Let's not forget that Plan A for the Red Sox in 2014 was Drew at SS and Bogaerts (I assume) at 3rd. Otherwise they would not have put the QO on the table.
This is Plan A. Four months late.
This is Plan A. Four months late.
Drew is walking through that door
- Thread starter jsinger121
- Start date
- Status
Stephen Drew said:THE MAGIC IS BACK! WINNING STREAK STARTS TONIGHT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu6RGcVVrxY
McAdam explains the roster moves that will be required in the next few days.
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/getting-drew-back-red-sox-lineup-will-be-complicated
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/getting-drew-back-red-sox-lineup-will-be-complicated
Andrew said:
Offtopic I know...but according to NESN it was some guy from Cleveland:75 Red Hats said:
http://nesn.com/2014/04/boston-strong-phrase-first-used-in-tweet-by-cleveland-area-man/
In all seriousness, I think this makes us a significantly better team on both sides of the ball. It might be one of Cherington's better moves, even without the irony of the lectures from "long time Red Sox fans" who really "understand the front office" and know how Drew wouldn't be coming back.
I'm onside with the "in favor" crowd. Drew makes the Sox much better defensively, and it's really unlikely that he'll hit worse than Middlebrooks. This is a vote by the FO in favor of winning ballgames.
X is a stud and I like pulling for the kids to grow up into starting roles in MLB, but I like seeing the Sox win games with regularity more than watching any specific player in a specific role (heck, I loved watching Iggy field, but not as much as I loved hearing "the defending world champion Boston Red Sox")
X is a stud and I like pulling for the kids to grow up into starting roles in MLB, but I like seeing the Sox win games with regularity more than watching any specific player in a specific role (heck, I loved watching Iggy field, but not as much as I loved hearing "the defending world champion Boston Red Sox")
I hope whatever happens the conversation starts with, "we've decided to keep Holt up as the utility guy"brandonchristensen said:
geoduck no quahog said:
Come on. There was no chance Drew was accepting a QO and the Red Sox knew that. He was not Plan A.
agreed...the lectures on "why Drew is not coming through that door" makes for some comedic readingHoplite said:
Sampo Gida said:
I would amend this to "there was little chance Drew was accepting a QO and the Red Sox knew they could work with that scenario if it did happen." I agree that it certainly wasn't plan A.
I'm in lockstep with you on this move. Irritates me, probably irrationally so. Nothing personal, Stephen.Red(s)HawksFan said:
It IS irrational. This makes the team better. Who give's a shit about Cafardo and others?Dick Pole Upside said:
According to the McAdams summary, that's virtually impossible.PaulinMyrBch said:
Now the question becomes, do they bring up Cecchini for 10 days, or play Herrera and bring up an outfielder or pitcher.
Not a joke. Why assume Drew would pass on the offer? If you make the offer, you need to assume a scenario of acceptance (14M is a lot of money to turn down)Sampo Gida said:
If plan A was X/WMB, then you don't gamble on Drew accepting 14M, you just decline...you don't fuck up your 2014 roster plans on the chance that you'll get a draft pick.
Oh no! The Sox are scuffling and made a move to improve by spending money while not trading any propects. This is awful.
Question - I know it takes time to get your timing back at the plate, but usually rehab appearances are tied to an injury of some kind.
So, is there anything the Sox can do to speed this up for Drew or do they just assign him to a MiL team and let it happen on its own?
So, is there anything the Sox can do to speed this up for Drew or do they just assign him to a MiL team and let it happen on its own?
I know a lot of people are pooh-poohing the effect of losing 4 months of development at SS for X, but it's something to worry about. SS is the 2nd most difficult position on the field defensively (behind catcher). There are a lot of things that need to be learned to play the position competently. Losing that time is going to be a setback to his development at that position no matter what. A lot of people seem to be convinced this is going to be a significant improvement. By the time Drew is ready, 1/3rd of the season will be gone. Are the Sox really going to gain enough to make the whole deal worth it? If he hits like last year, sure. I'm really on the fence about this because I really believe in X as a SS in the long term. I just hope it doesn't derail him or the Sox get the idea that he should stay at 3B because he'd be much more valuable overall as a SS long term.
