sk7326

No chance, and that is a bad team. De La Rosa has shown he deserves to be a starter in 2015. Webster has not. One of the good things about this market is the fan pressure (and economic pressure) will force the front office to still be aggressive. Fans should not tolerate a full out rebuild, certainly not at the prices they get charged.

1. The view in 2004 is shortsighted as it gives no credit to the 2002-2003 offseason. The front office, for basically nothing landed a batting champ, a Sox living legend and a key contributor to the World Series team. In 2004 they landed their best closer since Radatz and some loudmouth who ran a video game company into the ground but could really f'ing pitch - not to mention easily the best manager this team has had since Joe Morgan certainly, and probably since Dick Williams. Duquette did a good job, but the entire management structure since is exponentially better. 2. Last year was actually pretty easy to predict - not the wire-to-wire best team in baseball, but the notion the Sox'd be pretty good. Between 2010-2012, this team was ... obliterated ... by injury problems. They watched injuries turn one of the league's 5 or 6 best hitters into replacement level goo and absolutely demolish their starting rotation. Just by not being hurt, this team was clearly a wild card contender. When they got an almost-MVP sort of season from Victorino which nobody had predicted, and a bullpen that were carried by 3 guys who were all afterthoughts when the season started, as well as a #2 starter who suddenly pitched like a real #2 (with his elbow sewn back together) This year, you basically have six positions (LF, CF, RF, C, SS, 2B) which have seriously underperformed compared to 2013 ... the big dropoff which has been hard to anticipate has been in the corners. It is hard to be any sort of offensive force when your corners are not producing. The losses in CF, 2B and SS have been problematic obviously, but some of that dropoff was expected (2B less so). But there is reason for hope on most of those fronts.

Oh this team is a major bounceback candidate - run prevention is fine, kids have gotten better (Bogaerts less so though post ASG has been better). This has been an unlucky year in a lot of ways. Some of the dropoff was anticipated (CF), some of it wasn't at all (SS, 2B, C, RF). Bradley will be better next year (he has improved during the season already) and Bogaerts almost certainly will (it is theoretically possible a 22 year old regresses and he is not a real starter - but that is very very unlikely). Betts is at least interesting in a corner and they have a lot of options at catcher. Papi has had a lot of poor batted ball luck but has shown no real signs that his days of being an impact hitter are anywhere near finished. Trading Lester for a decent return makes sense. While his agent might not be happy with Lester's comments - he works for Lester, not the other way around. Lester is going to be very attractive and if the Red Sox are serious, they can win the auction. Now, Kemp is a very dicey, high risk return for Lester ... is a LF who has not shown any ability to be an MVP level player sufficient return? I'd say absolutely not. Can 2 months of Lester net the Sox a Top 50 prospect? Possible, but might have to wait until 3:59 Thursday to know.

Yeah, it's not like Farrell playing match ups with a 6 run lead yesterday.

I don't doubt the market. I thought he was a 22-25 million commodity entering the season - because folks undervalued exactly how valuable a #2/3 starter who was a lock to churn out 30 starts a year was. I'd imagine they need 5 guaranteed years to start - maybe vest the 6th and a team option after, like they did with Ortiz but longer. You are right - they have made this unnecessarily difficult for reasons which make sense if this team were the Padres.

If we make the playoffs - it will be because the offense has gotten "good enough" and the run prevention has become elite. That makes us a dangerous floater - but first things first.

Flags fly forever. If this was Pittsburgh, sure - but it's not. The franchise charges fans too much to skimp like that. Yanks got a title out of it and 3-4 really good years - they just had almost zippo behind him (at least "postseason good" level). They also put a contract in with a player option - which CC cashed in on. That's Cashman's fault - nobody is asking the Sox to put in an escape clause in year 3 for Lester. A 4-5 year deal with a reasonable vested option for another year is completely acceptable for a guy with no injury history and a low effort mechanic sort of delivery.

I know he has been struggling - but life with a move to the rotation. For a team with just gushers of young pitching coming up, he is the most electrifying stuff wise - but just needs a chance to figure it out.

Strong buy-low candidate. Good approach, can play the corners. Clearly the injuries have been a problem. But there is a job opening in LF for the right guy - and I'd at least be up for kicking the tires.

We like the pitching to contact part - you'd like a few more swings and misses of course, but the approach is right. A lot of where these kids can go is about patience and recognizing progress. I am not predicting any sort of comeback for the Sox - but they have the ability with Victorino's return to really take off on the run prevention side - perhaps enough to be able to surge without a huge offensive upswing.

