Assembling the 25-man Roster for 2015

C: Vazquez
1B: Napoli
2B: Pedroia
SS: Bogaerts
3B: Sandoval
LF: Ramirez
CF: Castillo
RF: Betts
DH: Ortiz
BE: Holt
BE: Craig
BE: Victorino
BE: Butler
SP1: Buchholz
SP2: Porcello
SP3: Miley
SP4: Kelly
SP5: Masterson
RP: Wright
RP: Britton
RP: Badenhop
RP: Mujica
RP: Tazawa
RP: Workman
CP: Uehara

The solution to me, pretty clearly, is to move Victorino. I wouldn't expect much of a return, with the primary hope being that the team receiving him covers as much of the $13 million he's owed as possible. The Sox have indicated that a Castillo/Betts/Victorino split between CF/RF would work well, and it probably would, if not for the fact that there are other capable options on the bench. Victorino is pretty unreliable due to his fragility, and while his defense likely remains above average in RF despite the injuries, he doesn't offer the versatility of Nava, Craig, and Holt. It also doesn't help that he hits only right handed these days. If you move Shane, you're left with a super-utility stud in Holt, and essentially what figures to be a highly productive bench platoon of Nava and Craig, who could easily slide into starting roles if the need arises.

I think they keep Victorino & do the OF rotation. Hanley could see time at 3B or DH as well.

With the new-look rotation, an 11-man staff is a possibility. I expect they'll try to juggle the roster to keep Craig and Nava as long as possible. Injuries happen.

Obviously if they get a good offer, Nava or Craig is gone; I'm just skeptical that there's a good match out there. Holt too, perhaps, though we'd need a replacement, preferably one who can play a good SS; an Everth Cabrera without the issues.

It's way too early for this type of guessing...

I think they can be done for now. The current situation makes things difficult to start they year, but they no longer have to do anything.

1) Rotation - they can start the year with it and add at the deadline if need be. Cherington has done a good job of substantially improving their bargaining positions with FAs or RAJ. They no longer have gaping holes in the rotation that need to be filled by SOMEONE. The current five all probably have floors of at least a number 5 - or in other words, legit MLB starters - and nearly all could be much more than that (as opposed to the guys they had fighting it out for the #5 spot before, who all had floors well lower than that) and they can still go out and add here.

2) Bullpen - they're probably going to get one more high-leverage-ish guy, preferably a LHP. Maybe they'll get a Badenhop-type MR as well, but Workman might fill that role now. Could also depend on how acquiring another starter goes.

3) Lineup - There's still certainly a logjam. Right now, they have four guys in Craig, Holt, Nava, and whoever isn't starting on a given day from Betts/Castillo/Shanf for three spots. Holt kind of needs to be on the roster to back up SS (I doubt they'd use Hanley or Betts to do that, although it's a feasible-ish option). That said, this is a logjam you can go into ST with. Remember the rotation logjam last year pre-Dempster retirement? I see it more like that than the unsustainable situation pre-Cespedes trade.

I see what happened the last week or so as the following:
- They took a shot with Lester and failed, so acquiring the front-of-the-rotation guy went to the back burner. They had their number, probably pushed past it a little, and stuck to their guns. In terms of process at least, good for them (again, assessing the winter meetings, not the overall process beginning last offseason - that's another discussion no matter your position on it).
- Cherington then took assets and rearranged them. He turned RDLR and Webster (and a very low minors asset of some sort - we'll see here) into Miley, whose floor is far higher and whose ceiling, frankly, isn't much lower. He turned one asset from a position of unsustainable excess (OF) into an asset in a position of absolute need (SP) in the Cespedes-Porcello deal by adding a fungible RP in Wilson (freeing up his 40-man spot, I might add) and a long-way-away potential arm who is probably a reliever in the end in Speier. While you can debate in either direction whether these moves were trading assets of equal value or not (in either direction), it definitely took fungible assets and turned them into useful ones (from an on-field perspective). As long as the value is in that "arguable either way" range, this results in a net positive, imo.

I'm happy with where they are, understanding that this is a fluid process. This could be the roster they have entering spring training. There's no way it's the roster they'll have in August. I'm excited to follow the journey from where it is now to that latter point.

I strongly disagree with moving Victorino just to move him, as I discussed here. Unreliable does not mean bad, especially since they have multiple starting-caliber backup outfield options (think Nava, Castillo, Craig) for when Victorino needs a few days off. If Victorino is even 75% of what he was in 2013, their best outfield alignment is Ramirez/Betts/Victorino, right?

Well, if he's 75% of what he was in 2013, we're talking about a 4.2 fWAR player. So, while that obviously would be the our best outfield alignment, there's a very slim chance that happens. He's now 34, hampered with injuries and coming off serious surgery, and there was some flukiness fueling his RHH vs. RHP numbers in 2013. If we consider him to be a slightly below average hitter vs. RHP going forward, and regress his defense from elite to something like +5 runs in RF, that's absolutely a player I move to allow Castillo and Betts to get everyday at bats, and utilize the availability of a plus LH bat in Nava. FWIW, Steamer predicts a 2.1 WAR for Victorino in 2015, which is lower than what it expects from Betts', and is probably a reasonable number to expect from Castillo.

ADD: Now, his Steamer600 has him at 2.9 WAR, which ranks 27th of all MLB outfielders. It speaks to your point that you don't want to move a guy like that for a minimal return, as I implied I'd be OK with, but there's probably a near-universal consensus that Steamer's 97 game/435 PA projection is about right, if not optimistic, considering Victorino's last couple seasons physically. So yes, you want to get something back, but if it's salary relief + a reliable reliever, or a B-level type prospect, I say go for it.

Agree that keeping Victorino for the time being makes sense. If he could stand it, I wouldn't mind him being the 4th OF, but it probably is not a good use of him and his salary. But certainly, he really isn't marketable until he shows he can play. If he shows anything close to his past form, it shouldn't be hard to move him.

And, of course, there always is the possibility that something goes wrong with one of the starters in ST.

If Victorino shows he is anywhere close to what he was in 2013, he will be better than at least half of the outfielders in the starting lineups of quite a few teams, including some contenders.

To me, waiting till ST to solve the logjam is obviously the thing to do. And not just because injuries will create demand for your players.

-- Any kind of serious ST injury to Ramirez, Betts, Castillo, Victorino, Nava, Craig, Ortiz, Napoli, Pedroia, or Sandoval not just solves the logjam, but makes you glad you didn't dump anyone. And it's possible that Holt and Bogaerts belong on that list as well (depending on the ability of Betts and Ramirez to handle SS).

-- You can find out in ST whether you can use Ramirez and Betts in some combo as the backup MI, in which case you can solve the logjam by trading Holt, who could start at 2B for some teams.

-- If it's Craig that you decide to move, there's a good chance that he'll have increased trade value because he looks healthy and good to the scouting eye.