The future at 3rd

[jimbobim]

Pretty good read from OTM. Many good points but my answer would be above average hitter with good glove but far from elite is the exact guy the Red Sox can and should flex their financial muscles on. For example wouldn't JD Drew fit the same description? The Red Sox don't need a transformational or perfect player at 3rd but they do need someone consistent who can hit above average. Hitting above average at all is the greatest scarcity in the league today. I think Red Sox fans get hung up on  "value" and not overpaying too much sometimes. 
 
Do I think he's worth 100 mill like he's going to ask for ? Probably not. Hanley is going to shoot for that first as well. I think both players will find extreme reticent for teams to commit beyond 4/5 years to either. Sandoval's extreme platoon split this year also worries me a bit but I don't think the Red Sox are going to find a perfect solution ( maybe a Donaldson or Beltre deal) so they may have to settle on Pablo. 4 at 22 with a team option ? I don't think that would be nuts. I just don't think teams are going to be falling over each other to give him 110 or something over 5 or 6 years. Interested to see what others think. 
 
http://www.overthemonster.com/2014/10/8/6945335/will-the-red-sox-be-priced-out-of-the-pablo-sandoval-chase
 
And frankly, he's just not worth it. Not at all. Sandoval is not a transformational player. He'll fill a need for the Red Sox, at least for the moment, but for all that he's an above-average hitter with an above-average glove, he's far from elite. And then there's the physical issues to consider. Sandoval is young, a point in his favor, but the positives that come from that are at best neutralized by the fact that he's far from the most physically fit player in the game. You don't need the cautionary tail of Prince Fielder to see that Sandoval is plenty risky for being a free agent more than a year shy of 30. And if those issues diminish his defense, or even force him into a DH role, the bat is far from the quality needed to justify his likely contract there.
 
Simply put, the Red Sox would be a better team with Sandoval than without, but they wouldn't be better off.
It's a pitching-rich and hitting-light market, so Sandoval will likely find no shortage of teams interested in paying him what he isn't worth. The Red Sox would certainly do well to find someone to play third base so that they're not entering the season looking at a combination of Will Middlebrooks and Brock Holt at the hot corner. But that's certainly no reason to go spending huge money on a risky third baseman whose reputation is still inflated by performances three years in the past.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm really hoping "the cautionary tail of Prince Fielder" was not a typo, because it's brilliant.
 
Obviously if the whispers of $100M have any basis in reality, I hope like hell we don't go there. He's not that kind of player, and I really have a hard time believing the market is going to treat him like that kind of player.

 

[jscola85]

 
Chicken and the egg, but the shoulder injury messed up his throwing mechanics and, well, yeah, he'll probably be playing 1B for them next year. 

 
Where does that put Adam Laroche and his $15M contract for 2015?  Laroche actually played quite well last year (817 OPS, 2+ WAR) and they need his lefty bat to keep some balance in their lineup.  Platooning him and Zimmerman would be a costly use of resources.
 
Seems like a good buy-low candidate if he were to come available.  You can try him at third for a year but if he doesn't stick, he can always slide over to 1st in 2016 when Napoli's contract is up - it's not like we have someone banging on the door to take over 1st right now (sorry, Travis Shaw).  If he struggles, you've got Cecchini/Middlebrooks as backup options.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Hitting above average at all is the greatest scarcity in the league today.[/i]

I had forgotten that MLB players were all camping on the other side of Lake Woebegone.

 

[MakMan44]

 
Where does that put Adam Laroche and his $15M contract for 2015?  Laroche actually played quite well last year (817 OPS, 2+ WAR) and they need his lefty bat to keep some balance in their lineup.  Platooning him and Zimmerman would be a costly use of resources.
 
Seems like a good buy-low candidate if he were to come available.  You can try him at third for a year but if he doesn't stick, he can always slide over to 1st in 2016 when Napoli's contract is up - it's not like we have someone banging on the door to take over 1st right now (sorry, Travis Shaw).  If he struggles, you've got Cecchini/Middlebrooks as backup options.

Bought out at $2 million.

