Craig should start the season on the bench. One bad season doesn't mean you give up on a player as talented as Craig.
Betts to 2nd
- Thread starter Heating up in the bullpen
- Start date
- Status
True but why take the chance that another gm realizes this simple fact and claims him. And the attitude expressed on this board that it will be good riddance is ignorant.Harry Hooper said:
Optional assignment waivers are revocable, there's no risk of losing a player with options left if they really don't want to lose him.
Ok then there is no chance of losing him. I still think it is better to have him break camp with the team since the odds are decent that last year was a hiccup.
If Craig were a free agent, would you offer him a 4 year, $26 million contract this offseason?OptimusPapi said:
Of course not. With his health and historically bad finish to last season, he'd be lucky to get anything other than a minor league deal. Unless he wins a spot in spring training like Sizemore did (and didn't that work out great!) put him at Pawtucket until he hits, like you'd do with any other minor league invitee.
To do otherwise would be falling for the sunk cost fallacy. The Red Sox have at least 5 people capable of playing at a higher level than Craig did in Aug/Sept, with more positional versatility, and for those that are lefthanded, a better fit on the roster given the oversupply of righthanded hitters currently. They shouldn't give away games in April and May again on a snipe hunt for the past glories of a once great player
Plympton91 said:
Can the Sox waive Craig before ST starts, forcing any other team to claim him before he shows anything in Ft. Myers?
I think a lot of y'all are forgetting how good good Allen Craig is.
You don't dump him for the roster spot and the cash because if Allen Craig gets back to what he was in 2013, you have a guy who is probably just a rung down from being an MVP candidate, and you have him for his age 30-33 seasons for relatively little money.
Keeping him is betting the twenty six million that you can get 80 million worth of value out of him.
You don't dump him for the roster spot and the cash because if Allen Craig gets back to what he was in 2013, you have a guy who is probably just a rung down from being an MVP candidate, and you have him for his age 30-33 seasons for relatively little money.
Keeping him is betting the twenty six million that you can get 80 million worth of value out of him.
Well the red sox felt comfortable giving Victorino a 3 year 39 million dollars and while his 2012 isn't as bad as Craigs 2014 it shows that labeling a player in their early 30's as washed up is a little short sighted. Mike Lowell says hi as well. I am not advocating given Craig a full time role but he at least deserves a bench spot in order to see what he has left.Plympton91 said:
That's a ridiculous comparison because context matters.OptimusPapi said:
Shane Victorino was a 3ish fWAR player in 2012 with a 94 wRC+; in other words a league average bat with great defense who played 154 games.
Mike Lowell had a bad year in 150 games, in part, due to a 248 BABIP. If his BABIP was at his career average, he becomes a league average bat with solid defense.
Allen Craig had a lisfranc injury from 2013-2014, which appears to have sapped his power and ability to play in the outfield. He was worth -1.4 fWAR last year in 126 games while playing abhorrent defense and wielding a 69 wRC+ bat. If he displayed his career average BABIP, he would have been a league average bat with terrible defense.
Furthermore, if you want to see what Craig has left, that means you need to get him at bats (which he won't be doing much on the bench), why not try to get him to Pawtucket instead?
Yup, that's the bet. Basically you want a ~30 percent chance that he recovers; given DRS's comments, I'm not sure I would take that bet.Rasputin said:
EDIT: Added in a reply to Ras.
EricFeczko said:
I would. Not sure where the 30% comes from but the Red Sox have doctors too, and they've apparently decided that they would as well. What Ras said + how difficult it is to find very good hitters, if you have a bit of money, you take that gamble. If the guy is toast, that'll not kill you (as long as you don't have too many other unproductive contracts).
All the same arguments were made for keeping the corpse of Grady Sizemore. It's a suckers' bet.Rasputin said:
Keep the players who are the surest bets to be productive in the roles they're needed to play.
I'm also pretty sure that someone made a post earlier in the fall that showed Craig had already dropped off before the lisfranc injury. There may be some deterioration due to another cause, such as stricter PED testing.
