Your 2015 Boston Red Sox

[grimshaw]

what else are we gonna use to trade for him? you think they will give us their starting CF for some of our AAA pitchers?Where would we even play him? Last year his wRC+ was 115, he was 25. Maybe he broke out? who should we trade for adam eaton? that team isnt really loaded with OFs. Why are we talking about acquiring more OFs?

I'm not saying the Red Sox are trading for him or any of those other guys.  I have listed all of the OF and 1B who are left handed.  And if they decide to go with another left handed starter, than that is the list of them to choose from.  I bolded the most valuable ones who it isn't a huge stretch for them to acquire.  They have a surplus of right handed hitting power and some of them are moving, presumably for pitching or bullpen help.  They have acquired several players in the past 

If  you don't think they'll add a left handed hitter to the lineup, then fine.  No reason to get hung up on Adam Eaton.  I just think cost controlled isn't the end all be all. 

 

[grimshaw]

The Royals are trading Eric Hosmer?

Do you look at player stats or nah?

 

[5dice]

All I want for Christmas is a sandbox.

 

[MakMan44]

Do you look at player stats or nah?

EDIT: Actually your point doesn't really matter. The quoted post sucks.

The correct response would have been something like "Well, Hosmer has been an up and down player. I'm not sure if the Royals would seriously consider trading him, but I think he's very talented and I'd like to see Ben make an effort to acquire him."

See? I've started a dialogue without snark, gotten my point across, and addressed his point.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

All I want for Christmas is a sandbox.

 
This is harsh. I understand what you're saying (I really do), but wouldn't tar all lurkers who are contributing here with the same brush. 

 

[grimshaw]

EDIT: Actually your point doesn't really matter. The quoted post sucks.

The correct response would have been something like "Well, Hosmer has been an up and down player. I'm not sure if the Royals would seriously consider trading him, but I think he's very talented and I'd like to see Ben make an effort to acquire him."

See? I've started a dialogue without snark, gotten my point across, and addressed his point.

I address one sentence snark with snark but I get your point.  It's disrespectful when I'm actually trying to generate discussion.
I don't even want Hosmer which is why I didn't bold him as a target.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Does anyone think they'll have 7 right handed hitters in their lineup to start the season or if it even matters?  I can see maybe Swihart by the middle of the year but that is a big question mark.  They have added Sandoval but he is supplanting Holt/Cecchini who also bat left.  Or perhaps they are looking at it as needing to replace Middlebrooks instead.  I'm not saying they need help offensively, just that it would be unusual balance wise.
 
I'm going to say no and still expect a left handed hitting OF or 1B before the dust settles.  I'll list OF who are gettable first and bold who I think are good targets.

 
I don't think it matters nearly as much as we've assumed in the past. Give the fangraphs article MakMan linked in the Monster thread a read. The gap between Fenway Park the rest of the majors in park factor on balls hit in the air to left field and left center field is preposterously big. A right handed heavy lineup may be intentional and with the Monster impacting fly balls to that degree, Fenway is probably the best park in the majors for right handed batters who like to put the ball in the air.
 
Given that, I think there's a very real chance they will not only go into 2015 with 7 right handed batters, but that they intended it all along.

 

[grimshaw]

 
I don't think it matters nearly as much as we've assumed in the past. Give the fangraphs article MakMan linked in the Monster thread a read. The gap between Fenway Park the rest of the majors in park factor on balls hit in the air to left field and left center field is preposterously big. A right handed heavy lineup may be intentional and with the Monster impacting fly balls to that degree, Fenway is probably the best park in the majors for right handed batters who like to put the ball in the air.
Given that, I think there's a very real chance they will not only go into 2015 with 7 right handed batters, but that they intended it all along.

You're probably right.  I checked the splits for all the right handed hitters last year.  Betts was still at .798, Pedey had almost no split, Vazquez was actually better (.638 vs .539), Sandoval is much better against righties than lefties.  Hanley was .801.  Napoli had a huge drop but that could be thumb related because he mashed them the year before (.816).  Xander struggled the most (.621 vs. 755).  Those sliders killed him.

 

[lxt]

You're probably right.  I checked the splits for all the right handed hitters last year.  Betts was still at .798, Pedey had almost no split, Vazquez was actually better (.638 vs .539), Sandoval is much better against righties than lefties.  Hanley was .801.  Napoli had a huge drop but that could be thumb related because he mashed them the year before (.816).  Xander struggled the most (.621 vs. 755).  Those sliders killed him.

I had the Sox at about 800 runs w/o Hanley and Panda (Had Headley). I imagine we can assume another 50 - 75 runs with them.
 
Edit: Markov Run Expectations, too lazy to do it with Hanley & Panda ... maybe a Thanksgiving task.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

I hate posting this on Thanksgiving but I thought of it last night and really would like the minds of SoSH to ponder it for me because I haven't figured it out.
 
Rusney Castillo has turned into a pretty damn important piece of this puzzle, and certainly at 14 million a year, you'd expect him to. But we are dealing with an unknown quantity in Castillo. If he can't hit, then Betts plays center, so far so good, and if Victorino is healthy, all is still fine with him in right hitting at the bottom of the order and playing great defense. 
 
