The offseason heading into 2018

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Carlos Gomez might be an interesting get. Makes a good platoon partner with Hanley at DH Coming off a miserable year so should be cheap on a 1 year deal. Be nice to have another LH power bat to go with Devers. Moreland is more of a doubles guy than HR.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Carlos Gomez might be an interesting get. Makes a good platoon partner with Hanley at DH Coming off a miserable year so should be cheap on a 1 year deal. Be nice to have another LH power bat to go with Devers. Moreland is more of a doubles guy than HR.
Carlos Gomez is right handed.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Could Tavarez beat out Brentz?
Aneury Tavarez? Probably not. Brentz's skill set (RH power) is much more important to have on the bench than Tavarez's speed/defense, especially given our starting outfielders and the fact that they've been reluctant to play Tavarez in CF.

Plus, Brentz is out of options and Tavarez isn't.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'd like to see DD either sign JDM or back fill the team with extras. A LH-RP like Tony Watson, Travis Wood or Francisco Liriaro, Nunez to be UT-IF and either John Jay or Ichiro to be the 4th OF. I'd even throw in a possible "revive your career" contract to Carlos Gonzalez as DH-OF. I think combined they'd equal up to JDM's suggested contract.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
The bench is basically set, no? Brentz, Holt, Leon, Swihart, Marrero all are out of options, best I can tell. It's not exciting, but it's fine, probably.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
The bench is basically set, no? Brentz, Holt, Leon, Swihart, Marrero all are out of options, best I can tell. It's not exciting, but it's fine, probably.
I agree it is not exciting but it does allow a lot of younger players the opportunity they can use to prove their worth to the team. I get the impression these guys will get a real chance to show that they are ML players. I'd still like a LH-RP to round out the pen but I think we've got a couple of guys who can fill the role.

The gist of what it was I was trying to say is that we need to move forward and get set for sprint training. If JDM and Boris are going to play games then let's move on. Although, that may be exactly what DD has done.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
I’d be surprised if Nunez isn’t back. Especially how cheaply Kendrick was signed.
I originally thought (and hoped) that, too. But I'm not sure they'd bring him back at the expense of Swihart, Holt, and Marrero. Marrero is the worst of the four, but differentiates himself as the late-inning defensive replacement. Nunez doesn't offer much different from a healthy Holt/Swihart. He's got a little more pop than Holt and can play SS unlike Swihart. But it's hard to evaluate and move on from them prior to spring training. And they also have Hernandez and Lin. I think they carry at least one true reserve OFer in JDM or Brentz. So, they'd have to cut ties with at least one of the guys without options (or Leon).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Thing is, if they sign Martinez, they won't really have a ton of room left under the $237M cap to sign much else in the way of auxiliary pieces for the bench or bullpen. At least not if they want a little bit of wiggle room to add someone mid-season in case of injury.

I think that other than signing Martinez (or even if that doesn't happen) and perhaps another mL/NRI or two, DD is done for the off-season.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Thing is, if they sign Martinez, they won't really have a ton of room left under the $237M cap to sign much else in the way of auxiliary pieces for the bench or bullpen. At least not if they want a little bit of wiggle room to add someone mid-season in case of injury.

I think that other than signing Martinez (or even if that doesn't happen) and perhaps another mL/NRI or two, DD is done for the off-season.
Exactly right.

We as fans need to realize that DDski is not Theo or Cherington, trying to think 10 moves ahead.

DDski identified the most significant problems on the Sox: 1.) that the young players all took a step back last season, and 2.) that the Sox lacked a core middle-of-the-order bat, perhaps partially because of #1 above,

So he took steps— he fired Farrell and hired Cora to address point #1. And he identified JDM as the best player available to address point #2.

So now we wait until JDM is signed. And that will be that. No convoluted 3-way trades or attempts to build a mega-bench. And if the bullpen needs another arm at mid-season, he’ll try to address it then. He did alright obtaining Ziegler in 2016 and then Reed in 2017.

