw et al did in 2016. That's not to say Shaw could have repeated it, but people are ignoring how good Shaw was in April and May and July.
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
You don't seriously think Benintendi will be at AAA this year to start the season do you? Barring a 1-20 spring or an injury, he's our starting LF. He hit nearly .300 last year and the last time we saw him, he was one of the few bats who showed up in the ALDS
Well, it is probably one of the few ways you could even begin to make projection sense out of Bautista signing atm. That or Bradley would need to be traded, because Moreland sure as heck isn't playing odd man out there as a freshly inked FA.

Not that I believe we'd actually seriously consider signing Bautista of course, regardless how much his 1 year contract cost slipped.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,633
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2016/12/red_sox_consider_deal_for_utility_player_trevor_plouffe

January’s arrival will find a few free agents with underwhelming markets, and the Red Sox as potential beneficiaries.

The Sox still have interest in a few free agents, including third baseman Trevor Plouffe in a utility or platoon role, baseball sources told the Herald.

The fit is logical. Plouffe, a 30-year-old right-handed hitter who has spent all of his career with the Minnesota Twins, would be a complement to both first baseman Mitch Moreland, a lefty, and switch-hitting third baseman Pablo Sandoval, who is stronger from the left side of the plate.

But the interest appears contingent on Plouffe falling into the right price range for the Red Sox, which would be about $2-3 million for a one-year deal. No movement is expected in any direction until the new year, with the baseball industry slowing down this week just like so much of the world.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
That's not to say Shaw could have repeated it, but people are ignoring how good Shaw was in April and May and July.
Or, conversely, they are just remembering how shitty he was in June, August and September, the last one of which he was benched for the rotting corpse of Aaron Hill.

As to comparing Sandoval vs. the composite from 2016, 2015 was the only season in which Sandoval doesn't have far better numbers than that in his career.

If you don't buy that his shoulder was playing a part, that's all well and good. But we know he's trimmed a lot of weight, he's presumably healthy and he's seemingly motivated. Those, to me at least, see like pretty good reasons to expect he can match or outperform Shaw or the composite from last season. Certainly far better odds than Shaw doing so himself.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,215
There is absolutely no good reason to think that Panda can provide more production in 2017 than Travis Shaw et al did in 2016. That's not to say Shaw could have repeated it, but people are ignoring how good Shaw was in April and May and July.
Let me add a little to what Papelbon's Poutine said above.

From May 1 on, Travis Shaw hit 226/288/404 (692). Even acknowledging that he has the potential to be a very useful player when on a hot streak, he's not a reliable option as a starting 3B.

Neither is Sandoval, of course. And it's unlikely he'll return to the 909 OPS he posted in 2011. But why is it impossible that he'll beat Shaw's post-May 1 692? He almost did it in 2015, even with an extra spare tire and perhaps a bum shoulder: 245/292/366 (658). And the three years before that, he went 789, 758, 739.

I'm not saying Sandoval's a great option. But if they believe he actually did have a shoulder injury that limited him in 2015, and if they believe he actually is more committed to keeping in shape, it's not at all clear that he's a worse bet to put up an OPS of 700 or better in 2017.

Moreover, of our two mediocre options for 3B, one of them was seen by another team as a good enough option to be worth giving up a very solid bullpen arm. And, as Paul Swydan points out, we were then able to sign Shaw's offensive doppelganger for $5 million -- and said doppelganger happens to be a very good defensive 1B, thus allowing us to keep Hanley at DH.

I don't love where we are at 3B. But it's not like they just chose Sandoval over Shaw with no other considerations in play -- and even if they had, it's not clear that it would have been an objectively bad choice. Just something to keep in mind before the vote on Shaw's candidacy to be a member of the Hall of Martyred Binkies.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,237
Twin Cities
And Panda's rate stats would go up if we can give him days off against good LHP. If he's healthy and gives us 120 games at 3rd, it's not pure wishcasting to think he can reach, say, a .725 OPS.

*****
As for the Plouffe mention, above... yeah. That's what some of us were saying. He fits the roster needs for the team (better than Bautista et al), and would likely be better than Rutledge. But he has to come at the right price to be a legit option.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
140-587; 32 2B, 2 3B, 15 HR, 52 BB.

239 / 300 / 376

That was last year's composite line for 3B for the Red Sox.

Panda's last full season, 2015, was actually worse.

Sandoval hasn't had 50 XBH since 2011; he has BB more than 50 times only once in his career, and that was in 2009.