 

[jscola85]

Ahh interesting, didn't realize his last year had a buyout.  Well, in that case Zimm is probably off the board.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 Hitting above average at all is the greatest scarcity in the league today. 

 
Yet, amazingly, exactly half of the players in MLB seem to be able to do it every year.  (Just giving you crap.)
 
$100 million for Sandoval, I think, is way too high.  I think he'll get overpaid, but if the market starts paying 3 win players $100 million, then competition is just too fierce at 3B and the Sox either need to sit it out and hope they can manage on in-house options or maybe kick the tires on Aramis Rameriez and see if they can get a bargain while the others are fighting over Headley and Sandoval.  
 
Edit:  Also probably worth adding that if Panda gets a QO, it will affect his market, although this would have less of an impact on the Sox since it only costs them a second rounder.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Yet, amazingly, exactly half of the players in MLB seem to be able to do it every year.  (Just giving you crap.)

 
Of course, this is not necessarily true. In a league with three hitters, where hitters 1 and 2 hit .310 and hitter 3 hits .355, twice as many hitters are below average as above. 
 
Intuitively (please correct me if my intuition is FOS) it seems like that's always going to be true to some extent in baseball, because performance will vary more at the upper end than at the lower. I.e., a player can be as far above average as he wants, and this will only result in increased opportunity, while a player can only go a short distance below average before he stops getting opportunity. The below-average performances will tend to occupy a narrower band, and therefore they will outnumber the above-average performances. The median will always be lower than the mean. (Does that make sense?)
 
Even assuming this is true, of course, it's a whole 'nother question whether it's particularly true right now.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
Of course, this is not necessarily true. In a league with three hitters, where hitters 1 and 2 hit .310 and hitter 3 hits .355, twice as many hitters are below average as above. 
 
Intuitively (please correct me if my intuition is FOS) it seems like that's always going to true to some extent in baseball, because performance will vary more at the upper end than at the lower. I.e., a player can be as far above average as he wants, and this will only result in increased opportunity, while a player can only go a short distance below average before he stops getting opportunity. The below-average performances will tend to occupy a narrower band, and therefore they will outnumber the above-average performances. The median will always be lower than the mean. (Does that make sense?)
 
Even assuming this is true, of course, it's a whole 'nother question whether it's particularly true right now.

 
Nice!  You've put the lie to my snark.  Also, just going by what I said, I was clearly wrong.  If one focuses on "players," as I did, then many many more will be below average than above average, because there are so many players who only come to the plate for a limited number of chances.  So, according to bref, there were 285 players in 2013 who hit above the league average of .253, but over 1,000 who did not (including pitchers). 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Nice!  You've put the lie to my snark.  Also, just going by what I said, I was clearly wrong.  If one focuses on "players," as I did, then many many more will be below average than above average, because there are so many players who only come to the plate for a limited number of chances.  So, according to bref, there were 285 players in 2013 who hit above the league average of .253, but over 1,000 who did not (including pitchers). 

 
Right, so to make it more meaningful maybe we'd want to look at total PA by below-average and above-average players, rather than number of individuals.
 
EDIT: And when you look at it that way, the effect disappears.
 
AL 2014 non-pitchers:
 
League wOBA: .313
Above-average: 121 players, 47,516 PA, .342 wOBA
Below-average: 213 players, 44,318 PA, .282 wOBA
 
So once you focus on PA instead of players, it's essentially a wash; above-average players had 52% of the opportunity and hit .029 above the mean; below-average players had 48% of the opportunity and hit .031 below the mean.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
Yet, amazingly, exactly half of the players in MLB seem to be able to do it every year.  (Just giving you crap.)
 
$100 million for Sandoval, I think, is way too high.  I think he'll get overpaid, but if the market starts paying 3 win players $100 million, then competition is just too fierce at 3B and the Sox either need to sit it out and hope they can manage on in-house options or maybe kick the tires on Aramis Rameriez and see if they can get a bargain while the others are fighting over Headley and Sandoval.  
 