Why lose sleep over any of it?
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
What happens with Hanley? I think either he or Bradley would have to be moved.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
What happens with Hanley? I think either he or Bradley would have to be moved.
JBJ is going nowhere. Hanley, on the other hand, may not last the season if Martinez is signed. He'll split time with Moreland and Martinez, or he'll be cut.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
Except Holt isn't out of options, the Pirates never optioned him after adding him to their 40 man in 2012, the Red Sox only optioned him in 2013 and 2014, and he doesn't have enough service time yet to refuse an optional assignment. I don't know if the Red Sox would option him, but they could.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Exactly right.

We as fans need to realize that DDski is not Theo or Cherington, trying to think 10 moves ahead.

DDski identified the most significant problems on the Sox: 1.) that the young players all took a step back last season, and 2.) that the Sox lacked a core middle-of-the-order bat, perhaps partially because of #1 above,

So he took steps— he fired Farrell and hired Cora to address point #1. And he identified JDM as the best player available to address point #2.

So now we wait until JDM is signed. And that will be that. No convoluted 3-way trades or attempts to build a mega-bench. And if the bullpen needs another arm at mid-season, he’ll try to address it then. He did alright obtaining Ziegler in 2016 and then Reed in 2017.

Why lose sleep over any of it?
Pretty tight bow you wrapped that up with there.

So if DD doesn't end up signing JDM, are you then going to consider that an off-season failure?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Pretty tight bow you wrapped that up with there.

So if DD doesn't end up signing JDM, are you then going to consider that an off-season failure?
The only way to judge failure/success is during the season. Winning/failing the off-season is meaningless.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
What happens with Hanley? I think either he or Bradley would have to be moved.
Neither one would have to be.

Hanley will likely be the “most-often 1B, but sometimes DH” regardless what the Moreland signing appears to presume. JDM can be the “most-often DH, but sometimes LF” and thus no one needs to be traded.

I don’t see why this is so difficult. Hanley had hit RHP just as well as Moreland over the past 3 years. And he’s hit LHP significantly better. Moreland has a better glove,

There’s room for Moreland. But he shouldn’t be playing every day, and he’s paid like Chris Young for that same reason.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
The only way to judge failure/success is during the season. Winning/failing the off-season is meaningless.
I already knew you'd be a step ahead of any potential need to do some questionable GM'ing damage control. Shame we didn't put a "will not upgrading the 2017 lineup be an off-season failure?" poll up at the start of the winter though, and to get a more accurate estimate on how many people here would honestly agree with that as a whole.

Was more curious to his answer there after basically stating that he saw JDM to the Sox as a given at this point.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Pretty tight bow you wrapped that up with there.

So if DD doesn't end up signing JDM, are you then going to consider that an off-season failure?
I see no reason to think JDM won’t sign with the Red Sox.

But you know what, I don’t really care whether the Sox “win the offseason” or not.

Haven’t since December of 2010.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
No idea why one would want Hanley playing 1B every day when Moreland was a more valuable player the last couple years and is so far better with the glove at 1st. I think LDM is a contract they will regret in a few years, but if you’re going to sign him, Moreland shouldn’t be the one losing playing time unless Hanley is mashing.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
No idea why one would want Hanley playing 1B every day when Moreland was a more valuable player the last couple years and is so far better with the glove at 1st. I think LDM is a contract they will regret in a few years, but if you’re going to sign him, Moreland shouldn’t be the one losing playing time unless Hanley is mashing.
And they definitely won’t let that option vest.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
No idea why one would want Hanley playing 1B every day when Moreland was a more valuable player the last couple years and is so far better with the glove at 1st. I think LDM is a contract they will regret in a few years, but if you’re going to sign him, Moreland shouldn’t be the one losing playing time unless Hanley is mashing.
This seems like a misuse of WAR, in so far as Moreland was a theoretically more valuable player than Hanley, but it misses the point that they play the least defensively valuable position on the field. And it doesn’t consider the Red Sox needs.

