"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016

[Mighty Joe Young]

While certainly not ideal for Hanley there are plenty of good reasons to move him to 1B this year. The FO gets seventy odd games to see if he can actually play there. If they wait for spring training they are essentially replicating last winter's decision making process which lead to the current mess.

If he can play First great .. Otherwise you leave him in LF until Papi retires and you go get someone else to play first.

And , of course, it frees up a position for Castillo.

Trade / Release Napoli
Trade / Release Victorino
Trade / Release Breslow
Bring up Bradley, Castillo and Barnes

 

[In my lifetime]

At this point it seems the SoSH consensus for 2016 seems to be:
1. Split on moving HRam to 1B or leaving him in LF (most feel he will be eventually be DH, when Papi hangs them up and even platoon DH before then)
2. Strong consensus that whatever position HRam doesn't play will need an addition via trade or free agent market (although there are much stronger in house candidates for OF replacement than 1B)
3. Overwhelming consensus that the RS trade or sign a reliable #1 starter
4. Split about whether the RS can realistically compete for a playoff spot in 2016

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

At this point it seems the SoSH consensus for 2016 seems to be:

 
5.  Play Bradley.  Bradley must have done or said to Farrell something very very bad in 2014 for him to be buried like this.

 

[jscola85]

 
5.  Play Bradley.  Bradley must have done or said to Farrell something very very bad in 2014 for him to be buried like this.

 
This one is pretty much the most brain-dead simple of all the moves.  Just play Bradley.  Every day.  Give him another 200-250 PAs the rest of this year and see what he can do.  If he can even post a ~700 OPS, his defense will make him worth at least a 4th OF spot next year, particularly since Hanley, Rusney and Betts are righties.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
This one is pretty much the most brain-dead simple of all the moves.  Just play Bradley.  Every day.  Give him another 200-250 PAs the rest of this year and see what he can do.  If he can even post a ~700 OPS, his defense will make him worth at least a 4th OF spot next year, particularly since Hanley, Rusney and Betts are righties.

Cherington on recalling Jackie Bradley Jr.: "We haven't discussed any calendar for him. He's playing well. Clearly we think he's going to have another opportunity in the big leagues. When that comes, I don't know."    

 

[Toe Nash]

 
If you think "get lucky" is the lesson to be learned from 2013 then you're a moron. Getting lucky is not something that is reproduceable and is therefore not a lesson to be learned.
 
 
This is reproduceable. This is the lesson. It's not easy to do, of course, and sometimes players that should be decent fall off a cliff for reasons that aren't necessarily predictable.

"Lucky" doesn't appear in my post.
 
Their strategy for success in 2013 worked, but it's very rare that such a strategy would work. I doubt they even expected to be particularly competitive that year.
 
A better strategy is to build from within, have stars who you can rely on for your core performance (to get you to say 85 wins), and then add key pieces around them, as they did from 03-09 with good success. If you just sign a bunch of mid-level FAs and add flotsam, every once in a while they will all work, but it's pretty rare unless you are literally the best GM ever.

 

[TomBrunansky23]

The Pirates are shopping Pedro Alvarez. Would he make a good buy low candidate for 1B going into '16?

 

[BosRedSox5]

The Pirates are shopping Pedro Alvarez. Would he make a good buy low candidate for 1B going into '16?

The Pirates are said to be "trying to get rid" of him, so the buy low part is right.

Alvarez has been a league average hitter the last couple years but his defense is so dreadful at both third and first he doesn't provide a lot of value. He's the type of guy a power starved team with limited appeal to free agents would sign to be their DH, not a potential building block for a top franchise.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Not that I'm advocating acquiring him, but the Sox don't need a potential building block at 1B next season. They do need at least a league average hitter tho.

 

[nvalvo]

Cherington on recalling Jackie Bradley Jr.: "We haven't discussed any calendar for him. He's playing well. Clearly we think he's going to have another opportunity in the big leagues. When that comes, I don't know."    

 
Well, I'm heartened that it doesn't sound like Cherington's pumping him up to deal him.
 
(Sorry if I'm getting obnoxious with my one-note Bradley boosterism. I just think this pitching staff would look a hell of a lot better with Bradley in the OF and Hanley out of it. Having Hanley play a flyball into a double a few times a month will add up.)
 

This one is pretty much the most brain-dead simple of all the moves.  Just play Bradley.  Every day.  Give him another 200-250 PAs the rest of this year and see what he can do.  If he can even post a ~700 OPS, his defense will make him worth at least a 4th OF spot next year, particularly since Hanley, Rusney and Betts are righties.

 
When you consider that there are 16 qualified CF who've beat that mark (Kevin Pillar and up), and a full 8 of them have negative defensive value, I think it makes him a starting CF — under the Trouts, McCutchens, Joneses and Cains obviously, but in that Ben Revere/Joc Pederson/Michael Brantley/Mookie Betts tier of guys. 
 
Since we're righting the ship: my idea for a 2016 OF/DH situation with available parts is this. 
 