Getting Drew may help short term and I hope he does now that the deal is done. But if Drew comes out of the gate hitting like WMB, then what? I can't wait to see that thread.
As MakMan previously pointed out, this still doesn't fix the 60 to 80% of the rotation that's performing below expectations (depending on how you feel about Lackey's performance), which to me is as just as big a problem.
At least this deal will make some really happy here.
Getting Drew may help short term and I hope he does now that the deal is done. But if Drew comes out of the gate hitting like WMB, then what? I can't wait to see that thread.
As MakMan previously pointed out, this still doesn't fix the 60 to 80% of the rotation that's performing below expectations (depending on how you feel about Lackey's performance), which to me is as just as big a problem.
At least this deal will make some really happy here.
If the Sox need to or choose to DL Doubront that makes the roster moves much simpler and keeps them from having to play a position player short for a couple of days and maybe bringing up Cechini before they want to.
DL Doubront
Activate Drew
Start Waiver process(wait 48 hours)
Option Drew
Activate replacement pitcher(Webster, Workman whoever)
From upthread here is a description of what would need to be done without a Doubie DL.
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/getting-drew-back-red-sox-lineup-will-be-complicated
DL Doubront
Activate Drew
Start Waiver process(wait 48 hours)
Option Drew
Activate replacement pitcher(Webster, Workman whoever)
From upthread here is a description of what would need to be done without a Doubie DL.
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/getting-drew-back-red-sox-lineup-will-be-complicated
DanoooME said:
If Drew comes out of the gate hitting like WMB, he won't be hitting like Drew (not to mention that if he fields like Drew and not WMB - or X at SS - he won't be fielding like himself, either).
WMB has had an OPS of (well) under .700 since 2012. Drew has done that twice in 10 seasons in the ML.
I get that many folks here would like to stick with the kids and damn the torpedoes, but management's job is to win baseball games, and they took an entirely reasonable step in that direction with the Drew signing.
Other than the posters who are embarrassed over the lectures they gave about how they were real fans because they undrestood that Drew was never returning, I don't see why anyone would be upset over this deal. Is Drew a better defensive shortstop than Bogaerts? Check. Is Drew a better offensive player than Middlebrooks or Brock Holt? Check. Does this move cost us any draft pick compensation? Nope. Is any of this surprising? Of course not.
How dare you deny me faux message-board outrage. Think of the children. And by children I mean Xander, who is, apparently still learning SS. In the majors. For...er...the World Champion Boston Red Sox.Hoplite said:
I also can see that this move opens up the possibility that the UI spot no longer needs to be taken by someone who can play SS. This maybe means that Mookie might have an opening here soon after the ASB, if he shows that he can play a serviceable 3B (as well as the ability to hit AAA pitching).
Agreed on all fronts, especially the first part: a lot of people who were insistent that bringing back Drew was ridiculous, and a well-run organization like the Sox would never do it, have some crow to eat.Hoplite said:
I just wish it hadn't taken so long to happen, but it's quite likely that Drew and Boras weren't caving until recently.
Hoplite said:
Bingo.
And don't underestimate the starts that Betts and Marrero have had at Portland. Betts is rumored to be a shortstop and Marrero by all accounts is an awesome shortstop. If rumors are true that they wanted to give Drew 2 years, then perhaps they've reassessed the ceilings of those two players, and it now makes sense to have Bogaerts at 3rd long term They're not going to say that out loud obviously.
My introduction to SOSH was essentially posters telling me how I didn't know what I was talking about for suggesting we'd have a use for Drew and that we shouldn't count of Middlebroks. This page caputures most of it:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/79282-drew-v-20/page-14
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/79282-drew-v-20/page-14
Saints Rest said:
Yup. The roster definitely starts to take shape and make more sense with Drew on board. He won't be a savior, but the team's D should improve as well as hitting vs right handed pitching since he is essentially replacing Middlebrooks in the lineup.
As you mentioned, it's even more likely that Betts could be useful as a utility guy since the Sox no longer need that position to play SS. If you replace WMB and Herrera with Drew and Betts (still early to go there I know), thats potentially a big upgrade. Find a left fielder that can hit righties (Sizemore, Nava, or trade), hope catcher stops being a black hole or Vazquez can help, and look for one of the AAA pitchers to make an impact.
