Lackey/Littrell/cash to STL for Kelly/Craig

So, I think my message sounded as if I was asking rhetorical questions. That wasn't what I was trying to do. The question: "To what degree are you expecting his bat speed to recover?" was a legitimate question. For the reasons I put forth, I don't think it's appropriate to expect it to return to what it was at his peak. 

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying in regards to his injury. I wasn't denying that he had an injury nor that he wasn't able to work out. Those are facts. However, it is not a fact that this is the reason he lost bat speed. While it is certainly a plausible explanation, it's not the only explanation. 

I don't think my message makes it sound at all like a switch goes off in a person's body that magically takes away their ability forever because they reached a certain age. Of course it doesn't work like that. What does happen is that players get older, they gradually lose their physical abilities. Craig is at an age when most players physical abilities begin to decline. 

I feel like this has gotten far too vehement when we're probably not that far apart on our expectations. I think there's a reasonable likelihood that Craig is either worthless or that he fully recovers, but that the most likely outcome is that he's decent. It seems like you think there's a decent chance he's decent and the most likely outcome is that he fully recovers.

Craig was worse for the Red Sox last year than JBJ, offensively.  And yeah, small sample, but we're talking about a pretty low floor for 2015, one which is way lower than Victorino's if he plays, if only for defensive reasons.

There are just way too many outfielders at this point and I'm already preparing for Betts being forced to AAA because of Allen Craig.

I'm also not thrilled with the prospect of making room for Craig when he has such a low floor.  We seemed to ignore floors last year and the floors are what we got.  If there is any room for Craig, it's in a Mike Carp role, not a Gomes role.  And that gives him almost no value to us, especially when we have a guy like Holt on the bench.

Realistically every player in the majors has a floor just as low. If you use the worst possible outcome as the most likely scenario, you are going to miss a lot of opportunities.

Relegating a player with this type of track record to a fifth outfield slot in October based upon one bad year seems extremely short sighted. Allen Craig has been a good hitter for sometime who suffered through an injury. It's very likely that he will rebound to his previous level of talent if healthy.

Okay so given the facts, what is the most likely explanation for his performance in 2014 and why is that explanation more likely than the explanation I gave?  Why does his performance prior to 2014 deserve little if any weight?

ANY player is capable of having a bad year and if that bad year was caused by a temporary factor, you would expect that player to rebound to his previous level of performance.  No player's projected performance is a "given".

I believe you are incorrectly anchoring on to his level of performance in 2014.  That his performance has to rise by a greater factor than other players is irrelevant.  All players start 2015 at zero so he has no need to catch up.  If the fall in performance was caused by a temporary factor, he will return to his previous level of play.  How fell he far is irrelevant.

I'm about 90% convinced Lackey wasn't playing 2015 for $500K with the Red Sox, so I still see this trade as an absolute win. We get a younger #4-#5 starter with major league success, and a lottery card of an OF/1B who is 1 yr removed from an All Star season. Maybe 2015 isn't the year Craig turns the corner and becomes a .300 hitter again, but we have a few years to platoon him and figure out what this guy can contribute. I'll take that over a disgruntled or overpaid 36 yr old John Lackey.

And where will he be playing for us to see anything? Pawtucket?

The bench will be a backup C, Holt, Nava and Craig. Cespedes will be traded, and Victorino will be traded, released, or DL'd by the end of Spring Training. I would release Victorino and his 1 yr of salary before I would let go of Craig. Craig can get plenty of chances to play 1B and LF between platoons and some health and/or ability question marks in Castillo, Betts, Nava, and Hanley.

It is exciting to consider the possibility of a Craig resurgence.

He was the only bat in the st,Louis lineup during the world series that worried me, particularly in Fenway.

With Napoli, Hanley, and even Victorino potentially needed time off, he may just get enough at bats before June 1 to see what we have.


Depending a bit on the spring and what we see, if all looked good for everyone, I wouldn't mind moving anyone with options down for a month or so.

Victorino would block Mookie, not Craig.

Neither Victorino nor Craig have a place to play on this roster in anything other than the Mike Carp 'never used' role.

I'm not sure we should be so quick to jettison Victorino; Hanley-Castillo-Betts have a total of 46 games experience in the ML outfield.  Either Vic is healthy and a PERFECT 4th outfielder for this team, or he's injured and on the DL (opening a roster spot) to start the season.  The $$$ hurt in holding back from getting a 2nd starter, but I think the outfield could crumble quickly with an injury/ineffectiveness as that roster is constituted.

I hate the kind of thinking that puts Mookie in AAA; play the players that produce, period.
And Mookie has a longer/better track record than Castillo in ML (admittedly, neither has much of one) and a more projectable minor league history.

The thought that Castillo has earned some dispensation to suck and Mookie has to take a back seat is just wrong.
We watched JBJ and Bogaerts (and AJ and Sizemore) get rolled out there day after day - I know offense is down but you can't keep rolling out sub 700 OPS hitters everyday and expect to win