Hot Stove Wishes

[rodderick]

Finn's article about the Sox potentially (and semi-realistically) going after Stanton has got me re-thinking my wish list for this offseason.  I'll update it:
 
1.  Offer Ellsbury a 5/90 deal - enough so that it's clear they are serious (that's $18 million a year), but I don't think it's enough to retain him.  So I figure we're moving on from Jacoby.  Thanks for the two rings, JE.  Let JBJ take over the starting CF role.
 
2.  Go after Tanaka hard.  Ellsbury's money can be used for this purpose.  From what I can tell (just reading reports like the rest of you guys), he's very, very good.  So add him.
 
3.  Sign Napoli to 2/25 to play 1b.  I'll be happy with 20-25 hr, 80-100 rbi, and GG caliber defense again.
 
4.  Let Drew go, play X and WMB on the left side of the IF.  I want to see these young guys play regularly.
 
5.  Now the big one:  Trade a combination of 5 of these guys:  JBJ (and if they take him, then the Sox need to figure out CF again…but I'm ok with this), Ranaudo, Webster, DLR, Vazquez, Owens, Barnes, Lavarnway, Betts, Marrero, or Brentz.  I have no idea which of these guys Florida would prefer, but I'm ok with dealing 5 of them for Stanton.  I might be crazy, because I like all of these guys.  But again, you wouldn't be trading for a 31-year old veteran.  Stanton is just 23 and has a career ops+ of 138.  We all know what he is and what his potential is.  Mammoth.  And because the Sox' farm system is so stacked right now, dealing 5 of these guys STILL leaves you with a lot of help in the minor leagues.  The farm system wouldn't be "gutted".  It would be thinner, but not "gutted".
 
6.  Trade Dempster for a prospect.  Eat half or 2/3 of his salary to do it - just get back a useful prospect.
 
7.  Trade Peavy for a prospect.  Eat half or 2/3 of his salary to do it - just get back a useful prospect.  So between Peavy and Dempster, you've regained 2 of the 5 prospects you lost, even though they won't be as high a caliber as what you gave away.
 
8.  Sign Salty to a 3/30 deal.  The Sox would be keeping Swihart or Vazquez, and Salty/Ross provide the bridge to that point.  
 
9.  Sign Chris Young - you guys sold me on that idea.  
 
10. Sign a veteran backup IF.
 
That leaves you with essentially this:
 
C - Salty
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - JBJ or Young if JBJ goes to the Marlins
RF - Victorino
DH - Ortiz
Bench - Ross, Nava, Carp, Gomes, veteran IF  
 
SP - Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Tanaka
RP - Workman, Miller, Britton, Tazawa, Breslow, Uehara
 
Lineup:
RF Victorino
2b Pedroia
DH Ortiz
LF Stanton
1b Napoli
SS Bogaerts
C Saltalamacchia
3b Middlebrooks
CF Bradley/Young
 
That's a hell of a lineup - speed, power.  And the rotation and pen are both excellent.  And while their farm system wouldn't be as deep (obviously), it would still have a lot of bullets left.

Say they want JBJ, Barnes, Owens, Betts and Swihart (and that's the kind of guys they'd be taking, not Lavarnway, Vazquez and Brentz). Now all of a sudden Anthony Ranaudo, a righty who's been sitting 91 for two seasons with no third pitch to speak of, is the second best prospect in the system. There absolutely wouldn't be "a lot of bullets left". The farm would go from top 3 to about 15th in a hurry. If you believe that's worth it to get Stanton, fine, but aside from Cecchini there would be pretty much no potential impact players left, just some guys with solid upside.

 

[reggiecleveland]

It really didn't.

 

 
 

I mean, Christ people, John Lackey got six runs of support and the team went 14-14 in his starts. If you could simply replace his innings with Tim Wakefield level performance, the Sox go to the postseason.

 

[ivanvamp]

Say they want JBJ, Barnes, Owens, Betts and Swihart (and that's the kind of guys they'd be taking, not Lavarnway, Vazquez and Brentz). Now all of a sudden Anthony Ranaudo, a righty who's been sitting 91 for two seasons with no third pitch to speak of, is the second best prospect in the system. There absolutely wouldn't be "a lot of bullets left". The farm would go from top 3 to about 15th in a hurry. If you believe that's worth it to get Stanton, fine, but aside from Cecchini there would be pretty much no potential impact players left, just some guys with solid upside.

 
If they took those five guys you mention, they would still have the following guys (their sox prospects.com rank in parenthesis)*:  Cecchini (3), Ranaudo (6), Webster (7), Ball (9), Vazquez (13), Margot (14), etc.  That's still some significant talent there.  You put it this way:  it would put them from top 3 to about 15th - which is still not shabby.  Emptying the farm system would put them down in the lower 20's.  Plus, as I described in my big idea, trading Dempster and Peavy would help replenish the system with a couple of good (not great, but good) prospects as well.  
 
I'm not saying that the cost wouldn't be huge, because it would be.  But Stanton is an absolute monster, and at his age, the sky's the limit.  Having him and Bogaerts on the same team for years to come would be unbelievable.
 
*Note:  I'm not including Workman (11) and Britton (12) on the list because as far as I'm concerned, they've made the majors. YMMV.

 

[Saints Rest]

Finn's article about the Sox potentially (and semi-realistically) going after Stanton has got me re-thinking my wish list for this offseason.  I'll update it:
 
1.  Offer Ellsbury a 5/90 deal - enough so that it's clear they are serious (that's $18 million a year), but I don't think it's enough to retain him.  So I figure we're moving on from Jacoby.  Thanks for the two rings, JE.  Let JBJ take over the starting CF role.
 