His power started dropping prior to the injury itself, but was masked due to a very high BABIP in 2013. it is possible that the injury went undiagnosed, which might explain the drop in power.Plympton91 said:
Just an off the cuff calculation. 26/80 = 0.325. Essentially Ras is saying that you are paying 26 million for the chance at 80 million. If you win that bet more than 32.5 percent of the time, you win more money than you lose in the long run.Snoop Soxy Dogg said:
Rudy Pemberton said:
No.
First off, media speculation doesn't necessarily reflect what the Sox are thinking.
Second, both were acquired at the trade deadline, a time when a losing team is just trying to get value for assets. In the outfield in particular, Mookie Betts had played a total of twelve major league games with a .660 OPS.
If Craig was claimed off waivers, I'd let him go and wouldn't be that surpised. If he was a FA, some team would give him 2-3 years and plenty would give him 1. Saying otherwise is hyperbole. He wouldn't have to settle for a minor league deal nor is he Grady Sizemore.
I'd let him go because he's a surplus and we already have risk tied up in Vic who we don't really have a position for either. Plus for 2015, I think Yoenis is the superior player. We'd need to look for an OF come 2016, but there is Margot, JBJ, Nava, Brentz in house.
I wouldn't be shocked if he had trade value if you ate some of the already cheap contract.
I'd let him go because he's a surplus and we already have risk tied up in Vic who we don't really have a position for either. Plus for 2015, I think Yoenis is the superior player. We'd need to look for an OF come 2016, but there is Margot, JBJ, Nava, Brentz in house.
I wouldn't be shocked if he had trade value if you ate some of the already cheap contract.
Expecting Margot, JBJ, Nava and Brentz to be MLB quality players in 2016 seems a bit foolish. Margot hasn't played above A ball, JBJ hasn't shown he can hit ML pitching, Nava is only getting older and Brentz's upside seems to be a back up player at this point.
Players have to clear optional assignment waivers to be optioned if it's been more than 3 years since their MLB debut. But, no one ever gets claimed off optional assignment waivers, anyway.
Being on a major league roster and being starting caliber players are two different things.Rasputin said:
EDIT: His point was that dumping Craig was okay because we had all these surplus players who can fill spots in 2016. My point is that we don't know that yet.
I'd say he takes the roles of both Carp and Gomes and composites them into one player who's salary for next year isn't much higher than what those two were paid last season.snowmanny said:
Now the obvious follow up there is "why do we need Carp OR Gomes types for next year?" Well, Ortiz is still getting older, Napoli is too, wasn't healthy enough this season, and is having major facial surgery this winter, and if you expect Daniel Nava to play somewhere with any regularity you need a platoon bat to pair him with as he simply doesn't belong in the lineup against a LHP.
At this point I'm really hoping the plan is to flip Cespedes who, given the dry OF market, should have a lot of suitors. That would free up LF for a Nava/Craig platoon that Craig can completely take over if he bounces back (and his defensive issues are entirely range related, so Fenway's LF is ideal for him) while Betts, Castillo, and Victorino sort out CF and RF. That is an acceptable five man OF for a club that would still have Brock Holt as a LH high OBP super utility guy on the bench with Bradley, Brentz, Hassan, Cecchini, and Middlebrooks in AAA.
In fact, that would make me incredibly comfortable with taking a long term 3B option from the FA or trade markets, knowing that the club could effectively rotate the two components of a LF platoon as needed until a worthwhile tandem or singular player emerged. If Nava doesn't produce against RHP he can be rotated out with Bradley (obviously in another OF position to maximize his defensive value) or Cecchini (who is a mediocre 3B at best anyhow) while the insurance policies for Craig would be Victorino (assuming he loses RF to one of Betts/Castillo), Middlebrooks (significantly better against LHP, talk of him playing OF some last season when down in AAA), Brentz (hit well against higher level pitching both last ST and in his brief cup of coffee to end the season) and Hassan (scraping the bottom of the barrel, but he is a good OBP guy).
