Hugh2

More of a preference with me. DD paid to turn a bad team into a good team, I'd rather see a team build from within and then pay to turn a good team into a great team. I think if you do it the second way you extend your window. To each their own....that's what I wanted to see, I'm also 35 and not going to die anytime soon so perhaps that influences my philosophy.

In a vacuum, none of DD's trades look bad. My biggest issue was I thought he started the sell-off and go for it process 1-2 years too soon. Ben C. wasn't perfect either, if I was him I would have loved to of had that John Lakey trade back. He tried being the smartest guy in the room by being a seller and thinking he was buying low on MLB proven talent. If you're sellers you're sellers, he should of just stock piled the farm even further. As another poster earlier pointed out, you can re-stock the farm in almost one year IF you're willing to sell off your team at the deadline. The Yankees system took a giant leap forward by selling off their bullpen.

This team does have a nice solid core, a core that's going to get very expensive. This team will have some tough choices in a few years, that might entail them being willing to spend significantly over the luxury tax to be competitive.

Stocking the farm is enirely 100% why we're where we are. The farm exists to supplement the big club be through development or trades. Guys like Betts, Benintendi, Vasquez, Boaerts, JBJ all came from stock piling the farm. Guys like Pomeranz, Sale, and Kimbrel came from having a stock piled farm.

Well that's precisely the type of player you have to give up to get a guy like Stanton. The Sox don't have the farm system to pull off a Stanton trade, I'm sure Miami would love guys like Groome, Mata, and Chavis in their system but those would have to be augmented with MLB pieces and Benintendi has more years of control....which is precisely what you're looking for when you trade a guy like Stanton away. You're rebuilding so you want the guy who is cost controlled for more years.

I completely wholeheartedly agree, which is why I said I'm ok with the Utility guy starting for short stints. But there's a reason why teams go out and get a Todd Frazier when their 3rd baseman goes down. It just so happens that this team thought a guy named Rafael Devers was ready, or at the very least deserved the shot. But if the Red Sox didn't have a Rafael Devers I could've seen them being much more aggresive in the Frazier sweepstakes, or someone else who could start. Teams in general like to keep utility players utillity players. If you have to rely on your utility guy starting you're likely a team that isn't competing..

If they take on that contract, they're still taking probably $225 million of their books and getting back Benintendi/Erod/Groome. You had to give up 2 top prospects in all of the baseballs to get Sale for 3 years but at a better contract. Is Moncada/Kopech > Benintendi/Erod/Groome + taking on more money? IDK, I'd argue yes but at the end of the day if another team is willing to pay more you'd have to up that offer. I think dealing Erod opens the door to signing SP depth in too, where guys weren't willing to come to Boston now they may be. Plus we have Wright coming back too and perhaps Fister would be interested in competing for the 5th spot.

I'm ok with the bench guy starting for a week give or take a few days, but any longer than that then you need to either look outside the organization for a better option or you play the banged-up star if he makes your team better. All things considered.

I agree, Ben C. probably had his support at some point when Henry wanted to build the farm up and help rebuild the teams future. He decided to cash in and figured DD was the guy who had the better track record with more experience in that department. DD (at least up until this point) has had the full support of Henry, otherwise he wouldn't be here.

DD sold off the farm and built this team around winning the next 3-5 years from 2017 on. Now we can have impending cliff talks all day long but he at least gets to see how this team plays out. We've had two 1st place finishes and as far as I'm concerned he gets two more years before we even ask this question.....and this is coming from a guy who hasn't 100% agreed with his organizational philosophy.

Expectations were built really high for Xander Bogaerts, sometimes anything short of what a guys ceiling is supposed to be is a disappointment for some people. He's still very young, and could take another step forward if power comes but if all he is is the player he is today he is well worth the $510,000K investment it took to sign him.

My guess is a package of Benintendi/Erod/Groome could get you there if not close. Maybe for that package you could get them to swallow Hanleys deal too. They still get a ton of money off their books, it makes the money even for us for the next 1-2 years and they get a potential TOTRS, a MOTRS now for a few years and a young controllable outfielder for the next 5 years. If we're willing to go above the LT threshold we could easily go out and sign Martinez and then have a lineup that looks like Betts Pedey Stanton Martinez Bogaerts Devers JBJ Vasquez Travis

I mean, he was a 22-year-old who ended the season at .320/.355/.421. Not really sure that is deserving of any type of criticism.