Hanley had been a better hitter than Moreland, and what the Sox were missing last year was offense. If they need offense this year once again, then Hanley will play the bulk of 1B, even if JDM is signed. But If they need a better glove to catch errant throws from Bogaerts and Devers, and the offense is adequate, then Moreland will play.

Either way, it doesn’t make more sense to trade Hanley, than it does to cut Bryce Brentz from the team at the end of spring training if everyone is healthy come April 1.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
This seems like a misuse of WAR, in so far as Moreland was a theoretically more valuable player than Hanley, but it misses the point that they play the least defensively valuable position on the field. And it doesn’t consider the Red Sox needs.

Hanley had been a better hitter than Moreland, and what the Sox were missing last year was offense. If they need offense this year once again, then Hanley will play the bulk of 1B, even if JDM is signed. But If they need a better glove to catch errant throws from Bogaerts and Devers, and the offense is adequate, then Moreland will play.

Either way, it doesn’t make more sense to trade Hanley, than it does to cut Bryce Brentz from the team at the end of spring training if everyone is healthy come April 1.
I think you're right that they value a good defensive first baseman this year to collect errant throws, and give the left side of the infield one less thing to think about. Devers sticking at third base is vital.

I'm with you that on paper, Hanley does seem like a more useful hitter than Brentz. What I can't see is Hanley—given his personality plus recent statements about "wanting to play another ten years"—accepting a part-time role, particularly when there's a two-pronged financial incentive for him to collect PAs, one being the option and the other the chance to prove himself in a healthy season before hitting free agency.

Not at all suggesting he has a character issue or whatever. I think his ego's awesome and I enjoy him as a player immensely. But he's a person and has his own self-interest, and it's not like he didn't just hit 23 bombs. Given the clubhouse bullshit of last year it just doesn't make sense.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This seems like a misuse of WAR, in so far as Moreland was a theoretically more valuable player than Hanley, but it misses the point that they play the least defensively valuable position on the field. And it doesn’t consider the Red Sox needs.
This is the wrong way to put it. They play the least defensively difficult position on the field. Allowing for that difference in difficulty, defense is just as valuable at first base as anywhere else. And WAR does allow for that difference in difficulty. It's baked in. So if a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at first base, that's no more or less meaningful then when a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at catcher or SS or CF.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
This is the wrong way to put it. They play the least defensively difficult position on the field. Allowing for that difference in difficulty, defense is just as valuable at first base as anywhere else. And WAR does allow for that difference in difficulty. It's baked in. So if a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at first base, that's no more or less meaningful then when a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at catcher or SS or CF.
The difference between positions may be baked in, but there are certainly questions about how well UZR and DRS measure defense at first. Not that I think Hanley is anywhere near as valuable with the glove as Moreland, but the actual value of that difference may or may not be captured all that well. WAR is useful, but it has its weak spots and first base might be one of them (along with catchers and RP).
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
This is the wrong way to put it. They play the least defensively difficult position on the field. Allowing for that difference in difficulty, defense is just as valuable at first base as anywhere else. And WAR does allow for that difference in difficulty. It's baked in. So if a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at first base, that's no more or less meaningful then when a defensive specialist has a higher WAR than an offensive specialist at catcher or SS or CF.
Defense at 1B is not as valuable as every other position, though. WAR makes adjustment to reduce the defense component of the stat below the contribution of each and every other position in the field. Maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg problem, but 1B defense just is not as valuable as elsewhere. And given current trends of shifting heavily against LHH, 1B defense is pretty rightly devalued in comparison to the ability to mash at the plate.

The only critical defensive skill at 1B is ability to catch errant throws. The rest is pretty much gravy. Especially on a team which could feature 4 LHP starters plus a knuckleballer as it’s working rotation at various times this season. And the best defensive RF in the game.

