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 sibbysisti on Dec 12, 2013 10:01:23 GMT -5
Interesting tweet from Gammons today: Peter Gammons @pgammo GM:"Just cannot see Kendry Morales signing until after the draft" It's not crazy to think Drew might wait until after the draft to sign as well. We all think he will get a deal before then but it's not crazy to wait if it's about the money. McAdam's tweet today: Sean McAdam @sean_McAdam Cherington met with Scott Boras today on Drew, says Red Sox "have a better understanding of what's important to him." #RedSoxTalk Umm, yes, yes it is. We've been over this before. Besides if it's about money, waiting until after the draft gets him a pro-rated deal anyway. Doubt that helps him. Not only that, but it would take a special set of circumstances for a team to hold off setting its roster, especially at a critical position, until after the draft which is in June. It can be done, and if there are early season injuries, the issue is more likely. But in the normal course of events, it is is not a favorable scenario.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2013 10:11:16 GMT -5
To me if they bring back Drew then there all set with WMB. He has nothing to prove at AAA. He may have some holes right now but I think this is a perfect opportunity to see what you have with these young kids. Xander at SS and WMB at 3b. This is my opinion I want the Sox to move on . They have a lot invested in the SS position throughout the minors also. Middlebrooks has only 356 Triple-A plate appearances, where he has a .268/.320/.491 line. A strong case can be made (especially in hindsight) that he was rushed through that level because they didn't really have another alternative when Youkilis got hurt, and that rushing him hurt his development.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 12, 2013 10:26:29 GMT -5
At this point, I'm hoping that Drew comes back just for the reaction. Because Drew/Bogaerts at SS/3B is obviously the worst thing that could happen to this team. Not like they just won a World Series with that combo or anything. Right because the team should decide its' future over the next several years based upon player/team performance over a handful of games. Come on now if a player were evaluated over any other small sample size of games you'd scream. Did your ears pop?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 10:33:04 GMT -5
Signing Drew (and keeping WMB) would be the ultimate risk averse move, which seems to be the flavor of the day. 25-man roster with 12 starting-caliber position players.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 12, 2013 10:44:45 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.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2013 10:49:57 GMT -5
At this point, I'm hoping that Drew comes back just for the reaction. Because Drew/Bogaerts at SS/3B is obviously the worst thing that could happen to this team. Not like they just won a World Series with that combo or anything. Right because the team should decide its' future over the next several years based upon player/team performance over a handful of games. Come on now if a player were evaluated over any other small sample size of games you'd scream. It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 11:01:16 GMT -5
Right because the team should decide its' future over the next several years based upon player/team performance over a handful of games. Come on now if a player were evaluated over any other small sample size of games you'd scream. It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 12, 2013 11:05:36 GMT -5
To me if they bring back Drew then there all set with WMB. He has nothing to prove at AAA. He may have some holes right now but I think this is a perfect opportunity to see what you have with these young kids. Xander at SS and WMB at 3b. This is my opinion I want the Sox to move on . They have a lot invested in the SS position throughout the minors also. Middlebrooks has only 356 Triple-A plate appearances, where he has a .268/.320/.491 line. A strong case can be made (especially in hindsight) that he was rushed through that level because they didn't really have another alternative when Youkilis got hurt, and that rushing him hurt his development. The thing is with Middlebrooks as I remember he was red hot in '12 at AAA and then with Youks poor start and getting hurt in late April or May, Middlebrooks forced his was up and his performance kept him there. He may of needed more AAA time but with Bobby V heading the show that was the PR move to save face.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 12, 2013 11:12:04 GMT -5
It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them. 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. I don't see where his "value" has any value. Value is important if you're eventually looking at what the marketplace would offer. In Bogaerts case, the Sox are with him for the long haul. And if it helps the club to play him at third and move Middlebrooks around so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 11:15:53 GMT -5
It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them. 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. "Value" only really matters if you intend to trade one of them. There is certainly a real opportunity cost to spending money and giving up a draft pick for Drew, and reasonable minds may disagree on whether the performance/depth benefits from adding Drew are worth those costs. But I think the popular idea that the real reason the Red Sox shouldn't add Drew is because they should give Middlebrooks a whole season's worth of at-bats in 2014 to showcase him for a trade to open up 3B for Cecchini makes a few too many assumptions-- namely, that Middlebrooks will hit, Cecchini proves himself a worthy 3B of the future (both by sticking at the position and hitting well), and that everyone stays healthy. I generally think most complaints about "blocking" prospects are premature. In reality, injuries/poor performance/position moves usually solve most of the logjams that pop up.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 12, 2013 11:18:23 GMT -5