2.  Go after Tanaka hard.  Ellsbury's money can be used for this purpose.  From what I can tell (just reading reports like the rest of you guys), he's very, very good.  So add him.
 
3.  Sign Napoli to 2/25 to play 1b.  I'll be happy with 20-25 hr, 80-100 rbi, and GG caliber defense again.
 
4.  Let Drew go, play X and WMB on the left side of the IF.  I want to see these young guys play regularly.
 
5.  Now the big one:  Trade a combination of 5 of these guys:  JBJ (and if they take him, then the Sox need to figure out CF again…but I'm ok with this), Ranaudo, Webster, DLR, Vazquez, Owens, Barnes, Lavarnway, Betts, Marrero, or Brentz.  I have no idea which of these guys Florida would prefer, but I'm ok with dealing 5 of them for Stanton.  I might be crazy, because I like all of these guys.  But again, you wouldn't be trading for a 31-year old veteran.  Stanton is just 23 and has a career ops+ of 138.  We all know what he is and what his potential is.  Mammoth.  And because the Sox' farm system is so stacked right now, dealing 5 of these guys STILL leaves you with a lot of help in the minor leagues.  The farm system wouldn't be "gutted".  It would be thinner, but not "gutted".
 
6.  Trade Dempster for a prospect.  Eat half or 2/3 of his salary to do it - just get back a useful prospect.
 
7.  Trade Peavy for a prospect.  Eat half or 2/3 of his salary to do it - just get back a useful prospect.  So between Peavy and Dempster, you've regained 2 of the 5 prospects you lost, even though they won't be as high a caliber as what you gave away.
 
8.  Sign Salty to a 3/30 deal.  The Sox would be keeping Swihart or Vazquez, and Salty/Ross provide the bridge to that point.  
 
9.  Sign Chris Young - you guys sold me on that idea.  
 
10. Sign a veteran backup IF.
 
That leaves you with essentially this:
 
C - Salty
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - JBJ or Young if JBJ goes to the Marlins
RF - Victorino
DH - Ortiz
Bench - Ross, Nava, Carp, Gomes, veteran IF  
 
SP - Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Tanaka
RP - Workman, Miller, Britton, Tazawa, Breslow, Uehara
 
Lineup:
RF Victorino
2b Pedroia
DH Ortiz
LF Stanton
1b Napoli
SS Bogaerts
C Saltalamacchia
3b Middlebrooks
CF Bradley/Young
 
That's a hell of a lineup - speed, power.  And the rotation and pen are both excellent.  And while their farm system wouldn't be as deep (obviously), it would still have a lot of bullets left.

My one quibble is that I don't see them keeping Nava AND Gomes AND Carp on the bench while also having only 11 pitchers.  The Sox' MO over the last however many seasons, spanning three managers and two GM's is to have 12 pitchers on the regular season roster almost all the time.  In fact, without looking it up (mainly because I have no idea where one could do so), I would guess the Sox have spent more days over the last 5 regular seasons with 13 pitchers active than they have with only 11.

That said, I think the 11th bullet I would add to your list is this:
11.  Trade one of Gomes, Nava, or Carp for a prospect.  Trade whoever yields the best return.  IMO, that is likely to be Nava.  

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

One problem with the Stanton idea is that you are only getting him for a couple of years .. so any deal has to include a negotiation window.

And it also means giving Stanton one of the most lucrative long term contracts in history.

 

[ehaz]

Another interesting catcher to consider. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/reds-likely-to-move-ryan-hanigan.html

 

[ivanvamp]

One problem with the Stanton idea is that you are only getting him for a couple of years .. so any deal has to include a negotiation window.

And it also means giving Stanton one of the most lucrative long term contracts in history.

 
Agreed.  But he's also the kind of guy you do that for.  At that point, he'd be 25, and just about to enter his prime years.  Locking him up for 8/200, for example (which would be a monster deal) is still very different from ages 25-32, instead of from 31-38.

 

[JimD]

I just don't see this ownership strip-mining the farm system to acquire Stanton and then signing him to an 8/$200m deal.  They've had experience with five of the top 20 all-time highest baseball contracts to this point - three that they signed (Manny, AGonz and Crawford) and two that they almost did (ARod and Teixiera).  Manny was arguably the most successful of the five and they tried to dump him at one point.  I really think that they are turned off with the idea of investing so much money in a single player, especially given the high-profile disappointments in recent years with Pujols, Hamilton and others, and just received the ultimate validation that their current approach can work.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

One problem with the Stanton idea is that you are only getting him for a couple of years .. so any deal has to include a negotiation window.

And it also means giving Stanton one of the most lucrative long term contracts in history.

 
Which is a big reason that trading the farm for him now seems ill-advised when they can likely sign him to that long, lucrative contract in two years when he's a free agent.  There isn't an immediate need for him on this team.  By that I mean there isn't a gaping hole in the lineup that they have no realistic answer for.  They have JBJ for Ellsbury's position, Bogaerts for Drew's spot, Carp for Napoli, etc.  They aren't necessarily going to have to run a below replacement level player out on the field because they don't trade for Stanton.
 
It's the Gonzalez trade all over again.  Trading for a guy who's a year or two from free agency, giving up potentially useful pieces, and perhaps most importantly, having to rearrange a portion of the existing lineup/roster in order to fit him in.  He's a fancy bauble, but is he really that vital to the future of the franchise that they can't wait a bit longer for him?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Interesting stuff, Ivan.
 
One minor point -- I think offering Ellsbury 5/90 would be counterproductive.  For better or worse the Sox have to keep up relationships with Boras.  Better, I think, just to let Boras do his bluster and then back out of the bidding and let him go citing JBJ, if 5/90 is the top the Sox would pay.  That's what Pence just got as an extension, and while the two players are perhaps comparable on some levels, I can't see the Pence offer as being productive.
 
