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

[ivanvamp]

FWIW, David Ortiz is the team's best hitter this year.  .794 ops, 116 ops+.  
 
His last 60 games, he's put up a line of .252/.340/.518/.858.
 
He is hitting righties to the tune of .275/.386/.551/.937.  
 
For all the crap he's taken this year, he's still been pretty good.  On pace for 32 homers and 89 rbi.  If only they'd platoon him so he only faced righties, let Hanley DH against lefties.....

 

[jscola85]

FWIW, David Ortiz is the team's best hitter this year.  .794 ops, 116 ops+.  
 
His last 60 games, he's put up a line of .252/.340/.518/.858.
 
He is hitting righties to the tune of .275/.386/.551/.937.  
 
For all the crap he's taken this year, he's still been pretty good.  On pace for 32 homers and 89 rbi.  If only they'd platoon him so he only faced righties, let Hanley DH against lefties.....

 
It's great that he is crushing righties, but he is still facing lefties regularly and flailing around to the tune of a 458 OPS.  Ortiz is not a huge issue with this team, but he's also somewhat overpaid for a DH and in 2016 will likely only take a further step backwards while being paid like he is the best DH in the league.  Among teams with regular DHs, here's the ranks by OPS.  He's been above average, but to earn $16M as a DH he needs to be up closer to the ARod/Fielder category than the Paredes/Morales category
 
Sano 951
Rodriguez 920
Fielder 909
Ortiz 794
Morales 791
Encarnacion 787
Paredes 769
Gattis 724
Trumbo 709
VMart 707
Butler 690
Laroche 654
 
I'm not saying Ortiz is the problem, just that he's not a huge net asset relative to his salary and next year he's likely to fall further behind that price to value curve.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Pablo's peripherals point to why he is having a bad year, not an essential change in his talent level; that's what a bad season is. I don't monitor his weight, so is he really so much fatter than he has been in the past? When players of his body type tank it still tends to happen in their early 30's, not age 28. There's about a 4 year swing there, so if he's truly done it would be an outlier.

With Hanley I'm much more worried about his health; if he can't do the extra work in LF and still play, that doesn't bode well, but I don't think the position is fundamentally affecting his bat. WAR probably distorts this as UZR has a problem with the Monster anyway, to say nothing of the small sample size variation.

 
The problem with expecting a bounce-back for Sandoval at the plate is that the five year trend is consistently downward in almost every category. wRC+ ? 149(!), 118, 116, 111, 88. His OBP, SLG, ISO follow the same trend.
 
Ultimately its important for him to become a plus defender to become a positive again. I don't think you can't expect him to turn around the trend at the plate but you can expect him to play better in the field. He was, as recently as a year ago, a very good defensive third baseman by all accounts. Why can't he do that again?

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Can someone remind me of the reason why Brock Holt was not a reasonable alternative to Sandoval as the starting 3b?  I think there is a reason, but I no longer remember it.

Obviously Holt looks like he's a for real major league ballplayer, but he was in an absolute tailspin at the end of this year and going into the 2015 season it seemed very likely that BROCKHOLT-level Holt was a BABIP-fueled, hot start mirage (.349 BABIP in 2014, which looks at least like it's partially a skill given his even better BABIP this year, but which is hardly something we could have known before). ZiPS and Steamer at Fangraphs had Holt pegged for about half a win this year each, which is a nice bench piece but absolutely something you can improve over. Whether the Sandoval contract is worth that improvement is an entire other matter.

 

[Plympton91]

 
What's a bounce-back though?  These two are ranked among the ~10 worst every day players in baseball per fWAR.  They could improve by leaps and bounds and still be roughly replacement level, and therefore massive wastes of payroll.

 
Do you make decisions in basketball or hockey based on the plus/minus statistic?  That's what fWAR is.   Stop quoting fWAR.  It is junk science.
 
Carl Crawford's defensive rating in his last year in TB was +20, in Boston it fell to 0, and when he went to LA it came back to +12.  Same thing happened with Manny Ramirez, his two years in LA he registered much higher fielding WAR than any years in Boston, despite clearly being at the end of his rope.
 
The statistic is meaningless generally, it is less than meaningless for a Red Sox leftfielder.   Even other defensive systems, like Bill James's Win Shares, come out with junk when they rate Red Sox leftfielders.  Unless you think Carl Yastrzemski was a below-average outfielder in his prime, and Roy White was more valuable than Jim Rice in 1978.

 

[jscola85]

 
Do you make decisions in basketball or hockey based on the plus/minus statistic?  That's what fWAR is.   Stop quoting fWAR.  It is junk science.
 
Carl Crawford's defensive rating in his last year in TB was +20, in Boston it fell to 0, and when he went to LA it came back to +12.  Same thing happened with Manny Ramirez, his two years in LA he registered much higher fielding WAR than any years in Boston, despite clearly being at the end of his rope.
 
The statistic is meaningless generally, it is less than meaningless for a Red Sox leftfielder.   Even other defensive systems, like Bill James's Win Shares, come out with junk when they rate Red Sox leftfielders.  Unless you think Carl Yastrzemski was a below-average outfielder in his prime, and Roy White was more valuable than Jim Rice in 1978.

 
Okay, well even if you ignore the "junk" that is fWAR (which is a specious argument) and look at their hitting production, Hanley ranks 57th out of 106 outfielders with 200+ plate appearances in wRC+, and Sandoval ranks 21st out of 24 qualified 3rd basemen in wRC+.  So one is a pretty much average hitter for his position and the other is one of the worst at his position, and by whatever metric or eye test you want to choose, both of them have sucked both on the bases and in the field defensively.  Average/bad offense + bad defense + bad baserunning.  That, to me, is a really bad baseball player.

 

[dbn]

I've missed the last few pages of this thread, so sorry if I'm treading over territory already covered, and/or if this is better suited for another thread.
 
I want Brock Holt on the 2016 Red Sox, and probably on many future teams as well, even if he doesn't have a starting position. His positional flexibility is just so damn valuable. Even if it isn't clear where exactly he fits in on an opening-day roster, we all know (or at least should know) that the 4th outfielder, or utility infielder or first call-up, or someone is going to get a LOT of PAs dues to injury and/or underperformance of one or more starters. I'm not sure of the best way to demonstrate this, so I looked at the last several years of PA numbers and here are the PA leaders who weren't the PA leader at his position or was clearly a utility guy (i.e., if 3 OFs had more PAs that Gomes, it's Gomes; if it's a guy who floats from position to position like Holt, it's Holt.)
 
2008: Crisp, 409 PAs, 9th most on the team. OPS+ 94
2009: VMartinez, 273 PAs, 10th most. OPS+ 134
2010: Hall, 382 PAs, 7th most. OPS+ 103
2011: Lowrie, 341 PAs, 9th most. OPS+ 83
2012: Ciriaco, 272 PAs, 10th most. OPS+ 90
2013: Gomes, 366 PAs, 10th most. OPS+ 110
2014: Holt, 492 PAs, 5th most. OPS+ 101
2015 (so far): Holt, 317 PAs (pace for 499), 8th most (and 153 PAs ahead of 9th). OPS+ 109
 
I guess I'm saying that the guy who wasn't a starter gets a lot of ABs, so it's really good if he can hit. Of course, a lot of other guys who weren't starters in each of those seasons got a lot of PAs as well, usually with worse results. With Holt, you can get more PAs from the guy who is a pretty decent hitter because he can cover more positions, and thus fewer from guys who can't hit. 
 
edit: my point isn't that Holt is a much better hitter than the others listed, it's that he has more PAs. I suspect that he has more PAs because he can play so many positions. Thus, he's taking PAs away from lesser backups due to his positional flexibility. 

