Adrian Gonzalez, away from Petco, lifetime: .306 .402 .643 1.0459 (!)

That's the elite bat we need. I'd move Buchholz, Elsbury and Bard+ for that. You almost have to.

Assuming no other signings (though Beltre seems like a definite possibility), here's the lineup we're looking at for 2010:

OF Ellsbury
2B Pedroia
C Martinez
3B Youkilis
DH Ortiz
RF Drew
OF Cameron
1B Kotchman
SS Scutaro

It's a pretty solid lineup, but if Ortiz falls off a cliff or Drew comes up lame for an extended stretch you're looking at a pretty thin middle of the order.

And this leaves out both Lowell and M. Ramirez, either of which (assuming Lowell is healthy enough to either hit or be traded) adds another RH bat to mix with the Varitek/Kotchman platoon and/or alternate with Ortiz.

If Drew is out for longer than expected you've still got Hermida who can step in without losing your lunch offensively though there'd be a defensive dropoff (perhaps offset by the possible arrangement of Hermida-Ellsbury-Cameron LF to RF).

I'll definitely take that lineup, particularly with the addition of a Beltre or other RH-batting corner infielder. Your middle of the lineup doesn't have to instill 'teh FEAR' if you've got a 1-9 that doesn't give away any outs. We all remember 2004, where Mark Bellhorn batted 2nd and Kevin Millar was the most frequent hitter batting 5th, 6th, and 7th in that lineup.

B-R has his career road numbers at 300/370/565. Still very, very good, but not "elite" in my book.

EDIT: What you've got there are his 2009 splits.

Which means they gave him a contract, which he must either sign or take to arbitration. So yes, he's signed.

Though only the first month of that contract is guaranteed at this point.

103-yes, my bad. Emily Litella then.

Your middle of the lineup doesn't have to instill 'teh FEAR' if you've got a 1-9 that doesn't give away any outs. We all remember 2004, where Mark Bellhorn batted 2nd and Kevin Millar was the most frequent hitter batting 5th, 6th, and 7th in that lineup.

Is this a non sequitur? I do remember 2004, when Manny and Ortiz were basically in their primes and Damon led off. I'm pretty sure that lineup did, in fact, instill 'teh Fear.' I'll be happy if they sign Beltre and think it could be a more fun team than last year's -- but the lineup will almost certainly pale in comparison to 2004's.

It's not a non sequitur - the point is that an effective 7-9 can be as important as a FEARsome 3-6. The comment I responded to referenced a 'thin middle of the order'. I'm claiming that 2004's Bellhorn/Millar/Mueller bracketing Ortiz/Manny wasn't exactly a murderer's row, and that Pedroia/Martinez/Youkilis/Ortiz/Cameron/Drew compares favorably or adequately with that section of the 2004 lineup.

Is it more emotionally satisfying to root for a team that wins 95 games by scoring 900 runs than one that scores 800 or fewer? My thinking is this: when the pitching fails for the 900 run team, you can always say to yourself "we've got a shot." You watch games knowing they could score 4 or 5 at any point. When you root for a team that is dependent on pitching, there's not that satisfaction. If the pitching flounders at the beginning of a game, you are much less likely to think that could happen. I suppose the converse is that there are many more close games when you have a team that pitches well and scores fewer runs.

Still, as a fan, I find myself easily frustrated when the bats aren't clicking. With the pitching there's always a change in who is pitching. Lester comes up in the rotation, I know it'll be much better than when Penny was in the rotation, or likely to be much better. With the bats struggling, however, I know I have to see those same schmucks come up to bat the next day, next innings, etc.

As to the PJ/Petunia debate, I think Petunia's point that having average players around the diamond with some above average players can still be a very good lineup, but 2004 just wasn't a great example. That team had both all-stars and above average hitters around the diamond. Well save for Pokey Reese.

The Sox could use a 5th OF. Is Kallish it?

The Sox could use a 5th OF. Is Kallish it?

Do you mean on the 25-man? There isn't room for more than one backup outfielder on the 25-man (unless either the backup 1B or backup 2B/SS is also an outfielder).

The next Red Sox OF in line for a call-up from AAA would probably be Reddick, but it could be Kalish or whichever random AAAA bats the team picks up before spring.

Knowing that Francona likes a seven man pen and presuming they get a 1B/3B, right now the Sox bench would be:

LF Hermida
1B Kotchman
C Varitek
SS-3B-2B Lowrie

I normally prefer a five man bench, especially when most guys only play one position, but the flexibility of two true center fielders, a catcher who can play first, and a super-sub like Lowrie negate a lot of that. Hell, I bet Lowrie could even play the outfield. I see a lot of Mark DeRosa in him, if he ever gets healthy. Still, it would be nice to have a righty bat with pop to pinch hit for some of those lefties late in games. Somebody like Max Ramirez...

Bullpen currently looks like:

Papelbon
Bard
Okajima
Ramirez
Delcarmen
Wakefield
TBA

Not sure that Wakefield can/is willing to pitch out of the pen these days, but on paper he makes a lot of sense as a long man/spot starter in a bullpen full of one inning guys. It'd be nice to have another lefty fill that last spot, especially one who's tough on same-siders. Dustin Richardson is an interesting option -- he struck out 46 of the 112 lefties he faced in AA/AAA last year. He also had a 5.15 bb/9, so maybe not.