Plus, of course, Hanley wasn’t a butcher at 1B in 2016. He was perfectly adequate. If he hits like he did then, he’ll get innings there. Because his bat, when healthy, is better than Moreland’s. If Hanley hits like he did in 2017, he probably won’t see much time logging defensive innings.

But it’s not like DDski is going to trade Hanley just to get rid of salary. 2018-19 are GFIN years, and this team needs all the power it can muster.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
Sign Darvish, trade ERod for Domingo Santana?
Should be plan A.
I'm moving these quotes from the JDM thread, since I agree and want to hear what people think, though it's not really about JDM.

I don't have a sense for Santana's value. If Edro is enough, I do that deal immediately. I suspect he's not. If there were some way to flip JBJ for parts to send with Edro, would anyone do that? I'd a least think long and hard about it (and I have generally hated the idea of trading JBJ to make room for JDM).

Santana is cheaper than both Edro and JBJ, freeing up more money for Darvish or whoever you go for as a SP.
 
Last edited:

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
I would trade Chavis and Erod. I don't think Chavis really has a long term future on the team, and doesn't have a crazy high ceiling anyway. Maybe the Brewers could shift him to 2B, keep him in the minors for a year or two to see how Villar does?
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I think we have covered this territory in the past but my son-in-law (Sox fan for 40 odd years) made a suggestion that carried some weight if at all plausible.

Son-in-laws idea:
Trade for Votto if he’d accept the trade (Full No Trade Clause) and take Bailey (5th starter or Long Relief) for ½ his contract over each of his remaining 3 years. Send them Porcello and EdRod with Moreland. The trade sends $30.1 million to Reds and takes $35.5 million back. Then go out and sign Cobb (4/$60-64). Add a LH-RP (Tony Watson maybe for 2/$8-9). Keeps them under the $237 (High Penalty) LT. It will add about $25 million to the current payroll which stands at about 201.5. It will leave rough $8-9 million for a mid-season pickup.

I imagine there are more than enough opinions about this idea and some rehashing of a trade for Votto.
 

Bellco

New Member
Dec 15, 2006
22
Willington, Ct
I think we have covered this territory in the past but my son-in-law (Sox fan for 40 odd years) made a suggestion that carried some weight if at all plausible.

Son-in-laws idea:
Trade for Votto if he’d accept the trade (Full No Trade Clause) and take Bailey (5th starter or Long Relief) for ½ his contract over each of his remaining 3 years. Send them Porcello and EdRod with Moreland. The trade sends $30.1 million to Reds and takes $35.5 million back. Then go out and sign Cobb (4/$60-64). Add a LH-RP (Tony Watson maybe for 2/$8-9). Keeps them under the $237 (High Penalty) LT. It will add about $25 million to the current payroll which stands at about 201.5. It will leave rough $8-9 million for a mid-season pickup.

I imagine there are more than enough opinions about this idea and some rehashing of a trade for Votto.
We have been over this, and there is no sign that Votto would waive his no trade clause, nor would the Reds ask him to do so for that package. Furthermore, Moreland can't be traded:

An Article XX-B MLB free-agent who signs a Major League contract after 11:59 PM (Eastern) on the 5th day after the final game of the World Series receives automatic "no trade" rights that extend through June 15th of the following season, even if the player re-signs with his former club.

https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3511

I can't wait for this offseason to end so it can become enjoyable to lurk this forum again. Dopes, please block lurkers (myself included) from posting in the main forum. That's what the sandbox was for.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
I'm moving these quotes from the JDM thread, since I agree and want to hear what people think, though it's not really about JDM.

I don't have a sense for Santana's value. If Edro is enough, I do that deal immediately. I suspect he's not. If there were some way to flip JBJ for parts to send with Edro, would anyone do that? I'd a least think long and hard about it (and I have generally hated the idea of trading JBJ to make room for JDM).

