sk7326

He batted 7th or 8th ... for the league's best offense. And he was 2nd among SSs in the AL (6th overall, 500 PAs qualify) in OBP - which is the thing BA was supposed to measure in the olde days. This offense was a juggernaut - but they used more of the script of the vintage 1998-2000 Yankees teams. A lot of power and a lot of patience, but spread across a lot of places. The teamwide approach was not really different from the 2003-2007 days, it just looks striking compared to the hot steaming mess of 2012. Drew was not among our best hitters - but he was among the best hitting shortstops ... which does indicate quite a bit about our lineup. He has limitations as a hitter - basically a fastball hitter - but like Napoli, the patience wallpapers over a lot of it. He is a pretty effective offensive player - and a 16 game slump shouldn't really move the needle one way or the other. There are some front offices who still get all googly eyed at batting average, but they are fading fast.

Well the shift from the Nomah days is defense being just easier for teams to understand fully. When you look at comps for Drew - Elvis Andrus is the obvious one - a plus defender with solid on-base skills is going to get a look. Clearly the industry is a lot smarter about the value of strength up the middle than it was even a decade ago. Clearly the Drew family has a lot of trust in Boras, and he has been a very good advisor. Also - and this is why looking at gross salaries now is a little bit misleading - is that there is baseball's economic reality. Teams are drowning in cash, and the current CBA hamstrings a lot of these teams from pouring it into the farm - since signing international FAs and draft picks are now much harder. The result is a lot of money chasing not an amazing group of players - and as teams have gotten smarter about resigning guys, I don't expect FA classes to get that much better. Drew can get $12-$14 a year just on the basis of fitting into one of these Judge Smailses salary structures. I do expect that his glorious injury history will prevent teams from signing him without SOME sort of protection. But he can be a 3-4 win sort of player, and he is sort of asking the going rate for that type of dude. Xander as the starting SS makes sense - and is a fair decision for the franchise. But when you make that choice, you are hoping for a Derek Jeter sort of tradeoff - below average but acceptable defense and a bat that is a wonder to behold. I suspect the Red Sox would have been overjoyed for Drew to take the QO - but had no expectation that they will agree on a multi-year answer. He has an injury history, but when healthy he is clearly a top shelf SS (he had a bad month at the plate, and his "true outcome" sort of production shape is what it is), and all it takes is one team with a need.

It is an industry-wide shift over the years. AAA is really a taxi squad ... AA is the true "prospects vs prospects" league

Well, depends on what you have as an expectation for next year. If he fields the position like he is capable and gets on base at a league-average sort of level, that is plenty for him to be valuable in Year 1, with plenty of upside beyond that. I will note again: 10 HR, 10 SB, .360+ OBP who fields the crap out of centerfield - is an All Star. He is not nearly as far away as it looks.

Kinda sorta - his problem was that he had an amazing spring, and thus made us forget he had just so few reps. He got ABs against big league taxi-squadders, that helps a lot.

Easiest of the awards this season ... really shabby batch of AL rookies - Myers the best by a good margin, and that is even with the hat tip to Iglesias.

Loyalty? His original team dealt him at the deadline in 2004. He then signed with the Mets (his first voluntary signing) who then dealt him when it was rebuilding time. Then he signed with Saint Louis until it ran its course. He chose 2 of the 5 teams he played for ... it's like David Cone - that a lot of teams have wanted him is a plus.

Also, considering how much a righty platoon caddy would play, a flyer on Mark Reynolds who had been a useful True Outcomes guy before last year could also make sense.

1B/DH is relatively easy to source - the list of free agents sucks, but that doesn't mean that there is not a platoon of value there. Corey Hart was a very productive guy before his knees went out on him. Could you fake 1B between Nava, Carp and Hart, assuming you find another outfielder? Platoons can substitute for Napoli decently - but the problem is taking extra roster spots when you are insistent on carrying a 12 man staff.

Belt has some real upside for sure - but if you are looking at him as a "buy low" trade opportunity, a legit #3 and a starting caliber 3B is WAYYYYY too high a price for a flyer.

Oh I am not saying Uehara will be BAD, although at his age and given the concerns about his usage entering the season you have to be prepared for that possibility. Last year was an aberration in that he was a 3-win pitcher when he had never been more than a typical 1-2 win sort of hombre. Can he handle that sort of usage again is a legitimate question - but he deserves the benefit of the doubt, absolutely. I just look at the nature of bullpen sample sizes - there is a large history of year-to-year wild fluctuations that you have to be ready to cycle guys through again. The 4 LCS teams all used closers who they did not intend when the season began. It's just the nature of the gig.

If you play in a homerun graveyard like the A's, lovely. You need everything to win - you don't think the Red Sox could have won the title without having a lineup that could crack good pitching, do you? Sometimes good hitting is not scoring 6 runs a game - it is being able to ignite a rally when your 7-8-9 hitters come up. No guarantees about the Sox bullpen at all - bullpens vary so much year to year, that to think that Breslow can deliver again next season is crazy. Indeed Uehara will not repeat this season from simple regression alone. If the Red Sox threw a smart offer at Jesse Crain, that would be very sensible - he could be dynamite when used carefully. Manny Parra is a good idea as well (failed young starters are a good source for potential bullpen dynamos) Internally all of the pitchers like De La Rosa, Ranaudo, Webster, should get serious looks at bullpen help also. Also, if they cannot move Dempster and he is relegated to the bullpen, his stuff is a strong candidate to play up when he does not have to turn a lineup over.

