That's cool. We have two options for frontline starter: Scherzer and Lester, anything less is a waste of time via free agency. If we pull that off, we still have SP2 to fill, OR go into a "contending" year with Clay friggin Bucholz as our #2. We cannot compete with that sort of rotation. Betts will be great....I'm sure other teams agree with that.....and he's the only guy they likely feel that way about.Rasputin said:
Your 2015 Boston Red Sox
- Thread starter In my lifetime
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, nobody thinks Bogaerts will be great. Nobody thinks Swihart will be great. We can't possibly be a good team unless our second best pitcher is better than most teams best pitcher.CaskNFappin said:
We can't possibly compete by putting a pretty good player at damn near every position, that will never work.
You're correct except for the fact the Phillies will demand a large sum of prospects for Lee because of Ruben Amaro Jr. No chance on a deal with them unless he gets fired.Fireball Fred said:
That being said while Cespedes might be a good trade candidate something tells me they wouldn't have gone out of their way to trade Lester for him if Cespedes was just going to be flipped for prospects in the offseason.
Going into 2014 you could have made the same argument about 2015 using Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts, Ranaudo, Vazquez, and Workman. I'm all for betting on the farm but at some point they will need to cash in on a top prospect or two. Only betting on the farm is likely to leave them wanting and with significant value lost. This may not be the moment to cash in, but they should be prepared to move young players if a good deal is out there to be made.LostinNJ said:
Rasputin said:
Everybody has written off Bradley and Middlebrooks. Their encouraging starts were overwhelmed by their prolonged slumps. Every Sox championship (going all the way back to 1918 and before) had quality speed and defense in the Fenway Park outfield. Power is at more of a premium in this post-steroid area. Defense will help the pitching. If Bradley can recover the offensive promise that he showed in the minors, the best possible outfield lineup (assuming Cespedes is swapped for a 3B or starting pitcher) would include Castillo, Betts and Bradley. They would be fun to watch defensively. Injury risk Victorino and Nava might be best utilized as OF reserves. Nava and Holt don't start on a winning team but, with better starting players ahead of them, would be quality depth on a contender.
Young players have a much narrower margin of error in Boston than almost everywhere else. The fans will howl but, despite their inconsistent and shaky offensive starts (except for Betts), if the Sox believe in their scouts and their assessment of projected talent, then they will stay the course with their young players. Why is their patience for rebuilding the Celtics (expecing Olynyk, Sullinger and others to improve just by playing) and not with the Sox? The Patriots have stayed on top by being unafraid to commit to their young talent. If Belichick could cut Seymour and Mankins loose before their declines commenced, is it that hard to accept that even Pedroia (signed to a good contract) is not untouchable? The question management needs to address is whether they would be relinquishing iconic Hall of Fame talent or not. Pedroia is probably the Sox version of Jeter but, if management doesn't believe he will age as well, then they will need to have the courage to open up a spot for Betts at 2B if it gives the Sox their best possible lineup going forward. It's a nice problem to have because, if you believe that Betts is the rough equivalent of a young Joe Morgan, then you can't be afraid to get value in return for Bill Mazeroski (a rough equivalent to Pedroia) at an opportune time. I'm not suggesting this is the case but, if Sox scouts believe that it is, management must display a certain courage in their convictions.
Mistakes will be made but the Sox need to commit to their own judgments about talent and what it's worth rather than cave into the whims of fans with stars in their eyes. Many of the best players in the game struggled early in their careers but the best organizations always have the ability to judge whether to stick with or jettison certain players. Cherington should be trying to emulate the Cardinals - not the Yankees. The Cardinals stayed relevant even without retaining the too pricey Albert Pujols. Craig (until he was hurt) and now Adams proved to be more cost effective adequate replacements. Betts might fit into this category. Expensive free agency should only be utilized to fill gaps for teams already contending - not to fill up a lineup. The Sox are in a much better position than the Yankees because they can afford to be more patient with their depth of young talent. The Yankees will be forced to spend big again in this coming off season with no guarantees that their team next year will be any better. While the improvement might be more incremental in the second season of a rebuild (as with the Celtics), the organization's future and ability to consistently contend will be bolstered by staying the course and not wastefully spending on veteran free agents that won't do much more than improve the team in the short run.
