2015 OF Discussion

[ehaz]

Is Heyward the kind of guy you'd want to give a 10 year, $200 - $250M deal? Because I have to assume that's what it will take. He'll only be 26 as a free agent, which is great, but he's also been relatively inconsistent. Someone's gonna give him a ton of money.

 
No, but at 8 years $150 would you be complaining?  It's a lot of money, but could potentially be a wash or even a bargain and the Braves likely can't afford even that.
 
Maybe you can't get him with Cespedes and lesser prospects, but if you offer something like Cespedes/Owens + for Heyward with an extension window, do they bite?

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I agree that Heyward 2015 > Cespedes 2015, but not by a ton.  The comp pick isn't worth anything close to what Owens is worth.  So that's a very fair deal in terms of value.  In fact, I wouldn't want the Sox to trade Owens in that deal.  I'd much prefer to offer them quantity in prospects over quality.

 

[jscola85]

I guess I just don't understand why the Braves make that deal. A year of Heyward and the comp pick seems worth more than a year of Cespedes and Owens, IMO.

 
Well, Heyward's not worth that much more than Cespedes.  Heyward is about a ~5 win player, Cespedes around 3 wins.  Both are FAs at the end fo the year, so that's 2 wins they are giving up.
 
So the question is, do you think Owens is worth two more wins than a comp pick.  Based on some analyses I've read, a 1st round comp pick is worth ~$10M, or ~1.5 WAR.  That means to make up the difference between Heyward and Cespedes, Owens would have to be worth more than 3.5 WAR to the Braves.  That seems like a low bar to hurdle to me, even if all you think of Owens is a 3rd/4th starter.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Why are we talking about the outfield when we have an abundance of options there? I am hoping the front office focus it's full attention on finding a third baseman, ace, mid rotation starter and a few relievers.

 

[ehaz]

Why are we talking about the outfield when we have an abundance of options there? I am hoping the front office focus it's full attention on finding a third baseman, ace, mid rotation starter and a few relievers.

 
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, some would argue the Sox need to add a left handed bat for lineup balance.  And while they have a ton of outfield depth for now, Cespedes and Victorino will likely walk next year, Bradley hasn't shown that he's even worth a bench spot and it's not entirely fair to call Craig an outfielder.  
 
So the only outfielders under contract beyond 2015 are: 1) Nava, and 2) Rusney and Betts, who have a combined 47 games in the bigs. When there is trade smoke surrounding a 25 year old who has accumulated 26 bWAR over his short career and just so happens to be an elite defender in RF (Fenway)... you look into it.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
Because they could potentially help meet their needs at those other positions by tapping into their "abundance" of OF options and using them as assets. 

Glad that we agree. So since Hayward dosent pitch or play third time to move on

 

[snowmanny]

There are plenty of other threads to read.

 

[TigerBlood]

Why are we talking about the outfield when we have an abundance of options there? I am hoping the front office focus it's full attention on finding a third baseman, ace, mid rotation starter and a few relievers.

 
Good thing you aren't the owners and we aren't the front office then, because what you HOPE we focus our attention on means fuck all on these RED SOX BASEBALL forums in this discussion of RED SOX BASEBALL.

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
Good thing you aren't the owners and we aren't the front office then, because what you HOPE we focus our attention on means fuck all on these RED SOX BASEBALL forums in this discussion of RED SOX BASEBALL.

Kind of how I feel about your opinion. There is a conversation to be had about the proper configuration of the outfield in terms of what the team already has. I just think it's foolish to use our trade chip to bring in something that's a luxury at this point rather then a necessity

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Glad that we agree. So since Hayward dosent pitch or play third time to move on

You have have some options here.
Participate in the conversation by adding something to the thread that will move it forward in a direction more to your liking. A lot of the threads here have more than one discussion in them.

If you don't like the direction it's taking you need to explain why in more detail than you have so far. This could also move the thread forward. This is a good place to start. Expand it.

