2014 Roster Projections

[marklmw]

Is it just me, or does a Peavy-for-Gardner trade make a whole damn lot of sense right now?

 

Gardner would help Boston ... give us a true lead-off man vs. Victorino. Gardner is a starter however which probably put JBJ at Pawtucket which I am not against. I would rather however have Peavy and go after Kemp in 2014.

[marklmw]

Yup. To me, this points to the Sox trading for Kemp, but only if the Dodgers agree to the Sox terms. If not, no big deal.

 

I do hope that they haven't given up on Rajai Davis, though.

 

I agree with you ... that statement points to Cherington going for Kemp.

[Palodios]

What hasn't Brogaerts proven to you? I saw a talented young ballplayer excite and excel on the biggest stage against the best pitching. WMB ... is perhaps the best pure athlete in the organization. Once he figures out how to work major league pitching he will a very a productive hitter. He is already a versatile fielder. JBJ will be the big surprise next year .... 15HR's, .360 OBP and very solid defense. If we can acquire Kemp however for a reasonable cost I say go for it ... nothing wrong with adding a player with proven 30+ HR power along with a good OBP. In fact this would give us 4 players with such power in 2014 along with 2 players with 20 HR potential we will have a very potent offense.

 

You could say something very similar about Workman, who proved last year that he's the real deal... and he's currently the #7 option for the rotation. XB is awesome, and is the least of my concerns. Middlebrooks is a big concern, and Bradley hasn't proven anything in the majors -- remember that he didn't even make the playoff roster.

[marklmw]

You could say something very similar about Workman, who proved last year that he's the real deal... and he's currently the #7 option for the rotation. XB is awesome, and is the least of my concerns. Middlebrooks is a big concern, and Bradley hasn't proven anything in the majors -- remember that he didn't even make the playoff roster.

 

Leaving JBJ off the post season roster was one management decision and does not reflect poorly on JBJ. I think if they had to do it over they would have included him. I never said that Workman is not good and I have him ahead of Dempster at # 6 not 7. We do not need Drew and his contract. I have faith that WMB can do the job. If he does not work out for us we have Cecchini come up the ranks. The season will not depend on WMB. Trading WMB away at this juncture would be a big mistake imo. Better to buy low and sell high.

Edited December 8, 2013 by marklmw

[User Name]

I agree with UN. I think it makes more sense to trade Dempster if we only have to eat 3-5 million. He is much more expendable. Getting a big return is not really the issue. The issue is clearing some payroll room without hurting the team very much.

 

I don't get why it's so hard to understand the importance of having reliable arms in the rotation. Has 2011 and 2012 taught people nothing?

[Palodios]

I don't get why it's so hard to understand the importance of having reliable arms in the rotation. Has 2011 and 2012 taught people nothing?

 

In 2012, the Red Sox put their faith in Doubront as their #4 starter. All I'm asking is that they put their faith into Workman and company as their #6 starter. There is a very big difference.

[User Name]

In 2012, the Red Sox put their faith in Doubront as their #4 starter. All I'm asking is that they put their faith into Workman and company as their #6 starter. There is a very big difference.

 

There really isn't. You are greatly overvaluing the depth of the starting pitching, and contradicting your own opinion from less than two weeks ago. Buchholz is fragile, Doubront is inconsistent, Peavy is fragile, Lackey probably over-performed and Dempster tired out as the season wore on. Major league quality depth is important, and counting on Workman (who proved he could pitch out of the BP which is a whole different animal than the rotation, but you already know this) and a bunch of young pitchers with so many question marks in the rotation is a recipe for disaster. They should probably keep their depth intact, but if they will get rid of someone, it should be Dempster for salary relief.

[Palodios]

There really isn't. You are greatly overvaluing the depth of the starting pitching, and contradicting your own opinion from less than two weeks ago. Buchholz is fragile, Doubront is inconsistent, Peavy is fragile, Lackey probably over-performed and Dempster tired out as the season wore on. Major league quality depth is important, and counting on Workman (who proved he could pitch out of the BP which is a whole different animal than the rotation, but you already know this) and a bunch of young pitchers with so many question marks in the rotation is a recipe for disaster. They should probably keep their depth intact, but if they will get rid of someone, it should be Dempster for salary relief.

 

I really liked Workman in the bullpen, but I also really like the Mujica signing. Mujica fills Workman's role, freeing him for a longman type role, which Dempster would have filled. I'm not picky on whether the Red Sox trade Dempster or Peavy, but Peavy is the one who might bring something of value back from the team.

