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.
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 4, 2016 3:04:27 GMT -5
I'm rather shocked that so many people think the Red Sox will go into 2017 without picking up a big bat. I personally can't conceive a scenario where DD believes that having Shaw/Sandoval/Holt/Hernandez for 1B & 3B is good enough to start the year (aside from Moncada looking amazing this offseason and winning the 3B job by spring training). Keep in mind that it's not just the starting spots to worry about but a single injury would derail the depth of the corner infielders. If Sandoval is passable to start the season and Hernandez' 3B defense looks 'good enough' then Shaw becomes redundant and should be traded, but we aren't there yet. I can't imagine Shaw's value will dip too much between now and the start of next season, so it's best to hang onto him until the Red Sox know what they really have. An important name that seems to be overlooked is Josh Rutledge. With the other options all being left-handed (and Moncada hitting better from the left side in 2016) his role as a RHH infielder could be very valuable. DD felt the need to trade for Aaron Hill last year to fill this role and hopefully Rutledge makes an additional trade unnecessary. Has anyone seen updates on Rutledge's rehab? How about the scenario where he's capable of rational thought? (I removed DH from that sentence because they have a terrific one.) Rutledge isn't very good. Nice guy to have in AAA. That's why you sign Sean Rodriguez to fill the Rutledge / Hill role. He's basically a RH-hitting version of Holt. He's very, very good. So DD would have to be irrational to sign a big bat? Hanley is no longer a 1B? Is this an attempt at trolling? Outside of Hanley, there are 2 positions which are in question. Sean Rodriguez had a breakout season in ~342 at bats at the age of 31. Would be great if he kept it up. I like the RHH Holt comp but don't quite see that as 'very very good'. But on this team he would only get regular at-bats at 3B against LHP unless you think he's better vs RHP than Shaw (this might be close - hard to tell with these 2 players)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 6, 2016 9:58:18 GMT -5
How about the scenario where he's capable of rational thought? (I removed DH from that sentence because they have a terrific one.) Rutledge isn't very good. Nice guy to have in AAA. That's why you sign Sean Rodriguez to fill the Rutledge / Hill role. He's basically a RH-hitting version of Holt. He's very, very good. So DD would have to be irrational to sign a big bat? Hanley is no longer a 1B? Is this an attempt at trolling? Outside of Hanley, there are 2 positions which are in question. Sean Rodriguez had a breakout season in ~342 at bats at the age of 31. Would be great if he kept it up. I like the RHH Holt comp but don't quite see that as 'very very good'. But on this team he would only get regular at-bats at 3B against LHP unless you think he's better vs RHP than Shaw (this might be close - hard to tell with these 2 players) I've laid out the argument for why signing a big bat makes no sense in great detail in a couple of threads. The short version is that right now, you have Hanley at DH (where he gains a lot of value and wants to play) and Sandoval and Shaw at the corners. By perhaps late July you expect that to be Moncada, and Sandoval or Shaw (or Travis). It's not rational to think in terms of "replacing David Ortiz." These are the rational questions you ask: 1) Is that, combined with everything else we have, good enough to make you the favorite to win the division? 2) What would the cost be to upgrade that, and what would the benefits be? Are the benefits worth the cost? 3) Are there any long-term downsides to upgrading? 1) Yes, you're still the favorite. 2) The benefits would come at a cost far beyond their value, in any scenario you can construct. Because what you have projects to be OK /adequate rather than black-hole disaster, the marginal upgrade to Encarnacion, etc. can't begin to approach the cost in salary (plus a luxury tax penalty you probably otherwise avoid), let alone giving up a draft pick. The key thing here is the interaction between 1 and 2. Teams do overpay all the time if it greatly increases the odds of achieving their goal. The Miller and Chapman trades were overpays on paper, but they greatly increased the odds of each team getting to or wining the WS. In this case, however, upgrading 1B / 3B / DH simply doesn't make much difference in your projected season. 3) Yes; you're likelier than not blocking Rafael Devers, putting you in the position of having a commitment to a lesser player for vastly more money, as soon as 2018.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 6, 2016 13:16:32 GMT -5