 

[nvalvo]

Can someone remind me of the reason why Brock Holt was not a reasonable alternative to Sandoval as the starting 3b?  I think there is a reason, but I no longer remember it.

 
Brock Holt's 2014 first half: .834 OPS, .395 BABIP.
Brock Holt's 2014 second half: .548 OPS, .283 BABIP.
 
So far, so good in 2015. But would you have bet big on that outcome (assuming he keeps it up for the second half)? 

 

[burstnbloom]

 
It's great that he is crushing righties, but he is still facing lefties regularly and flailing around to the tune of a 458 OPS.  Ortiz is not a huge issue with this team, but he's also somewhat overpaid for a DH and in 2016 will likely only take a further step backwards while being paid like he is the best DH in the league.  Among teams with regular DHs, here's the ranks by OPS.  He's been above average, but to earn $16M as a DH he needs to be up closer to the ARod/Fielder category than the Paredes/Morales category
 
Sano 951
Rodriguez 920
Fielder 909
Ortiz 794
Morales 791
Encarnacion 787
Paredes 769
Gattis 724
Trumbo 709
VMart 707
Butler 690
Laroche 654
 
I'm not saying Ortiz is the problem, just that he's not a huge net asset relative to his salary and next year he's likely to fall further behind that price to value curve.

 
This is a minor point but both Fielder and Arod make way more money than David Ortiz does.   It's hard to make the argument that he is overpaid because two guys that make $8 mil and $11 mil more than him have better numbers.  

 

[geoduck no quahog]

This statement will contribute little to the thread, but I can't get around the fact that virtually all of the FO criticism here is done by isolating the Red Sox from every other team in baseball, as if the Boston team must be held to a different standard. 
 
Yes, there have been some pretty successful teams over the past 5 years (playoff appearances): 
 
DET, STL: 4
NYY, TEX, OAK, TB, ATL, CIN, SF: 3
BAL, PHI, NAT, PIT, LAD: 2
 
And some notable questions: LAA, BOS, TOR, CLE, SEA...to name a few
 
Of the 14 well-performing teams, 5 currently disappoint: Detroit, Oakland, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Philadelphia...with Tampa, Texas, Toronto and Baltimore candidates
 
I can't answer this question: What is it that the Front Offices of St. Louis, New York, Washington and LA do so well compared to the Red Sox?
 
What is it that makes the front offices of Detroit, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Texas, Toronto, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Anaheim...more or less sucky than the Red Sox?
 
Long way of saying that it would be nice to add perspective to this discussion - while implying that blaming the Red Sox FO for most of team-ills is narrow minded.

 

[Plympton91]

How about the context of the total payroll over those 5 seasons.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Good question.
 
Let's stick with the teams named (with payroll rank: 2010 - 2015. It's too cumbersome to type out the values):
 
4 playoff appearances
Detroit: 6, 10, 5, 5, 5, 4
STL: 13, 11, 9, 10, 13, 11
 
3 playoff appearances
NYY: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2
TEX: 27, 13, 6, 11, 8, 8
OAK: 28, 21, 29, 27, 25, 27 (absolutely remarkable)
TB:  21, 29, 25, 28, 28, 28 (equally remarkable)
ATL: 15, 15, 16, 16, 14, 23
CIN: 19, 19, 17,13, 12, 14
SF: 10, 8, 8, 6, 7, 5
 
2 playoffs:
BAL: 17, 18, 19, 15, 15, 17
PHI: 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 9
NAT: 23, 22, 20, 12, 9, 6
PIT: 30, 27, 26, 20, 27, 25 (pretty damn impressive)
LAD: 12, 12, 11, 2, 1, 1
 
"Question Marks"
LAA: 8, 4, 4, 7, 6, 7
TOR: 22, 23, 23, 9, 10, 10
CLE: 24, 26, 21, 21, 26, 26
SEA: 9, 16, 18, 24, 18, 12
 
BOS: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3 (I know where you're going with this)
 
So the "conclusion" could be that the Red Sox suck the most because they've had the fewest playoff experiences per dollar than any of the mentioned teams. Well, one could also say that the Yankees and the Dodgers suck more - but that's just one metric, with an arbitrary 5-year assessment (2010-2104)
 
Total Payroll: 2010-2104 (avg/year)
 
NYY: $1,038,632,704 ( 207,726,541)
PHI:  $   834,881,137 (166,976,227)
BOS: $  810,814,337  (162,162,867) 
LAD: $  745,770,878  (149,154,176)
LAA: $  682,085,607 (136,417,121)
DET: $  671,513,188 (134,302,638)
SFO: $ 628,116,061 ( 125,623,212)
 
$/playoff appearance 2010-2014
 
NYY: $346M
PHI: $417M
LAD: $373M
LAA: $682M
DET: $168M
SFO: $209M
 
BOS: $811M
 
Judging by that criteria, and that criteria alone - the NYY are an infinitely better run club than the Red Sox...not even in the same ballpark. By that criteria, the Red Sox and the Angles are the worst-run teams since 2010, and Detroit is the best (of the big-market teams). Does anyone really think that?
 
The criteria is valid as far as it goes (e.g., the Red Sox were 1 game away from the playoffs in 2011 - and that 1 game would have changed this arbitrary way of looking at things substantially), and is certainly applicable when comparing the front offices of the Red Sox with, say, the Rays (with their draft picks)...but it ignores the development of the farm system and direct comparison with the competition on a non-arbitrary basis (for example, Philadelphia's payroll was really high when they made the playoffs...and what do the Yankees have to show for spending over $1B?) For that matter, given the Dodger payroll of the past couple of years, or the Angels even further back...are they considered better-run clubs than the Red Sox?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I can't answer this question: What is it that the Front Offices of St. Louis, New York, Washington and LA do so well compared to the Red Sox?

Playoffs isn't really a good barometer - even though I know this is shorthand - because STL has been playing in a division with PIT, CHC, CIN, and MIL, all of which have been pretty bad (and don't have a ton of payroll). Similarly, WAS has been playing in a division with NYM, ATL, MIA, and PHI, all of whom have not been very good lately, AND WAS as the beneficiary of some pretty good draft picks when they were bad (Strasburg, Harper, Storen, Rendon, R Zimmerman, and Detweiler were top 10 picks or better and Jordan Zimmerman was 67th overall.

For example, the Cardinals are 26-15 against teams in their own division. (They are also 16-7 against the East). My guess is that they would not have those records if they played in the AL Central.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I realize even the crappiest ML player can crank a few homers and have a crazy good stretch of play (BABIP fueled or any old reason), but I still think Shaw should be getting at least 75% of playing time at first from here on out.  
His mL track record isn't great, but there are some occasional players (Hanley) that seem to turn it up a few notches when they hit the ML.  I hope the Sox are open to that possibility and don't linger or are overly biased on just his mL sample.  

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I realize even the crappiest ML player can crank a few homers and have a crazy good stretch of play (BABIP fueled or any old reason), but I still think Shaw should be getting at least 75% of playing time at first from here on out.  
His mL track record isn't great, but there are some occasional players (Hanley) that seem to turn it up a few notches when they hit the ML.  I hope the Sox are open to that possibility and don't linger or are overly biased on just his mL sample.  