Do you mean on the 25-man?

Yeah, I did, and thanks for reminding me about that. And I actually meant Reddick (and not Kallish). All those 4th outfielder types the Red Sox keep churning out are starting to blend together in my mind.

The Sox could use a 5th OF. Is Kallish it?

I'd give Jed some OF reps in the spring, see how he reads balls out there. With the DH and 12 pitchers, you almost need a supersub, a Tony Phillips type who can play 5+ positions and get 300+ PAs filling in 1-3 times a week as needs arise and people go on the DL.

I'm not too happy about their position player moves, but the Lackey signing I like (if he stays healthy and the K rate holds of course). Otherwise I am getting some serious flashbacks to the 1998-2002 era club, constantly trying to plug leaks with various spare parts, career minor leaguers, and declining former-quasi-stars; if the farm had been more productive over the past 2 years or so they wouldn't be having to sign every Casey, Mike or Marco just to get some slightly-below-average guys in the lineup.

I wouldn't mind signing Xavier Nady to fill out the bench. He was hurt last year, but he's had some good seasons with the bat, and can play LF/RF/1B, not terribly well, but against lefties he should be a good option at 1B.

I think against lefties you mostly go Varitek, Martinez, Youkilis, don't you?

if the farm had been more productive over the past 2 years or so they wouldn't be having to sign every Casey, Mike or Marco just to get some slightly-below-average guys in the lineup.

Really? Kotchman came through trade as a backup 1B, and SS has been a black hole for this team since 2004. The Sox have been able to fill plenty of holes through homegrown talent lately, and particularly having pitching depth in the minors has meant Theo hasn't had to go to the free agent well except when he really wants to. I think the development system has been remarkably productive.

Yeah, it seems a little odd to be critical of the Sox farm system of recent years. Looking at the projected 2010 team: they've drafted and developed two All-Star/MVP candidate level infielders, one average CFer with plenty of promise to be better than average, one of the game's elite closers, a couple bullpen arms of varying usefulness, and 2/5ths of their starting rotation (one of whom is arguably among the ten best pitchers in the game, and both of whom have thrown no-hitters). Plus all the players traded for the likes of Josh Beckett, Victor Martinez, et al.

There can't be too many teams in baseball with a better record than that this decade. In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with a club that's produced more MLB talent from their own draftees in the Aughts. Maybe the Twins?

Red Sox Take Aim at Adrian Gonzalez

And so it begins.

Red Sox Take Aim at Adrian Gonzalez

Thoughts on this:
- Obviously they're going after him. I'm going to lower my mid-season prediction that there was an 87% chance of it happening, but I'd still put it at around 50 (obviously I'm just guessing).
- I know many folks here are excited by the Cameron-Drew-Ellsbury outfield, but it does seem unlikely that the Sox would enter 2010 without a single player who is likely to hit more than 30 homeruns. Unless they're counting on a big Ortiz bounceback. Maybe Victor?
- Say this goes through- Buchholz/Ellsbury/2 very good prospects. It's going to trigger at least a few more moves- another starter, another outfielder, etc. Would be a very interesting month or so.

Agree that the team would need at least another inning-eating starter if Buchholz is traded. Moving one SP would put Wake back at #5 and elevate the Bowden/Tazawa/Bonser group to 6-8, which I don't view as satisfactory (and I doubt Theo does either).

I still don't think Gonzalez is going to happen. And I don't get the love for Casey Kelly. If he's what it takes to get the Magic Pony deal done, I wouldn't hesitate for one second. And I'd trade him way before I'd do Westmoreland.

it does seem unlikely that the Sox would enter 2010 without a single player who is likely to hit more than 30 homeruns.

Why?

Per the globe:

According to Peter Gammons, the Red Sox offered Matt Holliday five years and $82.5 million. When he passed, they offered the same deal to John Lackey and he accepted. The Yankees did the same with Johnny Damon: they made him an offer and when he passed, they moved on.

Hm. That seems like an odd way to decide what to offer John Lackey. I would have gone a fair bit higher and longer for Holliday than Lackey.

Hm. That seems like an odd way to decide what to offer John Lackey. I would have gone a fair bit higher and longer for Holliday than Lackey.

I don't think that's how they decided what to offer Lackey. There was no small amount of talk that Lackey was looking at something in the Burnett neighborhood almost immediately when the off-season began.

Out of curiousity, how far would you have gone for Holliday? I'm high on him but anything more than six years takes you to an age range where I would get cold feet.

offered Matt Holliday five years and $82.5 million

I've said before that if Holliday could be had for 5 years and less than $100 million, he's worth it. More than five years and you end up paying $20 million to a guy who's not that good anymore, though.

I'd go at least to 6/100 for Holliday and I imagine that's about where they went. But when they gave this story to Gammons they weren't about to say "We offered Holliday more then gave less to Lackey because he's not as good."