Savin Hillbilly said:He shouldn't platoon if Holt is the UIF. And it's absolutely ridiculous to think of him playing third. He's the best defensive shortstop in that clubhouse as soon as he walks in. That's where he plays. Drew at short and Xander at third won a World Series last year; hard to see why it's a problematic arrangement now. I think there's an argument to be made that we shouldn't have signed Drew because Xander deserved a shot at playing the whole year at short. But there's no argument to be made for signing Drew and then playing him at third while Xander plays short.
Dick Pole Upside said:Hate this move. Suspect that if there is any offensive contribution from Drew at all, it won't come until around the All-Star break, at which point it may be too late. Like the person, don't believe we are getting same player we had last year, does not do much to solve roster turmoil, and is a slight net negative offensively, imo.
Mediocrity, thy name is 2014 Red Sox.
DrewDawg said:
Any particular reason Drew can't replicate what he did last year?
Snodgrass'Muff said:If Middlebrooks makes it back onto the major league roster, that makes sense. I think they're going to look to trade him, but that's just because that's what I would do if it were my decision. If Middlebrooks is back, however, mixing him into the lineup to give Drew days off against most lefties, give Xander time at both positions and maximizes the production they'll get out of the left side of the infield.
Snodgrass'Muff said:If Middlebrooks makes it back onto the major league roster, that makes sense. I think they're going to look to trade him, but that's just because that's what I would do if it were my decision. If Middlebrooks is back, however, mixing him into the lineup to give Drew days off against most lefties, give Xander time at both positions and maximizes the production they'll get out of the left side of the infield.
Sprowl said:
Ugh. I can't imagine anything quite so detrimental to Bogaerts' offense in 2014 and his defensive development in the long term as being jerked around the infield every day. Let the kid play one position and settle into it.
mikeford said:So if Drew is only playing vs RHP than we just paid prorated $14m for a guy who will play what, 65% of the games and come in for defense in late innings?
That seems like an absurd price tag if that's the case.
mikeford said:So if Drew is only playing vs RHP than we just paid prorated $14m for a guy who will play what, 65% of the games and come in for defense in late innings?
That seems like an absurd price tag if that's the case.
AlNipper49 said:
I've never really understood this line of reasoning. It's not like we're not in a position to take on a contract or two and it's not like it's the budget-setting offseason. It's essentially a mid-season acquisition for cash, all of which is someone else's money (albeit perhaps a marginal impact on ticket prices, etc AT WORST)
Yes, sorry for the delay. RHF characterized my thoughts on Drew's offense well. I don't think it will effectively "lengthen" the lineup much at all. Hard to tell how his defense will make an extraordinary difference, either, though that obviously remains to be seen. Essentially, for a resource utilization of $10M, it amounts to a half year rental on a team not showing any signs of being championship caliber while stunting the defensive development of one of the brightest prospects in the game.Red(s)HawksFan said:I assume that DPU is taking into account that Drew hasn't faced live pitching at all this year, so there's going to be a ramping up period even after his "rehab" assignment in the minors. If you figure two weeks of rehab plus another 2-3 weeks to ramp up and get acclimated (similar to the start to his season last year after the concussion), that's putting you toward the end of June before he's at 100% efficiency. So the net effect he's going to have over the next month, at least, is probably nil compared to the replacements.
jimbobim said:If your focused on the ten million I don't know what to say. They thought that was going to be Dempster money. Any move would have cut into that money but required a prospect cost which they obviously hate. They had Dumpster and Drew on the roster last year and it doesn't help them win games for Henry to unexpectedly save 10 mill from one year to the next.
Take a deep breath. They won a WS last year and Fenway prints money.
WenZink said:This move reminds me of the night they brought back Mirabelli. The only thing that's better is they're just pissing away money and not Cla. Can't wait for the police escort... that part was fun.
kazuneko said:I really don't understand why Drew decided to go this direction. He wanted a long-term contract and you'd think if he waited two weeks he would have had a chance at getting that. With the long lay off it wouldn't be shocking if he struggled to match last year's production, and if his production dips he may never receive the multi-year deal which was reportedly his goal all along..
I agree with this 100%. Give the UI spot to Holt until WMB is back. Then WMB gets another run at it until the end of July or mid-August. Then you could replace him with either Cheech or Betts, depending on who has made more progress (Cheech with the glove, Betts with AAA pitching).The Gray Eagle said:Drew needs to get some time playing second base before he's activated, so that we don't need a no-hit futility infielder on the roster anymore. If he can cover SS and 2B, then we won't need a Herrera anymore. He wouldn't need a ton of time at second base, just enough to cover Pedroia getting the occasional day off.
Then when Middlebrooks is ready to come back, you have with Pedroia, Bogaerts, Drew and Middlebrooks (or maybe Garin Cecchini) covering 2B, 3B and SS. Drew replacing Herrera/Holt on the roster is a solid upgrade.
Sampo Gida said:
No guarantees he would have got one. I think Boras has been pretty clear for awhile now that he would take a 1 year deal if he could play SS but needed a multi-year deal to play another position. Now that he has a compensation pick off his back, and a deal to play at a place where he put up good numbers, and at SS, he has a real good shot at a decent deal after the season . Obviously, he has to stay healthy and put up good numbers.