Wherever Betts starts, and Ras is right it looks like either CF or RF, he has shown (albeit SSS in the bigs) that he is a legit Leadoff Hitter. That fact alone makes him untouchable.Rasputin said:
The Boomer said:
You're contradicting yourself a couple times here. First of all, everyone knows what a defensive stud DP is, and has remained throughout the myriad hand/wrist injuries of the past few seasons. So if we're building a "quality speed and defense" team, he is a part of it.
Also, I'd say one of the front office's most profound demonstrations of conviction in their own judgment is the contract they gave Pedroia. It took courage to draft him, to let him work out his struggles in the bigs, and eventually hand him the deal he's currently on. He's here to stay.
With all the moving parts on this team (the guys here for just another year, all the kids that got their first shot at the bigs this year, the handful of players who just arrived via trade, the players coming in via FA this winter, etc.) the last thing this front office is probably doing is displacing Pedroia. His offensive decline is there for everyone to see, right alongside the injuries he has sustained, and maybe it was a mistake to gamble on his durability. But you really can't trade him after a couple injury ridden seasons, in which he still produced very respectable numbers, to make room for a rookie who has shown he can play multiple other positions. It just doesn't make sense.
There's a lot to do this winter, but shopping Dustin Pedroia is not a part of it.
Middlebrooks maybe, but I don't think everyone's written off Bradley.
He needs to get his act together in AAA in 2015, but he's young and there's time for him to return to his previously demonstrated skill levels. That glove should earn him a lot of patience.
He needs to get his act together in AAA in 2015, but he's young and there's time for him to return to his previously demonstrated skill levels. That glove should earn him a lot of patience.
I agree. There will be no market for either Craig or Victorino. I'm thinking that they might explore trading Cespedes to the Rangers for Beltre whom the Rangers seem interested in trading. That would solve 3B for the next year, or two, while they await Cecchini or someone else to show up.geoduck no quahog said:
Maybe this is a nitpick but where have the Rangers actually shown an interest in this? All I've seen is some speculation here that it might make sense for them.Pumpsie said:
Seems to me the approach is pretty clear. Try to get one of the LHH on a relatively short, cheap contract and when that fails, bring in some scrub Betts and have an open contest in spring training that you hope Cecchini or Middlebrooks win.
TigerBlood said:
I'm not advocating shopping Pedroia but the point is that, if the Sox believe that Betts is a better and more cost effective 2B controlled for roughly as long as Pedroia for the future, they need to consider the option. Emotional attachment to Lester, Pedro, Ellsbury, Garnett, Pierce, Seymour and Mankins didn't prevent those tough choices, even for HOF players, before it was too late. The first couple of years in exile can make you regret making these hard calls but the years after where decline is inevitable don't. While not at the top of their to do list for this winter, management must still weigh their choices for what will most help the team going forward. If the Cardinals can trade Pujols and all of the other mentioned players can be dealt away from Boston, then dealing Pedroia, even if it's unpopular or undesirable (at least short term), isn't unthinkable.
Small point about Beltre -- he has a vesting option if he gets 586 PAs next year. He's certainly playing at AS levels at the moment, but I have a bit of concern about year two. He'll be 37. One other note, if 2016 ends up vesting for him, he'll have no trade protection with the Rangers, since he'll be a 10/5 guy, which may be a reason they would think about dealing him given they have some infield depth he might be blocking. Still, I would put the possibility of him ever playing for the Sox again at virtually nonexistent.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Cot's says limited no-trade protection. I agree he's not getting traded, btw.
