sk7326

Headley is interesting, good on-base skills although the 30 HR season he had in San Diego looks like an outlier. That said, given where the Rangers are - there is actually some reason to knock on their door and see what it would take to land the actual Adrian Beltre. He is not a young man - but still pretty good and only 1 or 2 years left. Headley will be 31 by May of next season. Sandoval does not turn 29 until next August. I think that age difference (and the implied possibility that the younger guy still has some improvement left) is one of the drivers of the market difference. The three third base contestants do sort of line up neatly: Ramirez: Pro: Best bat Con: Most expensive, riskiest glove Sandoval: Pro: Good bat - age Con: Expensive, ok glove Headley: Pro: Best glove, cheapest, Con: Worst bat

I don't love it. That said, he is 28 and will not be 29 until late next season. He is young by free agent standards, and you have a chance to get some improvement out of him (even if it just from a little better conditioning). He is no Manny Machado at 3B, but generally good. (below average range, sure handed with the stuff he can reach) He makes a lot of contact, and given the offensive trends of the last couple of years - that might carry a bit more weight than it used to. 3B is very thin across the league. Personally, I like Hanley better among the 3B free agents in isolation (he's the best position player in this class by a solid margin), but Sandoval is probably a better bet to carry his value through a 5-6 year deal.

2012: 141 games of Pedroia, 90 games of Ortiz, 74 games of Ellsbury, 0 starts of Lackey 2013: 160 games of Pedroia, 137 or Ortiz, 134 of Ellsbury, 29 starts of Lackey Their three best offensive players and their 2nd best starter missed a metric ton of action - it was a personnel problem. When you are dreaming of Pedro Ciriaco, it's a personnel problem.

Key - if Hanley Ramirez is committed to playing 3B, he becomes every bit as interesting as Sandoval. i think he's the better player then due to on-base skills but Sandoval's age (28) has to be considered too.

Lester and Scherzer #1 and #2 in some order clearly. HanRam is the best position player in this class by a good margin - although if he insists on playing shortstop that could knock him below Sandoval in my eyes. VMart is too high in the OP rankings here with his inability to play a position.

It was a cold move by the Cubs but a sensible one. By accounts Renteria did a nice job getting some of the players to take themselves more seriously. Maddon fits with what the org wants to do, good tactically, good with the media. Right there with Showalter and Francona for best working skippers. Still need the horses to win the title - and this being baseball, often that is not enough either. (a 4 week tournament against playing everyday for 6 months) Cubs need to fill out their rotation, they are oozing high level bats. What is interesting is they are building the team opposite of what a lot of other rebuilders have been doing - instead of home grown arms and go into the market for bats, they are doing the oppoosite. Theo is also doing what he did in Boston, building up a LOT of shortstop inventory (since usually that's where your best amateur athletes have played) and figuring it out later.

A couple of the worst (indeed, the only two seasons under this regime where the Red Sox were fewer than 10 games ABOVE .500) and all of the best ... And one of those bad seasons was driven by injuries which would correct itself the next season to great effect. The regime is not perfect, and it hasn't been all positive. It has also been 13 seasons with 3 championships, 7 playoff berths and only 3 seasons where the summah was ruined before the last two weeks of September. Only the Yanks have had as many consistent bites at the apple, and only the Giants have actually won it as often. (and the Cardinals in the middle) Heck, this regime even caught a couple of post-peak but still great Pedro years (if you want the transcendent individual). I have issues with management and I think they pay attention to TV ratings and talk radio too much ... but as Bob Ryan put it once, this era is the "good old days" I'll be ranting about to my daughter when she is a teenager and starting to hate me a decade or so from now.

Nobody is perfect, but the vast majority of the ways you can fill "The best ________________ the Red Sox ever had" involve things which occurred since this ownership bought the team. Tulo's injury history is so rich that it infects his claim to "10 best players on earth". I know we disagree on Bogaerts (or more generally disagree on what a 21 year old's accomplishment says about the next ten), so no reason to rehash that. The need for any sort of 3B and quality starting pitching certainly trumps both. My earlier point on Lester is not to say he is not a #1 pitcher (clearly he is from recent accomplishment) but that the Red Sox were the wire to wire best team in baseball in 2013 on the strength of a balanced rotation and lineup which never gave teams a break - there were no sure outs and there was no starter who was a walkover (even Dempster). The holes in both are significant - but fixable when you have the money the Sox have and the inventory. The team is an interesting bounceback candidate - but it is not turnkey obviously.