A lot has to go right, but there is definitely a path to turning this thing around.
Mea culpa's aren't big around here.Hoplite said:
Just be glad that he is coming through our door and not Yankee Stadium.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Breezed through this thread this morning and may not have seen every note, but DtTtB's comment early on rings the bell for me. This isn't bad news for Xander -- it may be good news by making it easier for him to succeed offensively where he'll be making his money (and creating wins for the Red Sox). And I'm as hopeful for WMB as anybody, a rare glimpse of RH power in the entire organization, but it's taking a while and the Red Sox evaluators may well be getting concerned he won't 'get as far as hoped.
On another point, and apologies if I missed it, this signing says something about improving team culture. A year ago, you'd certainly expect a "spurned" player who got a QO he didn't want to be bitter with the organization. Now I certainly realize it wasn't the Red Sox' fault that Boras misread Drew's market, nor was their offering Drew the QO an actual signal of any disrespect. But the notion of "the Red Sox fucked Drew by giving him the qualifying offer because it killed his free agency market" was certainly in the air.
Anyhow, as recently as a year ago, a player in that situation might not have considered returning to the Sox...and the Sox might not have left the door as open for his return. Also noteworthy here that Ellsbury's departure hasn't been framed as a traitorous action as it may have been in the not too distant past. Winning a World Series certainly can do wonders for how a team is perceived.
As I've said, I think this isn't a referendum on anyone, but it may impact Middlebrooks more than anyone.
Just a word on Middlebrooks, however. Not that they are the same guy at all, but consider the curious case of Jose Bautista. Obviously, tremendous power, has become an extremely productive MLB hitter. Look at his b-ref page, though, and look at the various stages of his career:
Stage 1: Pretty decent minor league numbers, playing at ages 20-24. Showed good (not tremendous) power. Solid overall hitter.
Stage 2: So-so MLB hitter, playing at ages 25-28. Here are those four MLB seasons:
2006 (25): 400 ab, 16 hr, 51 rbi, .235/.335/.420/.755, 94 ops+
2007 (26): 532 ab, 15 hr, 63 rbi, .254/.339/.414/.753, 96 ops+
2008 (27): 370 ab, 15 hr, 54 rbi, .238/.313/.405/.718, 91 ops+
2009 (28): 336 ab, 13 hr, 40 rbi, .235/.349/.408/.757, 99 ops+
So at this point, there is nothing, really, to indicate that he was about to explode on the scene. I mean, for the number of AB he had, his home run numbers were pretty good, and his OBP (except in 2008) wasn't off the charts horrible. But terrible batting average, tons of strikeouts, below-average OPS+ numbers. All there was was basically the hope that he could flip a switch, because he did show flashes.
Stage 3 - The monster, playing at ages 29-33 (and counting). These last 5 seasons, he's averaged, per 162 games, 47 hr, 114 rbi, and he's put up this slash line: .270/.393/.568/.961, 158 ops+.
Now, Middlebrooks, playing the same position Bautista did in the early stages of his career, put up this season at age 22, in A-, AA, and AAA:
439 ab, 23 hr, 94 rbi, .285/.328/.506/.834
Here was Bautista's 24 year old season, in AA and AAA:
496 ab, 24 hr, 94 rbi, .280/.359/.490/.849
About the same numbers overall, but two years older. And we all know what Bautista has become.
For Middlebrooks, the power will always be there, I think. He is just a powerful hitter. But you can't trot around the bases if you're walking back to the dugout after swinging at yet another slider low and away for strike three. He's in roughly the same place Bautista was.
I bring all this up because there is hope. He (Middlebrooks) may end up being a later bloomer than we would like. Maybe it's not until he's 28 that it all clicks. But when it does (that is an "if" of course), he could become the monster that all hope he can be.