There is a conversation to be had about the proper configuration of the outfield in terms of what the team already has. I just think it's foolish to use our trade chip to bring in something that's a luxury at this point rather then a necessity

The other option is to stay out of the thread.

And Heyward isn't that difficult to spell. There are many examples in posts that you must have read.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Not trying to get snarky here but if you read my original post I was trying to add to the conversation. I essentially stated that there was no sense in focusing on the outfield when that seems to be taken care of and we have more pressing needs. I am paraphrasing here but I think you get the gist. Upon pushback from other members I then clarified my views. So I do feel like I participated and tried to move the discussion forward. As for spelling Heyward wrong why is a spelling mistake worse then say liberally using the word fuck which a previous poster did?

 

[Darnell's Son]

Not trying to get snarky here but if you read my original post I was trying to add to the conversation. I essentially stated that there was no sense in focusing on the outfield when that seems to be taken care of and we have more pressing needs. I am paraphrasing here but I think you get the gist. Upon pushback from other members I then clarified my views. So I do feel like I participated and tried to move the discussion forward. As for spelling Heyward wrong why is a spelling mistake worse then say liberally using the word fuck which a previous poster did?

This thread is the 2015 OF Discussion thread. You're saying there is no sense in focusing on the outfield. That's fine. Don't participate.

 

[OptimusPapi]

This thread is the 2015 OF Discussion thread. You're saying there is no sense in focusing on the outfield. That's fine. Don't participate.

Hmm so there is no sense in discussing what to do with our surplus of outfielders? There is no sense in discussing if Castillo should play right or center? Should Betts start in triple A or the majors? What's the best use for Craig and Nava? Hmm maybe what I am saying is there is no sense in adding an outfielder since we have plenty. Maybe I am suggesting that if we use any of our outfield surplus we use it to bolster an area of weakness? Maybe you should get a sense of a person viewpoint before you write?

 

[TigerBlood]

Dude, saying that we shouldn't talk about a potential Heyward trade in this thread is like saying we shouldn't talk about potential trades for SP in a "Boston Red Sox 2015 SP" thread because we already have five guys who can start on the roster.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Hmm so there is no sense in discussing what to do with our surplus of outfielders? There is no sense in discussing if Castillo should play right or center? Should Betts start in triple A or the majors? What's the best use for Craig and Nava? Hmm maybe what I am saying is there is no sense in adding an outfielder since we have plenty. Maybe I am suggesting that if we use any of our outfield surplus we use it to bolster an area of weakness? Maybe you should get a sense of a person viewpoint before you write?

If you could add Heyward to the mix by subtracting Cespedes, then it solves a lot of your questions. A Heyward, Castillo, Betts outfield is optimal. They can then figure out what to do with Nava, Craig, and Victorino. It really won't matter. Claiming that adding a good asset(Heyward) to a strong part of your team is bad or a waste of time is odd at best. The goal is to construct the best 25 man roster possible. Adding a guy like Heyward gets you towards that goal.

 

[OptimusPapi]

And I disagree. I feel any tradeable resources should be put to use aquiring a pitcher or a third baseman. Maybe that is an optimal outfield but (assuming Cespedes is traded) having a Betts Castillo Victorino outfield with Nava and Craig ready to step in if need be is good enough. I see where you are coming from and if your version were to come to pass it would not signal the downfall of all that is good and precious in the world. I just feel it is unnecessary. So lets agree to disagree.

 

[OCD SS]

Call it William Montgomery McGovern and the acquisition of Jason Heyward.
 
Heyward is a LHH who plays great RF defense and whose approach at the plate is geared towards discipline and OBP. He's also had some injury problems and has seen his offense trend downward with more volatile platoon splits while coming up on a free agent pay-day. I don't think it takes much squinting to see the J.D. Drew in his game that would tickle the FO's fancy. It's also possible that the parts of his game that look good to the advanced metrics/ SABR crowd might not be seen as quite so valuable to his own team.
 
