SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Re-sign Stephen Drew? (5/20 EDIT: Drew re-signed 1yr deal)
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 13:39:38 GMT -5
No one is saying that Middlebrooks is riskless player but the Red Sox are in a position where they need to take chances on young players. If you throw away good young players and they succeed somewhere else, you very quickly end up being the Seattle Mariners. Seattle Mariners + an extra $80+M/year in payroll limit... But I agree with the larger point about committing to young players - the performance downside for WMB is, what - a .700 OPS? One below average regular is not going to wreck a season.
|
|
zoot
Rookie
Posts: 50
|
Post by zoot on Dec 12, 2013 13:50:37 GMT -5
Because you're reducing Boegarts value moving him to 3rd and you're giving up on WMB's value by not letting him attempt to bounce back. Two reasons. No you're not. In the abstract you are, because in general replacement level is lower at shortstop than at third. In other words, you're going to have a better team by putting Bogaerts at short, because the generic third baseman you bring in to plug third is a better hitter than the generic shortstop you'd bring in to plug short. But this isn't theory and we're not dealing with genetic players. There's no awesome third baseman that the Red Sox are going to get if they put Bogaerts at shortstop. Drew/Bogaerts is in all likelihood the best combination of defense and offense that the Red Sox are going to get from those positions for the next couple years. As far as WMB's value, I reject the premise that he's automatically going to recover value if you play him next year. What if he struggles again? What if he's sent down to Pawtucket again? Where's his value then? It's not a premise - it's a value judgment made after assessing a range of possibilities and the benefits and detriments of each and coming to the conclusion that it's not time to give up all hope for him. X is X. He isn't going anywhere in the short to mid term. It's highly unlikely that a change of position will affect his performance at the plate. His defense at 3rd is still an unknown (SSS in WS), his defense at SS is decent but not apparently all-world. Drew is very good in the field - not Iggy, but who is - and a sinkhole at the plate, maybe the equivalent of a bad year from WMB. WMB represents significant power potential if he can turn himself around and is adequate to maybe good in the field. Going with X/WMB gives you the chance for plus power and adequacy in the field at both positions, going with X/Drew represents a significant loss of potential power in return for enhanced defense at SS and a push in 3rd base defense. I don't think anyone in his right mind would argue that WMB is a sure thing. 2014 could turn out poorly for him. But the thinking seems to be that WMB should be pushed aside, that Drew is a placeholder and that Cecchini will be ready for 2015. What if he isn't? What if his power doesn't develop? I like Drew in the field as much as anyone on the board. But I don't think you can turn your back on WMB's potential for a comeback and lose the additional draft choice by signing Drew.
|
|
|
Post by MLBDreams on Dec 12, 2013 13:51:02 GMT -5
Let him go where he would receive more lucrative multiyear offers. The FO & teammates wanted him to return. But he didn't love here in this city nor wanted to stay around here like what Mike Napoli did. Same cold as Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Pepelbon. Long term contract & big money comes first when it comes with Scott Boras as the player's agent.
It's risk to have 3 inexperience positional players (WMB, XB & JBJ) as Opening Day 2014 roster. It's under $189 cap if they chose the route.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 13:55:03 GMT -5
Well as Fenway pointed out the downside is that he can't hack it and has to be replaced somehow. The Red Sox do have the resources and farm system to do that though. Just so we are clear, Fenway's opinion that Middlebrooks can't play, and we all know that's really how he feels, isn't an isolated one. www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/is-will-middlebrooks-already-irrelevant/. It's just one that I think is wrong, short-sighted and ignores his improved play after his minor league stint. And yes you are correct due to the Red Sox resources they would probably not lose as many games as Seattle has even if they did give up on young players like they do. It would still be damaging though.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 12, 2013 14:30:10 GMT -5
Signing Drew would, presumably, push Middlebrooks into a platoon/backup role, which has me wondering, would Middlebrooks have the arm and/or athleticism for LF, or maybe even RF? If Will could play in the outfield as well as 3B, and 2B, you could do away with Gomes and have Will backup 2B/3B/LF(/RF?) and get ABs platooning with Nava and/or Drew, while also saving a bit of money by moving Gomes, and improving overall roster flexibility. He threw low to mid 90s as a HSer off the mound.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 12, 2013 14:41:28 GMT -5
Signing Drew would, presumably, push Middlebrooks into a platoon/backup role, which has me wondering, would Middlebrooks have the arm and/or athleticism for LF, or maybe even RF? If Will could play in the outfield as well as 3B, and 2B, you could do away with Gomes and have Will backup 2B/3B/LF(/RF?) and get ABs platooning with Nava and/or Drew, while also saving a bit of money by moving Gomes, and improving overall roster flexibility. He threw low to mid 90s as a HSer off the mound. He probably could play a corner OF spot but presumably with the dearth of slugging 3rd basemen in baseball he'd likely be worth more in a trade than covering to LF.
