they should simply blow the team up all the way (not just half way), trade off the rest of what they have that is useful and "of a certain age" (that includes Pedroia), and just build a contender from the ground up.

That would certainly have been interesting. But it is easier to build a contender from where they are now than from absolute bottom, even with the trade returns from the sell-off. If they traded away Pedroia and Lester, they would immediately be trying to find players exactly like Pedroia and Lester. Signing Napoli now doesn't impede any rebuild, especially compared to trading a prospect for the mythical available 1B who is younger and better.

How often does that work? I don't expect the Sox to contend in 2013 but 2014 and

But that's kind of my point. If they're not going to contend in 2013 and 2014 - and I agree that they're not - then WTF are they signing Napoli-1B for?

If they want to go the Napoli route, fine, but then they really do need to sign Hamilton and Greinke and maybe trade for one more impact player - maybe take on a bad contract to do it. They have the money.

Ray, I think you are grossly over-rating the amount of talent in MLB. Napoli is a solidly above average player. Ross may be the best platoon C in the game.

I think the problem is that if you have too many above average players, then you start running out of places to play stars. The Red Sox can now expect non-star level production from 3B, SS, C, 1B, LF and probably RF. Ortiz is a star DH, but that adds less value than a star anywhere else. Who knows what Ellsbury is?

2.5 stars might be all you really need to have one of the better lineups in the game, but it isn't very exciting.

Takes the focus off that single shiny year.

To expand on this. Fully half of all free agent signings are objectively bad deals (or at least that was true the last time I checked and I've seen no evidence that it's changed in recent years) and I think you'll find a over-weighting of the best case is a factor. I've argued that a slight systemic pessimism is a good way to start. (And it's really only a slight systemic under-valuing)

To counter this I also favor paying a premium for elite players. Yeah, some don't work out but as a group great players hold a higher percentage of their value for a longer period. The further you go down the ladder the more you're likely to regret a signing(some real great signings are undervalued part-timers or minor league free agents. But the Phelpsers are harder to find these days). If systemic pessimism keeps you from signing a second tier player that's generally a good thing (and yes, a decent team with a real hole can get a lot of value from the right second tier player. Guidelines only)

To be clear, I agree with you guys that Napoli at 1B is okay. Meh, whatever. But since he's not an impact player (at 1B) and he's not a young player, they're not at the right place in the cycle for him. If you're a team that is expecting to win in 2013 or 2014, you sign him. But they can't seriously believe that they are that team.

But that's kind of my point. If they're not going to contend in 2013 and 2014 - and I agree that they're not - then WTF are they signing Napoli-1B for?

His post said he expected them to contend in 2014.

His post said he expected them to contend in 2014.

Right, sorry, I misread that.

If you're a team that is expecting to win in 2013 or 2014, you sign him. But they can't seriously believe that they are that team.

I think most of the regular Sox-fan posters here (based on their comments the past few months) believe that competing for the playoffs in 2014 is perfectly within reason. I think there are even a couple (MCoA?) that think they'll still be in the hunt for the 2nd wild card in 2013, with a few things breaking right.

As the leader of the "sign Anibal Sanchez dammit" brigade, this is pretty disheartening:

from MLBTradeRumors

Although the Red Sox have interest in Sanchez, the price might be too high for their liking, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. Boston may look at Kyle Lohse as an alternative, though the club is focused on adding offense for now.

But since he's not an impact player and he's not a young player, they're not at the right place in the cycle for him. If you're a team that is expecting to win in 2013 or 2014, you sign him. But they can't seriously believe that they are that team.

I seriously do think they are that team. I think the Sox should project to win 80-85 games in 2013. With a bit of good luck, they could contend. It should be expected, given the Sox' resources and current excellent minor league system, that they build a contending team in 2014.

I will say, if I saw the Red Sox as a hopeless case headed for 70 wins next year, I would also oppose the Napoli signing. If the Sox are that bad, they should be blown up.

However, the 2012 Sox underplayed expected wins by 5-7 games. Plus they had terrible injury problems and ended up fielding replacement-level performers at a number of positions. Plus they got terrible performances from some of their better players, who will project to improve next year. Plus Bobby Valentine. Gonzalez is a big loss, and even Gonzalez->Napoli is maybe a 2-win downgrade. But I see the Sox currently as a 75-80 win club that is going to add several more solid major league players before the offseason is over. They're on track to be non-sucky in 2013 and legitimate competitors for the division in 2014.