To me, the trick with Ellsbury is kind of a classic negotiation problem.  Everyone needs to treat the situation as though he will go to the highest bidder, while possibly being prepared to throw a couple million away to stay in Boston.  I think that's likely the situation, although he could have his heart set on another location like Seattle.  At the same time, though, the Sox need to be prepared for the possibility that Ellbsury has told Boras, "I want to go back there, get the most you can."  Is that a likely scenario?  No.  MIght it not matter, because the Sox are prepared to move on unless they can get him for something that Boras won't let him do?  Yes.  But it still has to be regarded as a possibility, and I think the Sox need to proceed as though this might be the circumstance until they know it's not.  That's a complicated negotiation on both sides.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I just don't see this ownership strip-mining the farm system to acquire Stanton and then signing him to an 8/$200m deal.  They've had experience with five of the top 20 all-time highest baseball contracts to this point - three that they signed (Manny, AGonz and Crawford) and two that they almost did (ARod and Teixiera).  Manny was arguably the most successful of the five and they tried to dump him at one point.  I really think that they are turned off with the idea of investing so much money in a single player, especially given the high-profile disappointments in recent years with Pujols, Hamilton and others, and just received the ultimate validation that their current approach can work.

 
This, plus, if we wrapped Stanton up as young as 25 (that would be next winter, when he's still two years from FA), I seriously doubt they could do it for as short a term as 8 years. I know that sounds comical, but I think it's true. I think a 25-year-old Stanton gets 10 (at least), though I wouldn't want to hazard a guess at the AAV.

 

[JimD]

Interesting stuff, Ivan.
 
One minor point -- I think offering Ellsbury 5/90 would be counterproductive.  For better or worse the Sox have to keep up relationships with Boras.  Better, I think, just to let Boras do his bluster and then back out of the bidding and let him go citing JBJ, if 5/90 is the top the Sox would pay.  That's what Pence just got as an extension, and while the two players are perhaps comparable on some levels, I can't see the Pence offer as being productive.
 
To me, the trick with Ellsbury is kind of a classic negotiation problem.  Everyone needs to treat the situation as though he will go to the highest bidder, while possibly being prepared to throw a couple million away to stay in Boston.  I think that's likely the situation, although he could have his heart set on another location like Seattle.  At the same time, though, the Sox need to be prepared for the possibility that Ellbsury has told Boras, "I want to go back there, get the most you can."  Is that a likely scenario?  No.  MIght it not matter, because the Sox are prepared to move on unless they can get him for something that Boras won't let him do?  Yes.  But it still has to be regarded as a possibility, and I think the Sox need to proceed as though this might be the circumstance until they know it's not.  That's a complicated negotiation on both sides.

 
I disagree - for the Sox, I think it's actually fairly simple.  Assign a value to Ellsbury (which I'm sure they have already done) and stick to it.  What the market does from that point should not change at all what Ells is worth to them given their current roster and farm system.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
I disagree - for the Sox, I think it's actually fairly simple.  Assign a value to Ellsbury (which I'm sure they have already done) and stick to it.  What the market does from that point should not change at all what Ells is worth to them given their current roster and farm system.

 
Right, I agree with that -- although I think there is room for taking into account new information about the market supplied by other signings during the hot stove period.  But the problem is, can you get there -- the other side never knows whether what you're telling them really is where you're willing to go, and misperceiving whether the other side has more money it might put on the table, even when the amount already there is enough for you, is one way that negotiations that could/should succeed fail.  Negotiations are difficult and fragile things.  Let's say the Sox are willing to go 6/120.  Let's say Ellsbury ultimately would take that in lieu of a higher possibility elsewhere if convinced that's the best the Sox would do.  That doesn't mean it will get done.  It should, but it doesn't always, and coming out of the box at 5/90 is one way way it possibly won't, which is the point I was trying to make.  

 

[selahsean]

Would be nice to split out the Stanton stuff into it's own conversation...but I wanted to reply to this:
 

 
Which is a big reason that trading the farm for him now seems ill-advised when they can likely sign him to that long, lucrative contract in two years when he's a free agent...
 
It's the Gonzalez trade all over again.  Trading for a guy who's a year or two from free agency, giving up potentially useful pieces, and perhaps most importantly, having to rearrange a portion of the existing lineup/roster in order to fit him in.  He's a fancy bauble, but is he really that vital to the future of the franchise that they can't wait a bit longer for him?

 
This assumes he actually reaches Free Agency which who knows if he will (could be traded or resigned) and it also means that his price would likely go up at that point.  So instead of getting a somewhat team friendly deal you now in which you have exclusive negotiating rights you are have to compete with every other team who'd be interested.  At that point isn't every major market team in?  8/200 at that point might not even get serious consideration maybe 10/300?  Point being there is some value in having an exclusive negotiating window.  What's it worth I'm not sure, but with a player like Stanton it could be sizable.

Secondly I'm not sure in retrospect the Gonzalez deal was bad.  He didn't quite live up to the potential/hype, but he certainly wasn't a disaster.  Ultimately without him we never get out from under the Crawford contract.  So this seems like a poor analogy to me for that reason and also because Stanton appears to be a better player at a younger age.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Secondly I'm not sure in retrospect the Gonzalez deal was bad.  He didn't quite live up to the potential/hype, but he certainly wasn't a disaster.  Ultimately without him we never get out from under the Crawford contract.  So this seems like a poor analogy to me for that reason and also because Stanton appears to be a better player at a younger age.