On the roster: David Ortiz, Hanley Ramirez, Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley, Jr., Rusney Castillo. In the fifth spot, someone like Daniel Nava or Alejandro De Aza on a 1-year deal: a flexible bat-first bench OF. We have a ton of CF options already.
 
Against RHP:
 
Ramirez LF
Betts CF
Bradley RF
 
Ortiz DH
 
(Castillo used as a late inning defensive replacement for Ramirez, and perhaps as a PH for Bradley against LHRP.)
 
Against LHP: 
 
Betts LF
Bradley CF
Castillo RF
 
Hanley DH
 
(Ortiz used aggressively as a PH against RHRP.)
 
It's effectively a platoon of Ortiz and Castillo. Of course, the whole idea hinges on Bradley coming back up and translating some of that IL success to the AL. 

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Tom Werner was just on NESN, stating the need for changes to be made. 
 
Paraphrasing: "I can't promise the fans a blockbuster deal like a couple of years ago when we shipped out Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford."
 
I'm probably wrong for it, but I took that as "yeah, we know the fans realize Hanley and Pablo have been disasters, but we're kinda stuck with them".

 

[pjr]

Did he actually say "shipped out" I mean... I don't get the pregame stuff but that seems like an odd choice of words.

No he said traded. Video of the interview is on NESN.com.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

 
Well, I'm heartened that it doesn't sound like Cherington's pumping him up to deal him.
 
(Sorry if I'm getting obnoxious with my one-note Bradley boosterism. I just think this pitching staff would look a hell of a lot better with Bradley in the OF and Hanley out of it. Having Hanley play a flyball into a double a few times a month will add up.)
 
 
When you consider that there are 16 qualified CF who've beat that mark (Kevin Pillar and up), and a full 8 of them have negative defensive value, I think it makes him a starting CF — under the Trouts, McCutchens, Joneses and Cains obviously, but in that Ben Revere/Joc Pederson/Michael Brantley/Mookie Betts tier of guys. 
 
Since we're righting the ship: my idea for a 2016 OF/DH situation with available parts is this. 
 
On the roster: David Ortiz, Hanley Ramirez, Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley, Jr., Rusney Castillo. In the fifth spot, someone like Daniel Nava or Alejandro De Aza on a 1-year deal: a flexible bat-first bench OF. We have a ton of CF options already.
 
Against RHP:
 
Ramirez LF
Betts CF
Bradley RF
 
Ortiz DH
 
(Castillo used as a late inning defensive replacement for Ramirez, and perhaps as a PH for Bradley against LHRP.)
 
Against LHP: 
 
Betts LF
Bradley CF
Castillo RF
 
Hanley DH
 
(Ortiz used aggressively as a PH against RHRP.)
 
It's effectively a platoon of Ortiz and Castillo. Of course, the whole idea hinges on Bradley coming back up and translating some of that IL success to the AL. 

 
I really don't like the idea of moving Betts out of CF. He's come a long way defensively out there. Bradley seems like the guy the Sox have been looking for to patrol RF in Fenway. Bradley has the better arm too. A Castillo, Betts, Bradley OF looks like it would be a plus defensive outfield. Bradley and Castillos bats are the question mark.
 
I guess, in this scenario, they try Hanley at first and squeeze one more year out of the Large Father. Not sure if Hanley to first is likely to happen but it's been talked about everywhere.
My lineup would look like this:
 
CF - Betts
2B - Pedroia
DH - Ortiz
1B - Ramirez
SS - Bogaerts
3B - Sandoval
C - Swihart
LF - Castillo
RF - Bradley
 
A possible bench of Holt (although I'd like to see him in the lineup more often), Hanigan (until Vaz is healthy), De Aza (possibe re-sign. he's looked good as a 4th OF) and Craig (??? honestly, who knows)
 
Looks pretty competitive offensively and damn good defensively. 
 
Pitching on the other hand...

 

[Plympton91]

For whatever reason, seems like Hanley to 3B and Sandoval to 1B is more realistic than Hanley playing 1B.

 

[BosRedSox5]

I would almost always rather go with the taller guy at 1B. At 5'11'' does Pablo have the wingspan to adjust to bad throws? 

Do either one of them have the footwork? Is Pablo's arm wasted as a 1B?

I think that Hanley's got a chance to be a really good 1B where Pablo would just be playing there because we don't have another option. He was signed in part for his 3B defense and if can no longer play it well, this deal is even worse than it appears. 

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

The Red Sox will need to trade Hanley now (find a desperate team at the trade deadline) or move him to 1b.  I'm not sure if this has already been posted on Hanley's defense:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hanley-ramirez-defense-update-now/
 
They can't go into next season with Hanley in LF.  No way.

 

[Rasputin]

For whatever reason, seems like Hanley to 3B and Sandoval to 1B is more realistic than Hanley playing 1B.

