sk7326

Tazawa is a fine choice too. Frankly, my view on Webster is based on feelings he has knockout stuff, but I have serious reservations about whether he can turn a lineup over 2-3 times.

Allen Craig is a 2014 Tony Phillips sans cocaine. His glove is not great but not awful on the corners, and his bat plays. Or an offensively skewed Ben Zobrist, whatever you like.

The problem is - like Boston - Saint Louis is a good baseball organization.

Peavy is a good clubhouse guy who has been durable. His contract is expiring also. He may or may not help in October, but if a team wants to get through the marathon, he still has value at a reasonable price.

The youth movement was something they should have looked at coming out of camp. What Bradley has shown (and to a lesser extent Vasquez) is that they can field the hell out of their position. They can contribute in terms of run prevention while the hitting part got figured out. It would have been nice for him to have the extra 100 or so PAs the team frittered away on Sizemore. Betts is a surprise clearly, nobody expected the monumental leap he made this year - and he is still being a little overpromoted. I see on rebuild threads that the kids is waving the white flag. I don't see that all - I see the kids as the only reasonable path to winning THIS season too. Assuming Victorino is not going to return to his downballot MVP status of last year, the kids have the ability to improve with reps to a much higher degree than the veterans they have been running out, especially in the outfield. The rest of July is very reasonable, and there is a run to be had here. The East is still a mess, but the Red Sox have a chance to make enough noise in the next two weeks to still potentially be buyers. I am not saying it's likely - but it's not crazy either.

We "found" Uehara last year. Just means we'd find another one: Personally, I'd try out Allen Webster

League minimum for 1 year of Christian Vasquez sounded nice too

I am against a Lester trade. I am pro any good deal for any reliever - Uehara included. They are wholly fungible. I'd like to keep Uehara, but if he can get a Top 50 prospect - that is worth a 60 inning pitcher, period.

Mike Stanley would be surprised to hear this. Indeed, way back in 1986, the Red Sox made a key addition with Don Baylor via a deal with ???

Agree with all of this - but nothing wrong with trading opportunistically. The younger guys have a better chance of giving this team a chance to contend THIS year than what they let go.

AJ is dumped - good. Trade: Peavy, Buchholz any reliever not nailed to the ground. Keep: Lester, Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, kiddos

I am glad the Red Sox knew what the word "sunk cost" means. The money was eaten when the signature was put on the contract. If he is not worth a roster spot, why fake it? Vasquez was clearly the best option on the farm - a guy with his defensive skills can manage to add value even if he is not an improvement over AJ offensively. I doubt anybody was going to trade anything of value for AJ ... he will land somewhere, he is a useful backup. The bad news is Boston burned 2-3 months wasting development reps on low-value veterans in key starting spots. The good news is they corrected both mistakes decisively. Trading Peavy is an obvious next move. Trading everybody in the pen, Uehara included - also has to be investigated, if we are going to midwife a real youth movement.

I know about the curse and lived 18 years of that. But the beauty of 2004 is that we could stop thinking in terms of it. For me, seeing 3 titles in the 10 years after Aaron Boone ... I can die in peace regardless of the 2014 season. No team has been more successful in this century than we have - this season has just been a lot of poor luck as much as anything. I have zero patience (since I lived through the Butch Hobson years, and Buckner and Boone) for whining about 2011 or 2012 ... at least in a sense of "suffering" ... I know suffering, this is certainly not it.

that is reasonable. I do think if the team shows it is not willing to pay top dollar for top talent, the fanbase will be onto them.

5 for 76 is rough - so the question becomes if you are a believer that it will get better. I always look at how overmatched Trot Nixon and Pedroia were at various points. Things will improve.

The dumpster fires in the OF and at C have been much more problematic than SS. Bogaerts is struggling, but he was bound to hit a rough patch. He'll be fine unless he is not the prospect we think he is. Farrell's job is to find wins here - this isn't a rebuild. Good teams get production from the corner spots - the Sox being a whole hog disaster in 3 of the 4 corner positions (aside from a Holt BABIP flash) has been the story. Everything else is distraction.