But what happens in a worst case scenario if you trade Cespedes, Castillo isn't ready to be a full time outfielder, and Victorino's back doesn't allow him to play? I feel like JBJ almost has to come up and play a great defensive center and black hole in the lineup (unless he improves) and Betts plays right. Perhaps this is acceptable, and all of the conversation is moot if it is true that Cespedes won't or can't play center or right. I am just assuming Craig should not be playing OF.(which perhaps I am foolish to even consider). But I guess I am pondering the idea of dealing Napoli instead; his return might be greater, you add Craig to the list of guys who could man his position.
 
It's Thanksgiving so please tread lightly but would keeping Cespedes and dealing Napoli allow more options in the downside scenario? (Obviously if things work out you have an extra OF asset, but given injuries and performance variations I have trouble seeing that as a major problem.

 

[MakMan44]

Actually, I've certainly seen rumors of Nap being trade on top of Cespedes. Your idea is well supported, so no fear. 
 
You've forgotten Hanley though. I think in your scenario, it's likely that they'd just call up JBJ and let him play CF. Right, now they just have too many OF, there's simply no way around that. 

 

[jasail]

I hate posting this on Thanksgiving but I thought of it last night and really would like the minds of SoSH to ponder it for me because I haven't figured it out.
 
Rusney Castillo has turned into a pretty damn important piece of this puzzle, and certainly at 14 million a year, you'd expect him to. But we are dealing with an unknown quantity in Castillo. If he can't hit, then Betts plays center, so far so good, and if Victorino is healthy, all is still fine with him in right hitting at the bottom of the order and playing great defense. 
 
But what happens in a worst case scenario if you trade Cespedes, Castillo isn't ready to be a full time outfielder, and Victorino's back doesn't allow him to play? I feel like JBJ almost has to come up and play a great defensive center and black hole in the lineup (unless he improves) and Betts plays right. Perhaps this is acceptable, and all of the conversation is moot if it is true that Cespedes won't or can't play center or right. I am just assuming Craig should not be playing OF.(which perhaps I am foolish to even consider). But I guess I am pondering the idea of dealing Napoli instead; his return might be greater, you add Craig to the list of guys who could man his position.
 
It's Thanksgiving so please tread lightly but would keeping Cespedes and dealing Napoli allow more options in the downside scenario? (Obviously if things work out you have an extra OF asset, but given injuries and performance variations I have trouble seeing that as a major problem.

This strikes me as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Assuming a Cespedes trade, the Sox OF depth is:
Ramirez (LF) - Castillo (OF) - Betts (OF);
Victorino (OF) -Nava (LF) - Holt (OF) -Craig (LF)
JBJ (OF) - Brentz (LF).

So in the worse case scenario, if Castillo and Betts were to underperform and Victorino were to not be able to play then, yes the Sox would have to rely on an OF that may require more ABs from JBJ and Brentz than one may like and feature Nava in RF. So plainly, keep Cespedes would, in fact, mitigate against this type of worst case scenario, as he could play CF or RF (although I cringe at that thought).

However, this would result in a trade of Napoli. If Napoli is traded the Sox 1B is now Allen Craig. The depth includes Nava, Holt, maybe Hanley, Shaw and maybe WMB and Garin. Keep in mind that if Hanley were to then move to first, the Sox OF depth is weakend to a point. Point being, I think the risk posed by Allen Craig having to give you more than 500 ABs is more significant than the risk posed by having a worst case scenario OF.

 

[Otis Foster]

I hate posting this on Thanksgiving but I thought of it last night and really would like the minds of SoSH to ponder it for me because I haven't figured it out.
 
Rusney Castillo has turned into a pretty damn important piece of this puzzle, and certainly at 14 million a year, you'd expect him to. But we are dealing with an unknown quantity in Castillo. If he can't hit, then Betts plays center, so far so good, and if Victorino is healthy, all is still fine with him in right hitting at the bottom of the order and playing great defense. 
 
But what happens in a worst case scenario if you trade Cespedes, Castillo isn't ready to be a full time outfielder, and Victorino's back doesn't allow him to play? I feel like JBJ almost has to come up and play a great defensive center and black hole in the lineup (unless he improves) and Betts plays right. Perhaps this is acceptable, and all of the conversation is moot if it is true that Cespedes won't or can't play center or right. I am just assuming Craig should not be playing OF.(which perhaps I am foolish to even consider). But I guess I am pondering the idea of dealing Napoli instead; his return might be greater, you add Craig to the list of guys who could man his position.
 
It's Thanksgiving so please tread lightly but would keeping Cespedes and dealing Napoli allow more options in the downside scenario? (Obviously if things work out you have an extra OF asset, but given injuries and performance variations I have trouble seeing that as a major problem.

I get what you're doing with the multiple variables, but I suspect the ship has sailed with Cespedes, given his apparent refusal to play right and what seems to be an unwillingness to discuss an extension at this point. Also, isn't it likely to believe the RS did a very deep anaylisis on Castillo before bidding? That would make the likelihood of cratering more remote.

IMO, it's highly unlikely that your scenario would play out that way.

Edit: MakMan sees it differently, I see. I didn't directly address trading Napoli. I've wondered about that too - a valuable bat. That doesn't lead me to want to keep Cespedes, howevr.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Let's not forget Nava either. He's a pretty damn good insurance policy. He might see some PH opportunities for Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo and Vazquez in key situations vs ROOGYs as well.