 
While Hanley may have "turned it up" a notch upon reaching the big leagues, he was still a highly touted prospect from the moment he was signed to a pro contract.  Even if the numbers weren't always there, the potential was crystal clear with him.  Same can't really be said of Shaw.  So while there might be something to the idea that mL samples aren't 100% indicative, I still doubt that Shaw is going to be dramatically better in the big leagues than he's ever been in the minors.  But he may be, for now, better than what they've had at his position thus far and I don't disagree that he should get a lengthy look over the next 6 weeks or so.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
While Hanley may have "turned it up" a notch upon reaching the big leagues, he was still a highly touted prospect from the moment he was signed to a pro contract.  Even if the numbers weren't always there, the potential was crystal clear with him.  Same can't really be said of Shaw.  So while there might be something to the idea that mL samples aren't 100% indicative, I still doubt that Shaw is going to be dramatically better in the big leagues than he's ever been in the minors.  But he may be, for now, better than what they've had at his position thus far and I don't disagree that he should get a lengthy look over the next 6 weeks or so.

 
Exactly. Hanley Ramirez didn't "turn it up a notch", he learned on the job at the major league level. Can we get an example of a player who markedly exceeded their MiLB stats in the pros but who was a fringey, overaged prospect, not a top 100 guy? Those are the odds Shaw faces.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

 
This is a minor point but both Fielder and Arod make way more money than David Ortiz does.   It's hard to make the argument that he is overpaid because two guys that make $8 mil and $11 mil more than him have better numbers.  

 
Also Fielder looked pretty cooked last year and Arod spent last year not playing baseball before looking pretty finished as an impact player (and hurt) at 3b the year prior. Let's not pretend either of those guys have a record of being superior DHs when this is really a one year "trend."

 

[alwyn96]

 
Exactly. Hanley Ramirez didn't "turn it up a notch", he learned on the job at the major league level. Can we get an example of a player who markedly exceeded their MiLB stats in the pros but who was a fringey, overaged prospect, not a top 100 guy? Those are the odds Shaw faces.

 
Off the top of my head I'd say Josh Donaldson, who might have one of the more unlikely paths to (super)stardom of anyone. But he's literally the only guy I can think of like that. And even though he was a bit of a late bloomer, he was still drafted in the 1st round. Melvin Mora comes to mind as well, but I agree that it's very rare for a guy with a performance background like Shaw's to be something like an above average MLB starter. He seems like more of a Brandon Snyder, Mauro Gomez with better defense-type to me. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Off the top of my head I'd say Josh Donaldson, who might have one of the more unlikely paths to (super)stardom of anyone. But he's literally the only guy I can think of like that. And even though he was a bit of a late bloomer, he was still drafted in the 1st round. Melvin Mora comes to mind as well, but I agree that it's very rare for a guy with a performance background like Shaw's to be something like an above average MLB starter. He seems like more of a Brandon Snyder, Mauro Gomez with better defense-type to me. 

He doesn't have to be great. If he can even hold down a pain spot for a year or two that would be phenomenal.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Off the top of my head, I would also say Iglesias and even Rizzo.   While Rizzo did have some impressive numbers he never exceeded for mL Boston what he's done in Chicago.  Youkilis was... sort of... another.  I don't think anyone anywhere expected to see his power develop.  I'm sure there's plenty of borderline AAAA guys (which I think Shaw is considered, along with most people's expectations of Jose and Youk ((( I did think Rizzo was going to be the beast out of the Anderson/Rizzo 1B power hitters in the system at the time)))) that end up with a better ML career - or at least a stretch- than their mL scouting and/or numbers would suggest.
All I'm really saying is that Napoli should be dumped for anything at all just to see if Shaw could be another of those types and to try to get additional information to evaluate the 1B/3B/DH position over the offseason.

 

[Super Nomario]

Off the top of my head, I would also say Iglesias and even Rizzo.   While Rizzo did have some impressive numbers he never exceeded for mL Boston what he's done in Chicago.  Youkilis was... sort of... another.  I don't think anyone anywhere expected to see his power develop.  I'm sure there's plenty of borderline AAAA guys (which I think Shaw is considered, along with most people's expectations of Jose and Youk ((( I did think Rizzo was going to be the beast out of the Anderson/Rizzo 1B power hitters in the system at the time)))) that end up with a better ML career - or at least a stretch- than their mL scouting and/or numbers would suggest.
All I'm really saying is that Napoli should be dumped for anything at all just to see if Shaw could be another of those types and to try to get additional information to evaluate the 1B/3B/DH position over the offseason.

The information is going to be SSS though, and as likely to lead to a bad decision as a good one. Guys like Shane Spencer, Kevin Maas, and Will Middlebrooks had great success in their first exposures to the major leagues, only to fall on their faces in more extended playing time. I'm basically agnostic on the merits of giving Shaw playing time down the stretch - there's no optimal way to shuffle deckchairs on the Titanic - but if he has a hot couple months I don't know why we would assume that's real and discount the dismal .249/.318/.356 line he's put up in Pawtucket this year.
 
I'm not really a believer in the "some guys are better in the majors" phenomenon. Indisputable, some players do improve dramatically at the major league level - in fact, most players with substantial careers do - but I'm skeptical that being at the major league level is the cause of the improvement. It's not hard to find players with odd development patterns of various stripes - players who peak early or late, or have an inexplicable terrible or awesome year, or start great and then flop or start terrible and then become great. When a player has a breakout year at AA, we don't tend to think it's because he's in AA - rather, he just happened to have a breakout year then. I'm not sure why we would assume progress at the major league level is some kind of different animal. Similarly, some players happen to have a great year in AAA followed by a crappy year in MLB and then get labelled a AAAA guy, when in actuality they just might not be as good as the great AAA year or as bad as the bad MLB year.

 

[jscola85]

I think you can learn a few things from Shaw even in 100-150 PAs.  Middlebrooks had a hot streak in 2012, but he did so on the backs of great BIP luck and a HR/FB ratio over 20%.  The underlying peripherals of a 25% K rate and 5:1 K:BB spelled trouble.
 
I'm not expecting much out of Shaw, but if he can display the kind of K:BB ratio he has shown in AAA and a bit of pop like he showed from 2012 - 2014 in the minors, he's worth at least keeping around in 2015 as a 3B/1B backup on the roster, a la Youkilis in his earliest days.  Given the uncertainty at 1st and the underperformance by Sandoval at 3rd, having a guy with some pop on the bench who can play both spots would be useful.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
Off the top of my head I'd say Josh Donaldson, who might have one of the more unlikely paths to (super)stardom of anyone. But he's literally the only guy I can think of like that. And even though he was a bit of a late bloomer, he was still drafted in the 1st round. Melvin Mora comes to mind as well, but I agree that it's very rare for a guy with a performance background like Shaw's to be something like an above average MLB starter. He seems like more of a Brandon Snyder, Mauro Gomez with better defense-type to me. 

 
The other suggestions miss the mark for various reasons (younger, better in the minors) but great call on Donaldson.
 
The thing is, we've spent the whole year complaining about how cooked Napoli is. Meanwhile, Shaw at 25 was carrying a similar batting line... in Pawtucket.
 
I'm not saying we shouldn't audition him at 1B going forward. There is more to gain than to lose. But I find it improbable that he is going to go from being a middling player in the International League to a regular at the major league level.

 

[Drek717]

 
Exactly. Hanley Ramirez didn't "turn it up a notch", he learned on the job at the major league level. Can we get an example of a player who markedly exceeded their MiLB stats in the pros but who was a fringey, overaged prospect, not a top 100 guy? Those are the odds Shaw faces.