 
I wasn't trying to say the Gonzalez deal was bad in the abstract or in retrospect.  I was just never sold on the necessity of it in the first place.  Same way I feel looking at the possibility of trading for Stanton now.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

 
I wasn't trying to say the Gonzalez deal was bad in the abstract or in retrospect.  I was just never sold on the necessity of it in the first place.  Same way I feel looking at the possibility of trading for Stanton now.

 
If Gonzalez gets traded and signs elsewhere, which was a very real and potentially likely risk, the Sox are most likely chasing after either Pujols or Fielder the following offseason, which would have been a disaster.  You could say they'd have just stuck with Rizzo, but if they were satisfied with that internal option I don't think they would have traded him for Gonzo in the first place.
 
I think there's some very real value in getting that period of exclusivity before someone else potentially does, particularly in the case where that one player is so much better than the other upcoming options you might have.

 

[chawson]

The rumors about Hudson seem legit, and the idea that we're looking to acquire more starting pitching suggests that we could trade someone more/other than Dempster, i.e. Doubront, whose value is probably at its apex right now.

 

[bosockboy]

Was thinking about Doubront, who is a terrific sell high candidate.  He's replaceable for the Sox, and they have plenty of young arms coming to boot.
 
He probably has more value to us in trade than in performance right now.

 

[benhogan]

Was thinking about Doubront, who is a terrific sell high candidate.  He's replaceable for the Sox, and they have plenty of young arms coming to boot.
 
He probably has more value to us in trade than in performance right now.

yea- young, cost controlled lefties, that dominate the Yankees just grow on trees.  
 
You don't trade Doubront or Lester or Lackey or Buchholz like some have suggested.  If anything you look to extend Lester and buy out some of Doubront's free agent years.   These guys just came up HUGE in the playoffs, besides Papi we didn't get much hitting, it was mainly the starting pitching that delivered the 2013 World Championship (and of course, Koji)
 
You want to see what the market is on Peavy and Dempster, go nuts.
 
Signing Hudson for 2 years at 24MM is also silly. 

 

[JimD]

The rumors about Hudson seem legit, and the idea that we're looking to acquire more starting pitching suggests that we could trade someone more/other than Dempster, i.e. Doubront, whose value is probably at its apex right now.

 
If someone comes to Ben with a stupid deal for Doubront that is too good to pass up, then maybe.  Otherwise, I'd trade anyone else in the rotation besides Lester before I'd trade Doubront.

 

[FredCDobbs]

Sign Lester long-term.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Sign Lester long-term.

 
They may agree on numbers but wait until after the season starts (a la Gonzo in April 2011) to avoid the luxury-limit hit in 2014.

 

[Seabass]

 
Which is a big reason that trading the farm for him now seems ill-advised when they can likely sign him to that long, lucrative contract in two years when he's a free agent.  There isn't an immediate need for him on this team.  By that I mean there isn't a gaping hole in the lineup that they have no realistic answer for.  They have JBJ for Ellsbury's position, Bogaerts for Drew's spot, Carp for Napoli, etc.  They aren't necessarily going to have to run a below replacement level player out on the field because they don't trade for Stanton.
 
It's the Gonzalez trade all over again.  Trading for a guy who's a year or two from free agency, giving up potentially useful pieces, and perhaps most importantly, having to rearrange a portion of the existing lineup/roster in order to fit him in.  He's a fancy bauble, but is he really that vital to the future of the franchise that they can't wait a bit longer for him?

 
Stanton isn't a 'necessity', but he's an elite player who turned 24 today. If the Marlins trade him this offseason then this is the only time the Sox can acquire him. The Marlins will trade him at some point, and whoever acquires him will give him $200 million and that will be that. He won't be a free agent in two years, unless the Marlins completely change the way they've done business since their inception. 
 
All that being said, the only way the Sox can trade for him is if others decide not to. The Rangers can offer Profar, Odor, Jackson and Alfaro and that trumps anything the Sox can offer, unless they include X, which I don't believe they will. But yeah, JBJ/Ownens/Ranaudo/Cecchini/Whomever is worth it for Stanton.
 

 
They may agree on numbers but wait until after the season starts (a la Gonzo in April 2011) to avoid the luxury-limit hit in 2014.

 
The Sox didn't hit the luxury tax ceiling last year, and it's highly unlikely they'll do so next year, unless they sign Tanaka/McCann and a few others. I don't think this type of maneuvering would be necessary.

 

[JimBoSox9]

My Dream Lineup
Victorino - RF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Beltran - LF
McCann - C
Napoli - 1B
Drew - SS
Boegarts - 3B
Bradley Jr - CF
 
Of course, signing Drew is going to require a 4-5 year commitment, which means giving up on Xander Boegarts, Hall of Fame Shortstop.  Asking him to move back at 27 is dicey.  
 
I Heart Xander Lineup
Victorino - RF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Beltran - LF
McCann - C
Napoli - 1B
Boegarts - SS
Middlebrooks - 3B
Bradley Jr - CF
 
Speaking of asking a lot, let's ask Farrell to pencil in two rookies in the 2nd and 3rd most important defensive positions and then add a third near-rook who seems prone to defensive slumps.  
 
Two-Rookie Max Lineup
Victorino - CF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Beltran - RF
McCann - C
Napoli - 1B
Gomes/Nava - LF
Boegarts - SS
Middlebrooks - 3B
 
You could also go with Salty and Choo instead of McCann and Gova in this world.  But, but, I can't bench JBJ.  His ml track record is just more attractive to me than WMB's.  If Xander is in SS though, and WMB isn't starting, I dunno what the 3B option is.  I wonder if there's anyone out there who might need to take a position switch and a year or two less than he'd like because of, ahem, extracurricular concerns.....
 
