moonslav59

Depending on who we might add to the roster this winter, we are looking at lowering our average age by a large amount. FAs or Retirees: 41 Uehara 40 Ortiz 36 Ziegler 35 Hanigan 34 Hill 31 Tazawa The top five players happen to be the only Sox players over 33 Here's the rest (age as of today): 32 Pedroia, Young, Ramirez 31 Wright, Buchholz 30 Price. Abad 29 Sandoval 28 Kimbrel, Kelly, Holt, Holaday 27 Porcello, Pomeranz, Ross, Leon, Rutledge, Hembree, Elias, Workman, Holaday 26 Bradley, Smith, Barnes, Shaw, Scott, N Ramireez 25 Vazquez, Johnson, Marrero 24 Swihart, Jerez 23 Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Hernandez, Owens 22 Benintendi 21 Moncada Non 40 man roster: 25 MArtin 24 Ysla 23 Travis 22 Dubon, T Ball, Shawaryn, V Diaz, T Lakins, J Cosart 21 Dalbec, Chatham, Ockimey, Chavis, Longhi, S Anderson 20 Kopech, Basabe, 19 Devers 18 Groome, Raudes

If the rumors were true about Lackey balking at the contract, I can understand being an SOB, but I'd have still offered a respectable extension. Not a great one, but one that would pay him something during 2015. I have a bigger beef over what we got for the two than deciding to trade them once their ship had already sailed.

I'm not sure it makes much difference. We'd have to seriously outbid AZ to get him to play so far away from home, or so it is said.

I have yet to hear a good justification for blowing up the 2014 rotation. It's hard to justify a bad situation largely created by the guys who chose to dump 80% of the rotation, but here's how I see it: The Peavy and Doubront trades were not really all that significant, especially since Peavy was on his last year, and not many wanted him back, so basically we're talking Lester and Lackey. Don't take this as me defending the choices made. The Lester initial offer was one of the worst decisions made under Henry's reign- next to maybe the CC signing. It's hard to know what they were thinking. Maybe the Pedey "hometown discount" made them think Lester might take a low ball offer too. It's my contention that once that offer was refused, we should have immediately given our mea culpa and come back with their top offer. Once that ball was dropped, I think the writing was on the wall: Lester was going to test the FA market. I doubt he'd have taken what the Cubs ended up giving him had we had offered him that in March or June. He was a lost cause. I think the whole bidding scheme that next winter was a farce. Lester was never coming back to Boston. If you believe this, and I'm fine with those who don't, because I'm not sure myself, then trading him during a lost season made total sense. Trading for Cespy and the supplemental pick was strange. The Lackey situation was very strange. I'm not sure if I believe the rumors that he'd retire rather than play for nothing, but then was fine pitching for the Cards. I suggested over and over that we offer him an extension (2 years) that would pay him bonuses over the 2015 season that would essentially pay him more than the minimum, but less over the next two years. I'm not sure, if that was ever a consideration. If the rumor was true, maybe Sox management felt the guy was a bum to renig on a contract he willingly signed. After all, he did get paid handsomely the year he sat out injured and the year he sucked with us pitching while injured. I'd have loved to have him back from 2015 to 2017. I'd have loved to have had Lester too-- more than Price. Letting them both go was dumb, but certainly there was reasons to do what they did, once the situation reached the point of no return.

I think maybe Pablo's post season heroics might have given Sox management that maybe he could be a mini-Papi (pun intended). They might have even seen his weight as a non-issue, because they planned on having him take Papi's place at DH. Just speculation on my part, but I agree, the Pablo signing was probably something that upper management wanted.

I doubt the CWS want Buch. If they trade Q or Sale, they'd want players with 4+ years of team control not 1 or 2.