 

[MakMan44]

Yeah, honestly, in any scenario where the OF is so screwed that trading Nap instead of Cespedes would be the right move the Sox probably won't have a serious chance of competing anyway.

 

[grimshaw]

Let's not forget Nava either. He's a pretty damn good insurance policy. He might see some PH opportunities for Betts, Bogaerts, Castillo and Vazquez in key situations vs ROOGYs as well.

That's what I was thinking as well.  There hasn't been a peep about which teams may be interested in him or if the Sox are shopping him.  i don't think they lose a ton if Nap is moved for a bullpen arm or frees up salary and Nava platoons with Craig at 1B.  Assuming Craig can even accomplish a .650 OPS vs lefties.

 

[gammoseditor]

My problem with keeping Cespedes is that it makes hard to get Mookie in the lineup.  I also think Cespedes's trade value is much higher than his actual value based on the shortage of OF power, and we'll get a pretty good pitcher for him.  

 

[jasail]

Yeah, honestly, in any scenario where the OF is so screwed that trading Nap instead of Cespedes would be the right move the Sox probably won't have a serious chance of competing anyway.

I 100% agree. I wouldn't trade Napoli instead of Cespedes out of concern for OF depth, but b/c a deal involving Napoli - in terms of both prospect acquisition cost and return - is signficantly better for the Sox than a trade involving Cespedes.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Cespedes has recently claimed that he's willing to play RF and even CF. Probably just window dressing in advance of a trade, but figured it merited mention.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Cespedes has recently claimed that he's willing to play RF and even CF. Probably just window dressing in advance of a trade, but figured it merited mention.

Cespedes played plenty of games in CF when he was with the A's. I count 75. They even played Coco in left, Cespedes in center sometimes when both were available/healthy. I wondered about that. Deference to Cespedes because if his higher salary? Even with his weak arm, I'd rather Coco in center. I was surprised about his resistance to playing anything but LF for the Sox, if true. Communication gap with Farrell?

 

[judyb]

Cespedes played plenty of games in CF when he was with the A's. I count 75. They even played Coco in left, Cespedes in center sometimes when both were available/healthy. I wondered about that. Deference to Cespedes because if his higher salary? Even with his weak arm, I'd rather Coco in center. I was surprised about his resistance to playing anything but LF for the Sox, if true. Communication gap with Farrell?

I don't know if they ever asked him to play CF, or if he's ever played RF before at all, it's at least possible that he just wasn't comfortable doing it during the season without practicing first.

 

[The Boomer]

I would trade both Cespedes and Napoli if they want to shed some salary to bring back (and overpay) Lester.  As Jasail pointed out, they would still have this depth:
 
Ramirez (LF) - Castillo (OF) - Betts (OF);
Victorino (OF) -Nava (LF) - Holt (OF) -Craig (LF)
JBJ (OF) - Brentz (LF). 
 
[SIZE=12.7272720336914px]Their willingness to trade both will mainly depend on their accurate assessment about whether Craig's 2014 season was an injury influenced aberration.  If Craig's comeback is more likely than we realize, then they won't lose much in terms of offensive production.  The interesting question will be whether Hanley is their full time 1B or LF. Whichever position Hanley doesn't claim will most likely be filled with a Craig/Nava platoon.  Craig might be more of a regular (with Nava more of a reserve) if he fully comes back.[/SIZE]
 
Again, I would trade both if they can bring back Lester.  Why should they go above the luxury tax, although they could, before the team plays a single game in 2015?  If they contend, they won't have any qualms going over this limit down the stretch run.  If they don't, they won't sacrifice any of their treasured roster and financial flexibility.  Napoli is an injury risk.  Cespedes is an attitude risk.  Hanley, despite his attitude risk, at least genuinely seems to want to be with the team.  Craig, despite his injury risk, would actually be more cost effective assuming that his proven previous production returns.  Holt and Nava are backups (not starters) for a contender. Victorino is an injury risk.  Castillo, Betts, JBJ and Brentz remain unproven.  These are all risks that are probably worth taking next season with Cespedes and Napoli moving on. 
 
Kennedy and Latos or comparable pitchers might be an adequate return for Napoli and Cespedes.  This would completely fill out the rotation if Lester returns.  The main disadvantage will be, to start the season, they will stall their depth of on the cusp starters at AAA.  On the other hand, converting some of those pitchers to decent bullpen arms might bolster their confidence and ease their transition to the majors if they can pitch more consistently and successfully in shorter outings. They would still be available as 6th, 7th, etc. starters depth to stretch out if the need arises while effectively limiting total innings pitched for these young arms (still under age 25).

 

[67WasBest]

I would trade both Cespedes and Napoli if they want to shed some salary to bring back (and overpay) Lester.  As Jasail pointed out, they would still have this depth:
 
Ramirez (LF) - Castillo (OF) - Betts (OF);
Victorino (OF) -Nava (LF) - Holt (OF) -Craig (LF)
JBJ (OF) - Brentz (LF). 
 