You want just Sox farm hands or all of MLB?
 
For just Sox farmhands you have Brandon Moss, Daniel Murphy, and Josh Reddick as three clear cases of players who put up equal or better numbers in the majors than they did in AAA.  They also had career years FAR better than their best AAA seasons.
 
Youkilis destroyed his AAA numbers and even if you include his age 26 shuttle season with nearly 200 PAs of >1.000 OPS play.  Prior to that he was Garin Cecchini-esque in his AAA futility.  His ML peak even exceeded his best AA seasons.
 
Jose Iglesias has already been mentioned, but you could probably also include Ellsbury who has a better ML career line than his AAA or A+ lines.  He had a hot AA start at 23 that inflates those numbers a bit, otherwise his entire mL data set is mid-700's to low 800's OPS seasons, nothing predicted his 2011 power surge (although nothing has since either).
 
Daniel Nava had a .778 OPS in AAA at 28, then at 30 posted an .831 OPS in the majors.  Kelly Shoppach's best ML seasons were on par with his best AA and AAA seasons.  Alex Wilson is pitching substantially better for Detroit right now than he ever did for Pawtucket.
 
If we were to look beyond the Sox a few obviously candidates, like the already mentioned Donaldson or Jose Bautista immediately jump to the forefront of the discussion.  You could also include Omar Vizquel, a mid-600's OPS minor leaguer, had weak offense to start and end his career but had a sustained >.700 OPS run from ages 29 to 33 and then flirted with that line (over one year, under the next) until age 39.  Jayson Werth's ML line is better than any mL level in his entire career, with peaks obviously well above the mL peaks.  Jeromy Burnitz is a similar case, solid AA numbers, huge AAA sample of mediocrity, then a sustained run of ML success in his late 20's with All-Star level peaks.
 
There isn't some idealized template to pass players' mL numbers through to get real ML production expectations.  Minor league equivalents aren't the be all end all of a player's projection.  Players are unique and a guy who kills AAA might suck in the majors.  The reverse isn't hardly ever true, someone looking lost in AAA but breaking out in the majors.  Something a bit less dramatic however, solid but unspectacular AAA guys breaking out at the ML level, is how MANY teams found the best "value" guys in baseball.
 
I would say that there are a few general truisms that should be applied however:
1. You don't really know a player until he's played baseball professionally into his late 20's.  27 or 28 seems to be the magic number for all these late bloomers, so assuming a 25 year old (in Shaw's case) or 24 year old (in Cecchini's) is at their peak will result in missing out on a lot of good players.  Guys who are starter quality players in their early 20's are the guys who potentially become perennial all-stars, not the norm.
 
2. Power develops at the ML level.  Whether this is due to many mL circuits still playing in older, larger parks and ML clubs moving to tighter confines with more seating, the increased average fastball velocity resulting in greater exit velocity, players physically maturing and developing power later, some combination of the above or some other unknown factor this is a consistent trend with nearly all late bloomers.
 
3. Role players look good at the ML level when they play their roles and look bad when asked to play outside of them.  Maybe we call this the Daniel Nava v. LHP Principal?  Late bloomers tend to be players with an incomplete skill set in some sense.  When usage is dictated by the skills they do have they thrive, when usage instead extends outside of that boundary they fail.  Brandon Moss looked great in Oakland for when facing RHP, the more he faces LHP the worse he does period.  Daniel Nava shows similar symptoms.  I'd speculate that it is due to the player trying to adapt to the deficiency and damaging what already worked just fine.
 
The last point is particularly relevant here because Travis Shaw is a LHB who has struggled to hit LHP his entire mL career.  In 2014 he had a 1.093 AA line against RHP and a .850 AAA line against them.  This season his AAA line against RHP has dropped, but is still a passable .703.  This matters as Napoli has all season long continued to hit LHP, he's just been horrid against RHP.  We've had a valid platoon partner sitting in AAA the entire year and have only just now given him two starts in the same week (one against a LHP mind you).
 
Travis Shaw isn't very likely to be the next Josh Donaldson or even Jeromy Burnitz, but that doesn't mean he has no value.  Maybe he takes that jump and if so great, the Sox hit the jackpot, but that is at best his 90th percentile outcome, probably closer to 99th.  When he doesn't though there is still a very real potential for him to be a solid stopgap/part of a platoon while Sam Travis develops or the FO finds another path forward.  The Red Sox over the last two seasons have been slow to make use of any journeymen from AAA other than middle infielders as well as doing a poor job hunting down beneficial splits and managing to maximize them.  As a result we have seen many traditional high offense positions consistently under produce.  This worries me because we're looking to have one of the most talented and productive up the middle clubs in all of baseball, but a FO who can't answer questions at 1B, 3B, and corner OF.  How the hell are they going to fill DH when Ortiz leaves if they can't even find a decent amalgamation of hitters to man 1B or Fenway's confined LF without blowing a ton of money in FA?

 

[jscola85]

It's not like Shaw's been garbage in the minors.  He has a career minors OPS of .800 and an ISO of .184, a 12% BB rate and 20% K rate.  His power disappeared this year in Pawtucket but I think with the body type and power he's displayed previously, there's a chance at least that he could post a .750 OPS in the majors.  Nothing spectacular but that's still an upgrade out of what we've gotten thus far from our corner infielders in 2014/15.

 

[Drek717]

Shaw's minor league numbers are decent, but break it out by level, and you see a guy who has gotten worse as he is challenged more, showing less power and a much lower BB rate in AAA. You never know, I guess, and there's no harm in giving him a ton of at bats down the stretch, but even if he performs well I can't imagine he's any kind of solution going forward.
 
A:     305 / 411 / 545 (14% BB, 19% K)
AA:   242 / 359 / 436 (15% BB, 20% K)
AAA: 256 / 319 / 395 (8 BB, 19% K)

Except Shaw's first half of 2014 in AA was arguably the single best sample he's put together at any level, with a slash near identical to his A ball numbers.  His BB% was 13.9, on par with his career bests, and his K% was 11.1, a clear career best.  He more or less continued that trend into AAA last year against RHP as well but got completely eaten alive by AAA LHP (.850 OPS against RHP, .508 OPS against LHP).
 
He has the track record of a guy who needs 1/2 to 1 full season to adapt to each new level.  He had some unsustainable BABIPs in the low minors but has been pretty steady in that regard since reaching AA.  His power disappeared when he first moved up to AA but returned last year, only to bottom out further so far this season in AAA.
 
Basically, he's got the exact profile you'd expect of someone who at 26 or 27 turns into a worthwhile platoon guy/backup depending on how good the club is at other positions.  If the FO finds a RH 1B/3B option they like as a break out candidate pairing him with Shaw and having the two of them spell Sandoval and Ortiz in a three positions, four guys scenario backed by Cecchini in AAA isn't the worst option in the world.  Maybe overpay Ben Zobrist in AAV for short years and have him bounce between several positions with Shaw as one of the guys who fills in when he's backing up somewhere else.
 
He isn't a guy you go out of your way to make room for, but when your starting 1B is incapable of hitting RHP he's a worthwhile in-house option to stop the bleeding to be sure.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The information is going to be SSS though, and as likely to lead to a bad decision as a good one. Guys like Shane Spencer, Kevin Maas, and Will Middlebrooks had great success in their first exposures to the major leagues, only to fall on their faces in more extended playing time. I'm basically agnostic on the merits of giving Shaw playing time down the stretch - there's no optimal way to shuffle deckchairs on the Titanic - but if he has a hot couple months I don't know why we would assume that's real and discount the dismal .249/.318/.356 line he's put up in Pawtucket this year.