They missed on the good chance to climb all over Stanton. Like the Pirates did with McCutchen ... the time to pounce is early, give him more money than the rookie scale would have, and try to buy out his arb raises and (maybe) a year of FA. It will be hard to keep him. Dodgers far and away the most likely match though. One of the quirks about the Marlins is that while the ownership is one of the worst in the game and the management at the (Owner-Survivor Contestant) level is shaky, the baseball operations guys have largely been pretty good. It is a horrible market - so extending Stanton on its own is difficult. To use econ jargon, the marginal value of a win there is really low (comparatively in Boston it is excellent). Historically in these sorts of dumps, the Marlins have wanted power arms. This is the organization that grew Brad Penny, Josh Beckett, AJ Burnett, Anibal Sanchez (of course, they got him for Josh Beckett - but describes the sort they target in trade), Jose Fernandez. The Red Sox have Cuban guys who can help the Miami marketing sure - but the system, while deep with pitching, does not seem to have the fireballer sorts that the Marlins have long chased.

2008-2010 he absolutely was. 2011-2013 he was a distinct step down from that (although 2013 was more one rotten month). 2014 was his best work since 2009. I tend not to go with top 20% only because in general the gap between 1% and 10% is larger than 10% to 20% - just how bell curves and such go. The key question when looking to acquire him is whether he can be his 2011-12 version four years from now. To me that's a safe bet, and for the next 2 or 3 years we'll get something superior to that. His worst case to me is current day John Lackey - durable, compete his arse off and will give you 30 honest starts. To me in this day and age, durability is a big key (granted I am also advocating an upside play on Brett Anderson, but there you go). The teams that have won titles generally have not had much upheaval in their rotation. They did not always have super elite #1s, but they at least 3 or 4 guys who could stare down a lineup and turn it over a couple of times. Take some of those guys with high quality defense and the run prevention is pretty darn good. It's what got Kansas City to within a game of the title, transcending Ned Yost's staggeringly bad tactics.

The Red Sox won the 2013 title without a classic #1. Lester played up to it in spots (as did Lackey) but their numbers were more good #2 than your King Felix/Kershaw rare air. (Lester had a remarkable bounce back this season to that sort of air) What you do need is to keep putting guys out there who give you a chance. Red Sox lineup needs fewer automatic outs ... in 2013 there were basically zero when you got to the end of the season. Sandoval or Ramirez can address that, and that is important. It's not an either-or thing here. I think they are in on Lester, but given his draft compensation status, so will a lot of other teams.

Fair concern and the price has to be right. Personally, I believe relievers are wholly fungible, so if Romo doesn't work - cut your ties. The bullpen will reveal itself if you just collect arms.

My shopping list: 1. Lester (another Lester-like starter would have to be acquired via trade if you want more than 1 - I'd like a trade better than James Shields) 2. Sandoval or Hanley 3. Brett Anderson (value play for a #4 starter) 4. Geovany Soto (if you want to do a real jobshare with Vasquez) 5. Brandon Morrow as a relief conversion option, Sergio Romo as a another (Andrew Miller is better than both but his valuation could spiral out of control) Cueto as the prime trade target ... as noted above I see Workman and Webster prime candidates to move to the pen

I'd prefer Hanley for the price. At the same time, the injury history is less problematic and while Sandoval does not walk much, his high contact rate covers for some of it. Defensively (from most accounts) shaky range but good hands ... if he can reach it, he will not make mistakes.

Lester is the clear toughest get because of the lack of draft pick deterrent. Scherzer clearly will be higher on some boards too - although Lester seems to have better stuff to work through a decline phase. Either way, for me - Lester's durability is enough to be willing to ride out some decline. What is interesting is what to do with the rest of the rotation - Brett Anderson is a fascinating upside play. The health is what it is, but the stuff has not gone away. A flyer on him as a #4 guy you could so a lot worse. Any sort of 3B is tempting if you don't think Cecchini is ready. Obviously Ramirez and Sandoval have qualifying offers - personally Ramirez would make more sense - better on base skills granted some risk moving to a position he has not played. Relief I worry less about - some of that can be addressed by ending the flirations with Workman and Webster as starters, the latter particularly has knockout stuff which probably could play up in a relief role. Miller's return would be nice, but any sort of 4 year commitment to a reliever makes me puke in my mouth a little. It'd be nice if they could convince one of those guys like Branden Morrow to try their thing in the bullpen (Justin Masterson too, although he will get a look as a starter) - dynamite stuff, but has not been able to turn over lineups consistently. Cespdes is a guy to listen to calls on, Napoli is another ... not because we "should get rid of them" but because you trade value for value and if Allen Craig is going to play (and be healthy) it's going to be as a 1B. Even without it, you can figure something out there. Of the guys we auditioned in September only Barnes and De La Rosa looks like somebody who could seriously stick in the rotation significantly.