Edit:  Also probably worth adding that if Panda gets a QO, it will affect his market, although this would have less of an impact on the Sox since it only costs them a second rounder.

They lose two draft picks.  The second rounder and the pick from Oakland

 

[Harry Hooper]

Lauber has a piece in the Herald comparing the career trajectories of Middlebrooks and Moustakas:

 

Moustakas is basically the Kansas City Royals' version of Middlebrooks. They play the same position (third base), have a nearly identical slash line over the past two seasons (.213/.265/.364 for Middlebrooks, .223/.279/.363 for Moustakas), and have fallen so short of expectations that both have been demoted to the minor leagues.
 
The only evidence that Middlebrooks and Moustakas weren't separated at birth is the fact that they were born two days apart in September of 1988.
 
But while the Red Sox can't possibly commit to Middlebrooks as their Opening Day third baseman for a third consecutive season, Moustakas' resurgent postseason is proof that perhaps they shouldn't run away from him entirely.
 

 

 

[Al Zarilla]

After last night's game, a reporter (I think a local St. Louis guy) asked Pablo if he wanted to stay with the Giants after the season is over. He started with "I don't know, man", and then went on to answer the guy's other questions. Don't players becoming free agents usually start off with something like "I'd be happy to come back with this team, but I know it's a business..."?

 

[OptimusPapi]

A cording to mlbtraderumors.com Jose Fernandez defected. Is he someone who could slide over to third?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/cuban-second-baseman-jose-fernandez-defects.html

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I'd think they would want less of a question mark at 3b with all the youngsters on the team. I just read that link and forgot if he was a RHB or w/e but 10ks in 312 at bats is insane for someone who is an "on base machine." How many times did he walk?

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Lauber has a piece in the Herald comparing the career trajectories of Middlebrooks and Moustakas:
 
 

 
Except that Moose Tacos was always a much more highly regarded minor leaguer with a significantly better minor league track record. Will was a nice piece; Moose was a future stud.
 
Anyway, it's cool to see Moustakas hit some really clutch dingers, but a two week hot streak does not a good major leaguer make. There's hardly any indication that either he or WMB will hit like a first division regular next year.

 

[jscola85]

Yeah, and beyond that, Moustakas was a better major leaguer before this postseaosn breakout.  He's walked more and struck out way less (6-7% and 18-20% vs. WMB at 5-6% and 25%+), and is a significantly better defender than Middlebrooks, meaning even when he is struggling at the plate, he's adding value defensively.  Honestly, their offensive projections aren't too far apart - it is just that one is a mediocre defender and one is a borderline GG defender.

 

[TigerBlood]

Kinda wanted to bump this thread since its been neglected for a week.
 
Suggestions so far:
 
Internal Options:
WMB
Bogaerts shifting over
Holt
Cecchini
 
Free Agents:
Sandoval
Headley
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]HanRam[/SIZE]
 
Trade Targets:
Daniel Murphy
Pedro Alvarez
 
 
Of those options, I'm really interested in the Daniel Murphy trade. The problem is that he plays 2B right now, with just 16 games at third in 2014. As some other poster has said, he is a safe bet to put up an OPS+ a little over 100. All of his peripherals are very steady the past few years, except his LD% which actually jumped from a career ~21% to 30% last year. He's been getting boned by Citi field the last two years while OPSing ~.800 elsewhere.
 
With just one year left before Free Agency, I'm sure he'd love to come play in Fenway, maybe enough to change positions? The espn article given earlier http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/95401/winter-primer-murph-niese-gee-goners?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter posits that the Mets want a power hitting outfielder... Cespedes anyone?
 
Edit: I called pedro alvarez "abe" for some unknown reason, and listed Hanley in the wrong list

 

[jscola85]

Abe Alvarez would be a very questionable choice at 3rd base.

 

[sean1562]

Who the hell is Abe Alvarez? Are you thinking of Carlos Valbuena?

Hanley Ramirez is a FA.

In short, try again.

 
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/alvarab01.shtml?redir
 
hey, it could work no?

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

Yeah I'm familiar with that Abe Alvarez. I feel like he meant someone else.

