sk7326

I am sure there is one - although whether that one will part with a Bogaerts, or Oscar Tavares level guy is dicier. Maybe Seattle given its moves is that one team - which I wouldn't discount. Texas in theory lines up - but Daniels has generally been a lot smarter than that. Right now, I don't think they could trade Kemp for anything other than salary relief. Yes, there is a level of salary they can pick up where the return would officially be "something" other than just savings. But to me that threshhold is pretty high.

Indeed it does - but he also was a 3-4 win player (pick your flavor of WAR) during those time frames too. Low OBPs don't fill me with joy, but they are not death sentences either, especially when you have a guy with a lot of athletic ability.

I think the size is an uphill thing for Bogaerts - but he showed enough the last year and change for scouts to have changed their tune from "surefire 3B" to "yeah, he could stay at SS for a while". That is the entire source of the hype. Middlebrooks will never be an on-base machine. But he also is a superior athlete to say, Napoli, and could offer a lot more in terms of defense and versatility. He showed he could at least fake 2B, and I'd have no problem giving an athlete of his caliber turns in a corner OF position. If he concentrates on becoming a really good defensive 3B (which he isn't yet, but clearly able to), the total package along with the raw power can make up for low OBPs. The comparison I always use is Josh Reddick. Reddick does so many good things that his OBP can be low but acceptable enough to access all the good stuff. Last couple of years, Reddick has been OBP enough to be a solid starter. Can Middlebrooks get to that level (which would still be below average)? I think he can.

This is the kicker for me. This is not Jacoby Ellsbury having freak accidents running into things (and people). Kemp has suffered from 2 years of "old guy" sort of injuries which have a high likelihood of being chronic things. He already has to be downgraded a little because he has to play a corner to preserve his legs. I think the Dodgers are dreaming if they think they can get a premium haul for him, even if they eat half of the contract.

Small sample sizes, not a lot of big league tape on him ... if it comes as easily over the marathon as it did in the tournament - it's because he is really that good. I think the slash line I noted would be a very successful rookie season, and I think there's a good chance he exceeds it. And playing shortstop will be an uphill battle for him - it's the only question mark on his scouting dossier.

It is possible. My view of him will be defensively - is he adequate? I am not expecting great (which is fine, the Yankees have won titles with "adequate" defense). Offensively, how quickly will he make adjustments. If he can give a .270/.340/.400 sort of season with double digit homeruns - that would be a good start. But yes, you expect developmental leaps with guys like him who have conquered levels above his age level consistently. It's the "freshman playing with the varsity" thing.

I know. I think Brad Stevens with the Celtics said something to that effect ... you are never as good or as bad as you seem at any given time (or something like that)

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