The Time Has Come: Why the Red Sox Must Trade from Their Outfield Depth This Offseason

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

Sale has 1 year left on his deal!!!  Allows early and Tolle and Witherspoon more time to develop. 

There are many pitchers with one year left on their deals.

Also, Sandoval is gone after 2026.

[Larry Cook]

4 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

There are many pitchers with one year left on their deals.

Also, Sandoval is gone after 2026.

That is true, 1 year deals to 10 plus year veterans is not a bad thing!

 

Wilson was signed on a one year deal and he pitched better than I ever thought possible. 
 

 

[notin]

On 11/21/2025 at 6:06 AM, Hugh2 said:

And of those 4 how many are "sustainable winners"? they were all window teams, with the exception of Houston who did seem to extend their window, but they also started paying guys to do that. 

You've proven that you don't have to be the biggest spender to win, but I never denied that fact, but it's still ALSO a fact that there is a correlation between spending and winning. 

The Red Sox have the 3rd highest valuation of any mlb team. Last year they had the 5th highest revenue, but if you exlcude NY and LA the other teams were only $10 million more than them. They've been top 5 the past 10 years, and I'd argue that if you take the losing seasons recently out, given Bostons market size we should be the 3rd highest revenue generating team. 

There is ZERO reason why we can't spend.  We can spend on players, player development, drafting, coaching, scouting etc etc. The point you're proving is that other things add value and create a winning atmosphere as well but when there is an undeniable link between spending and success a fan of the 3rd richest franchise in MLB should demand his club do both. 

Henry has spent in the past, he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and tried to go cheap.  I fully expect he has it in him to pivot back and try to do both.  LA is the model to follow, of course we will never be LA, but we never had to be NY to beat NY but we acted pretty darn close to it to get there. 

I get there is risk, but to me, there is a difference between not spending heavily on free agent pitchers and then practically never spending.  Crochet was a good move, but aside from trades when is the last time we signed a big time free agent pitcher? you can't keep trading 4 top prospects for elite pitching, eventually you will have a few good players and no one else on your roster.  

A Boston team, that returns to it's winning ways AND DOES not fall back into the 2020-2024 trap is one that does both, spends resources on drafting, trading and developing talent but also goes out and take a few big rips. 

You can convince in any given offseason that a certain set of guys "aren't the guys" but I refuse to accept year after year without any big free agent pitching aquisitions is the way to go. 

You don’t remember the last time the Sox signed a big name free agent pitcher?   
 

To go all irrelevant pop culture, I assume you are aware of Jurassic Park? A movie that taught us just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.  As it is, you’re trying to argue using accountancy instead of baseball acumen, citing revenue and market share.  

Also that people condone and cheer for exploitation any relationship between spending and winning is not a good thing.  Sports are supposed to be competition with the outcome determined by physical actions during the game, not by flexing financial muscles that render the bulk of the league as muted fodder…

[moonslav59]

15 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

That is true, 1 year deals to 10 plus year veterans is not a bad thing

Wilson was signed on a one year deal and he pitched better than I ever thought possible. 
 

Wilson dropped off near the end, and I  thought we were talking SP'ers. Chapman was a better RP'er example.

SP'ers 30+ signed or traded for:

'25: Buehler

'24 Paxton

'23 Kluber

'22 Wacha & Hill (The only 2 that worked out okay, but missed key games.)

'21 Richards & Paxton (Peacock)

'20: Godley, Mazza & Kickham (Perez was 29)

'19 Cashner & Chacin

Great streak, huh?

Maybe we get lucky, next time. Sandoval turns 30 next October. Why keep rolling the dice?

 

[Larry Cook]

32 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Wilson dropped off near the end, and I  thought we were talking SP'ers. Chapman was a better RP'er example.

SP'ers 30+ signed or traded for:

'25: Buehler

'24 Paxton

'23 Kluber

'22 Wacha & Hill (The only 2 that worked out okay, but missed key games.)

'21 Richards & Paxton (Peacock)

'20: Godley, Mazza & Kickham (Perez was 29)

'19 Cashner & Chacin

Great streak, huh?

Maybe we get lucky, next time. Sandoval turns 30 next October. Why keep rolling the dice?

 

And if Sandoval contributes in the bullpen in 2026, is that ending the streak???

[moonslav59]

21 minutes ago, Larry Cook said:

And if Sandoval contributes in the bullpen in 2026, is that ending the streak???

No, We don't have a bad streak of aging pen arm additions, despite deals like Hendriks.

