I would love them to take a chance on Justin Duchscherer, if not him then Sheets or Harden.

The improvement otherwise will come incrementally, in pieces like Hermida.

Whose lesser at-bats does Hermida replace for that incremental gain?

Gammons: ...Epstein is going to sit down with Kelly in the next month and make it clear they want him to pitch, and the way he is growing -- they think he's going to be 6-foot-4 and grow into a power pitcher with exceptional feel and command -- he could be in Boston by the end of the 2010 season

This is the kind of #### that drives me nuts. Kelly is a really nice prospect, no doubt, but he's a 19 year old kid who's never pitched above A-ball. His K-rate was good, not great. He's got a long way to go to be a MLB "power pitcher", though I agree that his low BB rate bodes well for the odds of him pitching successfully in MLB.

But he's not the centerpiece to an Adrian Gonzalez deal, and he's not close to the bigs. Gammons is just a shill-- if you look, you can see some guy from ProJo using very, very similar language yesterday. Someone from Boston was spreading this around.

Other than left field, I do believe they’ll dabble in the bat world.

Not to be confused with Glove World.

Gammons is just a shill--

It's the nature of the business. You print most of the garbage the team wants you to print in the hopes that when something big comes, they throw you a bone and give you the scoop. Will Carroll made a name for himself doing exactly that.

Also, the quote said that San Diego wants Casey Kelly and Westmoreland and that the Sox were quoted as saying "they're the best we have and we're not trading them." There is no way that's true. If all it takes to get Gonzalez is Westmoreland and Kelly, the Sox do the deal in a heartbeat.

another low-risk, potentially high-reward move like they’ve made in the past with John Smoltz and Brad Penny, Curt Schilling and Bartolo Colon

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Also, the quote said that San Diego wants Casey Kelly and Westmoreland and that the Sox were quoted as saying "they're the best we have and we're not trading them." There is no way that's true. If all it takes to get Gonzalez is Westmoreland and Kelly, the Sox do the deal in a heartbeat.

I agree. My point was that they're trying to frame Kelly as being this super-untouchable-near-ready prospect. It's priming the pump for the off-season, when they shop him for Halladay/Gonzalez et al.

another low-risk, potentially high-reward move like they’ve made in the past with John Smoltz and Brad Penny, Curt Schilling and Bartolo Colon

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

John Smoltz has a normal-sized ass.

This does seem pretty consistent with Darren's take.

If they can put together one trade involving this year's Casey Kelly and Daniel Bard, last year's Lars Anderson, and the previous year's Craig Hansen, they might really end up with something valuable.

Someone from Boston was spreading this around.

What jumps out at me is that they are spreading around that they want him to be a pitcher. Seems backwards to put pressure on the kid to stick to pitching through the media before Epstein meets with him this offseason (if they are meeting at all, this could be just Gammons blowing smoke out of his ass).

if the Marlins would do Ross-Manny Delcarmen (whom they tried to get in July) swap

Good god sir, would you have us play no outfieldiers?

Then again, we would also then have to pay no outfielders, so it's possible. Maybin, get your legs in shape.

Edes: Their track record would almost certainly suggest another low-risk, potentially high-reward move like they’ve made in the past with John Smoltz and Brad Penny, Curt Schilling and Bartolo Colon.

I think after last season's negative VORP performance by Smoltz/Penny, we should reclassify these moves as "low-cost, potentially high-reward." Giving innings to pitchers who may or may not be fully healthy is risky when you're trying to make the playoffs.

To clarify on the Kelly thing, I think two statements of Gammons' ought to be distinguished:

(1)Epstein is going to sit down with Kelly in the next month and make it clear they want him to pitch, and the way he is growing -- they think he's going to be 6-foot-4 and grow into a power pitcher with exceptional feel and command -- he could be in Boston by the end of the 2010 season.

(2)I'm skeptical on a Gonzalez deal. "Jed [Hoyer] knows us too well," one Red Sox official told me earlier this month. "He's going to ask for Casey Kelly and Westmoreland and they're the best we have and we're not trading them."

I don't see anything at all objectionable in the first statement. Kelly's probably going to start 2010 at AA, and so obviously his current upside is a September call-up. There's nothing controversial there. The second statement is silly - Hoyer would obviously ask for more than that, and it seems like yet another moment of Gammons shilling for the current front office.

What do you guys think about the suggestion in the article that the Sox want to move Lowell to first and Youks to third? I worry that it will make the team slightly below average at two positions.

I worry that it will make the team slightly below average at two positions.

I guess the theory behind that is that Youk would have better defense at third if he got to play there all the time rather than just when V-Mart plays first and Lowell sits? That seems like a lot of moving parts to, at best, a marginal gain.

The second statement is silly - Hoyer would obviously ask for more than that, and it seems like yet another moment of Gammons shilling for the current front office.

Whats especially brash is trying to spin it this way: when no Adrian Gonzalez to Boston trade happens, it is because Boston wouldn't give up Kelly and Westmoreland, who are awesome super-prospects that the Padres GM badly wanted because as an ex-Sox guy he knows how super-duper they are.

