2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Dojji]

Jays have been the sleeping giant here. Largest city in Canada, and a fanbase that will go if the team doesn't suck.

 

Yeah and let's be clear about this: A fully motivated Toronto has the power to be a bigger economic monster than we are. They have most of a nation to broadcast to and Toronto's metro area is like half again the size of Boston's, and Toronto's one of the wealthiest cities in the world.

 

If the Leafs keep turning in mediocre seasons and the Jays start to pick up, we could find ourselves the third richest team in the division. Wouldn't that be a shock to everyone's systems.

[mvp 78]

Jays fans didn't show up for 20 years. Stop overplaying how much Canadians care about baseball.

[Dojji]

Not sure too many of us would have shown up for those 20 years. The Toronto leadership did a lot of wandering in the wilderness in that era.

[sk7326]

Yeah and let's be clear about this: A fully motivated Toronto has the power to be a bigger economic monster than we are. They have most of a nation to broadcast to and Toronto's metro area is like half again the size of Boston's, and Toronto's one of the wealthiest cities in the world.

 

If the Leafs keep turning in mediocre seasons and the Jays start to pick up, we could find ourselves the third richest team in the division. Wouldn't that be a shock to everyone's systems.

 

easy there - taxes still a major issue

[jacksonianmarch]

Dojji, you are underselling Boston BIG TIME. A fully motivated Toronto has like 5% of the population. They are and always will be a hockey town and country. Boston is AVID Red Sox territory. Every single person here knows about the sox and whether they are good or suck. Also, Boston isn't just about Boston. Sox fans run from mid CT all the way to the northern tip of Maine. New England is an economic monster. The idea that a fully motivated Toronto can out-economically maneuver Boston is wrong on more levels than you are probably aware

[Dojji]

You know I just had a weird thought on another thread. We know we need another bat and most of us recognize that the defense needs to be tightened somewhat, and we could always use some depth.

 

Is it time to make a move on Ben Zobrist? Zobrist could solve a lot of our niggling little worries about this and that because of his tremendous versatility and a bat that would upgrade our lineup wherever he was stashed. Putting him at third base would probably upgrade us defensively on the left side like I want, while also putting a 15-20 HR bat with a good OBP behind it into the lineup at the same time. And we'd still have Holt, who's arguably even more versatile (more experience at CF and 3B) but with a slightly worse bat.

 

My only concern with that is that, of course, with so many different things he can do plus a great bat, other teams will eye him for whatever hole they happen to have. There isn't a team in this league without at least one hole Zobrist could satisfactorily fill. It could price him out of our range. Still, I hope the team is prepared to knock, especially after the feeding frenzy for starting pitching is more or less over. He could be a big big help.

[reYoukilis]

Count me in, though Panda may be getting his stuff together

[Dojji]

That's the beauty of a guy like Zobrist. If everyone else plays up to their potential you could stuff him into first base and call it good, and if not, you have options to take bad players out of the lineup

[sk7326]

You know I just had a weird thought on another thread. We know we need another bat and most of us recognize that the defense needs to be tightened somewhat, and we could always use some depth.

 

Is it time to make a move on Ben Zobrist? Zobrist could solve a lot of our niggling little worries about this and that because of his tremendous versatility and a bat that would upgrade our lineup wherever he was stashed. Putting him at third base would probably upgrade us defensively on the left side like I want, while also putting a 15-20 HR bat with a good OBP behind it into the lineup at the same time. And we'd still have Holt, who's arguably even more versatile (more experience at CF and 3B) but with a slightly worse bat.

 

My only concern with that is that, of course, with so many different things he can do plus a great bat, other teams will eye him for whatever hole they happen to have. There isn't a team in this league without at least one hole Zobrist could satisfactorily fill. It could price him out of our range. Still, I hope the team is prepared to knock, especially after the feeding frenzy for starting pitching is more or less over. He could be a big big help.