My guess is that how he fits in in 2015 is less important to the Sox than his prime years in 2016+. If they can acquire him it gives them a jump on evaluating him and getting him comfortable in Boston before they have to give him a big contract, especially if Cespedes goes the other way (in this deal or separately). IIRC it's easier to find a LHH OFer than IFer, and Heyward helps balance the lineup while improving the defense overall: If they land him for next season, an OF of Betts/ Castillio/ Heyward (with Betts backing up 2B and Craig/ Victorino* serving as back up OFers) looks excellent defensively and certainly has a good deal of offensive upside.
 
The FO has got some money to spend, and if they were going to open the proverbial vault for Stanton, Heyward would another player to get that kind of deal given his age, but I think his overall track record and trajectory keeps both his acquisition cost and next contract in a closer orbit. Heyward strikes me as the sort of opportunity that Ben could bet reasonably on while looking for a huge payout.
 
*  I don't expect Vic to really be healthy right off the bat, so it's easier to project him moving into a bench role. If he's healthy he'll get playing time, probably at Betts' expense in the short-term, but probably also with an eye towards moving him.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Dude, saying that we shouldn't talk about a potential Heyward trade in this thread is like saying we shouldn't talk about potential trades for SP in a "Boston Red Sox 2015 SP" thread because we already have five guys who can start on the roster.

So if I have a dissenting opinion on the whole trade for Heyward angle I am not allowed to voice that?

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Not trying to get snarky here but if you read my original post I was trying to add to the conversation. I essentially stated that there was no sense in focusing on the outfield when that seems to be taken care of and we have more pressing needs. I am paraphrasing here but I think you get the gist. Upon pushback from other members I then clarified my views. So I do feel like I participated and tried to move the discussion forward. As for spelling Heyward wrong why is a spelling mistake worse then say liberally using the word fuck which a previous poster did?

Your first post added nothing to the discussion in this, the OF thread. Your last post was on the right track. You just need to add to it. 
 
And this thread is where talk of possibly upgrading the OF by trading for Heyward belongs. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

So if I have a dissenting opinion on the whole trade for Heyward angle I am not allowed to voice that?

 
Sure you can. You can say you don't believe they should trade for Heyward, and cite your reasons. That continues the discussion

 

[Darnell's Son]

And I disagree. I feel any tradeable resources should be put to use aquiring a pitcher or a third baseman. Maybe that is an optimal outfield but (assuming Cespedes is traded) having a Betts Castillo Victorino outfield with Nava and Craig ready to step in if need be is good enough. I see where you are coming from and if your version were to come to pass it would not signal the downfall of all that is good and precious in the world. I just feel it is unnecessary. So lets agree to disagree.

They have a lot of tradeable(and financial) resources though. They can easily address 3B and the rotation while also improving the OF. It's why there's been so much talk about this offseason. If they traded Cespedes and some of their pitching depth, they could still go and trade for a SP, sign another SP, sign a 3B, and acquire some bullpen help. 

 

[TigerBlood]

So if I have a dissenting opinion on the whole trade for Heyward angle I am not allowed to voice that?

 
No you absolutely are, and eventually you did!
 
 

And I disagree. I feel any tradeable resources should be put to use aquiring a pitcher or a third baseman. Maybe that is an optimal outfield but (assuming Cespedes is traded) having a Betts Castillo Victorino outfield with Nava and Craig ready to step in if need be is good enough. I see where you are coming from and if your version were to come to pass it would not signal the downfall of all that is good and precious in the world. I just feel it is unnecessary. So lets agree to disagree.

 
It just took you like 6 posts of stifling discussion, derailing the thread, causing an argument to get it out.
 
TBH, I agree with your point, but this
 

Why are we talking about the outfield when we have an abundance of options there? I am hoping the front office focus it's full attention on finding a third baseman, ace, mid rotation starter and a few relievers.

