example1

Bogaerts has been terrible, but that doesn't warrant writing off the youngest qualified player in the major leagues. He's on a terrible team. He's switched positions. All in a city where people like you question the ability of even the best major league talents to "handle the pressure". Unless he's traded for an elite talent like Tulo or Stanton you will most likely be seeing Xander in the lineup on a nightly basis for the next 5 years. Most teams would want him.

What a painful thing to watch. Ouch.

I think Ortiz is going to be on the border of getting in for awhile after he retires. Unless there's another credible PED link I wouldn't be surprised if he got in. Ortiz has reached baseball icon status. If his numbers weren't really good then obviously that wouldn't be enough to get him in, but over an 11 year period he's batted 3, 4 or 5 on a team that won 3 World Series. He's had 30 HR/100+ RBI on average over those 11 years, with a .952 OPS. I don't think those are necessarily HOF numbers but when combined with being a face of one of the most popular franchises and his absolutely legendary playoff feats across two decades I think he ultimately gets in.

Bradley Jr with another couple of very nice plays tonight. One of them in the 9th could have been really important. Appropriately the Angels announcers were raving about his defense, talking about him making just another spectacular play. He's already developed a reputation as an elite CF, maybe THE elite CF. Ask yourself: if the ball is hit in the air is there another player in the league you want chasing it? He's multiple steps above Ellsbury, who is pretty good. If that's the case then you can only call his defense one thing: a bonafide weapon. The play he made tonight saved a double or maybe a triple. We give him s*** for not hitting but hardly notice the implications of his defense. That double is as valuable offensively as it is defensively, yet we look at only his offensive production and downplay metrics that attempt to quantify defensive value. By those measures he's been above replacement level no matter what WAR you use. He's a top 5 defensive player in baseball, across all positions. What his defensive value says is basically that pretty frequently he's taking away hits that most of his peers wouldn't be able to catch. Hell, I don't blame the FO for not selling low or demoting this guy. Even a little offense would give him tremendous overall value. Plus, with such a bad season for the team it's a good chance to stick with him, at least more than would usually be the case

I've never understood why you resort to such vitriolic statements about people who are managing a baseball team. They aren't morons. You wouldn't find a single other person in the entire game who would say such things about them. Not one. No other GM, or manager or executive would look at Ben Cherington or John Farrell and use words like dufus or moron. It seems perfectly reasonable to critique their decisions or whatever but the personal stuff just reminds everyone that you take this very personally and, as such, probably aren't grounded enough for a rational analysis. You might be right about Bradley, or you might not. When you're talking about guys who are world-class athletes (which he undoubtedly is) there's reason to believe/hope/assume that he will adjust, or improve. You don't assume after 139 games that you've seen the entire picture of a player who, at his age, could theoretically have 1800 games remaining in his career. Here's a list of players over the past decade or so who have had a lower WAR total (fangraphs) over their first 145 or so games than Bradley has had. I see a few players here who turned into pretty good players despite bad starts: Ken Harvey Mark Teahen Jose Castillo Brad Hawpe Abraham Nunez Eduardo Nunez Ron Calloway Brandon Phillips Alexi Amarista Luis Valbuena Jeremy Hermida Shea Hillenbrand Brian Anderson Aaron Miles Justin Turner Kevin Frandsen Jamey Carroll Gerardo Parra Robinson Cano Dexter Fowler Xander Bogaerts Chris Snyder Michael Saunders Micah Hoffpauir Damon Hollins Steve Lombardozzi Carlos Pena Brent Morel Nate McLouth JD Closser Paul Janish Alex Sanchez J.P. Arencibia Lucas Duda Brennan Boesch Jason Repko Coco Crisp Jeff Bianchi Cory Sullivan Geronimo Gil Eric Hosmer Chris Burke Miguel Olivo Alexei Ramirez Alex Avila Ian Kinsler Anthony Rizzo Gregor Blanco Melky Cabrera Clete Thomas Matt Carpenter Wilin Rosario I wouldn't write him off. He may be a dud on that list rather than one of the good ones, but again, he's a tremendous athlete who plays gold glove defense and can throw a ball out of the park from home plate. They aren't dufuses for wanting him to have all the chance possible to prove himself--especially when the team is s***ing the bed across the board and eliminated from the playoffs so early. You are a good, long time baseball fan. You know that sometimes players come up and suck and then just "find it". It's shocking that you don't cite the longitudinal aspects of player development more often.