If the club feels good in what it has with Castillo and Betts the risk of trading Cespedes is pretty well mitigated thanks to significant ML and AAA depth. I could see a long term situation where Nava and Craig split LF for part of 2015, Craig bounces back and takes over 1B after that while Cecchini and Brentz form a new LF platoon shortly thereafter providing a similar level of offensive production.
No it wasn't. I said right before that they'd have to pickup an OF.MakMan44 said:
edit: I think we could find an OF as good as Craig at the end of 2015 unless you think he reverts to 2012 form. I just don't see him as much more than a supporting piece or irreplacable.
Good post. I think that's all very plausible and potentially fruitful. I'd have no trouble just riding Cespedes for what he can give in 2015 and then letting him walk, but trading him for something more needed is also smart.Drek717 said:
How poorly would Betts have to play 3B in order for it to not be a worthwhile gamble?
Instead of paying 10-20 million dollars for a FA 3B (Headley, Panda), that money could be spent on a SP. Instead of Panda + Lester + McCarthy (as an example), with the money saved, it could be Betts + Lester + Scherzer.
This helps ease the OF crunch, for now it would be Cespedes, Castillo, Victorino, with Nava and Craig as reserves, and Holt as utility.
Instead of paying 10-20 million dollars for a FA 3B (Headley, Panda), that money could be spent on a SP. Instead of Panda + Lester + McCarthy (as an example), with the money saved, it could be Betts + Lester + Scherzer.
This helps ease the OF crunch, for now it would be Cespedes, Castillo, Victorino, with Nava and Craig as reserves, and Holt as utility.
swingin val said:
I don't think Betts has the arm for 3B, although on brief evidence, he does look to have the glove for any infield position. The throws from any position farther from first base than second base are high, looping and usually late. It's not that he's way off target or in the dirt, but his arm is more a popgun than a cannon.
Besides, Bogaerts will end up at 3B sooner rather than later, and sooner might be in 2015. :unsure2:
Sprowl said:
I don't understand this at all. Bogaerts was an unmitigated disaster defensively at third last year, and, coincidence or not, he stunk hitting while playing third too. Every bit of commentary that has come from the coaching staff and management team has been pretty strongly in favor of keeping him at SS. Not to mention, there aren't any good options to fill in SS via free agency. Hanley is an awful defender, we've moved on from Drew, Asdrubal Cabrera moved to 2nd, and Hardy re-upped. So what's the option at short? Deven Marrero? Clint Barmes?
jscola85 said:
I disagree. The unexpected position switch hurt his confidence at the plate, and he showed inexperience on numerous plays (eg, not knowing which base to throw to), but his tools are better suited to 3B (good on diving stops, barehand pickups and throws across the diamond), and he looked just fine at third in 2013. Don't trust partial season UZR numbers.
Besides, the eye and tool tests at shortstop do not look good for Bogaerts. He can't jump, his double play footwork is poor, his range is just OK. I wouldn't count too heavily on public pronouncements of support from the coaching staff either, which seem to me to be dictated by the need to boost a 21-year-old's shaky confidence.
Sprowl said:
Well, I guess we just disagree here. By my eye test he looked terrible as well at 3rd, not just UZR or DRS. Maybe it is inexperience at the position, but some guys just don't pick up the quick reactions necessary to play 3rd. Regardless, barring some major unforeseeen trade, the available pieces on the roster and FA suggest moving him to 3rd this year doesn't make any sense. Again, I know you can't trust everything that Cherington and co. say, but they've been adamant even in his minor league days that they felt he belonged at SS, so I am betting that they at least want to give him one full year to prove whether or not he can handle it.
jscola85 said:
That's a fair call for one year, but it would also speak against signing a Sandoval or Headley to play 3B for 3 years if in-house candidates will be ready and in need of a position by 2016, whether it's Cecchini maturing or Bogaerts forced off SS by fielding deficiencies.
Quick reactions at 3B to me mean diving stops, and Bogaerts does those quite well. Decision-making depends more on experience than on reaction time, and Bogaerts clearly was trying to think through situations at 3B, which affected him on both decisions (throwing to the wrong base) and throwing (the only times he threw in the dirt were when he double-clutched because of uncertainty). Overthinking is a problem that goes away with experience at a position.