 
 
[SIZE=12.8000001907349px]was one of the most dickish, unnecessary posts I've ever read here. I and most others here took that as you saying "STFU I'm a knowitall, and you all are stupid to be talking about the outfield, and I'm not gonna bring any evidence to back up my points either!"[/SIZE]

 

[absintheofmalaise]

You two take the personal stuff to PMs please. This kind of posting is another example of what derails threads.

 

[TigerBlood]

Call it William Montgomery McGovern and the acquisition of Jason Heyward.
 
Heyward is a LHH who plays great RF defense and whose approach at the plate is geared towards discipline and OBP. He's also had some injury problems and has seen his offense trend downward with more volatile platoon splits while coming up on a free agent pay-day. I don't think it takes much squinting to see the J.D. Drew in his game that would tickle the FO's fancy. It's also possible that the parts of his game that look good to the advanced metrics/ SABR crowd might not be seen as quite so valuable to his own team.
 
My guess is that how he fits in in 2015 is less important to the Sox than his prime years in 2016+. If they can acquire him it gives them a jump on evaluating him and getting him comfortable in Boston before they have to give him a big contract, especially if Cespedes goes the other way (in this deal or separately). IIRC it's easier to find a LHH OFer than IFer, and Heyward helps balance the lineup while improving the defense overall: If they land him for next season, an OF of Betts/ Castillio/ Heyward (with Betts backing up 2B and Craig/ Victorino* serving as back up OFers) looks excellent defensively and certainly has a good deal of offensive upside.
 
The FO has got some money to spend, and if they were going to open the proverbial vault for Stanton, Heyward would another player to get that kind of deal given his age, but I think his overall track record and trajectory keeps both his acquisition cost and next contract in a closer orbit. Heyward strikes me as the sort of opportunity that Ben could bet reasonably on while looking for a huge payout.
 
*  I don't expect Vic to really be healthy right off the bat, so it's easier to project him moving into a bench role. If he's healthy he'll get playing time, probably at Betts' expense in the short-term, but probably also with an eye towards moving him.

 
Great post, agreed with the bold. Betts/Castillo/Heyward looks very excellent defensively, and if Heyward was extended, and I don't think our front office would trade for him unless they knew it was possible, they could all be together for a long time.

 

[sean1562]

honestly, there is like zero chance the braves trade us heyward for a package revolving around Cespedes. One can say that 2 WAR "is not a big difference" especially if we throw them some "great" prospects like one of our disposable AAA arms(and how much value do you guys think they have? we seem to be dying to get rid of them, do you think the braves really want Allen Webster), but if the Braves think they are in a playoff race next year, 2 WAR is a massive difference between two players, especially if you have to move your LF to play RF, a position he sucks at. I think the Braves may just want to put Evan Gattis in LF and move Upton to right. Gattis is not a terribly different hitter than Cespedes, just a worse fielder

 

[Drek717]

honestly, there is like zero chance the braves trade us heyward for a package revolving around Cespedes. One can say that 2 WAR "is not a big difference" especially if we throw them some "great" prospects like one of our disposable AAA arms(and how much value do you guys think they have? we seem to be dying to get rid of them, do you think the braves really want Allen Webster), but if the Braves think they are in a playoff race next year, 2 WAR is a massive difference between two players, especially if you have to move your LF to play RF, a position he sucks at. I think the Braves may just want to put Evan Gattis in LF and move Upton to right. Gattis is not a terribly different hitter than Cespedes, just a worse fielder

Webster et al do have value.  The Sox have more of those types than they can field on a team with playoff aspirations, but lets not suddenly forget that:
Allen Webster was a top 100 prospect from 2011 to 2013
Anthony Ranaudo was a top 100 guy in 2010 and has been a persistent fixture on runner up lists ever since
Edwin Escobar was the #56 prospect in baseball by Baseball America in 2013
Matt Barnes was the #40 prospect in baseball in 2012 and like Ranaudo has been a fixture on runner up lists since
 
They aren't scrubs, they just look like #3-#5 starter types.  At league minimum with 5-6 years of control that is incredibly valuable to any team that has to work within a budget.  It is especially true when all of these guys have awesome raw talent pouring out their ears and are one step away from potentially being damn good pitchers.  These are a bunch of Abe Alvarez types.  The Sox just can't afford to find out who the good ones are and still compete in 2015 like they want to.
 