 

It just comes down to having more confidence in the young arms for backing up the #6/7 spots than I do in having Bradley guaranteed a spot in center field.

[User Name]

You can platoon Bradley with a decent RHH. You can't platoon Workman in the rotation when someone goes down (and they will). Every time he or some other young guy bombs, it's an auto-loss.

[Palodios]

You can platoon Bradley with a decent RHH. You can't platoon Workman in the rotation when someone goes down (and they will). Every time he or some other young guy bombs, it's an auto-loss.

 

Workman will be 25-26, Britton 24-25, Webster will be 24. Rubby will be 25. Ranaudo will be 24. They're not kids on the farm anymore -- it will be sink or swim with some of these guys.

[marklmw]

Workman will be 25-26, Britton 24-25, Webster will be 24. Rubby will be 25. Ranaudo will be 24. They're not kids on the farm anymore -- it will be sink or swim with some of these guys.

True that ... players also mature in the off season when they have a chance to reflect and work on certain things that need working on. They all have the physical tools but not all have the mental prowess.

[User Name]

Workman will be 25-26, Britton 24-25, Webster will be 24. Rubby will be 25. Ranaudo will be 24. They're not kids on the farm anymore -- it will be sink or swim with some of these guys.

 

No it won't be. This is a really silly argument. Not all of them will be part of the rotation (Britton, Workman) and the rest will get their chance. I don't think you fully grasp how much of an anomaly the good health of the 2013 rotation was.

[BornToRun]

I'm still in favor of taking a look at Tommy Hanson, Jerome Williams, or another cheap starter if we deal Dempster.

[RedSoxNC84]

Is it just me, or does a Peavy-for-Gardner trade make a whole damn lot of sense right now?

 

Is peavy old enough for the Yankees?

[RedSoxNC84]

I'm still in favor of taking a look at Tommy Hanson, Jerome Williams, or another cheap starter if we deal Dempster.

 

Hanson maybe, Williams is a low k/9 type pitcher.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I'm still in favor of taking a look at Tommy Hanson, Jerome Williams, or another cheap starter if we deal Dempster.

 

Why?

 

Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, and potentially even Webster will all be better than Williams or Hanson as depth. And that's not even mentioning Owens, who is starting in AA and can be up by July a la Workman last year. Not sure I get that move.

 

Plus we signed that Cuban kid who could give innings too.

 

This is as deep as the starting rotation as been in as long as I can remember. I don't think we need to address the rotation or depth at all.

[Palodios]

No it won't be. This is a really silly argument. Not all of them will be part of the rotation (Britton, Workman) and the rest will get their chance. I don't think you fully grasp how much of an anomaly the good health of the 2013 rotation was.

 

2007 was an anomaly, 2013 seemed about average for a playoff team. It is extremely uncommon for a team to lose two significant starters to make the playoffs, the Red Sox lost one with Buchholz, which seems about average.

[SoxFanForsyth]

No it won't be. This is a really silly argument. Not all of them will be part of the rotation (Britton, Workman) and the rest will get their chance. I don't think you fully grasp how much of an anomaly the good health of the 2013 rotation was.

 

Part of the reason the Sox signed Badenhop and Mujica (two RHP) is so they can let Workman start in the rotation because they see him, long term, as a starter. Britton, I agree with, but Workman they certainly see as a SP

[User Name]

Part of the reason the Sox signed Badenhop and Mujica (two RHP) is so they can let Workman start in the rotation because they see him, long term, as a starter. Britton, I agree with, but Workman they certainly see as a SP

 

I doubt it, since they have many higher talent pieces on the verge of making contributions. He will not be a starter long term with this organization because of this, and through no fault of their own.

[User Name]

2007 was an anomaly, 2013 seemed about average for a playoff team. It is extremely uncommon for a team to lose two significant starters to make the playoffs, the Red Sox lost one with Buchholz, which seems about average.

 

What benchmarks are you using to define "average for a playoff team"? You can't just say "well, this is average" without any sort of definition about what average is. My comment came from the idea that it's very rare for a team to have six starters make pretty much all of the starts in a given season, and this can be proven with a little research. In general, i just find your idea of trading pitching depth expecting younger guys to be able to step up right away to be pretty short-sighted considering the three consecutive years of disasters in Sox pitching, and what happened with Webster last year. There's just no need to weaken the pitching staff.