Pedro Alvarez, 3B Pirates.  He's moving over to 1b because he's not good at 3b.

 

[benhogan]

Just kicking this around, but does Xander + Cecchini + Cespedes (subsidized) + RDR give us a shot at Josh Donaldson + Jaso? Ok, I know its probably an absolute pipe dream.  
 
BUT Beane must be a little anxious after another early playoff exit, his trigger finger might be itchy this winter.
 
I wonder what it would take for him to move Donaldson (his home/road splits are very pronounced).
 
BTW be gentle, I'm just tossing it out there.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Just kicking this around, but does Xander + Cecchini + Cespedes (subsidized) + RDR give us a shot at Josh Donaldson + Jaso? Ok, I know its probably an absolute pipe dream.  
 
BUT Beane must be a little anxious after another early playoff exit, his trigger finger might be itchy this winter.
 
I wonder what it would take for him to move Donaldson (his home/road splits are very pronounced).
 
BTW be gentle, I'm just tossing it out there.

Well, I don't think the Red Sox do that deal. I'd be pretty shocked if either X or Betts is moved this winter.

That's not to say we couldn't make a package that would get Donaldson .. Owens plus Cecchini plus one of Ranaudo/Webster/Barnes plus a Coyle or similar ilk would probably get it done.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Kinda wanted to bump this thread since its been neglected for a week.
 
Of those options, I'm really interested in the Daniel Murphy trade. The problem is that he plays 2B right now, with just 16 games at third in 2014. As some other poster has said, he is a safe bet to put up an OPS+ a little over 100. All of his peripherals are very steady the past few years, except his LD% which actually jumped from a career ~21% to 30% last year. He's been getting boned by Citi field the last two years while OPSing ~.800 elsewhere.
 
With just one year left before Free Agency, I'm sure he'd love to come play in Fenway, maybe enough to change positions? The espn article given earlier http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/95401/winter-primer-murph-niese-gee-goners?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter posits that the Mets want a power hitting outfielder... Cespedes anyone?
 
Edit: I called pedro alvarez "abe" for some unknown reason, and listed Hanley in the wrong list

Murphy came up as a third baseman. It's his natural position but the Mets are covered there. I would imagine he'd love to play third full time this season. I'm very high on this option and think the Mets would be a great trade partner.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

The Mets will get Harvey and Parnell back next year. With that young, talented pitching staff, they have a chance to be pretty good. They need a left fielder and they need power. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them grab Cespedes, try to catch lightning in a bottle next year, while also trying to extend him.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

What so the Sox have to offer the Mets though? They are pretty deep in SP- they've got a rotation filled with back of the rotation starters so I don't think any of the Workman / Webster / Ranaudo trio make sense. A guy like Cespedes has no value to a rebuilding team. They really need some offense. Don't see how the Sox match up that well.

I wouldn't call the Mets a traditional rebuilding team by any means. They are getting some young pitching back from injury next year an desperately need a corner OF bat. Cespedes would be a good match for their needs as Murphy is for ours.

 

[jscola85]

It could even get done without Cespedes.  Something like Brentz, Coyle and maybe one of the young arms in AAA could do it.  We're talking about Daniel Murphy here, not a guy you have to trade the farm for.

 

[mfried]

I wouldn't call the Mets a traditional rebuilding team by any means. They are getting some young pitching back from injury next year an desperately need a corner OF bat. Cespedes would be a good match for their needs as Murphy is for ours.

Although I think Murphy-Cespedes is an interesting idea, we shouldn't forget that a power deficit motivated the Cespedes trade.  It wouldn't be resolved by Murphy, so that would force Ben to look elsewhere for power unless X really rises to the occasion.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Although I think Murphy-Cespedes is an interesting idea, we shouldn't forget that a power deficit motivated the Cespedes trade.  It wouldn't be resolved by Murphy, so that would force Ben to look elsewhere for power unless X really rises to the occasion.

 
I thought the main thing that motivated the Cespedes trade was the need to get something for Lester that would be equal in on-field value and superior in PR value to a compensatory draft pick.
 
