Dojji

depends almost exclusively on those young players' ability to live up to their potential in their first full seasons. but it's entirely possible that they wouldn't lose much, with the big differences being the offensive dropoff of Salty to Vazquez and Napoli to Carp. Neither of which are necessarily as drastic as they first appear.

Not exactly backing up the truck for a player with Ruiz's demonstrated skill level. Lavarnway isn't so bad defensively that his bat can't hide it. Butler does in fact profile as a backup but he has demonstrated the potential to hit, is above average defensively, and is going into his age 27 season so he NEEDS to have a look next year, and if he DOES hit at the big league level (no guarantees, but you can't rule it out sight unseen) then he probably could grow into the starting role given the chance. As for Christian Vazquez, there's not much more that he can learn that another year in the minors is going to teach him (that extra year in Pawtucket is not going to make him hit for power, sorry to be the one to break the news to you). Swihart enters the picture more when talking about multi-year deals for a guy like McCann, since he'll be ready sometime in the next 2 years. That would be a more persuasive argument if we knew the team was looking seriously to add a veteran catcher

Young has tons of talent but is simply not consistent enough to be useful. Gomes barely is, Young is worse. He had those 2 good years in 10 and 11, but those are his only years when he was even average much less great.

I can understand the fascination with Ruiz but I do not share it. We have too many talented young catchers that are going to start wasting away in the minors if we don't give each of them a decent shot within the next couple years. We need to give one of Lavarnway, Vazquez and Butler a real chance to earn a job at the big league level almost immediately, or we're wasting talent.

That said of course, Lucchino is very good at the sort of thing he should be doing. That's one of the reasons that this team is one of the most lucrative in the league despite playing in, like, the #10 market. It's just that the list of things Lucky should be doing does not include the baseball roster.

Right now our opening day rotation is Lester, Lackey, Peavey, Buchholz, Doubront and we have a number of rookies and guys like Workman who can fill in for the inevitable injuries to guys like Peavy and Buchholz. We don't need another starter from the free agent pool right now unless that guy gives us something one of our guys isn't

I hate this kind of thinking. When healthy, Ellsbury is vastly superior to JBJ. JBJ has the potential to become not a bad little player at all, but he simply does not even approach Ellsbury's dynamism, even leaving 2011 entirely out of the picture. A healthy Ellsbury is one of the fastest and most prolific speed players in the league. JBJ isn't going to be leading the league in anything, especially not his rookie campaign. that doesn't automatically mean bring Ellsbury back, but if you don't, you'd better have a way to replace the wins Ellsbury gave you that JBJ won't, figured out.

Not entirely unreasonable, but I'd rather bring in someone with a bit more utility. Unlike Gomes, who can step beyond his platoon role if needed as we saw in the World Sieries, young's unlikely to be able to do so. I'd actually rather move on a more conventional backup CF like doing a trade for Gregor Blanco. But then you already know my passion for making the rookies compete with regulars for their jobs. Anyone think the Giants could be enticed to do a deal like Nava and Dempster for Blanco and Scutaro? Scutaro's nearly done as a starter but would make a superlative backup IF and would be an ideal foil to force Bogaerts to work hard to win the job as starting SS.

Well, it's not like there'd ever have been only 24 men on the roster. It'd be the 24 regulars plus whatever rookie the team wanted to promote based on what they felt the team needed. The idea was to keep the roster flexible by having the open spot available to send one rookie down and call up another even with 24 other healthy players, since we actually have quite a stable of big league ready guys.

Oh my dear lord how the heck did I manage to do that????? I think my problem was that I went through the roster by fielding position, but still, that's utterly embarrassing.

