sk7326

Kazmir is a fascinating possibility ... he might command $5M or so in this environment ... but there is something to be dreamt there. A bit more expensive in the 1-year category might be Dan Haren, whose fastball is below average now, but whose splitter and command are still good enough to be effective. He was good after his DL stint in Washington a year ago.

Of course they do - he has #1 stuff when he is healthy. That has not happened often. But the A's had no choice but to pick up the option. A 25 year old with his stuff and performance (note flashing neon "When Healthy" sign) is too valuable to let walk away for nothing. But if Oakland would take something outside of the absolute blue chippers (and we have depth to offer here), you have to look into it.

There is that, but I also look at his AA/AAA stats ... he struck out 50% more often in his trip to the bigs. But he had some healthy strikeout rates in the minors too - note I don't really care, outs are outs and yes it comes with his patience at the plate. I am bullish on him ... but there are plenty of folks (including on this forum) who watch hitters like him who might strike out quite a bit and conflate that with "not being able to hit".

His career arc has has shown him to be a bit of a "True Outcomes" hitter a la Bellhorn/Napoli/Dunn ... lot of strikeouts, lot of walks, and the ability to square it up with hard contact the rest of the time.

If Jackie Bradley can show the instincts in CF he has shown since his South Carolina days, and if he can just match his minor league on-base numbers - that is a first rate starting CF who'd make an All-Star game or two in his career.

lol

Basically the prospect level would have to be at least as good as the expected value of a sandwich pick. Basically if there is anybody decent in High-A, that would qualify. Also - in a lot of cases I'd agree with you - but in his case, there are multiple teams who could benefit from him, probably enough to result in some potential value ... even if the value is more an Engel Beltre sort of lotto ticket. Personally it would have been hard for me as GM to give him a qualifying offer if I did not have sense that he could be a trade asset. There is just too much risk of him taking the deal (assuming I was truly committed to Bogaerts at SS, which they might not be - which is a reasonable view even if i might disagree with it somewhat).

Lot of this makes sense. The Drew thing less so. The best available SS on the market for a very reasonable hitch ($14 million for a 3-4 WAR player is not at all unfair) - you are not going to get a king's ransom, but there will be a lot of teams lining up starting with the team we knocked out of the World Series. Look at it this way, taking the qualifying offer removes the draft pick penalty, and Drew would have to agree to a trade anyway ... there are possibilities for a player of his caliber.

Ellsbury is gone - there is just too much money and competition out there. He is one of only 2 guys in this FA class with probable All-Star upside. (yes, Ubaldo Jimenez and Tanaka have all-star upside, but I can't vouch for the probability) A lot of teams have a lot of money and nowhere to spend it - so it is hard to expect Ellsbury to return. I don't disagree that signing a Chris Young to give Bradley some relief, and maintain the outfield defense makes sense. I think folks wildly underestimate Bradley's potential as well as what constitutes a good CF. The fact is, if Bradley can be a 70 glove and put together .370 sort of OBP, that is a star in centerfield, even if he is 10 HRs, 15 SBs. Napoli I think comes back. My guess it is on a 1 year with a vestiing option for something like $13M base with an upside of $17-18. You want to protect against him not being able to make starts, but he has shown enough I think for the market to not demand he take a low base salary in 2014. Drew I am not sure. I think his market could be impacted enough by the pick compensation that he takes the qualifying offer - he is still eligible to be traded and there might be a little more possibility there. Salty could go either way. You could sign flotsam like Carlos Ruiz and hold your nose when he has to face righties. McCann is the most valuable but will cost the most, and I am not sure his bat will smoothly go into DH-level when he rides off into the sunset. Salty's BABIP is clearly not going to hold - but his line drive rates have improved every year, and it at least points to some potential actual hitting improvement. He is a dangerous lefty bat who is average to a little below average defensively ... an above average starting catcher putting it all together. There are some hot names in the system so signing Salty for a long run seems foolish (Lavarnway is NOT one of those names) but given the state of catching in the big leagues, he is one of the better ones.

Both Barnes and Owens are plausible - De La Rosa less so, Ranaudo probably a better bullpen candidate. I am thinking they are much more inclined to look at one of the non-tenders like Hudson or Haren who can be had for short money or a year. That said, kicking the tires on Brett Anderson is worthwhile - he is a gamble but if the cost is not too high, one with a very very high potential return.

5 years older, was awful last year against righties, suspended for amphetamines. Had a power season in 2012, but extremely out of line with his career dossier. Salty much better prob to make 100 starts ...

It is fairly clear that McCann > Salty ... but 2-3 years of Salty > 6 years of McCann ... that is the equation i think that teams might be looking at (certainly Boston is)

It makes sense ... he is not going to get that AAV on the market with the pick penalty attached to it. With him under contract, it means that Boston can deal him to any team that he consents to. Considering how attractive a top flight shortstop on a 1-year deal is, there is a pretty good chance all sides will get what they want.

