sk7326

Congrats - I have a 2 year old. Coolest feeling in the world. Hang in there with the newborn. Somewhere a comedian noted "the newborn thing is rough - and just when you are ready to throw your hands up in the air, she smiles back at you. And then you're hooked."

That they were willing to get to six years makes this a serious offer. One expects it can be bargained up - but the fact that they were willing to get to 6 years is at least an acknowledgment of the reality of his market.

IIRC the Phils offered a higher AAV than the Yanks. More frontloaded. To me something with 5 years and a vesting 6th (something based on a fair innings target) and a team 7th could make sense (a longer version of the Ortiz deal). Ultimately it is Lester's call (duh) assuming the offer is competitive. From most indications Boston can win if the offers are all reasonably close.

From the stories I read, it seems "sources" indicated that Lester was not going to end the search early either way. A lot of teams are being mentioned - but I figure it will still come down to Sox v Cubs.

I dunno. You don't think Lester's people are canvassing everybody at the same time? I don't think that an offer in person (not in writing one figures) precludes that. Put simply, I don't think that Lester went from 0 offers to 1. The numbers have been floating around for a while. All we can conclude now is that the Sox offer was not crazy high.

Frankly it's not really their call. Unless they offered Lester 6/170 or something, any offer was going to be facing competition. He's a grown man with a lot of people wanting to offer him a gig.

I am not sure Hamels would cost all of them. The scouting story indicates due diligence across the board. I'd hope the Sox did not look at it as a 3 for 1 (or at least THAT 3 for 1).

All guys who could be on a Hamels list. Not all of them clearly, but perhaps one. As for the latter question, my guess is take a plunge on a Geo Soto and then wait for Swihart (hopefully).

I think the question of rash promotion has to come down to the kid (and the org who understands their kids - hopefully). Bradley had more to learn at AAA - just cleaning approach, not trying to take and rake - but so much of what Boston did on that front felt like GMing by sports radio caller. What Bogaerts needed to learn (and Betts inevitably will have to as well) is only stuff that big league pitching can teach by fire. Yes there is defense for both to work on, but the Red Sox' best defensive coaching (as is the case with many teams) is with the big club.

5/90 for Sandoval is not amazing but pretty reasonable - the "win the auction" premium is not actually that bad.

Fenway helped him - although the doubles is where the extra boost comes from normally (and singles since yes, he is slow). The thing that changed between AGon's San Diego and Boston incarnations was that his walk rate plummeted. I think the notion was that he was some sort of power and patience god (like a supercharged Mike Napoli) when a lot of the statistical "patience" came from being the only guy of consequence is a low output lineup. Clearly the shoulder injury had some lasting effect also - the on base and power numbers have never really recovered (basically he an above average first baseman now, not an elite one).

I am not wild about Sandoval either - although as Dave Cameron noted, it is an interesting question ... his age indicates one thing about his future value while his body portends the opposite.

Heyward deal is fascinating. He has been simultaneously a disappointment and a very valuable player in spite of the disappointing parts. If you track what has happened in Atlanta, there is some solid evidence that there are some serious holes in their big league hitting instruction. Players have, save for a couple of exceptions, gotten worse at hitting after getting to the big club. Heyward has had some injury issues, but the approach is still sound. It might be a simple adjustment to fix him. For the Cards it made a lot of sense. With Taveras' tragedy it left a hole in RF - at worst Heyward is a good on-base guy who might play the position better than anybody alive. Given his age and the coaching questions, he might be a huge candidate to realize the promise with the stick. With only one year of control it is a high risk play for the Cards, but they are definitely in a mode where that makes sense. Braves got a real good haul considering.

If you look at the five more deeply (adding Vasquez) and sort them by ascending "right to be excited" level. 5. Middlebrooks - the only true "bust". The lack of patience is something you can work with, but the defense never got better and he never figured out how to cover the plate a bit better. He is also not young anymore. (more like the young side of prime) A .310 OBP would have played with a good glove and frequent light tower shots, but the latter has not materialized. And there is the injury history to boot. Him declining to do the AFL really bothered me. 4. Bradley - the question of his hit tool is too big to ignore. That said, unlike Middlebrooks, he already does something at a true big league all-star level. I still think there is a good chance he can hit enough for his glove to play. It probably won't be in Boston though. In either case, a glove like that means he will play big league baseball for a living in some capacity for a while. 3. Vasquez - if you were grading strictly on "probability" he is #1. This is a tool set that can fit on any major league roster if he did not improve one iota. The upside is limited with his bat, but there is still more and the offensive level he needs to rise up to "above average" is not that far away. 2. Bogaerts - You can't unsee July and August. But he showed considerable promise in a lot of other areas. He needs reps at short, and it helps that Boston's best fielding instructor is at the major league club (Butterfield). He has always been young for the level of baseball he was in, and he always caught up. Last season was tough, but it did not dim his star to me much. 1. Betts - Everything that is true about Bogaerts with regards to youth and figuring stuff out applies here too. He has shown more success at the big league level (in a shorter tour granted), and the athleticism and potential at premium positions puts him at #1. Are there questions to be asked about development with these guys? Sure. But to me, the bigger issue has been the organization being very rash with the prospects. The decisions between "call him up now" and "gosh we need a veteran presence" seem to be made with too little time and too quickly. While I defended the Drew signing due to the horror show that was 3B, one can't help but notice management being very itchy that Bogaerts was not Alan Trammell 2.0 this very second. You saw the same thing with the management rushing to get Bradley on the opening day lineup over a handful of spring at-bats and then anointing Grady Sizemore's disheveled corpse over Bradley using the same amount of evidence. A similar rush job occurred with Middlebrooks in 2012, almost like the management wanted to pounce on any remotely positive story in such a dreadful season. Contrast this with how Epstein and Francona worked in new guys and kids. You have to be willing to stand by your scouts and the players they are vouching for. There were few players who looked as unready for any sort of professional baseball gig as Pedroia did in 2006. But they stood by him as he worked things out. Even then, they used Alex Cora to provide some veteran help and whatnot - but that is a far cry from tying to usurp the kid.