|
|
|
Post by ikonos on Dec 12, 2013 15:19:23 GMT -5
May be Sox will sign Drew and start X in AAA to start the season and see how WMB performs in the first couple of months to decide.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Dec 12, 2013 15:28:10 GMT -5
Rosenthall on Drew to Mets
#Mariners currently preoccupied with Price talks. #Mets feel they would have to overpay to get Drew; otherwise, he would go back to #RedSox.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 15:31:12 GMT -5
May be Sox will sign Drew and start X in AAA to start the season and see how WMB performs in the first couple of months to decide. Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2013 15:34:00 GMT -5
May be Sox will sign Drew and start X in AAA to start the season and see how WMB performs in the first couple of months to decide. Don't even joke about that.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 15:39:22 GMT -5
He threw low to mid 90s as a HSer off the mound. He probably could play a corner OF spot but presumably with the dearth of slugging 3rd basemen in baseball he'd likely be worth more in a trade than covering to LF. Right and to be honest I wouldn't play him over Nava in LF right now and you all know how I feel about Nava.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 15:42:17 GMT -5
Is there really anything more important than putting Bogaerts in the best position to succeed? Signing Drew would screw everything up for him - make him bounce around the infield, possibly move to 3rd permanently.
So yeah, signing Drew might be the best thing for the 2014 Red Sox. But so would have re-signing Ellsbury and signing McCann and Choo too. It just doesn't make sense if you think beyond this year. If you care about more than this year, you have to consider NOT screwing Xander up or not giving him the experience he needs at his long-term position. You have to consider maximizing value for WMB and/or whether he could be the Red Sox third baseman of the future. And you'd also have to consider that we could possibly have three thirdbasemen and no shortstops in 2016 if we go down that road because no player I can ever think of ever goes back to shortstop after they've been moved off. And even if he did, he'd have lost that defensive development for the years Drew was here.
And that is considering that Farrell wouldn't be clueless about how to handle Drew, Xander and WMB by starting Drew every game and splitting time between WMB and Xander at third.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Dec 12, 2013 15:45:03 GMT -5
No you're not. In the abstract you are, because in general replacement level is lower at shortstop than at third. In other words, you're going to have a better team by putting Bogaerts at short, because the generic third baseman you bring in to plug third is a better hitter than the generic shortstop you'd bring in to plug short. But this isn't theory and we're not dealing with genetic players. There's no awesome third baseman that the Red Sox are going to get if they put Bogaerts at shortstop. Drew/Bogaerts is in all likelihood the best combination of defense and offense that the Red Sox are going to get from those positions for the next couple years. As far as WMB's value, I reject the premise that he's automatically going to recover value if you play him next year. What if he struggles again? What if he's sent down to Pawtucket again? Where's his value then? It's not a premise - it's a value judgment made after assessing a range of possibilities and the benefits and detriments of each and coming to the conclusion that it's not time to give up all hope for him. X is X. He isn't going anywhere in the short to mid term. It's highly unlikely that a change of position will affect his performance at the plate. His defense at 3rd is still an unknown (SSS in WS), his defense at SS is decent but not apparently all-world. Drew is very good in the field - not Iggy, but who is - and a sinkhole at the plate, maybe the equivalent of a bad year from WMB. WMB represents significant power potential if he can turn himself around and is adequate to maybe good in the field. Going with X/WMB gives you the chance for plus power and adequacy in the field at both positions, going with X/Drew represents a significant loss of potential power in return for enhanced defense at SS and a push in 3rd base defense. I don't think anyone in his right mind would argue that WMB is a sure thing. 2014 could turn out poorly for him. But the thinking seems to be that WMB should be pushed aside, that Drew is a placeholder and that Cecchini will be ready for 2015. What if he isn't? What if his power doesn't develop? I like Drew in the field as much as anyone on the board. But I don't think you can turn your back on WMB's potential for a comeback and lose the additional draft choice by signing Drew. Wait, when did Drew suddenly suck offensively? It's not like Drew is a no-hit-all-glove SS. After an awkward start, he hit .267/.342/.469 from May on. He knocked 47 XBH hits in 440 PAs over that span. He was on pace for a prorated 18 HR season. This, of course, while playing plus defense at a premium position. Nevermind the obvious defensive upgrade Drew represents, maybe they actually like his bat too.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 12, 2013 15:46:18 GMT -5