Fall League: Moncada 6 for 14 with a 2B, HR and 5 runs scored. Dubon 4 for 14 with an HR. Kopech: 3 IP, 0 H, 5 Ks TBall (RP): 3.1 IP, 3K, 3 BB Venezuela: W. Cuevas 1-0 2.25 in 3 starts V. Acosta 8 for 16 with two 2B and an HR

One service had this on April 4th: Cubs +500 SFG +800 TOR +1000 NYM +1200 LAD +1200 BOS +1400 KCR +1400 HOU +1600

I meant as viewed at the start of the season. I think before the playoffs started we had the 3rd best odds of winning the WS- behind the Cubs and Dodgers--I think. I fount this... Team .....Opening odds/June 20 Chicago Cubs 10-1 5-2 Texas Rangers 12-1 6-1 Boston Red Sox 18-1 12-1 Washington Nats 10-1 8-1 I'd say 4th best is barely top 5.

Well, if you're going to sign Price to a record contract and trade away Espi, Margot and others, I'd like to be a top 5 contender for 3 years. I think we were this year (barely), and I hope we can lose papi and still be top 5, but that remains to be seen.

I always viewed Ben's plan as a 5 year plan that would keep us competitive but not faves until 2016. The Lester extension fiasco was a major cluster F%^&! Once it was certain, JL was leaving, I understood the plan to have the summer purge. I had hoped it was more about the longer look, but luckily Cespedes magically turned into Porcello. Ben built the farm up like nobody since 2003-2005. I believe his plan was to fix the offense in 2015, but HanRam and Pablo both were horrible in 2015- leading to a last place finish (again). I truly believe Ben would have signed Price or Cueto last winter, had he still been here. I'm not sure about the Kimbrel deal, but I think he would have traded some prospects for some other big piece for 2016. His main objective, to me, was to keep us as strong contenders beyond just 2016. I think he tried to learn from Theo's mistakes. Grantedk, he signed Pablo to 5 years and HanRam to 4, but let's not forget Theo signed CC to 7 years and traded away Rizzo. DD's plan was a one year plan with Price and Kimbrel under team control for 3 total years. Pom has a couple years left as well. Young was a great signing to bridge to Beni and partially to help fill the gap left by Papi's retirement. It's hard to compare DD to Ben, especially since Ben was removed before the 5 year plan took effect.

I didn't mean start the year with gaps. Take this year: we used Wright to plug the hole left by ERod's injury, but we still ended up having to go to O'Sullivan, Owens & Elias for 10 starts after Kelly & Buch crapped the bed. We traded for Pom to fill the gap. We traded for Hill to fill the 3B gap. It didn't work, but the thought was there. The biggest acquisition was Zeigler, and in a way, he filled the Carson Smith gap we couldn't fill in early April, although in actuality, he filled Koji's role while he struggled and was on the DL. I don't want to go into 2017 with known gaps, but with 37 guys vying for the 3B job, maybe we have to let it shake itself out, before we fill a gap there.

Our two biggest areas of concern, in my opinion are 3B and the bullpen. 3B: We have everybody; we have nobody. Our two best prospects are likely best suited for 3B: Moncada and Devers, but neither appear ready to win the FT job on opening day. We are paying Pablo $19M for 3 more years, perhaps as a platoon DH Not as a 3Bman. The guy who played over 850 innings out of 1440 at 3B this year, Travis Shaw, fell off a cliff this year and is clearly not worthy of our trust as our FT 3Bman next year. Then, there's Holt, and Hernandez, and Rutledge, and Marrero, and 21 year olds Dalbec and Chavis. There's even been talk of moving Bogey to 3B again by some on this site. One even suggested moving HanRam to 3B. Everybody and nobody. Bullpen: our pen finished the season strongly, but let's not forget how much it stank up the place for most of the year. Also, much of the reason the pen did well near the end was due to us acquiring Zeigler plus the return of Uehara and Tazawa to prior form. All three of those guys are FAs-to-be. We may bring some back- we may not. Right now, we can't really count on any of them to be back. The bright side: One has to think Kimbrel will be better next year. Kelly showed signs of finding his niche as a RP'er. Ross has shown consistency over several years now. Carson Smith should return next year. Robby Scott showed signs of maybe being a nice surprise. Barnes and Hembree showed promising moments this year and are still young enough to keep improving. Abad, Noe Ramirez, Workman and Martin add institutional depth, but they really shouldn't be counted on to contribute too much. Then, there's the 6th starter that could be a big plus to the pen, even if just as an innings eater. Will it be Buch, Pom or Wright? The dark side: Kimbrel may not improve. Carson Smith may not be the answer to losing Zeigler. Can Buch and Kelly really replace Uehara and Tazawa? The rest could be viewed as highly skeptical and not very promising. Even if we signed Jansen or Chapman, we still might not have a plus bullpen. The issue is that it's hard to build a pen. Most RP'ers cannot be depended on from one year to the next. The ones that are are too expensive for 60 innings of work. Even the dependable ones like Kimbrel can turn to question marks quickly. The other issue is how to repair 3B without giving up on the kids and/or Pablo & Company? There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to fixing either weak link.