I think most of the regular Sox-fan posters here (based on their comments the past few months) believe that competing for the playoffs in 2014 is perfectly within reason. I think there are even a couple (MCoA?) that think they'll still be in the hunt for the 2nd wild card in 2013, with a few things breaking right.

Yeah that seems to be the common thinking: have hope for 2014, and success in 2013 is gravy. This timetable (if the org shares it) gives them more options to acquire that needed star(s) mentioned by Ray in #102 - they can conceivably get Hamilton now, or whoever is available via trade in-season, or acquire someone next offseason. In the meanwhile, they should still try to improve the team for 2013 in ways that don't impede the future.

...Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. Boston may look at Kyle Lohse...

Agent: Scott Boras

But that's kind of my point. If they're not going to contend in 2013 and 2014 - and I agree that they're not - then WTF are they signing Napoli-1B for?

If they want to go the Napoli route, fine, but then they really do need to sign Hamilton and Greinke and maybe trade for one more impact player - maybe take on a bad contract to do it. They have the money.

First of all I think they should be contending in 2014. I agree they need an impact player though. One of the reasons I hated the trade at the time (and still do) is that I don't really feel great about overspending on Hamilton or taking on a bad contract to land some other star, I would have preferred to ride with Gonzalez.

That ship has sailed though. Adding Napoli isn't a bad thing. He doesn't block anyone in the minors, the earliest Travis Shaw is ready is late 2014 and if he becomes a slugger then Napoli can DH in 2015 with Shaw at 1st base. Yeah, they've "blocked" first base from acquiring a star in a trade but who are these stars they are going to get? The first basemen with an OPS+ of 120 or better the last three years are;

Cabrera
Votto
Pujols
Fielder
Konerko
Gonzalez
Butler
Morneau
Goldschmidt
Teixeira
Howard

Butler and Goldschmidt are potentially available but presumably would cost something meaningful in talent. Frankly, the next group between 110-120 is probably where you find some potentially interesting guys; Ike Davis, Trumbo, Belt, but I don't see a major star in that group. I don't think the Sox are well served just punting 2013 for the hell of it. If they had a first baseman ready to go in the minors (say a Parmalee type) I'd like to give him a run out much the way I'd like to see them do with Kalish and Iglesias, but playing a 30 year old Mauro Gomez or someone of that ilk doesn't do it for me. Napoli doesn't block anyone, he doesn't tie up money of any consequence.

they should still try to improve the team for 2013 in ways that don't impede the future

I am convinced that improving for next year never impedes the future. What's the best example of a bad team that signed a player or players to effect modest improvements, but therefore cut themselves off from longterm contention? There have been ghastly FA signings by bad clubs (Derek Bell might be the nadir standard), but they've been bad because the players were fixing to be bad anyway, and fulfilled their rotten promise. I'm trying to think of a bad team that signed a reasonably good player who lived up to reasonably good potential, but then hamstrung his team for the future in the course of and by virtue of being decent over a term of years. If there are examples of this, I'm all ears :)

Even if you don't think the Sox will be able to contend during this window (I think they can, but reasonable person can disagree) - this deal still makes sense from a MR/MC cost perspective. This isn't the NBA - we need to customize what the success cycle means on a team by team basis.

I agree with jmurph (109.) I strongly suspect that the Sox' current approach is to sign just enough players to appear marginally credible and milk the franchise's cash flow to bail out Henry's bad investments (including Liverpool) and expensive wife.

If they can't afford to sign Napoli and Sanchez, they should not have signed Napoli. Sanchez is much younger, a Sox prospect who was unfortunately traded in the Beckett deal, and well worth signing for a long term deal at less than or around the $13mm/year they are giving Napoli. If Sanchez gets over 6/100, there's an excuse for not signing him, but not otherwise.