Santana is cheaper than both Edro and JBJ, freeing up more money for Darvish or whoever you go for as a SP.
I'd be on board for this approach, though not so much on the JBJ part of the equation. Lots of moving pieces, which also means options. If Darvish can be had for a more palatable deal than Martinez, Rodriguez/Pomeranz/Porcello could be moved for a hitter. Santana seems to be a good option, but there could be others that make sense, depending on the package going in return and the other team's construction/approach.
 

Green (Tongued) Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2016
1,007
Hanover, PA
I think we have covered this territory in the past but my son-in-law (Sox fan for 40 odd years) made a suggestion that carried some weight if at all plausible.

Son-in-laws idea:
Trade for Votto if he’d accept the trade (Full No Trade Clause) and take Bailey (5th starter or Long Relief) for ½ his contract over each of his remaining 3 years. Send them Porcello and EdRod with Moreland. The trade sends $30.1 million to Reds and takes $35.5 million back. Then go out and sign Cobb (4/$60-64). Add a LH-RP (Tony Watson maybe for 2/$8-9). Keeps them under the $237 (High Penalty) LT. It will add about $25 million to the current payroll which stands at about 201.5. It will leave rough $8-9 million for a mid-season pickup.

I imagine there are more than enough opinions about this idea and some rehashing of a trade for Votto.
If you begin a post with " I think we have covered this territory in the past but", maybe you should reconsider posting it. Let alone posting another terrible trade idea that is not even remotely thought out. Also, we understand you like Tony Watson. This is the 4th time in this thread that you suggested signing him.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'd be on board for this approach, though not so much on the JBJ part of the equation. Lots of moving pieces, which also means options. If Darvish can be had for a more palatable deal than Martinez, Rodriguez/Pomeranz/Porcello could be moved for a hitter. Santana seems to be a good option, but there could be others that make sense, depending on the package going in return and the other team's construction/approach.
Santana makes more sense to me next year or the year after when you are trying to decide what to do with JBJ and actually need a new cost controlled outfielder.

Asking a perfectly capable 25 year old outfielder to come DH seems awkward too.

I think the team would be better, but don't think the fit is ideal.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Asking a perfectly capable 25 year old outfielder to come DH seems awkward too.
Awkward indeed. Especially considering there was other visible ways to upgrade the lineup and/or it's upside this winter that didn't involve trading away our only real noteworthy/cost controlled pitching piece on the roster. With nothing much in terms of back fill potential on the near farm horizon at that.

Although while maintaining a belief that any additional incoming bat would probably come with a follow up trade of Bradley, I'm also kinda left guessing that if the Sox really did have a strong internal interest in adding Santana we'd have already seen leaks of that popping up before the Brewers pulled the trigger on both Cain/Yelich. Assuming everybody involved was doing their jobs and consistently exploring alternative options prior to making any firm decisions, of course.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Yea, it seems like we want to sign JD at our price, but are comfortable just hoping that benintendi and devers become the bats we need if that doesn’t happen. Which I am fine with
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Santana is cheaper than both Edro and JBJ, freeing up more money for Darvish or whoever you go for as a SP.
It certainly wouldn't be Darvish imo. Not with 2 remaining years left on Sale, and with us already locked into a huge long term commitment on Price (no chance he opts out). Beyond the min/max 2018 appeal and people in that JD thread reaching really hard at something that helps avoid acknowledging the potential possibility of what essentially amounts to a downgraded team off-season, it just doesn't make a lot of overall sense. The Sox are already in bad enough financial shape, and the rotation isn't enough of an area of current need (even if we were to trade Edro), to warrant a best case scenario of paying out big 5 year money on a SP who turns 32yo this season.