Yes.

I tend to think that at the deadline, more teams are desperate and the demands get too high. I'm okay with the 6 starters we have. I wish we had a better ace, but we do have some fine starters. I wouldn't be shocked, if we just add two RP'ers and a decent but not spectacular LH'd bat, and then we'll wait until the deadline to plug holes. I also wouldn't be shocked, if we pulled off a blockbuster and signed someone like EE.

I still wish we had Espi to include in a package to get Quintana.

Yeah, for now. If Pablo doesn't work out, finding a left bat is not hard to do. I think signing Turner to 4-5 years would end up blocking Moncada or devers, although I guess we could trade Turner later (or a prospects) or move the prospects to LF or 1B. As bad as pablo has been for us, he still put up a .744 OPS vs RHPs in 2015. While that's not great, it's not bad for a floor.

Yes, for 5 (Quintana 4 and Frazier 1), but let's face it, Johnson and Owens have a very little chance to ever crack the Sox rotation that appears set for 2 more years, so there's at least 2 x 2= 4 years that shouldn't count. I doubt Shaw ever has a FT job with us again, but I could be wrong. The only years that really will hurt are the Moncada/Swihart years....significant, yes, but not 30 years.

Rumor has it that the Royals are looking to dump salary. I'm wondering if taking Ian Kennedy's remaining contract would help us get Moustakas and Davis. Kennedy is due $62.5M over the next 4 years ($14M luxury tax hit), but he also has an opt out after 2017 that pays him $6M, so it could end up being $19.5M for just 2017. Davis is owed $10M Mostakas has a final arb year after making $8.7M this year. I'm not saying these guys are salary dumps, but their high contract cost would be a factor in lowering the return.

I think Frazier would cost much less in return, but I like Moustakas better as well. Maybe a Moustakas Wade Davis deal can be made.

It would probably not even work, if you added basabe.

What kind of RP. I would think of someone in the mold of a 6th inning piece RP. Owens is a throw in, Abad has no value, Holt maybe a 7th inning RP. I think Owens still has trade value. There are many teams with pretty weak pitching prospects out there. Owens would probably get a long look in ST'ing by several teams. Abad would be the guy that takes the place of the RP'er we get back. Holt is clearly the central piece to my suggested offer. The biggest problem to my suggested offer is the 3 for 1 aspect. All three would need to be on the 40 man roster. A more reasonable deal might be Holt, Owens and Noe Ramirez or Scott. Moon, the Red Sox are not high on Hernandez as you are. I realize that, but the real question is how much difference do they think there is between Holt and Hernandez/Rutledge/Moncada at 3B, Hernandez/Marrero at SS, Hernanez/Moncada at 2B and Young/Swihart in LF. If it's not much, and if we can get something good for Holt, then I think we'll consider it. Two "ifs" usually means no deal.

I realize ERod has just teased us with his nasty stuff. He's yet to put together a long stretch of excellence. There's always some excuse: injury, tipping his pitches, overcompensating... ERod does have the ability to be a Quintana starting next year, but I agree Quintana is a known commodity, and the 4th year of team control at a low cost is the clincher. I'd try to avoid including ERod or Moncada with Swihart for Quintana, but I doubt Swihart, Devers and Owens gets the deal done.