So DD would have to be irrational to sign a big bat? Hanley is no longer a 1B? Is this an attempt at trolling? Outside of Hanley, there are 2 positions which are in question. Sean Rodriguez had a breakout season in ~342 at bats at the age of 31. Would be great if he kept it up. I like the RHH Holt comp but don't quite see that as 'very very good'. But on this team he would only get regular at-bats at 3B against LHP unless you think he's better vs RHP than Shaw (this might be close - hard to tell with these 2 players) I've laid out the argument for why signing a big bat makes no sense in great detail in a couple of threads. The short version is that right now, you have Hanley at DH (where he gains a lot of value and wants to play) and Sandoval and Shaw at the corners. By perhaps late July you expect that to be Moncada, and Sandoval or Shaw (or Travis). It's not rational to think in terms of "replacing David Ortiz." These are the rational questions you ask: 1) Is that, combined with everything else we have, good enough to make you the favorite to win the division? 2) What would the cost be to upgrade that, and what would the benefits be? Are the benefits worth the cost? 3) Are there any long-term downsides to upgrading? 1) Yes, you're still the favorite. 2) The benefits would come at a cost far beyond their value, in any scenario you can construct. Because what you have projects to be OK /adequate rather than black-hole disaster, the marginal upgrade to Encarnacion, etc. can't begin to approach the cost in salary (plus a luxury tax penalty you probably otherwise avoid), let alone giving up a draft pick. The key thing here is the interaction between 1 and 2. Teams do overpay all the time if it greatly increases the odds of achieving their goal. The Miller and Chapman trades were overpays on paper, but they greatly increased the odds of each team getting to or wining the WS. In this case, however, upgrading 1B / 3B / DH simply doesn't make much difference in your projected season. 3) Yes; you're likelier than not blocking Rafael Devers, putting you in the position of having a commitment to a lesser player for vastly more money, as soon as 2018. As far as I can tell your definition of 'rational' is 'ericvman's unsubstantiated opinions only'. Sean Rodriguez would fill the RHH infielder hole this team currently has but he's coming off a career year and certainly looking to cash-in. But as he's also coming off career highs in K% and BABIP I don't see him as more than a platoon backup infielder, whuch he has been his entire career, so I'd rather not pay the price-tag unless it's for less than Chris Young money. The problem i have with Shaw and Sandoval starting is that they were worth a combined 1.3 fWAR last year and 0.8 fWAR over the past 2 years. Whether it's injury, inability to hit RHP, being exposed, overeating, or any other reason, they simply aren't dependable to be average-to-better starters. Maybe they both are next year, just not something to count on. Based on their past performances, I believe it would be 'irrational' for DD to believe that they will both perform as hoped. Moncada will probably be great, but he clearly isn't ready to hit major league pitching and we can't know for sure when he will be ready. As cost and years are a concern, there are other options, such as Steve Pearce, who can likely be had for less than the top names. But the whole 'he's blocking player X' concern is only relevant if you believe that having 'too many good players' is a problem. I don't see it as a problem and I have faith that management can utilize their resources if they are better distributed elsewhere at some point in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 7, 2016 0:21:52 GMT -5
Whether they're the favorites in the division or not really shouldn't factor into it much as an independent variable. It's not like they should stop trying to upgrade once their projection slightly overtakes the Blue Jays. Maybe there's a point when they're such prohibitive favorites to win the division that they should focus on relievers and pinch runners and other stuff that is proportionately more important in the postseason (e.g., Cubs circa July 2017), but they're not close to that point.
DH (or, if you want to move Hanley to DH, 1B) remains by far their weakest projected starting position (Fangraphs depth charts projects DH at 0.3 WAR, with Sandoval/Shaw providing essentially replacement-level offense at that position). Maybe a long-term deal for Encarnacion may not be the best solution, depending on how expensive he is, but that's still one of the positions they look to upgrade first.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2016 1:35:55 GMT -5
Whether they're the favorites in the division or not really shouldn't factor into it much as an independent variable. It's not like they should stop trying to upgrade once their projection slightly overtakes the Blue Jays. Maybe there's a point when they're such prohibitive favorites to win the division that they should focus on relievers and pinch runners and other stuff that is proportionately more important in the postseason (e.g., Cubs circa July 2017), but they're not close to that point. DH (or, if you want to move Hanley to DH, 1B) remains by far their weakest projected starting position (Fangraphs depth charts projects DH at 0.3 WAR, with Sandoval/Shaw providing essentially replacement-level offense at that position). Maybe a long-term deal for Encarnacion may not be the best solution, depending on how expensive he is, but that's still one of the positions they look to upgrade first. Play GM for a day. What would you do? Do you go after an elite bat at 1B or for DH?