Why? Hanley was bad at third when he was younger, he'll probably be worse now. I'm pretty skeptical he'll be any decent at first. He's in left for a reason, it's where he'll do the least damage until Ortiz retires.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Why? Hanley was bad at third when he was younger, he'll probably be worse now. I'm pretty skeptical he'll be any decent at first. He's in left for a reason, it's where he'll do the least damage until Ortiz retires.

 
If true, that is a mind-bogglingly terrible reason. He's there because the Front Office thought he could be a decent left fielder in Fenway with a high end bat. If they signed him expecting him to be outright bad in the field than this organization is seriously lost.
 

For whatever reason, seems like Hanley to 3B and Sandoval to 1B is more realistic than Hanley playing 1B. 
 

 
It is easier to see Sandoval as a decent to good defensive first baseman than it is Ramirez. But.... Sandoval has a lower OPS than Napoli this year. At best he's a light hitter for a 1B, at his worst he's a black hole like Nap, except due $76M over the next 4 years. If there's someone out there who thinks Sandoval can play 3B, and you want Ramirez there... wouldn't it be better to move Ramirez to 3B, and trade Sandoval to the someone out there? $19M for a .700 OPS third baseman doesn't look great. But it looks a whole lot better than $19M for a .700 OPS first baseman.

 

[WenZink]

The Red Sox will need to trade Hanley now (find a desperate team at the trade deadline) or move him to 1b.  I'm not sure if this has already been posted on Hanley's defense:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hanley-ramirez-defense-update-now/
 
They can't go into next season with Hanley in LF.  No way.

 
Yes, it's been posted, and it was pointed out that while his problems with the Wall remain, his performance away from Fenway, "looks to the eye" to be improving (his games in Anaheim to the contrary).  And in that link, Fangraphs points out that hanley's fielding is only slightly worse than Manny Ramirez in 2005, after having played in the OF for years.
 
Stick with the plan.  Give Hanley more off days in the next 9 weeks, to allow him to practice vs the wall on his scheduled off-days.  Work with him again in Spring Training, and THEN make a decision.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
Yes, it's been posted, and it was pointed out that while his problems with the Wall remain, his performance away from Fenway, "looks to the eye" to be improving (his games in Anaheim to the contrary).  And in that link, Fangraphs points out that hanley's fielding is only slightly worse than Manny Ramirez in 2005, after having played in the OF for years.
 
Stick with the plan.  Give Hanley more off days in the next 9 weeks, to allow him to practice vs the wall on his scheduled off-days.  Work with him again in Spring Training, and THEN make a decision.

The 2005 comparison was to say he's been worse than Manny in Manny's worst season. I'm not sure how that's a point to be excited about.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
If true, that is a mind-bogglingly terrible reason. He's there because the Front Office thought he could be a decent left fielder in Fenway with a high end bat. If they signed him expecting him to be outright bad in the field than this organization is seriously lost.
 
 
It is easier to see Sandoval as a decent to good defensive first baseman than it is Ramirez. But.... Sandoval has a lower OPS than Napoli this year. At best he's a light hitter for a 1B, at his worst he's a black hole like Nap, except due $76M over the next 4 years. If there's someone out there who thinks Sandoval can play 3B, and you want Ramirez there... wouldn't it be better to move Ramirez to 3B, and trade Sandoval to the someone out there? $19M for a .700 OPS third baseman doesn't look great. But it looks a whole lot better than $19M for a .700 OPS first baseman.

Who'd want Sandoval? He is now dead last in fWAR for all "qualified" players. Why wouldn't every team that needs a third baseman either bring up their best 3B prospect (OK, if they even have a decent one) or try to trade for whatever else third baseman that might be available. I mean, if you believe in Fangraphs (or BBREF) this guy is the worst, and of course, his weight problem is there for all to easily see as well. We is the stuckee, boys and girls.
 
The Giants, who supposedly had a weak farm system, have in the past year brought up a legit all star (even though it was his manager that chose him), Joe Panik, at 2B, and another apparent gem in Matt Duffy for 3B. How lucky were they in kissing Pablo goodbye? Again, Sox = stuckee.

 

[jscola85]

 
Yes, it's been posted, and it was pointed out that while his problems with the Wall remain, his performance away from Fenway, "looks to the eye" to be improving (his games in Anaheim to the contrary).  And in that link, Fangraphs points out that hanley's fielding is only slightly worse than Manny Ramirez in 2005, after having played in the OF for years.
 
Stick with the plan.  Give Hanley more off days in the next 9 weeks, to allow him to practice vs the wall on his scheduled off-days.  Work with him again in Spring Training, and THEN make a decision.

 
He also completely butchered a play in Houston where the ball landed just to the right of their wall in LF, where it juts backwards ~10 feet.  He just kind of watched the ball, noticed it fell into the corner, and then waited for Betts to hustle all the way from center to field it.
 
Simply put, he's complete mess out there.  He's bad on the road, and a nightmare at Fenway.  Short of hitting like Ted Williams, he's not going to be able to stick in LF.