I like the rumor that LA could still end up in there in the event they dump a few more contracts though. Especially if one of them ended up being Grandal. Who as I noted earlier in the off-season still would make a lot of sense to me, and is probably the one possible lineup upgrade out there that wouldn't require DD to do any real roster shuffling other then dumping Leon off somewhere else.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
We have been over this, and there is no sign that Votto would waive his no trade clause, nor would the Reds ask him to do so for that package. Furthermore, Moreland can't be traded:

An Article XX-B MLB free-agent who signs a Major League contract after 11:59 PM (Eastern) on the 5th day after the final game of the World Series receives automatic "no trade" rights that extend through June 15th of the following season, even if the player re-signs with his former club.

https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3511

I can't wait for this offseason to end so it can become enjoyable to lurk this forum again. Dopes, please block lurkers (myself included) from posting in the main forum. That's what the sandbox was for.
Thanks for the info on Moreland ... Just conveying son-in-laws thoughts ... never said they were good or bad just his thoughts ... It sounded better than going after Braun ... It seems its JDM or nothing ... enough said.
 

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
If you begin a post with " I think we have covered this territory in the past but", maybe you should reconsider posting it. Let alone posting another terrible trade idea that is not even remotely thought out. Also, we understand you like Tony Watson. This is the 4th time in this thread that you suggested signing him.
Possible. If we all read the threads as deeply as you I imagine a great deal that was said would not be repeated. To be honest I think all trade ideas can be considered bad until they actually become a trade. I don't think I've seen one trade suggestion on the board that would offer another team players we'd like to keep. Everyone suggest trades that would benefit the Sox. I agree I have mentioned him a lot (as did my son-in-law - I may have influence him there) along with several others but they have all been signed by someone else.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
It certainly wouldn't be Darvish imo. Not with 2 remaining years left on Sale, and with us already locked into a huge long term commitment on Price (no chance he opts out). Beyond the min/max 2018 appeal and people in that JD thread reaching really hard at something that helps avoid acknowledging the potential possibility of what essentially amounts to a downgraded team off-season, it just doesn't make a lot of overall sense. The Sox are already in bad enough financial shape, and the rotation isn't enough of an area of current need (even if we were to trade Edro), to warrant a best case scenario of paying out big 5 year money on a SP who turns 32yo this season.
I was envisioning Darvish instead of JD Martinez. Removing JBJ, Rodriguez, and the hypothetical Martinez money, while getting power cheap from Santana would leave money to play with. If not Darvish, they might have the money there to add, say Arrieta (who, unlike Darvish, I expect to be quite a bit cheaper than Martinez) and also do something like sign Nunez, take on Sarlin Castro as a salary dump, add a bullpen arm, or whatever is actually out there.

Again, I don't think this likely happens, and I'm not sure how much I like it anyway, but that's the case in favor.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Removing JBJ, Rodriguez, and the hypothetical Martinez money, while getting power cheap from Santana would leave money to play with.
Not really imo, unless you are essentially buying into a belief that signing JDM would be less about necessity then a supposed willingness to simply ignore then LT and splurge away at the min/max appeal.

Again, the Sox's backround financial situation is already questionable enough even without signing JDM. Highest payroll in the game, only MLB team atm projected to eat a LT hit this year, ect ect. So viewing a situation where we don't sign JDM as "extra money to spend" is misleading, since I can't see this ownership digging that surrounding hole any deeper if it's not specifically addressing the one pressing upgrade need this already contender status team has.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
Not really imo, unless you are essentially buying into a belief that signing JDM would be less about necessity then a supposed willingness to simply ignore then LT and splurge away at the min/max appeal.

Again, the Sox's backround financial situation is already questionable enough even without signing JDM. Highest payroll in the game, only MLB team atm projected to eat a LT hit this year, ect ect. So viewing a situation where we don't sign JDM as "extra money to spend" is misleading, since I can't see this ownership digging that surrounding hole any deeper if it's not specifically addressing the one pressing upgrade need this already contender status team has.
That's all fair, and you might be right about how the team sees it. I guess I just kind of hope they don't, because JDM doesn't seem to me to be the kind of transcendent player that you totally change your team building strategy for. If you are willing to go to $220 million or whatever with him, it seems to me you should be able to go that high another way if it means a better team.