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Nov 7, 2016 8:22:05 GMT -5
Whether they're the favorites in the division or not really shouldn't factor into it much as an independent variable. It's not like they should stop trying to upgrade once their projection slightly overtakes the Blue Jays. Maybe there's a point when they're such prohibitive favorites to win the division that they should focus on relievers and pinch runners and other stuff that is proportionately more important in the postseason (e.g., Cubs circa July 2017), but they're not close to that point. DH (or, if you want to move Hanley to DH, 1B) remains by far their weakest projected starting position (Fangraphs depth charts projects DH at 0.3 WAR, with Sandoval/Shaw providing essentially replacement-level offense at that position). Maybe a long-term deal for Encarnacion may not be the best solution, depending on how expensive he is, but that's still one of the positions they look to upgrade first. Play GM for a day. What would you do? Do you go after an elite bat at 1B or for DH? Dave D has ALWAYS got to be looking at ways to improve the club. But I think you have to put some boundaries on what Dave does. The FO wants a team for the long haul. It keeps coming up on this site all the time, but the sox are not going to trade 5 young guys to get Manny M or someone else. The sox DO NOT have to overpay for a free agent. They have a young core which they need to manage the money aspect over the next several years. They have 5 excellent young prospects that are extremely promising. This gives them a huge position of strength. I think a righty position player not strictly a DH. First or third allows them to mix and match. How elite depends on how much you would have to pay. Going after a FA bat at the cost of a draft pick is a poor choice. Another lefty power guy in the pen probably is more the need then a bat. The post season is won with power pitching, excellent defense, and timely hitting. No big moves this year. Wait until next year and look at who is available in the BIG FA class and see how all the young pieces sort themselves out.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 8, 2016 14:43:55 GMT -5
Whether they're the favorites in the division or not really shouldn't factor into it much as an independent variable. It's not like they should stop trying to upgrade once their projection slightly overtakes the Blue Jays. Maybe there's a point when they're such prohibitive favorites to win the division that they should focus on relievers and pinch runners and other stuff that is proportionately more important in the postseason (e.g., Cubs circa July 2017), but they're not close to that point. DH (or, if you want to move Hanley to DH, 1B) remains by far their weakest projected starting position (Fangraphs depth charts projects DH at 0.3 WAR, with Sandoval/Shaw providing essentially replacement-level offense at that position). Maybe a long-term deal for Encarnacion may not be the best solution, depending on how expensive he is, but that's still one of the positions they look to upgrade first. Absolutely. 1B is the obvious position to upgrade. And if there were a 1B who was available and definitely better than Shaw / Sandoval, and was two years from free agency (maybe even three), I'd be all over trading one of them (including eating Sandoval's salary) and the necessary prospects to get that guy. The trouble is, that guy doesn't remotely exist. That leaves you with a bunch of unpalatable options. I don't think dumping one of them to sign Pearce makes sense. I don't think signing Pearce instead of Sean Rodriguez and having to play Sandoval or Shaw versus LHP makes sense. I don't think signing EE to the deal it would take makes a lick of sense, as I've explained. That you are already the favorite to win the division is just a small part of that argument. And remember that all of the projections for next year are taking the whole season's pitching line as predictive, when the fact is that as soon as they put Bannister in the dugout, everyone got hugely better. I think their edge over the Jays is more than small. It's easy to say that they should look to upgrade 1B (and I think that FanGraph's WAR projection is low by at least a win), but you actually have to propose what they should do, and justify that it makes sense by running some WAR numbers against the cost. I've tried to come up with a proposal that works. I've failed. I don't think it's wise to panic and commit now to a long-term investment in a big, expensive, aging bat who's an average defender. That's the team-building equivalent of having Aroldis Chapman throw 20 pitches in a Game 6 with a LI of 0.29.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 8, 2016 16:43:20 GMT -5
