sk7326

The slumps look bad when tons of strikeouts come with it.

Oh I doubt he goes to Boston. But the question was whether that price was reasonable - it is. Gutierrez makes sense. An elite defensive CF (or at least was before his body started to fall apart) who can probably still be a good backup across the board. I look at LF as a legitimately open job though - and if we add an OF, I'd like to add one who at least has ceiling to take that gig.

It's like Mark Bellhorn 2004 ... guys who strike out a lot can make fans angry. We're conditioned to think it's the worst thing a hitter can do. And walks are not treated with the reverence they deserve compared to singles by fans generally.

Drew is 30 and a solid above average starting shortstop. That Drew wanted to see what the market was shouldn't be held against him (if I recall correctly - fans can switch team allegiances, so what's good for the goose ...). He's a pro - a pro who has been hurt a lot, but a pro.

And a strikeout is better than some contact outs when there is a runner at 1B and less than 2 outs. Strikeouts are painful to look at, but largely a non-issue. You see a lot of pitches you are opening yourself up to K's. In most situations, playing for the 3-run homer is the percentage play.

Well, at least of the guys who can contribute in 2014. Owens I think has a front of the rotation ceiling but also further away than the others. You are right that looking into more permanent rotation answers is not a bad idea. I do want to see what the price on Sale is - the Sox have the prospect inventory to do something there, but the questions about Sale's long term durability would give me pause on spending too much. But clearly you kick the tires.

We don't know anything - can only deal in comparable cases and long run averages. Guys with good "lead off" type skills have generally been able to contribute in those areas into dotage to some degree.

I wouldn't infer anything about how Farrell will handle 2014 from how he handled a 4 week tournament. There are PAs to be had for everybody among those spots. But if Drew comes back, yes, he will be taken seriously as the starter (and well he should).

Napoli at 2/32 was a legitimately good outcome for both sides - fair price for Napoli. As noted, Napoli as a TTO sort of guy is not going to put a lot of balls in play, but the walks and such will help. Interestingly, if Drew comes back that is 3 of their projected Top 8 guys as relatively low contact sorts (Bradley, Napoli). BTW, I am very bullish on Bradley - but his minor league body of work has has a lot of walks and strikeouts sprinkled in. As is the case with hitters like these guys, you go deep into counts, you increase your odds of striking out. It's life when you see a lot of pitches

For this to be a fair posting agreement, you'd think something like $20M + 10% of total negotiated contract value might have been a fairer compromise.

I suppose my finger slipping on the keyboard earned that.

In 2012, this team, with B+ level injury luck ... was the best team in the game from wire to wire basically. If you evaluate the lineup changes in the offseason by position (my guess with some caveats): LF: Same-maybe a shade lower (Nava is a regression candidate, Gomes a positive regression one, both should not be big deals) CF: Lower (although Bradley's on-base skills could REALLY help here) RF: Same-shade lower (age-related regression, though if the power spike coming from quitting hitting lefty is real it's a different player we are evaluating) 3B: Higher (Bogaerts or Middlebrooks for the full season will be fine) SS: Higher (Bogaerts or Drew, former has more ceiling although latter is just fine) 2B: Higher (figure the injury healing will enable the power to return in earnest) 1B: Same (Napoli I expect a similar season, Carp is a regression candidate perhaps) C: Slightly Lower (Pierzynski's age and on-base skills a dropoff, Ross is Ross) DH: Same (Papi has to show me the regression first) To the pitching staff: Lackey, Peavy, Dempster have some age-based regression possible ... at the same time Peavy should be better than he was at the end of last season. Lester is one of the surest things in the game and Buchholz we can rattle off the wide range of outcomes. That said, overall this rotation is good and if they make 144 of 162 starts like they did last year - the rotation will be a strength. Bullpen - Breslow is a prime regression candidate. To be fair Uehara is too only because that level of achievement is impossible to expect. That said, Workman, Britton, De La Rosa, Tazawa all have reasons to expect improvement or continued solid performance. The new guys are all solid adds, and Cherington will keep adding more bodies because that is the best approach to take to the bullpen. I think looking at the breakdown, if a legitimately good LF option showed up, they'd really have to look at it. Otherwise, the positions are in decent shape. The bullpen is always worth adding arms - and the rotation while it lacks a true #1 (although Lester did a pretty good job as such in the playoffs) is rich in #2/#3 sort of guys, and you can (and have) win a title that way.

5 years with him would bother me a little less in that his skills (batting eye, some measure of power) tend to age fairly well. The back end of the contract he might not be "worth" $18M/yr, but he is still probably a 2-3 win sort of player who can play an adequate LF. IF the Red Sox want to pay a premium to get him, I understand ... it's not like he'd end up a Vernon Wells level flaming train wreck at the back end of the deal.

If he is a cheap hitch, who cares? One thing we know if you cannot have enough relievers.