Two Rooks, No Brooks Lineup
Victorino - RF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Beltran - LF
McCann - C
Napoli - 1B
Peralta - 3B
Boegarts - SS
Bradley Jr - CF
 
The permutation dominos between SS-3B-CF-RF-LF-1B-C are headache inducing.  
 
FO Plan A Best Guess
Victorino - R/CF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Beltran - L/RF
Napoli - 1B
Xander- 3B/SS
C - ?
3B/SS - ?
OF3 - ?
 
The important questions seem to be:
 
1) Are JBJ and WMB both going to start?
2) Assuming Ellsbury is gone and Napoli returns, how many impact bats are the Sox looking to add, one or two?
3) Do the Sox want Beltran to play LF or RF?
4) Do the Sox project Xander to stick at SS?
5) Is Brian McCann one of the impact bats in Plan A?

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I'm actually a believer in the "five year rule" -- when your team wins a World Series, you have no right to bitch about anything (payroll, underperformance, parking, overpriced Fenway Franks, Congress, the weather, etc.) for five years. And it's easy to take this year's Sox team out of GFIN mode because they damn well might be able to win it all again without having to add expensive veterans that could be burdens for the next great Red Sox team, one with real potential for Multi-year greatness.

That said, I'd make two exceptions, neither likely...

If you could sign Ellsbury for 5/90 or something that could vest its way to 6/110 I'd do it...but I don't think he comes back for that.

If you could acquire Stanton for a package of 4 great (and one more) prospects that didn't include Bogaerts and didn't include more than one of Owens or Doubront, I'd do that. So maybe Owens, Betts, Renaudo/Webster/Barnes, and Swihart. But I don't think that gets it done either.

I have no particular interest in McCann, if Salty's available at 3/27. That brings back a catcher who performed well offensively and in managing the staff last year, with Ross as a super-capable complement (not back-up) for long enough to learn if Swihart or Vazquez or Lavarnway (remember Lavarnway?) are major league material. I'm betting one of them will be. Even if Salty goes, I'd prefer a short tern deal for Pyrzynski or Ruiz to locking into five years of McCann.

I have no particular interest in Beltran at more than two years. Undoubtedly he's a wonderful hitter, and could take pressure off Papi...but he's nothing special in the field and getting older...no great option for RF in Fenway assuming Victorino's in CF. But I don't dismiss Daniel Nava's excellent year. I'd prefer a modest 2-year deal for Rajai Davis, who could support JBJ in center and back up Victorino (who definitely needs an injury fill-in) in RF. Plus speed at the top of the order turned out to be a much more valuable commodity than many of us old-school Sox fans would've imagined this year. (And it seems like Rajai kills the Red Sox, though I'm too dim to look it up.)

Absent the Stanton Hail Mary, I'd hold onto Napoli... Ideally for one year with a fairly-vestable second, brut more likely for two years with a tougher-to-earn third year.

Assuming Drew and Ellsbury are sent along with the thanks of a grateful nation, I'd invest the savings in shoring up the bullpen, possibly tearing up Lester's contract and front loading an extension, and discount coupons for Fenway Franks. If you can tie down Lester for another 4 years, the only super-perishable/tough to replace asset in the next couple of years is Papi. The Red Sox don't need to play the long game like the Marlins, but they have a window not to do anything dumb and really develop their youth, while still being a playoff team with a shot in the tournament. At the least.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Rajai Davis turned 33 three weeks ago, which would be a potential issue. His SB ratio is high and his past injuries haven't involved his legs in any red flag ways (oblique, ankle, jammed finger) so I wouldn't call him injury prone and even in limited action he'd likely produce.

Quintin Berry is more of a specialist than an everyday player so it's more versatility for the Sox roster to have Davis. But not much. Berry has a super small SSS but his career OBP is .330 versus Davis and his career .316 (though his pitches/PA is 3.61). And as a RHH Davis will go on maddening slumps if given lots of exposure/starts against RHP. He is streaky mediocre at the plate.

He played under Farrell in TOR so either way you have to think the Sox know all they need to know about him. But if he fits the short/cheap money deal? Sure.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Okay, I wasn't making it up... Last year Rajai had an .870 OPS (60 plate appearances) against Boston (1.016 at Fenway), and .781 over the last three years (.911 at Fenway).

Stolen base rate just north of 80% for his career, which isnt Berry's 100% to be sure, but ain't too shabby.

And he's a New Englander, so there's that.

 

[smastroyin]

This is where as recently at 4 months ago I would have chimed in with a "the last time we signed a guy because he was good against the Red Sox it was John Lackey and looked how thta turned out."  Never have a been so happy to have a pithy argument removed from my lexicon.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is where as recently at 4 months ago I would have chimed in with a "the last time we signed a guy because he was good against the Red Sox it was John Lackey and looked how thta turned out."  Never have a been so happy to have a pithy argument removed from my lexicon.

 
I'd quibble with that to say that Carl Crawford probably fits that description too, and he'd be more recent than Mr. J.F. Lackey.

 

[LostinNJ]

Winning the World Series means they get a pass; it means they can stick with the plan they developed last off-season after dumping the big contracts, and they don't have to worry about the fans' impatience. They will be promoting the home-grown guys incrementally over the next couple of years. I'm assuming they've observed and admired the Cardinals' model of sustainable excellence.
 