It is a datapoint. But it is evidence of what folks observe in college, high school, minor league baseball. Players who are competitive (not great, just competitive) at very young ages are excellent bets to have good careers, and also where your extra-special careers come from. I wish Bogaerts were more like a 4-win player than a "somewhat above replacement level" - that would make the projection much much more confident. But he was a competitive big leaguer - better than 2006 Pedroia, better than 2012 Iglesias. When you are his age and able to belong in the big leagues in any reasonable capacity, that is a VERY strong harbinger for a long career playing baseball for a living, with good odds of being a hell of a lot more. For Fred, the 2013 Cardinals made the world series with .330/.402/.463 with RISP. This year, with very similar human beings it was .254/.336/.365. Did those players become dumb or stupid, or have what happened to those dudes in the beginning of "Space Jam"?

It won't - there are questions about playing SS ... but that has existed throughout. He is ahead of Troy Tulowitzki on the career path. He had 4 good months around 2 horrific months. Hitting with base runners on is not a skill (hitting is a skill). Betts has moved ahead of him in terms of superstar projection, but that says more about Betts than it does about Bogaerts. The kid conquered every level after some adjustment - this year's adjustment was delayed by the Red Sox management. That sort of thing happens - keeping him at AA would have taught him nothing. AAA might have helped a bit but his approach held up in October baseball, so the hypothesis of him being in Fenway was sound. I think the industry thinking from what I've read has more to do with how the Red Sox handled him than his own projection. The Red Sox on some level managed scared of fan bleating.

sure, and Uehara's run in Boston until the fatigue was better than any of Rivera's runs ... (and that is saying something - Rivera is clearly the best closer by today's definition in history) so $9M a year for a couple is pretty low risk. It would be higher risk in say, Kansas City.

Not sure how much leverage there was ... it's still half the price of Rivera's 2013. It could end up not working out, but it's not particularly pricey given the market and industry factors.

The Red Sox are so barren that they dropped to number 3 in future power rankings: (paywall, sorry) http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11779252/mlb-future-power-rankings-heading-2014-free-agency

I'd actually go a bit the other way - the Red Sox dithered with their rookies this year, and that caused issues of their own. Obviously Bradley is accountable for his horrid season, but what vote of confidence is it when the Red Sox were willing to give a starting position to somebody based on 30 days of watching Grady Sizemore's entrails at the Spring Training complex. I defended the Drew signing because of what a sinkhole 3B was, but it made sense for it to hamper Bogaerts' development - and it was even worse when Drew turned out to be the worst everyday player in the bigs last year. I wonder if it is systemic or not. This team in 2012 acted rashly with Middlebrooks too. I wonder if it is a symptom of the current regime. This is a contrast to 2006-2007 where Tito and Epstein let Pedroia play through his issues - few callups looked more hopeless than Pedroia did in his 2006 incarnation. I get a sense that management heard the talk show callers as the Red Sox slogged out of the gate and overreacted to the kids not being amazing immediately.

Pedroia is a star on the other side of the mountain. Bogaerts is very high probability - Betts is even higher (in both cases use what you know about sports that you played - freshman on the varsity were where your future stars were, not dudes who could crush JV). C is fine for the next few years - however it turns out. The rotation needs help, but the help is available - granted not for free. The Red Sox had a lot of bad luck last season - enough to see that 2015 could very easily be a return to some flavour of contendor-dom.

Easy move. Yeah it would be cheaper to find an internal replacement, and it is silly to expect 2013 Koji from him (or any other earthling) but a very reasonable contract (and tradeable if needed). Red Sox did not want to pay him a qualifying offer and Koji was probably not getting 2 years at this rate on the market (or at least it wasn't a certainty).

Very good in 2013, hurt but still decent in 2014. Health is the big question - if a starter can't get 180+ innings, I don't want him.

I think Latos is also possible - might be easier to land than Cueto and still quite good. Also I could see some late rotation bulk - nothing special, but somebody who can soak up 180-200 innings competitively, which a team needs to survive the marathon. Even if Owens were ready next year - he probably won't be a good bet to provide a ton of bulk.