 
One thing the RS should be able to tell, however, is whether he has a hole in his swing.  If there are pitches he can't get to, major league pitchers should be able to find it.

As for his minor league stats, there was this article from 2014 that talks about a change in approach in 2013 led to his bad season in Portland.  He did, however, hit .361 in 17 games in the AFL with a .452 on-base percentage and a .705 slugging percentage.

 

[Super Nomario]

One thing the RS should be able to tell, however, is whether he has a hole in his swing.  If there are pitches he can't get to, major league pitchers should be able to find it.

Maybe, maybe not. If he has a hole in his swing, shouldn't the AAA coaching staff be able to tell? As for major league pitchers, Middlebrooks and Bogaerts both were really hot for two months and then got figured out. Bogaerts has since been able to adjust but Middlebrooks hasn't.
 

As for his minor league stats, there was this article from 2014 that talks about a change in approach in 2013 led to his bad season in Portland.  He did, however, hit .361 in 17 games in the AFL with a .452 on-base percentage and a .705 slugging percentage.

And then he stated 2014 hot in Portland and was OK in Pawtucket, but this year he's been terrible in Pawtucket. So it doesn't look like whatever he found was a permanent fix.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

You want just Sox farm hands or all of MLB?
 
For just Sox farmhands you have Brandon Moss, Daniel Murphy, and Josh Reddick as three clear cases of players who put up equal or better numbers in the majors than they did in AAA.  They also had career years FAR better than their best AAA seasons.
 
Youkilis destroyed his AAA numbers and even if you include his age 26 shuttle season with nearly 200 PAs of >1.000 OPS play.  Prior to that he was Garin Cecchini-esque in his AAA futility.  His ML peak even exceeded his best AA seasons.
 
Jose Iglesias has already been mentioned, but you could probably also include Ellsbury who has a better ML career line than his AAA or A+ lines.  He had a hot AA start at 23 that inflates those numbers a bit, otherwise his entire mL data set is mid-700's to low 800's OPS seasons, nothing predicted his 2011 power surge (although nothing has since either).
 
Daniel Nava had a .778 OPS in AAA at 28, then at 30 posted an .831 OPS in the majors.  Kelly Shoppach's best ML seasons were on par with his best AA and AAA seasons.  Alex Wilson is pitching substantially better for Detroit right now than he ever did for Pawtucket.
 
If we were to look beyond the Sox a few obviously candidates, like the already mentioned Donaldson or Jose Bautista immediately jump to the forefront of the discussion.  You could also include Omar Vizquel, a mid-600's OPS minor leaguer, had weak offense to start and end his career but had a sustained >.700 OPS run from ages 29 to 33 and then flirted with that line (over one year, under the next) until age 39.  Jayson Werth's ML line is better than any mL level in his entire career, with peaks obviously well above the mL peaks.  Jeromy Burnitz is a similar case, solid AA numbers, huge AAA sample of mediocrity, then a sustained run of ML success in his late 20's with All-Star level peaks.
 
There isn't some idealized template to pass players' mL numbers through to get real ML production expectations.  Minor league equivalents aren't the be all end all of a player's projection.  Players are unique and a guy who kills AAA might suck in the majors.  The reverse isn't hardly ever true, someone looking lost in AAA but breaking out in the majors.  Something a bit less dramatic however, solid but unspectacular AAA guys breaking out at the ML level, is how MANY teams found the best "value" guys in baseball.
 
I would say that there are a few general truisms that should be applied however:
1. You don't really know a player until he's played baseball professionally into his late 20's.  27 or 28 seems to be the magic number for all these late bloomers, so assuming a 25 year old (in Shaw's case) or 24 year old (in Cecchini's) is at their peak will result in missing out on a lot of good players.  Guys who are starter quality players in their early 20's are the guys who potentially become perennial all-stars, not the norm.
 
2. Power develops at the ML level.  Whether this is due to many mL circuits still playing in older, larger parks and ML clubs moving to tighter confines with more seating, the increased average fastball velocity resulting in greater exit velocity, players physically maturing and developing power later, some combination of the above or some other unknown factor this is a consistent trend with nearly all late bloomers.
 
3. Role players look good at the ML level when they play their roles and look bad when asked to play outside of them.  Maybe we call this the Daniel Nava v. LHP Principal?  Late bloomers tend to be players with an incomplete skill set in some sense.  When usage is dictated by the skills they do have they thrive, when usage instead extends outside of that boundary they fail.  Brandon Moss looked great in Oakland for when facing RHP, the more he faces LHP the worse he does period.  Daniel Nava shows similar symptoms.  I'd speculate that it is due to the player trying to adapt to the deficiency and damaging what already worked just fine.
 
The last point is particularly relevant here because Travis Shaw is a LHB who has struggled to hit LHP his entire mL career.  In 2014 he had a 1.093 AA line against RHP and a .850 AAA line against them.  This season his AAA line against RHP has dropped, but is still a passable .703.  This matters as Napoli has all season long continued to hit LHP, he's just been horrid against RHP.  We've had a valid platoon partner sitting in AAA the entire year and have only just now given him two starts in the same week (one against a LHP mind you).
 
Travis Shaw isn't very likely to be the next Josh Donaldson or even Jeromy Burnitz, but that doesn't mean he has no value. Maybe he takes that jump and if so great, the Sox hit the jackpot, but that is at best his 90th percentile outcome, probably closer to 99th.  When he doesn't though there is still a very real potential for him to be a solid stopgap/part of a platoon while Sam Travis develops or the FO finds another path forward.  The Red Sox over the last two seasons have been slow to make use of any journeymen from AAA other than middle infielders as well as doing a poor job hunting down beneficial splits and managing to maximize them.  As a result we have seen many traditional high offense positions consistently under produce.  This worries me because we're looking to have one of the most talented and productive up the middle clubs in all of baseball, but a FO who can't answer questions at 1B, 3B, and corner OF.  How the hell are they going to fill DH when Ortiz leaves if they can't even find a decent amalgamation of hitters to man 1B or Fenway's confined LF without blowing a ton of money in FA?

 
I like this post, specifically the bolded. I think its not only a strong rebuttal to my proposition that Shaw faces long odds, but an important contribution since the consensus on here tends to overlook the populations you are talking about (lower defensive spectrum position players, older prospects).
 
I don't like some of the comparisons. Specifically Iglesias who was much younger in the minors, and Reddick whose numbers were similar but who was younger and whose scouting report was much more glowing. But Moss and Murphy are good calls. Both would be a big win for us.
 
If he proves to be a decent play against righties I'll be thrilled. Scales down the task ahead of us in the offseason and gives us a backup at 3B.

 

[DJnVa]

Just for fun I'd note that Wade Boggs also hit better in the majors.
 
mL: .318/.412/.386 for an OPS of .798
ML: .328/.415/.443 for an OPS of .858
 
Only 3 times in 18 ML seasons did he slug below his career mL slugging number.

 

[Drek717]

 
I like this post, specifically the bolded. I think its not only a strong rebuttal to my proposition that Shaw faces long odds, but an important contribution since the consensus on here tends to overlook the populations you are talking about (lower defensive spectrum position players, older prospects).
 