[SIZE=12.7272720336914px]Their willingness to trade both will mainly depend on their accurate assessment about whether Craig's 2014 season was an injury influenced aberration.  If Craig's comeback is more likely than we realize, then they won't lose much in terms of offensive production.  The interesting question will be whether Hanley is their full time 1B or LF. Whichever position Hanley doesn't claim will most likely be filled with a Craig/Nava platoon.  Craig might be more of a regular (with Nava more of a reserve) if he fully comes back.[/SIZE]
 
Again, I would trade both if they can bring back Lester.  Why should they go above the luxury tax, although they could, before the team plays a single game in 2015?  If they contend, they won't have any qualms going over this limit down the stretch run.  If they don't, they won't sacrifice any of their treasured roster and financial flexibility.  Napoli is an injury risk.  Cespedes is an attitude risk.  Hanley, despite his attitude risk, at least genuinely seems to want to be with the team.  Craig, despite his injury risk, would actually be more cost effective assuming that his proven previous production returns.  Holt and Nava are backups (not starters) for a contender. Victorino is an injury risk.  Castillo, Betts, JBJ and Brentz remain unproven.  These are all risks that are probably worth taking next season with Cespedes and Napoli moving on. 
 
Kennedy and Latos or comparable pitchers might be an adequate return for Napoli and Cespedes.  This would completely fill out the rotation if Lester returns.  The main disadvantage will be, to start the season, they will stall their depth of on the cusp starters at AAA.  On the other hand, converting some of those pitchers to decent bullpen arms might bolster their confidence and ease their transition to the majors if they can pitch more consistently and successfully in shorter outings. They would still be available as 6th, 7th, etc. starters depth to stretch out if the need arises while effectively limiting total innings pitched for these young arms (still under age 25).

This, a thousand times this, or a near facsimile of this.
 
There is no reason they should come to camp with any question marks on the roster.  If they make an incorrect assumption on Craig, they have Brentz and WMB, and possibly Victorino, as RH platoon options beyond him.
 
Good points on not going over the spending line.  They may not need to, but I think that 2015 spending line has applicability, only as it pertains to what they 2016 line will be.
 
Load up with 5 proven starters,  which in turn allows the bullpen to be stocked with power armed kids, who are trying to finish their third pitch in Boston.  Always liked the Baltimore model, and now that baseball looks more like baseball did in the 70's, a proven model works.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I would trade both Cespedes and Napoli if they want to shed some salary to bring back (and overpay) Lester.  As Jasail pointed out, they would still have this depth:
 
Ramirez (LF) - Castillo (OF) - Betts (OF);
Victorino (OF) -Nava (LF) - Holt (OF) -Craig (LF)
JBJ (OF) - Brentz (LF). 
 
[SIZE=12.7272720336914px]Their willingness to trade both will mainly depend on their accurate assessment about whether Craig's 2014 season was an injury influenced aberration.  If Craig's comeback is more likely than we realize, then they won't lose much in terms of offensive production.  The interesting question will be whether Hanley is their full time 1B or LF. Whichever position Hanley doesn't claim will most likely be filled with a Craig/Nava platoon.  Craig might be more of a regular (with Nava more of a reserve) if he fully comes back.[/SIZE]
 
Again, I would trade both if they can bring back Lester.  Why should they go above the luxury tax, although they could, before the team plays a single game in 2015?  If they contend, they won't have any qualms going over this limit down the stretch run.  If they don't, they won't sacrifice any of their treasured roster and financial flexibility.  Napoli is an injury risk.  Cespedes is an attitude risk.  Hanley, despite his attitude risk, at least genuinely seems to want to be with the team.  Craig, despite his injury risk, would actually be more cost effective assuming that his proven previous production returns.  Holt and Nava are backups (not starters) for a contender. Victorino is an injury risk.  Castillo, Betts, JBJ and Brentz remain unproven.  These are all risks that are probably worth taking next season with Cespedes and Napoli moving on. 
 
Kennedy and Latos or comparable pitchers might be an adequate return for Napoli and Cespedes.  This would completely fill out the rotation if Lester returns.  The main disadvantage will be, to start the season, they will stall their depth of on the cusp starters at AAA.  On the other hand, converting some of those pitchers to decent bullpen arms might bolster their confidence and ease their transition to the majors if they can pitch more consistently and successfully in shorter outings. They would still be available as 6th, 7th, etc. starters depth to stretch out if the need arises while effectively limiting total innings pitched for these young arms (still under age 25).

If the return is better than what they can buy on the FA market, then I'd be fine with trading Cespedes and Napoli; but the impetus should be the return, not trying to stay under the cap. There's no reason for this team to weaken itself just to avoid a small tax. Yes, they could start under the cap and see what they have; but (a) there's less flexibility to add players/payroll during the season, at least without giving up yet more talent, and (b) unless Craig makes a full recovery, they'll be that much less likely to be in contention having weakened themselves at 1b or LF.
 
They're in a somewhat unique situation here: having stayed under in recent years, the 2015 tax will be minimal, and with plenty of money coming off after 2015, plus young, cheap players available to fill 3 starting positions and a handful of rotation/bullpen slots, they should be able to avoid going over in future years. As such, they're in a great position to leverage their financial strength without depleting their organizational talent. If all the decent #2-3 SP options on the FA market sign elsewhere, then moving both Cespedes + Napoli for SP makes more sense; but so long as they can add those pieces for just cash without hamstringing themselves going forward (which the cheap kids in the lineup/staff should allow), I don't understand why you'd give up cash AND talent. 