The thing is, it's entirely possible that Betts will end up playing 2B for the Red Sox eventually even if Pedroia stays. Betts is just 21. By the time Pedroia's contract is over he'll be 29. And Pedroia could very well end up moved off 2B (to DH, to 3B, to LF, to a part-time role, to another team, to retirement) before the contract is over. It's unusual for a player to move rightward in the defensive spectrum in his prime or post-prime, but with an athlete of Betts' caliber it doesn't sound implausible.
The Cards did not trade Pujols, my friend. Look the whole trading Pedroia suggestion went down in another thread like last month. To rehash it is absolutely senseless. The comps you provide make it clear that you don't understand the situation or what you are suggesting.The Boomer said:
The problem with Boomer's argument is that he's missing the fact that the teams wanted to retain the players in question. Ellsbury, Pedro, Lester, Pujols all would have remained with their teams if they had been willing to come back at a price the team was comfortable with. Pedey did that, and then some. That's before you dive into the fact that letting these guys walk in FA is a completely different beast than trading a guy a couple years into a new contract.TigerBlood said:
From that article, the only statement made to back up the lead quoted above is at the very end:
Seems like a weak assertion to me...based on Bradford's personal impression.
Seems like a weak assertion to me...based on Bradford's personal impression.
Not to mention, letting those players go was a completely different animal in a completely different zoo. Compensation for departing players isn't really comparable to the last CBA.MakMan44 said:
An interesting piece by Rob Neyer on the A's offseason strategy: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/don-t-expect-beane-to-stand-pat-in-wake-of-a-s-collapse-100114
The A's, of course, decimated their farm system to make the playoffs for 24 hours, and Neyer points specifically to C and SS.
Samardzija, for a year, with the draft pick attached at the end, could obviate the need to sign a frontline starter, or, more likely, seems like a pretty strong hedge against none of the young starters being ready by Opening Day. Meanwhile, [SIZE=14.6666669845581px]I'm not on Team Pay A Lot For 3B Help, but I'd certainly rather have Donaldson for four years than Sandoval or Headley.[/SIZE]
I don't think I'd want to spend the Swihart chip to solve these two roster problems, but I'd certainly spend the Marrero chip (along, obviously, with some other talent to help fill the rest of the A's Top 20). And [SIZE=14.6666669845581px]it seems like there's enough of a match of needs here to be worth discussing. [/SIZE]
The A's, of course, decimated their farm system to make the playoffs for 24 hours, and Neyer points specifically to C and SS.
Samardzija, for a year, with the draft pick attached at the end, could obviate the need to sign a frontline starter, or, more likely, seems like a pretty strong hedge against none of the young starters being ready by Opening Day. Meanwhile, [SIZE=14.6666669845581px]I'm not on Team Pay A Lot For 3B Help, but I'd certainly rather have Donaldson for four years than Sandoval or Headley.[/SIZE]
I don't think I'd want to spend the Swihart chip to solve these two roster problems, but I'd certainly spend the Marrero chip (along, obviously, with some other talent to help fill the rest of the A's Top 20). And [SIZE=14.6666669845581px]it seems like there's enough of a match of needs here to be worth discussing. [/SIZE]
johnnywayback said:
Of course you would. He's a top 5 3B in the MLB.
Donaldson would cost a king's ransom, though. It probably starts with Xander, with Owens + another top 10 prospect.
foulkehampshire said:
Yes, in which case you thank Mr. Beane for his time and hang up the phone.
But if, instead of hoping that they can swindle a team out of three elite prospects, the A's want to improve their noticeably diminished upper-minors prospect depth with a package headlined by a near-ML ready shortstop, perhaps the conversation could continue.
Don't quite understand why the A's would trade Donaldson now to avoid getting "caught in between." In between what? He's not a free agent till 2019, and he won't start to be expensive (even by Oakland standards) until his second or third arb award. Seems like the absolute earliest it would make sense to shop him is a year from now, more likely two.