AlNipper49 said:
I've never really understood this line of reasoning. It's not like we're not in a position to take on a contract or two and it's not like it's the budget-setting offseason. It's essentially a mid-season acquisition for cash, all of which is someone else's money (albeit perhaps a marginal impact on ticket prices, etc AT WORST)
Jnai said:
Do you think that the success of the Red Sox is partially tied to their efficient use of a limited pool of money?
soxfan121 said:
"Limited" is an interesting word choice; I'm sure many baseball fans would argue against the notion the Red Sox have a "limited" pool of money.
$10M is pocket change to Fenway Sports Group. If any part of their fiscal philosophy is "tied" to success, it is the divestment of the silly, TV-driven deals for Gonzalez and Crawford and their refusal to give out similar contracts in the future. Avoiding long term, huge money deals is "efficient use" of their "pool of money". Not avoiding $10M/one season deals.
There's lots of valid baseball reasons to argue against the Drew signing. There's decent chemistry and/or development reasons to argue against the Drew signing. There might even be an argument to be had on general team building philosophies, though I disagree because: one year contract.
But there's absolutely no valid "money" reasons to argue against the Drew signing. None. $10M for one year is absolutely in the petty cash box in Lucky's office, collecting dust. Such a paltry sum for a business like FSG is the very definition of chump change. One year contracts are the very definition of "efficient use" of the money pool, especially when (h/t to Rudy) the Dempster money was just sitting there, doing nothing for the team.
Jnai said:Part of me can't help but feel bad for X. I think we tend to view players as chess pieces that can be moved around with little regard for their feelings. It's hard to know what would be better: being shuffled around in a strange platoon where he's always in the lineup but moving between third and short, or sticking at third for the year.
Jnai said:
(1)Well, those fans would be idiots. Clearly, the Red Sox have some limited pool of resources with which to build their baseball team. The limit may be imposed by the personal preference of the owner, or the realities of selling tickets at Fenway park, or whatever other reason, but there's some limit.
I don't even think the money was all that poorly spent - wins cost about $7m/yr on the free agent market, and Drew is projected to be somewhere in the range of a 1.5 win player or so, depending on his playing time, over the course of the year.
(2)But if 10M is such chump change, when does the money start being important?
soxfan121 said:
(1) C'mon. Those fans of teams without the ability to spend up to or over the luxury tax threshold are not "idiots" and it's stupid for a Red Sox fan to even try to make the "limited resources" argument. But whatever, you keep on thinking that the Red Sox are a team "limited" by their finances. It is, and always will be bullshit, but it does help some fans and John Henry sleep at night, so who am I to point out reality?
(2) When it recurs annually or when it exceeds the amount already budgeted to be spent (i.e. Dempster) in that calendar year.
The budget for this season included Dempster being paid; when Dempster decided to not get paid, that budgeted money went to petty cash, available to be spent on any item that that did not have a long term commitment.
Jnai said:
If the Red Sox have unlimited resources, why didn't the Red Sox resign Jacoby Ellsbury, sign Brian McCann, and acquire 3 or 4 more stud starters, some of which they would move to the bullpen?
Oh, I know. Because the Red Sox have limited resources.
Jnai said:
Well, those fans would be idiots. Clearly, the Red Sox have some limited pool of resources with which to build their baseball team. The limit may be imposed by the personal preference of the owner, or the realities of selling tickets at Fenway park, or whatever other reason, but there's some limit.
I don't even think the money was all that poorly spent - wins cost about $7m/yr on the free agent market, and Drew is projected to be somewhere in the range of a 1.5 win player or so, depending on his playing time, over the course of the year.
But if 10M is such chump change, when does the money start being important?
LondonSox said:I dislike this move because I want Xander playing at SS and settling in to his long term position there.
LondonSox said:I can't possibly believe that they are giving up on him there already, and that means you put an expensive blah at SS to hinder Xander's development and confuse the situation at 3B yet further.
LondonSox said:You have WMB and Cecchini for third. If neither work out there is the improvement for Marrero to get excited about (who can play short and Xander at third) and also the Betts wildcard for SS and 3B.
LondonSox said:Next year you are going to have uncertainty about Xander's position. A huge question mark at 3B / SS for whichever Xander isn't playing.
LondonSox said:All for a league average SS who might need to platoon who isn't cheap and isn't ready to play. Woopdeeedoo.
LondonSox said:Yeah it's not my money and maybe it makes the team better this year ina pretty crappy AL East but it's a dumb win now move for a team that looks a long way from winning now.
It smacks to me of not wanted to add another rookie to the mix with JBJ and Xander.
Frankly the team's performance doesn't exactly scream one half season from one ok shortstop from doing something special. We did something special and are in position to have an extended period of really contention. If we can figure out who to keep, who to trade and how this farm depth settles out. This delays answering most of those questions.
According to Fangraphs, shortstops this season have a wRC+ of 87, while third basemen are at 93. If WMB is out for a while (which seems reasonably likely) then our options for the mean time are Jonathan Herrera (projected ~68 wRC+ averaging Steamer and ZiPS) and Brock Holt (projected ~85 wRC+). Middlebrooks, once he returns, is projected as a ~95 wRC+ hitter. Drew is also an above average defender.LondonSox said:Drew is a career 98 OPS+ and a 96 wRC+ hitter. Seems pretty average
He's also not replacing a SS he's replacing a 3B, which is a higher degree of difficulty (ie Xander could have stayed at SS and a 3B be brought it or he's playing at 3B which would also hurt his value defensively).