We are discussing adding a SP'er. Most agree we need a solid and dependable #2.

Adding depth SP'ers with injury history or aging issues is one thing, but most of the guys I listed from our past SP'er additions were added to be a big key to the rotation. Many of us were okay with Kluber, if he was the second best SP'er we added that season- same with others along teh way.

I actually like Sandoval more than others, here and list him as out current #3, but he should be our 4 or 5.

[notin]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Wilson dropped off near the end, and I  thought we were talking SP'ers. Chapman was a better RP'er example.

SP'ers 30+ signed or traded for:

'25: Buehler

'24 Paxton

'23 Kluber

'22 Wacha & Hill (The only 2 that worked out okay, but missed key games.)

'21 Richards & Paxton (Peacock)

'20: Godley, Mazza & Kickham (Perez was 29)

'19 Cashner & Chacin

Great streak, huh?

Maybe we get lucky, next time. Sandoval turns 30 next October. Why keep rolling the dice?

 

Huh?

So Sandoval turns 30 after next season ends but youre counting him as a 30yo signing because why?  Hes going to turn 30 someday? 
 

When Sandoval signed with the Red Sox, he was 28 years and two months old.  If that’s too old for a free agent, then the Sox should never sign one ever again…

[moonslav59]

30 minutes ago, notin said:

Huh?

So Sandoval turns 30 after next season ends but youre counting him as a 30yo signing because why?  Hes going to turn 30 someday? 
 

When Sandoval signed with the Red Sox, he was 28 years and two months old.  If that’s too old for a free agent, then the Sox should never sign one ever again…

Sandoval was not on my list. I mentioned him and his age as an afterthought apart from the list. I do not see his success or failure as part of the trend, since he was not over 30, but he does count in the trend of signing oft-injured or recently injured signings.

[notin]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Sandoval was not on my list. I mentioned him and his age as an afterthought apart from the list. I do not see his success or failure as part of the trend, since he was not over 30, but he does count in the trend of signing oft-injured or recently injured signings.

It looked like you viewed him as a continuation of the trend…

[moonslav59]

17 minutes ago, notin said:

It looked like you viewed him as a continuation of the trend…

I should not have mentioned him. Yes, he was an injured SP'er signing bit not over 30, which was what my list was about. 

My bad.

I just want to add a pitcher that is neither old nor recently injured.

I disliked the Gio signing, but pointed out that at least he was reliable, and look where that one got us! LOL.

[Hugh2]

4 hours ago, notin said:

You don’t remember the last time the Sox signed a big name free agent pitcher?   
 

To go all irrelevant pop culture, I assume you are aware of Jurassic Park? A movie that taught us just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.  As it is, you’re trying to argue using accountancy instead of baseball acumen, citing revenue and market share.  

Also that people condone and cheer for exploitation any relationship between spending and winning is not a good thing.  Sports are supposed to be competition with the outcome determined by physical actions during the game, not by flexing financial muscles that render the bulk of the league as muted fodder…

I mean, I remember David Price.  That was ten years ago, before that when was it? 

yes I love Jurassic park, but just because you should or shouldn’t do something does is not an argument for the Sox not spending more.  
 

you want to be the Kansas City Royals? That’s fine, but I think most Sox fans would like to see their team throw their weight around and punch in their weight class.  Saying spending to win is not good is completely subjective and you’re entitled to that opinion.  I’d argue you need some kind of lopsidedness.  Yes, teams like LA and NY spend more and win more is that bad? They have the market to support and drive love towards the sport, do you think Tampa Bay would ever bring in the same kind of revenue to the sport if they had the same success as LA? I doubt it. 
 

evil empires are good, you either root for them or against them.  One thing that made 2004 so special was the fact we beat NY to get there.  People love to cheer against the LA Lakers, the New England Patriots and now the LA Dodgers.

I’m not even asking to be those teams, I’m advocating to be runner up, or next in line behind that and I just pointed out the Boston has the market to support that if they chose to.

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I mean, I remember David Price.  That was ten years ago, before that when was it? 

yes I love Jurassic park, but just because you should or shouldn’t do something does is not an argument for the Sox not spending more.  
 

you want to be the Kansas City Royals? That’s fine, but I think most Sox fans would like to see their team throw their weight around and punch in their weight.  Saying spending to win is not good is completely subjective and you’re entitled to that opinion.  I’d argue you need some kind of lopsidedness.  Yes, teams like LA and NY spend more and win more is that bad? They have the market to support and drive love towards the sport, do you think Tampa Bay would ever bring in the same kind of revenue to the sport if they had the same success as LA? I doubt it. 
 

evil empires are good, you either root for them or against them.  One thing that made 2004 so special was the fact we beat NY to get there.  People love to cheer against the LA Lakers, the New England Patriots and now the LA Dodgers.

