moonslav59

I did not like the trade when we made it, and it looks bad in hindsight. However, if Kelly gives us two good years, the deal may not look as horrible as it does now. My point was that at the time of the deal we were looking at giving up 1 year of Lackey for 4 of Kelly and the hope that Craig might return to being close to the top 22 hitter he was from 2011 to 2013 plus the 2013 playoffs.

We have Beni and Betts who can play CF. We have nobody to play SS. We have Young and Holt who can play LF, and finding a cheap LF addition is much easier than finding a decent SS. It usually is not a good plan to trade a 3.7 to 4.7 WAR position player and then have to go out and replace him.

I seriously doubt we acquire a catcher. We have 3 guys that would probably start for 1/3 of MLB teams. Swihart's offense is fine, so we're not totally down on offense with our catchers. Leon showed a flash, so maybe he can even things out and be a .700 OPS catcher. It only took a .703 team catcher OPS to be 15th in MLB. 12 teams were below .667. 10 teams below .650. 4 teams below .615. We were 18th at .681 and had Swihart on the DL and in LF for most of the season. I get the idea that we'll need all positions to step it up a little to help make-up for Papi's departure, but I don't think Ramos is the answer. We have too many other high need areas without decent in-system options like we have at catcher.

Chances are that Bogey had a long slump. Too much is being read into the end of his season. The kid is young and super talented. He may need to work on stamina, or maybe all he needs to do is improve on his in season adjustments as pitchers adjust to him. A 4.7 WAR following a 4.3 season last year is no fluke.

He'd do better than the 2016 clown carousel, but I'm not sure Sox brass views Hernandez like I do. If we picked up EE or Beltran to DH, then I could see us standing pat at 3B and letting Pablo, Hernandez, Holt, Shaw, Moncada and Rutledge fight it out to play FT or platoon at 3B.

At worst, we take the option and trade him.

I doubt they'd consider trading Bogey until Dubon is ready. We also are weak in OF depth, unless they are thinking of planting Moncada or Swihart in LF. I think we may deal Moncada or Devers plus Swihart and some mid levels for something substantial.

He'd leave it. If Mike Leak can get $80M/5 last winter and Brandon McCarthy can get $48M/4 and E Santana $55M/4 the year before, Buch will want and get more. Of course, there is the risk he will suck in 2017 and lose that value, but my guess is, he will want to score big after next season. Plus, he's not even sure of a slot in our rotation next year.

Look at what Oprah and other entertainers get. I do think the players would be better served if the money was more evenly distributed, but stardom rewards those who bring the fans to the park and TV sets.

He did look much better as the year went on, but I still think his brief successful history at DH and his willingness to play wherever we put him makes him a good candidate for DH next year. Again, I'd ask him to see if he's fine with the idea, and if he says no, I'd probably leave him at 1B. I don't like the idea of signing a DH only type player like EE. Even Beltran is a significant minus in LF. Whenever we play at an NL park, we lose a big bat or suffer on defense. I'd prefer to add a 1 year 3Bman, which allows Shaw, Swihart and HanRam to play 1B and platoon with Young at DH.

I'd rather go young as well, but finding an aged vet for a 1 or 2 year deal to "bridge" to the youth movement is okay with me. There's not much on the FA market I'd like to outbid others for, but I think we'll sign someone (RP'er? 3B? DH/1B?). I'm thinking our biggest splash may be in trade. It's hard to know who is out there at this early point, but I'm sure names will be flying soon enough. Not getting past the first round of the playoffs and not only losing Papi but also possibly Uehara, Ziegler and Tazawa could create an atmosphere of desperation. I hope not, but I do think we can make a few measured and strategic moves to minimize these loses while not blocking the way for a further youth movement. Our oldest players on the roster this year were: 41 Uehara 40 Ortiz 36 Ziegler 35 Hanigan 34 Hill 32 Ramirez, Pedroia, Young Amazingly, in 2017, we could have a 33 year old as our oldest player!

HanRam is a minus fielder. HanRam has a better OPS as a DH than any other position, although the sample size is just 36 scattered games. HanRam has a long injury history, and DH may minimize that risk. I'd ask HR what he thinks about the idea, at least as maybe a DH vs RHPs and 1Bman vs LHPs. Maybe we can pick up a great platoon player who kills righties and flip the 1B-DH role for HR- giving him more time at 1B than DH, but HR has already played 4 positions for more than 350 PAS, so I think he can adjust. Is there some risk? Sure, but so is there a risk putting a sub average fielding, injury-prone player at 1B instead of at DH. EE will cost a lot and get too many years.