Can the Sox allow him to develop much more slowly than we would like? I don't know. Maybe. Depends on what else they put on the field. During Bautista's early MLB career (stage 2, above), he averaged 15 hr, 52 rbi, and had a slash line of .242/.334/.412/.746, with a 95 ops+. Not that good, but you could live with it as an inexpensive #9 hitter in an AL lineup. And in WMB's first season, he gave the Sox hope for that: 15 hr, 54 rbi, .288/.325/.509/.835, 121 ops+. Now that was maybe too high for that stage of development, but still, over his career, he's put up a slash line of .248/.296/.448/.743, 99 ops+. That's very similar to what Bautista did early in his career.
Long story short, I still have hope for Will Middlebrooks.
Just a word on Middlebrooks, however. Not that they are the same guy at all, but consider the curious case of Jose Bautista. Obviously, tremendous power, has become an extremely productive MLB hitter. Look at his b-ref page, though, and look at the various stages of his career:
Stage 1: Pretty decent minor league numbers, playing at ages 20-24. Showed good (not tremendous) power. Solid overall hitter.
Stage 2: So-so MLB hitter, playing at ages 25-28. Here are those four MLB seasons:
2006 (25): 400 ab, 16 hr, 51 rbi, .235/.335/.420/.755, 94 ops+
2007 (26): 532 ab, 15 hr, 63 rbi, .254/.339/.414/.753, 96 ops+
2008 (27): 370 ab, 15 hr, 54 rbi, .238/.313/.405/.718, 91 ops+
2009 (28): 336 ab, 13 hr, 40 rbi, .235/.349/.408/.757, 99 ops+
So at this point, there is nothing, really, to indicate that he was about to explode on the scene. I mean, for the number of AB he had, his home run numbers were pretty good, and his OBP (except in 2008) wasn't off the charts horrible. But terrible batting average, tons of strikeouts, below-average OPS+ numbers. All there was was basically the hope that he could flip a switch, because he did show flashes.
Stage 3 - The monster, playing at ages 29-33 (and counting). These last 5 seasons, he's averaged, per 162 games, 47 hr, 114 rbi, and he's put up this slash line: .270/.393/.568/.961, 158 ops+.
Now, Middlebrooks, playing the same position Bautista did in the early stages of his career, put up this season at age 22, in A-, AA, and AAA:
439 ab, 23 hr, 94 rbi, .285/.328/.506/.834
Here was Bautista's 24 year old season, in AA and AAA:
496 ab, 24 hr, 94 rbi, .280/.359/.490/.849
About the same numbers overall, but two years older. And we all know what Bautista has become.
For Middlebrooks, the power will always be there, I think. He is just a powerful hitter. But you can't trot around the bases if you're walking back to the dugout after swinging at yet another slider low and away for strike three. He's in roughly the same place Bautista was.
I bring all this up because there is hope. He (Middlebrooks) may end up being a later bloomer than we would like. Maybe it's not until he's 28 that it all clicks. But when it does (that is an "if" of course), he could become the monster that all hope he can be.
Can the Sox allow him to develop much more slowly than we would like? I don't know. Maybe. Depends on what else they put on the field. During Bautista's early MLB career (stage 2, above), he averaged 15 hr, 52 rbi, and had a slash line of .242/.334/.412/.746, with a 95 ops+. Not that good, but you could live with it as an inexpensive #9 hitter in an AL lineup. And in WMB's first season, he gave the Sox hope for that: 15 hr, 54 rbi, .288/.325/.509/.835, 121 ops+. Now that was maybe too high for that stage of development, but still, over his career, he's put up a slash line of .248/.296/.448/.743, 99 ops+. That's very similar to what Bautista did early in his career.
Long story short, I still have hope for Will Middlebrooks.
Byrdbrain said:
This needs to be stressed. An injury to a starting pitcher is never a good thing, but this does provide a possible silver lining.
And regarding Joey Bats, remember, those are Canadian numbers. You have to subtract about 12% to get American numbers.
43 games. They gave X 43 games at short. And all parties admitted he was getting better in the field, even Nick Cafardo. So you've got a young player working hard to get himself established at short, all while still contributing offensively, and you pull the plug at 43 games. It simply doesn't make any sense. And now the kid is crushed and his confidence shaken, all for a move that has zero long term benefit.