By that logic, it's a given that Bradley will be starting for the Red Sox next year, and they will need to add a bat somewhere to offset a likely decline in offense as he continues to adjust to major league pitching. If Ellsbury comes back, they'll both start (and we'll spend the season debating who should be in center and who in left); Gomes will be the fourth outfielder who starts against lefties; Nava or Carp becomes expendable. If Ellsbury doesn't come back, Bradley takes his place, and they need to sign a bat (Napoli being Plan A, which keeps Nava/Gomes/Carp in their 2013 roles; someone like Beltran being Plan B, which likely means cobbling together a platoon at first and again Nava or Carp  becomes redundant).
 
They will try Bogaerts and Middlebrooks on the left side of the infield. Bogaerts has some time to prove that he can or can't play short at this level; if he can't, Marrero will be ready for a look within a couple of years. If Middlebrooks falters, Cecchini is on his way before too long.
 
I think if you have good, young pitching, you hang onto it. You don't need five plausible starters to get through a successful season; you need eight or nine or ten.

 

[CaskNFappin]

I'm for us doing anything to majorly hedge against Nava, Carp, and JBJ having underwhelming seasons (very possible across the board) AND a mass exodus of most (if not all) of our impact FAs.

I've seen quite a few folks around here poo poo any idea of acquiring the likes of Beltran, Ethier, Trumbo et al, but lets not allow perfect to get in the way of good. More importantly let's hope some people are behind the idea of GFIN in 2014 when Papi is still anchoring the lineup and Lester the staff.

Absorbing any contracts that aren't exactly values by advanced metrics is a luxury that we can especially afford given the base of cost-controlled players we SHOULD be fielding for the next several years. Overpaying for a guy like Beltran is exactly the move we should make....if anything it buys time until a better option can be acquired in 2016, or an OF can be developed that we weren't expecting. Crap on his defense all you want but he still can make a Grand Slam robbing catch in our RF. if he's better in LF, ship Nava who will probably never fetch more than he can now. Nava wAs a nice little story this year but I have serious doubts about his ability to maintain that performance.

 

[The Boomer]

I'm for us doing anything to majorly hedge against Nava, Carp, and JBJ having underwhelming seasons (very possible across the board) AND a mass exodus of most (if not all) of our impact FAs.

I've seen quite a few folks around here poo poo any idea of acquiring the likes of Beltran, Ethier, Trumbo et al, but lets not allow perfect to get in the way of good. More importantly let's hope some people are behind the idea of GFIN in 2014 when Papi is still anchoring the lineup and Lester the staff.

Absorbing any contracts that aren't exactly values by advanced metrics is a luxury that we can especially afford given the base of cost-controlled players we SHOULD be fielding for the next several years. Overpaying for a guy like Beltran is exactly the move we should make....if anything it buys time until a better option can be acquired in 2016, or an OF can be developed that we weren't expecting. Crap on his defense all you want but he still can make a Grand Slam robbing catch in our RF. if he's better in LF, ship Nava who will probably never fetch more than he can now. Nava wAs a nice little story this year but I have serious doubts about his ability to maintain that performance.

That assumes that Nava even has a trade value.  Platoon outfielders don't bring in that much.  Beltran's production at the end of his career is no more of a guarantee than Nava at least matching his production from last season.  Overpaying for its own sake just wastes money.  They haven't decided for sure if they want to overpay yet for Napoli, Drew and Salty (I assume that Ellsbury is a goner).  If Napoli goes, then Beltran makes sense with Nava or Carp going to 1B.  Even with Beltran going to LF to replace Napoli's offensive production will cause them to probably sell low on 2 out of 3 from among Gomes, Napoli and Carp.  Bradley, Middlebrooks and Bogaerts have already shown enough (though only Bogaerts has shown ML consistency in what is still a sss) to deserve long looks as regulars next year if everyone leaves.  Pedroia was an impact FA and they retained him.  Ellsbury is another who seems destined to be the next Carl Crawford for what Boras will probably get him.  Drew, Napoli and Salty are all nice but flawed and limited players who could well be overpaid as if they were impact players.  All are replaceable if not from within than from without.  If you ignore positions and look at Bogaerts as replacing the offense of Ellsbury and JBJ replacing the offense of Drew, there shouldn't be as much of a loss of production as some fear.

 

[Drek717]

I'm for us doing anything to majorly hedge against Nava, Carp, and JBJ having underwhelming seasons (very possible across the board) AND a mass exodus of most (if not all) of our impact FAs.

I've seen quite a few folks around here poo poo any idea of acquiring the likes of Beltran, Ethier, Trumbo et al, but lets not allow perfect to get in the way of good. More importantly let's hope some people are behind the idea of GFIN in 2014 when Papi is still anchoring the lineup and Lester the staff.

Absorbing any contracts that aren't exactly values by advanced metrics is a luxury that we can especially afford given the base of cost-controlled players we SHOULD be fielding for the next several years. Overpaying for a guy like Beltran is exactly the move we should make....if anything it buys time until a better option can be acquired in 2016, or an OF can be developed that we weren't expecting. Crap on his defense all you want but he still can make a Grand Slam robbing catch in our RF. if he's better in LF, ship Nava who will probably never fetch more than he can now. Nava wAs a nice little story this year but I have serious doubts about his ability to maintain that performance.

The biggest problem I have with Beltran is that he got the QO.  Why give up a pick for Beltran to serve as a stop gap?  There are worthwhile non-QO options out there.  Hell, there are two or three of them in AAA to start next season with Hassan, Brentz, and Alex Castellanos.  Not to mention just playing Gomes more, as he is actually a career .733 OPS guy against RHP and was better than that last year despite an oddly poor home split for a guy with his offensive tools (resulting in his home v. RHP numbers being by far his worst line).
 