I meant to say Santana. I would love me some Martinez, but I'm not sure I'm up for paying a guy a boat load of cash and moving him off position again. I'd be happy with him being a DH/4thOF/back up 1B and pay the man.

I do think this team as is could show more power. I expect a full season of Devers to provide more production out of 3B than we've seen the last few years. I expect more pop from Bogaerts as well, as a guy who was supposed to have power and hit 21 Home Runs as a 23-year-old you have to believe there is some power in his swing. I'm convinced at this point that power will never be as much a part of his game as some had anticipated as a top prospect moving from the system but I also believe his hand injury had a significant impact on his production this year. I still think we need to add pop though, with a little internal improvement plus an acquisition or two this offense could do a 180 next year. Hosmer was a guy I suggested earlier because he's the top guy at the position that is easiest for us to fill and improve this lineup. He's young, just moving into his prime, and I really think his swing would play well at Fenway. I like Martinez as a solution as well, but he's also at that age where you never can be certain what you get. He could produce until he is 40 or fall off a cliff next year. Especially if a QO is involved, I'd rather bet on the guy in his prime with a swing made for Fenway. Anytime a big investment involving money and draft picks is involved there is always a case against, and that I understand. But we traded away the top positional prospect and one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball for 3 years of Chris Sale. That was a win now move and we only get two years of him left. Count me in the go big or go home boat.

Hanley has an option that vests if he gets his AB's. He can hit .232 and still collect 22 million dollars. Of course, you can always bench him if he's hitting .232 but my guess is that does not sit very well for him. That was my point, the scenario that may playout and how that could influence the clubhouse with the Hanley situation next year.

I'm all for avoiding Hanley's option, but you mine as well pay him to play elsewhere if you do that. I'm not sure I want him in the clubhouse if he knows he's sitting the bench and losing out on 20 million next year. I mean, if he's a team player, this is what I would actually prefer. Hanley/Moreland platoon at first, with Martinez DH/OF If Moreland is too expensive perhaps Shaw can platoon with Hanley as well.

I'd prefer to not sign Hosmer at 1B, but he almost certainly would return much greater value for the next 4 years than any lost draft pick would.

I figured the free agent market was implied.

People do realize we have almost no trade chips at this point. If we want to get an impactful MLB player we are giving up another one. Which I'm not opposed to, but I still view this as somewhat of a sizeways move in the absence of making some FA signings.

Hosmer would be a significant upgrade over Travis. Interesting that this was the take away from my post. My preference would be to sign Martinez and Otani. Hosmer is brought up because he plays 1st base, he's one of the best hitters on the market, and he plays a position the Sox have a hole at and could use an upgrade when they desparetely need an upgrade on the offense. Can this move be criticized? absolutely, but to those throwing stones, let us hear your plans to upgrade this team? In terms of where Martinez plays, I wouldn't be opposed to giving him a 1B glove, depending on how far down the rabbit hole we want to go I wouldn't oppose seeing him in LF and using Benintendi as part of a package to upgrade another position. I'd also be fine with him being a 4thoufielder/DH hybrid, he could upgrade the offense, fill in youngs role and open up a roster spot for one more out of the Marrero/Hernandez/Holt/Lin clan which will go a long way with Pedey's situation up in the air.

I'm ok with Santana if the price is right, but if you're going all in I'd take Hosmer whose just as good with 4 years younger.

Sign Otani, Sign Martinez, resign Moreland or if you really want to go all in sign Hosmer as well. I think the pitching will be elite next year. I think a clean bill of health and sophomore Benintendi + Devers will make the offense better. Adding Martinez I think can put us over the top.

14 years in baseball salary inflation is a few lifetimes. Baring any injuries, or a huge drop in production Stanton will be worth every bit of that contract as Manny was.

Sale/Pom/Erod/Porc. Price the long guy if one of those guys look like they are going to lay an egg early.