Fenway I think you should be more honest here. From your comments on the player in several threads it's pretty clear what you think of him. You reject the premise entirely that Middlebrooks has any reasonable chance of becoming a valuable major league player. I think you are very much undervaluing Middlebrooks' ability. Middlebrooks adjusted his swing in the minors last year and after he came back was much improved. He posted a .341 W/OBA after his return in 158 PAs. Though that's certainly not proof of improved ability that's not a player I'm ready to give up on. No one is saying that Middlebrooks is riskless player but the Red Sox are in a position where they need to take chances on young players. If you throw away good young players and they succeed somewhere else, you very quickly end up being the Seattle Mariners. The Red Sox have a strong farm system and very good resources to buffet these risks, but they can't be giving up on young players because they struggle for a couple of months. No player is riskless, but Middlebrooks is a HIGH risk player. I was one of if not Middlebrooks biggest fans from the day he was drafted. I'm not ready to completely give up on him, but why can't Middlebrooks continue to develop in a backup role and spend some time in AAA if there aren't any injuries or he's not getting enough AB's in the majors. It's not like it's too easy for him so he has bad habits there. He needs to develop a better approach at the plate and old habits die hard. That's not an easy thing to do and for a team like the Red Sox who like hitters who work the count and attack their pitch, a free swinger like WMB doesn't necessarily fit well. My biggest concern over bringing Drew back is does this mean Xander doesn't get the chance to become a short stop. It may not matter, as he may be needed more at 3b going forward (no guarantees with WMB or GC) so it's not something I'm extremely concerned about. I also think, there is a high probability that he gets a good amount of time at short. Drew isn't exactly the picture of durability so what's the chance he sees 140+ games? X is X. He isn't going anywhere in the short to mid term. It's highly unlikely that a change of position will affect his performance at the plate. His defense at 3rd is still an unknown (SSS in WS), his defense at SS is decent but not apparently all-world. Drew is very good in the field - not Iggy, but who is - and a sinkhole at the plate, maybe the equivalent of a bad year from WMB. Please go back and check out their offensive years last season. Drew is far from a sinkhole at the plate and Middlebrooks last season was MUCH worse than Drew. They certainly make for a good platoon pair when you have someone like Xander to move back and forth between short and third. Drew hits RHP very well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 15:57:35 GMT -5
Is there really anything more important than putting Bogaerts in the best position to succeed? Signing Drew would screw everything up for him - make him bounce around the infield, possibly move to 3rd permanently. So yeah, signing Drew might be the best thing for the 2014 Red Sox. But so would have re-signing Ellsbury and signing McCann and Choo too. It just doesn't make sense if you think beyond this year. If you care about more than this year, you have to consider NOT screwing Xander up or not giving him the experience he needs at his long-term position. You have to consider maximizing value for WMB and/or whether he could be the Red Sox third baseman of the future. And you'd also have to consider that we could possibly have three thirdbasemen and no shortstops in 2016 if we go down that road because no player I can ever think of ever goes back to shortstop after they've been moved off. And even if he did, he'd have lost that defensive development for the years Drew was here. And that is considering that Farrell wouldn't be clueless about how to handle Drew, Xander and WMB by starting Drew every game and splitting time between WMB and Xander at third. The value of any lost "development time" at SS is pretty negligible for me. If Xander is going to be a superstar, having to field two pretty similar positions isn't going to be the thing that ruins it for him. In this proposed timeshare, he still plays SS in about a third of his games, and he's not going to forget how to play it just because he isn't playing there full-time. Remember, Manny Machado has been playing third base while Jurickson Profar is going to play second base. Why? Because a GM has to maximize the talent he has available, and that sometimes means playing young players outside their ideal positions.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2013 16:19:59 GMT -5
Well as Fenway pointed out the downside is that he can't hack it and has to be replaced somehow. The Red Sox do have the resources and farm system to do that though. Just so we are clear, Fenway's opinion that Middlebrooks can't play, and we all know that's really how he feels, isn't an isolated one. www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/is-will-middlebrooks-already-irrelevant/. It's just one that I think is wrong, short-sighted and ignores his improved play after his minor league stint. And yes you are correct due to the Red Sox resources they would probably not lose as many games as Seattle has even if they did give up on young players like they do. It would still be damaging though. Don't be a jerk. It's not that I think WMB can't play. It's that I think there's a significant chance that he can't play, and that has to be considered in any analysis of his/Drew's role with the team next year and beyond. Instead it seems everyone wants to plan around his upside exclusively. And a plan based only on the most optimistic scenario isn't a plan at all.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 12, 2013 16:24:49 GMT -5
I think if Drew is signed, he and Bogaerts will be the regulars at the beginning of the season and, assuming both hit reasonably well, WMB, if he still is with the team, and right now I think he will be, will be the backup infielder and sub at various positions, including 1B, and possibly the OF. Of course, spring training could change things. I don't believe they will platoon Bogaerts. If any platoon made any sense, it would be Drew and WMB. with Bogaerts switching between 3B and SS.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 16:26:47 GMT -5
The reason he can't do that is because that doesn't involve a realistic path to an every day job in the majors unless either Bogarts or Drew bombs out. You are basically creating a scenario where Middlebrook's value dwindles to zero.