Choo at $18M is completely sensible for the Red Sox. The number of years is the larger issue there. I have my reservations about his splits etc, but $18M is a very fair valuation for an on-base machine who can play a corner decently.

Not surprising. This is the problem with the new arrangement (which has not been officially announced). The whole idea of the auction was to compensate a team who was giving up an important asset (both on the field and in the box office). Giving up a 25 year old pitcher who went unbeaten last season (and the control that comes with it) should be worth more than $20M. This happens all the time in club soccer. If they just tied the posting fee to the contract he agreed to, that would be a lot simpler.

1. Friends don't let friends use pitcher wins. 2. He is a strikethrower has at least one or two big league pitches. He also improved his approach to something more American i.e. pitch to contact. He is by all acclaim not in the ballpark of Darvish as a free agent. But very very few are, so that is not any sort of dig. 3. His age and #2 potential are very enticing. The workload he has had to date require some skepticism.

$2.99 including postage

Well then don't guarantee a guy like him that spot. Depth is crucial - but the Red Sox have several months and a lot of prospect inventory to solve the issues.

Well you have to lean on your evaluators as to whether the commitment is worthwhile. At first sniff, I'd say probably not. But the financial commitment (even at 130) for a 25 year old with #2/#3 expectations immediately is not unreasonable at all. My skepticism with him is the workload to date - he has major questions, as do all of the other starters on the market. But his questions combined with upside make a bit more palatable a combination.

LOL ... nothing wrong with being opportunistic. Here is the reality. Not all of: Cecchini, Webster, Barnes, Swihart, Ball, Betts, Owens are going to be future studs. Xander was the one uberprospect they had once they discovered he might not be ticketed for 3B after all ... everybody else has at least some sort of question mark between upside and probability. There are some future starters in the rest of this crew (and some better than that), but there is also some excellent currency if a really good opportunity shows up. You don't blow you wad, but the Sox have the prospects to put their ear to the ground and see if an interesting trade prospect appears.

The man knew how to put down that fastball sign ...

The Red Sox had multiple injuries to multiple position players - and their best ones. You lose two of the league's best offensive players - no team is equipped to make up for that. 2010 they were beaten up in a way that any team with that sort of problem would have been stuck with - no team can make up the quality the Sox lost. That it was one of Francona's best managing jobs to get 89 wins out of that group is clear. The depth issue is overrated (depth is important, just as a house on fire concern now). They don't even really have to solve it in the offseason. Matt Stairs, Eric Hinske, Bobby Kielty types emerge during the season and can be traded for fairly painlessly, especially for a team with a LOT of prospect inventory like Boston. Another credible CF makes some sense ... perhaps someone to help in the corners if Drew is not re-signed. Also, kicking the tires on true blue options at LF and C (neither is a need, both could be upgraded even with the moves made to date) and in the rotation is just being responsible as a GM. The Red Sox project to have 6-7 guys in most prospect top 100s (Cecchini, Owens, Webster, Barnes, Ball, Betts, Swihart) and more who are respectable (Ranaudo, Brentz, Vasquez, Merrero). Given the position of this franchise in the league - you only really expect a small number of these guys to actually be solutions for the future Boston Red Sox. This is obviously not a call to trade prospects for veterans - but the Red Sox have the wealth to be opportunistic.

Well 7/110 for a legit #2 starter is probably a fair-ish price ... not saying I'd do it, but that's possibly less than what Lester will probably command on the market with 4 years age difference. The revised posting system is good for a lot of parties, but will reduce the NPB incentive to post guys in their prime. Frankly a simple cut of contract value might have been a lot simpler.

I think they are looking at the box office ... rebuild has been spinning their wheels and they feel some external pressure. Not that this is the most prudent reaction, but it is a rational one. From a business view, obviously markets are different (duh). But not all wins are similar bang. The wins the Astros could get, the difference between 54-108 and say 70 wins, is basically zero revenue-wise. (this makes sense, either way the team sucks and is probably out of it by the ASB) No point in spending on veterans to get that improvement. But from 70 wins on up, that is different, and almost certainly non-linear. Cano is one of the top 10 players in all of baseball. He should crank out a few 6-7 win seasons and his skillset is such that he will probably persist as an overpaid but not bad player (see later years Todd Helton). But will wins 72-77 really earn them a lot? Probably very little - it doesn't affect playoff contention or such. They need their own kids to make up that gap, but their kids have shown very little evidence so far of doing that. For the Yankees, trying to improve on an 85 win team, the wins are worth a lot comparatively. It means possible additional home games, and certainly improved gate, TV ratings etc etc. This is where spending makes sense - obviously they have basic affordability concerns like anybody else. The funds are not unlimited even if each player acquisition "makes sense" in a vacuum. Losing Cano hurts the Yanks quite a bit. Really means they are kind of more or less where they were last year even with Ellsbury. The business case for another big free agent is clearly there, but the names are getting short, and I don't know what they have to trade, if anything.