We have a twisted view on this because we're fans of a club who has this stockpile of pitchers and the money to buy solid #4/#5 starter types every year.  Most other teams are hunting for guys like the above so they can focus their more limited financial resources elsewhere, but most teams don't have the quantity exhibited here.  Webster was the #2 prospect in the Dodger's farm when he was acquired.  So was Escobar in the Giants' system.  Ranaudo and Barnes have been fixtures in the Sox top 10 for two seasons now while the Sox have been lauded for their top tier farm most noted for it's impressive depth.  They have value, but as a whole they're too much risk for the Red Sox to take on alone while also creating a log jam.

 

[ivanvamp]

I love the idea of trading Cespedes for Heyward.  
 
But not if it requires Henry Owens.  No thank you.
 
Play Cespedes for a year, see how it goes.  By then maybe Brentz or JBJ or another option (Craig?) is actually ready, and you can move forward in 2016 with Castillo, Betts, Craig/Brentz/JBJ/etc.  

 

[YTF]

A lot of talk about Cespedes/Betts/Castillo. There's not been a whole lot of talk about where Victorino (or his salary) fits in here. Health obviously will be part of determining his role and he's also due $13 million in salary. Unless he's injured, he's in the starting lineup I would think. Platooned at worse, but I don't see it unless he flat out sucks. I'm not advocating that he HAS to play because of the salary, but we all know how that is often a consideration. So I'm thinking Cespedes/Castillo/Victorino will be the "regular" outfield,  Betts as the 4th OF and either Nava or Craig as your 5th. They're redundant so I really don't see both on the 25 man roster. If you work a bit backwards and consider a 4 man bench you're looking at Catcher (Ross?), infield (Holt), and 2 OF meaning there is a total of 5 OF slots for this team. IF we include Betts then there is one spot available. As currently constructed that's Craig or Nava. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

So I'm thinking Cespedes/Castillo/Victorino will be the "regular" outfield,  Betts as the 4th OF and either Nava or Craig as your 5th.

 
Please, no. A 22-year-old who has shown nothing but superstar potential is not a 4th OF anywhere. He is an everyday player. The only question--and hopefully it's only a question for a very short while longer--is whether he is an everyday player in Boston or Pawtucket.
 
But I agree with you that if Victorino is healthy he probably starts, because, you know, $13M. Which is why, if they want Betts on the big club, they have to trade either Victorino or Cespedes.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

A lot of talk about Cespedes/Betts/Castillo. There's not been a whole lot of talk about where Victorino (or his salary) fits in here. Health obviously will be part of determining his role and he's also due $13 million in salary. Unless he's injured, he's in the starting lineup I would think. Platooned at worse, but I don't see it unless he flat out sucks. I'm not advocating that he HAS to play because of the salary, but we all know how that is often a consideration. So I'm thinking Cespedes/Castillo/Victorino will be the "regular" outfield,  Betts as the 4th OF and either Nava or Craig as your 5th. They're redundant so I really don't see both on the 25 man roster. If you work a bit backwards and consider a 4 man bench you're looking at Catcher (Ross?), infield (Holt), and 2 OF meaning there is a total of 5 OF slots for this team. IF we include Betts then there is one spot available. As currently constructed that's Craig or Nava.

Betts is not going to be the 4th OF . You don't take a 21 year old budding star and make a utility player out of him. He's going to get 600 ABs next year .. Either in Boston or Pawtucket (unlikely).

I think the Red Sox are smart enough to not allow salary considerations to me a factor for whether a guy plays or not .. the same thing can be said for Craig.