I’m not even asking to be those teams, I’m advocating to be runner up, or next in line behind that and I just pointed out the Boston has the market to support that if they chose to.

It is stunning that the last large and long deal for a FA was Price. Thatw as for the 2016 season- TEN YEARS AGO!

The Story and Yoshida deals were not very large nor very long.

JD was not either.

The Sale and Devers extensions were significant, but that's not adding a player.

When you look at the complete history of the Sox under JH, you'll see it's not really his MO. He does allow some major signings, but rarely like the Price one. Manny was signed before JH and was eventually traded. The two long extensions given out saw those players traded, too, with Devers dealt a little over 1 year into the time his extension kicked in.

Carl Crawford was the next highest signing (2011) and he was traded away, too. Lackey was a pretty big signing, adjusting for inflation, and I guess 5 years can be counted as "long," but he was dealt away, too.

Pablito & HRam's signings combined for a big splash but neither was a mega deal, and again, neither lasted their whole deals.

This really is not anything new with JH. His MO is more about having GMs that make mega deals for top SP'ers and extending them. Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, Sale, Porcello and finally Crochet. He signs significant FA, like Damon, Mueller, Beltre, JD, Story and others but rarely very large AND very large. Most are not mega large (like Bregman) or mega long (like Price & CC.)

I hope that changes, but maybe Alonso will go for a 5 year deal, but it will likely be mega "large."

[Larry Cook]

Maybe bres-slow should be forbidden to trade with the dodgers going forward!!!!!!

 

[moonslav59]

8 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

Maybe bres-slow should be forbidden to trade with the dodgers going forward!!!!!!

 

The Crawford-Beckett and others trade helped pave the way for 2013.

[TedYazPapiMookie]

On 11/19/2025 at 6:28 AM, Hugh2 said:

You made the same exact mistake of attributing Durans defense in 2023/2024 to 2025.  I'm sorry but he took an obvious step back and I think it would be a gave miscalculation to assume he would become a better defender by moving over to a more demanding position. 

And I don't want to sound rude here but you pretty much lose all credibility by lumping Durans outfield play of 2022 and 2021 in there when he was pretty awful in the outfield.  Nobody cares about errors, errors are a judgement call and can vary wildly depending on the person making the ruling.  You could have a guy with 3-4 more errors where's another scorer on another team might of had those ruled as "hits" but that dude has crap range and/or takes poor routes to balls and is an inferior defender.  But you would call the person with less errors better, and you would be wrong. 

I happen to think Duran is an ok defender, but the only elite year he really had was 2024 and I'm not sure he gets back to that, and certainly not because he moves to CF.  I think he would be ok in CF, and if I'm wrong and you're right, and everyone else is wrong and you're right then that just makes Duran an even better trade chip. Because he'd be more valuable to a team who would put him in CF than a team who is going to plug him in LF.  We need infielders, like....maybe 3 of them, we need pitching.  We have a TON of holes. 

I also don't buy the right field is harder to play than cf in Fenway argument either. Right field is certainly more important at Fenway park than other ballparks but I think people just assume that makes it more important.  No, I don't buy it. On average 3-5% more balls are hit to centerfield than right field and 1/2 the games are played away.  You're going to get more outs with Rafaela in CF than anyone else on this team right now. 

Now let's talk facts not your opinion.

FACT - 3 years in CF Duran has 2 errors and a fielding percentage off the charts since his total chances were 301.  In LF he sucks that's why he belongs in CF where he is elite after three years playing there. 

Rafaela is the best of the best outfielders in Boston and should play the most challenging position of right field which has fence dimensions of 302 down the line and 380 in Deep Right Centerfield, that means he must cover 78 feet slanting at a difficult angle toward centerfield.  Centerfield is surrounded by left and right field at a depth of roughly 380 (379 in LF) and dead center is just 420 so 60 feet of depth is the challenge in centerfield compared to the angled 78 feet in RF. 

There is no definitive ranking between the two, only opinions.  I base my opinion on the ground that must be covered by each position.  Both positions demand speed and Abreu's speed is BAD compared to Rafaela in covering the 78 feet. 