The FO has got options should Nava regress and the pick given up to sign Beltran will likely be a top 25 selection, the biggest single signing bonus pick the FO will have.  The strategy that worked well for them last year once you remove all the 'character first, good locker room' bull was focusing on solid veterans who would take comparatively short deals while protecting their draft picks.  I don't see why you change that focus.  If they avoid signing any QO attached FA they're likely getting 3-4 picks between the early 20's to mid-30's.  That is a monster class and with that will come a nice fat draft signing pool.  For a front office with a penchant for drafting hard signs late and landing them with over slot offers that would be one hell of an edge to take into the next amateur draft.

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

He's not the most exciting option out there, but I'd like to bring Cody Ransom in on a minor league deal or on the veteran minimum. He's old as fuck (37) but can back up every infield position, plays a competent shortstop (3.6 UZR/150 over 700+ innings), and could conceivably double as a short-side platoon partner for Mike Carp if Napoli doesn't come back for a reasonable amount (123 wRC+ over 200+ PA from 2011 to 2013 vs. LHP).

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

He's not the most exciting option out there, but I'd like to bring Cody Ransom in on a minor league deal or on the veteran minimum. He's old as fuck (37) but can back up every infield position, plays a competent shortstop (3.6 UZR/150 over 700+ innings), and could conceivably double as a short-side platoon partner for Mike Carp if Napoli doesn't come back for a reasonable amount (123 wRC+ over 200+ PA from 2011 to 2013 vs. LHP).

 
Yeah, nobody has really talked about the fifth infielder if Drew leaves (or the sixth if you count Carp).  When Iggy started to prosper, it made Ciriaco expendable, but then after Iggy got traded, there was a gap period before September call ups where we really didn't have good back up for the whole infield -- most notably second base.  Ransom is sort of a Ciriaco upgrade, although I don't think he can play outfield quite as well in a pinch.  I think it depends on whether Xander or WMB can be made to play competent 2B.  If they can, I think there is enough depth in the minor leagues to bring up guys to play the left side of the infield in a pinch.  If not, a utility guy is definitely in order.  

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Yeah, nobody has really talked about the fifth infielder if Drew leaves (or the sixth if you count Carp).  When Iggy started to prosper, it made Ciriaco expendable, but then after Iggy got traded, there was a gap period before September call ups where we really didn't have good back up for the whole infield -- most notably second base.  Ransom is sort of a Ciriaco upgrade, although I don't think he can play outfield quite as well in a pinch.  I think it depends on whether Xander or WMB can be made to play competent 2B.  If they can, I think there is enough depth in the minor leagues to bring up guys to play the left side of the infield in a pinch.  If not, a utility guy is definitely in order.  

 
Internally, the best option for the UI spot is Brock Holt.  He split time between 2B (44 G) and SS (32 G) in Pawtucket this past year, as he has for most of his minor league career (264 G @ SS, 174 G @ 2B).  He backslid offensively in Pawtucket compared to his time in the Pittsburgh system, but he still has a career mL OBP of .372 in nearly 2000 PA.  I think he can be good enough that the Red Sox don't have to hunt too desperately to fill the spot, but if a better option comes along they still have the flexibility to stash Holt in Pawtucket again.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

 
Internally, the best option for the UI spot is Brock Holt.  He split time between 2B (44 G) and SS (32 G) in Pawtucket this past year, as he has for most of his minor league career (264 G @ SS, 174 G @ 2B).  He backslid offensively in Pawtucket compared to his time in the Pittsburgh system, but he still has a career mL OBP of .372 in nearly 2000 PA.  I think he can be good enough that the Red Sox don't have to hunt too desperately to fill the spot, but if a better option comes along they still have the flexibility to stash Holt in Pawtucket again.

Agree on Holt.  It's also possible that a ML-caliber UI and a B- prospect is the kind of return they'd look for in a Dempster deal.

 

[pdub]

Consider this one of those ideas that's just trying to think outside the box. Would you folks see any merit in trading for Ike Davis?
 
Pros:
-He's 23.
-I assume he'll come cheap since he's blocked by Lucas Duda and was awful this past season.
-He was good in 150AB in 2011, and pretty decent in 2012.
 
Cons:
-Awful 2013.
-Supposedly not the greatest defensively.
 
I wouldn't base any of my 1B acquisitions on him, no, but I might take a flier based on his age and past potential. This is only assuming we don't resign Napoli, though I really believe we will. 

 

[sackamano]

Consider this one of those ideas that's just trying to think outside the box. Would you folks see any merit in trading for Ike Davis?
 
Pros:
-He's 23.
-I assume he'll come cheap since he's blocked by Lucas Duda and was awful this past season.
-He was good in 150AB in 2011, and pretty decent in 2012.
 
Cons:
-Awful 2013.
-Supposedly not the greatest defensively.
 
I wouldn't base any of my 1B acquisitions on him, no, but I might take a flier based on his age and past potential. This is only assuming we don't resign Napoli, though I really believe we will. 

 
Davis was born in 1987 ... he'll be 27 at the start of next season.

 

[smastroyin]

Davis is 26, and he'll be 27 the day the season starts next year.  He broke into the league at age 23.
 
That said, his arbitration number will probably be $4 million or so, so the Mets might just waive him rather than offer it.  The question is how much of his performance he will get back, combined with "how much better is an expectation on him than your expectation on Carp"

 

[TomRicardo]

I'm actually a believer in the "five year rule" -- when your team wins a World Series, you have no right to bitch about anything (payroll, underperformance, parking, overpriced Fenway Franks, Congress, the weather, etc.) for five years. And it's easy to take this year's Sox team out of GFIN mode because they damn well might be able to win it all again without having to add expensive veterans that could be burdens for the next great Red Sox team, one with real potential for Multi-year greatness.
 

 
So like 2011-2012 was fine for you?