If WMB is the real issue here, then perhaps the Sox could have gone out and picked up a third baseman, instead of dicking around with their most promising young player. They set a course over the offseason with Xat short and then abandoned it before Memorial Day. That's reminiscent of the 2012 team and not that of last year's World Champions. Have some courage in your convictions, for crissakes.
If WMB is the real issue here, then perhaps the Sox could have gone out and picked up a third baseman, instead of dicking around with their most promising young player. They set a course over the offseason with Xat short and then abandoned it before Memorial Day. That's reminiscent of the 2012 team and not that of last year's World Champions. Have some courage in your convictions, for crissakes.
John Henry didn't spend $170 million to let a developing black hole at 3B torpedo the season. Ben logically decided that acquiring a third baseman who would provide anything close to Drew's value would be prohibitively expensive in prospect cost. It became obvious that they weren't getting a draft pick for Drew.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
The organization is bigger than any one player. This decision was a no brainer. It should have happened the first time Middlebrooks went on the DL.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
This is where I net out.
I have nothing against Stephen Drew. In fact, I like him a lot as a player. But I don't think the Sox are looking to sign him to a long-term deal, and I don't understand how this move fits in with the long-term plan unless they have already judged that Xander isn't the future. (Which seems bizarre.)
While I'm on the topic, I'll admit that I was shocked at the terms of the deal. (So much so that when my Yankee-fan friend called me up to tell me about the signing yesterday it took me a few minutes to realize that he wasn't trolling me.) I know it's not my money, but I can't imagine why they would have agreed to a deal that pays Drew at the leveof of the QO on a prorated basis. Once again, I guess the lesson here is that we underestimate Scott Boras at our peril.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Really? This kid who by all accounts has off the charts make-up is going to be crushed by a move that makes the team better? Good grief.
And not every move has to have a longterm benefit - the next four and a half months count too. This does no longterm harm and helps the current squad. I am dumbfounded by all the panty wringing in this thread.
Plympton91 said:
I would think that the way to address a problem at third is by going out and getting a third baseman.
Drew buys them time, but the fact that he's coming back for a single year potentially creates two problems for next year.
Good for Hoplite for having his moment, but I think I'd hold off on the "I told you so's" until Drew actually produces anything. I don't wish anything malicious towards Drew, I honestly hope he provides some sort of an upgrade, but he's missed a lot of baseball already and for a guy who's 31 and likely to start off slow to begin with that doesn't sound promising.
I'd like to be optimistic and be comfortable with Drew going forward but what if all we get is a little help defensively and he's OPSing under .600? Will it still be a good move? Especially at $10 mil? I get that it's only money but that's a decent chunk to throw at what essentially amounts to just as much of a question mark as we have now.
I'd like to be optimistic and be comfortable with Drew going forward but what if all we get is a little help defensively and he's OPSing under .600? Will it still be a good move? Especially at $10 mil? I get that it's only money but that's a decent chunk to throw at what essentially amounts to just as much of a question mark as we have now.
If there's a black hole at 3B, common sense would dictate they go get a third baseman.Plympton91 said:
The organixation is indeed bigger than one player. Long term, this organization would be better with X developing into a full time SS. Chasing short term gains and pissing away a chance to get their best prospect established is short sighted and stupid. You're essentially taking the Cora position in2007. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
His quotes in the Globe today indicate that he's bitterly disappointed and deeply let down.Cumberland Blues said:
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I don't blame him. If he is to be the short stop of the future then this move is totally not necessary and a total waste of money. Paying 10 million to Drew is putting this team over the top.
Makes a ton of sense to me. Holt has never consistently performed to where you'd want to rely on him. WMB hasn't been able to stay healthy again this season and wasn't hitting when he was on the field. Bogaerts is struggling both at the plate and in the field compared to what he's capable of.
I think you handle this move as follows: Until WMB is back Drew is the SS, Bogaerts the 3B, and Holt is the utility guy with Bogaerts moving to SS when Drew is off. When WMB is back it's a three guys, two spots rotation with WMB also taking some time at 1B, 2B, and DH as the super utility guy.