K rate is not where you'd like it - but he has been very effective, and the Ks have flowed in some starts. Clearly he is the most gifted of the Sox starters in the high minors (over Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo etc) - question has been ability to harness it, and whether he could turn a lineup over 3 times. The indications are strong that he is for real as some sort of starter.

To be fair, Tavares is a superstar in waiting - he was going to take somebody's job.

Rubby has been terrific - clearly the best stuff of the kids - glad the command has gotten better. And certainly while Jackie's offense is a chore, his effect on run prevention is huge.

I think the Sox can play both sides of the fence here. The division is bad and totally winnable. Sox need to go 41-25 the rest of the way to get to 85 wins, which is a total that gets you in the ballpark to win the division (obviously would like more, but showing this is not a crazy ask). The question I think is whether you think the kids are their best path to victory - an argument you absolutely can make. Trading Uehara I don't think is preferred, but he is a very movable chip and a position which can be replaced relatively easily. (not without risk) I think Oakland in 2001 did these sort of maneuvers - it is being opportunistic while still trying to add smartly. I don't mind the rebuild, but I worry the franchise is a bit too dogmatic about player salaries to avoid being cheap unnecessarily.

It is possible, although age and resign probability considerations impact that. But I'd not hesitate to deal him if a good price came up. At the end of the day reliever for "good prospect" is almost always a good idea.

Since Nava was not in scoring position, Bogaerts hit the homer - since like Fred told me he can't hit in clutch spots

We have been blessed with a great closer - but there is no reason to spend a ton of money on the position. Closers are like running backs in football - good to have, but very very fungible. (applies to relievers in general) Teams like Oakland and Tampa have shown this, there are many exhumable corpses that can be made into effective closer sorts.

1. Odds are Lester will be a top of the rotation guy in 2 years - better than odds than Lee. 2. When his decline starts most likely, he'd still be a 200 IP #3 sort of guy. $20M seems rich for that, but by 2016 it probably won't be. 3. You don't need a "true #1" to win it all - we already proved that.

Sox are a huge bounceback play for next year ... considering the youth they are playing and the likely improvement. The closer thing is a non-issue ... they will find somebody if Uehara is too rich for their bloodl. I suspect they will move X to SS, possibly still this season. They signed Drew because 3B was a disaster for them ... no reason to play him if contention is not realistic. The team is not far away at all. Sox had 2 of the AL's top dozen position players last season - between Bradley's slow start (and the Sox Sizemore dithering) and Victorino's absence that has been a huge failure. Take the replacement of a 2-3 win catcher (warts and all) with the tattered remains of AJ Pierzynski and you had even more dropoff. But there are signs of life on all of those fronts.

1. Yes, trading Bogaerts for Stanton makes sense 2. The position things matters a lot - and Bogaerts bull evaluation is based on being a SS. That's the tricky part of the evaluation - the Sox moved him to 3B because 3B was horrible for them and there were solutions at SS. But if his reality is as a 3B, things become trickier. Anyway, slump has been a problem - but not a reason to necessarily quit on a 21 year old. Sox have mishandled aspects of their kids all season - although some of it was well intentioned.

Any life decision made on a 400 PAs for a kid who still needed a fake id this time last year is highly speculative. The team has not hand strong hands with their guys - but as Bradley is showing lately, strong hands is a good thing. Clutchy McClutherson was no issue when X was starting in the biggest games of his life - and the advanced at-bats that came with it. He will get better, but you have to trust the evaluation.

.395 BABIP raises tons of suspicion ... though his line drive rate is up, but way outside of his career trajectory. This sort of line screams "regression" - but that's ok. He is performing now, and now is what matters.

ruh roh, clutchy mcclutcherson ...

Jonah Keri provides some optimism http://grantland.com/features/mlb-the-30-red-sox-yankees-blue-jays-orioles-al-east/

I agree with the Red Sox in theory - that you don't want to go 5 years with 30 year olds more or less. However - you have to make individual evaluations, and sometimes you overpay to win an auction. The question is do you think you will get 1000 innings of #2/#3 sort of production on average (you build in some decline)? I think with Lester it is almost assuredly yes - certainly nothing he has done up to this point (where he is a clear #2 starter level, who has #1 performance in him) with his performance and injury history and mechanics suggest he is a huge likelihood to get hurt.