I don't like some of the comparisons. Specifically Iglesias who was much younger in the minors, and Reddick whose numbers were similar but who was younger and whose scouting report was much more glowing. But Moss and Murphy are good calls. Both would be a big win for us.
 
If he proves to be a decent play against righties I'll be thrilled. Scales down the task ahead of us in the offseason and gives us a backup at 3B.

Iglesias and Vizquel aren't great comps in that they always had the glove to ensure a role on an ML team, and with it the opportunity to learn how to hit on the job.  Reddick isn't too dissimilar in the sense that he had tools (OF range, arm, raw power) that kept him moving up through the system and always made people more tolerant of his failings.
 
I just feel like the Red Sox organization, and through a sympathetic process we as Red Sox fans, have lost appreciation for players who aren't complete packages.  Someone else on here recently made the comment about the FO focusing too much on what players can't do instead of on what they can, and that sums it up very well to me.  This organization hasn't built and managed a 25 man and 40 man roster of complimentary pieces the last two years.  Instead they've built a team posturing as having no holes across the board and then when those holes start to crop up they have no real response.  We've stopped entering the season with positional battles ongoing, planning for platoons, or even giving a veteran some run knowing the young guy behind him is going to take his job at the first signs of struggle.  The kinds of roster construction choices that result in the big payoffs of discovering a Josh Donaldson, Jose Bautista, David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, etc..  We don't get to find those guys if we never leave any positions open and we never stock the bench with guys who could fill such a role.
 
A large part of this falls on the FO for stuffing the roster full of multi-millionaires in my opinion.  They'd rather trade for and play Allen Craig's corpse than promote Travis Shaw or Bryce Brentz (last season).  If you're a Sox farmhand and you're a consensus top 100 talent they'll clear a roster spot for you with a bulldozer and damn the safety nets.  If you're a Sox farmhand who hasn't gotten quite so much love and adulation from the prospect focused press however you better save up for when you move to your next team because the Red Sox sure as hell aren't going to give you the time of day.  Which is a shame because for a long time now the big claim to fame of this farm system was the top to bottom depth it held.  Depth we've never been willing to use as anything other than trade filler.

 

[Super Nomario]

I just feel like the Red Sox organization, and through a sympathetic process we as Red Sox fans, have lost appreciation for players who aren't complete packages.  Someone else on here recently made the comment about the FO focusing too much on what players can't do instead of on what they can, and that sums it up very well to me.  This organization hasn't built and managed a 25 man and 40 man roster of complimentary pieces the last two years.  Instead they've built a team posturing as having no holes across the board and then when those holes start to crop up they have no real response.  We've stopped entering the season with positional battles ongoing, planning for platoons, or even giving a veteran some run knowing the young guy behind him is going to take his job at the first signs of struggle.  The kinds of roster construction choices that result in the big payoffs of discovering a Josh Donaldson, Jose Bautista, David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, etc..  We don't get to find those guys if we never leave any positions open and we never stock the bench with guys who could fill such a role.

I think you have some selective memory here. The 2014 squad was expected to compete (we DID win the World Series in 2013, after all) but still handed opening day jobs to youngsters Bogaerts, Bradley, and Middlebrooks, and when things went south they played Holt, Vazquez, and Betts regularly. Isn't Holt pretty much exactly the kind of late-breakout player you keep pining for? The Sox also gave 18, 15, and 11 starts to De La Rosa, Workman, and Webster, respectively. That's quite a bit of playing time to young players, but you are complaining that they gave 107 PA to Allen Craig - who made the All-Star team one year earlier - instead of Brentz or Shaw.
 
This year, we saw Bogaerts, Betts, and Vazquez handed opening day jobs, with Holt and Swihart filling in shortly thereafter due to injury. Eduardo Rodriguez was the first pitching callup. Now we're seeing a bunch of AAAers getting some run in garbage time - Castillo, JBJ, Shaw, Johnson, and Owens.
 
Obviously the front office has failed in a lot of their free agent acquisitions, but I disagree that haven't made opportunities for young players and prospects. No, they haven't intentionally left a bunch of holes on the team, but the problem with leaving intentional holes is that usually you find a couple unexpected holes that you need to fill anyway. The 2013 team was able to weather disasters at 3B and closer (Bailey and Hanrahan) because they were strong and deep; the 2015 team fell apart when Napoli and Sandoval struggled, because they were already going into the year suspect at C, RF, and SP.
 

A large part of this falls on the FO for stuffing the roster full of multi-millionaires in my opinion.  They'd rather trade for and play Allen Craig's corpse than promote Travis Shaw or Bryce Brentz (last season).  If you're a Sox farmhand and you're a consensus top 100 talent they'll clear a roster spot for you with a bulldozer and damn the safety nets.  If you're a Sox farmhand who hasn't gotten quite so much love and adulation from the prospect focused press however you better save up for when you move to your next team because the Red Sox sure as hell aren't going to give you the time of day.  Which is a shame because for a long time now the big claim to fame of this farm system was the top to bottom depth it held.  Depth we've never been willing to use as anything other than trade filler.

I think this is just reality. If you're a super-prospect, major league teams will clear the way for you. If you're not, you're either going to have to produce at the minor league level or you're going to have to catch a break or two.

 

[alwyn96]

 
I like this post, specifically the bolded. I think its not only a strong rebuttal to my proposition that Shaw faces long odds, but an important contribution since the consensus on here tends to overlook the populations you are talking about (lower defensive spectrum position players, older prospects).
 
I don't like some of the comparisons. Specifically Iglesias who was much younger in the minors, and Reddick whose numbers were similar but who was younger and whose scouting report was much more glowing. But Moss and Murphy are good calls. Both would be a big win for us.
 
If he proves to be a decent play against righties I'll be thrilled. Scales down the task ahead of us in the offseason and gives us a backup at 3B.

 
I'm not sure it's that good a rebuttal to the idea that Shaw has long odds. 
 
In order to calculate the how well low-pedigree, older, middling minor league stats-for-position players work out, you would want both the numerator (guys who fit Shaw's description who have worked out, which we've sort of touched on here) and well as the denominator (all the guys who fit Shaw's description: guys who had some definition of success + guys who never did anything). The fact that a few guys who may or may not be similar to Shaw had some success tells us that it's not impossible that Shaw could be something, but if they come from a vast denominator of players who never made it, then he would certainly face tough chances (I'm trying to avoid the word odds because that has a specific statistical meaning that I don't want to get in to).
 
So if there's a pool of 100 guys roughly comparable to Shaw, and like 10 of them meet some definition of "working out", that's a 10% chance that he works out. Or a 90% chance he doesn't, if you want to go the other way. I just made those numbers up, of course, because it would be a lot of work to actually get that answer and I have enough actual paid work to do, but I wouldn't be surprised if those weren't too far off from Shaw's chances. 
 
EDIT: FWIW, Moss was a legit prospect at one point, BA's #72, as was Reddick at #58. David Murphy was a 1st rounder, the 17th overall pick in 2003. All had much better pedigree than Shaw.
 