Mmm. Don't see the need to add an OF at all, other than JBJ of course. Do we really need 6 outfielders? I like bringing in Bloomquist because he does add to the outfield depth, and while he's no offensive stud, he hits just about enough to not be a total black hole which is fine for a backup infielder. If you're bringing in Bloomquist, the need for a 6th OF is questionable. Here's how I'd go for a minimalist offseason Sign Bloomquist, since his versatility offers something you can't actually replace in our minor league system at present and promote everything else you need from the minors your catcher to play alongside Ross is whichever of Vazquez, Lavarnway and Butler looks best in the Spring. All have something to recommend them. Vazquez is head and neck above the rest defensively, Lavarnway similarly advanced offensively, and Butler offers a balanced skillset if his offense translates the way I think it ought to. I feel the front office has committed itself to favoring offense at catcher as a default unless theyh ave a specific reason not to given current personnel, so I have to believe Lavarnway has the leg up here. Roster: Starters C Lavarnway 1B Carp 2B Pedroia 3B Middlebrooks SS Bogaerts LF: Nava CF: JBJ RF: Victorino Bench: C Ross UT Bloomquist LF Gomes (starts every game against LHP) Rotation: Lester Lackey Peavey Buchholz Doubront Depth: Dempster (for now), plus prospects such as Webster, Ranaudo, Workman and Barnes Bullpen: Uehara CL Tazawa SU Miller Workman Breslow (open spot for Spring competition, likely to be a rotating position until someone sticks) Dempster Analysis: Not nearly on par with what we're currently fieldin, but that's a lineup that can probably win games as long as the pitching doesn't fall off too badly, and it has room to grow as the youngsters gain experience. First Base is a mix of Carp and a bit of Middlebrooks (much as I hate the idea, given the present roster it makes sense as long as Middlebrooks is hitting) with Bloomquist and Bogaerts playing on the left side when Middlebrooks plays first base. If Nava continues to show progress and begins to hit effectively from the right side, he replaces Middlebrooks in that platoon while we work Gomes into the lineup in his own favorable platoon advantage. I hear the concerns about Uehara but he doesn't need to repeat the year he had this year to be an effective year, in fact I'm not counting on him to repeat this year at all. If his health falters, I'd have little qualm about trying Tazawa as the closer as well, in fact I think it would be smart of the FO to give him some 9th innings to take pressure off our aging closer. Breslow has taken high leverage innings in the past and has been a consistent reliever for the last 4-5 years, Workman is talented, and Miller has shown himself to be a new man in the last few years, we're not short on talented MR's who could move up. The interesting thing about this roster is that we technically have all spots covered, and by my count that's only 24 men even counting the rotating relief spot. A rotating general roster spot being open for call ups from the minors is an intriguing possibility, it would allow us to debut many of our ready or nearly-ready prospects at need on a regular basis, giving them each a taste and seeing what they're capable of while allowing the team's versatility to keep things going. It also means that as soon as Cecchini forces his way onto the team, which ought to happen in the first couple months if he's as talented as I think he is, there's a spot open for him. he might wind up being our answer at first base, he's got all the talent he needs to get it done at that position and I'm all for keeping the road clear for him if he wants to make himself the answer.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you can't measure character, you can't identify it.

Has anyone ever tried Gomes at first base? For that matter, Garrin Cecchini might well force his way onto the roster sooner rather than later. He's gone through the minors looking like Wade Boggs, there's got to be a place for that on the roster. I wouldn't be too surprised if the team decided to go with a stopgap at 1B (Hart might work really well for this) and sees what they can get between Cecchini, Carp, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, the stopgap, and whoever they bring in as a middle infield backup at the infield positions.

that inferior replacement turned in one of the best defensive years we've ever seen in a centerfielder in 2007 and the only reason he's not still here is that Ellsbury beat him out for his job. Take a look at what Bay has done since he left the Red Sox. you would not want to have kept him. the call to bring in Cameron was wrong, but the call to keep bay would have also been wrong. The correct move at the time was to bring in Matt Holliday. "this" being an unsubstantiated rumor that the Sox are hedging their bets rather than going balls deep to bring back guys we like. There's a man on this team named Mike Carp, who if we sign no one, probably slots in as our starting 1B and is talented enouggh that it wouldn't be the worst idea in the universe to give him that chance. Since we're losing the lefthanded Drew and replacing him with the righthanded Bogaerts, losing the righthanded Napoli and replacing him with the lefthanded Carp wouldn't do much do our balance. The only downside to a move like that is that if it fails, we have no one waiting in the wings in the minors to serve as Plan B.

I feel the exact opposite. With his elite defensive tools and patient approach, Vazquez is probably ready to play as a backup catcher right now, the question is can he give enough offense to start. Brentz on the other hand has to answer a lot of questions about consistency, more so than even other toolsy power hitters of recent years like Reddick or Middlebrooks.

I've seen it work both ways, and so have you if you stop to think about it. Chemistry doesn't so much help the team win, as it does help them avoid the mental ruts that lead to a team playing below their talent level for extended periods of time. That's just as valuable as boosting the actual talent level -- sometimes much more so.

Yadi's an elite catcher. Not very many like him. And then he learned to hit too. He's already the best of the Flying Molina Brothers as it is, one of the best if not THE best catcher in the majors right now, and he still has several years to go to add to his legacy. Just kinda saying, holding salty or any other catcher up to that standard is kind of unfair to them. We're not really asking the catching position to play the kind of role in carrying the team the Cardinals ask of Molina.

I can attest to this. The Bruins tend to have more penetration into the Maritimes than the Sox, but it's definitely been known to happen.

Catcher is about as much a need as shortstop -- we're only going after a veteran if people don't trust any of our rookies (Butler, Lavarnway, Vazquez) to get the job done alongside David Ross. First base is a legitimate need, but it's our only major need. And we're clearing several large contracts not counting the obvious move you hope to do in clearing Dempster. I just don't see the need to be penny-wise with Ellsbury when it might be pound foolish.

What else were we going to do with that money exactly? We're not overflowing with needs that require that we add payroll.

I don't think we need to go overboard on catching defense. You want balance at the catcher position and there's nothing wrong with an offensive guy as long as he knows how to compensate for his worst weaknesses.