There is absolutely no good reason to think that Panda can provide more production in 2017 than Travis Shaw et al did in 2016. That's not to say Shaw could have repeated it, but people are ignoring how good Shaw was in April and May and July.
I don't know that it's a "good reason", but the guy's finally in shape for the first time since coming to Boston, hopefully he's healthy and says he's motivated to make up for the off the field lack of focus and discipline that's contributed to his shitty start in Boston. I'm hopeful, nothing more. And for what it's worth I'm curious, was there any good reason to expect that Mike Napoli would have produced the way he did in 2016 based on his previous season? There were a couple of seasons when Ortiz got off to horrendous starts. So bad that many had written him off and this season he goes out as few have ever gone out. Was there any good reason to expect that? Point being it happens.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,215
Why not? A 31-year-old who signs for 1/$5.5M had better not be shocked to find that his team isn't planning to start him 150 times. That's part-time money.
Yeah, but he might be shocked that he was signed for $5.5M to be a defensive replacement at the weakest position on the defensive spectrum for a middle-of-the-order hitter, which would have him getting, what, 100 PA over the course of the season? I know I would be.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Yeah, but he might be shocked that he was signed for $5.5M to be a defensive replacement at the weakest position on the defensive spectrum for a middle-of-the-order hitter, which would have him getting, what, 100 PA over the course of the season? I know I would be.
This.

Unless they told him that going in (which is extremely doubtful imo) the real world and good faith negotiation factor would never get ignored there. As it stands now a healthy Moreland is an absolute lock to be a starter going into 2017.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Yeah, but he might be shocked that he was signed for $5.5M to be a defensive replacement at the weakest position on the defensive spectrum for a middle-of-the-order hitter, which would have him getting, what, 100 PA over the course of the season? I know I would be.
Well sure, but there's a middle ground between being a defensive replacement and a full-time player. If we signed Bautista (which, again, I don't think we will or should), we could easily get Moreland 50 starts vs. RHP, half of them with Bautista sitting, half of them with Bautista moving to DH and Hanley sitting, which would help keep those two fresh. 50 starts plus the occasional pinch hit = more like 250 PA, in which he could easily earn that $5.5M.

Anyway, I wasn't responding specifically to the Bautista scenario so much as to the implication that having signed Moreland as an FA, we were committed to giving him a starting job, which I don't think is true.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,058
yammer's favorite poster
This.

Unless they told him that going in (which is extremely doubtful imo) the real world and good faith negotiation factor would never get ignored there. As it stands now a healthy Moreland is an absolute lock to be a starter going into 2017.
Well, I would say "strong side of a platoon, plus late inning defensive replacement when he doesn't start," rather than everday starter, but yeah, point stands.
 

jasvlm

lurker
Nov 28, 2014
177
If JB is deemed the signing that puts you over the top, then sure you entertain the idea. If they didn't see EE as "that guy" they're not going to see Bautista as "that guy". "That guy" will taking the mound every five days. I agree with those who say there should be enough offense here. Yes Ortiz is gone, but you're not likely to find anyone who puts up those numbers this off season so it's likely the offense was already going to take a dip this season. With the exception of Ortiz, the offense remains the same. Will everyone else hit at the same level this season? Perhaps not, but we have to hope that a healthy and more fit Sandoval gives us more offensively than we got from 3rd base last year and a full season of Benintendi and Young in the outfield give us more than we got for most of the season out of LF. I'm also hopeful that Holt not being pressed into everyday service benefits him at the plate and that the DH slot can be used to give guys a partial day off from time to time. Catcher is probably still a bit of a crap shoot offensively, but as long as you can avoid a black hole in the bottom 3rd of the order, you can afford that. It is a bit unrealistic to expect 1-9 to be elite.
I still count a Bautista signing as unlikely, for all the reasons that have been noted in this thread. If he's still on the board in June, after the draft pick situation becomes moot, I would be quite willing to entertain adding his bat to the lineup. I realize that is also very unrealistic, as some team will step up and sign him prior to that time, but as the calendar clicks towards spring training, the chances for JB to get a multiyear deal get slimmer and slimmer.
The Red Sox have intentionally shifted the focus of their team building efforts towards run prevention rather than run scoring. They've designated significant assets to improving their SP (Sale, Pomeranz), and their pen (Thornburg). The changes to the lineup have been minimal, but adding Moreland was probably made as much to improve the defense as the lineup. Nobody can replace what Ortiz did last year (or for the last 13 years), but I still hold out hope that despite shifting towards a run prevention focus that the Red Sox find room in their plans to consider a bat or two that can get on base and hit HR. One who can play 3b at a high level would also be quite nice.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,237
Twin Cities
At this point, it's highly likely that one of three things will happen:
1. Toronto resigns him on very favorable team terms;
2. A team with a protected pick signs him to a cheap one-year deal with the intention of catching lightning in a bottle (unexpected playoff run) or, more likely, flipping him mid-year for a prospect or two that exceeds the value of a 2d rounder; or
3. He sits until June.

