sk7326

Or not - traded a guy who was not going to play for one who would. Middlebrooks could become an average 3B, I have not quit on him. But stardom for him is pretty much dead.

They were a dime a dozen - and Ross was familiar with this setting and a good receiver. Over the 40-50 starts he was going to get it's not a big deal. But those starts are going to Hanigan which is fine too. That they got a breathing human for Middlebrooks is impressive.

Holy straw man - it wasn't that they were rare - it was just that it was not hurting them. In any case, they solved backup catcher by trading WMB, which by definition is more than what he should have fielded. WMB was tools without baseball skills and the victim of a front office in 2012 desperate to show something good.

RF Betts 2B Pedroia DH: Ortiz LF: Ramirez 3B: Sandoval 1B: Napoli SS: Bogaerts C: Vasquez CF: Castillo Flip flopping Vasquez and Castillo makes sense of course - but I like the idea of increasing the number of RBI chances Betts has at the leadoff spot, even by a wee bit

Besides, their moves look a lot like a team looking to contend in a suddenly soft division

I think that's possible - but I think it is also possible that the team sees this as good enough, at least until the mid-season trade market opens up in earnest. There is some merit to finding out whether this team is a legitimate buyer before making the plunge on a Cueto sort. There are enough swing options between Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes in various call ups to be able to piece together 100 or so professional starts here.

Well - in baseball particularly - it is always magic when a team wins it all. And you are right, 2015 does not offer the sort of obvious upside that the 2013 roster had (our good players being healthy, our manager not being an imbecile). The upside is there, but we are asking for more than simply staying off the DL. But if you really look at the rotation in 2013 - aside from Buchholz (and he was hurt for so much), the rotation was as much about delivering an honest day's work as anything else. "Solid" starting plus a median level offense and a good bullpen can keep us in the mix. I'll also point out that as much as 2013 had some magic, 2014 had just as much anti-magic to it. It is just as unlikely that all of the players would stink at the same time.

There are questions - but there is also a lot of durability and some legitimate upside too. I am certainly not comparing this to McNally-Palmer-Cuellar or anything, don't get me wrong. But can this bunch represent a good enough rotation to get to say June, when the prices on some of the tradeable aces (Cueto, cough cough) could start to drop and the Red Sox are still armed with a lot to deal.

Oh I don't know - this rotation slots as quite good in the #2-#5 spots. #1 is not ideal but will not be 0fer against other 1s either. The offense needed to improve - as long as it does so, this rotation has potential to be fine. Cherington's moves with relievers is solid - just sign a giant truckload of them, see who makes the cut.

Depends on the price - but realistically the Nats SHOULD drive a high price. They won 98 games last year! Yes, there is the "he's in his last year" considerations, but flags fly forever, and if I'm them - if I don't have a great deal, taking a shot with a team that can win it all is never a bad idea.

One of the interesting ideas is looking at some of the projections that are actually out there ... if you look at Steamer (not all of the other projections are available on Fangraphs yet) and put the rotations as is side by side from the rotation which started the 2014 season (we will leave #5 starter out for now) ... to give an idea of the projection range, Kershaw is high at 4.8 WAR (so the data as you'd expect from forecasts is pretty smooth). (http://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&type=steamer&team=0&players=0) Last Year Lester: 3.6 Lackey: 2.5 Peavy: 1.0 Buchholz: 2.1 TOTAL: 9.2 Right This Second: Porcello: 3.1 Miley: 2.0 Buchholz: 2.1 Masterson: 2.0 TOTAL: 9.2 Obviously projections are what they are - so I'm not going to go hog wild here. But there is some decent evidence that the Red Sox have at least held steady rotation wise, but more by improving the middle-back of the rotation than the front. Now where you miss a restaurant quality #1 is in October ... but the bet that this is good enough for now (so we can fish for a stud when the deadline hits) is a reasonable one.

I suspect most teams would have serious cash flow issues doing that - or at least to a certain degree. MVP noted why don't teams offer the latter years - I think that comes down to winning the auction. Because of the recent CBA rules, we are dealing with big time seller's markets (and probably will for the foreseeable future). Teams have the cash to make the crazy offers, and the rules are limiting the ways you can spend it. At the same time, you DO see that logic hold on the "Adrian Beltre 2010" (or Justin Masterson now) sort of marriages of convenience.

I think that covers it - at the same time I do think the Royals have to be in the mix for Shields still to a certain degree. It is a lot of money, but the window of opportunity is open and you have to think differently when that is the case.