I'm not a huge Frazier fan, but he's got just one year left, and maybe the CWS are okay with parting ways with him and saving on paying for his last ARB year. He got over $8M last year. His downside is he bats righty and K's alot. He's also been below his career .317 OBP the last two years- YUCK! However, he's slugged over .450 for three straight years and 29, 35 and 40 HRs the last three years. He's a +3.6 UZR/150 fielder at 3B, which compares to Longoria, but he's +26 DRS on Evan in that category. Todd is +11 DRS over the last 3 years. He's not great at 3B, but he's much better, steadier, and more powerful than what we have going into 2017. His contract runs out after 2017, which paves the way for Moncada, Devers or someone else to win the job by then.

I meant the two combined, and since Papi and Hill are gone, we can have both on the 25 man roster. Personally, I was surprised they never gave Hernadez a longer look at 3B this year. Maybe his injury was still lingering. It doesn't matter that Holt plays CF or RF, since if one of those guys got hurt, Holt would play LF and Beni, Betts or JBJ would move to a new position. In fact, of the 57 OF games he started last year, 55 were in LF. (64 of 68 OF games played were in LF) He played zero innings in CF this year. Now, talking LF, yes, I'll take Swihart ahead of Holt, but remember, Young is between both of them, so Holt is at best the second back-up to all OF positions. I'd put him 3rd back-up, but I won't argue with him being behind Young and ahead of Swihart. At SS, Hernandez, Marrero, Martinez and Rutledge played more combined games at SS (8) than Holt's 7 (4 started). I'll take Hernandez over Holt at SS every day of the week. If Bogey got hurt, I'd even take Marrero over Holt for an extended period. At 2B, is where I think Holt is best fitted, but with Pedey there, it would take an injury for Holt to play everyday, and even then, I may want Moncada or Hernandez over Holt. It's very close. The main point is, how much of a negative differential is there between Holt and Hernandez/Moncada at 2B long term or short term? At 1B, Holt should never play an inning at 1B next year- same as this year. Although I would not place Hernandez ahead of Holt here, I'm okay with giving Swihart some reps at 1B or 3B this winter/spring. That leaves 3B. Holt became our starting 3Bman to end the season after Pablo falter and got hurt and Shaw fell off a cliff. However, Holt's 11 starts at 3B (mostly at the end of the season) should not be viewed as him being the number 1 or 2 guy at 3B next season, even if we don't make any 3B additions in this off season. Again, my own personal (and debatable) choice would be Hernandez ahead of Holt, but I'd also put Rutledge ahead of Holt as well. Rutledge actually played as many games at 3B as Holt, and would have played more had he not gotten hurt. Sox management chose to keep playing a .577 OPS guy (Hill) over Holt for weeks and weeks. They even gave Moncada a chance before handing the job to Holt. We also may have Pablo back in the mix next spring. Travis Shaw can't be written off either. I just don't see Holt as the number 1, 2 or even 3 at 3B next year, unless we trade or cut some of these guys. At summary, Holt is at best our #2 2Bman with Moncada and Hernandez right on his heels, our 3rd best 3Bman and our 2nd or 3rd best OF back-up option. I could see if this guy was clearly our best back-up at 2-3 positions, but I'm not seeing that. Assuming we don't add anybody to the mix, the loss of Papi and Hill could allow us to have 2 catchers plus Swihart, Young, Hernandez and Shaw as our bench next year. Are we really significantly better with Holt over Rutledge, if he's not even going to be our second choice at any position? I'm not saying It's clear that Hernandez is better than Holt, but to me, Holt has significant trade value that is worth much more than his upgrade over a Hernandez/Shaw/Rutledge/Marrero/Moncada/Travis combination. Having a 3rd catcher that can play LF and maybe a corner IF spot by next year would allow us to PH for our catcher earlier and more often than with just two catchers. Swihart projects to hit better than Holt next year, and I have Hernandez pretty close offensively with Holt. Shaw vs Holt on offense is hard to call. Holt is probably better than Rutledge on offense, but I like Rutledge;'s defense at 3B better than Holt's, so the loss there should not be great.