 

The team was 3rd in the majors defensively a year ago - the leakage this year is almost entirely to two players. Zobrist was one of the best players in the league - but he's 34, his defense fell off at least this year, and probably will get overpaid. It's not a terrible idea, but price needs to be right.

[dupree]

MLB trade rumors is projecting Price to recieve a $200M+ contract at 7yrs

He wants more than Kershaw money.

 

I love Price but I don't think he is worth that. At 30yr old and all the innings on his arm at that amount he would be a bust. And we don't want a CC situation in Boston.

 

A trade for a Harvey, Sale, or Gray would be more idea. And I would clear the farm for any of them to be the ace.

 

But it will be interesting to see what DD does and what direction the team goes in the future.

[mvp 78]

Yes, let's trade the farm for a guy coming off TJS!!!

[jacksonianmarch]

BTW, the sox are in line for the 11th pick in the draft! Stay right there guys!

 

mvp, are you talking about Harvey? The guy who has thrown 171IP, has a 2.88ERA, a 1.02WHIP and nearly a K per inning? That guy coming off TJS would be a huge get for your team

[a700hitter]

BTW, the sox are in line for the 11th pick in the draft! Stay right there guys!

 

mvp, are you talking about Harvey? The guy who has thrown 171IP, has a 2.88ERA, a 1.02WHIP and nearly a K per inning? That guy coming off TJS would be a huge get for your team

We don't need him. We have Rich Hill and Steven Wright. Edited September 15, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

It would be lunacy for the Mets to trade a young pitcher of Harvey's quality for anything less than a Correia or Bogaerts. Pitching is what wins, and you never have enough of it.

[a700hitter]

With regard to the outfield situation next season, although Bradley is our best CFer, the best alignment imo puts him in RF. He is also our best RFer, and RF is just as difficult as CF in Fenway, maybe more difficult. Betts handles CF fine. He is an excellent fly catcher who takes a good route to the ball and gets a good jump off the bat. He has the weakest arm of the bunch, but his arm is fine for CF, but it will not play in Fenway's RF. Bradley has a canon perfect for RF. This brings us to Castillo. He is very talented, but doesn't have quite the refined skill or instincts of Betts or Bradley. He takes some bad routes to balls. In Fenway there isn't a lot of real estate to cover so taking a good route isn't as critical. He does have good instincts about playing the monster and getting to the caroms very quickly. He also gets rid of the ball very quickly and his arm is strong and accurate from LF. He will hold a lot of hitters to singles and throw out a lot of guys at second base. That is our best outfield alignment for 2016. Others are free to disagree and be wrong.

[SoxHop]

With regard to the outfield situation next season, although Bradley is our best CFer, the best alignment imo puts him in RF. He is also our best RFer, and RF is just as difficult as CF in Fenway, maybe more difficult. Betts handles CF fine. He is an excellent fly catcher who takes a good route to the ball and gets a good jump off the bat. He has the weakest arm of the bunch, but his arm is fine for CF, but it will not play in Fenway's RF. Bradley has a canon perfect for RF. This brings us to Castillo. He is very talented, but doesn't have quite the refined skill or instincts of Betts or Bradley. He takes some bad routes to balls. In Fenway there isn't a lot of real estate to cover so taking a good route isn't as critical. He does have good instincts about playing the monster and getting to the caroms very quickly. He also gets rid of the ball very quickly and his arm is strong and accurate from LF. He will hold a lot of hitters to singles and throw out a lot of guys at second base. That is our best outfield alignment for 2016. Others are free to disagree and be wrong.

 

I'd agree with that. There is also some talk from the coaching staff about how the three are interchangeable and that we could see some position changes at ballparks other than Fenway. Which I take to mean that JBJ could sometimes be moved to center.

[a700hitter]

I'd agree with that. There is also some talk from the coaching staff about how the three are interchangeable and that we could see some position changes at ballparks other than Fenway. Which I take to mean that JBJ could sometimes be moved to center.

Yes, they will have a lot of flexibility with this group. Also, when one takes the ocassional off-day or gets injured they can move them around.