I have no idea why you think one of the few hitters in the entire game to reach 30 HR's this year is going to come this cheaply. None at all. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Hart comes away with a 5 year deal for an AAV of nearly twice what you're offering. I have nothing against kicking the tires on Hart. But let's be a bit realistic about what it will take to bring him to Boston. The fact is that hitting that 30th run meant that despite being only a 2 WAR player last year (average by definition) the man will be so overpaid it's not even funny. Stay away. Again, I have no idea why Ruiz would accept that price to play here. He's not quite a middle of the order guy, but for a catcher, Ruiz's offense lands him in the upper third of the league, he can get more than 7M AAV -- again, he can probably land double that in both years and salary per year -- and again, I pray it is NOT from Boston. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii think we can find a better use for 6 M AAV next year when Garin Cecchini is knocking on the door and Uribe's aging backside is blocking him. I suspect that we'll be bringing in more of an all around backup infielder, especially because at present we have no one to back up Bogaerts at shortstop, something Uribe probably can't be counted on to do anymore. As for who I'd bring in? Well, I'm sure he's not the shiniest trinket in the pile, but I like Willie Bloomquist's game, and he can help in the outfield as well as backing up infield. I'm sure you can get him for 1 year and a lot less than 12M. I think he'd help us fine. I can see what you're thinking here, but I'm not quite sure you've thought this all the way through. As it is right now we're carrying our three starting outfielders, Carp and whichever of Gomes and Nava you don't consider a starter. That's 5. You want to add another. Who are we dealing? Or are we adding a sixth outfielder???? That's what attracted me to Bloomquist as an acquisition. He adds the same depth up the entire middle (catcher obviously excepted) while occupying only the one roster spot. you exceed yourself. Everything else is less than half what the player would actually except, you managed to come up with an offer for Crain that's less than a quarter AAV and less than a third of the years. You're talking about an all-star level setup man who's pitched at a high level each of the last 4 years, you're not going to find too many of those being willing to be paid like a reclamation project. If Cherington could get anywhere near any of those prices for any of the players I'd actually want (read: not Young or Uribe) I'd go berzerk and stop at nothing until I'd given him a wet one full on the lips. It's not happening.

Had to pull this out of the uberpost above to make a point. here's the thing about Stephen Oris "Not JD" Drew. Pick an aspect of playing shortstop at the major league level. Any aspect. Stephen Drew is average or better at that aspect, either for his position or overall. Defense? Above average. Contact and OBP? Above average for a SS. Power? Above average, great for a SS. Speed? Solidly average. His worst tool is his average speed, Jung. Yes, his best tool is also merely above average, but that's why you don't just focus on one aspect of a player when evaluating him. This is a well-rounded, accomplished all-around SS who just helped his team to a World Championship. If he was any more consistent in maximizing his toolset he'd be considered 5 tool, unfortunately he is not able to do that consistently for a full season. Comparing him to Iglesias because they had similar OBP's is textbook cherry-picking. Iglesias has phenomenal defense, a bit of speed, and a bit of contact, full stop. What he does best is better than Drew at that one or two things but he has far more holes in his game, and the overall package, I can comfortably say is worse overallif you compare what the two mens' best years will look like at the end of their respective careers. Besides, I think we all know instinctively that the year he had last year with Boston is going to be somewhere around his high water mark. The lion's share of Iglesias' offensive production centers around a .303 average fueled by a .356 BABIP, that's unlikely to be sustainable for a slap hitter. With Drew, I think you could comfortably predict a similar season next year, maybe even a better one. He's a better bet to be consistent and give you something along some vector of the shortstop game at any given time, exactly because he has so much to add. The only reason not to go hard after Drew this offseason is a combination of the presence of Bogaerts and the fact that Drew is probably going to get overpaid by some team that doesn't have to fight the grass-is-greener mentality to recognize the talent that he is..

Do not want McCann. I don't think it would be a disaster if we did sign him but I'm not seeing the need to go for a big contract at catcher. I think the franchise is committed to making Napoli happy as long as Napoli's demands aren't completely unreasonable.

No, what I'm doing is applying the brakes on the narrative people are spreading which is based more on hope than reason. I have Bradley pegged at the David Dejesus level. No one would object if we got one of Dejesus' early seasons out of Bradley, me least of all. But the comparisons I've seen to Trout just make me cringe. He's just not that type of player and I am a little worried about his ability to make proper contact with big league pitches next year. I don't expect that to be a problem that lingers indefinitely, I just want a backup plan for next year alone. Barring the unforseen he should improve up to a sufficient level with time and experience. With that said he doesn't even come close to Ellsbury's toolset, especially not until we know more about how his power is going to develop at the big league level. Ells's power looked pretty sweet in the minors too, and it turned out to be more than sufficient for a speed player but nothing spectacular, with the exception of one year. So far Bradley's shown similar or less power, and with no speed to back it up. People want Bradley to be the answer because they know in their hearts that Ellsbury is probably gone. that's fine, but the problem comes when they start predicting that it will happen, without attempting any objective analysis at all of Bradley's actual skill level. that becomes an example of a phenomenon known as magical thinking. That doesn't mean that it automatically won't turn out that way, but to proclaim that it will simply because there's no current better alternative, is still a logical fallacy.