Samardzija is interesting. He'd been more like a #3 starter but this year at age 29 he made the leap to more like a #2 (or borderline #1) starter. I would explore trading a pupu platter of our high minor arms for him. Any of the following possibly get it done:
two of Owens/Rodriguez/RDLR
or
one of Owens/Rodriguez/RDLR plus 2 of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Ball/Escobar/Workman
or
four of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Ball/Escobar/Workman
two of Owens/Rodriguez/RDLR
or
one of Owens/Rodriguez/RDLR plus 2 of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Ball/Escobar/Workman
or
four of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes/Ball/Escobar/Workman
In between probably means mediocre. Beane hates that. He's the anti-Ruben Amaro, he's boom or bust. Donaldson is just one guy but he could at least help the team stay mediocre. I think they have a crummy team, just that they had a bunch of JAGs having career years in the first half like Moss, Vogt, Norris, etc. (may be harsh to call Moss that). I don't think they sniff first place next year for any length of time. The alternative is to blow it up, getting rid of Donaldson, Shark, maybe Moss for prospects, be terrible for a couple of years and then be good again (the "Beane method"). One of the A's commentators said he did not think they'd blow it up because they have so many guys under control at reasonable cost. Trouble is, they're mostly lousy players now, like Lowrie, Callaspo, Sogard, the catchers, maybe even Coco, etc.Savin Hillbilly said:
Boston and Oakland do seem to match up favorably as trade partners in many areas. I think the mistake that was made in the Lester/Cespedes trade was it should have been Lester for Reddick. Oakland would have retained the power bat they so missed, and Reddick in rf for us would be a better fit to balance the lineup. An outfield of Betts/lf, Castillo/cf, and Reddick/rf next year would have been nice. Could this still be possible... Cespedes for Reddick?
Al Zarilla said:
I'm struggling with this. If Donaldson is only good enough to help them stay mediocre, how good would somebody have to be to help them be good? I mean, he's their best player, for cryin' out loud. And not by a small margin.
RochesterSamHorn said:
Except that Reddick isn't a particularly good player - regardless of how he bats. At least Cespedes HAS been a good player - even if we only have him for a year.
I know that, in a perfect world the Sox acquire a LH bat or two .. Gee .. we can't trade for Beltre because he's a RH. In my view an unbalanced RH good lineup is better than a balanced lousy lineup.
Yes, but the wonderful innuendos and intricacies that comprise the game dictate other factors... like the fact that it's easier for a man looking to steal second with aLH bat at the plate as opposed to RH, along with dimensions of ballparks, to name a few.ivanvamp said:
I think they don't see a way to be really competitive after Lester leaves because they had a bunch of overachievers in the first half who fell back to earth, so they may blow it up. Maybe that includes getting rid of Donaldson. However, when a team does blow it up, they often keep a really good player or two to build around. That sounds like Donaldson in spades. Beane has always been unpredictable though, so I'm just going to stay tuned.Savin Hillbilly said:
Owens and Rodriguez for 1 year of Samardzija? That's insane. I wouldn't trade either one of them for 1 year of him.ALiveH said:
Al Zarilla said:
Gotcha. The idea is that if the best they can be in the short term is mediocre, then he may retrench and accept a bridge year or two of outright suck in order to retool with prospects. Could be. Although I think of Beane as more of a patch & toggle guy than a blow-it-up-and-start-over guy.
Don't forget that they'll have Parker and Griffin coming back from TJ Surgery.Savin Hillbilly said:
Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat said:
The Orioles just traded one of them for two months of a relief pitcher (albiet a very good one). A whole year of Shark might not cost both Owens and Rodriguez, but just one of them is well below market price.
I think this is right. No reason to get hung up on bring in lefthanded bats. I don't think a RH-heavy lineup presents the same kind of problem as a LH-heavy one. There aren't many ROOGYs in the league, although there is the occasional Justin Masteron-type. I wouldn't let the need to acquire lefty bats drive the offseason.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
moondog80 said:
Except that the Rodriquez they ended up with wasn't the same guy they traded for .. highly unlikely the Orioles would have agreed to the deal if Rodriquez had turned his season around two months earlier.