[Orange Juiced]

It would be lunacy for the Mets to trade a young pitcher of Harvey's quality for anything less than a Correia or Bogaerts. Pitching is what wins, and you never have enough of it.

 

Every team that wins the World Series obviously has "enough" pitching to win. ;-)

 

I think you mean you can never have "too much" of it.

 

But if you can never have too much of it, why would they trade Harvey even for Trout? Obviously there's a point where hitting becomes more valuable to a team than pitching. The question is simply where to draw the line. For the Mets, who not only are loaded with quality starting pitchers, but who also have a lot more coming through the minor leagues, dealing from strength to acquire needed bats may be the optimal use of their resources.

 

But I agree with your point that they almost certainly can get someone of Bogaerts' caliber for a guy like Harvey.

[a700hitter]

Every team that wins the World Series obviously has "enough" pitching to win. ;-)

 

I think you mean you can never have "too much" of it.

 

But if you can never have too much of it, why would they trade Harvey even for Trout? Obviously there's a point where hitting becomes more valuable to a team than pitching. The question is simply where to draw the line. For the Mets, who not only are loaded with quality starting pitchers, but who also have a lot more coming through the minor leagues, dealing from strength to acquire needed bats may be the optimal use of their resources.

 

But I agree with your point that they almost certainly can get someone of Bogaerts' caliber for a guy like Harvey.

As much as I value pitching, I am not a believer in trading an every day young star for a pitcher. The pitcher would have to be a total stud and those guys don't get traded very often. Harvey could be a top pitcher soon. Some would argue that he is already there and I wouldn't argue against that, but this is his first season returning from surgery. I am a little wary of trading Bogaerts for him. Bogaerts looks like he could be a star and some would argue that he is already there. Imo, he needs to develop 20 Home Run power before he is a star, and I think that will come. If I didn't think he had the potential to be a power hitting shortstop, I would make the trade in a heartbeat.

[Orange Juiced]

As much as I value pitching, I am not a believer in trading an every day young star for a pitcher. The pitcher would have to be a total stud and those guys don't get traded very often. Harvey could be a top pitcher soon. Some would argue that he is already there and I wouldn't argue against that, but this is his first season returning from surgery. I am a little wary of trading Bogaerts for him. Bogaerts looks like he could be a star and some would argue that he is already there. Imo, he needs to develop 20 Home Run power before he is a star, and I think that will come. If I didn't think he had the potential to be a power hitting shortstop, I would make the trade in a heartbeat.

 

Bogaerts is definitely a star already. Not a superstar. That will come when he's belting 15-20 homers, which will probably come in the next few years.

 

2015 fWAR

- Bogaerts: 3.8

- Harvey: 3.5

 

It's not an easy call as to which guy is more valuable to his respective team, or to other teams in a vacuum. Harvey is going to get expensive soon. Bogaert's not so quickly. So there's some money savings in having Bogaerts over Harvey.

 

The reason a trade like this could work for the Mets and Red Sox is this: each would be dealing from excess strength to shore up a major area of weakness. The Mets have a ton of guys coming up. The Red Sox could plug Marrero in, or simply have Holt be the starting SS, and he would be just fine there. The Sox with Harvey at the top of the rotation and All-star Brock Holt at SS is way better than no Harvey but with Bogaerts at SS.

[a700hitter]

O

Bogaerts is definitely a star already. Not a superstar. That will come when he's belting 15-20 homers, which will probably come in the next few years.

 

2015 fWAR

- Bogaerts: 3.8

- Harvey: 3.5

 

It's not an easy call as to which guy is more valuable to his respective team, or to other teams in a vacuum. Harvey is going to get expensive soon. Bogaert's not so quickly. So there's some money savings in having Bogaerts over Harvey.

 

The reason a trade like this could work for the Mets and Red Sox is this: each would be dealing from excess strength to shore up a major area of weakness. The Mets have a ton of guys coming up. The Red Sox could plug Marrero in, or simply have Holt be the starting SS, and he would be just fine there. The Sox with Harvey at the top of the rotation and All-star Brock Holt at SS is way better than no Harvey but with Bogaerts at SS.