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

If John Henry doesn't care about going over the tax this year, why should we?

 

[The Boomer]

 As such, they're in a great position to leverage their financial strength without depleting their organizational talent. If all the decent #2-3 SP options on the FA market sign elsewhere, then moving both Cespedes + Napoli for SP makes more sense; but so long as they can add those pieces for just cash without hamstringing themselves going forward (which the cheap kids in the lineup/staff should allow), I don't understand why you'd give up cash AND talent. 

 
Something has to give on the 40 man roster to bring in ML talent.  Who should they release if, for example, they sign Lester and a Pitcher TBNL?  Here is the roster:
 
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=bos
 
Jemile Weeks and a few others could be in line to be next designated for assignment but they also have a 25 man roster crunch and imbalance that needs resolution.  Other than overpaying for Lester, what free agent pitchers are out there who are worth a risky premium from the perspective of the Sox?  IMO with their current surplus of position players, swapping both Cespedes and Napoli for more proven pitching, coupled with some salary relief by trading them to bring back Lester is sensible.

 

[The Boomer]

This, a thousand times this, or a near facsimile of this.
 
There is no reason they should come to camp with any question marks on the roster.  If they make an incorrect assumption on Craig, they have Brentz and WMB, and possibly Victorino, as RH platoon options beyond him.
 
Good points on not going over the spending line.  They may not need to, but I think that 2015 spending line has applicability, only as it pertains to what they 2016 line will be.
 
Load up with 5 proven starters,  which in turn allows the bullpen to be stocked with power armed kids, who are trying to finish their third pitch in Boston.  Always liked the Baltimore model, and now that baseball looks more like baseball did in the 70's, a proven model works.

 

This, a thousand times this, or a near facsimile of this.
 
There is no reason they should come to camp with any question marks on the roster.  If they make an incorrect assumption on Craig, they have Brentz and WMB, and possibly Victorino, as RH platoon options beyond him.
 
Good points on not going over the spending line.  They may not need to, but I think that 2015 spending line has applicability, only as it pertains to what they 2016 line will be.
 
Load up with 5 proven starters,  which in turn allows the bullpen to be stocked with power armed kids, who are trying to finish their third pitch in Boston.  Always liked the Baltimore model, and now that baseball looks more like baseball did in the 70's, a proven model works.

 
I was thinking about the 70's Baltimore model too.  You end up overpaying for free agents to some degree almost always.  With patience, you can sometimes pick off a bargain when the tune stops at the end of this musical chairs process.  However, with so many needs after a terrible season, the Sox needed to be market setters.  Lester is probably the one pitcher out there who they will consider past 4 years because it's the nature of free agency.  However, they also have a good opportunity, based on how their roster is now structured, to shed some salary to make their over payment more affordable to minimally impact the need to maintain financial flexibility.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

 
Something has to give on the 40 man roster to bring in ML talent.  Who should they release if, for example, they sign Lester and a Pitcher TBNL?  Here is the roster:
 
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=bos
 
Jemile Weeks and a few others could be in line to be next designated for assignment but they also have a 25 man roster crunch and imbalance that needs resolution.  Other than overpaying for Lester, what free agent pitchers are out there who are worth a risky premium from the perspective of the Sox?  IMO with their current surplus of position players, swapping both Cespedes and Napoli for more proven pitching, coupled with some salary relief by trading them to bring back Lester is sensible.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My post was in response to your suggestion that they should trade, specifically, Cespedes and Napoli -- that is, two guys that were penciled in as starters until this week's signings. They will definitely need to make some deals, and I expect one of those two to go (probably Cespedes) for a SP; I just think it makes more sense to deal from the backup depth (Victorino, Nava, Craig, etc...) rather than dealing a second starter. Whatever deal they make will probably include at least one of the younger players on the 40-man, further relieving space. 
 
As to which non-ace SPs to target on the FA market, you can start with McCarthy, Santana & Masterson; depending on what they get back for the one surplus starter they do trade, they may only need a #3 or #4 pitcher, so you could even consider Hammel or Peavy (might help with the Lester negotiation!. 

 

[oumbi]

 
This is harsh. I understand what you're saying (I really do), but wouldn't tar all lurkers who are contributing here with the same brush. 

Thank you. As an ex-lurker-who-is-now-a-member it was occasionally intimidating to post amongst the occasional battles that would swirl about some threads. At times, it just did not seem to be worth the effort given the potential risk of being made a snark-target or worse.
 
But, here I am simply agreeing with the basic point that lurker posts are uneven and therefore need to be viewed individually instead of lumping them into a single...well...lump.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Look I have seen some insane ideas around here. My personal favorite was trading for Adam Dunn and have him play left field. But rather then view that as something to be met with snark why not take the oppurtunity to teach. The nice thing was I saw a lot of that. A lot of posters went into depth about defense and why it wasn't a good idea. But some just got snarky. Now eventually the original poster took the rebuttal as a personal attack and the whole thing went around in circles. At that point a mod needs to step in, but if the thing isn't turning into someone getting defensive seize the moment and be a teacher.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm probably in the minority on this but I would love to find a way to bring back both Gomes and Lester. Lefty masher and great club house presence. Hell bring Ross back too!