I am convinced that improving for next year never impedes the future. What's the best example of a bad team that signed a player or players to effect modest improvements, but therefore cut themselves off from longterm contention? There have been ghastly FA signings by bad clubs (Derek Bell might be the nadir standard), but they've been bad because the players were fixing to be bad anyway, and fulfilled their rotten promise. I'm trying to think of a bad team that signed a reasonably good player who lived up to reasonably good potential, but then hamstrung his team for the future in the course of and by virtue of being decent over a term of years. If there are examples of this, I'm all ears :)

I generally agree with you. I think most of the examples of foolishly going for short-term improvement instead of future concerns would be trades, not FA signings. But maybe there were some in which teams signed a closer to a 1-year deal and lost a compensation draft pick.

I strongly suspect that the Sox' current approach is to sign just enough players to appear marginally credible and milk the franchise's cash flow to bail out Henry's bad investments

Out of curiosity, why didn't this happen when you predicted it after 2005? or 2006? What is different now than when you predicted after 2007? Why didn't it happen as you said it would after 2008, 2009, and 2010? If your reasoning led you to be completely and undeniably wrong for so many years, why do you still trust it?

FWIW, the BJ projection: .248 .350 .498...which I'd take. I guess. I assume thats not for Fenway.
The Sox have a lot of muscular, lumbering, bad baserunner guys now: Papi, Gomes, Lavarnaway, Salty, Ross, Napoli. These ARE your father's Red Sox.
Get some athletes Ben?

However, the 2012 Sox underplayed expected wins by 5-7 games. Plus they had terrible injury problems and ended up fielding replacement-level performers at a number of positions. Plus they got terrible performances from some of their better players, who will project to improve next year. Plus Bobby Valentine. Gonzalez is a big loss, and even Gonzalez->Napoli is maybe a 2-win downgrade. But I see the Sox currently as a 75-80 win club that is going to add several more solid major league players before the offseason is over. They're on track to be non-sucky in 2013 and legitimate competitors for the division in 2014.

Thats kinda how I see it. And I think they're gonna make a "splash" move.

The Sox have a lot of muscular, lumbering, bad baserunner guys now: Papi, Gomes, Lavarnaway, Salty, Ross, Napoli. These ARE your father's Red Sox.

It looks like the Sox will have "I'm a ballplayer not an athlete" running out there at C, 1B, LF, and DH most of next year. Ross and Lavarnway seem like the most likely C arrangement (with Salty traded for spare parts), and Gomes will be platooning with somebody in LF. Maybe Nava, most likely someone cheapish with a bat and not too much glove.

Now they need a right fielder, a shortstop, and a starting pitcher. Two of those three at least should be athletes.

It looks like the Sox will have "I'm a ballplayer not an athlete" running out there at C, 1B, LF, and DH most of next year.

Isn't that true of most teams? Certainly three of those four positions are almost always held by guys who are not out there for their wheels.

I am convinced that improving for next year never impedes the future. What's the best example of a bad team that signed a player or players to effect modest improvements, but therefore cut themselves off from longterm contention? There have been ghastly FA signings by bad clubs (Derek Bell might be the nadir standard), but they've been bad because the players were fixing to be bad anyway, and fulfilled their rotten promise. I'm trying to think of a bad team that signed a reasonably good player who lived up to reasonably good potential, but then hamstrung his team for the future in the course of and by virtue of being decent over a term of years. If there are examples of this, I'm all ears :)

Concur 100%

Nate, Henry's hedge funds have been declining since around 2006, as I spotted at the time (not remarkable prescience, just a general knowledge of the financial biz.) And he's now announced he's shutting them down. Meanwhile Liverpool loses money and the wife is relatively new. Cash flow constraints have been potential for several years; they have now become acute; thus the LA trade, which the Kool-Aid drinkers have lapped up. I thought at the time it was doubtful they would replace the players with equal value, and they don't seem to be doing, though we'll know more soon.

Nate, Henry's hedge funds have been declining since around 2006, as I spotted at the time (not remarkable prescience, just a general knowledge of the financial biz.) And he's now announced he's shutting them down. Meanwhile Liverpool loses money and the wife is relatively new.

But after being heroically inaccurate about how Henry's outside financial endeavors will affect the Sox for so many consecutive years it is hard to see how you would have a shred of confidence in your own predicting ability concerning these matters to declare anything whatsoever on the topic, even with the Dodgers trade.

On the contrary, having forecast the problem several years in advance, I am now confident in identifying it. Sox need new ownership and probably a new GM.

