sk7326

But this is one of the rare years where the starting pitching will just cost money - you can land 2 of the 3 best FA arms without surrendering a pick. Think of it this way (and this won't happen, but pure theory) they could sign Price, Lester and Scherzer for a 2nd round pick. So it's not an either/or thing - the money will be used to address the pitching. Long term concerns about Puig's itch to get better are warranted, but the raw talent is undeniable. I'd kick the tires at least. That said, with Friedman in charge it won't be cheap.

A guy with light tower power on a reasonable contract but with poor on base skills ... it is worth seeing what they can get for him. The outfield is crowded - Betts is the only true untouchable.

And the only guy to get a hit on this night

and won 3 titles in 10 years ... the best era in post-1920 Red Sox history ... by a really long way. This year was a lot of bad luck, and management not committing to the kids they were committed to committing to. This is nothing that can't be fixed quickly.

Those differences are baked into the results, part of being good. There is no evidence that baserunner context, phase of the moon, time in the game have any impact on these differences.

One key will be if the Sox have a bottom ten record (good chance). Signing Lester becomes much more possible if the Sox don't have to surrender the first rounder.

K's are a nonissue compared to the other stuff. That said, I agree the raw power and defense (the metrics recently more than the eye test) are enough that if he can move his OBP back towards "good enough" (league average or so), he can be a 3+win player and that would be tremendously useful.

Rules of thumb is fair, but there are also specific guys - considerations of mechanics and whatnot. Lester's low effort delivery and mechanics combined with his consistency show a guy who has shown no reason not to be considered durable. Now that said, I do think there was an understanding in the last few days between Lester and management that they might sell him off for the season because it's good business. And the Red Sox probably (if they play at this pace) will not have to forfeit a first round pick to sign a qualifying FA. As such, Lester's return might be more likely than postulated.

all true - but not a repeatable, specific skill. Good hitters are good hitters are good hitters. Some good hitters are better than other good hitters, but it is about the goodness, not the externalities.

129 PAs is literally nothing from a measurement perspective - I think the best example of clutch being narrative over facts was Papi at the ALCS. That homerun will live as it should - amazing. But he was also really terrible in a series where the Red Sox lost twice. I do not discount the psychological aspect of the game - just pointing out that those factors are baked into the results over a long period of time. Also, what is a big at-bat? They are all big - or the implication is that some players do not try all the time and that's cool. I tend to think (if you want to psychoanalyze) that assigning simplistic things like nerves and whatnot (which is what we'd feel as fans) to guys who do this their whole lives is a bit insulting. What I do think happens is that guys who have mastered the craft allows them to perform it when it is the hardest to do so. But that's what makes them good. I am not even necessarily saying "clutch" does not exist - but none of the definitions of what that means (runners in scoring position, when a new moon is out) have borne out any truth other than either A) luck or the variation you'd expect between good and less good players.

that is the question that management has to figure out - between trade market (Latos) and FAs (Lester, De La Rosa). The question is whether this becomes a sound-and-fury but ultimately kind of neutral offseason (like the Yankees this past one) or something truly productive (like the Yankees 2008-2009, or the Red Sox 2012-2013 one). They have the financial flexibility and prospect inventory to do some lifting on that front.

The players ARE human, but the dudes with poor makeups are weeded out by the process to make the show. If "clutch" existed, then it would be repeatable and a meaningful way to differentiate guys. Nothing in evidence shows any sort of consistent variation. It's like "knowing how to win close games" - aside from some small impact from having a good bullpen, year after year, records in 1 run games are basically coin flips, and those who are good (or bad) do not correlate with much of anything. The contrapositive to clutch players is also a bit alarming - that dudes are loafing during the other at-bats. The players will tell you in the biggest spot they want their best guy - stop the presses. When someone says "I want Nick Punto in there for a big at-bat" then that is newsworthy. Are there variations among stars? Of course - but there are variations among them already. There is no proof that such variation (in clutch spots) is outside of their variation in general.

I read the Reds were dangling Latos - so that is a real possibility. I think bringing back Lester is less than 50%, but a legitimate possibility still. Jorge De La Rosa is a solid idea (though I'd prefer him as a #3 option here) also. Between that and the higher ceiling guys in their org (De La Rosa, Owens, Webster), the chance to shore up the pitching is there. There is some considerable upside here for 2015, so I applaud and understand the Sox' desire to push there - just not sure these were the best moves to further that goal.