 

[Plympton91]

Why? Hanley was bad at third when he was younger, he'll probably be worse now. I'm pretty skeptical he'll be any decent at first. He's in left for a reason, it's where he'll do the least damage until Ortiz retires.

 
I refuse to believe that someone who played 100 games at SS for a Division winner in 2014 is incapable of being anything but a 1B/DH in 2016.

 

[Rasputin]

 
I refuse to believe that someone who played 100 games at SS for a Division winner in 2014 is incapable of being anything but a 1B/DH in 2016.

I guess that's how you and I are different then. I didn't think there was a way someone who played a hundred games at short for a division winner in 2014 could be worse in left field than Mike Fucking Greenwell in 2015, but I was proved wrong there.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I guess that's how you and I are different then. I didn't think there was a way someone who played a hundred games at short for a division winner in 2014 could be worse in left field than Mike Fucking Greenwell in 2015, but I was proved wrong there.

There is a way, if that person has always been an infielder in the 15 years after he was signed to pro ball at age 16, and never acquired any ability to read a ball off the bat from 275+ feet away.

 

[In my lifetime]

 
I refuse to believe that someone who played 100 games at SS for a Division winner in 2014 is incapable of being anything but a 1B/DH in 2016.

 
Even your post is optimistic "anything but a 1B/DH".  If he can play a serviceable 1B, great the RS certainly need a 1B.  Unfortunately, his ability at 1B is far from certain.  So far he has shown after 6 mos. to be the worst LFer in the league by a substantial margin and in the range of historically bad.  

 

[Rasputin]

There is a way, if that person has always been an infielder in the 15 years after he was signed to pro ball at age 16, and never acquired any ability to read a ball off the bat from 275+ feet away.

I am open to being convinced but I shall remain skeptical until I see it.

 

[dcmissle]

Hamels throw no hitter. Lmao.

If Cafardo is not in the hospital with the condition demanding "immediate medical attention", he will be.

 

[Marbleheader]

I think the timing of the no-no is perfect. Let someone else overpay for his services the rest of the way if they are stupid enough to be swayed by it.

 

[MuzzyField]

Hamels throw no hitter. Lmao.

If Cafardo is not in the hospital with the condition demanding "immediate medical attention", he will be.

As we all know, Cafardo is always pulling shit out of his ass. I think his shit supply is abundant, keep reading.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

if that person has always been an infielder in the 15 years after he was signed to pro ball at age 16, and never acquired any ability to read a ball off the bat from 275+ feet away.

 
This is a good point, and explains why Hanley is more likely to succeed at 1b than LF.  They can't play Hanley in LF next year, that's pretty obvious.  You either trade him, moive him to 1b, or maybe the Red Sox know something we don't concerning Ortiz's 2016 plans.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Buster Olney's article: The Baseball Gods seem to have turned on the Red Sox
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=10809
 
 
In early April, a rival general manager took stock of the Red Sox lineup. "My God, they're going to score a ton of runs," he said. "They're going to beat the hell out of teams."

 

[Plympton91]

I am open to being convinced but I shall remain skeptical until I see it.

 
Agree completely.  If Hanley can't become a good LF with his set of natural abilities, it's entirely because he didn't want to work hard enough to become a good LF.  There's no rational argument that says a guy who can hit major league pitching and play a major league SS can't learn to play LF.  None, whatsoever.
 
And, if the reason he can't play LF adequately yet is because he won't work at it, what possible reason could there be to expect him to work hard at learning how to play 1B?  At least at 3B, he doesn't need to learn any new skills relative to shortstop.  He just has to get used to reacting a little faster on some groundballs.  Seems like the best place to try to stash him in 2016.   At least Sandoval, despite being incapable or unwilling to control his weight, seems perfectly willing to work hard on the field and so the position change with him seems more likely to succeed.  If you're going to have 1 at 3B and 1 at 1B, it doesn't matter that Sandoval isn't really a good enough hitter for 1B.  They paid him $100 million, they've got to play him somewhere.
 
But, the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk to pay him $22 million a year for 4 years; even though they knew him as well as anyone else, when there was plenty of evidence suggesting he wasn't the type of person who would take hours of extra outfield work a week until he learned how to be average or better. 
 
And then they signed another guy for $20 million a year who showed repeatedly that he either couldn't or wouldn't keep himself in shape to play baseball even when he had a massive financial incentive to do so.  But the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk that he'd do that even after they gave him $100 million guaranteed.
 
But John Lester was a bad risk.  And Andrew Miller was a bad risk. 
 
I'm sure someone understands that calculus.

 

[benhogan]

 
Agree completely.  If Hanley can't become a good LF with his set of natural abilities, it's entirely because he didn't want to work hard enough to become a good LF.  There's no rational argument that says a guy who can hit major league pitching and play a major league SS can't learn to play LF.  None, whatsoever.
 