Yes it was a phenomenal article. Apparently he's one of the best receivers in the game already. It's a tough call between Vazquez and Swihart. I suppose with both of them cost-controlled maybe the Sox can keep both and have their catching tandem for the next 6 years. Swihart could be saved by moving him to other positions. Giving him up could be like moving Hanley + for Beckett: a move that we all liked because Beckett was a stud, but tough in the end because, well, so was Hanley (and Anibel). Then again, the depth would allow it because Vazquez could be a valuable catcher for many years. And adding Stanton would be pretty awesome.

I just don't see them spending to get Lester back. I would be happy if they did, I just don't see it happening. I can't argue with it. I have a hard time seeing contracts for guys 30+ that end up being successful. Yes, we can say that it would be successful if they won a World Series during that time, but is it really reasonable to base our view of Jon Lester's contract on whether David Ortiz hits an 8th inning 3 run homer to win a pivotal game? Jon Lester's contribution, no matter how great, would be only partially responsible for the World Series. There's a lot of luck involved in that. If we want to try to remove the luck from it then we should look at what the pitcher controls, and what the pitcher controls is his performance when pitching. In that regard, Lester has performed very well over the past few years. He could still be very good over the next 6-7 years, but he would have to be producing at his current level through that time to warrant 20+ million a year. The Red Sox are one of the most valuable and prominent franchises in the world in any sport. I can understand why the Sox would think they can fill his role well before those 6-7 years are up, for much less money.

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35086415 Hopefully the link works. This was Henry's first start in Pawtucket last night. 9ks. He just looks like he's really hard to hit. I recommend watching the videos of his and swiharts interviews post game as well. Neither of them has the deer in headlights factor that seems to challenge Webster. In face, Swiharts interview is really quite impressive. I can see why they like his make up so much. Future (current) leadership potential there. Swihart: http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35088161 Owens: http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35088163 Owens seems a bit detached in every interview, but also looks like he's probably pretty oblivious. That's not a bad thing on the big stage. Finally here's the paw sox manager talking about his debut performance. I think this is someone we should be excited about. http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=35088241

Just keep in mind that we just traded a guy in Andrew Miller who had, if I remember correctly, an Allen Webster-esque presence on the mound when he was brought up to the majors and tried it as a starting pitcher. He wasn't a good starter but he reinvented himself as a truly nasty reliever. I can easily see Webster doing the same--he wouldn't have to own the entire game, just an inning or a batter. I wouldn't write him off as useless, just perhaps needing to be used the right way. I'm hopeful that a combination of RDLR, Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes and Owens will produce 2-3 legitimate AL East starting pitchers. Webster could, but he'll have to develop a much stronger spine if he wants to be great.

I think the frustrating thing is that Buchholz could have done it but never pulled it off. His stuff was great--not as dominant as Beckett but a better variety. He just doesn't seem to have it between the ears. He doesn't have the quiet, calm, "get the hell out of the batters box" mentality on the mound. At times he does, but when he gets a little rattled even average hitters stand a good chance against him. When Pedro got a little rattled he still believed the best hitters were going to fail miserably against him. It's such a minor thing but its huge. I think that mentality is exactly the difference between Webster and Workman/RDLR. The later guys seem more intense and confident in themselves, even against adversity. Even with nobody out and nobody on Webster looked like he was hoping to get outs, rather than certain he would. It's a big stage, I can understand how it could disrupt performance. Some guys charge right through that and others never get over it.