Besides, Middlebrooks already went to the minors and showed significant improvement. How is the team better off if he goes back?
Both teams had/have players under contract at SS. The Red Sox do not. Yes sometimes young players are forced to play out of their best position. But why create a situation where they have to and basically ruin their young 3B, who just showed signs of life in the process.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 16:33:01 GMT -5
No player is riskless, but Middlebrooks is a HIGH risk player. Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 12, 2013 16:49:28 GMT -5
Though I think a rotation of Drew, Xander, and Middlebrooks could work, I doubt Farrell will execute the platoon correctly and will just make Drew the starting SS and split time between Xander and Middlebrooks at 3B with Xander only occasionally playing SS when Drew needs a breather. If anything, let Drew walk and get the pick, or re-sign him and package Middlebrooks with a SP and try to get kid with very high upside.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 16:50:17 GMT -5
Come on man you are pretty sarcastic, harsh in these forms and often not very nice so let's quit with the name calling. Your feelings on Middlebrooks are very clear. You don't think much of his baseball ability and neither does Jeff Sullivan.
To throw away his upside it has to be pretty significant, and that chance is reduced by his performance after his recall. Besides, the Red Sox have great resources, organizational depth at the position and last year managed to win 97 games besides basically getting replacement level value from their 7 3B. Somehow I think that even if Middlebrooks flames out they'll manage.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 16:52:16 GMT -5
neither does Jeff Sullivan. FYI, the author of the link you posted above is Jeff Zimmerman, not Jeff Sullivan.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 16:55:40 GMT -5
No player is riskless, but Middlebrooks is a HIGH risk player. Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? Well Rich I think you are looking at this in the right way. How many wins do you lose if Middlebrooks reverts to the player that he was from April to June? How many wins do you basically flush down the toilet if you give him away?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2013 16:58:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? Well Rich I think you are looking at this in the right way. How many wins do you lose if Middlebrooks reverts to the player that he was from April to June? How many wins do you basically flush down the toilet if you give him away?As compared to what? You can't answer the question without establishing some sort of baseline.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 12, 2013 17:00:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't really buy this. I thought he was a .750 OPS guy coming up, and he has a career line right around there, some hot streaks, cold streaks, adjustments. How bad do you think he could be, at what likelihood? Any more likely than a random pitcher's elbow or shoulder exploding? Well Rich I think you are looking at this in the right way. How many wins do you lose if Middlebrooks reverts to the player that he was from April to June? How many wins do you basically flush down the toilet if you give him away? The two are not equal. We don't know what the Red Sox would receive back in a trade and that right there is the key. Everyone should always be available as there is always a package that puts things over the top. If the Red Sox could trade Xander for Kershaw and have him locked up for 6 years with the Dodgers paying most of his deal, I'd do it. Unrealistic, sure, but I'm just illustrating a point that you have to see what a team gets back before you just say, "how many wins do you flush down the toilet if you give him away". What if he can be used in a package for John Carlos Stanton? The Red Sox would be getting something back from Middlebrooks so realistically it's how many wins do you get from the returning player - the wins Middlebrooks is worth. If player X is worth 3 wins and Middlebrooks is worth 4, you "flushed down the toilet" a grand total of 1 win. It's all relative.
|
|
|