And, if the reason he can't play LF adequately yet is because he won't work at it, what possible reason could there be to expect him to work hard at learning how to play 1B?  At least at 3B, he doesn't need to learn any new skills relative to shortstop.  He just has to get used to reacting a little faster on some groundballs.  Seems like the best place to try to stash him in 2016.   At least Sandoval, despite being incapable or unwilling to control his weight, seems perfectly willing to work hard on the field and so the position change with him seems more likely to succeed.  If you're going to have 1 at 3B and 1 at 1B, it doesn't matter that Sandoval isn't really a good enough hitter for 1B.  They paid him $100 million, they've got to play him somewhere.
 
But, the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk to pay him $22 million a year for 4 years; even though they knew him as well as anyone else, when there was plenty of evidence suggesting he wasn't the type of person who would take hours of extra outfield work a week until he learned how to be average or better. 
 
And then they signed another guy for $20 million a year who showed repeatedly that he either couldn't or wouldn't keep himself in shape to play baseball even when he had a massive financial incentive to do so.  But the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk that he'd do that even after they gave him $100 million guaranteed.
 
But John Lester was a bad risk.  And Andrew Miller was a bad risk. 
 
I'm sure someone understands that calculus.

This is EXACTLY why Ben and crew should get the axe this off season. Those 4 head scratching moves. Bad results on the field and a worse clubhouse now. Consistently bad decision making
 
Never mind the 10 other crappy deals they have made over the last couple of years that have failed. In no particular order:
1. Cespedes/Wilson for Porcelllo
2. Porcello's extension
3. Lackey for Kelly/Craig.
4. Masterson signing
5. Castillo signing/missing on Abreau
6. re-signing Napoli to 2 years
7. signing Drew/moving X 
8. Mujica signing
9. Breslow signing
10. Pierzynski signing
 
I probably missed a couple.
 
Miley trade was OK, extension was nothing great. Koji 2 yr deal was OK. Hannigan for WMB is probably the best deal they've made in the last few seasons, that is pathetic and makes them the most inept front office in baseball two years running. Ruben Amaro has done less damage by sitting there and sucking his thumb.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is EXACTLY why Ben and crew should get the axe this off season. Those 4 head scratching moves. Bad results on the field and a worse clubhouse now. Consistently bad decision making
 
Never mind the 10 other crappy deals they have made over the last couple of years that have failed. In no particular order:
1. Cespedes/Wilson for Porcelllo
2. Porcello's extension
3. Lackey for Kelly/Craig.
4. Masterson signing
5. Castillo signing/missing on Abreau
6. re-signing Napoli to 2 years
7. signing Drew/moving X 
8. Mujica signing
9. Breslow signing
10. Pierzynski signing
 
I probably missed a couple.
 
Miley trade was OK, extension was nothing great. Koji 2 yr deal was OK. Hannigan for WMB is probably the best deal they've made in the last few seasons, that is pathetic and makes them the most inept front office in baseball two years running. Ruben Amaro has done less damage by sitting there and sucking his thumb.

 
How the fuck do you or any of us know the bolded?  We can quibble and debate about every transaction all day long, but the talk about the quality of the clubhouse is moronic.  We don't know how good or bad it is AT ALL.  Winning makes everything look good.  Losing makes everything look bad.  The truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

 
Agree completely.  If Hanley can't become a good LF with his set of natural abilities, it's entirely because he didn't want to work hard enough to become a good LF.  There's no rational argument that says a guy who can hit major league pitching and play a major league SS can't learn to play LF.  None, whatsoever. .

This wrong. Playing outfield is nothing like hitting or playing SS.
The biggest part of playing outfield is judging and tracking fly balls, something that Ramirez has never done and which has nothing to do with playing SS or batting.

He should be able to transition to first base easier than outfield, since he had never tracked a flyball in his life before this year. Some people are like Holt, who can learn it immediately, but some never get good enough at judging flyballs to do it decently regularly at the major league level.

He has fielded grounders and taken throws in the infield for years in the majors, so at least he's done part of what a first baseman has to do before. That doesn't mean he would be good at it, but at least he should have a better chance of being acceptable there, rather than learning to judge flyballs.

 

[benhogan]

 
How the fuck do you or any of us know the bolded?  We can quibble and debate about every transaction all day long, but the talk about the quality of the clubhouse is moronic.  We don't know how good or bad it is AT ALL.  Winning makes everything look good.  Losing makes everything look bad.  The truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 
 
Get your fucking head out of the sand pal.

 
Yup, all those stories out of spring training about the three amigos - Hanley, Pablo, and Papi - and how much fun they were having must have been gone by the wayside.  Must have been the shitty May the team had that ruined the relationship, huh?

 

[Rasputin]

This is EXACTLY why Ben and crew should get the axe this off season. Those 4 head scratching moves. Bad results on the field and a worse clubhouse now. Consistently bad decision making
 
Never mind the 10 other crappy deals they have made over the last couple of years that have failed. In no particular order:
1. Cespedes/Wilson for Porcelllo
2. Porcello's extension
3. Lackey for Kelly/Craig.
4. Masterson signing
5. Castillo signing/missing on Abreau
6. re-signing Napoli to 2 years
7. signing Drew/moving X 
8. Mujica signing
9. Breslow signing
10. Pierzynski signing
 
I probably missed a couple.
 