One thing my mind keeps coming back to: we may all acknowledge that if the Sox want to compete in the AL they will need two very good pitchers who they don't currently have. In fact, even if they did the "absurd" and signed Lester and Scherzer, would they necessarily have a better rotation than, say, Detroit (Verlander, Price, Sanchez), or Seattle (Hernandez, Iwakuma)? I don't think its clear that they would. It would be comparable, but not a guarantee of anything. Given that, even if we acknowledge that they need a FA pitcher or two, everyone should likewise agree that it still matters greatly how their young pitching prospects do. Is an Owens or Ranaudo or Barnes the answer? In a sense, yes, because even if someone else is the known answer, they will inevitably need a few of these guys to be better than just a decent pitcher. They need a Sonny Gray or Adam Wainwright from their system or they will be just another overpriced and underperforming big market team.

First of all, I think this year is what last year was anticipated to be in many fans minds. Last year was supposed to be the bridge year, instead it turned out to be this year. Fans have been dreading it for so long but now its here. I think it is way too premature to make claims about Bradley and Bogaerts. The first half of the year Bogaerts looked like a true star in the making, then s*** happened and he looked more pedestrian. You said that if he had played SS this year they would already know what they have. That seems like a stretch given that he's 21 years old. Most 21 year olds are at high-A. It was bad to bring Drew back, but no matter how Bogaerts did this year he would have to be seen as a work in progress. Bradley's bat has been concerning, but his defense is absolutely stellar and it makes him better than replacement level no matter how he hits. He'd be a solid backup if he doesn't turn into a great offensive piece. Just to put his performance in context, according to fangraphs WAR, Bradley has been the 12th most valuable 24 year old in baseball this year. Leaders are not surprising (Stanton, rendon, Heyward, Rizzo). Bradley, at 1.6 WAR, has been roughly as valuable as Starlin Castro (2.0), Aldrelton Simmons (1.6), Brett Lawrie (1.5) and George Springer (1.3). If someone said the Sox could have one of those players wouldn't you take it? He's the 4th most valuable defensive player in baseball, regardless of age etc., That's not something to sneeze at. One of the things that might limit his playing time is the existence of another farm system product, Mookie Betts, who is putting up consistent .900 OPS numbers in the minors from positions where that is very rare. If he's "merely" an .830 OPS guy in the majors he'll be really valuable. His potential is greater than that. He's doing it at AAA playing against guys who, on average, are 6 years older. These things do take time.

You are right, it's that kind of trade. It is based on the ChiSox being willing to move him of course. But if any team in baseball could pull it off it's the Red Sox now. They could do it and still be left with a decent system in my opinion. My point was that they are in a position to make deals like that. In that regard I don't think we need to limit our speculation to guys generally believed to be available or nearing FA.

I think the bold part is what we're saying here. They might be able to afford to overpay in talent to get the best possible player at the most critical position. The stats put Sale among the elite. If they are willing to go all in on Stanton I would think Sale would get some consideration too. You said it would make sense if they were one or two pieces away... that's my stance too, except in situations where you can be picking up a centerpiece in his early prime. He's 5th in WAR among starting pitchers from 2012-present, just behind Verlander and just ahead of Wainwright and Darvish. But Verlander is 30, Wainwright is 31 and Darvish is 26. Sale is 24. The other players who are nearly that young on the list are Kershaw (25) and Strasburg (24), neither of whom I imagine would be available. The Chi Sox are further from competing now than those teams are.

If they wanted to make a splash to secure a young, cost-controlled ace they probably have enough pieces to get Chris Sale from Chicago. The White Sox would be really hard pressed to turn down a package like Owens, Escobar, Betts and Devers for Sale. Chicago has been part of a number of big trades over the past decade, which makes me think they'd be willing to capitalize on a huge prospect overpay. It might cost Bogaerts. That would be tough (and couldn't include all those other pieces) but if you look at Sale's performance by age he's among the game's best and a better bet to be dominant over the next 5 years than Lester is.