It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them. 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. That's not necessarily true, as a fringy defender at SS it's totally possible that his improvement in defensive rating at 3B would make up for the positional adjustment between SS and 3B. Actually, it's reasonably possible he could be more valuable as a 3B; the positional adjustment between SS and 3B is only 5 runs, so assuming (for example's sake) that he's a -2 defender at SS he'd only have to be a +3 defender at 3B to make up for the positional adjustment, which seems easily doable.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 12, 2013 11:19:10 GMT -5
Middlebrooks has only 356 Triple-A plate appearances, where he has a .268/.320/.491 line. A strong case can be made (especially in hindsight) that he was rushed through that level because they didn't really have another alternative when Youkilis got hurt, and that rushing him hurt his development. The thing is with Middlebrooks as I remember he was red hot in '12 at AAA and then with Youks poor start and getting hurt in late April or May, Middlebrooks forced his was up and his performance kept him there. He may of needed more AAA time but with Bobby V heading the show that was the PR move to save face. Middlebrooks forced his way up in the same way Bradley did with a great spring last year. Both were rushed. There are exceptions, but in general if a player has had less than 150 Triple-A at-bats then he hasn't forced his way up - he's just playing well and the major league team got impatient. It's important to remember this when Cecchini rips the cover off the ball in spring training and people are calling for him to start.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 12, 2013 11:26:15 GMT -5
It's not an evaluation, it's an example. There's some pretty obvious benefits to a Drew/Bogaerts left side and I'm not sure why people are so stubbornly opposed to seeing them. 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?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 11:35:56 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. "Value" only really matters if you intend to trade one of them. There is certainly a real opportunity cost to spending money and giving up a draft pick for Drew, and reasonable minds may disagree on whether the performance/depth benefits from adding Drew are worth those costs. But I think the popular idea that the real reason the Red Sox shouldn't add Drew is because they should give Middlebrooks a whole season's worth of at-bats in 2014 to showcase him for a trade to open up 3B for Cecchini makes a few too many assumptions-- namely, that Middlebrooks will hit, Cecchini proves himself a worthy 3B of the future (both by sticking at the position and hitting well), and that everyone stays healthy. I generally think most complaints about "blocking" prospects are premature. In reality, injuries/poor performance/position moves usually solve most of the logjams that pop up. Signing Drew means that WMB is gone this year or next. He won't recover and he'd be worth less after a season bouncing around. If WMB is given a full season, it is still very possible that his BAPIP bumps up to a more than reasonable .310, almost 50 points higher than last year and he approaches or exceeds .310/.480, making him a very acceptable and desirable right handed power hitter at 3b, which both seem to have disappeared from the major leagues in recent years. And if .310 is too low of a OBP for the Red Sox, he'd be worth at least as much as Trumbo at that point, probably more. And they'll have a better idea of Cecchini then. Third basemen don't grow on trees. And in two years, what if Cecchini proves himself to be a real third baseman after we've moved on from WMB? Time to move Xander back to short? We're just throwing away two years of defensive development at his career position for possibly the best position player we've had in decades?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 11:57:52 GMT -5
Signing Drew means that WMB is gone this year or next. Why? He'd still be super valuable as the short half of what I project to be a very valuable platoon at SS/3B who can step in full-time at 3B if someone gets injured. I understand that, in theory, the Red Sox might be able flip him for an asset which helps them more than that, but you shouldn't dismiss the value of great production against lefties and injury/underperformance protection at at least two positions (SS, 3B) and maybe a couple more (2B, 1B). I would probably be inclined to keep Middlebrooks and let the so-called logjam work itself out, as they are prone to do. I disagree with this-- his stats would probably look even better if he was platooned heavily and he saw more PAs versus LHP than against RHP (although I do doubt that Farrell would actually use Middlebrooks and Drew in any kind of a strict platoon, but that's a question for another thread), and working him at multiple positions and increasing his defensive versatility can only improve his trade value. The idea that players need long stretches of consecutive playing time to succeed is not at all proven, while the benefit of platoons is pretty clear-- just look at what Beane/Melvin did last year with Vogt/Norris at C and Moss/Barton at 1B. Or, he could come out of the gates slumping hard and be demoted by May, in which case the Red Sox would either have to prematurely bring up Cecchini or go with Holt (or whatever below-average utility infielder they bring in) as the full-time SS. The thing is, with my projected plan, if he hits well, he absolutely has the opportunity to win more playing time (at the expense of whoever of Drew/Bogaerts is playing worse). But my plan also provides a much, much stronger backup plan in case he doesn't, which is the best of both worlds. Of course, it also involves giving up a draft pick and spending a bunch of cash, and you can make the argument that the upgrade isn't worth it. But the fact that it might eat into Middlebrooks' playing time is a benefit, not a loss.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 12, 2013 12:11:58 GMT -5
Most people seem to assume that signing Drew means WMB will be traded at some point. That may be the case, but it seems to be just as likely that Drew gets traded if Middlebrooks improves, or if Cecchini hits well at AAA and shows he is ready.