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I just think it makes more sense to deal from the backup depth (Victorino, Nava, Craig, etc...) rather than dealing a second starter. Whatever deal they make will probably include at least one of the younger players on the 40-man, further relieving space. 

 
Yes, but the problem with that approach is that you're not going to get much for any of those guys, for the same reasons why you'd rather deal them. If we want to use an active ML player as the main piece in a deal for a mid-rotation-or-better SP, it's going to need to be a bonafide starter like Cespedes or Napoli, not a DL candidate or over-30 platoon guy.
 
Of course if we want to center a deal around a prospect and use one of Victorino/Nava/Craig as a makeweight, that's a different story.

 

[BornToRun]

I'm probably in the minority on this but I would love to find a way to bring back both Gomes and Lester. Lefty masher and great club house presence. Hell bring Ross back too!

Ross, sure, but I don't see much reason to bring back Gomes. I love him and enjoyed rooting for him as a member of the Sox but I think his time in Boston has passed.

 

[rodderick]

I'm probably in the minority on this but I would love to find a way to bring back both Gomes and Lester. Lefty masher and great club house presence. Hell bring Ross back too!

 
Another righty outfielder? Can't think of a worse fit right now. It's going to be difficult to find playtime for Craig if he remains on the team, what would we do with Gomes?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Another righty outfielder? Can't think of a worse fit right now. It's going to be difficult to find playtime for Craig if he remains on the team, what would we do with Gomes?

Well Craig does have an option so that shouldn't play into anything.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm probably in the minority on this but I would love to find a way to bring back both Gomes and Lester. Lefty masher and great club house presence. Hell bring Ross back too!

 
Which one?

 

[ehaz]

Kennedy and Latos or comparable pitchers might be an adequate return for Napoli and Cespedes.  This would completely fill out the rotation if Lester returns.  The main disadvantage will be, to start the season, they will stall their depth of on the cusp starters at AAA.  On the other hand, converting some of those pitchers to decent bullpen arms might bolster their confidence and ease their transition to the majors if they can pitch more consistently and successfully in shorter outings. They would still be available as 6th, 7th, etc. starters depth to stretch out if the need arises while effectively limiting total innings pitched for these young arms (still under age 25).

 
I've been warming up to the idea of Ian Kennedy.  Cespedes alone won't get you a guy like Ross or Cashner, but Kennedy had a great season and has really just had one bad year (2013).  He was also hurt for part of 2013 and regained a good MPH on his fastball this year, PetCo does inflate stats but it's not like it increases strikeouts (had a career best 9.3k/9).
 
2010: 2.4 fWAR
2011: 4.9 fWAR
2012: 2.9 fWAR
2013: 0.5 fWAR
2014: 2.9 fWAR
 
Thats a similar value to Cespedes at a position of need.  If Kennedy remains a 2-3 win pitcher, he's a strong candidate for a #3 starter.  FIP- takes into account park factors and still rates him as a better than average pitcher.

 

[67WasBest]

 
Something has to give on the 40 man roster to bring in ML talent.  Who should they release if, for example, they sign Lester and a Pitcher TBNL?  Here is the roster:
 
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=bos
 
Jemile Weeks and a few others could be in line to be next designated for assignment but they also have a 25 man roster crunch and imbalance that needs resolution.  Other than overpaying for Lester, what free agent pitchers are out there who are worth a risky premium from the perspective of the Sox?  IMO with their current surplus of position players, swapping both Cespedes and Napoli for more proven pitching, coupled with some salary relief by trading them to bring back Lester is sensible.

We've all been wondering what is the advantage the Sox ownership has chosen to exploit as the PED and extra FA era ended.  I believe it is flexibility at every level of the organization, but most importantly in Boston.  I;ve heard Bill James mention "productive days on field" as a stat he has only recenly become aware of, and he only became aware because of his time in the Boston FO.  Says losing a starter, and not having a suitable replacement causes massive disruption across the franchise.  The ML production takes a hit, the ml depth takes a hit because you have to trade future value for what usually amounts to a present league average replacement, and that impacts the overall valuation of the franchise.  I believe ballplayers who can man multiple positions, combined with deep depth on the 40 man roster is the advantage they are seeking to exploit.
 
Looking at the roster, and applying a value, based on position capability, to each ballplayer, we start to see a new way to look at the roster
 
Ortiz (1)
Napoli (1)
Pedroia (1)
Bogaerts (3 - SS, 3B, 1B) although I'm not sure he sees this as more than 1
Sandoval (2 - 3B, 1B)
Ramirez (5 - SS, 3B, LF, RF, 1B)
Cespedes (3, all OF)
Castillo (4 - CF, RF, LF, 2B)
Betts (4 - CF, RF, LF, 2B)
Victorino (3 - RF, CF, LF)
Nava (3 - 1B, RF, LF)
Craig (3, maybe 4 1B, LF, RF, maybe 3B)
Holt (8, all but C)
Weeks (3, all IF)
 
Of those likely to start, Napoli, Ortiz and Pedroia provide the least positional flexibility, while Cespedes and Victorino provide the least in the OF.  Who among these have ready replacements on the roster?  I think it safe to say we have multiple ways to replace Napoli, Cespedes and Victorino, (yes Pedroia fits the requirement, but he's going nowhere) but Victorino will need to show he's capable before any deal can be made, so that leaves Napoli and Cespedes as replaceable pieces, with guys already here..
 