At the time of the deal, it wasn't so obvious. Kelly had a 3.25 ERA with STL over 266 IP. Granted, it was just a 102 ERA+, and his 1.38 WHIP was not pretty, but he was pretty highly regarded. He was just 26 and could/should have been expected to get better. Lackey's value to us was zero for the two months of the year we dealt him, but his next year with us might have had value and his 1.3 years of control to STL was very valuable. Allen Craig had an .839 playoff OPS over 118 PAs. He was coming off a major injury from the 2013 WS vs the Sox and had a terrible half season with the Cards before the trade, but at age 29, I don't think anyone expected a cliff dive on his behalf. Only 22 MLB batters had more PAs AND a higher OPS (.863) from 2011 to 2013. Look, I realize GMs are judged in hindsight. I get the reasoning for that, and I don't necessarily disagree with that realization, but at the time of the trade, it wasn't widely viewed as a gross overpay. 4 years of Kelly and 4 years of Craig at a $6.2M luxury tax cost for 1.3 years of Lackey, of which the 0.3 was useless to us was somewhat reasonable. At the time of the great purge, I argued that we should have gone for more prospect types and not ML ready players/prospects, but the Sox brass was not about to look like they were packing it in for the next year. They wanted to go young but not too young. I thought we could have done better on all three of our SP'er trades at the time, but to me, the Lackey trade looked better than the Lester and Peavy deals. I had high hopes for Kelly and thought Craig would at least be a good platoon player at 1B, LF or DH.

I'm thinking the luxury tax limit might end up over $210M. That will help the players, but owners will still make megmillions.

I never said I was for getting Votto, but if they'd take Pablo, I'd listen.

I could see us using HanRam at 1B vs LH's starters (maybe 35-45 games) and at DH for the rest. We could use Young at DH vs LHPs and let Beni play LF full time. I also think Carlos Beltran is a more likely signing than EE. He's a switch hitter who actually hits both sides close to equally. He won't be getting a 4-5 year deal either. If we do get Beltran, we may DH him FT and use HR at 1B FT. When we play in an NL park, Beltran could play LF. This would probably also cause a Beni-Young LF platoon.

Agreed, but the jury is still out. He still has two years left, which is still more control time than Lackey had. I'm not defending the trade, but I do think 4 years of Kelly was a good gamble. We basically got Porcello for Lester, Kelly (at a high cost when adding Craig's contract) for Lackey and Hembree for Peavy. It seems like other teams get more for these types of guys, but Ben tried to get ML ready players, so that tied his hands to some extent.

He's the greatest Sox player I have ever seen. He's the most clutch baseball player I've ever seen. Happy retirement Big Papi. You deserve a great life!

You're probably right on demanding the option be taken, but with a $7M buyout and a $20M final year cost, it's only a $13M difference, and if Votto ages well, it might be a good deal at age 40. 4 years for EE is a lot, but he'll get it for sure. He may get 5 years. It's his last chance for a big payday.

Kelly was the main man in the trade. Craig was a flyer on filling our 1B need at the time. At least Craig's contract doesn't get taxed at 50%!

Thanks. That makes sense.

I didn't set the 10 year range. I was just responding to a comment. I do think the Rays had success not just because of high draft picks. They had a very good GM. They traded away very good players right before they declined. They had the guts to trade good pitchers for some nice prospects that mostly worked out. They picked up many journeymen type players that had career years for them. They had one year where they maxed out the supplemental pick strategy with something like 11 picks in the first 3 rounds. I realize a team like the Sox could not use many of their strategies, but they did do moves like the Wagner one that brought us a comp pick. Certainly, I do not want us to emulate the Ray's, and as I remember, the Rays bombed out on those 11 picks, so they were far from perfect. The Guardians might be a better model to look at. One thing the Rays and Guardians seem to have that we don't have is the ability to draft and acquire top young pitchers.

Why is it so clear he'd refuse a trade to a winning team?

My point is obvious to understand. The Guardians have spent less than half as much as the Sox and have been just about the same in winning season records and making the playoffs. The Rays have spent about a quarter of what we have spent and done nearly as well with 80 and 90+ seasons and making the playoffs. Both teams are way behind on recent rings for sure, I'll grant you that, but after next year (assuming no ring), we'll have just one ring in the last10 years.

1) I don't disagree with anything you have said here. 2) Hanley wanted to come to Boston so badly, he agreed to play LF. That shows a willingness to "do what it takes". 3) I'd ask hanRam about moving to DH beffore insisting on him going. Maybe he'd love the idea, although that doesn't mean he'll excel as a DH. 4) He's already DH'd 36 times over his career, so he should have some gut feeling on his liking it or not. 5) Small sample size alert: OPS as DH 1.014 (155 PAs) as SS .882 (4759 PAs) as 1B .845 (569 PAs) as 3B .762 (422 PAs) as LF .690 (379 PAs) as PH .674 (37 PAs)