 

[YTF]

 
Please, no. A 22-year-old who has shown nothing but superstar potential is not a 4th OF anywhere. He is an everyday player. The only question--and hopefully it's only a question for a very short while longer--is whether he is an everyday player in Boston or Pawtucket.
 
But I agree with you that if Victorino is healthy he probably starts, because, you know, $13M. Which is why, if they want Betts on the big club, they have to trade either Victorino or Cespedes.

 
 

Betts is not going to be the 4th OF . You don't take a 21 year old budding star and make a utility player out of him. He's going to get 600 ABs next year .. Either in Boston or Pawtucket (unlikely).

I think the Red Sox are smart enough to not allow salary considerations to me a factor for whether a guy plays or not .. the same thing can be said for Craig.

 
I'd love to see Betts in the starting lineup. But a healthy Victorino may well screw that up and I DO think salary would be a consideration. It's always been my contention that your payroll is what it is no matter who starts and who sits, but when you're the people who are actually spending the money the thought process doesn't always work that way. Ultimately I'd like to see a healthy Victorino drawing interest from other teams in spring training. 

 

[sean1562]

who is more valuable, a healthy Victorino or Cespedes? Why did we even trade for Cespedes? It is beginning to look like kind of a stupid trade in retrospect, unless we can get something good for one of the two

 

[ivanvamp]

The problem is the "healthy Victorino" part.  122 games played in 2013, 30 games played in 2014.  That's just 46.9% of the possible games played over the past two seasons.
 
You can't go into 2015 relying on a "healthy Victorino".  

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Please, no. A 22-year-old who has shown nothing but superstar potential is not a 4th OF anywhere. He is an everyday player. The only question--and hopefully it's only a question for a very short while longer--is whether he is an everyday player in Boston or Pawtucket.
 
But I agree with you that if Victorino is healthy he probably starts, because, you know, $13M. Which is why, if they want Betts on the big club, they have to trade either Victorino or Cespedes.

 
Trading Cespedes and relying on Victorino to be healthy is a big mistake.  If they want to keep Betts in Boston then I think Victorino has to be the fourth OF.  I would hope that given his injury history he may actually see the value of not playing every day, and he would be a great fourth OF/defensive replacement/PH/PR, and he could get plenty of PAs.

 

[OptimusPapi]

who is more valuable, a healthy Victorino or Cespedes? Why did we even trade for Cespedes? It is beginning to look like kind of a stupid trade in retrospect, unless we can get something good for one of the two

If Cespedes can bring something back in a trade that can be bundle with Owen and a few other prospects for a starting pitcher then trading for him was worth it. As for Vic he should start the year either on the Dl or the bench. The reality is he will probably be the first one up when a starting role opens up.

 

[Drek717]

A lot of talk about Cespedes/Betts/Castillo. There's not been a whole lot of talk about where Victorino (or his salary) fits in here. Health obviously will be part of determining his role and he's also due $13 million in salary. Unless he's injured, he's in the starting lineup I would think. Platooned at worse, but I don't see it unless he flat out sucks. I'm not advocating that he HAS to play because of the salary, but we all know how that is often a consideration. So I'm thinking Cespedes/Castillo/Victorino will be the "regular" outfield,  Betts as the 4th OF and either Nava or Craig as your 5th. They're redundant so I really don't see both on the 25 man roster. If you work a bit backwards and consider a 4 man bench you're looking at Catcher (Ross?), infield (Holt), and 2 OF meaning there is a total of 5 OF slots for this team. IF we include Betts then there is one spot available. As currently constructed that's Craig or Nava. 

Why would his salary be a consideration in the final year of his deal?  He doesn't have future trade value to be pumped up, a need to justify the contract, or (given his age and injury  history) even any real expectation of a starting job waiting for him.
 
Further, the notion of a "healthy" Victorino being a major factor in roster construction decisions is likely a straight up fallacy.  He isn't going to get more durable with age, so just because he might show up to camp healthy that doesn't mean he should suddenly be inked in for 120+ games in 2015.
 