Now Amaro should not come down from his price in one sense. After all, he is offering 4 cost controlled years at what will be a bargain for at least a couple of them. But if he is intent on cashing in Hamels, he might have to acknowledge the market that is, and not the ideal one. This is not 1996 where a team gave up a good young pitcher and a plus prospect for a mediocre closer (thanks Mariners) or the Astros giving up three starters for two months of Randy Johnson. You look at how comparatively little the Sox got for Lester and the Tigers for Price, and clearly teams are smarter about this sort of thing. To the Red Sox credit, they have a rotation now which - I think - should be able to hang in for a while, so they might be able to look at Cueto during the season when the price might start to fall significantly

I think it is a given that you are paying for the early years of a contract with the hope that the later years are adequate. Long term contracts are bad on the obvious level (outrage as a working stiff blah blah blah). However on the right people they are great - because you are locking in cost certainty, and for the most part the salaries escalate annually at a much higher rate than they do in the contracts. I mean you take the aging forecasts for a player like Mike Trout, and his long term deal is likely to be a screaming bargain at the end of it. The guarantees exist entirely because of the marketplace - in game theory it's the winner's curse. You generally overpay to win an auction. The trick is trying to overpay as little as possible. Now the industry could collude to not pay as much, but we all have seen how that goes . Are the players overpaid now? Not at all.

If you played high school ball for instance, the guys who were future studs were not the dudes who crushed JV. They were the guys who were able to compete at the varsity level as 14 year olds - even if not at a spectacular (or even that good) level. Bogaerts is ahead of where Troy Tulowitzki was as a 22 year old, and most of XB's peers just got to AA. Has the shine of him as a prospect gone down? Well, since he did not have a Mike Trout year, sure it did. But his developmental track record shows evidence of the sort of work ethic and makeup to bet the house on - he has consistently figured out levels where he has been very very young for. Bradley is more questionable because he is so much older - but can simply changing his approach at the plate a little lead to some big gains at the plate? I actually think he can - although it might be with another team.

Felix to a degree, but he has also pitched demonstrably better than Shields (or Price or just about anybody else). And a lot of the evaluation comes about how much the team behind him helps. It is one of the interesting areas of debate - I get conflicted too. Shields gives up more batted balls than the other guys, and can he still hold up without a great defense behind him. I think he's a good pitcher no doubt.

Shields is definitely one of those guys for whom WAR flavor matters a lot - he has been near the equal of the guys mentioned in a lot of ways. Depending on how you look at things, you can argue he has gotten (from his park and from his teammates) the most help too. It is an interesting evaluation. I have zero issue with giving him 5/110. On a staff like this he gives them a lot of certainty. There won't be an ace in the "conquering hero" sense, but a rotation full of starters who can win the day.

Sure it can. Shields has spent his entire career playing in ideal run prevention environments. He has played for teams whose homes were pitchers parks, and who were elite defensive lineups. His peripherals are not in the Darvish/Felix/Price realm by any stretch. Now he does compare favorably with 2011-2013 Lester - but that Lester does not compare with the guys I mentioned either. (2014 was the best Lester season since 2009) It's also why I have been comfortable calling Lester (pre 2014) as a fringy #1 starter and excellent #2 (which is not a dig at all, still very much worth the contract he got). Can Shields remain durable for 5 more years - sure. Can he still have the sexy numbers moving into less pitching friendly environs for the first time? I doubt it - but for him to be valuable he probably doesn't have to.

Gallardo. Now I think the Brewers can get more.

Agree - I would say a BAD performance in the AFL would say more than a good one. The former says you can't hack it.

Not that much - the Yankees were a negative run differential team in 2013 too ... and made a bunch of moves which improved them on paper, but quite little for the money when the Cano stuff was factored in. I am not denying the Red Sox struggles - I am talking about relative upsides. The Red Sox have a wider range of outcomes, but a far higher ceiling.

I don't know how much expansion changed that really. Even the most monstrous mismatch in baseball is a 60-40 proposition. (after all, the range of best-worst in baseball is generally equal to a 6 to 9 win team in football) And with the rotating of starters, even the worst team in baseball can put the best team on the field occasionally. Put simply, the "best team" in a classic sense doesn't win - often. It's just how baseball is designed compared to football (where it is rare) and the NBA (where it is even rarer).

It is the funniest thing about baseball - the things that can get you through a monthlong tournament are much different than what gets you through the regular season marathon. It's why seasons like the 2013 Sox (and to be fair, all three of our title sides) are remarkable.

Castillo is largely an unknown set of tools - his AFL tour proved little (all it could have proved is that he is way over his head). Ramirez' reputation spawns from stuff many years old. He was terrific for the Dodgers. He asked to move off of SS this time around because he wants to preserve his body (when in the past others asked him to leave because he was bad at it), so I don't expect him to balk at the arrangement. He came back to the Sox due to previous relationships in part - so this should be ok. There are some ifs - the natural aging curve as well as whether playing LF indeed allows him to 1) improve his defensive value which is negative as a SS, and 2) the less demanding position helps him physically. I am positive on the ifs given that he is a good athlete who has a good approach at the plate.