sk7326

What is amazing so far is that the Red Sox fundamentals have largely been good here approachwise. The OBP is not at all bad (.326, above league average, 6th in the AL). The BA has been low - but who cares there. The problem has been almost entirely a lack of extra base hits in general, and homeruns in particular. One can moan about Ellsbury's loss - but the net there is not what has caused the power outage. That has been a team wide scourge.

Given what Lackey has produced - if the Sox offered a 2/35 sort of deal replacing next year, that would be a win for everybody. The contract would be a little less tradeable than at 500K obviously - but a guy as productive as Lackey has been (and as durable) has enough value that a contender would not blink at that short a commitment if they are a starter away.

1. You are choosing the wrong catcher 2. Nava belongs in the outfield mix as long as we have platooners out there. On base skills 3. Better off in the bigs - he has been productive in the minors generally, what he needs to learn, he has to learn with big league ABs. 4. RF is still better value here. 5. Maybe - have a contingency if/when he turns into a pumpkin 6. A bit expired by now 7. Rotation issues have a way of working themselves out. If Peavy is the worst of them, this rotation is doing well. 8. At least today - let's just be happy we have 7 reasonable starters - most teams don't have 4 9. I'd concur, although non-strike throwing relievers make a tear roll down my eye 10. Who cares really.

I admire his attempt - clearly just wasn't good enough. Holt and Bradley just make more sense for the time being. Andres Torres arrival as a platoon partner will be useful also.

Shame Bogaerts hitting confidence has been shattered by the position switch.

LOL - no expectations for me. But when a guy has exploded through the system like he has - when a dude is conquering leagues he is young for, the eyebrow is raised.

It worked out ok in 2007 ... have to be strong with your player evaluations, even in Boston and give the kids you believe in the reps to prove it definitively.

Betts called up to AAA

Masterson has always had that lefty split ... that 3/4 delivery keeps it hard to get em out consistently

Good point. Forgot about the former.

1. It's about 3B, not SS here. Bogaerts is better than any available 3B alternative. 2. K's don't matter a whole lot. He got on base at a decent clip and was a 3 win player in limited work last year.

It was because of a horrific injury history - that's it. It was going to be hard to give up years for a guy who has had trouble staying healthy. But all around, it was a coin flip between Drew and Peralta ... durability won out.

Farrell will do what makes sense for the team - unless he is bad at his job. Fred clearly is not a fan of Drew - and wants hungry scrappy gamers who eat their vegetables like good Hulkamaniaks. That's fine - and how do you not like what Holt has done. But the probability of it continuing is pretty low. I would have been fine with the Red Sox faking things at 3B until Middlebrooks returns and then riding it out. But there would have been some diminished performance and you are placing a bet on Middlebrooks which is increasingly dicey. However, cutting bait on Middlebrooks is a fair stance - he has regressed badly. Drew-Bogaerts is a solid alignment. Farrell notes that Bogaerts won't be flipping back and forth - but who knows what that means. Ultimately he will do what management tells him, because that's how this thing works. I expect Bogaerts will play SS a significant amount - and frankly, if he is this delicate a flower, he is probably not the guy I thought he was. This team has a chance to repeat - and they owe it to the fans to give it their best attempt (within obvious limits). This absolutely improves the lineup because the upgrade of Bogaerts over a potted plant more than offsets the drop off which Drew represents (if any - he was a Top 10 shortstop last season).

Odds are there won't really be lumps. His track record has shown this - he reaches a level, he learns it quickly. He will probably get another 30-40 starts at SS ... he will be fine. If there was a lot of position depth at 3B in the bigs (even something like "prime" mark reynolds) I'd have a different answer, but there just is not. Middlebrooks when he returns from the DL could do a lot to help this, but there is no indication that he will.