I also had concerns about the lineup structure with Napoli still in the mix.  If we assume Victorino (if healthy and ready) will start RF to start the season, they look like:
 
Castillo CF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Ramirez LF, Sandoval 3B, Napoli 1B, Victorino RF, Bogaerts SS, Vazquez C, with Craig, Nava, Holt, Catcher
 
I don't like Napoli in that 6 hole.  I'd rather have a lineup that looks like:
 
Betts LF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Ramirez 1B, Sandoval 3B, Castillo CF, Victorino RF, Bogaerts SS, Vazquez, with Craig, Nava, Holt and Catcher
 
The lineup repeats itself at position 6, with Castillo serving as another leadoff hitter, with Victorino and Bogaerts serving as 2 and 3 hitters.  Later in the year, Swihart arrives and fills the cleanup hitter role behind Bogaerts.  So with this as what I see as optimal, yes, using Napoli and Cespedes to obtain the very best starters possible makes great sense.

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

 
Yes, but the problem with that approach is that you're not going to get much for any of those guys, for the same reasons why you'd rather deal them. If we want to use an active ML player as the main piece in a deal for a mid-rotation-or-better SP, it's going to need to be a bonafide starter like Cespedes or Napoli, not a DL candidate or over-30 platoon guy.

That's what I said in the first half of the exact same sentence you (selectively) quoted; one of Cespedes or Napoli for a SP. The issue is whether to trim the roster (a) by trading both Cespedes and Napoli for SP and relying on a Craig/Nava platoon at 1b or LF, as Boomer suggested, or (b) by trading the redundant depth for the best available offer while filling SP holes through FA and maintaining your starting lineup. 
 
To me it comes down to how the return for Napoli + Cespedes compares to what's available on the FA market; unless trading both improves the team in a way that couldn't be achieved just by spending cash, they should hold on to their top talent and get what they can for the spare parts. 

 

[67WasBest]

That's what I said in the first half of the exact same sentence you (selectively) quoted; one of Cespedes or Napoli for a SP. The issue is whether to trim the roster (a) by trading both Cespedes and Napoli for SP and relying on a Craig/Nava platoon at 1b or LF, as Boomer suggested, or (b) by trading the redundant depth for the best available offer while filling SP holes through FA and maintaining your starting lineup. 

Why doesn't Hanley at 1B get more consideration?  It;s an easier transition and provides an upgrade at that position.  Craig/Nava seems an upgrade over Cespedes so they upgrade at 2 spots

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm probably in the minority on this but I would love to find a way to bring back both Gomes and Lester. Lefty masher and great club house presence. Hell bring Ross back too!

Piling on, but is there a crowded outfield equivalent of 
 

 

[swingin val]

Is the transition from SS or 3B to 1B actually easier than to OF? It seems logical that it is, but I heard someone mention that staying on the left side of the field may offer more comfort than switching sides. That was in relation to LF and RF, but maybe it holds true for 1B?

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

Why doesn't Hanley at 1B get more consideration?  It;s an easier transition and provides an upgrade at that position.  Craig/Nava seems an upgrade over Cespedes so they upgrade at 2 spots

Craig/Nava is only an upgrade over Cespedes if both players recover from down years, including a complete and utter breakdown for Craig. I just don't see why a team with these resources should take such a big gamble when they already have a great 1b in Napoli.
 
Also, I'm not so sure 1b is an easier transition; Hanley would be involved in most every IF play so much harder to "hide" him, though I'll acknowledge it would almost completely remove his throwing arm, which would be a plus. 

 

[Al Zarilla]

Is the transition from SS or 3B to 1B actually easier than to OF? It seems logical that it is, but I heard someone mention that staying on the left side of the field may offer more comfort than switching sides. That was in relation to LF and RF, but maybe it holds true for 1B?

Left field at Fenway is not easy, despite its small acreage. Just consider Carl Crawford, Cespedes to a lesser degree, and countless visiting team left fielders that have made fools of themselves near the wall out there. What is it, does that tin wall hurt that much? At first base, the throwing part can be as problematic to learn as fielding and holding runners, but Hanley has an "infield arm" already. Grounders are grounders, mostly. Different spin, a little, right side vs. left side. I think he'll have a tough learning curve in LF. I just hope he doesn't pout and loaf after balls when he does, inevitably, mess up.

 

[rodderick]

Well Craig does have an option so that shouldn't play into anything.

 
I'm saying Allen Craig has a much better track record than Gomes, has better positional flexibility, and he probably won't have much playtime as this roster is presently constructed. Why would we sign a worse player to his spot and send him down? What would that accomplish? 

 

[67WasBest]

Craig/Nava is only an upgrade over Cespedes if both players recover from down years, including a complete and utter breakdown for Craig. I just don't see why a team with these resources should take such a big gamble when they already have a great 1b in Napoli.
 
Also, I'm not so sure 1b is an easier transition; Hanley would be involved in most every IF play so much harder to "hide" him, though I'll acknowledge it would almost completely remove his throwing arm, which would be a plus. 