I dunno - teams have very large pro scouting operations who spend their lives scouting other organizations and whatnot. This is not monetarily driven (hell, it's the small teams competitive advantage when done right) If you look at the Sox 4 position prospect graduation in the last few years - it's 2 for 4 or thereabouts which is more or less what you'd expect.

What is interesting is that the sort of prospect inventory Boston has is more about solid quantity than necessarily projected superstars. (although yes Margot, the kids in the big club, Swihart - all can be dreamt on). For teams like Boston or New York, solid prospect depth + the ability to take on money has been a powerful equation to get deals done. In this "makin it rain" era of baseball prosperity I wonder how much that edge still really matters. Obviously some teams are smaller revenue than others, but nowadays every team can afford to keep one or two of its home grown studs (and in cases like the Pirates and Reds, they have done so). Does the ability to push around piles of chips matter as much now?

You can always find contrary scouts ... on one hand Owens' velocity is not a turn on, but his delivery and changeup are. But you do point to larger problem for the Sox when lining up prospect deals. They have a lot of pitching inventory - but most of it is good strong deal filler. There is not a lot of staff anchor projection in the guys, stuff to build a deal around. Outfield does represent an area of strength because of cost control - Cespedes, Castillo (sure why not), Craig, all have solid value contracts (the latter makes some health assumptions of course). I don't think this makes them an anchor around a huge deal, but still very useful.

Headley's defense + walk rates allows him to stay useful even if his power numbers are things we'll never see again. Holt I'd actually also see as an interesting sell-high opportunity. What to do with Betts is the darndest of the questions of the offseason. If the team wants to be creative, he is the best candidate for a super-utlity role where he gets his 600 PAs across 5 or 6 positions.

Strasburg for Betts (and let's say Betts and stuff), with two years of control on Strasburg makes sense. That doesn't mean it is a go but that is the sort of deal you trade premium prospects for. I don't think the front office has any absolutes with guys on the touch/don't touch. (or more accurately I don't think Cherington does, but his superiors might) Hamels a little less so - he has more control but less peak too. The Red Sox do have the ability to take on money - and there is some value to that in and of itself. As UN pointed out, cases have to be made individually. Price was sold for a handful of magic beans - and you can only surmise that there was downward pressure to deal him. Considering Friedman and Maddon's departures, it would not be a surprise that ownership had a lot of say in the move. With Lester, the return was fairly good - 2 years of starting level outfielder for 2 months of Lester when you consider the Price return. Also, with the new rules around compensation of traded guys, it suddenly made renting Lester easier (since reacquiring does not have a pick cost). I think you have to consider Betts, Pedroia and Bogaerts as your every day guys and the other 5 positions are very much negotiable. Napoli and Cespedes are the most attractive guys to deal off the major league squad if you are trying to put together a deal for something you need. (aside from the kiddos)

I don't know - I do think it would take more than Betts, but that says more about what it takes to get quality, controllable pitching than anything.

Could be a Prado or a Zobrist. The tweener indicates he can't play a position when it has been more that his athletic ability has profiled in a few places and the trick is to figure out what makes the most sense. (or combination of positions therein)

If Betts can get a premium asset, you have to think about it. But he and Bogaerts are pretty premium assets. The latter was probably overrated entering last season based on looking like he belonged in his October tour - and is decidedly underrated now. (not by the industry, but by the Nationdom)

His 52 game sample was the culmination of his Age 21 season. Most of his buddies haven't left SINGLE A. Guys who have demonstrated this stuff at his age are the sort of guys you make org bets on and don't look back.

Cespedes has the best combination of contract and risk to deal - he can fetch a good return. (well, Betts is the best, but that's a non-starter) Craig's contract is attractive but he was so bad last year that it would be hard to get a decent return for him. Castillo COULD get something interesting in return (because if somebody really believes he is an average or above CF overall his contract is extremely reasonable) but I don't the Red Sox acquired him to flip. I expect Bradley to be gone - he's a tremendous buy-low opportunity for a smart franchise and is crowded out. While I don't precisely expect Cespedes to be gone, the math of the outfielders might squeeze him out (unless there is a good pitcher deal which involves moving Napoli, which would relieve most of the logjam).

The Red Sox have been stacked with them ... Varitek, Salty, Rich Gedman, Scott Hatteberg Others: Ron Hassey, Mickey Tettleton, Jorge Posada, Darrell Porter ...