Cespedes and Murphy are players of remarkably similar value, with similar windows of availability, so if that trade would simultaneously fill a temporary hole and relieve a temporary logjam, I hope we wouldn't let the lure of Cespedes' power hold us back.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Although I think Murphy-Cespedes is an interesting idea, we shouldn't forget that a power deficit motivated the Cespedes trade.  It wouldn't be resolved by Murphy, so that would force Ben to look elsewhere for power unless X really rises to the occasion.

Quoting this but in response to Rudy as well.

There isn't likely to be a scenario where everything aligns perfectly both for the Sox as well as the Mets. Cespedes being moved costs us some power but also alleviates the corner OF logjam while filling a need at 3b. I feel solidifying that position while easily replacing Cespedes other assets is worth sacrificing some power in exchange.

The Mets really really need a corner OF bat.......this upgrade over Young or any other crap they had out there last summer would be greater than JAG to replace Murphy at 2b.

 

[MakMan44]

I get that, but wouldn't they be better served signing a FA OF (someone like Colby Rasmus seems like a Mets move). Trading their 2B for an OF solves one hole (for a year), but just opens up another. Fundamentally, I think it's difficult to move Cespedes to a contender and expect to get major league contributors in return. Most teams don't have the kind of depth to make that kind of move (or they'll at least wait until all potential FA fits have been exhausted).

They already have in house replacements for Murphy in Dilson Herrera and Wilmer Flores. 

 

[TigerBlood]

 
I thought the main thing that motivated the Cespedes trade was the need to get something for Lester that would be equal in on-field value and superior in PR value to a compensatory draft pick.
 
Cespedes and Murphy are players of remarkably similar value, with similar windows of availability, so if that trade would simultaneously fill a temporary hole and relieve a temporary logjam, I hope we wouldn't let the lure of Cespedes' power hold us back.

 
Right. I think the Mets are considering moving Murphy because of the logjam they have in their own infield, including less expensive pieces that can step into Murphy's place. That said, the Mets are making this move in part to minimize a growing payroll, so Cespedes and his 10.5 million might not be what they are looking for and I don't want us to pay for YC to play for the Mets. While dealing Cespedes is ideal for us, I would rate the need for any sort of competent 3B as a higher priority than solving our outfield puzzle. Thus, I agree with jscola about giving them someone a package of Brentz and a pitcher. 

 

[moondog80]

What happened to Sandoval's power?  SLG of .552, .447, .417, and .415 the past 4 years.  Not a park effect b/c he's worse on the road.  NL average SLG has been pretty consistent, range from .387 to .393.  Granted, Mike Napoli was 2nd on the Sox this year with only .419, but Nap had an OBP of .370 (compared to .324 for Panda).  I guess what I'm saying is Sandoval isn't as good a hitter as I thought.

 

[bellowthecat]

What happened to Sandoval's power?  SLG of .552, .447, .417, and .415 the past 4 years.  Not a park effect b/c he's worse on the road.  NL average SLG has been pretty consistent, range from .387 to .393.  Granted, Mike Napoli was 2nd on the Sox this year with only .419, but Nap had an OBP of .370 (compared to .324 for Panda).  I guess what I'm saying is Sandoval isn't as good a hitter as I thought.

 
He completely fell off against LHP this year thanks to an obscenely low BABIP.
 
Career vs LHP: .309 wOBA, 391 SLG, .121 ISO, .298 BABIP
2014 vs LHP: .247 wOBA, .319 SLG, .120 ISO, .210 BABIP
 
His peripherals vs LHP this year about the same as his career, a little worse, but mostly it seems like he just made weak contact against them this year.
 
His numbers against RHP this year are not far off his career line either, but with more OBP and less SLG than in the past, and that despite a .341 BABIP against RHP this year.
 
He does play most of his games in pitchers parks, so it doesn't surprise me to see his power numbers jump around a bit.  The peripherals are generally stable.  Still not sure I'd want to take a risk on this guy aging particularly well.  I don't think he's a fit unless he takes a 3 or 4 year deal.

