sk7326

Because LF is an easy position - players hit fly balls to shortstops allegedly, and guys have gone from the middle infield to the outfield before (Yount, Biggio, Chipper Jones a few). He also played a little CF many years ago at AAA when the Sox were trying to figure out how to unblock him. He was remarkably bad in LF - and combine that with his poor offense, you can't make a Ryan Klesko-esque case for him.

I noted 21-4 gets to 85 wins ... (21-3 now) ... which is on the "stranger things have happened" level. I certainly wouldn't bet anything important on it.

Oh I actually think someone would take Castillo now - there is clearly a solid player there, and if you think this is a legit guy his salary is really modest for that production. But no, not as a centerpiece for a 26 year old ace sort.

I would consider it - because you're trading young talent for young talent. Getting a young star is why you touch untouchable players. I'd look at Sale first though - but you collect the chips for a reason, and the Sox are loaded up the middle.

Another thing ... and I'm not saying to even put it on the radar, because clearly the odds are basically nil ... BUT 16-9 gets the Sox to .500 20-5 gets the Sox to 85 wins stranger things have happened. But whatever - sit back and enjoy that they are a fun team to watch finally.

This is mostly right. What is possible - not likely but possible - is that if the Red Sox offer the Mets a place to send Michael Cuddyer's contract, that it could help reduce the package a little bit.

Absolutely - and the funny thing is, if you wanted them to tank what would they be doing? Rolling out kid heavy lineups, right? Go figger.

It will be a blip - the issue has always been about form.

I voted no, but it is complicated. Sox have the 10th worst record right now - and 10/11 is the difference between surrending a 1st to sign someone big and not doing so. It would be beneficial to not pass the Orioles. At the same time, if you tanked, how would you do it and not burn options needlessly? You'd do it by playing Jackie Bradley all the time, and by playing Travis Shaw at 1B. You'd run Henry Owens and Matt Barnes out there from time to time. The problem is that the kids the Sox have turned to are not awful ... Go figure, Ben could not assemble a group of young players who could lose frequently enough. So he stunk at tanking too.

Football is an easier commitment. I remember on the old Sports Huddle (for the wayback machine) Mark Witkin comparing baseball to marriage and football to an affair - the best description of the two fandoms I can think of. I will say the Red Sox being bad seriously harms my ability to manage my rotoball team - because I have trouble digging into the other 29 teams when the Red Sox fall out.

Here is the funny thing - they were among the league's best in 2013 and 2014. And Bogaerts was the CLEAR weak link in the 2014 alignment. And that has improved signficantly. Really, their defensive uh-ness is driven by exactly two positions. Fixing it is not difficult.

The Royals starters are not good - but they have an excellent bullpen and their defense provides a lot of help. Interestingly, the same is true of the Giants largely. (Bumgarner the obvious exception) Both also are built for giant run-sucking ballparks. So the Red Sox formula should be more offense-centric, just plays to the natural assets. The bullpen is also interesting in that it points to - I noted this elsewhere - a measure of risk taking in acquisition that the Red Sox could benefit from. I do think on the pitching side, the Red Sox have a bit of the same quandry Beane and Ricciardi (in TOR) ran into - if you keep taking college guys because of lower risk, you are punting on the kids who are far more likely to become stars (and far more likely to go boom - if you are not drafting high, you have to live with that).

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.

Or if you simply like it when our team outscores theirs - and the players are fun. I wish there was a banner behind it, but whatever at this point. Beats the 2012 tankapalooza.

Of course it is fair. I think a lot of it has to do with the draft. The draft is not a crapshoot - Price went #2, Kershaw went #7, Grienke went #6, Strasburg went #1, Beckett went #2. Hell, Andrew Miller went #2. Premium arms don't show up often and get gobbled up. The Red Sox have clearly tended towards lower risk strategies with earlier picks - position players up the middle (in other words, high caliber athletes) and college arms (who have a solid amount of probability). Prep arms are historically very risky, but alas it is also where you are going to find the star material. I think the risk aversion in the draft is fair game. Now it has allowed the Red Sox to have a remarkable stockpile of middle of the field talent - which is nearly as hard to amass as pitching. Cubs operated more or less the same way - their stockpile is in position talent ... I think just because of the shortage of arms. Their big coup was straightening out Jake Arrieta, along with landing a quality #2 like Lester clearly. What the Red Sox have done wrong with pitching imo has been not to be as aggressive converting starters at the farm level (which is really the best way to find bullpen talent). It was clear as day that Webster was really a potential bullpen weapon but too much time was spent thinking he could be a quality starter. Ranaudo and Barnes as starters are a little different - less wipeout stuff. Barnes will be a perfect fine starter for somebody - not amazing, but a capable workhorse sort. The development has been ok, but I do think there is question on the ceiling they have gotten in on that.

1. This year Bogaerts has been better by measurables than Jeter was in virtually any of his seasons defensively. Jeter's main contribution (which was considerable) was offensive, full stop. Now it is true that teams are smarter now about positioning fielders, but the Royals are the league's best team at that too. 2. Your logic here basically is blaming Bogaerts for A) not being Ozzie Smith out there and having a crappy 3B next to him, neither which is remotely fair to evaluating him. Now if we moved him to 3B and signed 1985 Ozzie Smith, the defense would be unbelievable - well duh. It would be a deeply suboptimal use of limited lineup spots, especially if the shortstop can't hit enough to justify it. Basically, Bogaerts has been the best SS in the American League, by a considerable margin - but somehow you are blaming him for his third baseman (in 2015) being among the worst.

easy there - taxes still a major issue

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

I think they might add seventy pitchers given the fan outcry ... but adding one plus some natural regression from Porcello and what you'd expect a 22 year old with 100 big league innings to do as a 23 year old ... investing in one might help the other stuff fall into place. I don't disagree that two would help more. But of course looking at the pitching strictly in terms of starting is also pretty simplistic. A starters ERA of 4.00 does not mean the pitching staff is necessarily bad (2007 would be a strong datapoint there).

I wasn't defending him - but noting that if somebody had won one title in four years, and left the cupboard frankly sort of bursting - it would look like an amazing tenure. The last place finishes put a damper on it, and make his ouster reasonable. The same way that, say someone with a 3.41 ERA and an 8-13 record looks like he's been a meh starter when he's been one of the best in the league.

now that is entitlement

I would think a ___, Buccholz, Porcello, Rodriguez, Miley or Kelly are your 5. There is more reason to believe in Miley's certainty than Kelly - but more reasons to hope on Kelly. It will be interesting how it gets navigated.

It's more the contract. I have a feeling the hamstring would have cured itself faster if circumstances required it.

They won 89 games in 2010 and were alive until the final week ... despite the crazy amount of injuries. That was a season which should have gone in the toilet. Tito did a remarkable job with that team. This team's run has been marked by some stunning comebacks (2013 the exception). 2004 is obvious, but 2007 was almost as good (the wins were more lopsided, but coming from 3-1 down with Game 5 on the road against the clear 2nd best team in the league). 2008 for me was the forgotten almost one - they were in some ways more comatose than they were in 2004, given how far behind they were in Game 5.

Swihart is going to be a monster. I totally respect the Vasquez camp, and it's a good problem to have. But it's funny what simple reps can do.