Oakland had a need - Cubs knew Hammel was a strong probability to turn into a pumpkin and Samardzjia is young and controllable. That was a fair trade for teams with different priorities. The Sox priorities were different than the Cubs even. Selling, but with 2015 as a major target - it was interesting to see what they did to balance those needs. To me, this move is a bet on Allen Craig to a degree - but more than that it is a bet on the kids, which is exciting. The Red Sox had some serious prospect inventory, but no organizational power to help the big league club. The moves shored that up, now it is on them to figure out the rest.

It is. Clutch numbers are not repeatable, and do not vary with hitter quality. Invariably when an announcer says "this is a guy you'd want up in a big spot" he is also a guy you'd want up in the other spots too. In other words, a good player. Given how difficult it is to make the bigs among all the people who aspire to play baseball - people without the ability to perform under pressure never sniff the show. For instance, David Ortiz is ascribed to be a great clutch performer, but he was total doggy poop in the ALCS, but since the tree fell where no baseball writer was looking, there was no narrative about it. For fans, there are clutch moments for sure. But the idea that there is something about RISP that fundamentally change hitters is just not borne out in any sort of data. Put simply, in basketball for example, you always heard the idea "I'd love to have Larry Bird taking that last shot". Of course you do, because you'd want Larry Bird (of 1986 vintage, not Indiana Pacers GM one) to take EVERY SHOT.

.800 OPS is a strong bat - not amazing, but above average (and he's being paid like an above average regular) I do agree that Craig is sort of the lynchpin to the deals.

Don't grade Rodriguez too harshly. Rough season in AA, but he's also 21 there - young for the level, there is some work to do, but he was the best prospect dealt today by anybody. That the Sox got him for a short reliever is easily the best deal anybody made today. Overall, Cherington noted the team wanted major league help from these deals explicitly - so that is an ownership level decision, and so the moves have to have that in the context.

Lowrie trade was worse. Trading an actual starter for a middle reliever is height of foolishness. The Lackey deal is not a great return, but the Melancon deal was much worse. I gave the team a C+. They landed the best prospect that got dealt the entire day - and found solutions to their corner outfield problems. They clearly have not punted on 2015 - nor should they - and they did improve their team in spots where they had little organizational depth. At the same time - it feels like Lester and Lackey should have netted more, the latter in particular. At the same time, when you see how little the Rays got for David Price, it is possible that such a deal might not have been there. It is interesting that all 3 of the big deals for starters today, the team ended up taking back major league bodies instead of prospect bulk. Drew trade was a nothingburger. They want to give X reps at SS, and they had a chance to save money. When you put the white flag up, who cares what team you are helping, especially since the players dealt in the division were both rentals.

That is all reported hearsay - not coming from him. It would be typical that management leaked that though. He was terrible in 2011, but his elbow was barely hanging off his arm. I think he earned a lot of his teammates admiration for battling. He is a warrior. Deal is odd - think he'd have gotten a bigger return.

Victorino can barely stay healthy enough to play RF. These moves mean there is a 2 month window to see what the kids have. Bradley's splits have been encouraging and clearly elite level defense in CF. At least these moves force the org to have some patience and play the kids instead of always trying to appease the WEEI callers.

Only one part of the "great future" left - that is the saving grace here. All the components of the "great future" are still here.

I think the idea was that they HAVE a young controllable core, but they needed to fill in gaps. Their return does improve horrible positions for 2015. I agree, I wish they got more prospects out of this - at the same time when you see how little Tampa got for David Price, it is possible the market was not as hot as it seemed. They do have a lot of money available and a ton of prospect inventory - so the path to getting better, and the assets to do so, are there. The depth of rotation caliber starters in the organization is staggering. What the org was missing was some pop, so they fixed that here a little bit. After having some time to calm down, I see the approach here. Key for the final 2 months is to see whether the kids are going to be alright - I suspect they will. As I noted, the problem with the Sox this season was dithering and a lack of commitment to the kids who they decided were good enough to play. Wasted valuable PAs for no good reason - soaking them up with useless reclaimation projects. There is a lot of work to do for 2015, but definitely a way to get there.

It is the theory that makes sense. Once you figure the blue chippers are not available, door #2 is how can we get better for next year? They have a lot to do with the rotation, but they solved their near term corner outfield disaster zone. The pitching is wait and see - they do have the prospect inventory to make a move on that front.

David Price to the Tigers, Nick Franklin and Drew Smyly to the Rays, Austin Jackson to the MAriners

I think of it as "Stephen Drew for cash" in the form of a guy making $7M less a year.