EDIT2: Also, I'll say that even actually hitting well in AAA doesn't mean much if a player is older and a 1B: 
 
AAA International League OPS Leaders:
2008: Dan Johnson, Mike Hessman, Jeff Bailey
2009: Kevin Barker, Matt LaPorta, Shelly Duncan
2010: Barbaro Canizares, Jose Constanza, Freddie Freeman
2011: Russ Canzler, Jeremy Hermida, Brandon Guyer
2012: Mauro Gomez, Corey Brown, Dan Johnson
 
Now Freddie Freeman is awesome, but he crushed it as a 20 year old. Guyer is ok, but is a solid defensive OF capable of playing CF. LaPorta used to have some prospect buzz but was severely defensively limited and never hit in MLB. Dan Johnson had a few ok years and has really bounced around. Shelley Duncan had two ok half-seasons. Of course, all these guys hit a hell of a lot better in AAA than Shaw. If the debate is whether Shaw is a good bet to become Shelley Duncan, whose best season came at age 30, then I'm not sure that's the most reliable way for the Red Sox to go. But hell, I'm all for giving Shaw a chance when it doesn't mean much. It would be a great story of beating the odds.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
I'm not sure it's that good a rebuttal to the idea that Shaw has long odds. 
 
In order to calculate the how well low-pedigree, older, middling minor league stats-for-position players work out, you would want both the numerator (guys who fit Shaw's description who have worked out, which we've sort of touched on here) and well as the denominator (all the guys who fit Shaw's description: guys who had some definition of success + guys who never did anything). The fact that a few guys who may or may not be similar to Shaw had some success tells us that it's not impossible that Shaw could be something, but if they come from a vast denominator of players who never made it, then he would certainly face tough chances (I'm trying to avoid the word odds because that has a specific statistical meaning that I don't want to get in to).
 
So if there's a pool of 100 guys roughly comparable to Shaw, and like 10 of them meet some definition of "working out", that's a 10% chance that he works out. Or a 90% chance he doesn't, if you want to go the other way. I just made those numbers up, of course, because it would be a lot of work to actually get that answer and I have enough actual paid work to do, but I wouldn't be surprised if those weren't too far off from Shaw's chances. 
 
EDIT: FWIW, Moss was a legit prospect at one point, BA's #72, as was Reddick at #58. David Murphy was a 1st rounder, the 17th overall pick in 2003. All had much better pedigree than Shaw.

 
I read his/her post not as being "Shaw has a good chance of making it", but rather: "Shaw does not have much of a chance of making it, but if we are to find serviceable players and late bloomers at the margins, we need to keep them around for a while, because we aren't going to know at 24, and if possible (in a lost season) it is worth giving them a chance all the same." I think that is a salient point.
 
I mean, who has been productive for the club this year? Holt? De Aza? As much as you want to plan everything, keeping players around in the organization longer helps you find the random overperformers and build the "deep depth" that was the club's mantra in a very successful 2013. I still doubt he becomes anything, but an MLB platoon bat with positional flexibility is exactly the kind of unglamorous yet useful piece we have suffered from being unable to develop. So I'm gonna stop b*tching and cheer for the kid.

 

[alwyn96]

 
I read his/her post not as being "Shaw has a good chance of making it", but rather: "Shaw does not have much of a chance of making it, but if we are to find serviceable players and late bloomers at the margins, we need to keep them around for a while, because we aren't going to know at 24, and if possible (in a lost season) it is worth giving them a chance all the same." I think that is a salient point.
 
I mean, who has been productive for the club this year? Holt? De Aza? As much as you want to plan everything, keeping players around in the organization longer helps you find the random overperformers and build the "deep depth" that was the club's mantra in a very successful 2013. I still doubt he becomes anything, but an MLB platoon bat with positional flexibility is exactly the kind of unglamorous yet useful piece we have suffered from being unable to develop. So I'm gonna stop b*tching and cheer for the kid.

 
Oh, ok. I don't think anyone's advocating not having Travis Shaw around the organization - especially not with his current MLB OPS the way it is (awesome in 25 PA). I'm cheering for him too, although I hope the FO would be considering better future alternatives. 

 

[Ale Xander]

Is there any MLB team that has one guy for the minors and another for the majors? 
 
Would be difficult with trades, and decision-making in general, but having Ben be in charge of drafting and the minor league system and Dave D for the major league roster could be a progressive answer to our problems, at least in theory if not in practice?  Each working with their strengths? 
 
and would Ben accept a demotion if the alternative is a firing? 

 

[In my lifetime]

As part of the process to righting this ship, shouldn't De Aza, who is a free agent next year and should have some value, be shipped out. It would also eliminate any reason to not playing JBJ and/or Castillo, which would allow the RS to at least get a better look at what they have in the IF in 2016.

I understand that he will not bring back a top prospect, but some reasonable lottery ticket is better than nothing in about a month. Heck maybe they can combine Napoli with him and at least dump maximum salary to let them reset luxury cap penalty allowing them to go over next year with a lower tax rate.

I will be disappointed if the Red Sox don't at least turn some of these short term rentals into something of value. I am sure BC is trying, but it is time to get something done.

 

[soxhop411]

“@brianmacp: Cherington did not sound like the plan is to move Ramirez or Sandoval to another position in the second half. His words:”
“@brianmacp: ”We’re more focused on how we continue to help guys in the spots they’re in show us what they can do, figure out what their ceilings are.“”

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

“@brianmacp: Cherington did not sound like the plan is to move Ramirez or Sandoval to another position in the second half. His words:”
“@brianmacp: ”We’re more focused on how we continue to help guys in the spots they’re in show us what they can do, figure out what their ceilings are.“”

 
Well, clearly there's no reason to move Pablo, because the only place you could move him is 1B or DH, and his offense plays badly enough at 3B. 
 
In the case of Hanley, I think that's a reasonable position. You might as well give him the rest of the year to see if he can make himself into a decent LF--especially because the truth is that as soon as Papi retires he becomes the DH anyway, so it's not like he's a long-term solution at any defensive position.

 

[Sampo Gida]

 
Well, clearly there's no reason to move Pablo, because the only place you could move him is 1B or DH, and his offense plays badly enough at 3B. 
 
In the case of Hanley, I think that's a reasonable position. You might as well give him the rest of the year to see if he can make himself into a decent LF--especially because the truth is that as soon as Papi retires he becomes the DH anyway, so it's not like he's a long-term solution at any defensive position.

 
Well, he won't be long time at DH either since I doubt Papi retires so long as his options vest.  It is very likely Hanley will only be DH the last year of his contract plus another if his option vests for 2019.

 

[jscola85]

 
Well, clearly there's no reason to move Pablo, because the only place you could move him is 1B or DH, and his offense plays badly enough at 3B. 
 
In the case of Hanley, I think that's a reasonable position. You might as well give him the rest of the year to see if he can make himself into a decent LF--especially because the truth is that as soon as Papi retires he becomes the DH anyway, so it's not like he's a long-term solution at any defensive position.

 
Given the tremendous struggles Hanley has faced learning a new position this year, changing him to another entirely new one at 1B during the same year could be just as disastrous.  Unless Ortiz gets hurt and opens up DH plate appearances, there's not a huge cost to playing Hanley another two months out in left at this point to see if something miraculously clicks.  Furthermore, one of the options, though not popular here, is possibly moving Hanley back to third, a position which he at least has some experience playing, which you cannot do unless Sandoval moves or is traded.

 

[NDame616]

 
Well, he won't be long time at DH either since I doubt Papi retires so long as his options vest.  It is very likely Hanley will only be DH the last year of his contract plus another if his option vests for 2019.

 
Well, that and the fact he's probably been one of the Red So best hitters this season. He has a .937 OPS vs righties this year and will probably get close to 30 HRs. As long as he keeps doing this for, there's no way he retires.
 