I think Victorino is your 4th OF no matter how you construct the starting three.  Not only is he too big an injury risk to bet a full time job on no matter what he shows to start the season, it is also entirely likely that a reduced workload is the key to getting his 2013 rate production out of him.
 
Trading Cespedes is really the move that makes all the blocks fall into place.  Then it's Castillo and Betts as some combination of CF and RF, Nava platooning in LF with one of Craig or Victorino, and Vic serves as the CF/RF backup.  The problem is that the reason Cespedes is the one who makes it all fit is because he's the best bet to be an above average player for 2015, so going that route engenders more risk.  The return on Cespedes needs to merit that additional risk.

 

[jscola85]

The problem is the "healthy Victorino" part.  122 games played in 2013, 30 games played in 2014.  That's just 46.9% of the possible games played over the past two seasons.
 
You can't go into 2015 relying on a "healthy Victorino".  

 
Bingo.  Part of the reason the Sox may be looking to trade Cespedes is that the OF is fairly righty-heavy, with Cespedes, Castillo, Betts and Victorino.  They obviously won't trade Castillo and I hope Betts is off the table too.  That means trading either Cespedes or Victorino.  Cespedes is more logical since he's got more trade value, plus Victorino could be a fantastic 4th OF / platoonmate with Nava (I'd see it more as a 50-50 split than a true lefty-righty split).  If Vic gets hurt, you call up Bradley to pair with Nava.

 

[sean1562]

the only year victorino hasnt played more than 120 games in his career was last year. why is it so far fetched to think he may be able to contribute next season? 
 
edit: ok i didnt realize it had a high chance of recurring, didnt distinguish between injury types and just thought it was kind of strange since he had previously been kind of durable

 

[jscola85]

the only year victorino hasnt played more than 120 games in his career was last year. why is it so far fetched to think he may be able to contribute next season? 

 
Because he's 33, his games played the last three years have gone 154-122-30, and the injury he suffered is a severe one that has a high likelihood of recurring.  It's not like broke his arm or something and you'd expect it to heal up 100%.  Back injuries, especially for guys turning 34, do not typically get better.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Why would his salary be a consideration in the final year of his deal?

 
Because it's a natural human response for upper management to hate watching highly paid employees sit on their ass, and it takes out-of-the-box thinking to overcome that response, and Larry Lucchino is not an out-of-the-box kind of guy? And also because it's a natural human response for baseball managers to privilege seniority and to accommodate veterans' wishes for playing time unless they're clearly not capable of helping the club?
 
Yeah, I'm being a bit reductionist, but I think something along those lines is possible.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Because it's a natural human response for upper management to hate watching highly paid employees sit on their ass, and it takes out-of-the-box thinking to overcome that response, and Larry Lucchino is not an out-of-the-box kind of guy? And also because it's a natural human response for baseball managers to privilege seniority and to accommodate veterans' wishes for playing time unless they're clearly not capable of helping the club?
 
Yeah, I'm being a bit reductionist, but I think something along those lines is possible.

 
I really don't see the Sox putting a lesser team on the field for reasons like these.  Ben and Farrell certainly don't seem like they would support this.  Are you suggesting that Larry is making on-field decisions?  Plus there are several examples of more expensive players sitting for younger guys at the end of their deals.  Two that come to mind are Lowell and Posada.

 

[OCD SS]

 
Great post, agreed with the bold. Betts/Castillo/Heyward looks very excellent defensively, and if Heyward was extended, and I don't think our front office would trade for him unless they knew it was possible, they could all be together for a long time.

 
Here I disagree; if the Sox are looking to contend in '15 then the benefits of adding Heyward are likely enough if they are also dealing their OF surplus to fill other areas. We also have to keep in mind that his offensive trajectory is trending the wrong way for his age (lots of talk about holes in his swing, turning into a platoon player, etc) so a season's worth of up close observation is not without some value when looking to spend that kind of coin.