Absolutely. 1B is the obvious position to upgrade. And if there were a 1B who was available and definitely better than Shaw / Sandoval, and was two years from free agency (maybe even three), I'd be all over trading one of them (including eating Sandoval's salary) and the necessary prospects to get that guy. The trouble is, that guy doesn't remotely exist. That leaves you with a bunch of unpalatable options. I don't think dumping one of them to sign Pearce makes sense. I don't think signing Pearce instead of Sean Rodriguez and having to play Sandoval or Shaw versus LHP makes sense. I don't think signing EE to the deal it would take makes a lick of sense, as I've explained. That you are already the favorite to win the division is just a small part of that argument. And remember that all of the projections for next year are taking the whole season's pitching line as predictive, when the fact is that as soon as they put Bannister in the dugout, everyone got hugely better. I think their edge over the Jays is more than small. It's easy to say that they should look to upgrade 1B (and I think that FanGraph's WAR projection is low by at least a win), but you actually have to propose what they should do, and justify that it makes sense by running some WAR numbers against the cost. I've tried to come up with a proposal that works. I've failed. I don't think it's wise to panic and commit now to a long-term investment in a big, expensive, aging bat who's an average defender. That's the team-building equivalent of having Aroldis Chapman throw 20 pitches in a Game 6 with a LI of 0.29. Adding Rodriguez and adding a 1B/DH aren't mutually exclusive. You could add both and go into Spring Training with 14 position players competing for 13 spots in order to give you extra protection against injury and underperformance. The worst case scenario if everyone is healthy and productive ( the horror) is that you make a trade at the end of Spring Training or option Shaw to Pawtucket. I have not looked at any of them in any detail, but my sense is that any of Pearce, Beltran, Moss, Morales, Napoli, etc. would be a substantial offensive upgrade on Shaw/Sandoval. You are much, much higher on those Shaw and Sandoval both continuing to hit at an above-average clip than I and the projection systems are.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 9, 2016 2:34:14 GMT -5
Absolutely. 1B is the obvious position to upgrade. And if there were a 1B who was available and definitely better than Shaw / Sandoval, and was two years from free agency (maybe even three), I'd be all over trading one of them (including eating Sandoval's salary) and the necessary prospects to get that guy. The trouble is, that guy doesn't remotely exist. That leaves you with a bunch of unpalatable options. I don't think dumping one of them to sign Pearce makes sense. I don't think signing Pearce instead of Sean Rodriguez and having to play Sandoval or Shaw versus LHP makes sense. I don't think signing EE to the deal it would take makes a lick of sense, as I've explained. That you are already the favorite to win the division is just a small part of that argument. And remember that all of the projections for next year are taking the whole season's pitching line as predictive, when the fact is that as soon as they put Bannister in the dugout, everyone got hugely better. I think their edge over the Jays is more than small. It's easy to say that they should look to upgrade 1B (and I think that FanGraph's WAR projection is low by at least a win), but you actually have to propose what they should do, and justify that it makes sense by running some WAR numbers against the cost. I've tried to come up with a proposal that works. I've failed. I don't think it's wise to panic and commit now to a long-term investment in a big, expensive, aging bat who's an average defender. That's the team-building equivalent of having Aroldis Chapman throw 20 pitches in a Game 6 with a LI of 0.29. Adding Rodriguez and adding a 1B/DH aren't mutually exclusive. You could add both and go into Spring Training with 14 position players competing for 13 spots in order to give you extra protection against injury and underperformance. The worst case scenario if everyone is healthy and productive ( the horror) is that you make a trade at the end of Spring Training or option Shaw to Pawtucket. I have