Since punting 2 years of World Series goodwill is desirable. They still have business to attend to this year - the season has been rough, but the AL has been mediocre outside of 2 teams. I think if this is a 90 loss team you will see some substantial changes and veteran signs. When you gouge your fanbase like the Sox do - it is the least you can do. Prospects will be added smartly - like they have this season. The story of their season is about basically 15 wins of production being (Ellsbury, Victorino, Salty) being replaced by bubkus (Bradley, Pierzynski, misc chum in RF). I think promoting Vasquez to start makes sense - he might be worse than AJ offensively but he at least provides a dimension at a serious restaurant quality level. Betts has so much promise that he could help with the outfield thing. The run prevention has largely been good - the question is whether you think they can realistically catch the teams in front of them. The East is a crapshoot - and so there is some merit in continuing to chase.

He has had a solid season - just working through things now. You are smart to exercise patience. His pattern has been to start slow but figure things out at each level. Just remember how young he is.

He IS protecting his prospect - by continuing to play him. X will only learn how to deal with a slump by dealing with a slump. His season is completely in line with lots of pretty good 21 year old SS/3B sorts. I don't envy Farrell's job here - since there are games to win at the same time. But you keep playing him and count on him figuring things out.

Given the odd penny pinching this offseason - it is hard to say Hank's goals relative to George's as far as going balls to the wall here. Their offseason spending this year didn't make any sense baseballwise aside from Tanaka.

It was a 3-way deal - the cost in the system can be evaluated as Garcia or Iglesias equally validly. Olt had fallen on hard times in the Rangers system (blocked by a HoF'er, struggling) - he was an upside play, but a damaged one. If you think 12 starts of Jon Lester nets a Mookie Betts/Henry Owens equivalent, that is terribly unlikely. I agree in isolation with the analysis about going years with a 30 year old. But you also have to look at each investment individually - and Lester has been one of the surest things in baseball since he came of age in 2008. There is a very low chance of the contract being a failure - because he will still be capable of giving 30 reasonably good starts in 4-5 years most likely. Paying a #3/4 starter $20 million will prevent John Henry from acquiring another striker on the July transfer market - but overall the deal will be a net plus.

Iglesias. So a one dimensional - probable non-All Star starter. Which is a solid return. But that was for a year plus of control for Peavy. Lester you are trading him for a dozen starts maybe ... that is a much different return. The White Sox traded Peavy with another year of control at an "above average innings eater" sort of salary aside from an option he was never going to trigger and got back a fringy starter. I think teams are smarter now. You can get a larger return on Lester yes - but the window to make THAT trade has passed. When you are selling an extra month of control and whatnot. I see guys on the board bleating that Lester is not as good as Kershaw, Scherzer whatever. But who cares - even if you think Lester is more of a #2 than a true #1 (and I am going by evaluation parlance - #1 means top ten or so starters in the league) - you CANNOT navigate a 162 game season without guys like him. As fun as it is to say that "you need an ace to win, now get off of my lawn" - that is just not true. Hell, we saw it last season.

They have never not had the money. The 2012 trade allowed them to move diminishing assets. They could whine about budgetary limitations, but the limitations are ones they set. This is not an argument for them being stupid - but it is to point out it is a constraint that does not exist to the degree they claim.

I think their definition of fair could be different than ours. The ownership are not afraid to pay on one hand, but they are pretty hawkish (and always have been) on player compensation. The leverage of the trade is a little silly - since nobody is going to offer a reasonable return without some sort of confidence Lester would resign. So yes, if there is leverage in the "well if he doesn't sign we can trade him to Milwaukee for a bag of donuts" - that is leverage. But from a practical scenario the player has much more say. That said, if the Red Sox re-sign Lester, it will effectively be a "last contract" - since Lester's 10/5 rights will kick in.

Agreed. The 2011-2012 experience did not mean that spending money is a bad idea. It just means that mistakes suck (and injuries suck). If this teams whines about cost like they are the Rays, it is quite distasteful. I think Lester gets done ultimately - he is a hard commodity to replace.