The benefits here are as follows:
1. Bogaerts' task list shortens significantly. He handled 3B with ease last year despite limited prep and should have no problems moving back there. As a result he can stop dividing his efforts between trying to get up to speed both defensively at shot and offensively to instead focus almost entirely on his work at the plate. Once he gets it together at the plate that confidence and relaxation will trickle down and help him be a more natural fielder (which in turn will likely help him transition back to SS next year).
2. Drew should have been signed with the understanding that he will see limited ABs against LHP once WMB is healthy.
3. WMB is given a clear pair of directives. One is to simply get healthy. The other is to go to AAA, DH 5 days a week, and focus entirely on hitting the cover off the ball. He's a capable enough defender to where if the bat plays at the ML level he'll find a spot in the lineup. The goal is to get him swinging a hot bat for a mid-season call up as he's shown an ability to transition a hot streak from AAA to ML (evidenced in his 2012 call-up and his strong bounce back upon initially returning to the ML level last season). So that's his entire goal: get hot so the team can get a big couple weeks out of him in the middle of the late season rally we're all hoping/expecting.
After this season the club can re-evaluate WMB, Bogaerts, Cecchini, Marrero, and Betts to decide how SS/3B looks going forward.
I think you handle this move as follows: Until WMB is back Drew is the SS, Bogaerts the 3B, and Holt is the utility guy with Bogaerts moving to SS when Drew is off. When WMB is back it's a three guys, two spots rotation with WMB also taking some time at 1B, 2B, and DH as the super utility guy.
The benefits here are as follows:
1. Bogaerts' task list shortens significantly. He handled 3B with ease last year despite limited prep and should have no problems moving back there. As a result he can stop dividing his efforts between trying to get up to speed both defensively at shot and offensively to instead focus almost entirely on his work at the plate. Once he gets it together at the plate that confidence and relaxation will trickle down and help him be a more natural fielder (which in turn will likely help him transition back to SS next year).
2. Drew should have been signed with the understanding that he will see limited ABs against LHP once WMB is healthy.
3. WMB is given a clear pair of directives. One is to simply get healthy. The other is to go to AAA, DH 5 days a week, and focus entirely on hitting the cover off the ball. He's a capable enough defender to where if the bat plays at the ML level he'll find a spot in the lineup. The goal is to get him swinging a hot bat for a mid-season call up as he's shown an ability to transition a hot streak from AAA to ML (evidenced in his 2012 call-up and his strong bounce back upon initially returning to the ML level last season). So that's his entire goal: get hot so the team can get a big couple weeks out of him in the middle of the late season rally we're all hoping/expecting.
After this season the club can re-evaluate WMB, Bogaerts, Cecchini, Marrero, and Betts to decide how SS/3B looks going forward.
This is the problem though - there isn't one. It's common wisdom that a shortstop who can hit is the most valuable commodity in the infield, but 3b is a wasteland right now. Xander's wOBA is 7th among qualified shortstops but would be 5th among qualified 3b (Yes Wright and Longoria are struggling, but even if they hit at normal levels then Xander would be...7th). Last year a .341 wOBA would have placed 3rd among qualified SS and 7th among 3b, but one of those 3b is Cabrera and the other is Beltre who is getting up there.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
If he improves a bit offensively and his defense plays better at third, he can be just as valuable to the team. Instead of having a conversation about who is the best young SS in baseball, we'd have a conversation about who is the best 3b in baseball under 30: Longoria, Donaldson, Machado, or X. Then, if they can find an adequate SS (as they did this year), they're in better shape.
3b being so poor is probably part of why they had a lot of hope in WMB, but it seems like that's not going to happen.
sorry---dont know where else to put this gammo comment from today,while writing about drew:
The “Idiots” that ended the 86 year drought in 2004 turned against Terry Francona in 2005 when he didn’t name some of them to the All-Star Team, and it’s really hard to turn against Francona.
anyone else heard this before?
The “Idiots” that ended the 86 year drought in 2004 turned against Terry Francona in 2005 when he didn’t name some of them to the All-Star Team, and it’s really hard to turn against Francona.
anyone else heard this before?
JFS7 said:
I don't recall that quote -- with Gammons it could just be a butt tweet. But please check for me, didn't many of those guys win a gain with Francona just a couple years later?
- Status