 

[RochesterSamHorn]

A Philly fan just told me that because of Maikel Franco, the Phils are thinking about moving Cody Asche to LF.  That seems like kind of a waste.  He's 24 and had a pretty decent year.
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/32637/cody-asche
 
Philly seems like it could use one of our excess young pitchers.  He may not be better than Cecchini but at least he's proven himself to some degree.  I don't know much about him to be honest.  

 
 
With so many options we have as available outfielders for trade, there has got to be a match somewhere. I would certainly take a flyer on this guy, as he's a LH hitting 3B with a little pop to his bat, a rare commodity in the major league these days.

 

[sean1562]

he doesnt seem to be that much different than middlebrooks, definitely wouldnt give any talent up for that guy

 

[TomRicardo]

 
 
With so many options we have as available outfielders for trade, there has got to be a match somewhere. I would certainly take a flyer on this guy, as he's a LH hitting 3B with a little pop to his bat, a rare commodity in the major league these days.

 
I really don't see the improvement from Garin Cecchini to Cody Ashe that would necessitate using anything of any value to trade for him.  What am I missing?

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
I really don't see the improvement from Garin Cecchini to Cody Ashe that would necessitate using anything of any value to trade for him.  What am I missing?

I wouldn't disagree with you, however, the Sox have learned their lesson with just handing a rookie a starting gig out of Spring Training (they even said that).  With as many young guys in the lineup, I highly doubt that they would give Cecchini the 3b gig without more time in AAA.  I don't think Asche would be much of an upgrade but he has proven himself in the majors and can be relied on much more than Cecchini.  I'm not saying give up much for him, maybe a Ranuado or Barnes type, guys who don't look like they're going to cut it as a 4/5 starter.  If Cecchini rakes in AAA, you can always trade Asche after or even during the season.  I'd rather just sign Hanley or Panda and let him take aim at the wall.

 

[rodderick]

I wouldn't disagree with you, however, the Sox have learned their lesson with just handing a rookie a starting gig out of Spring Training (they even said that).  With as many young guys in the lineup, I highly doubt that they would give Cecchini the 3b gig without more time in AAA.  I don't think Asche would be much of an upgrade but he has proven himself in the majors and can be relied on much more than Cecchini.  I'm not saying give up much for him, maybe a Ranuado or Barnes type, guys who don't look like they're going to cut it as a 4/5 starter.  If Cecchini rakes in AAA, you can always trade Asche after or even during the season.  I'd rather just sign Hanley or Panda and let him take aim at the wall.

 
I won't pretend I've watched Cody Asche play extensively, but looking at his stats I can't find a single thing that tells me he's a "proven" major league player anywhere. Seems like he's about average defensively, has poor contact skills and some pop. His statline actually screems lefty WMB to me. What am I missing?
 
I'd much rather give the job to Cecchini if the other option is trading an asset for a guy like Asche. Obviously, I'm not advocating that's the way to go to fill the 3rd base gap, though.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
I won't pretend I've watched Cody Asche play extensively, but looking at his stats I can't find a single thing that tells me he's a "proven" major league player anywhere. Seems like he's about average defensively, has poor contact skills and some pop. His statline actually screems lefty WMB to me. What am I missing?

I believe it's known as a higher floor.*  I've made a comparison for Middlebrooks and Asche on Fangraphs (Asche is almost 2 years younger than WMB):
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=11997&position=3B&page=0&players=7002
 
Asche would make sure we don't have a gaping hole at 3b.  I'm not saying give up much for Asche (Ranuado might be too much but I was just throwing stuff against the wall).  Maybe Brentz for Asche.  Then let Middlebrooks, Asche and Cecchini battle it out for 3b.  Asche gives the Sox a league avg 3B but hopefully Cecchini would impress in ST or in April or May and take over.  Like I said, I'd rather sign Panda or Hanley (I'm warming up to Headley), Asche would give you a L bat that would be league average and not a gaping hole like Middlebrooks.  Asche hits Rs, one last stat:
 