Teams don't want to sign him long term, don't want to give up a good draft pick for him, and don't want to give up any pick if they're only getting him for one-year (unless it's to flip him).
 

jasvlm

lurker
Nov 28, 2014
177
At this point, it's highly likely that one of three things will happen:
1. Toronto resigns him on very favorable team terms;
2. A team with a protected pick signs him to a cheap one-year deal with the intention of catching lightning in a bottle (unexpected playoff run) or, more likely, flipping him mid-year for a prospect or two that exceeds the value of a 2d rounder; or
3. He sits until June.

Teams don't want to sign him long term, don't want to give up a good draft pick for him, and don't want to give up any pick if they're only getting him for one-year (unless it's to flip him).
I agree with these predictions, and I doubt the Red Sox would be among those who would chase JB unless option 3 comes to fruition. I have another observation/question on this process: could Bautista try to strategically sign a 1 year deal with a team who figures to be mediocre or even bad this upcoming season, knowing full well that they would trade him at the deadline to a contender? If I am his agent, this might well be the best case scenario for him. By following that path, he almost assures himself of playing on a contending team, and he also makes it impossible for the acquiring team to offer him the qualifying offer-having not spent a full year with his new team. That would certainly impact his market for 2017 and beyond, because he'd be unhindered by the same draft pick encumbrance he is currently shackled with. I wonder if his agent could write into the contract that his client could NOT be offered the qualifying offer by the acquiring team following the season (in the off case that the team he signs for contends, and thus would not deal him at the deadline to a contender), assuring that he'd be out from under the QO situation. I could see a hypothetical that would allow the team that signs him this year to say: "We'll pay you 20 mil for the 1 year deal, OR, we'd offer you 15 and put in the language about the QO for you. For JB, I'm pretty sure the difference in his 2017 salary (5 mil, in this case), would be far offset by the gains he'd make NOT being offered the QO after the 2017 season.
I say all this speculatively, as I don't know for certain if such a contract addendum is even legal, but it would certainly make for an interesting value proposition for the types of team in the middle of the pack-get a star caliber player on a 1 year, no risk contract for less money than he'd normally get, and roll the dice that he leads you to the playoffs.
Again, this is not going to be the Red Sox tack, but just food for thought on the process.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,215
That would certainly impact his market for 2017 and beyond, because he'd be unhindered by the same draft pick encumbrance he is currently shackled with. I wonder if his agent could write into the contract that his client could NOT be offered the qualifying offer by the acquiring team following the season (in the off case that the team he signs for contends, and thus would not deal him at the deadline to a contender), assuring that he'd be out from under the QO situation.
Players cannot be given the QO two years in a row (and I think it might be that they cannot be given the QO twice in the totality of their careers).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,389
Would they have the money to sign Joey Bats in June and stay under the cap? Any deal would be prorated from where he signed until the end of the year and would be closer to 75% of the actual figure (a 1 year 16mil deal would only count as $12mil against the cap). They could also sign him to 2 or 3 years and save against the cap figure due to him starting late in '17. They did the same with Rusney, sorta.
 

jasvlm

lurker
Nov 28, 2014
177
Players cannot be given the QO two years in a row (and I think it might be that they cannot be given the QO twice in the totality of their careers).
This starts with the post 2017 offseason. I would imagine that it WOULD apply in JBs case, so adding a "we won't give you a QO after the season" clause to his 2017 contract is a moot point. My bad. I retract any commentary associated with that gambit.
Rules. Crap.

Beginning with the post-2017 off-season, a player cannot receive more than one Qualifying Offer in his career (from a free agency and contracts primer) http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/4044
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,923
Florida
Would they have the money to sign Joey Bats in June and stay under the cap? Any deal would be prorated from where he signed until the end of the year and would be closer to 75% of the actual figure (a 1 year 16mil deal would only count as $12mil against the cap). They could also sign him to 2 or 3 years and save against the cap figure due to him starting late in '17. They did the same with Rusney, sorta.
Even if Bautista went unsigned until June and while assuming a strong Sox interest was to exist at that time, you don't put a declining 36yo on the books for an extra couple of years in the name of staying under this year.