Edited December 8, 2013 by User Name?

[seabeachfred]

Yes, that is the obvious problem. But the Red Sox probably need a solid speed/leadoff guy who can play center and right and will serve as a stopgap for Bradley. The Yankees need one more starter, have some solid arms that will need more time in the minors, they can afford him. The Yanks don't seem to like Santana/Garza, and might not be interested in adding yet another long term contract.

 

Palodios, when was the last time I disagreed with you on anything? Can't remember either but this is one of those times. First of all, the Yankees and Red Sox don't trade with each other, and now I think such a non-factor as that is set in cement. Now I would applaud trading for Gardener. He would be a great fit, BUT it means another page from that bastard Lucchino's book......give the kid more seasoning. Bradley is either going to be our CF or not and there has been too much humming and hawing going on about just letting the kid have the position. Let's say we trade for Gardener (and it would have to be a three way trade I think). To me it means for the good of the young man we let Jackie go in a trade for a pitcher or another prospect and not have him waste away in the minors---which he would do if he stayed in Boston after we made the trade for Gardener since most likely the outfielder we got from the Yankees would be such a good fit for us that he would take over CF and hold it for years. Do you really want that?

[seabeachfred]

Yeah, but unlike Dempster, he can actually get people out consistently. Let's introduce the talented young arms slowly while keeping the guys who can help us get to the playoffs in the rotation.

 

As Frank Sinatra liked to croon so many years ago....NICE AND EASY DOES IT EVERY TIME!!!!. Just as long as we start seeing those young pitchers getting their shot when they're ready.....yes, even your man Webster. And please, no big trades at the Winter Meetings where we lose some of our top prospects. We have to think long term as well as for 2014.

[SoxSport]

Re-signing Napoli and tinkering with a bullpen is not what I would term heavy lifting. We will be rolling out the same team as last year but with a lot less speed. Last year's team won 97 games and a Championship. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a good thing. I am not criticizing him. He is not dismantling the 2013 team. He is staying the course. The whole off season was built around keeping Napoli.

 

Well, keeping Nap, improving the BP and improving catcher defense. Agree about the speed--maybe they'll do something about that at the meetings. Bradley won't steal 50, but he might steal 20--and hit 15-20HRs. It's the time to be optimistic.

[Palodios]

What benchmarks are you using to define "average for a playoff team"? You can't just say "well, this is average" without any sort of definition about what average is. My comment came from the idea that it's very rare for a team to have six starters make pretty much all of the starts in a given season, and this can be proven with a little research.

 

Fair enough, let me do some research on this. I compiled a list of GS from each playoff team and AL East team in 2013, excluding the top 6 most frequent starters. I fully understand the flaws in compiling a list in this manner, but as a quick analysis without examining each team's initial five starters at the beginning of the season, it serves its purpose.The Red Sox are pretty much in the middle of the pack.

 

Games started outside top 6 --

Tigers -- 0

Oakland -- 5

Reds -- 6

Yankees -- 7

Rays -- 9

Braves -- 11

Guardians -- 14

Red Sox -- 18

Cardinals -- 21 -- If you include Carpenter who made 0 starts, they are at 30.

Pirates -- 25

Dodgers -- 26

Rangers -- 26

Blue Jays -- 27

Orioles -- 30

 

My point is that if your team has to rely on its #7/8 starters, and 2-3 significant arms get hurt, your team isn't going anywhere anyway.

 

In general, i just find your idea of trading pitching depth expecting younger guys to be able to step up right away to be pretty short-sighted considering the three consecutive years of disasters in Sox pitching, and what happened with Webster last year. There's just no need to weaken the pitching staff.

 

I find it extremely hypocritical to say its a terrible idea to rely on pitching prospects as depth when you are suggesting relying on hitting prospects as starters.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Palodios

[User Name]

It isn't, because as posted above by both Bellhorn and myself, you can endure the growing pains of a hitting prospect as starters and still win ballgames when usually, if a pitching prospect is getting hammered, you are actively losing games.. It's a very apples-to-oranges comparison, and we are still advocating for (and assuming they will get) semi-platoon partners for these players. How do you platoon a young pitcher you had to throw into the fire because of injury?

 

As for your other point, it's possible to somewhat protect yourself against injury by maintaining as much pitching depth as possible. The Red Sox are a special case because they have so much talent but so many question marks in their rotation. So why would you do away with depth, that just a couple weeks ago you were so keen on protecting as well? That makes no sense.

