Orange Juiced

Yes, the Sox may have spent more $$ on more players, and the Jays may have gotten better players at a cheaper price, but the Sox didn't deal away any of their real prospects this offseason. So they added some pieces and kept all their good young guns. I am hoping that they can compete for the last playoff spot without dealing away any of these excellent prospects. That'll keep this year interesting but still keep them set up for 2014 and beyond. Which I think was their plan all along this offseason.

I'm with you on the Ortiz deal. I don't understand it at all. I understand wanting him back for this season. But why go 2 years at that dollar figure? Made no sense.

This may or may not be true. But if it stinks so badly in here, why, exactly, are you here? Are you here just to rag on people? If so, that says a lot more about you than anyone here. Are you trying to raise the level of discourse? If so, you're doing a relatively poor job of it. Are you trying to demonstrate some level of superiority? If so, that's a pretty lame motivation. So what purpose are you trying to serve here if this is such a crappy place to talk about the Red Sox?

I really don't know this guy at all...i've been in and out of talksox lately so I can't speak too intelligently on what he does or does not bring to the table. Looks like he's not well liked here though....

I've been a SoSH member (under a different handle) for a while, and, while there are definitely some pretty sharp cookies over there, it's full of pompous windbags who are completely full of themselves, and who seriously overestimate their analytical ability and understanding of the game or of the sports world in general.

And I think they should move him on that basis. He is an intriguing power bat for a C that might interest other teams that have holes at that position. The Sox have a solid veteran in Ross, and a couple of very interesting young catchers in Lavarnway, Swihart, and now, apparently, Vazquez. Salty is a poor defensive catcher and has, over the course of his career, a bad era (you know what I mean...pitchers pitch to a bad era with him catching), so maybe he calls a bad game, etc. All he gives you is home run power. Now that might be enough to entice a needy team to give up something valuable, and if so, I'd move him in a heartbeat.

Rubby hits 100 on the gun. Electric stuff, says Farrell. Obviously WAY too early to conclude anything, but is there reason for real optimism for this kid?

Well, except for you of course.

Well certainly your bolded statement is true. They cannot survive injuries to Lester or Buchholz. I do think their starting pitching will be better, and here's why I think that. (1) Lester is a better pitcher than he demonstrated last year. At 29, he's far from washed up. For four straight years (2008-11) he never had an era above 3.47, never had a whip higher than 1.27. Then all of a sudden in 2012 he puts up a craptastic 4.82 era with a 1.38 whip and a bad (for him) k/9 rate of 7.3. Did he suddenly forget how to pitch? Did he lose his stuff? Or did he just have a really bad year, which is something that happens to a lot of really, really good pitchers at one point or another? Over those four years he averaged this line: 16-8, 203.0 ip, 196 k, 3.33 era, 135 era+, 8.7 k/9 That's a really good starting pitcher in the AL East. I don't know if he'll do that this year, but since that's far more normative over his career than what he showed in 2012, I expect him to be closer to those numbers than to his 2012 numbers. So I see improvement from Lester. (2) Buchholz is also better than he showed in 2012. In the three years leading up to 2012 he had an era of 3.10, an era+ of 143, a whip of 1.27, and a k/9 rate of 6.4. That's better than what he put up last year (4.56 era, 95 era+, 1.33 whip, 6.1 k/9). Injuries will always seem to be an issue with him, but can he give the Sox a better performance than that? Yes, I firmly believe he can. I see improvement from Buchholz. (3) John Lackey and Ryan Dempster have to be better than the slop the Sox threw out there last year from the pu-pu platter of Cook, Beckett, and Matsuzaka. Those three combined gave the Sox this "production": 50 gs, 266 ip (5.1 ip per start), 5.92 era, 1.45 whip Ok, that's godawful. The 2011 Lackey was actually worse than that, but we know now that he was pitching that season with a shredded elbow. He is healthy now and many pitchers pitch better post-TJ surgery than they did before. I don't necessarily expect Lackey to be what he was in Anaheim, but if he is what he was in 2010 (215 ip, 4.40 era, 1.42 whip), that is significantly better than that Cook/Beckett/Matsuzaka trio. Now Dempster...I don't love him here, I'm on record with that. But do I think he'll be better than 5.92 era and 1.45 whip? Yes, absolutely. Since he became a starter in 2008, he's put up these lines: 2008 - 206.2 ip, 2.96 era, 1.21 whip, 8.1 k/9 2009 - 200.0 ip, 3.65 era, 1.31 whip, 7.7 k/9 2010 - 215.1 ip, 3.85 era, 1.32 whip, 8.7 k/9 2011 - 202.1 ip, 4.80 era, 1.45 whip, 8.5 k/9 2012 - 173.0 ip, 3.38 era, 1.19 whip, 8.0 k/9 In his 2012 season he struggled in Texas, putting up a 5.09 era, 1.44 whip, and 9.1 k/9. So that's the red flag for me. But even if you just took his 2012 numbers from Texas and that was his pitching line for 2013, it would still be much better than what Cook/Beckett/Matsuzaka did in 2012! The era is almost a full run better!! And that is Dempster at his worst. I don't see him being *that* bad here. I see him being mediocre. In fact, I see the Lackey/Dempster combo as being mediocre. But mediocre is a hell of a lot better than what Cook/Beckett/Matsuzaka gave the Sox in 2012. Conclusion: Lackey + Dempster will represent a significant improvement over Cook/Beckett/Matsuzaka. (4) That leaves us with Doubront. I know you're not a big fan of Felix, and that's ok. I happen to be a little more bullish on him, as you know. I don't think he'll end up being the next Sandy Koufax, but he proved that he has some legit tools with which to work. As a rookie, pitching 161.0 ip with an era of 4.86 and a k/9 rate of 9.3 shows some promise. He has ability. Do I think he'll give the Sox an era of 3.50? No. Do I see him improving his command and giving the Sox an era around league average? Yes, I do. Like Lackey and Dempster, I think he'll be an average starting pitcher. Nothing great, but an improvement (albeit slightly) on last year's performance). Long story short, barring the injuries that you mentioned (which are always a concern), I think the Sox' starting pitching should be improved *at every single spot in the rotation* over last year. And in some spots, the improvement should be significant. They are not the second coming of the famous Orioles' rotation of 1971, but they should be improved over last year, and probably even significantly so.