I don't see a problem signing Headley for a 3-year deal if it is at reasonable terms. If you are the FO, you either think Bogaerts is going to stick at short or you don't. If you don't, move him now and fix the hole at short. If you do, sign a guy like Headley. If it turns out Cecchini is a beast in AAA or Bogaerts hits well but can't field SS, it shouldn't be that hard to trade any of those three guys to free up playing time - or play one of them at 1st, given Napoli's impending FA status after this year.
Winding up with three good options at 3B come this time in 2015 would be a great problem to have.
Winding up with three good options at 3B come this time in 2015 would be a great problem to have.
jscola85 said:
So, you say terrible at both short and 3rd...and on that basis decide he's the long term shortstop, a defensive position exponentially more critical than 3rd base.
I'd expect Bogaerts to get more like 2-3 years at SS, simply because there aren't any good options to replace him with and his bat should be good enough to cover for below average defense.Sprowl said:
I mean, Asdrubal Cabrera is not a good player anymore and he's hands down the best available SS in the FA market. The best play appears to be rolling with Bogaerts until Marrero can push him off SS by showing he's capable of hitting ML pitching (likely having to do so from the bench), or another prospect emerges from the farm (no real good candidates unless Chavis somehow manages to stick there).
SS is probably the lone truly weak position throughout the Sox minor league system in fact. A bunch of small good glove types not a one with real potential to hit in the high minors, to say nothing of how they'd fare against ML pitching.
Drek717 said:
You mean 2-3 years at SS, right? I think that's probably right depending on whether/how quickly Marrero's bat develops.
geoduck no quahog said:
I don't think Bogaerts looked terrible at short - if that was implied, apologies. I think he looked like an extremely young player placed into the toughest defensive position on the diamond who made some silly mental errors and needed to work on things like footwork and anticipation. Nothing that can't get fixed with coaching and experience. I think he moves well for a guy his size, has a strong enough arm and shows flashes of making some really good plays there.
Basically, I think he looks talented but very raw at both positions. I'd rather keep him at the harder one and see how long he can stick there, and I think that's been the front office's MO with most of the prospects in the system.
I assume you mean X plays SS for the next 2-3 years.Drek717 said:
Hopefully Xander will be at API (with Pedroia) working on his agility this winter and then show up to camp early to work with Butterfield, his footwork around 2nd base and subsequent 'soft' sidearm flip on DPs was AWFUL. If they can get him to be a slightly below average major league SS then we can stomach it.
We also have to consider dealing Cecchini at some point next season, if the game plan is to play Xander at SS for the next 2-3yrs (the left side of our infield would be brutal with those two).
Yes, his outfield throws are all that I've seen of Betts' arm, aside from his few weeks at 2B after Pedroia's surgery. Aside from the high error rate and Farrell's clarity that Betts would not be playing SS or 3B, I don't know what his 2011 SS experience was like.Eddie Jurak said:
Well crap.... how close (and how realistic is it to think of...) are Devers or Chavis as a 3rd base option and are they, or should they, even figure into where to play X long term?
Further away than Coyle, who is the next best 3B option behind WMB and Cecchini. If 3B remains a black hole through 2015 it probably isn't out of the question to consider Swihart moving there as well, assuming Vaz locks up the majority of catching work.Trotsky said:
Supposedly he's made a ton of progress at 3B this past year and looks to potentially be able to stay there, but yes, it is still far from a certainty.sean1562 said:
jscola85 said:
Yeah, even if Devers fast tracks through the minors like Xander did and debuts late in his age 21 season, we're talking about him making his debut sometime in 2018. He hasn't yet reached his 18th birthday. That's both incredibly positive, in that he's hitting so well while so young, and negative in that he's a long way from the majors.They need to decide what to do with Xander based on what is best for Xander and hope that one or both of those two kids makes it some kind of issue down the road.
- Status