A deal is there with Salty I think - personally I'd demand that he stop switch hitting as a condition therein.

The NL should just adopt the DH. More strategy when you have more competent players. Also, NL baseball fans are the only fans in all of sports who are vehemently defending the need for an incompetent player to perform among the best players in the world.

Was actually chatting on the twitter with @keithlaw, @overthemonster on some of the QO stuff. From what could be ascertained, a player who accepts a QO has to consent to be dealt before June 15 ... but that is usually not a deal breaker. So it is possible that someone like Drew could take the QO, knowing that he could have a wider market via a de facto sign and trade than as a free agent with compensation tied to him.

I have to assume when they non-QO'd him that both sides were at least in the ballpark. A 2-3 year deal makes sense, although I do not discount the possibility of position scarcity causing a team to do something crazy with him.

#2 - Morales is a QO guy - non starter for a guy as disposable as he is. Corey Hart is a good buy low opportunity. #3 - Rajai Davis is OK. I'd actually take a flyer on Chris Young. Plus defender, has power and speed. Strikeout machine and OBP has been a problem in the past. But gives Bradley some platoon help as needed, and could possibly be a lot better than that. #4 - Wilson, Nathan are interesting. I'd keep a finger on the market for Phil Hughes - he is a prime conversion candidate. That said, we can also look at other arms internally - De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo are all interesting names. As 2013 showed with all four LCS teams using closers they did not enter the season with, it shows that we should be ready to expect Uehara to not be the answer in 2014. It is just good planning.

I think it'd be for Dempster clearly. Hudson or Haren would make sense in both cases. Anderson is intriguing to kick the tires on ... legit #1 ability, but had trouble making starts. There is a lot of upside to be had there, but clearly don't want to lay out too too much.

Overall I take a relatively indifferent view of Tanaka - would be an interesting sign, and he could fit into the Red Sox economic analysis calculations. But if they decided to address any starting pitching depth by throwing a 1-year deal at a Tim Hudson or Dan Haren ... or seeing if there is a buy low opportunity with Brett Anderson, that would work just as well.

What you tend to expect with NPB pitchers is that generally they pitch away from contact, and that they tend to use a lot of different pitches to get it done. There is a lot of deception involved, and the cat and mouse game between pitcher and hitter seems to be emphasized. Tanaka has several different pitches, as did Dice-K, as did Darvish. But you get here, you need to be successful in the strike zone, and the best way to get there is to go from throwing 6 or 7 pitches to the 3 or 4 pitches you command the best. Coming to the US, you'd expect Tanaka to be encouraged to stick with the fastball-splitter-slider combo and maybe tinker with another pitch. If his splitter is really plus-plus and his slider is solid, that is a guy with a pretty good chance for success. Dice-K never simplified his approach as is necessary here. Darvish clearly has had no such issue - although you can argue that Darvish' pure stuff is better than Matsuzaka's. At the same time, Dice-K's consistent low BABIPs suggest excellent stuff which largely was ruined by crappy approach.

He does by the reports have at least one swing and miss pitch. Pitching to contact is a good thing and will help in the big league transition (as long as the stuff carries) - we have lived life with away from contact, no thanks. I do think the wear is a legit question. But an extreme strike thrower with a swing and miss splitter is a #3 with #2 potential, especially as a 25 year old. I am not saying I am in on him, but I understand. It's such a shaky market for pitching (see Ubaldo Jimenez) that it is the plunge you take if you want a high end starter.

One thing I did try to check on Twitter was any restrictions to trading QO'd players. Apparently, as far as I can tell, there is no waiting period on flipping a QO signee (unlike say the NBA which has a 3 month waiting period for a free agent signee). So, if that is true - then I have to stand corrected on a lot of what I thought about Stephen Drew getting offered a QO. We can look at him in a lot of ways, but if he takes the QO, that suddenly could very well give the Red Sox the best available SS on the market for a VERY palatable contract ... I suspect a lot of teams would be banging down their door. Now from what I can tell, the CBA has restrictions on newly signed FAs being dealt. But do QO accepters fall in the same category of guys who take salary arbitration in the old system (like how the Rays got Rafael Soriano). The research is very hazy here. But if signing and trading QO'ers is actually possible, Drew makes a ton more sense.

Gonzalez was older. And also, and this is a risk with corner guys ... he was not an amazing athlete. Good for a 1B, but not especially athletic. The transition when he slipped was stark. Also I think scouts underestimated how much of his plate discipline in San Diego was driven by being the only good hitter in a horrid offense. Gonzalez was a higher risk to fall off a cliff - although he was also seen as a sure thing by the industry. His dropoff in 2012 and beyond caught a lot of people off guard - I think a lot of teams were ready to have that happen to them,

Scanning some other places for the Red Sox to shop ... if they are on McCann as some have reported, I am not sure another "QO" player is of great interest. OF is a place where some improvement is possible. Chris Young (OAK) is a good buy-low candidate to me for someone who could wrest a starting position and/or provide some righty platoon backup for Bradley.