I think the principal reason Drew hasn't gotten the offer he wanted is the cost of the draft choice. Without that hanging on him, he would be far more attractive to many teams, assuming he hits more like he did in the second half this year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 12:16:42 GMT -5
Problem with platooning a young RH player is that they get to start about one out of four games. That's not going to do much for their development.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 12:29:18 GMT -5
Another possible issue - Would Farrell ever sit Drew? He didn't last year despite having easily defended platoon options when he was slumping.
Then you'd have Xander and WMB splitting time at 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Dec 12, 2013 12:38:57 GMT -5
Signing Drew (and keeping WMB) would be the ultimate risk averse move, which seems to be the flavor of the day. 25-man roster with 12 starting-caliber position players. because hamstringing our payroll and our development system by going over the luxury tax and sacrificing a draft pick for a bench player is somehow 'risk averse'... ya...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 12, 2013 12:41:04 GMT -5
Problem with platooning a young RH player is that they get to start about one out of four games. That's not going to do much for their development. Yeah, but that assumes noone gets hurt. If any one of Pedroia, Bogaerts, or Drew needs a day off, Middlebrooks gets a start. If any infielder goes on the DL, Middlebrooks becomes the full-time starter. If Drew or Bogaerts start slumping, Middlebrooks gets more playing time. We project rosters all the time based on the best-case scenario where everyone is healthy and productive, but that's the case less often than you'd think. Re: Farrell and platoons-- that is something to be concerned about. If Farrell is unwilling to at least mostly platoon Drew, I wouldn't sign him. Presumably, Cherington only adds Drew after he first has a conversation with Farrell about how playing time gets split. Note that, overall, I still think adding Drew is unlikely because someone else will value him than what he's likely to get in Boston. But for the right contract, Drew is definitely a good add and the kind of luxury depth that helps a playoff contender get through a long season.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 12, 2013 12:47:29 GMT -5
Re: Farrell and platoons-- that is something to be concerned about. If Farrell is unwilling to at least mostly platoon Drew, I wouldn't sign him. Presumably, Cherington only adds Drew after he first has a conversation with Farrell about how playing time gets split. Note that, overall, I still think adding Drew is unlikely because someone else will value him than what he's likely to get in Boston. But for the right contract, Drew is definitely a good add and the kind of luxury depth that helps a playoff contender get through a long season. That Drew would pretty much have to be in a platoon for this to work makes me believe he wouldn't want to sign here - unless WMB is traded first. And that brings us back to needing depth.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 12, 2013 12:54:18 GMT -5
Signing Drew (and keeping WMB) would be the ultimate risk averse move, which seems to be the flavor of the day. 25-man roster with 12 starting-caliber position players. because hamstringing our payroll and our development system by going over the luxury tax and sacrificing a draft pick for a bench player is somehow 'risk averse'... ya... A) It would not involve going over the lux 'cap'. Let's not be silly. B) Let's say we had an injury and didn't have Drew - we may have to give up more than the comp pick equivalent to acquire a worse replacement. That's the risk - the major risk anyway, beyond WMB performance risk.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 12, 2013 12:55:11 GMT -5
I'm making a list of people who can't itch about Farrell playing Drew against lefties all the time.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Dec 12, 2013 13:00:34 GMT -5
Problem with platooning a young RH player is that they get to start about one out of four games. That's not going to do much for their development. Yeah, but that assumes noone gets hurt. If any one of Pedroia, Bogaerts, or Drew needs a day off, Middlebrooks gets a start. If any infielder goes on the DL, Middlebrooks becomes the full-time starter. If Drew or Bogaerts start slumping, Middlebrooks gets more playing time. We project rosters all the time based on the best-case scenario where everyone is healthy and productive, but that's the case less often than you'd think. Re: Farrell and platoons-- that is something to be concerned about. If Farrell is unwilling to at least mostly platoon Drew, I wouldn't sign him. Presumably, Cherington only adds Drew after he first has a conversation with Farrell about how playing time gets split. Note that, overall, I still think adding Drew is unlikely because someone else will value him than what he's likely to get in Boston. But for the right contract, Drew is definitely a good add and the kind of luxury depth that helps a playoff contender get through a long season. Agree, and the fact Boston is still rumored to have heavy interest in retaining him signals, to me, they are not comfortable handing the keys back to Middlebrooks in 2014. If Drew's plan 1a and it falls through, my hope would be Headley and his one year left of control at reasonable cost is plan 1aa. Headley/Bogaerts (+ Drew pick) would be my preferred course of action anyway, but I understand the value Drew brings on both sides too.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 12, 2013 13:25:50 GMT -5
Again something that is true in theory but not true in this case. Just as not every left handed hitter will receive the same benefit in facting righties, not every player will increase their defensive value by moving down the defensive spectrum by the same amount. In some cases the difference maybe minimal or zero. Based on reports I've seen and seeing the player I believe that this is the case here. He's pretty good at SS and not significantly better at 3B.
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.
|
|
|