Nate, don't feed the troll.

That ship has sailed though. Adding Napoli isn't a bad thing. He doesn't block anyone in the minors, the earliest Travis Shaw is ready is late 2014 and if he becomes a slugger then Napoli can DH in 2015 with Shaw at 1st base. Yeah, they've "blocked" first base from acquiring a star in a trade but who are these stars they are going to get? The first basemen with an OPS+ of 120 or better the last three years are;

Your analysis is excellent, except for this point. signing Napoli doesn't block the Sox from doing anything. He's eminently tradable under this deal, they can or they can also play him to C, and DH (over time, Papi ain't lasting forever) to make room for anyone, even Votto if he fell into their lap.

While I agree with Karl's contention Henry must be really strapped now, whether they have their prior resources or not they have to field a better team before they can field a great one, and "Bear" Napoli will help them improve and also fill the seats with an under appreciated fan base.

On the contrary, having forecast the problem several years in advance, I am now confident in identifying it. Sox need new ownership and probably a new GM.

What about those unambiguously wrong predictions that you have been giving about the Sox payroll for the past 8 years? What about those numerous completely inaccurate and false forecasts that you made? How many more consecutive failures of analysis will you need to have before suspecting that you have less than no expertise concerning how Henry's outside finances affect the Sox' payroll?

Nate, A trader I used to work with was well known among my clients for never being wrong, just early.

It looks like the Sox will have "I'm a ballplayer not an athlete" running out there at C, 1B, LF, and DH most of next year. Ross and Lavarnway seem like the most likely C arrangement (with Salty traded for spare parts), and Gomes will be platooning with somebody in LF. Maybe Nava, most likely someone cheapish with a bat and not too much glove.

I am guessing Nava and Sweeney (assuming they offer him arb?) will fight it out for the privilege of being Jonny Gomes' platoon partner.

I remain irrationally hopeful that a trade for Justin Upton is on the horizon, although that seems less likely now that Arizona dealt Chris Young. I am a big Dexter Fowler fan, but the only way the Sox get him is to overwhelm the Rockies with prospects or hope they buy out his arb years with a new contract and then immediately decide he's too expensive. Hamilton is the elephant in the room for the RF job, but if the Sox are prepared to go down that path it's not clear to me that they'd be a whole lot better off than if they'd just stuck with Gonzo.

Hamilton is the elephant in the room for the RF job, but if the Sox are prepared to go down that path it's not clear to me that they shouldn't have just stuck with Gonzo.

Really? If you could use Gonzalez to rid yourself of Crawford, and replace him with Hamilton at a similar AAV, that's seems to be a pretty big win.

Sweeney was non-tendered.

Hamilton is the elephant in the room for the RF job, but if the Sox are prepared to go down that path it's not clear to me that they shouldn't have just stuck with Gonzo.

Hamilton could indeed be a bad signing (though reports are that the Sox want him on a relatively short-term deal), but I don't think the Gonzo comparison entirely works. The Sox trade Gonzalez in order to get rid of Crawford and, to a lesser degree, Beckett. Gonzalez+Crawford were going to cost $43M, and not project to be that much better than Hamilton at $20M.

(coke to snapper)

As for Napoli-type talents clogging your team and preventing you from getting true stars on the field, I feel obliged to point out that the San Francisco Giants just won two out of the last three championships while having Buster Posey as their one and only bona fide star in the lineup.

Sweeney was non-tendered.

Ah, missed that. Thanks.

If they can get Hamilton to ink a high-dollar, short-term deal (what are we talking about here, 4 years or something?) then it's probably worth rolling the dice on him - and almost certainly a preferable scenario to standing pat and keeping Crawford and Beckett.

However, I have major reservations about Hamilton's health (compounded by the recent track record of the Sox medical team) and his ability to cope with the scrutiny that comes with playing baseball in Boston. If he's commanding the 6+ years / $100M+ contract that everyone thought he'd get, then that looks like another Crawford and Lackey disaster waiting to happen.

If he's commanding the 6+ years / $100M+ contract that everyone thought he'd get, then that looks like another Crawford and Lackey disaster waiting to happen.