not looked at any of them in any detail, but my sense is that any of Pearce, Beltran, Moss, Morales, Napoli, etc. would be a substantial offensive upgrade on Shaw/Sandoval. You are much, much higher on those Shaw and Sandoval both continuing to hit at an above-average clip than I and the projection systems are. If the guy you're signing is the DH, you have to factor in a pretty substantial downgrade defensively at 1B, and offensively from Hanley. It's about 1 WAR and maybe more. So your guy has to be 1.0 WAR better offensively than a Sandoval / Young platoon just to break even. Your two-for-the-price-of-two idea is interesting, but there are a couple of flaws in the logic. First, in many or most scenarios you end up optioning your better 3B to Pawtucket, even though there's no need for organizational depth at the position. And second, if you commit to a new DH or 1B, once Moncada arrives you're probably committing to trading both Sandoval and Shaw, one of whom will have not been playing and will have reduced trade value. The one way it works, if everyone is healthy, is that Sandoval has a great spring (from a scouting perspective) and you trade him ... but if he had a great spring, maybe he's just as good as the guy you signed. Furthermore, I think the only guy on that list who could even make that work is Pearce. Napoli's going to be 35 and is coming off back-to-back 1.0 WAR seasons, the most recent one in 659 PA. Neither Moss nor Morlaes fields 1B adequately. Whoever you sign has to be good enough to promise a role to, which means you have to be certain you're better with that guy at DH, Hanley at 1B, and Sandoval or Shaw at 3B, then with Hanley at 1B, Sandoval at 1B, and Shaw at 3B, and of course you're paying for WAR when all you're getting is the marginal value of the upgrade. I'll take my chances for half a season with the weak corner infielders. I think I said before that you don't want a bridge year, but sometimes it just makes sense to have a bridge position or two. When both guys on the bridge have upside, and there are backup plans in the minors and on your own bench, I'll take that gamble.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2016 8:29:15 GMT -5
I don't buy that Hanley hits significantly better at DH than 1B. It suffers from small sample and selection bias issues. Hanley is a streaky hitter, and he was more likely to be DHed when he was on a hot streak.
The only way signing both becomes a problem is if all fourteen position players are healthy at the end of Spring Training, plus Shaw looks like your best starting third baseman, plus Sandoval neither looks too good (in which case you eat part of his contract and trade him) nor too bad (in which case you eat all of his contract and cut him). I think the odds of all of that happening is fairly low, and certainly much less than 50%.
If and when Moncada looks ready, he can push Shaw to Pawtucket or Sandoval to a trade or the waiver wire. Remember, the worst case scenario we're talking about here is that they have too many good players. That's not something to be afraid of.
ADD: perhaps most importantly, there's really not much else that's worth upgrading (other than a bullpen arm), and this roster is in the high-80s/low-90s win projection sweet spot where every marginal win is at its most valuable. If they run into real salary constraints and want to use that extra money to extend some of their youngsters instead, for instance, I wouldn't complain much, but I'd prefer to pass on signing a Chapman or a Jansen and allocate that money instead to a second-tier reliever and a 1B/DH.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2016 12:14:01 GMT -5
One guy to watch in the 1B/DH discussion that I don't think has been mentioned-- Eric Thames. He's coming off three consecutive elite offensive seasons in the KBO (including .317/.425/.676 with 40 HRs in 525 PAs last year), is just 30 years old, swings from the left side, and can likely be had for cheap.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 9, 2016 12:31:06 GMT -5