Miley trade was OK, extension was nothing great. Koji 2 yr deal was OK. Hannigan for WMB is probably the best deal they've made in the last few seasons, that is pathetic and makes them the most inept front office in baseball two years running. Ruben Amaro has done less damage by sitting there and sucking his thumb.

 
The revisionist history here is ridiculous.
 
Lester WAS a bad gamble. I'm not sure there is a reliever in the game that isn't a bad gamble over four years. There certainly aren't many of them, and a 30 year old who has been a good one for three years isn't it.
 
Hanley Ramirez came to the Sox and told them he would take less money to sign with them and was willing to change positions to come back. There isn't a team in the universe that has the budget and doesn't do that deal. Not the Sox. Not the Yankees. Not the Dodgers. Not the Cubs. Not anyone.
 
We knew Sandoval was overpaid when he signed, but the options were what, exactly? Chase Headley hasn't been good. Will Middlebrooks just got sent back to the minors. Hanley Ramirez would almost certainly have been a disaster defensively.
 
Cespedes and Wilson for Porcello was a good deal. This is the worst kind of hindsight. The absolute worst. To claim this was a bad deal, you have to believe that the worst half season in Porcello's career was somehow predictable. It wasn't, especially when you consider that his FIP and particularly the xFIP show that his sub par performance has been exacerbated by bad luck.
 
Meanwhile, Porcello's extension hasn't even kicked in yet. There's as good a chance that we'll look back on that as an excellent deal as a bad one, probably more so.
 
Lackey for Craig and Kelly, I dunno, could go either way. Even if Craig doesn't ever do anything but cost money, Kelly isn't a free agent until 2019. If he becomes nothing but a useful reliever in that time, it will more than make up for the third of a season of Lackey last year when Lackey was bad and the Sox weren't going anywhere, and this year where Lackey is slightly below average so far.
 
Masterson was terrible, but the team needed someone to pitch in the bigs until Rodriguez or Owens were ready. That's the result of trading RLDR and Webster for Miley which, despite my objections, has turned out pretty well. Were there better options than Masterson? Yeah, probably.
 
Castillo isn't even a year into a contract that will keep him here until at least 2019. Don't you think it's a bit early to be judging things? And you realize that you are simultaneously blaming a man for taking a risk on a Cuban player and for not taking the same risk on a different Cuban player?
 
The two year deal for Napoli was fine. We knew there was a chance his hip could blow up so we can't get too bitchy when something else makes his performance fall off the table. It was a two year deal, we got one good year and one bad one, it happens.
 
The Drew signing and moving X is the most revisionist thing going on here. Bogaerts wasn't moved to third because they signed Drew. Bogaerts was moved to third, and they signed Drew because Middlebrooks got hurt. 
 
The Breslow and Mujica deals were small deals for relievers and sometimes those go bad. That's why they get signed to small deals. 
 
Pierzynski was signed because they needed someone who was willing to take a very short deal to serve as a stopgap until Vazquez was ready. That limited the options. There were probably better options, but Pierzynski hit better before he came here, and after he left here.

 

[benhogan]

 
Yup, all those stories out of spring training about the three amigos - Hanley, Pablo, and Papi - and how much fun they were having must have been gone by the wayside.  Must have been the shitty May the team had that ruined the relationship, huh?

Pretty much. The 3 Amigos was a nice little story in the Spring, too bad you have 30-35 of other teammates you need to get along with...
 
Running the bases like garbage and making crucial errors in the field probably doesn't endear yourself to the coaching staff and your fellow teammates.
 
But your right I'm not in the clubhouse and I don't have a PhD in clubhouse psychology, so I'm just a fan guessing that signing up Pablo and Hanley made the clubhouse slightly worse then signing up Jon Lester and Andrew Miller.

 

[Rasputin]

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 
 
Get your fucking head out of the sand pal.

 
Seriously?
 
You make completely unwarranted assumptions and have the gall to tell someone else to get their head out of the sand? That's ridiculous. You don't know what the clubhouse is like, and at the best, there's a tenuous connection between the clubhouse atmosphere and on-field performance.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 
 
Get your fucking head out of the sand pal.

I and the rest of the board would appreciate it if you left the snark and personal attacks on the cutting room floor so to speak. It is unnecessary and particularly galling and ironic when you don't have any support for your thesis.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Its not a stretch to guess that a clubhouse with Hanley in it is worse, check in on ex Marlins and Dodger teammates, they didn't seem to miss him when he walked out the door.  And Panda's big, guaranteed contract and expanding waist line with questionable work ethic isn't exactly the veteran leadership we are looking for the youngsters. His commentary towards the Giants front office and ex teammates, during spring training was less then impressive. 
 