If Ortiz was a free agent this season, he'd be re-upped by the Sox without question

 

[RedOctober3829]

McAdam is on Toucher and Rich and he seems pretty confident that Hanley will be at 1B next season.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

How about using the Royals Method 2014 (as copied by the MFY in 2015) to cover up a weak rotation with a stockpiled bullpen? And might there already be some smoke to this idea with rumors of the Sox pursuing Kimbrel at the deadline?
 
Of course, it's obvious that even if you employ this method and devote resources to it (trade solid prospects, spend $$), you're only turning bad pitching into middle of the pack pitching -- which must be accompanied by great defense and team speed (Royals) or a lineup of mashers (MFY) for any ultimate success. And the jury's out on how effective it can be in the postseason. Royals went pretty far with it last year (though could've been bumped in the WC game) and the MFY may not even hold off Toronto in the division.
 
Still, if there's a question here -- it's would this be a prudent tack for 2016 in the absence of spending big on FA pitchers or swinging some mega-deal for a young ace? Would you be okay with a deal for Kimbrel-Shields in exchange for some fairly choice prospects: JBJ, Margot, Guerra, Cecchini, Light, etc.?
 
Line up Taz-Koji-Kimbrel (or Chapman) to try and win games 5-4 or 6-5 after the sixth inning? 

 

[jscola85]

How about using the Royals Method 2014 (as copied by the MFY in 2015) to cover up a weak rotation with a stockpiled bullpen? And might there already be some smoke to this idea with rumors of the Sox pursuing Kimbrel at the deadline?
 
(FWIW, I made an attempt to parse ERA and xFIP on FanGraphs to illustrate the gap between, say, Yankee starters and their A bullpen this year, but I suck at trying to play SABR Guy, so I'll save myself the shredding. I think it's clear on its face, though, that the decent-to-meh-to-bleh effectiveness of Tanaka (3.84 ERA), Pineda (3.97), Eovaldi (4.30) and CC (5.34) with Nova at 3.10 but SSS, has been papered over with a lights-out bullpen.)
 
Of course, it's obvious that even if you employ this method and devote resources to it (trade solid prospects, spend $$), you're only turning bad pitching into middle of the pack pitching -- which must be accompanied by great defense and team speed (Royals) or a lineup of mashers (MFY) for any ultimate success. And the jury's out on how effective it can be in the postseason. Royals went pretty far with it last year (though could've been bumped in the WC game) and the MFY may not even hold off Toronto in the division.
 
Still, if there's a question here -- it's would this be a prudent tack for 2016 in the absence of spending big on FA pitchers or swinging some mega-deal for a young ace? Would you be okay with a deal for Kimbrel-Shields in exchange for some "fairly" choice prospects: JBJ, Margot, Cecchini, Light, etc.?
 
Line up Taz-Koji-Kimbrel to try and win Porcello, Wright and Miley games 5-4 or 6-5 after the sixth inning? 

 
Well, the Royals built their bullpen primarily out of homegrown arms (Holland, Herrera, Hochevar) plus a guy they acquired via trade in Davis.  The back-end arms like Morales and Madson were picked up off the scrap heap, a la Ryan Cook and Jean Maachi.  It's great to find diamonds in the rough like that, but they have in part succeeded because the front-end young talent like Holland/Herrera/Davis/Hochevar have been so good, allowing the organization to use the mop-up rolls to figure out whether guys like Morales and Madson have anything left during low-leverage situations.
 
The Red Sox do not have any home-grown power bullpen arms in the majors except for Tazawa.  There are guys like Hembree, Barnes and Light in AAA who could figure things out in 2016, and there's of course a guy like Joe Kelly who could be the next Wade Davis/Andrew Miller, but it's hard to predict that many or even any of those guys will turn into key cogs of the 2016 bullpen.
 
For 2016, this team has Koji, a reliable if unspectacular setup man in Tazawa, and a 2nd lefty in Layne, but nothing else.  They likely will need to produce a lefty power arm to pair with Taz, and another righty who can be relied upon in moderately high leverage situations and maybe close if Koji gets hurt or finally submits to Father Time.
 
EDIT - forgot Koji's deal runs one more year.

 

[dynomite]

McAdam is on Toucher and Rich and he seems pretty confident that Hanley will be at 1B next season.

I sure hope so, although I worry about the potential for injury and his continued decline.

If he moves to 1B, the 2016 lineup is basically set, with a much more reasonable group of OF candidates to choose from.

If he stays in LF, we need to find a 1B and will still have a logjam in RF.

How about using the Royals Method 2014 (as copied by the MFY in 2015) to cover up a weak rotation with a stockpiled bullpen? And might there already be some smoke to this idea with rumors of the Sox pursuing Kimbrel at the deadline?
 
...Would you be okay with a deal for Kimbrel-Shields in exchange for some fairly choice prospects: JBJ, Margot, Guerra, Cecchini, Light, etc.?
 
Line up Taz-Koji-Kimbrel (or Chapman) to try and win games 5-4 or 6-5 after the sixth inning? 

I like the bullpen strategy, particularly given the state of the market with respect to frontline SPs, who are either unavailable or cost an absolute fortune.

Personally, I still think taking Shields and Kimbrel from San Diego makes all kinds of sense for the Sox. It helps solve 2 of the 2016 team's biggest holes, and given the salary relief to the Padres will probably come at some discount. I understand Shields wants to be on the West Coast and can opt out, but is he really willing to shed that much salary?

Also, if we can shed ourselves of Panda in the deal so much the better, from my perspective, but I'm happy with the deal regardless.

 

[The Tax Man]

Mark Schofield ditches ITP (temporarily) and joins the good guys at SoSH.com to write about "Next Year" and how it's inevitable and ultimately a good thing. 
 

I remember my first “next year” moment as if it were yesterday. A crisp, October morning at the breakfast table, my fingertips slowly became various shades of grey as I turned the pages of my childhood paper, read the titans of my youth, and tried to grasp just how the Boston Red Sox managed to lose a World Series when they were one strike away from winning so many times. I tried to reconcile my mind around how they would finally win, next year, but it was a resigned thought – not one from a position of confidence or strength.
 

 

[AB in DC]

Worth noting that the Sox regular fielding lineup this month has been:
 
C Swihart (age 23)
1B Shaw (25)
2B Holt (27)
SS Bogaerts (will be 23 in October)
3B Sandoval (29)
LF Bradley Jr (25)
CF Betts (will be 23 in October)
RF Castillo (28)
 
 
Plus all SPs are under 30 except for Wright.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Worth noting that the Sox regular fielding lineup this month has been:
 
C Swihart (age 23)
1B Shaw (25)
2B Holt (27)
SS Bogaerts (will be 23 in October)
3B Sandoval (29)
LF Bradley Jr (25)
CF Betts (will be 23 in October)
RF Castillo (28)
 
 
Plus all SPs are under 30 except for Wright.

Of course, you're leaving out Ortiz, our best hitter, who turns 40 this year, and Pedroia, arguably our second best hitter, who is injury prone (hence not in the regular lineup this month) and the wrong side of 30.
 
And Sandoval seems like an awfully old 29.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Of course, you're leaving out Ortiz, our best hitter, who turns 40 this year, and Pedroia, arguably our second best hitter, who is injury prone (hence not in the regular lineup this month) and the wrong side of 30.
 
And Sandoval seems like an awfully old 29.

But it doesn't leave out the fact the future's core is likely getting daily playing time now.

Hopefully, the next six weeks will help the Sox chart a good course in the offseason, to put the Sox into position to make the most of the fact that the team's young, both winning often, and for many years to come.