Cody Asche's minor league slash vs. Rs in the minors:
'13 AAA .308/.368/.533 in Int'l League
'12 AA   .300/.368/.553 in Eastern League (hit Ls well too)
 
*I don't know much about Asche either other than looking at stats.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Asche would make sure we don't have a gaping hole at 3b.  I'm not saying give up much for Asche (Ranuado might be too much but I was just throwing stuff against the wall).  Maybe Brentz for Asche.  Then let Middlebrooks, Asche and Cecchini battle it out for 3b.  Asche gives the Sox a league avg 3B but hopefully Cecchini would impress in ST or in April or May and take over.  Like I said, I'd rather sign Panda or Hanley (I'm warming up to Headley), Asche would give you a L bat that would be league average and not a gaping hole like Middlebrooks.  Asche hits Rs, one last stat:
 

 
None of this makes sense to me. Depending on how you define a "gaping hole," we either already don't have one or Asche would just give us a more densely populated one.
 
Asche so far has not been a league average 3B by any reasonable measurement that the numbers allow us to make. He might have the potential to become a league average 3B, but then so do Cecchini and (still, possibly) WMB. Cecchini was a better minor league hitter than Asche, and there's no particular reason to expect that he won't be a better major league hitter than Asche. And Asche's defense does not appear to be good enough to make him desirable for that reason either.
 
In short, there's no reason to do this. Sign Panda or Headley? Sure. Trade for Donaldson? If the price is right (which it probably won't be), maybe. But if you can't get somebody of that ilk, somebody with either star potential or a proven above-average track record, then we might as well give Cecchini the job and see if he can run with it, or give WMB one last shot.

 

[pockmeister]

Maybe I'm insufficiently knowledgeable on the statistics side of the game (following this board and trying to make sense of the analysis is both informative and mentally taxing), but there's a phrase that comes back time and again on this topic and a number of others.  And that's "league average", and the continued search for players who meet these criteria.
 
Now this could be an oversimplification, but I'm not terribly interested in watching a "league average" baseball team, especially not with the payroll that the Sox have equipped themselves with.  I understand that it's not possible to have superstars at every position, but isn't it a fair aspiration to seek to be above league average across most/all starting positions, given the objective of the Sox is to finish well towards to upper ends of the standings come the end of the season?  One would correlate that above average performance across the team to a reasonable shot at making the playoffs each year.
 
So I do wonder sometimes wonder why so much time and space is given to trying to identify players who are close to league average.  Isn't the skill in the front office based around finding players above league average, ideally ones that fluctuating market inefficiencies have undervalued to some degree - even if the cost is relatively high?  With reference to this particular topic, it's a little hard to fathom why players like Asche are even being debated - ought the focus not to be on thinking up creative options to get well above-average talent into the vacancy at 3B?
 
Just to clarify, I'm not aiming this comment at either of the excellent posters above, more just making a general observation in relation to the topic of league average players and the Sox needs at 3B.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Maybe I'm insufficiently knowledgeable on the statistics side of the game (following this board and trying to make sense of the analysis is both informative and mentally taxing), but there's a phrase that comes back time and again on this topic and a number of others.  And that's "league average", and the continued search for players who meet these criteria.
 
Now this could be an oversimplification, but I'm not terribly interested in watching a "league average" baseball team, especially not with the payroll that the Sox have equipped themselves with.  I understand that it's not possible to have superstars at every position, but isn't it a fair aspiration to seek to be above league average across most/all starting positions, given the objective of the Sox is to finish well towards to upper ends of the standings come the end of the season?  One would correlate that above average performance across the team to a reasonable shot at making the playoffs each year.
 
So I do wonder sometimes wonder why so much time and space is given to trying to identify players who are close to league average.  Isn't the skill in the front office based around finding players above league average, ideally ones that fluctuating market inefficiencies have undervalued to some degree - even if the cost is relatively high?  With reference to this particular topic, it's a little hard to fathom why players like Asche are even being debated - ought the focus not to be on thinking up creative options to get well above-average talent into the vacancy at 3B?
 
Just to clarify, I'm not aiming this comment at either of the excellent posters above, more just making a general observation in relation to the topic of league average players and the Sox needs at 3B.