The Mets have been desperate for a SS for years.

[Kimmi]

OThe Mets have been desperate for a SS for years.

 

There was a good article at Fangraphs today regarding Bogaerts change in approach.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-xander-bogaerts-overhaul/

[a700hitter]

There was a good article at Fangraphs today regarding Bogaerts change in approach.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-xander-bogaerts-overhaul/

Thanks for the article. This Fangraphs seems to be a pretty good tool as it very often and once again confirms what I already knew to be true. What it doesn't tell us and what I still wonder about is whether it was a conscious change of approach when he started the season or was it just working for him and he just went with it.

[cp176]

Without a ss in the pipeline that even looks like he could come close to getting the job done as well as Bogaerts, makes the idea of trading him look foolish. A little early to think that Guera might be the next one and there is no one else. He won't be going anywhere for anyone. The Red Sox have cloned their outfielders. Benintendi and Margot are basically Betts and Bradley. They also have at least 2 more big league catchers than they need. I think a trade will come from that pool and not from the one that has just one fish in it.

[jacksonianmarch]

If you want to get a top of the line starter like Harvey, you cannot use lottery tickets. They're going to want MLB ready or proven talent in return. They aren't the Mutts of 3-4 yrs ago when they were doormats. They're legit WS contenders this yr

[Orange Juiced]

If you want to get a top of the line starter like Harvey, you cannot use lottery tickets. They're going to want MLB ready or proven talent in return. They aren't the Mutts of 3-4 yrs ago when they were doormats. They're legit WS contenders this yr

 

Bogaerts isn't a lottery ticket. He's already a stud. A 22-year old, all-star caliber shortstop making the league minimum.

[Orange Juiced]

OThe Mets have been desperate for a SS for years.

 

 

Yes they have been.

 

Owens + Bogaerts for Harvey + Flores + lottery ticket

 

The Sox start Holt but Flores is a decent backup. The Mets get stud SS and a nice SP prospect.

 

I'm sure this deal will never happen, but it's exactly the kind of deal that would be a win-win for both teams, and would make a TON of sense.

[a700hitter]

Based on reports that I have seen, the Red Sox are shying away from getting Hanley any time at 1st base this season. If that is the case, DD needs to move this guy in the offseason and eat a large chunk of his contract. They can't take the chance that he will be able to play 1st base next season, and he can't go back to LF.

[Spudboy]

Based on reports that I have seen, the Red Sox are shying away from getting Hanley any time at 1st base this season. If that is the case, DD needs to move this guy in the offseason and eat a large chunk of his contract. They can't take the chance that he will be able to play 1st base next season, and he can't go back to LF.

 

Exactly.

 

I think that it is possible that this working out at 1st stuff is just a ruse. Designed to make Hanley look desirable to possible sucker trade partners.

 

As in "Hanley wants to play 1st", "Hanley is working hard at 1st", blah, blah, blah.

 

Who knows?

 

In any case, I doubt that Hanley ever plays a decent 1st base for the Sox and I really hope that he is moved somehow.

[cp176]

Based on reports that I have seen, the Red Sox are shying away from getting Hanley any time at 1st base this season. If that is the case, DD needs to move this guy in the offseason and eat a large chunk of his contract. They can't take the chance that he will be able to play 1st base next season, and he can't go back to LF.

 

 

If Dumbrowski has the common sense that we hope he has, he knows what the deal is with Hanley Ramirez. Shaw just hit his tenth and plays a decent first base. People can think what they like about his role for the future, pencilling him in ahead of Ramirez at first for next year just makes sense. Now, it might not be Shaw, but I don't think that it will be Ramirez. To be honest, although everyone talks about his potential as a hitter, i'm not sold on anything other than a plus-minus player when it comes to him. Now if we could use another dh, maybe things would be different.