Beltran for 3 years doesn't make sense for sure. Getting younger is easier to say than to do. Agility with contracts is the next best thing in a lot of cases. It's not like there is an influx of 25 year old outfielders in the organizations - that still needs a little work. (the Westmoreland thing hurts in this regard, though clearly thank god he has a chance to live a normal life, fingers crossed)

Beltran with a qualifying offer = no ...

I am not sure how fair that is. After all, he has been designated, cut etc. Every team has had a chance to get him and the Red Sox were the ones who saw enough to find him work. Now the limitations with Nava are clear - he is really a platoon bat disguised as a switch hitter. He really shouldn't be playing against lefties, and his glove does not add any value. But he has always had a big league approach at the plate, and from the left side he is a very useful hitter in your lineup. They were able to cobble together pretty good production out of the corners despite the lack of big names. Nava, like Salty and Victorino, would do his career a world of good by giving up the switch hitting thing. Even so, the Red Sox gave Nava a chance to show that he should be playing baseball for a living for somebody, which is pretty amazing given his story.

What fans who want to deal Peavy look at are his salary and his postseason performance. But if you want to just use those datapoints: 1. He had 3 starts. One bad, one good, one in between. So - if that's what you want to use - he's a guy in the middle. 2. He is making $14ish for 1 year with a vesting option he will never hit. That is a completely justifiable salary for a mid-level starter. 3. Peavy was pretty good in 2011/2012, and last year his peripherals were ok. The homeruns were a problem, but a year at Fenway should aid that. There is no reason to move him.

Moving to a corner makes sense - although in all of the cases you cite, those were very much corner-level bats (or at least Hunter could fake it and Lynn and Davis were when their bodies were not falling to pieces). Victorino is less so but clearly sticking with right-handed allowed to access his power a lot more frequently. The caution about his season is how much of it was tied with his defensive performance. Certainly metrically, it was a phenomenal season - but we also know defensive measurement is still evolving. I tend to advocate more for a backup-upside sort. Moving Victorino to CF weakens 2 positions, but there is nothing wrong with supplementing the outfield force.

Pronounced platoon splits which were getting worse. His defensive metrics were slipping some, though he is more good than amazing as CF throughout. There was a real possibility that he just cannot produce acceptable quality from the left side. The Red Sox deserve a lot of credit for seeing the defensive value he'd add moving to a corner - and there was some good fortune with the hamstring injury which got Victorino to focus on the side of the plate he is actually good at. I am happy to be wrong about him.

2012 WAS an oddity ... but the decline from 2011-2012 at his age is more typical than the rise to fringe-MVP level from 2012-2013. To say there is no age-related downside is silly, although if he were just an average player the next 2 years the contract is a huge win for Boston. At the same time, yes, I am encouraged because he made a couple of permanent changes which might have lasting positive impact - especially giving up left-handed hitting.

Well it depends on their priorities and what they are willing to pay - their desired profit margins and such. The revenue will go up - winning a title does that. This is not an argument for taking on a long term deal, unless it was a Cy Young winner who is 2 years younger than Jon Lester and not likely to sniff a 90 win season anytime soon - not that such a player is remotely available. But short run value plays are not bad things - especially if it allows them to deal with the rest of their pitching in a manner they want. Now, I do think Peavy is locked in, but he also has a pretty friendly deal by today's standards - as long as you are not expecting Oscar Taveras coming back or anything. I don't mind the idea of signing another veteran and spinning Dempster off ... given Buchholz' health there is merit, especially if Allen Webster's early non-groundball tendencies are a harbinger. Overall, I think the pitching question is interesting - because there is some market upside - but clearly if they stood pat, it would not be a tragedy.

The obvious "timeshare" name is Chris Young - righty plus defensive CF with some three outcomes sort of upside. At the end of the day, you have to treat LF as an open job, and RF as at least something you need some mild protection for. (Victorino's comeback at 32 is enough of an oddity to want to be prepared)

Now the rotation is not a huge priority certainly - but there are positive value fliers out there, and a couple of staff ace sorts in the trade market to at least see how unreasonable the demands are. Certainly I wouldn't put this ahead of relief pitching or improved certainty in the outfield.

The cost in dollars is less of an issue than the years - why Hudson or Haren are attractive is that they might only require a 1-year deal, especially for a title contender. 1 year and something with incentives to get to $15M or so is not at all unreasonable for a team like Boston.

Darvish' WCB experience (which drove a lot of Matsuzaka's scouting too) gave a good look at his potential. His height and stuff were enough that if he wasn't a sure thing (and who is), his probability and upside were very very high.

A multi-year is fair if the downside protection is sufficient. They wanted it last year - so it stands to reason that they would want something again, though it might be as simple as the protection they had in LAckey's case.