What does this mean. You won't be fooled? They are currently poised to have a tiny payroll in 2015. Do you think that's how this will end? They aren't trying to fool you, they are trying to make reasonable deals that help them move forward. It's on you to tolerate a little ambiguity for a minute. It's not on them to maintain an ambiguity-free-zone. That expectation would be like tying both hands behind their back.

And if he were anywhere near the player he was last year they wouldn't be able to get him without giving up a lot of really good players. Instead they moved Lackey, who many here were ready to give away a few years ago. Literally would have let him go for nothing. If Lackey can redeem himself then why can't Craig? After all, it isn't like last year was Craig's only good season... the last three years (328 g, 1296 PA) he put up a .312/.364/.500/.863 line. We're acting like Lackey is Randy Johnson and Craig is Nick Punto. They are closer to one another in value than many are willing to admit.

If I were the Sox I would try to extend Cespedes this offseason. Just see if he's open to a reasonable contract that offers him some security. 5/75 maybe. That's just a little more than what Victorino got so that's whose money he would get in 2016 and beynd. He's still young (26) and offers enough value in enough areas that he's probably worth keeping around for a few years--especially with a lack of power throughout baseball. If he signs now then he's protected from injury etc., in 2015 and with his numbers thus far I don't think it's unreasonable to think that's near what he'd get on the open market after another similar season. He's not elite, but it's hard to argue that his bat wouldn't have a place in the #6 spot on a really good team. He's not a great player if he's your #4 hitter, but if he's your #6 hitter you probably have a pretty good offense.

I gave them a B. I think we will need to digest exactly what it was they acquired and how it fits within the context of their current franchise. No matter what it's a haul that tells me they intend to compete soon. You don't go after pieces like that if you are planning for 3 years down the line. I don't know enough about Escobar, Hembree or Rodriguez to speak knowledgably, but they all sound like guys that most people believe will contribute at the MLB level. Obviously what they are lacking is a legitimate offensive star to build the franchise around. They will need pitching too, but I don't think they should go out and overpay for a current ace. They should make a legitimate offer to Lester and see if he'll return, otherwise go after Shields and/or Masterson. I think Shields would replace Lackey's value, but they would still lack Lester's replacement. They obviously feel very highly about their prospects, or that they can acquire another top pitcher or two without too much difficulty. Signing Lester and Shields would be a really bold move. Lester Shields Buchholz Kelly Workman/RDLR/Ranaudo/Webster/Escobar etc., It's not like all is lost here. They still have options and have strengthened the team in a few places where they need it. Craig and Cespedes have both been big parts of good teams. They can't be relied upon as 3-4 hitter, but they have the potential to be. They should be formidable 5, 6 or 7 hole hitters during a decent season.

The irony is that the ace you are talking about literally grew in their system. They didn't get him by signing him at $25m a year, they developed him from the draft. They do grow, you just need to know where to find them. The Sox believe they have a number of them potentially in their system.

You're right that plan B isn't apparent. In a scenario where they don't have an obvious ace on the team and haven't even traded plan A yet, plan B usually isn't apparent. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or won't materialize. They will need to pull off a slick combination of trades, FA signings and promotions to field a competitive team but I expect them to be aggressive in getting a few key pieces. They will have all the currency that is needed to make a good baseball team--high end MLB ready prospects (for trading), more high end MLB ready prospects (for key positions), a core of "good enough" prospects (for relief and utility depth), a good number of lottery tickets in the low minors, and payroll flexibility with a $170m budget. You don't invest this much time and money into scouting all ends of the earth for players and building baseball academies if you don't want to build a winning team.

Has this ownership had a season where they weren't among the most 4-5 expensive teams in baseball? I don't think so. Yes, they should have one of the top payrolls in baseball. And they do. Every year. The issue doesn't seem to be whether they are going to invest like a big market team does. The issue is whether they are going to wrap up most of that investment in a single player or not. Lester is a good pitcher, he's very good. But people are talking about paying him $24m like its nothing. That's so much money for a payroll of 150-180m. It isn't like they are just going to sit on the money and it isn't like Lester is Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez (or Clayton Kershaw). The ownership group has proven they will invest, they have proven they can win when they invest. There are more shiny objects to land with the Red Sox and it will probably be sooner than later.