Get your fucking head out of the sand pal.

Yes it is a stretch to guess that the clubhouse with Ramirez in it is worse. If you're going to make statements like this you need to have some evidence to back it up. 
And this is your only warning for making personal attacks. If I see another one you are gone.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

I don't know how to read minds about that clubhouse. 
 
What I do think (not arrogant enough to claim to know) is I'd like to see a bullpen with 3 very effective arms in it, and I'd like to add a starter who I feel like you'd expect 2-3ER in 7, doesn't have to be an ace, but a strong, dependable #1-#2 starter. 
 
Past that figuring out how to get a legitimate starting OF would be nice, but I still hold out hope that Jackie Bradley can hit enough to give this team a compelling CF-RF defensive configuration. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Past that figuring out how to get a legitimate starting OF would be nice, but I still hold out hope that Jackie Bradley can hit enough to give this team a compelling CF-RF defensive configuration. 

 
It's still entirely possible that Castillo and Bradley both end up in the long term outfield plans. Both just need to keep playing for now. Beyond that, they have reinforcements who are due to arrive from the farm starting in 2017 and running through 2019 with Margot and Benintendi plus Sam Travis who apparently might be capable of handling a corner outfield spot. The next wave after that (2018-2019) includes a bunch of infielders, two of which could be converted a la Mookie Betts in Moncada and Devers. So while the 2016 outfield might still be a bit of a mess, the long term prognosis looks pretty good from an internal development standpoint. There are enough prospects with exciting ceilings that there's a decent chance they end up with one or two major league caliber players to fill in those spots, and if they're lucky, might get a star out of the bunch.

 

[BosRedSox5]

 
It's still entirely possible that Castillo and Bradley both end up in the long term outfield plans. Both just need to keep playing for now. 

 
I want to believe that JBJ is in the long term plans... but the fact that they're still playing De Aza and Victorino make me question that. 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

 
I want to believe that JBJ is in the long term plans... but the fact that they're still playing De Aza and Victorino make me question that. 

Both of those guys are candidates to be moved this week.  Let's let the deadline pass and then see who is playing in RF.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I want to believe that JBJ is in the long term plans... but the fact that they're still playing De Aza and Victorino make me question that. 

 
It shouldn't. Consistent playing time is the one thing JBJ needs and he's not getting that in Boston. Keeping him in Pawtucket is not necessarily an indication that they don't believe in him.

 

[Plympton91]

 
The revisionist history here is ridiculous.
 
Lester WAS a bad gamble. I'm not sure there is a reliever in the game that isn't a bad gamble over four years. There certainly aren't many of them, and a 30 year old who has been a good one for three years isn't it.
 
Hanley Ramirez came to the Sox and told them he would take less money to sign with them and was willing to change positions to come back. There isn't a team in the universe that has the budget and doesn't do that deal. Not the Sox. Not the Yankees. Not the Dodgers. Not the Cubs. Not anyone.
 
We knew Sandoval was overpaid when he signed, but the options were what, exactly? Chase Headley hasn't been good. Will Middlebrooks just got sent back to the minors. Hanley Ramirez would almost certainly have been a disaster defensively.
 
Cespedes and Wilson for Porcello was a good deal. This is the worst kind of hindsight. The absolute worst. To claim this was a bad deal, you have to believe that the worst half season in Porcello's career was somehow predictable. It wasn't, especially when you consider that his FIP and particularly the xFIP show that his sub par performance has been exacerbated by bad luck.
 
Meanwhile, Porcello's extension hasn't even kicked in yet. There's as good a chance that we'll look back on that as an excellent deal as a bad one, probably more so.
 
Lackey for Craig and Kelly, I dunno, could go either way. Even if Craig doesn't ever do anything but cost money, Kelly isn't a free agent until 2019. If he becomes nothing but a useful reliever in that time, it will more than make up for the third of a season of Lackey last year when Lackey was bad and the Sox weren't going anywhere, and this year where Lackey is slightly below average so far.
 
Masterson was terrible, but the team needed someone to pitch in the bigs until Rodriguez or Owens were ready. That's the result of trading RLDR and Webster for Miley which, despite my objections, has turned out pretty well. Were there better options than Masterson? Yeah, probably.
 
Castillo isn't even a year into a contract that will keep him here until at least 2019. Don't you think it's a bit early to be judging things? And you realize that you are simultaneously blaming a man for taking a risk on a Cuban player and for not taking the same risk on a different Cuban player?
 
The two year deal for Napoli was fine. We knew there was a chance his hip could blow up so we can't get too bitchy when something else makes his performance fall off the table. It was a two year deal, we got one good year and one bad one, it happens.
 
The Drew signing and moving X is the most revisionist thing going on here. Bogaerts wasn't moved to third because they signed Drew. Bogaerts was moved to third, and they signed Drew because Middlebrooks got hurt. 
 
The Breslow and Mujica deals were small deals for relievers and sometimes those go bad. That's why they get signed to small deals. 
 
