Sox depth - what is next?
- Thread starter smastroyin
- Start date
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
They did not know (a) that Craig was going to regress further, (b) that they were going to acquire Castillo, (c) that Betts was going to come up and play so well and adapt to the outfield, (d) that Ramirez was going to be available and willing to play the outfield, (e) that Sandoval would be signed.
If they had known literally every one of those things, I honestly believe they would have looked for other assets for Lester and Lackey. But they did not.
Eddie Jurak said:
Lol. I swear, I'm off the Cherington bandwagon if Bogaerts gets traded. Kid is 21 for Christ's sakes.
https://twitter.com/peteabe/status/537006873699176449
Not that this needs to be said.
Also wonder if Hanley will start to take a leadership role, given how much Bogaerts looks up to him.
Not that this needs to be said.
Also wonder if Hanley will start to take a leadership role, given how much Bogaerts looks up to him.
There's a lot of ridiculous things being said in this thread.
There are almost no situations where trading Bogaerts or Betts would be acceptable.
We obviously can't keep everyone, but if someone can restore a good chunk of value just by demonstrating that they're healthy, we should try to keep them.
What's next is to get two starting pitchers, a backup catcher, and a lefty reliever.
Everyone has their favorites but the reality is that for most of them, the difference between one and the other is smaller than the normal variation in performance.
I am fairly confident, though, in saying that if we get good Buchholz in 2015, we're going to the playoffs, probably by winning the division.
There are almost no situations where trading Bogaerts or Betts would be acceptable.
We obviously can't keep everyone, but if someone can restore a good chunk of value just by demonstrating that they're healthy, we should try to keep them.
What's next is to get two starting pitchers, a backup catcher, and a lefty reliever.
Everyone has their favorites but the reality is that for most of them, the difference between one and the other is smaller than the normal variation in performance.
I am fairly confident, though, in saying that if we get good Buchholz in 2015, we're going to the playoffs, probably by winning the division.
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184RedOctober3829 said:
link to tweet
Wel this is pretty obvious. The Sox don't have room for all 3.
But it will 100%, unequivocally be Cespedes that moves.
moondog80 said:
He's hedging his bets. It's almost certain that Cespedes is gone, so why not throw Bogaerts name out there with it and if the Red Sox happen to move Xander, you can claim another scoop.
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184RedOctober3829 said:
link to tweet
He also just said that the Sox were in talks with Cole Hamels, so I'm not sure how much stock we should put in his speculations.
There are several things that we don't know that should affect the answer, such as: is Hanley both willing and able to play a decent LF or 1B, what is Victorino's health prognosis for 2015, what the organization thinks the likelihood is of Craig regaining his bat, what are the trade values of the relevant players, etc., but it seems the options are:
(A)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Victorino, Nava)
1B: Napoli
traded: Cespedes
AAA: Craig
(B)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Victorino, Nava)
1B: Craig
traded: Cespedes, Napoli
(C)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Craig, Nava)
1B: Napoli
traded: Cespedes
traded/DL: Victorino
(D)
OF: Betts Castillo Victorino (Craig, Nava)
1B: Ramirez
traded: Cespedes, Napoli
(E)
OF: Cespedes Castillo Betts (Craig/Victorino, Nava)
1B: Ramirez
traded: Napoli, Victorino/Craig
Am I missing something? What is the best option, considering also what is the potential return in trades of the relevant players.
(A)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Victorino, Nava)
1B: Napoli
traded: Cespedes
AAA: Craig
(B)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Victorino, Nava)
1B: Craig
traded: Cespedes, Napoli
(C)
OF: Ramirez Castillo Betts (Craig, Nava)
1B: Napoli
traded: Cespedes
traded/DL: Victorino
(D)
OF: Betts Castillo Victorino (Craig, Nava)
1B: Ramirez
traded: Cespedes, Napoli
(E)
OF: Cespedes Castillo Betts (Craig/Victorino, Nava)
1B: Ramirez
traded: Napoli, Victorino/Craig
Am I missing something? What is the best option, considering also what is the potential return in trades of the relevant players.
RedOctober3829 said:
Very disappointing. I'd expect Cherington to move Cespedes or Bogaerts with a flurry of bravado, not in such a shy, hesitant manner.
BeantownIdaho said:
Why? The team needs two catchers and Swihart has the athleticism to move to third or the outfield. Having him as a 2-3 times a week catcher and then available to spell 3B and a corner outfield positions 1-2 times per week would be a great asset if Vazquez follows his pattern of figuring out a new league in his second look at it. There's also a pretty good chance that Vazquez does not figure it out and becomes an excellent defensive backup catcher while Swihart gets 4-5 starts per week.
If Bogaerts is trading for pitching it has to be cost controlled and elite. I'm not against that idea, honestly. Sometimes you gotta break an egg to make an omlet.
C4CRVT said:
That'd be tampering. He's under contract with another team. They'd need Philly's approval.