Logically, the only position good for Abreu would be LF BUT nobody is going to replace Anthony in LF.  

To be fair, let me insult you now.  Duran's REAL numbers are facts so for you to suggest he wasn't elite is pure ignorance on your part.  If there is some fabricated metric that suggests otherwise, it's FAKE NEWS.  The estimates by the metrics world are all bull crap.  The plus or minus of their estimates make them completely unreliable.  Don't be so gullible.  USE FACTS.

[Larry Cook]

On 11/25/2025 at 9:16 AM, moonslav59 said:

The Crawford-Beckett and others trade helped pave the way for 2013.

Bres-slow did those deals??  Wasn’t he still playing then? 

[notin]

On 11/24/2025 at 11:43 PM, Larry Cook said:

Maybe bres-slow should be forbidden to trade with the dodgers going forward!!!!!!

 

Because he gave up a guy that can hit AA pitching? 

[Larry Cook]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

Because he gave up a guy that can hit AA pitching? 

2 guys actually

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

Because he gave up a guy that can hit AA pitching? 

He couldn't hit AA pitching until he went to play in down in TX. Not sure that even counts? 

[notin]

On 11/21/2025 at 6:31 PM, moonslav59 said:

There are many pitchers with one year left on their deals.

Also, Sandoval is gone after 2026.

And Houck comes back!

Like sands in the hourglass, so go the days of our lives…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

Bres-slow did those deals??  Wasn’t he still playing then? 

I thought it was more about all the Sox-LAD trades.

The Brez sample size is tiny.

[notin]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I thought it was more about all the Sox-LAD trades.

The Brez sample size is tiny.

The Betts trade was just payback for sticking them with Crawford and Beckett.

Also Dave Roberts was certainly more useful than Henry Stanley…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

The Betts trade was just payback for sticking them with Crawford and Beckett.

It's not like Agon lit the world on fire, either.

[Larry Cook]

I have stated in the past that I do not believe we have an outfield overage and I stick by that,

but New York sports radio thinks the Mets are resigning Alonso and then trading tong and vientos to us for Duran and cutter!!!  
 

I absolutely love this trade!!  Bres-slow to the rescue 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

I have stated in the past that I do not believe we have an outfield overage and I stick by that,

but New York sports radio thinks the Mets are resigning Alonso and then trading tong and vientos to us for Duran and cutter!!!  
 

I absolutely love this trade!!  Bres-slow to the rescue 

I would do that as well.  My preference would be for Burns or Chandler, but there is a pretty good chance they won't be available.  The Mets might be uncomfortable trying to squeeze Tong, Sproat and McLean into the rotation, so I'm guessing that one of them will be available.  Vientos took a step backwards last year, so he might be available.  And as a righty 1B/3B, he could back up both Mayer and Casas.

[Duran Is The Man]

1 hour ago, Larry Cook said:

I have stated in the past that I do not believe we have an outfield overage and I stick by that,

but New York sports radio thinks the Mets are resigning Alonso and then trading tong and vientos to us for Duran and cutter!!!  
 

I absolutely love this trade!!  Bres-slow to the rescue 

ya'll been smokin' too much crack.

[Larry Cook]

30 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I would do that as well.  My preference would be for Burns or Chandler, but there is a pretty good chance they won't be available.  The Mets might be uncomfortable trying to squeeze Tong, Sproat and McLean into the rotation, so I'm guessing that one of them will be available.  Vientos took a step backwards last year, so he might be available.  And as a righty 1B/3B, he could back up both Mayer and Casas.

The New York sports radio guys were split on this trade. No word yet on what bres-slow thinks 

[JoeBrady]

On 11/25/2025 at 8:42 PM, TedYazPapiMookie said:

FACT - 3 years in CF Duran has 2 errors

Soler has only 1 error in the past four years, has a higher fielding % than Duran, and I might be a better fielder.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

ya'll been smokin' too much crack.

You kind of have to say which side you like.  For a team like the Mets, who have some young pitching and need a CF, it makes sense.  For a team like the RS, who have 4 legit OFs, trading one of them makes sense.

[Duran Is The Man]

28 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

You kind of have to say which side you like.  For a team like the Mets, who have some young pitching and need a CF, it makes sense.  For a team like the RS, who have 4 legit OFs, trading one of them makes sense.

i'm on board with trading an outfielder -even Duran. for pieces of equal value that we truly need and will help win games.  Vientos and Tong are anything but that. not even close.