I haven't followed this thread so I don't really know precisely the context for this conversation. But if the question is whether Jon Lester has been, or has the ability to be, an "ace", the answer is unequivocally yes. Look at his 2010 pitching line: 208.0 ip, 19-9, 3.25 era, 134 era+, 1.20 whip, 225 k, 9.7 k/9 I looked up all the stats from 2010 across the major leagues. I wondered how many starting pitchers met all of the following criteria: 200+ ip 15+ w 3.25 era or better 1.20 whip or better 200+ k 7.5 k/9 or better Do you know how many starting pitchers met all those criteria - which account for durability (i.e., "workhorse"), ability to keep the opponent from scoring, dominance (k's), and both counting and rate metrics? Here's the answer: Just four guys: Lester - 208.0 ip, 19 w, 3.25 era, 1.20 whip, 225 k, 9.7 k/9 Wainwright - 230.1 ip, 20 w, 2.42 era, 1.05 whip, 213 k, 8.3 k/9 Halladay - 250.2 ip, 20 w, 2.44 era, 1.04 whip, 219 k, 7.9 k/9 Jimenez - 221.2 ip, 19 w, 2.88 era, 1.15 whip, 214 k, 8.7 k/9 That's it. It leaves out some pretty damned good pitchers, like the guy who won the AL CYA (Felix Hernandez), who fell short in wins, but obviously we'd still consider him an ace. And Verlander, who fell short in era, but obviously we'd still consider him an ace. So there are some excellent guys that did not make this list, but by any measure, Lester's 2010 season qualifies as an "ace" season.

I think it'll be better than most people are giving them credit for. What I really think they're doing is this: They see that their system is stocked with a lot of very talented prospects, but they think they're a couple of years away. So what to do until then? Rush them to the majors? I don't think they want to do that. Go out and get high-priced players on long contracts? Nope. What they did was fill the gap with guys who are pretty good baseball players. They got a decent, dependable starting pitcher, a really good reliever, and some position players that should make for a pretty good lineup. Will they be the best team in the league? I seriously doubt it. Will they be competitive? Yes, I think they will, and they might even make the playoffs. But they have constructed a team that should be worth paying attention to over the next couple of years, which buys them time for the young stud prospects to develop. Then we'll see the next era of Red Sox baseball ushered in.