At the end of the day and unless/until we start spending a lot more money on payroll, the current LT system just doesn't have the teeth behind it to warrant that imo.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,389
Even if Bautista went unsigned until June and while assuming a strong Sox interest was to exist at that time, you don't put a declining 36yo on the books for an extra couple of years in the name of staying under this year.

At the end of the day and unless/until we start spending a lot more money on payroll, the current LT system just doesn't have the teeth behind it to warrant that imo.
It would be to stay under the cap for the following 2 years, but it wouldn't really work as he'd start in June. With Rusney, he played 1 month in 2014. It made his contract 7/72 instead of 6/72.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
12,604
Somewhere
To answer the thread title, I'd rather the Sox keep their financial cushion available to patch in the roster as injuries arise.

That's even in a post-June scenario (which is imaginary, in any case). The notable exception would be if the Sox were to find themselves with a pressing need for a corner outfielder and/or designated hitter, which seems unlikely at the moment.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
To answer the thread title, I'd rather the Sox keep their financial cushion available to patch in the roster as injuries arise.

That's even in a post-June scenario (which is imaginary, in any case). The notable exception would be if the Sox were to find themselves with a pressing need for a corner outfielder and/or designated hitter, which seems unlikely at the moment.
I have the Red Sox outfield depth currently as:

1. Betts, -- ended year with knee injury
2. Bradley, -- ended year in horrific slump
3. Benintendi -- rush to majors with no AAA time, how will he adjust to pitchers' adjustments? Clear Candidate for sophomore slump.
4. Young -- platoon outfielder on downside of career. Missed swath of past 2 seasons with injuries.
5. Holt -- good backup who gets exposed as a starter; has struggled with post concussion syndrome.

Having a situation where at least 2 of the above are injured or significantly underperforming expectations over much of 2017 seems almost more likely than not, actually.

And who is #6 on that list? Bryce Brentz again?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Moreland has played 47 games in the OF. If a situation came up where they needed an OF for a month, I think they'd look elsewhere, but he can play there in a pinch.

EDIT: Rusney Castillo might be the actual #6 guy on the depth chart?
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,485
Saint Paul, MN
I have the Red Sox outfield depth currently as:

1. Betts, -- ended year with knee injury
2. Bradley, -- ended year in horrific slump
3. Benintendi -- rush to majors with no AAA time, how will he adjust to pitchers' adjustments? Clear Candidate for sophomore slump.
4. Young -- platoon outfielder on downside of career. Missed swath of past 2 seasons with injuries.
5. Holt -- good backup who gets exposed as a starter; has struggled with post concussion syndrome.
Or you know...

1. Betts -- 2nd in MVP voting, all-star, MLB leading 359 total bases, defensive player of the year
2. Bradley -- 4 excellent months with a bad August and a decent rebound in September, not even 27 years old - should improve again this year, one of the better defensive CF'ers in the game
3. Benintendi -- consensus top prospect, showed he belonged in 100+ PA, can be sat against lefties if he struggles
4. Young -- platoon outfielder who had his 2nd best year ever at age 32, hit lefties to a .999 OPS, seems perfectly suited to this role
5. Holt -- good backup who is more like an excellent 5th outfielder
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,456
Maine
Bradley
Betts
Benintendi
Young
Holt
Brentz

Those are the OF on the 40-man currently.

Additionally, there's Castillo, Craig, Junior Lake, and Brian Bogusevic in the minors with MLB experience. Then also Moreland and Marco Hernandez are probably the emergency options.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,215
I agree that they should be looking for someone to invite to spring training to compete with Brentz and Lake for the Ryan LaMarre emergency OF job. That's what you meant, right? Or did you mean that they should sign Jose Bautista, go over the luxury tax, and forfeit their first-round pick on the grounds that a Betts/Bradley/Benintendi/Young OF represents a weakness that needs upgrading rather than one of the best OF situations in the game?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I agree that they should be looking for someone to invite to spring training to compete with Brentz and Lake for the Ryan LaMarre emergency OF job. That's what you meant, right? Or did you mean that they should sign Jose Bautista, go over the luxury tax, and forfeit their first-round pick on the grounds that a Betts/Bradley/Benintendi/Young OF represents a weakness that needs upgrading rather than one of the best OF situations in the game?
I was referring to the "post-June" scenario in Devizier's post, and merely pointing out that while the team looks good going into spring training -- you certainly wouldn't put more resources there now -- corner outfield is really no better covered than any other position in the organization right now, though in following up I'd add, except 3B, where the team does not have a starter, let alone a backup. If you'd be happy with Brock Holt starting in LF/RF for 2 months, then you ought to be fine with him starting at 2B or 3B for 2 months too.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
Easily THE best OF situation in the game. Take it fwiw but Olney just ranked all the positions in the game. Sox came in with