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Davis is 26, and he'll be 27 the day the season starts next year.  He broke into the league at age 23.
 
That said, his arbitration number will probably be $4 million or so, so the Mets might just waive him rather than offer it.  The question is how much of his performance he will get back, combined with "how much better is an expectation on him than your expectation on Carp"

 
I mentioned Davis and Duda upthread. The Mets are at a surplus at the position and grabbing either would be buying low. The Mets need SP depth and the Sox may have SP runoff going into 2014. Either guy is the type of "reverse commute" thinking that isn't going to cost a lot of money or prospects. 
 
I like Davis better because statistically/subjectively his value couldn't be lower and his power projects better. His 2012 was written off due to valley fever, and then he started 2013 mired in a horrific, Ortizinal-2011 level slump. He showed some bounce back in the latter part of the season before his oblique injury. His power is legit, or seems to be with the SSS. He also takes a walk.
 
Dare I say his upside could be an average Ortiz campaign, and he's around the age that Ortiz was at when the Sox got him. [For fun, the Fangraphs comparison's here.]
 
As has been said about other Hot Stove speculations like McCann, Davis's age works for full-time DH once Ortiz retires (especially if Ike's defense at 1B could be upgraded in future seasons).

 

[CaskNFappin]

Ike Davis is the perfect example of how some on this board have a fetish for projecting positive outcomes for players with poor production over spending any resources on players likely to succeed.

We are not a small market team. We don't have to find a magical dollar-to-WAR ratio to stay competitive. Sure it helps, but so does signing guys coming off GOOD years. It also helps trading prospects sometimes. Roster construction doesn't need to be some elaborate game of turning other people's trash into treasure.

 

[czar]

I wrote a couple pieces on Ike Davis last offseason and in May of this year for Rotographs.
 
Davis was horrendously lucky on BIP early last year. That conspired with a slight uptick in K% to produce those ugly numbers.
 
That said, his ISO and batted ball distances are down. While his power metrics were better after his return from the minors in July/August, a lot of that was hidden in his overcorrected .351 BABIP. His L/R splits have also gotten worse.
 
In an ideal world, he's a great platoon partner with a 1B-version of Gomes who, when split against RHP/LHP can produce a 120-130 wRC+ from the "1B slot." I also have no problem getting him for nothing or next-to-nothing. But a lot of shine came off last year, both in the counting stats and metrics, so I don't think he's a guy you can go into a season with as someone you are convinced will give you 500 above replacement PA, especially since his defense has never been above-average.

 

[Brianish]

Ike Davis is the perfect example of how some on this board have a fetish for projecting positive outcomes for players with poor production over spending any resources on players likely to succeed.

We are not a small market team. We don't have to find a magical dollar-to-WAR ratio to stay competitive. Sure it helps, but so does signing guys coming off GOOD years. It also helps trading prospects sometimes. Roster construction doesn't need to be some elaborate game of turning other people's trash into treasure.

 
Which is why acquiring Ike Davis will in no way prohibit any of the other things you're suggesting. We're a large market, yes, but it helps to have headroom in your budget, no matter how large it is. That's what allowed us to bring in Peavy. And what exactly is the downside to acquiring cheap, young guys with upside who might pan out? That's what brought us David Ortiz. What's the downside to spending up to our budget just because we can? Well, let me ask you this - did you start following the Red Sox in September 2012?

 

[CaskNFappin]

That's my point exactly. The scars of 2012 should not preclude us from acquiring players who cost more than a bag of balls or a league minimum salary. I don't want Ben to operate like the Dodgers, but I also don't want him trigger shy on star players and turning us into the A's.

Look no further than the Victorino signing thread as evidence of people's vitriol for a 3/39 deal that wasn't a "win" by advanced metrics.

I want this team to win a ring every year. This isn't the Celtics. The Sox can conceivably win in 2014 without screwing up the foreseeable future. For instance, I like Doubront a lot....but I'd consider trading him for a guy like Trumbo for various reasons......mostly because we have the luxury of Ranaudo, Barnes, Workman, Owens, DLR in addition to 5 veterans. Contrarily, Travis Shaw is our only hope at 1B (yuck), and XB is probably the only middle of the order bat we have post Ortiz.

 

[foulkehampshire]

What about Nelson Cruz? 
 
Warts (PED's, 33 yrs old, draft pick, defense) aside, he's still one of the best sources of RH power available on the market. 

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

Is there anything I can do to get people to stop suggesting trading for Mark Trumbo? Where did this awful idea come from?

 

[CaskNFappin]

If anyone can suggest any attainable middle-of-the-order bats in the event Napoli leaves, I'm all ears. Aside from Trumbo here's what I can conjure up.

Nava/Carp/Hassan

Billy Butler

Matt Adams (if Beltran is retained)

Corey Hart

Kendrys Morales

I just don't see a lot of help being available in that area.

 

[ehaz]

If anyone can suggest any attainable middle-of-the-order bats in the event Napoli leaves, I'm all ears. Aside from Trumbo here's what I can conjure up.

Nava/Carp/Hassan

Billy Butler

Matt Adams (if Beltran is retained)

Corey Hart

Kendrys Morales

I just don't see a lot of help being available in that area.

 
Could Colorado be persuaded to part with Gonzalez or Tulowitzki?  Though that opens up a pandora's box of arguments over payroll efficiency, ML talent given up etc.  I assume Clay would be a requirement to even hold talks as they're looking to contend and barely have half a rotation.
 
Given the payroll flexibility that COL would receive one would believe believe an offer of Buchholz, Nava, Dempster, Barnes/Webster, Swihart/Betts/Coyle for CarGo will get em thinking.