Which, I hope, is the goal anyway. (to win, that is)

Sure it is: Pedro's 1999 season. Let's compare the two. 1999 - 23-4, 2.07 era, 243 era+, 213.1 ip, 313 k, 0.92 whip, 0.4 hr/9, 8.46 k/bb, 13.2 k/9 2000 - 18-6, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 217.0 ip, 284 k, 0.74 whip, 0.7 hr/9, 8.88 k/bb, 11.8 k/9 There are good reasons for arguing that his 2000 season was better (namely, the era and whip were better), but there are also reasons for arguing that his 1999 season was better (better W-L, better k/9, fewer homers allowed). On the whole I think his 2000 was better because I put less stock in his W-L record than in his era, but still, his 1999 season was off the charts unbelievable, and it ranked right up there with his 2000 season. It is close, IMO. I know I may be one of the biggest Pedro fans out there, but his run from 1997-2003 was, in my view, the greatest stretch of starting pitching in baseball history. Nothing remotely resembling anything less than A-#1 excellence during that entire 7-year run.

Late to the prediction party, but here's my look into the crystal ball.... - I think this team will be better than many (most?) people are suspecting. I expect Lester, Buchholz, and yes, Lackey, to pitch pretty well, and I think Doubront is ready to take the next step forward. Throw in a guy like Dempster who I wasn't thrilled they signed, but who is a consistent innings-eater, and it's the makings of a pretty decent rotation. A lot can go wrong, obviously, but I think they'll be ok there. - I think the bullpen will be terrific. Lots of live arms, and plenty of ammo there. Maybe if they're out of it by July they'll deal some away, but right now, they appear to have one of the most dynamic bullpens in baseball. That should be a huge help. - I think the offense is intriguing, and there's the *potential* for them to score a lot of runs, but I think the Sox will fall into the second tier in terms of runs scored. I see Papi struggling this year, I don't have high expectations that the catchers will hit, and I'm worried about Napoli. The OF situation is not one that makes me jump for joy. This team will score a lot more runs if we see the Ellsbury of a couple of years ago, but I think that was a one-shot deal there. I hope he proves me wrong. I see them being ranked around 5-7 in runs scored, which isn't bad, but it isn't what we're used to seeing. - So the decrease in runs scored, but a big improvement in runs allowed, coupled with what we all hope are a lot fewer injuries, and I think this team can win in the upper 80's or, if things go right, lower 90's. As I said, lots can go wrong, but I think they have a chance to be right in the playoff mix.

Geez that's the second time I've forgotten about him. It's nothing personal against him, honest!! Re: Melancon... Would it shock anyone if, by year's end, Melancon had better numbers (even park-adjusted) than Hanrahan?

I don't love the trade because I kind of like Pimentel and Sands, but the Sox are assembling a pretty good bullpen: Aceves, Breslow, Miller, Tazawa, Bailey, Hanrahan That's six good arms out there. And, as Baltimore showed last year, a really good bullpen can win you a lot of games.

They are trying to stay in contention this year while giving the kids some more time to develop, without handcuffing themselves to long-term contracts. Seems like a pretty sound plan, actually. The team as currently constituted is capable of being in contention. It's capable of being pretty bad too, but there are players here that have performed very well in the major leagues. It won't be a stretch to think they have the ability to compete.

One year of Stephen Drew is not blocking anybody. If Iggy goes nuts in AAA or if Bogaerts shows he's ready, Drew's contract is probably very tradeable. Stephen Drew is not going to be the roadblock for either Iglesias or Bogaerts if either of those guys proves to be ready to make the leap.

The last two years he suffered various injuries which limited his playing time and effectiveness. During those two seasons he put up this combined line: 165 g, 12 hr, 73 rbi, .238/.313/.373/.687, 86 ops+ Ok, that's not very good, obviously. But the three seasons before that, he put up this combined line: 438 g, 48 hr, 193 rbi, .277/.335/.465/.800, 105 ops+ So that's much, much better. When playing to his ability, he's an excellent hitting shortstop. For a one-year deal, it's worth a shot. He definitely makes the lineup a lot better, as even his last two seasons are better than what Iglesias would likely have put up. CF Ellsbury 2b Pedroia DH Ortiz 1b Napoli (we think) 3b Middlebrooks LF Gomes/Kalish C Salty/Lavarnway RF Victorino SS Drew They still need one more starting pitcher. I really would like for them to trade Salty and get Floyd back. It's a deal that makes too much sense.