Maybe I'm just frustrated that the Astros and Yankees have shown a willingness to be creative and opportunistic in getting better that the Sox haven't recently.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
Awkward indeed. Especially considering there was other visible ways to upgrade the lineup and/or it's upside this winter that didn't involve trading away our only real noteworthy/cost controlled pitching piece on the roster. With nothing much in terms of back fill potential on the near farm horizon at that.

Although while maintaining a belief that any additional incoming bat would probably come with a follow up trade of Bradley, I'm also kinda left guessing that if the Sox really did have a strong internal interest in adding Santana we'd have already seen leaks of that popping up before the Brewers pulled the trigger on both Cain/Yelich. Assuming everybody involved was doing their jobs and consistently exploring alternative options prior to making any firm decisions, of course.
The hypothetical posed doesn't necessitate Rodriguez being the one traded. If we're talking about the Brewers (or any team looking at a current window), they may actually prefer a package involving Pomeranz or a subsidized Porcello. And I would prefer that if I'm the Sox. The assumption is it's going to be a struggle to re-sign Sale after 2019. A rotation led by Price and Darvish should be able to compete in the playoffs. We've already hitched our $30M wagon to Price through 2022. Signing Darvish to a reasonable deal (4/$80? 5/$90?) could extend our theoretical window without having to re-sign Sale, especially if coupled with a decent, young, cheap bat instead of a $25M a year DH on the wrong side of 30.

I know we disagree on this, but there are very few bats that it makes sense to move JBJ to accommodate. He's a top 10-15 OFer in the game over the last two years (one good, one "bad"). I understand (and grudgingly agree) that you'd prefer to have a larger portion of that value come at the plate, in the face of the current roster construction. But short of JD Martinez, it's going to be hard to find a player that improves the team at all in a 1-for-1 swap in the lineup.
It certainly wouldn't be Darvish imo. Not with 2 remaining years left on Sale, and with us already locked into a huge long term commitment on Price (no chance he opts out). Beyond the min/max 2018 appeal and people in that JD thread reaching really hard at something that helps avoid acknowledging the potential possibility of what essentially amounts to a downgraded team off-season, it just doesn't make a lot of overall sense. The Sox are already in bad enough financial shape, and the rotation isn't enough of an area of current need (even if we were to trade Edro), to warrant a best case scenario of paying out big 5 year money on a SP who turns 32yo this season.

I like the rumor that LA could still end up in there in the event they dump a few more contracts though. Especially if one of them ended up being Grandal. Who as I noted earlier in the off-season still would make a lot of sense to me, and is probably the one possible lineup upgrade out there that wouldn't require DD to do any real roster shuffling other then dumping Leon off somewhere else.
How do you figure? A full season of David Price alone adds an expected 2-4 wins. Even if you don't accept the notion that the majority of the roster should improve/bounce back, how do you conclude that the 2018 version would be a downgrade?

The rotation doesn't need an upgrade. But the slots currently held by Sale, Pomeranz, and Porcello will have to be filled in two years. Paying Darvish + young acquired bat a combined $20M a year makes more long-term financial sense than JDM + traded pitcher $30M+, doesn't it?
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
Mookie won his arbitration case per Heyman so he's making $10.5 million instead of $7.5.

Awesome job. Created unnecessary tension with him for no savings. DD continues to run a well-oiled machine. Signing JDM or miraculously acquiring a similar middle-of-the-order hitter is going to be the only thing that can salvage this off-season at this point.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,480
Rogers Park
Awesome job. Created unnecessary tension with him for no savings. DD continues to run a well-oiled machine. Signing JDM or miraculously acquiring a similar middle-of-the-order hitter is going to be the only thing that can salvage this off-season at this point.
It just got materially harder to do.