I'll add (regarding my above post) that I'm a fan of Napoli - both the guy and his game - and would not look to trade him unless both are true: Hanley can play a decent 1B and the return has a lot of value.
Yeah I'm thinking it has to be in a package for Harvey/Fernandez/Strasburg type for it to make sense at all. Xander for Harvey would definitely make the Mets think. They have pitching, desperately need offense and their shortstop position is a black hole.CaskNFappin said:
A hole they can cover up for a season with Hanley. I'm sure they don't view him as the long term answer there, but as a bridge to Marrero? Who knows. Not saying I'd do it but when Harvey was healthy he was the closest you could get to Kershaw like production.E5 Yaz said:
Yeah, because the Sox aren't overly concerned about potentially terrible defense at shortstop. Come on.ehaz said:
It's been much discussed that Hanley's piss poor defense didn't exactly derail the Dodgers.E5 Yaz said:
In this scenario, the Sox acquire Harvey for Bogaerts, slot Hanley at SS, and possibly hold onto Cespedes.
I know that sounds crazy, but there's a lot of people who are wondering why we signed Sandoval AND Ramirez. Maybe the return for Cespedes wasn't enough of an impact to stabilize the rotation, BUT it was clear Bogaerts could land a true ace.
I'm not pontificating based on Jake's tweets, but I think there's validity to the idea of dealing Bogaerts for a stud, even if that's a touchy subject around here. The Mets, with a ton of young pitching and a huge hole at SS match up quite well....not to mention Harvey had some friction with their brass as the season ended IIRC.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Yes, in your perfect scenario I would keep him too. Perhaps WMB can be moved to long relief.
He wanted to get back on the mound, they wanted him to not blow out his arm again. You want to call that friction, go ahead.CaskNFappin said:
Regardless, I'm not sure why the deal makes sense from either side. The Mets can't be completely sure Xander is any good (hyperbole but he was pretty terrible this season), not to mention if they wanted a SS who was bat first they already have that in Wilmer Flores. The Red Sox shouldn't be moving Xander for a guy coming off TJS, as he's unlikely to be at his best until at least a year later.
BeantownIdaho said:
There are plenty of reports about Swihart and how he has the athleticism to play pretty much anywhere. This isn't a new thought.
E5 Yaz said:
He never started a game at 3B in 2013 or 2014.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7488/
Yeah I guess it's pretty hard to imagine the Sox trading they're future star SS to an NL East team for their ace.
I mean, the Sox's interest was pretty clearly brought up around the time he announced he'd move positions and there was a story today about him suggesting to Ben that he can play LF but yeah, other than that the Red Sox totally want Hanley at SS.E5 Yaz said:
In the abstract, or in the context of a real-world scenario in comparison to other real-world scenarios?E5 Yaz said:
I mean, this is a little like saying "all those in favor of open-heart surgery, say aye."
Great...I hope it works out. I have my prediction that down the line one of them gets moved. You have your prediction that he will be playing a different position.Snodgrass'Muff said:
BeantownIdaho said:
I didn't predict anything. I just pointed out that there were other options besides "pick one and trade the other."
I'm definitely guessing, but I bet he meant "on the Boston Red Sox baseball team in 2015."Savin Hillbilly said:
Yeah, that part I caught. Also the sarcasm part. If only the reading comprehension was working equally well in both directions...JohntheBaptist said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
Sure, "reading comprehension." Drown us in some more pedantry, there's not enough in these threads.
I honestly wouldn't know what to think about a Bogaerts-for-Harvey trade. On the one hand, I'm an unabashed Xander lover and want this guy for the next dozen years or so in a Boston uniform, tearing it up.
On the other hand, they almost certainly could manage SS for a year with Hanley (bad glove and all) and then have Marrero slide into the spot in 2016. And Harvey….holy crap the guy is an unbelievable pitching talent.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/harvema01.shtml
Just makes your eyes pop out of your head those numbers are so good.
EDIT: just to make sure I'm not totally crazy, this isn't a real thing actually being rumored in the actual baseball world, is it? It's just something fans are talking about for fun. Right? RIGHT?
On the other hand, they almost certainly could manage SS for a year with Hanley (bad glove and all) and then have Marrero slide into the spot in 2016. And Harvey….holy crap the guy is an unbelievable pitching talent.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/harvema01.shtml
Just makes your eyes pop out of your head those numbers are so good.
EDIT: just to make sure I'm not totally crazy, this isn't a real thing actually being rumored in the actual baseball world, is it? It's just something fans are talking about for fun. Right? RIGHT?
Yeah Harvey is a hypothetical. We have beaten ideas like Latos for Cespedes to death so it's time to move on to ideas for asap upgrades at the expense of Xander.
I think Cespedes and Nava are headed elsewhere. Victorino will be the 4th OF starting multiple games per week (with Holt as insurance for days when Shane can't go). Craig will be the 5th OF/1B if he hits his way on to the roster.