One more point--free agency is without a doubt the least efficient way to spend money. It's not really close. With the same amount of money that Lester is going to cost they could have signed Cespedes (36m for 4 years), Abreu (68 for 6 years), AND Puig (42m for 7 years). That's 146m for 17 seasons worth of production. OR they could pay the same amount for 6 years of production at 24 per. Just for a point of reference. The best use of money is probably international FAs (not necessarily Cuban "pros") who will sign for a few hundred thousand. If they are going to be tight fisted on beloved and established guys like Lester I don't expect them to be as frugal with the next wave of Cuban/Dominican/Japanese guys who would have an impact at relatively low cost.

I agree with the end of this statement--much of it actually. I think we have yet to see exactly what the Red Sox mean by having a disciplined approach where they don't pay market value for guys over 30. Clearly they think there's a strategic advantage to not having ANY risk around contracts like those. I wonder what that advantage yields... Does it mean that they will constantly be in a process of gathering prospects to make really good runs at the mid-20 proven stars? Does it mean that they will use the additional money to pay younger prospects for longer-term reasonable contracts? I don't think we really know. I think the end game here involves some relatively good star power coming to Boston at some point. As you've said in the past they can't just put out no-names and expect the fans to be excited. At the same time, watching home-grown players succeed on a good team is pretty exciting too. As for points made by others that sometimes you just have to overpay and not get value at the end of the contract, or that the Red Sox aren't a small market team that needs to watch their spending I think that's true to a point. Right now they don't have to watch their spending that closely. However, the margin between watching spending and having lots of flexibility is actually pretty thin, even for the biggest market teams. The league is structured in a way to disincentivize such behavior. Some franchises do it, most don't. The ones who do haven't shown considerably more success than those like the Sox who try to stay within the bounds of spending. I don't know where this is all going for the next 24 hours, but I do have faith that the FO isn't just throwing everything away for no reason.

It's been a while a700. I had to come back and dialogue at perhaps the biggest transitional time for the Sox since the departure of Pedro, Damon etc., after 2004. May not stick around but here's my 2c. As you can probably predict, my stance is that trading Lester makes sense to me from a long-term strategic perspective. I don't think they should pay Lester market value for 5-6 years. I think top market value contracts for pitchers almost always ends up under-performing. It's hard to find counterexamples. So I think there's a good possibility that they weren't going to resign Lester anyway for solid reasons. If that's the case then of course it makes sense to trade him for the best available pieces. Especially if they are out of the playoffs this year. Especially if Lester is pitching better than he ever has. Especially if a number of pretty loaded teams are in need of a starting pitcher exactly like him for a playoff run. All the factors seem to be aligning for a great haul. Now, as for trading a top 10 pitcher for a #10 prospect--it's a good point but, like an optical illusion, it's misleading. Lester has been a top 10 pitcher for the past few years. Signing him as a top flight pitcher now is speculating that he will continue to be over the next 6 years, which is a different matter. History says he won't, and even if he does he'll cost a ton of money for that added value. Best case scenario the Sox break even. As for the prospects, they could get a very nice player, an everyday guy who any team would be happy to have. Maybe two of those guys. For 6 years each at almost no cost. Then there's the cost of the contract itself--maybe 24m a year. The deal is basically: Other team gets: Lester's next 6.5 years Red Sox get: MLB-ready prospect or two and whatever $24m buys in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 From that perspective I think it makes sense without even knowing who the prospects are. Ideally it will be a batter with some pop. That would leave them with a lot of money and a ton of prospects. They could deal for Stanton (partially supplied by whoever they acquire here) and still have a lot of depth to put around him. All that said, it's painful to think of Lester pitching elsewhere. He's been a consummate professional and a big game performer. Hard to argue that he's been anything but positive for the Red Sox for his tenure there. I can see the argument that he deserves a lot of money for that--he does and he will get it. It just doesn't have to be paid by the Sox.