 

[KillerBs]

I doubt the Sox are going to commit to Victorino on a FT basis, in these circumstances, just because they are on the hook for 13$M this year. I suppose if Victorino looks great at Fort Myers, it is possible they could send Mookie, or more plausibly Rusney to PAW, for some April/May seasoning, but that strikes me as unlikely. One benefit of a potential Cespedes deal, and the resulting scenario laid out by Drek above, is that it gives an appropriate role for Victorino to start the year -- 4/5th OFer, slotted provisionally for 200-300 ABs, as a caddy for the kids in CF/RF and a chance, if he is performing to elbow his way into LF, or get himself dealt in his walk year to a team that will start him.   

 

[ZMart100]

Victorino will start not because he's getting paid a lot of money, but because in 152 games for Boston he has been really good (a 5.6 fWAR player). I suspect that he is going to have the opportunity to play until he demonstrates that he is not that player anymore, that's how veterans are treated in MLB. If the team they have right now started the season, I think it would be Cespedes | Betts/Castillo | Victorino. My guess is that Betts would start and Castillo would be sent to AAA, despite the money.

 

[MakMan44]

If Castillo plays well in ST, there's really no purpose to sending him to AAA over Mookie. He adapted well in limited time this season, and by all accounts is doing pretty well in AFL. If he looks like he can start, he should be starting. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I really don't see the Sox putting a lesser team on the field for reasons like these.  Ben and Farrell certainly don't seem like they would support this.  Are you suggesting that Larry is making on-field decisions?  Plus there are several examples of more expensive players sitting for younger guys at the end of their deals.  Two that come to mind are Lowell and Posada.

 
I'm not suggesting that Larry is *making* on-field decisions, of course, but that he may express opinions about how to deploy the assets the club has invested in, and those would have some influence in a broad way.
 
Ben certainly seems like the kind of guy who would understand the "sunk cost" concept and encourage Farrell to use the roster optimally regardless of salary. And Farrell is certainly smart enough to get that too, but we have sometimes seen him privilege personalities and intangibles over analytical considerations (e.g. Gomes over Nava in the 2013 postseason). I can easily see him deciding that having Victorino's "veteran presence" in the lineup was a winning strategy. I'm not predicting this, just saying it seems like a possibility given what we've seen of Farrell. In that scenario it wouldn't be a question of playing Victorino because of the salary per se, but it would have the same effect.

 

[CaskNFappin]

Quite simply, one of these guys will be wearing a different uniform. <br />
<br />
My guess is Betts, especially if Lester is not resigned. Any GM who values his job is demanding Betts or Bogaerts for an ace, period. They know that Ben doesn't want to hold his ground so long that the dust settles and Clay is the opening day starter. And no, they won't cave in for these nickel-and-dimes for a dollar proposal involving our spare parts. <br />
<br />
Be realistic.

 

[MakMan44]

I think there's very little chance Mookie or Xander get moved this offseason, I can't think of a pitcher who might be available that would be worth trading them for. 

 

[ehaz]

Quite simply, one of these guys will be wearing a different uniform. <br />
<br />
My guess is Betts, especially if Lester is not resigned. Any GM who values his job is demanding Betts or Bogaerts for an ace, period. They know that Ben doesn't want to hold his ground so long that the dust settles and Clay is the opening day starter. And no, they won't cave in for these nickel-and-dimes for a dollar proposal involving our spare parts. <br />
<br />
Be realistic.

 
Uh for which ace? Latos and Cueto are only one year commitments and look at what the Rays got for Price.  Hamels comes with a $100,000,000 contract.  No, they don't have that much leverage.  Unless you think Sale is walking through that door.  
 
Be realistic.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Betts and Swihart appear to have the most value. In addition the Sox wouldn't be trading from an area of depth. That's why I think any trade for a starter is going to start with Owens