#10 LF in Benintendi
#2 CF in Bradley
#1 RF in Bette

Quibble all you like, but no other team had a rep in each top ten. They don't need JB.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Even if Bautista went unsigned until June and while assuming a strong Sox interest was to exist at that time, you don't put a declining 36yo on the books for an extra couple of years in the name of staying under this year.

At the end of the day and unless/until we start spending a lot more money on payroll, the current LT system just doesn't have the teeth behind it to warrant that imo.
Agree, especially a declining 36y.o. who has been sitting for 9 months. How many players came back from a QO disaster and were good? How good would Joey Bats be even if he had a spring training under his belt? The issue is how much do you spend for how much production, and I don't see why Bautista, of recent 117 OPS+ and 1.0 bWAR fame, can't be replicated by a number of other options, even before we talk cost. For all the reasons above, he'd be a DH here, and you simply don't need an every day DH.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Easily THE best OF situation in the game. Take it fwiw but Olney just ranked all the positions in the game. Sox came in with

#10 LF in Benintendi
#2 CF in Bradley
#1 RF in Bette

Quibble all you like, but no other team had a rep in each top ten. They don't need JB.
Suppose we get to Memorial Day weekend and Pedroia has a broken hand from diving headfirst into first base, Panda has a 590 OPS, and then Benintendi runs into the left field wall and hobbles off with a high ankle sprain that needs surgery. What's your lineup on June 1st?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,215
I'd imagine Young, Hernandez, and Rutledge get a lot of play, with Holt rotating between the three.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,456
Maine
How many players came back from a QO disaster and were good?
Depends on how you define "disaster" but I'd say defining it as not signing until well into the following season (e.g. after the draft), there are only two examples to pull from, both from the 2014 season: Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales. Neither were that productive once they were signed, but both ended up being trade deadline fodder for their signing teams. Morales has recovered to become a productive player again, but he's younger than Bautista by a couple years.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Suppose we get to Memorial Day weekend and Pedroia has a broken hand from diving headfirst into first base, Panda has a 590 OPS, and then Benintendi runs into the left field wall and hobbles off with a high ankle sprain that needs surgery. What's your lineup on June 1st?
You can play this game with every single team in MLB. No one can carry enough depth to prepare for that kind of injury luck and under performance. No one.

What do the Cubs look like if Schwarber blows out his knee again, Jon Jay is hitting like Jon Lester and Ben Zobrist breaks his hand sliding into 2nd head first?
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,485
Saint Paul, MN
Suppose we get to Memorial Day weekend and Pedroia has a broken hand from diving headfirst into first base, Panda has a 590 OPS, and then Benintendi runs into the left field wall and hobbles off with a high ankle sprain that needs surgery. What's your lineup on June 1st?
Yes, if everything that could conceivably go wrong, goes wrong, this team is in trouble. Same as every year. Same as every team.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Looking at MLBTR's FA tracker, there's a slew of veteran backup outfielder types still out there. Any chance any of them (e.g. Bourjos) would settle for a minor-league deal?
Why would DDski want a third MLB-backup outfielder ticketed for AAA, with Craig and Rusney already rotting away down there?

The Sox' fourth and fifth OF are actually pretty darn good, after all is said and done. It's only that the starting three are so much better.

So if DDski needs to get a guy like de Aza because of multiple concurrent injuries in mid-season, he'll go out and pick up the best player available to fit the team's needs. That's just what he does, and sackcloth will remain in fashion for the prospect faithful.

But right now, it's completely unneeded. The Sox legitimately have a top-3 OF and top-6 offense, without adding anything.

