S5Dewey

Given the fact that we have Kimbrel as our closer, I can see Koji being used as Miller was used in the playoffs - to put out the fire regardless of the inning, and then turning clean innings over to the rest of the pen.

That's a really good question. I don't remember any chatter at all about his shoulder until he went on the DL. I still have the feeling that there was something minor wrong with the shoulder that they used as an excuse to get him off the field in 2016. - something that was going to need attention sooner or later so they did it then to clear the roster spot (and try to preserve Sandoval's reputation). His "girth" is my major concern. I know he's played heavy before but he's not as young as he used to be, and even back then he was no more than adequate defensively.

Teams often will try to emulate the previous WS winner. This whole thing with how Tito used Andrew Miller may upset the applecart in regards to how relievers are used. Oh yeah... and Welcome, OF!

I hear ya, Kim. But from a roster standpoint it's going to be tough to justify carrying three catchers. IMO any one of the three is good enough to start for a contender (as opposed to a favorite). IMO if the Sox still have all three of them come April one of them will be stashed in Pawtucket as security against one of the other two not making the grade in Boston.

Where did you drag up this .220 thing? He has an OPS of ~.800 over the past two years and is one of the elite CF's in the league. My interpretation of what DD said is that as long as these three guys play as expected they're entrenched for a long time as our outfield. If JBJ hits .220 his position on the team is in serious jeopardy, just like Bogaerts or Pedey or anyone else on the team, but there's nothing to make one think that's going to happen. I find it unrealistic to think that JBJ is going to revert to what he was in 2014 when he's had two good seasons since then. Probably Moon (or someone else) will come up with data to ruin this, but it appears to me that JBJ is only streaky with his power. I'd predict that day-in, day-out he'll continue to be a .250-.275 hitter who will go on "power tears" that will keep his OPS at ~.800. That makes him a great candidate for the 6-7-8 spot in the order. When that is combined with his defense... he's entrenched.

YES!! I see no reason to trade any one of those guys. These are three guys you trade FOR, not trade AWAY. You may have noticed that I'm not a big fan of WAR and I believe that having those three in the OF will gain more net wins than will trading away any one of them for any pitcher whom we could expect to get for him. (Get real. We're not going to trade any one - or two - or three of those guys in a package to get Clayton Kershaw). BTW, there was a discussion recently in one of our threads about letting the media know about injured players. Did anyone notice that Mookie had surgery to remove "something" (probably cartilage) from his knee that has been bothering him since July?

IMO the only starting positions that are up for grabs going into ST are Catching and 3B and both of them are going to be balancing acts. It looks like Leon has gone back to being Leon again and Vaz's offense is a question mark after being sent down to work on his offense. I see Vaz as having a slight lead in that race because his defense is slightly better than Leon and ..well... his offense couldn't be much worse than Leon's, even if he learned nothing in Pawtucket. Oh... and he's apparently out of options, even if I don't understand why. Of course, I've always wondered if sending a player down to work on his offense is productive because there's a BIG difference between being able to hit AAA pitching and hitting MLB pitching. The best thing that can be said about doing that is that it gets a player who's not hitting out of the lineup while allowing him to keep playing. As much as I hate to think this, I believe Sandoval has the edge in the 3B position, mostly because the FO will want to try to recoup some of the value there. I'm not optimistic that it's going to work but I understand why they'd want to do it. I've always been a big fan of Travis Shaw because my perception of him is as of someone who comes up with hits in big situations - which may make him a good candidate for being a bench player/PH'er, and if they figure out in June that Sandoval isn't the answer at 3B they still have Shaw to fill the gap until the trade deadline.

Pete Abraham has tweeted--- Dombrowski mentioned the Benintendi-Bradley-Betts​ OF being “entrenched for a long time.”

Just when I thought I understood "options" I read that Vazquez is out of options. Ugh. Vazquez came up in April of 2014 and played in 55 games before going down for TJ surgery. He didn't play at all in 2015, and played in 57 games in 2016. Since a player has three option years and he didn't play at all in 2015, how can he be out of options? Anyone got any ideas?

I understood it the way it was intended. I may be relatively new here but I'm catching on to how certain posters phrase things.

I'd do this in a heartbeat. $25M/year may be a bargain by 2023 but at the same time, for Mookie it purchases "insurance" again injuries, etc. for the five seasons until that time.

This^^^ There are a handful of MLB players I don't want in the clubhouse and Ryan Braun is near the top of the list. Having choir boys may not be realistic but I have no interest in someone who throws other people under the bus rather than accept the blame for his own actions.

If those are the only two options DD is considering it rules out both EE and Joey Batts as I don't see either of them taking a short-term contract.