Yeah, forgot about Uehara....thanks for the correction. He's a really nice addition to the pen.

Solid? That would be outstanding. A stud (Johnson), a guy who just won the CYA (Dickey), one of the most consistently good pitchers in the sport (Buehrle), and two guys who have shown real ability slotted into the #4 and #5 spots? Yikes, that's a scary good rotation. Like with every team pretty much, I could envision a scenario where it all goes wrong for them, but on paper (which is all we have right now), that's a really, really good rotation. Oh, and they also have a dynamic offense. So yeah, Toronto is quite possibly going to be a very tough team.

At this point, here's the roster: Lineup (roughly) CF Ellsbury 2b Pedroia DH Ortiz 1b Napoli (I am assuming it goes through) 3b Middlebrooks LF Gomes/Kalish RF Victorino C Lavarnway SS Iglesias Bench: Ross, Saltalamacchia, Ciriaco, Gomes/Kalish, Nava Rotation: Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Lackey, Doubront/Morales Bullpen: Doubront/Morales, Tazawa, Melancon, Breslow, Aceves, Bailey Guys who are in the pipeline and who could help: Gomez Sands De La Rosa Bard Miller Webster Barnes Bradley Jr Wilson Brentz That team right there should be a team that wins somewhere between 85-92 games. The lineup would be a top-5 lineup in the AL, and the bullpen, if it stays relatively healthy, should be pretty solid. The rotation is the key. You get the bad Lester, Buchholz can't stay healthy, and Dempster takes a dive in the AL East, and it could get pretty ugly. But if Lester bounces back (doesn't have to be Cy Young caliber Lester), Buchholz stays healthy, Dempster is what he normally is (which is above-average), Lackey pitches like he did in 2010 and not 2011, then that's actually one of the better rotations in the league, believe it or not. Combine an above-average rotation (which is possible) with a solid bullpen and a top-level offense, and that's a pretty good team. With lots of talent coming up through the system. Long story short: this team could be sneaky good with a very bright future.

If LaRoche signs with Washington, then they'll almost certainly look to trade Mike Morse. Morse will be 31 in March, and here are the relevant numbers: - Last 3 seasons: .296/.345/.516/.861, 132 ops+, 64 hr in 1194 ab - 2013 salary: $6.75 million, free agent in 2014 The guy isn't Mike Stanton or Albert Pujols, but he's a very nice RHH power bat. The Sox would have to give up something of value to get him, maybe a top-15 prospect, but certainly not someone like Bogaerts or anything. Morse to 1b, Napoli as the starting C, but who plays 1b or DH against tough lefties, Ortiz as the primary DH.... lineup looks like this: CF Ellsbury 2b Pedroia DH Ortiz 1b Morse C Napoli 3b Middlebrooks LF Gomes/Kalish RF Victorino SS Iglesias That's a lot of thunder in that lineup. Ellsbury is capable of 20+, as is Pedroia. Ortiz can hit 30. Morse can hit 35. Napoli can hit 30. Middlebrooks is capable of 25-30. The Gomes/Kalish platoon probably could hit 20-25.

From MLB Trade Rumors: "The Marlins could reverse their stance on trading Giancarlo Stanton, opines MLB.com's Joe Frisaro, if the Rangers are desperate to add another big bat and were willing to offer Jurickson Profar or Mike Olt in a deal. Frisaro also thinks Miami could be a trade match with the Angels as Peter Bourjos "has been on the Marlins' radar for a while." http://www.mlbtrader...euXhvIBrUhvk.99 So, Stanton. Young, cost-controlled for many years, obviously an absolute monster, would be a huge draw and would provide 45 hr power for years and years. Total stud. If the Marlins would want Profar and Olt from the Rangers, what would be the equivalent from the Sox? I'd say maybe Bogaerts, Barnes, and maybe Jacobs....something like that. I don't like the idea of trading Bogaerts away, but holy smokes, adding Stanton would be something else.

He could be. He's getting up there in age and could see rapid decline. Meanwhile, Doubront and Morales are both young and on the upswing. It's entirely possible that in 2013 or 2014 Dempster would be posting worse numbers than either of those guys. And they cost a fraction of what Dempster will.