I don't buy that Hanley hits significantly better at DH than 1B. It suffers from small sample and selection bias issues. Hanley is a streaky hitter, and he was more likely to be DHed when he was on a hot streak. [INSERT ACTUAL DATA HERE]The only way signing both becomes a problem is if all fourteen position players are healthy at the end of Spring Training, plus Shaw looks like your best starting third baseman, plus Sandoval neither looks too good (in which case you eat part of his contract and trade him) nor too bad (in which case you eat all of his contract and cut him). I think the odds of all of that happening is fairly low, and certainly much less than 50%. If and when Moncada looks ready, he can push Shaw to Pawtucket or Sandoval to a trade or the waiver wire. Remember, the worst case scenario we're talking about here is that they have too many good players. That's not something to be afraid of. ADD: perhaps most importantly, there's really not much else that's worth upgrading (other than a bullpen arm), and this roster is in the high-80s/low-90s win projection sweet spot where every marginal win is at its most valuable. If they run into real salary constraints and want to use that extra money to extend some of their youngsters instead, for instance, I wouldn't complain much, but I'd prefer to pass on signing a Chapman or a Jansen and allocate that money instead to a second-tier reliever and a 1B/DH. FIFY. The effect size is so immense that it withstands regression to the mean easily. 110 PA, and an actual 8.4 RAR. Which is to say, 40.9 RAR per 650 PA. It's a .335 EqA vs. .261. The standard method for regression to the mean involves adding some fixed number of PA with no effect. Let's pick 1130, since he had 110 + 1130 = 1240 PA as a non-DH, and add his non-DH hitting. You get 4.5 RAR per 650, which is 0.5 WAR, which was my completely seat-of-pants, gut feeling estimate. So that leaves selection bias. The first data point in that set is his going 2/4, 2B, 2 BB in the second game of a DH where the Dodgers scored 4 runs. In the first game, he went 0/5 and his team scored 9. It was the 3rd game of a 6 game stretch where he went 5/29, and he had no XBH or BB in any of the other games. The first time he DH'd two games in a row with the Red Sox, he was 4/29, 2 BB, 0 XBH in his last 8 games (team averaging 3.5 R/G). He went 4/8, 2B, 2 HR, BB as a DH, and neither game was a slugfest -- the team scoring 9 R total. It goes on like that. There's no pattern of them using him as DH when he's hot that I can see. What you see is good days at DH when he's hot, bad days at DH when he's not, and crazy differences like the two I just cited, in about equal proportions. I'm warming to the idea of signing Pearce and Rodriguez. DDo, BTW, is talking about short-term solutions in Speier's latest 108.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 9, 2016 13:03:43 GMT -5
One guy to watch in the 1B/DH discussion that I don't think has been mentioned-- Eric Thames. He's coming off three consecutive elite offensive seasons in the KBO (including .317/.425/.676 with 40 HRs in 525 PAs last year), is just 30 years old, swings from the left side, and can likely be had for cheap. He won the GG at 1B in the KBO, so he's presumably at least adequate there. Davenport Translations, which have been good for Cubans, like him a lot. .288 EqA in 2014, .329 in 2015. His 684 career PA in MLB show some interesting and quite possibly random splits ... but he was hugely better in challenge situations than in pitch-around, and hugely better as a #2 hitter where they'd be challenging him as well. Big platoon and home / road splits, too. I don't think any of that would still be relevant, but if any of it was real it would represent things he could work on (not chasing when he can be pitched around, getting more rest on the road) and could explain why he's broken out late. Also note that injuries limited hm to just 1290 ml PA (1059 before his debut). Very interesting idea. You could just out-bid everyone on a 1-year, prove-you're-good deal, and add a team option for more. MLBTradeRumors' FA Rankings have Pearce and Thames at 42 and 46; they have each getting a 2/$10 deal. I doubt that Thames will get two guaranteed years.
|
|
|
Post by joshmoody23 on Nov 9, 2016 13:09:05 GMT -5
Regardless, from DD comments so far, the Red Sox are going to add a hitter. Theyre not going to stand pat and go into next year with the only offensive change being Pablo Sandoval to replace David Ortiz. I wouldn't mind keeping Hanley at 1B for another year, and I don't want anything to do with Travis Shaw. He's been exposed at the major league level. I'd move Shaw in a deal for a reliever, even if its only an up and down guy with potential and options (a la Heath Hembree type with options), or if you keep him I would have him as AAA depth. I would give Sam Travis every opportunity to make next years team as a similar player with more potential and a more consistent contact oriented bat. I still think the Sox are leaning towards a guy like Beltran who could see time in the OF.