On the other hand, the price for 1.3 years of Shark was Addison Russell .. so you probably have a point.
I think the Sox should solve their rotation problems exclusively through FA. And I'm not talking two of Lester/Shields/Scherzer. There are quite a few arms that represent decent value and may not even cost a draft pick. Short money, one year gambles on Masterson, Morrow and Brett Anderson or they could pick from the Ervin Santana/McCarthy group.
For example:
Shields 4/75
McCarthy 3/39
Masterson 1/10
There might not be no "ace" per say, but that's relatively short years for a group of potential 2s and 3s.
Shields, McCarthy, Buchholz, Masterson, Kelly/RDLR/Owens/etc. is not a bad group.
For example:
Shields 4/75
McCarthy 3/39
Masterson 1/10
There might not be no "ace" per say, but that's relatively short years for a group of potential 2s and 3s.
Shields, McCarthy, Buchholz, Masterson, Kelly/RDLR/Owens/etc. is not a bad group.
It's all about pitching. I'd love to see Lester back, however; I'll not hold my breath. Use the extras (Nava, Middlebrooks, Mujica, Craig ...) and young players (De La Rosa, Workmen, Escobar, Marrero ...) to go after Sale, Hamels and/or Samardzija. Bring Miller back in the pen. Shields would be a two or three year "Cherington" contract and only after the Sox know whether Lester will be back and/or if Sale, Hamels and/or Samardzija are not available.
Trade & sign FA who are still young with potential ... Shields being the old man of the crew ... Buchholz & Kelly hold down 4 & 5 spots.
Plenty of solid young arms still in the system (Owens, Barnes, Johnson & Trey).
Pen built using Uehara, Wright, Wilson, Tazawa, Layne, Webster ...
Lineup fine with Castillo, Cespedes & Betts starting and Bradley with Victorino on the bench. Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Holt/Cecchini holding down the IF and Vazquez/Ross/Swihart doing the catching.
Again, solid, young, proven pitchers to bring the Sox back to solid contention.
Trade & sign FA who are still young with potential ... Shields being the old man of the crew ... Buchholz & Kelly hold down 4 & 5 spots.
Plenty of solid young arms still in the system (Owens, Barnes, Johnson & Trey).
Pen built using Uehara, Wright, Wilson, Tazawa, Layne, Webster ...
Lineup fine with Castillo, Cespedes & Betts starting and Bradley with Victorino on the bench. Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Holt/Cecchini holding down the IF and Vazquez/Ross/Swihart doing the catching.
Again, solid, young, proven pitchers to bring the Sox back to solid contention.
The extras (Nava, Middlebrooks, Mujica, Craig ...) and young players (De La Rosa, Workmen, Escobar, Marrero ...) wouldn't even bring back Sale's glove. Sale is signed and affordable through 2019, and he's really damn good. It will take a major haul to get him, probably starting with Mookie and Owens.lxt said:
lxt said:
Sale is a 25 year old lefty who sits 94 and has been worth an average of 5 wins in the last three seasons. Oh, he's also playing on a 6 million dollar per year deal with two options tacked on. I'd argue the only pitcher who could feasibly fetch more than him in a trade is Clayton Kershaw.
I honestly don't know if Mookie, Owens and Swihart would even get a conversation started, suggesting the Red Sox could grab him for spare parts is ludicrous.
It's hard to see why any team would trade the kind of not-too-old stud starter the Sox need for anyone or any package they could offer. It's going to take a very expensive free agent signing; after all, what they're doing in effect is replacing Lester and Lackey.
Just on roster numbers, they do need to unload at least one outfielder, unless Victorino and/or Craig can't play, and some of the alleged pitching prospects. But they're not getting an ace that way.
Just on roster numbers, they do need to unload at least one outfielder, unless Victorino and/or Craig can't play, and some of the alleged pitching prospects. But they're not getting an ace that way.
- Status