sk7326

Rob Bradford said absolutely not ... other reporters agreeing, that the Cubs are going to be on the podium, but they absolutely have not won the bidding yet. That said, a report like this might indicate that the show is wrapping up soon.

Their best fielding coach is in Boston already ... the 350 or so PAs that XB did not get at SS did not help. Key will be Farrell (and the org) having conviction with evaluations. Bogaerts' case history is positive for him figuring much of this stuff out.

What I am sure of is - the trade had zero to do with Lester's opinion of the Sox one way or the other. He was not blindsided and he went to a contender. Earlier offers may have soured him, but not the trade.

Oh I think the Red Sox are in play ... they offered 6 years, that is a credible offer. The money part of it can be fixed, but the commitment to the years is what keeps them in contention. The Red Sox obviously did not lock him up with the offer they made earlier in the year - the question is how much value does incumbency really have with an elite free agent? I don't know - but I am not sure it's all that much.

He has the freedom to look at anybody who offers him a job. Just like you or I do (granted a shade more leverage). Ultimately it is a personal/family decision - won't begrudge him either way. Loyalty is the sort of standard we apply to players and not to ourselves in this area.

Add Samardzja and you probably have most of the shopping list.

A kid who did not have a good year at AA for Baltimore - or at least a "Cecchini at AAA" sort of season which could have soured internal opinion of him in Baltimore. You look at who Rodriguez was, a toolsy raw pitcher - and Duquette's team probably saw enough rawness to think that his probability is not good. Baltimore also was chasing a big prize - so they were willing to overpay some anyway. (the way you'd expect Boston to if there was a chance to win a title) Sox were the beneficiaries. Just some differing incentives at work.

Certainly true. But when you look at his developmental history and makeup, he has shown an ability to make those adjustments. (compared to say Middlebrooks who got by on athletic ability) I do think the Drew thing muddled up the adjustment period. (and the Sox dithering generally) Obviously the adjustment is on him - so I am not just saying it will magically happen. But his past work at lower levels gives a lot of reason to stick it out, especially given how young he is for the level.

Currency. Just like Cecchini. He undoubtedly can play SS for SOMEBODY, and perhaps even well (the glove is clearly good - not Iglesias good, but good). Brandon Crawford makes a nice living. I think this is the sort of evaluation you are making internally all the time as a franchise. Which prospects are our future guys and which ones are trade pieces. Obviously the venn diagrams intersect some but for teams like the Sox and Yankees who yes "should" be putting together a contender every year - sitting on the prospect haul a la some college football team flat doesn't make sense. Right now to me Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart represent future core - there is no such thing as untouchable, but you definitely need premium, controllable big league value coming back. Owens, Rodriguez, Margot are a half step down. The former two because they are pitchers (and there is always a wee bit extra risk with pitchers generally) and the latter because he is not at AA yet. (remarkable ceiling but still quite a bit of variance in his ultimate fate) Then you start getting into your Cecchini, Bradley, Merrero, the rest of the Ranaudo, Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes level. There are starters here, but probably not elite ones - and the industry is in relatively sharp disagreement over what the best of this crop actually is. You are dealing either with high upside/low probability (De La Rosa, Bradley at this point) or low to modest upside with high probability (Vasquez, Merrero). This is where the trade stuff comes from ideally - because other teams have favorites from this list. Then I think you also have the guys like Devers, Chavis, Ball, Sam Travis. High ceiling again, but low probability just by virtue of how far away they are from the show right now. These are the ones I agonize about because I like them and if you trade to fill a current need, they are ones likely to make developmental leaps which put egg on your face.

Two years younger, two levels of baseball ahead ...

Not sure - I tend to prefer fWAR for pitchers. Based on FIP, not runs allowed. Focuses more on what the pitcher controls.

The .210/.260/.285 in his Pawtucket ABs much closer to his career than the 58 ABs against pitchers who generally are dead tired from a season of work. Interesting on base skills but a LOT of empty calories at the plate. I think the industry view of the pitchers is not as rosy as ours. Opposite is true of Bogaerts in particular. I think WMB was much much more highly rated by Sox nation than the industry. (not that young anymore, legit questions about his actual baseball skills)

You do not have to sell me on Nava - I was thinking about the contract relative to others. If you just grade the outfielders (not Betts or Ramirez) on the market value of the contracts, you'd get: 1. Cespedes 2. Nava 3. Castillo 4. Bradley 5. Victorino 6. Craig I am not choosing Victorino and Craig over Nava, but I am trying to be realistic about how things will probably shake out if the Sox are going to deal from their surplus. Craig and Victorino have the hardest contracts to move (without giving them away) and both have some upside.