Pierzynski was signed because they needed someone who was willing to take a very short deal to serve as a stopgap until Vazquez was ready. That limited the options. There were probably better options, but Pierzynski hit better before he came here, and after he left here.

Ras, this is a great analysis from the perspective of a knowledgable message board poster and longtime baseball fan who thinks hard about these things in his spare time. But, hindsight or not, Ben Cherington gets a lot more info and has a full time job to do in analyzing that info. He gets paid a lot of money to get these things right. And he's not getting them right. I don't really care if a couple things that look good ex ante turn out poorly, that would be unfair. But they are repeatedly getting it wrong, and with the Masterson and Sandoval moves especially, they increasingly look like the moves of a guy who's down his life savings at the Blackjack tables and hitting on 17 against the house showing an ace.

 

[OCD SS]

 
Agree completely.  If Hanley can't become a good LF with his set of natural abilities, it's entirely because he didn't want to work hard enough to become a good LF.  There's no rational argument that says a guy who can hit major league pitching and play a major league SS can't learn to play LF.  None, whatsoever.
 
And, if the reason he can't play LF adequately yet is because he won't work at it, what possible reason could there be to expect him to work hard at learning how to play 1B?  At least at 3B, he doesn't need to learn any new skills relative to shortstop.  He just has to get used to reacting a little faster on some groundballs.  Seems like the best place to try to stash him in 2016.   At least Sandoval, despite being incapable or unwilling to control his weight, seems perfectly willing to work hard on the field and so the position change with him seems more likely to succeed.  If you're going to have 1 at 3B and 1 at 1B, it doesn't matter that Sandoval isn't really a good enough hitter for 1B.  They paid him $100 million, they've got to play him somewhere.
 
But, the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk to pay him $22 million a year for 4 years; even though they knew him as well as anyone else, when there was plenty of evidence suggesting he wasn't the type of person who would take hours of extra outfield work a week until he learned how to be average or better. 
 
And then they signed another guy for $20 million a year who showed repeatedly that he either couldn't or wouldn't keep himself in shape to play baseball even when he had a massive financial incentive to do so.  But the Red Sox decided that it was a good risk that he'd do that even after they gave him $100 million guaranteed.
 
But John Lester was a bad risk.  And Andrew Miller was a bad risk. 
 
I'm sure someone understands that calculus.

 
If you've been paying attention I don't think it's actually that difficult, but it does require assuming that the FO has a bit more knowledge than those of is the peanut gallery, and that just because they do something that some percentage of the fan base doesn't agree with or doesn't work out in the short term, they're not necessarily idiots (this seems to be something SoSH has a problem with).
 
Pulling my idea out of the trade rumor thread, I think the FO is looking at the hyper-inflationary cost of an "ace" as problematic when you factor in likely production, both $/ WAR vs a comparably paid position player and also mapped vs the life of the contract with potential risk of injury. Looking at the fWAR leaderboards even the top "ace" is over a win behind the top position player, so the impact of elite SP doesn't get you  quite as much for your money as it does from someone playing 150+ games. This might be a problem with WAR's calculations, or it could just be that people are biased and want to assign extra value, necessity, "clutchiness" or whatever to factors that are outside winning baseball games during the regular 162 game season (this is the bucket I think you drop the need for a "proven ACE!"in the playoffs into). Since signing a top-tier FA SP means paying for past performance I think it's reasonable to look at what you're likely to get from a player when assessing the deal.
 
This is a FO that really knew and was comfortable with Lester, and still offered him $20-30M less than the Cubs did. Given that Lester was basically a #2 until the second half of 2013 and the playoffs, I don't see this FO blowing through the $100M mark for a SP when they could also blow out their elbow or just collapse from innings and age (as CC Sabathia did) leaving them paying top dollar for what you can get from minor league call ups or the Justin Masterson's of the world. OTOH position players seem to be a lot more stable when taken as a population. When you couple this with the short term needs of the ML club, the signings of Hanley and Panda make sense. (I agree with Ras that there seems to be a ton of revisionist history being written at this point; the issues that seem to have torpedoed their performance this year were brought up, but I don't think to the degree that people now seem to claim and that these were generally seen as more limited in scope and not as reasons not to make the signings.) With Panda and HRam they got the best players available (last offseason or this one) to fill those needs without giving away their top end young talent, of which there isn't enough to fill all of the potential holes anyway.
 
JWH and the rest of ownership is probably going to look at roster construction the same way they do any investment portfolio: diversify risk and focus on core areas of need to attain the best performance with the resources at hand. This doesn't mean that they're clairvoiant and if things fall into the bottom percentile of outcomes it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole model is fucked, but It also doesn't mean that it's not. IMO with so much of baseball coming down to random outcomes people aren't spending enough time looking at the model and are spending way to much time just looking at short term individual results. My guess is that the reason Ben or Farrel don't look to be on the hot seat is because ownership isn't looking at things the same way as many here.