If Craig remains a failure then move Brentz up, he mashes left handed pitching.  What I'm getting at is there are at least 2 options equally as favorable as Napoli and Cespedes.  1) Hanley at 1B with Victorino in RF and Betts in LF 2) Hanley at 1B with Betts in RF and Craig/Nava,or Brentz/Nava in LF

 

[BarrettsHiddenBall]

I just hope he doesn't pout and loaf after balls when he does, inevitably, mess up.

Assuming he hasn't grown out of it, isn't this a much bigger concern at 1b than LF? In LF he'll be directly involved in a few plays per game; at 1b the ball is going to him on almost every IF play, so more opportunities for him to get frustrated and more opportunities for any pouting to have an impact.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

What makes sense is to wait.
 
Particularly related to Victorino. If Victorino is healthy, and can go back to hitting from the left side, he brings enormous flexibility to the team. If he's less than healthy, or can only hit RH, he is an ideal candidate for a salary dump with Betts taking over and leading off. I doubt anyone will take a gamble on Victorino without seeing him play a good sample of real games. Hell, if he can't cut it he may even retire.
 
Is there a downside to waiting until the season starts and executing trades in May? The biggest one is Betts not getting ML playing time in the crowded outfield.
 
I wouldn't trade Napoli yet, not with the unknowns of Victorino and Craig. He's a legitimate RH power hitter, OBP machine, and excellent defender. That's not easy to come by.
 
No, stick to Cespedes as the key off season trade chip. He's a legitimate RH power hitter and decent defender...and is in a surplus position...and he can't play 1B.

 

[67WasBest]

Is the transition from SS or 3B to 1B actually easier than to OF? It seems logical that it is, but I heard someone mention that staying on the left side of the field may offer more comfort than switching sides. That was in relation to LF and RF, but maybe it holds true for 1B?

I wish there was some data so in the absence of same I can only offer my own experience.  I was gifted with 20/10 and 20/15 vision and used that to be a pretty good outfielder.  I was often after a ball before it left the bat.  When I moved to the infield, I would call my play marginal.  As AlZarilla mentioned, snaring a grounder is a skill that is different than snaring a flyball, and my body type (long trunk) did not lend itself for proper setup on grounders.  Hanley has that skill and while he will have to adjust to balls breaking the opposite way from him, it seems an easier adjustment.  All that said, I think Hanley would be a superstar in LF if it comes to that; but I think the same for 1B and we have more options in the outfield.

 

[phenweigh]

We've all been wondering what is the advantage the Sox ownership has chosen to exploit as the PED and extra FA era ended.  I believe it is flexibility at every level of the organization, but most importantly in Boston.  I;ve heard Bill James mention "productive days on field" as a stat he has only recenly become aware of, and he only became aware because of his time in the Boston FO.  Says losing a starter, and not having a suitable replacement causes massive disruption across the franchise.  The ML production takes a hit, the ml depth takes a hit because you have to trade future value for what usually amounts to a present league average replacement, and that impacts the overall valuation of the franchise.  I believe ballplayers who can man multiple positions, combined with deep depth on the 40 man roster is the advantage they are seeking to exploit.
 
Looking at the roster, and applying a value, based on position capability, to each ballplayer, we start to see a new way to look at the roster
 
Ortiz (1)
Napoli (1)
Pedroia (1)
Bogaerts (3 - SS, 3B, 1B) although I'm not sure he sees this as more than 1
Sandoval (2 - 3B, 1B)
Ramirez (5 - SS, 3B, LF, RF, 1B)
Cespedes (3, all OF)
Castillo (4 - CF, RF, LF, 2B)
Betts (4 - CF, RF, LF, 2B)
Victorino (3 - RF, CF, LF)
Nava (3 - 1B, RF, LF)
Craig (3, maybe 4 1B, LF, RF, maybe 3B)
Holt (8, all but C)
Weeks (3, all IF)
 
Of those likely to start, Napoli, Ortiz and Pedroia provide the least positional flexibility, while Cespedes and Victorino provide the least in the OF.  Who among these have ready replacements on the roster?  I think it safe to say we have multiple ways to replace Napoli, Cespedes and Victorino, (yes Pedroia fits the requirement, but he's going nowhere) but Victorino will need to show he's capable before any deal can be made, so that leaves Napoli and Cespedes as replaceable pieces, with guys already here..
 
I also had concerns about the lineup structure with Napoli still in the mix.  If we assume Victorino (if healthy and ready) will start RF to start the season, they look like:
 
Castillo CF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Ramirez LF, Sandoval 3B, Napoli 1B, Victorino RF, Bogaerts SS, Vazquez C, with Craig, Nava, Holt, Catcher
 
I don't like Napoli in that 6 hole.  I'd rather have a lineup that looks like:
 
Betts LF, Pedroia 2B, Ortiz DH, Ramirez 1B, Sandoval 3B, Castillo CF, Victorino RF, Bogaerts SS, Vazquez, with Craig, Nava, Holt and Catcher
 
The lineup repeats itself at position 6, with Castillo serving as another leadoff hitter, with Victorino and Bogaerts serving as 2 and 3 hitters.  Later in the year, Swihart arrives and fills the cleanup hitter role behind Bogaerts.  So with this as what I see as optimal, yes, using Napoli and Cespedes to obtain the very best starters possible makes great sense.

This makes sense to me ... IF Victorino is healthy.  Some are concerned about relying too much on rookies with Betts and Castillo both starters, and some of those may be in the front office, but I think they should start.