 

The main issue here is the Dempster/Peavy debate. You could probably replace his (Dempster's) innings with a couple garbage bin pickups, but Peavy's a very good starter when healthy, even though he has his own question marks. Keeping the group six-deep plus the prospects is certainly better than any other option, regardless of how much rationalizing you do for my preference to starting JBJ/XB because WMB is certainly not a rookie anymore. You know what's easy to acquire during the season? A decent OF or IF. You know what isn't easy to acquire during the season? A decent SP.

[a700hitter]

Well, keeping Nap, improving the BP and improving catcher defense. Agree about the speed--maybe they'll do something about that at the meetings. Bradley won't steal 50, but he might steal 20--and hit 15-20HRs. It's the time to be optimistic.

Time for optimism? Not for me. It's time for pride and joy. The Red Sox are the World Champions.

[seabeachfred]

It isn't, because as posted above by both Bellhorn and myself, you can endure the growing pains of a hitting prospect as starters and still win ballgames when usually, if a pitching prospect is getting hammered, you are actively losing games.. It's a very apples-to-oranges comparison, and we are still advocating for (and assuming they will get) semi-platoon partners for these players. How do you platoon a young pitcher you had to throw into the fire because of injury?

 

As for your other point, it's possible to somewhat protect yourself against injury by maintaining as much pitching depth as possible. The Red Sox are a special case because they have so much talent but so many question marks in their rotation. So why would you do away with depth, that just a couple weeks ago you were so keen on protecting as well? That makes no sense.

 

The main issue here is the Dempster/Peavy debate. You could probably replace his (Dempster's) innings with a couple garbage bin pickups, but Peavy's a very good starter when healthy, even though he has his own question marks. Keeping the group six-deep plus the prospects is certainly better than any other option, regardless of how much rationalizing you do for my preference to starting JBJ/XB because WMB is certainly not a rookie anymore. You know what's easy to acquire during the season? A decent OF or IF. You know what isn't easy to acquire during the season? A decent SP.

 

The only problem with that User is that Peavy would be more in demand in a trade than Dempster would be, and Jake will be needed by us next year in my opinion. I think you can see now why I would very much appreciate it if Ben did not make any big trades at the Winter Meetings that would negate some of our pitching depth, both in our rotation and within our prospects group. Dempster is replaceable; I don't think Peavy is at the present time....and who knows what kind of shape or mental shape Doubrant is going to show up in and how healthy Buchholz is going to be and for how long. Of course I could say how we don't know if Lackey will be as effective as this season and whether Lester has returned fully to ace status. To be safe let's hold onto what we have with the possible exception of Ryan.

[User Name]

...so fred, do you agree or disagree with me?

[Palodios]

It isn't, because as posted above by both Bellhorn and myself, you can endure the growing pains of a hitting prospect as starters and still win ballgames when usually, if a pitching prospect is getting hammered, you are actively losing games.

 

Let me try to change your perspective on this.

 

If Buchholz/Peavy gets hurt, they get replaced by Workman, Webster or Barnes.

 

If Ortiz's ankle acts up, Pedroia breaks another bone in his hand, or Victorino breaks his ribs against the RF wall, who do you replace those guys with? The lack of depth works both ways. There are significantly more talented pitchers in the minors than there are IF/OF. This team has much more depth to sustain injuries in the rotation than in the lineup.

[User Name]

Let me try to change your perspective on this.

 

If Buchholz/Peavy gets hurt, they get replaced by Workman, Webster or Barnes.

 

If Ortiz's ankle acts up, Pedroia breaks another bone in his hand, or Victorino breaks his ribs against the RF wall, who do you replace those guys with? The lack of depth works both ways. There are significantly more talented pitchers in the minors than there are IF/OF. This team has much more depth to sustain injuries in the rotation than in the lineup.

 

You are conflating things. They won't trade both Peavy/Dempster either ways, my point is to trade Dempster (if you will trade one) and keep Peavy, which makes the most sense from a roster construction perspective. It also has little to do with the construction on the offensive side, because you're not trading Demspter or Peavy for a position player who's a clear upgrade over any of the guys we have, or can protect against injury at a key position. You would have to give up pitching depth (both a starter to clear salary and some of the young pitching you want on the MLB roster) to pull off a trade. Simply getting rid of Dempster/Peavy wouldn't be enough to get one of the marquee FA's left on the market. They'd be better off blowing the LT and keeping their pitching in that case.