Possibly, but the Red Sox are around as good a shape as a team can be to absorb a disaster right now. It's hard to absorb a Crawford AND a Lackey AND a lousy Beckett AND all your other stars playing poorly/injured, but just a few of those things the Red Sox can probably handle. They only have 2 guys signed past 2014 - Buchholz and (now) Napoli. Obviously they should stay careful, but this could be a pretty radically different team in the next few years. I mean, I guess they already are to some extent given the big trade, but I can't remember a Red Sox team with this many short-term/arb guys.

If they can get Hamilton to ink a high-dollar, short-term deal (what are we talking about here, 4 years or something?) then it's probably worth rolling the dice on him - and almost certainly a preferable scenario to standing pat and keeping Crawford and Beckett.

Both Olney and Bradford have reported that the Sox are looking at a short-term deal of four years or less.

The best conclusion here is that someone else will offer Hamilton fair market value and he'll take their contract instead. But a long-term deal with Hamilton seems unlikely, based on the reporting and on the many public statements by the front office about their concerns about long-term FA contracts.

The thing about Hamilton is that he is always going to be able to fall back on a sizable deal. Even if the market thins out a bit through other signings and trades he could land a 3/60 deal that is still pretty damn nice on the wallet so he can afford to do a Prince Fielder and wait until mid-January.

The first basemen with an OPS+ of 120 or better the last three years are;

You're unncessarily limiting yourself by including guys who are already first basemen. Anyone can play first. Nick Swisher can play first. Josh Hamilton can play first.

You're unncessarily limiting yourself by including guys who are already first basemen. Anyone can play first. Nick Swisher can play first. Josh Hamilton can play first.

With a gaping hole in RF, why would you sign either to play 1B? That just reduces their value.

You're unncessarily limiting yourself by including guys who are already first basemen. Anyone can play first. Nick Swisher can play first. Josh Hamilton can play first.

Fair enough. It doesn't change the general point though. Here is the list of all players with an OPS+ over 120 in the last three years (min. 1000 PA). Scanning quickly the FA available players are;

Hamilton
Napoli
Swisher
Youkilis
Melky (available when the off-season started)

Add in a few guys who could be had in trade;

Butler
Choo
J. Upton
Morneau

I may be missing a few but it's not like there is a ton of available players out there. One of the reasons Napoli is so appealing is that he is "free", no compensation, no player in return and that is not insignificant. I mean, if the Sox could land Butler great but the talent in return would make it much more costly.

You're unncessarily limiting yourself by including guys who are already first basemen. Anyone can play first. Nick Swisher can play first. Josh Hamilton can play first.

Yeah, although if you're trying to get a sense of "guys who will see most of their time at 1B in 2013-2014," I think Jose's original is still a fair comparison.

Nick Swisher can play first. Josh Hamilton can play first

I realize that's purely a sake-of-argument comment, but: Swisher already plays 1B fairly often, and Hamilton's only experience of the infield is running bases. I can't think of a player I would less want to train to play the infield at this point in his life.

I can't think of a player I would less want to train to play the infield at this point in his life.

Bobby Jenks

Yeah, although if you're trying to get a sense of "guys who will see most of their time at 1B in 2013-2014," I think Jose's original is still a fair comparison.

I think the fact that the Red Sox signed someone to play first base in 2013-2014 who wasn't on that list tells you the universe needed to be expanded a bit.

However, I have major reservations about Hamilton's health (compounded by the recent track record of the Sox medical team) and his ability to cope with the scrutiny that comes with playing baseball in Bosto

The Boston-scrutiny thing is a complete non-issue. Major league players don't respond this way. It's a myth brought on by the fact that people think players are robots who must react in a certain way to certain circumstances.

It's a myth brought on by the fact that people think players are robots who must react in a certain way to certain circumstances.

Your position is that the people who think that players are robots are the ones who think they WILL have emotional responses to situations? This seems backwards to me.

The Boston-scrutiny thing is a complete non-issue. Major league players don't respond this way. It's a myth brought on by the fact that people think players are robots who must react in a certain way to certain circumstances.

I mostly agree in the case of Hamilton. This is a guy who has already been under lots of scrutiny throughout his baseball career and has played in 2 world series. He will play under a lot of scrutiny no matter where his next contract is signed, it would not be unique to Boston.