I'll do one better - the 13 position players (14 if you carry 11 pitchers, Sox probably will carry 12 at least early) C: Vasquez 1B: Napoli 2B: Pedroia SS: Bogaerts 3B: Sandoval LF: Ramirez CF: Betts RF: Castillo DH: Ortiz C: Somebody IF: Holt OF1: Victorino OF2: Craig I just figure Cespedes and Nava have the right contracts to move. Middlebrooks will be sold for a bag of baseballs. Cecchini is a prime candidate for trade filler, I do think last year he moved from "prospects for us" to "currency" anyway. Also figure Vasquez and Castillo could be had in a more "premium level" deal.

Nationals were the best team in the NL this past year. Cards were quite good last year. Kershaw's postseason issues (and Mattingly's poor tactical managing and the Dodgers forgetting to staff a bullpen) were bigger issues. I have issues with the Red Sox postseason thus far - signing two premium free agents, one the best position player, one the safest future investment ... is not one of them

This makes sense in theory - if we were the only franchise out there. After all, there is only a finite amount of time with a finite amount of resources. This is not college where you redshirt Bradley, especially when there are other teams which would give him a starting gig. That is a poor use of resources. I think we had a version of this discussion with the catcher business. It is nice to want to have double redundancy depth at every position and big league ready prospects waiting for a job position which may or may not actually be opened. Prospects are future regulars - but they are also currency. If you don't see Bradley cracking the rotation in the next year and change (and I don't) ... then his value shifts to currency. Can he be part of a trade to get a regular we do need? Absolutely - although he will not fetch the same fortune he did before (hitting like a pitcher will do that).

Maybe - at the same time the Sox probably could have assembled something similarly worthwhile. Maybe not quite the ceiling of Lawrie but at least as much probability.

I have absolutely no doubt the Dodgers thought their best position player of the last 2 years was a loser. This is not quite the same as a bloated FA shopping spree while letting your best player leave for nothing.

Josh Donaldson apparently

OF course, if we knew Josh Donaldson could be had for such little prospect heft ... sigh

Kyle Weiland principally The Red Sox absolutely should field a contender every year - that is absolutely true. Now, I'd submit that between 2013 and 2014 they made moves which would have led to being a likely contender. It did not happen, but I cannot point to anything that took place during that time which would have been foreseen as an absolute recipe for a 30 game dropoff. Between 2011 and 2012 they did some things which actively hurt the team (and you could see it at the time - the manager change in particular). But still a lot of crap just went wrong to get to the 2012 result. That could be seen by how much changed in 2013 just by the virtue of the s***** luck factors being reversed. Right now the 2015 team is a solid bounceback candidate. Unlike 2013, there is more work to do from the GM seat and a wider range of outcomes. I am curious as to how it will turn out.

(it was tied for the worst collapse of that season if you want to get technical) Listen, you can have good moves with bad results, bad moves with good results, good moves with good results and bad moves with bad results. The latter earns firings. Now from your original phrasing - there are no good moves that for one reason or another just don't work. I guess that is an impasse.

2012 was a failure of the baseball operations people. 2014 was much more a failing of the players and manager themselves. Two very different diagnoses. And a 90-72 season (2011) is many things, but a "miserable failure" is not one of them. It's almost as absurd as saying Terry Francona became a stupid person in 2011 after getting 89 wins with smoke and mirrors and Darnell McDonald starting games for a major league baseball team the very season before (and magically becoming smart again in 2013 and 2014) ... oh wait

Well ... If we assume Vasquez, Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Sandoval, Ramirez, Betts, Castillo get your 8 starting positions. (and yes, I work off the assumption Ramirez is cool with this, just because enough reports seem to indicate this was his idea) That leaves either 5 or 6 positions depending on whether they carry 11 or 12 pitchers. I'll say 12 pitchers - however insane I think that is in 2015, it is the likely composition. So, who are the 5. Well, one of them will be a catcher of some stripe. So, that takes us down to four. Now who? Well, Holt gets a spot ... since that allows us to only carry one additional infielder. I think Victorino, Nava and Craig are the remaining three. How the PAs split - some sort of combination of competition and matchup. Now what is fascinating is that I absolutely could see any of these three or even Bradley (as unlikely as that seems) screwing the order up. I am only dismissing Cespedes because everything about him screams trade bait.

I think CF and RF get flip flopped, only because of throwing arm considerations. (neither are great, Castillo's is probably better) I do agree there are 300-400 PAs for Nava in this alignment.