There was some chatter a while back about how some managers - and Tito's name was at the forefront - have changed the way the game is played. This may be another instance of it, using your best reliever in the highest leverage situations regardless of the inning. This is something Bill James has been saying for years. It'll be interesting to see if this catches on in 2017.

When I answer a hypothetical question I do it with a hypothetical answer. That seems fair... to me, anyway!

How did this conversation get from "the lineup is too right handed in the power slots" to trading Bradley, who bats lefty with an OPS of .835?

I don't think it's decided. IMO it will be decided in ST. Leon has come back to earth, dragging his OPS back to real life at ~.600, which is about the same as Vazquez. The difference between the two is that Leon's .600 is skewed by the time he was >.800 while Vaz .600 is the product of having consistently been a poorer than average hitter. We rode Leon's streak while he was hot but now he's the Leon we bought from the Nats with a BA below the Mendoza line and an OPS of And in a related issue.... I'm never sure how many appearances constitute a meaningful sample size and IMO "meaningful sample size" differs depending on what one wants to get from it. For me when talking about an established player, one year is meaningful in determining what a player probably "is", but it has little to no bearing on what they're going to do in their very next AB. Leon is a good example of that. During his short career Leon has been an abysmally poor hitter and if one looked at his previous year they'd think this guy will only get a hit in about 1 in 5 AB's, but he went through a period of time when it seemed like he couldn't make an out. That's why I put more stock in recent appearances than I do in a career average and why I will usually ride a hot hand. If a reserve player goes 3-4 in one game I'd be sure he got to play in the next game. I like to think of in-season statistics in terms of a one month rolling average, all the while realizing that this player may go into the dumpster tomorrow. That's why I found it frustrating to watch Leon flailing away at the ball during the last part of the season while Vaz was on the bench. We didn't know what Vaz had offensively but IMO it was probably better than what Leon was producing, with no drop off in defense. Which brings me back around to why I think Vazquez will be our opening day catcher! He spent some time with the Pawsox working on the offensive side of his game, and even if it didn't work he's still going to be better beside the plate than Leon and at least as good behind it. And if he did learn in Pawtucket... his offense is a plus.

I'm a long way from giving up on Vazquez. In fact, I think he'll be our catcher on opening day. DD likes defense. Besides, he spent time in Pawtucket working on his offense - or so I hear - and he had at least one XBH in limited appearances after he came back.

I don't see any great mystery here. It's because the players are mercenaries. And I don't say that like it's a bad thing - nearly all MLB players are mercenaries. The Yankees offered them more money than 1) the Sox could afford to pay or 2) the Sox thought the players were worth. On the flip side of that coin, the Yankees have traditionally locked up their "stars" for contracts that took them through their prime years and to the point where the Sox didn't want them.

Sorry. My bad. I keep forgetting that voice inflection and facial expressions doesn't carry well on line. What I meant to say is that whether you like him or not I believe he'll be here next year. As to the rest, we'll see. That's what these message boards are all about - differences of opinion. It's all good.

We're going to disagree on this. IMO if the FO started shopping Buch around the line of interested GM's would stretch the length of Landsdowne St. and onto Yawkey Way, and we should be interested in keeping him for the same reasons other GM's would want to acquire him. He's got great stuff and could be a #1- #2 in 2017. Remember, even if he only goes half a season he's not a bad buy at $13.5M in today's market. The only way I can see him going is with another piece in a trade for a real TOR pitcher. Even then I don't think that will happen because I don't see another club trading a TOR pitcher for Buch, even if we throw in another player like Holt or Hernandez. TOR pitchers are too valuable to be trading away for a question mark + one or two maybes. Like him or not, I think we're stuck with him.

Have you forgotten? There's no such thing as "clutch".

IMO there's not much doubt that the Cubs won in spite of Maddon. However, from a historical standpoint all of his blunders will be forgotten and he'll go down in the history books as the manager who took the Cubs to their first WS championship in 108 years. Ugh.

As I've said before, the thing Larry knows how to do is to make money. Other than that he's essentially useless in a baseball organization. It's unfortunate that JH wasn't strong enough to have put Larry in his place and told him to keep his nose out of the baseball end of the organization. Then we could have kept them both.

Hmmm... interesting stuff. So JBJ is ranked higher offensively than Bogaerts, and I think most of us would agree that JBJ is better defensively at his position that XBO is at SS. If we go by this then trading Bogaerts would weaken the team more than trading JBJ would. And be clear, I'm not advocating trading either of them. I just finding it interesting that sometimes we like our 'stats' and sometimes we don't. We like them when they confirm what we think (XBo is more valuable than JBJ) but we don't like them as much when they show something we don't like (statistically JBJ is more vaulable than XBo).