sk7326

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.

Concussion + missed time with back problems. Personally I wouldn't bet the farm. Betts has real star potential, and the Bogaerts story is very much unwritten. I do think there are some questions about how this administration is handling development, especially with the big league ready guys - but that has nothing to do with the valuation.

You asked the wrong question. I'd have issues letting go of them both, but it is something which has to be considered. In any case I think Stanton and the Dodgers are a better match. But guys like him don't show up all the time. What I referred to was the package that would win (the least it would take). I think it's a moot point though.

My expectation - either way - is that Vasquez starts at C. I suspect the Sox listen to offers on both guys, especially as components to get a significant player. It is the plus on having two legitimate starters. Swihart has the higher ceiling but also the higher variability. I don't think they will usher Vasquez out for free or anything (nor should they). You have two starters worth of depth, it means you can listen on both of them if a team calls with an interesting offer.

Betts and/or Bogaerts would have to be there. The tricky thing - and why the Sox aren't a great match - is that the Marlins have always loved power arms in this context. When you look at the young pitching we have, is there the "stuff" guy to tempt the Marlins. De La Rosa and Owens (although the latter is not the flavor of guy the Marlins have chased) but that's it

Here is the thing. A big league roster has 2 catchers, but one of the catchers is only getting 40-50 starts. So, if two catchers who legitimately deserve 120 starts are on the roster, somebody is getting screwed. First, the player - since the reason he does not have a starting gig is geographic accident and service time - and second, the org who is under employing somebody who could get them something valuable in trade. It'd be nice to have Vasquez for a year and then Swihart (assuming Swihart is not really ready until 2016, and that Swihart is a better prospect overall). But timelines are hard to predict and a good deal can show up at anytime. Knowing which guy the org is leaning towards allows the team to be agile when an opportunity pops up. It's like what Danny Ainge says all the time - nobody is untouchable, but that doesn't mean the price is low. After all if the Angels offered us Trout for Betts no strings attached, I'd drive Mookie to the airport fully expecting him to become a real star. Now if the org expects Swihart to be the 120 start guy, and a team thinks Vasquez can be a starter, there is a potential match and no reason not to listen on it.

LOL, no worries ...

US sponsored Sunni genocide *cough*

Oh I agree - I think he is a very tradeable contract and one of the big reasons they landed him.

True - brain fart here ... although the point for Lester holds ... hurts to be senile

I doubt the Nats are shopping Harper, although it'd help if they had a manager with a pulse.

Tricky part with FA is the winner curse of FA. You are overpaying to win the auction, and for the most part the guys who get to UFA are at or past their peak. Trading is how you can get Josh Beckett at 25 years old (never mind his mixed career, that is still a super premium asset). It's how you could get Pedro Martinez at the BEGINNING of his era defining brilliance. An org is only as good as its own development machine, but a good part of that machine is developing currency to acquire guys. Nabbing one of the premium pitching FAs this year is easier since for Price and Lester, all it costs is money. If the Red Sox want to win a bidding war, they can - there is no draft pick issue. For me, if you can snag one of the Lester-Scherzer-Price trio (at least) and perhaps one other solid arm, then you can look through your org depth and try to fill your #4/5 positions that way. Barnes, Kelly and Owens and De La Rosa all look like reasonable possibilities there. Workman and Webster could be dynamite late inning options, but their utility as starters is very very limited.

In 2012 he had a .356 OBP. He has not done it the last two years, but there is evidence that guy is there. He has been a decent to good LF in the past (it's valued in Oakland certainly). I am not sold on him, but it's not a high price either.

Who is? His peers are mostly stuck in High A/AA. What is funny is how much kinder the evaluation of him would be if he did this in AA.

Cespedes was a good guy to trade for because the "trade/sign" question can be answered in either direction. His current deal is friendly, his defense is solid (more from measurement than perception) power is increasingly scarce in today's baseball and he at least has SHOWN (in his rookie year) that he might be able to deliver enough on-base to unlock all of the good stuff. But the last two seasons of ghastly on-base (with outs being the only true measure of time in baseball) raises concern as to whether he is more empty calories or not. He has to get better - but there is evidence that it is possible.

maybe

You don't give anybody away - but if a deal for Johnny Cueto hinged on Vasquez and the org has evaluated that Swihart is the long term guy - then you make the trade without regret. One of the things - one of the jobs an org has - is to evaluate who is untouchable. Catching is a place where Boston has org depth - so it is a place you can make a determination on who is the best of the bunch. (Although it is a secondary consideration it's ALSO NOT FAIR TO THE PROSPECTS) Lavarnway was never a surefire catcher prospect. There was a reason we dealt for Salty knowing Lavarnway was there.