Webster has shown some good stuff at times - but he is also a purported sinkerballer who gave up 7 home runs in 30 innings! (SSS caveat here). He has not shown much pitching IQ in his stops here. He has a lot more "elite reliever" feel to me than a guy who can turn lineups over. De La Rosa clearly showed the potential last night.

I think everything you say here is true about Bogaerts. But none of this has anything to do with the 3B problem. I see Bogaerts as a stud SS too. But we need a stud 3B now. Now if you want to pretend we are in some sort of rebuild - god bless. But this team is not rebuilding - it has a chance to win now, and it charges the fans prices of a team trying to win now. So a win now move is totally defensible. Bogaerts is younger than Cecchini - there is plenty of time for him to get back to SS, and he still going to play there a lot this year. This is clearly the best use of team resources given what is available.

Cameron was an elite defender at CF (one who went down the toilet in his Red Sox time - moving Ells to CF was the right move that did not work). I look at it this way - one of the changes involves 0 people learning new positions and one involves 1.5. I'll take the 0. I agree with you in a vacuum - but without any sort of equivalent way of improving 3B out there, this is your best shot at optimizing the WAR of the 2 positions together, Bogaerts can handle the additional offensive expectation a replacement 3B requires. I think there is a chance that Middlebrooks-Bogaerts 3B-SS could be the best combination, but that involves an improvement on WMB's part when he returns that he has not shown any signs of making. Now if you think Cecchini made more sense than signing Drew ... that makes some sense, although clearly risky and lower probability in the short term than the Drew move.

Bogaerts can "not like" a change optimally. I don't care - as long as he gets into it. I see a hungry player in Holt too, but one who gives no indication this will last. That's fine - you enjoy what you get and he is a solid candidate for an extra infielder. Drew is a good major league SS who frankly got squeezed out of a market because of overestimating how many teams would pay for a SS, even a good one. (and in particular that the Cardinals chose Peralta's healthy track record over Drew, which is defensible)

Oh no - if Drew is going to play, put him at the position where 3B and SS are optimized, and that is with Drew at SS. I agree with you on Bogaerts long term - but this move did make sense. There are just no good quality 3B to go around, and 3B has been such a disaster. Middlebrooks needs to get back to his old approach - whatever he has done since has been a wild overcorrection. I wish he walked more, but not at the expense of the stuff he was good at.

Rubby has the best stuff of the guys considered - really the only one with some #1/#2 level pitches. Command clearly is an issue - but he is the upside play. I am intrigued.

1. 4 for 61 in postseason, yet they could not have won it without him. Go figger. David Ortiz was totally lost in the ALCS. Things happen. 2. Useless against lefties - but there is a contingency to fix that 3. He is forcing us to sit people playing our worst position. As much as I would like to see Bogaerts keep getting reps at SS - and he has been arguably our best position player so far - this team can contend, and 3B is too big a sinkhole not to try to fix it. 4. If you think signing Drew was a mistake because you want to ride out Bogaerts and Middlebrooks - that is a fair point of view. If you want to ride out Brock Holt and turn him into the next Tony Philips, that is completely insane.

You ride the 2014 Ciriaco until he turns back into a pumpkin. He deserves a spot on the roster based on his performance for sure.

I am not worried about that. Farrell handled platoon work last year quite nicely. I suspect the lineup will be worked in that direction more or less with Drew's return. At the same time Bradley really should not be involved too much in the platoon business - the ability to pick it in CF is too valuable to give up on too much.

Keith Law updated Top 25. At #22: Not suggesting it - but if it gets to June-July and outfield is really this bad, his success so far has been too wild to ignore.

I think there was some hubris too. They have some legitimate organizational catching depth - and I don't think they wanted to tie up a ton of years at the position anyway. Also the general horribleness of replacement level for that position gave them some room to just play backup level guys and grin and bear it. Salty had a nice year and had a little bit of upside - but if they did not want to commit to him, then there was no point to give him a QO. I did not like the move, but I understand it. Frankly, Pierzynski has been about what he has always been ...