1. Pedi 2B 2. Benny LF 3. Mookie RF 4. Beltran DH 5. Hanley 1B 6. X SS 7. Pablo 3B 8. Leon C 9. JBJ OF
Bench Sam Travis 1B - Could maybe play 3B if he's medically cleared Holt UTIL Vasquez C Chris Young OF
The move I would love to see is signing Wilson Ramos who could come back mid year and provide a huge spark. See some time at C and DH and could allow the Sox to move some of the C depth we would then have.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 9, 2016 13:09:39 GMT -5
One guy to watch in the 1B/DH discussion that I don't think has been mentioned-- Eric Thames. He's coming off three consecutive elite offensive seasons in the KBO (including .317/.425/.676 with 40 HRs in 525 PAs last year), is just 30 years old, swings from the left side, and can likely be had for cheap. Love it. He could be had for like 1/10 the price of Morales and 1/5 of Napoli. My boy Matt Hague had a down year in the NBPO but I'd still bring him in on a minor league deal because he's my boy and he murdered the IL in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 9, 2016 13:30:06 GMT -5
One guy to watch in the 1B/DH discussion that I don't think has been mentioned-- Eric Thames. He's coming off three consecutive elite offensive seasons in the KBO (including .317/.425/.676 with 40 HRs in 525 PAs last year), is just 30 years old, swings from the left side, and can likely be had for cheap. I like this. He's currently making 1.25 mil this year, so as long as he's willing to accept a 1-year deal, the contract shouldn't be too high. Seems like he would be a league average bat/glove (career 96 wRC+ in MLB) at 1B with the potential for more if his adjustments in the KBO hold up.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 9, 2016 17:43:45 GMT -5
I'm surprised that no one has made the obvious historical comparison when considering jmei's plan of going into ST with one extra body for 1B, 3B, and DH, and seeing how it plays out until, say, the end of May. That worked out OK even though one of the four off-season acquisitions busted.
And to answer the very good question, they called up Freddy Sanchez to take Hillenbrand's roster spot. I'd forgotten that.
I increasingly like this idea. The question then becomes whether you go big for Carlos Beltran, who they're reported to be pursuing, or small for Pearce or Thames.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 9, 2016 20:05:10 GMT -5
I'm surprised that no one has made the obvious historical comparison when considering jmei's plan of going into ST with one extra body for 1B, 3B, and DH, and seeing how it plays out until, say, the end of May. That worked out OK even though one of the four off-season acquisitions busted. And to answer the very good question, they called up Freddy Sanchez to take Hillenbrand's roster spot. I'd forgotten that. I increasingly like this idea. The question then becomes whether you go big for Carlos Beltran, who they're reported to be pursuing, or small for Pearce or Thames. Depends on how much risk they think they can weather offensively. Personally, I love the Thames idea jmei floated with the 1+team option. I really don't think that they'll "need" offense.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 9, 2016 22:21:05 GMT -5
The only issue with Thames is that, 'if' healthy, it relegates Shaw to the minor leagues and still requires the Red Sox to pickup a RHH IF. This might be where Sean Rodriguez that Eric suggested would come in as he could spell 1B (with Hanley DHing) and 3B vs lefties and backup the middle infielders. MLB trade Rumors has him at 2/12 and I really couldn't find a good backup plan for him. Pearce still looks like a good choice (MLBTR has him at 2/10) as he could platoon some with Shaw/Pablo and take Young's spot as the RHH OF who can't field next year. Also - I could see Joey bats being this year's Desmond/Morales/Drew: asking for more money/years than anyone wants to offer and finally signing a 1-year deal. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/2016-17-top-50-mlb-free-agents-predictions.html
|
|
|
Post by boydhurstlovechild on Nov 10, 2016 5:51:00 GMT -5
Why not see if Holliday has a year left in him at DH? Couldn't be that expensive. Otherwise I'd rather we plan on standing pat and perhaps see if the market for Turner or Trumbo doesn't materialize.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 10, 2016 9:56:19 GMT -5
One depth option off the table: per Ken Rosenthal, Chris Marrero has signed a minor league deal with the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Nov 10, 2016 14:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Nov 10, 2016 19:50:48 GMT -5
Brandon Moss could be a good add, good power vs RHP and Young could DH vs lefties.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 10, 2016 20:39:06 GMT -5
I see JD Martinez being the best option via trade this off season, I said this in the non manager off-season thread and I'll say it here on this related thread to since its relevant.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 10, 2016 21:13:42 GMT -5
Brandon Moss could be a good add, good power vs RHP and Young could DH vs lefties. I like this idea as well. He had a great first half but really struggled his last 100 PAs that hurt his final line. I think we end up with a DH (that essentially platoons with Young)that can play 1B as well to give Hanley plenty of time at DH when needed. Maybe a Pedro Alvarez could be and option and I wish Matt Joyce had 1B experience bc he's hit RHs pretty good.
|
|
|