 
It's a reasonable question. There was quite an exchange with (among others) P91 about it earlier this year. The short answer is that it is surprisingly hard to find teams, even great teams, that don't have at least one or two players whose production is league-average or below. The Sox won a World Championship in 2007 with league-average performance in RF and below-average performance at SS and (if you can believe BBRef's defensive numbers) LF. This year the World Series is being contested by two teams with a combined total of nine above-average position players (granted, that doesn't account for above-average cumulative performance from multiple part-time players, particularly in SF's case, but still).
 
Bill James said it years ago, and it's still true: pennants are lost every year because a team failed to find enough average players (wish I could find the exact quote).
 
Obviously, you want above-average players at as many positions as possible. But a player who provides reliably average production is not to be sneezed at. That's value.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

One of the easiest ways to improve a team is to improve a position from awful to average. 3B is primed for that sort of improvement.

 

[Super Nomario]

It's a reasonable question. There was quite an exchange with (among others) P91 about it earlier this year. The short answer is that it is surprisingly hard to find teams, even great teams, that don't have at least one or two players whose production is league-average or below. The Sox won a World Championship in 2007 with league-average performance in RF and below-average performance at SS and (if you can believe BBRef's defensive numbers) LF. This year the World Series is being contested by two teams with a combined total of nine above-average position players (granted, that doesn't account for above-average cumulative performance from multiple part-time players, particularly in SF's case, but still).

Bill James said it years ago, and it's still true: pennants are lost every year because a team failed to find enough average players (wish I could find the exact quote).
 
Obviously, you want above-average players at as many positions as possible. But a player who provides reliably average production is not to be sneezed at. That's value.

I think everything you wrote is true, but I have two reactions when it comes to planning roster construction:
1) Injuries and underperformance happen. If you construct a squad that's solid 1-9 on paper, probably something is going to happen that means that you're not really going to be solid 1-9. The Red Sox gave Lugo big money in 2007 - they didn't plan on it being a black hole. Middlebrooks looked pretty solid going into 2013. If you put together a team on paper that has no holes, it's probably going to turn out to have a couple holes (and that's OK - no holes is an unrealistic goal). But if you put together a team that has a couple holes, it might end up having 3 or 4 or 5 holes, which is how you end up with the 2014 Red Sox.
 
2) Average performance from the complementary players was awesome in the middle part of the last decade when they had Manny and Ortiz in the middle of the lineup, and even in recent seasons with Youkilis, Pedroia, and Ortiz. Unfortunately, the star power is no longer there in the middle of the order. Ortiz is still great but will be 39. Pedroia appears to be on a decline. The youngsters pretty much all had lost seasons in 2014. Aspiring for average production out of 3B was great in the mid-2000s when they had two Hall of Famers hitting 3/4, but it might not be good enough now that the heart of the lineup is just OK.

 

[soxhop411]

5. General managers from other teams don’t think the Giants will let Pablo Sandoval go, but Sunday one member of their ownership group said there is a swelling thinking that the Red Sox will end up signing The Panda. “The bigger the stage, the better he plays,” says one Giant official. “He would love Boston.” Of course, the Giants sell out every game, the debt service on the ballpark is paid off in 2017 and it is one of the most valuable franchises in the game.

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/gammons-notes-whats-next-for-joe-maddon-yusmeiro-petit-giancarlo-stanton-and-more/

 

[OptimusPapi]

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/gammons-notes-whats-next-for-joe-maddon-yusmeiro-petit-giancarlo-stanton-and-more/

I didn't know his agent was part of an ownership group

 

[soxhop411]

What is the max contract you would give Pablo Sandoval?

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

The BJ Upton contract, 5/70. I get the feeling that the Giants can easily match that though..Looks like the only way to get him out of SF would be to give him a silly contract (say 5/100), and I'm not sure you go silly on this particular player. 

 

[bosockboy]

Considering it's a dire need, and the Sox are swimming in money, I'd go 5/90.  Is it an overpay....yes.  But that's about where he'll land.