OTOH, adding a decent LHH IF in FA or on the trade market -- to hedge against one of Panda or Moreland hitting a pothole and blowing out -- that move might still make sense.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,389
Because Craig and Rusney would then count against the cap and any OFer you would sign would make considerably less than either of them.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,456
Maine
Why would DDski want a third MLB-backup outfielder ticketed for AAA, with Craig and Rusney already rotting away down there?
Someone has to play the OF in Pawtucket. Craig is most likely playing 1B or DHing, so if you figure Brentz and Castillo are two starters, a third one who could be activated if needed isn't the worst thing in the world. Especially if his MLB salary is likely to be considerably less than Castillo's and thus less of a luxury tax threat.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
OTOH, adding a decent LHH IF in FA or on the trade market -- to hedge against one of Panda or Moreland hitting a pothole and blowing out -- that move might still make sense.
I'm not sure it does. There's not much out there that offers a higher floor than what the Sox have available in Rutledge, Holt, Travis, Hanley, Dominguez, Hernandez, etc) so why not save your money in case it becomes apparent that either Moreland or Panda are completely toast and need to be replaced permanently?

If Moreland's bat is completely gone I imagine Sam Travis gets first crack at the job. If Panda is toast, they'll probably look externally and will need some LT wiggle room to bring someone in. Maybe Todd Frazier if he's not dealt before the season?

Regardless, they don't have much money left to spend in 2017 and I just don't see anyone being available who makes sense aside from maybe Trevor Plouffe who is probably going to hold out for more money than the Sox should be spending on that roster spot.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Someone has to play the OF in Pawtucket. Craig is most likely playing 1B or DHing, so if you figure Brentz and Castillo are two starters, a third one who could be activated if needed isn't the worst thing in the world. Especially if his MLB salary is likely to be considerably less than Castillo's and thus less of a luxury tax threat.
My point was that the most "in case of emergency, break glass" guys ever, are already sucking up roster spots in AAA.

Sure, each team needs 3 OF, but even Pawtucket already has their starting OF signed. Lake and that whats-his-name other guy aren't anything special. But there's no reason to plan more than 5 OF deep, because if you really need that 6th OF during the season, the trade market will almost certainly be able to accommodate the specific need better than a depleted upper minors (Brentz), or shooting craps with has-been and never-were options that you sign with the hope they never see the lights at Fenway (Bourjos).
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,408
Portsmouth, NH
Suppose we get to Memorial Day weekend and Pedroia has a broken hand from diving headfirst into first base, Panda has a 590 OPS, and then Benintendi runs into the left field wall and hobbles off with a high ankle sprain that needs surgery. What's your lineup on June 1st?
Suppose we get to the same date and Sale's elbow blows up, Porcello has turned back into a pumpkin and then Price takes a line drive to the face. What's your rotation?

Better question, what's your point?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Yes, if everything that could conceivably go wrong, goes wrong, this team is in trouble. Same as every year. Same as every team.
Having two starters go down at the same time and for extended periods is fairly common. The Red Sox have had worse luck than that in 2001, 2006, and 2011. And, Panda being washed up wouldn't be some sort of application of Murphy's Law; it should actually be considered more likely than any other outcome. Relying on him is only marginally more defensible than relying on Grady Sizemore to be the opening day starter in 2014.

Suppose we get to the same date and Sale's elbow blows up, Porcello has turned back into a pumpkin and then Price takes a line drive to the face. What's your rotation?
when
Better question, what's your point?
That neither you, nor I, nor anyone else really knows what this team's most glaring need will be on June 1, and when applying baseline probabilities to that number, corner outfielder/DH is far from the least likely outcome. This team is woefully short of impact bats.

I'm much more confident in their AAAA starters than I am in their AAAA outfielders, despite the signs of BABiP life from Rusney Castillo last August in Pawtucket and this December in Puerto Rico.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,490
Portland
My point was that the most "in case of emergency, break glass" guys ever, are already sucking up roster spots in AAA.

Sure, each team needs 3 OF, but even Pawtucket already has their starting OF signed. Lake and that whats-his-name other guy aren't anything special. But there's no reason to plan more than 5 OF deep, because if you really need that 6th OF during the season, the trade market will almost certainly be able to accommodate the specific need better than a depleted upper minors (Brentz), or shooting craps with has-been and never-were options that you sign with the hope they never see the lights at Fenway (Bourjos).
Technically they can move Rusney or Craig anywhere in the minors, so if they wanted to sign a guy like Bourjos to AAA, they could. Though, I'd say that is pretty unlikely - and not exactly a pressing need.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,563
Richmond, VA
Suppose we get to the same date and Sale's elbow blows up, Porcello has turned back into a pumpkin and then Price takes a line drive to the face. What's your rotation?

Better question, what's your point?
He wants Ellsbury and Lester back.

Yeah, this team doesn't need to spend any more money at this point. Save the flexibility for when it's needed and what, exactly, it's needed for. Because it could be anything.