What do you guys think about the suggestion in the article that the Sox want to move Lowell to first and Youks to third? I worry that it will make the team slightly below average at two positions.

Slightly below average defensively, right? Becuase if Youkilis maintained his current hitting, with below average but not bad 3B defense, he'd be a legitimate superstar. (Pretty much Alex Rodriguez.) And if Youkilis' power drops by ~50 points, as I expect, he'd still be a clear All-Star.

I think the idea is that Youkilis is a below-average but acceptable 3B, while Lowell is now a below average to bad 3B, who will probably get worse over the course of the season. But Lowell is incredibly sure-handed, which could well make him a solid 1B. It makes some sense.

EDIT: that is, the logic is Youkilis at 3B + Lowell at 1B > Lowell at 3B + Youkilis at 1B. Lowell, perhaps, might see a larger increase in his position-relative defensive value when moving from 3B to 1B than Youkilis would lose moving 1B to 3B. There's also value in locking guys in to a position, having Youkilis be able to spend all his defensive preparation and drills on playing third base instead of splitting between first base and third base.

The second statement is silly - Hoyer would obviously ask for more than that, and it seems like yet another moment of Gammons shilling for the current front office.

Is it really so hard to understand that Hoyer will ask for Kelly and Westmoreland as the big names in the package, and that it should just generally be understood that there will probably be some other players asked for/ involved?

Slightly below average defensively, right?

Yes. Sorry. I meant to add that to my post, but my son interrupted me and I forgot.

Is it really so hard to understand that Hoyer will ask for Kelly and Westmoreland as the big names in the package, and that it should just generally be understood that there will probably be some other players asked for/ involved?

He would ask for at least one of Buchholz or Ellsbury as the actual big name in the package. A package with Kelly and Westmoreland as the best players certainly wouldn't get it done, unless Hoyer's a double agent or something.

He would ask for at least one of Buchholz or Ellsbury as the actual big name in the package.

One? I'd guess both is the starting point, plus prospects.

San Diego has gotten their payroll down to $40M, and Gonzalez is cheap for 2 years. They are under no pressure to move him.

San Diego has gotten their payroll down to $40M, and Gonzalez is cheap for 2 years. They are under no pressure to move him.

Yeah, this is one offseason too soon to trade Gonzalez, unless the talent package is enormous.

Not that it's happened in this thread (mostly been in the papers and fanboy websites), but can anyone who comes up with a Gonzalez trade proposal not include a 1B prospect (Freddy Freeman, Ike Davis, Lars Anderson, etc...)? One of the reason for the Pads to deal him is that they have a perfectly good replacement 1B masquerading as an OF in Kyle Blanks. Additionally, moving Blanks to 1B ful-tim should help the OF defense considerably.

I like Mike Lowell as a player and as a guy, but it seems sort of obvious to me that if the Red Sox want to move Youkilis to 3b, they should then get a better 1bman, which presumably contributes to all the Gonzalez rumors.

Also, with Youkilis being 30 now and having been at 1b for awhile and playing really well, I don't think moving him is a good idea--unless you can get a really good 1bman who can't play elsewhere.

The thing with Youkilis is that he wasn't moved off 3B because of his defense - he was going to be the starting 3B in 2005, but the Sox had to take Lowell to get Beckett, so they moved him to 1B. If Youkilis can be a competent 3B - and he looks fine there, and would probably be better with an offseason to prepare - he would be a much more valuable player than he is at 1B. That would be the big gain.

another low-risk, potentially high-reward move like they’ve made in the past with John Smoltz and Brad Penny

Didn't Smoltz and Penny cost something like $12 M? That's not "low-risk". For that kind of money, you can at least get a guy who's as good a bet as possible to give you 180-200 IP of 100 ERA+. Expecting two guys coming off injury to combine for at least that good a performance before you break even is not "low-risk." And Smoltz's contract had lots of incentives which meant that if he pitched fairly well, he'd get $10 M or so.

Similar to the couple of articles/suggestions I've seen that signing Ben Sheets for, say, $5-6 M is a good idea. OK, it might be a good idea but you don't even know if the guy can still pitch effectively at all much less over even half of a season, so you know going in there's a very good chance you're flushing that $5 M down the toilet.

On Lowell and Youk:

If you assume Lowell is toast as a 3B defensively then the Red Sox currently have a hole at 3B. They also currently have a hole at SS and a semi-hole in LF. In short, they're in a bit of trouble and it's not clear they have the mix of financial and prospect resources to fill all those holes not to mention what trading prospects might do to their long-term success.

So, in that scenario, if you believe Lowell still has a decent bat and would be decent defensively at 1B, switching Youk and Lowell makes perfect sense. If you believe Lowell is just toast all around then obviously it doesn't. And if you can land Gonzalez, then Youk goes to 3B (or LF?) regardless.

I think after last season's negative VORP performance by Smoltz/Penny, we should reclassify these moves as "low-cost, potentially high-reward." Giving innings to pitchers who may or may not be fully healthy is risky when you're trying to make the playoffs.

You are probably right overall, but last year is not evidence that risking innings on Smoltz/Penny types can cost a playoff spot if they turn out terrible.

Didn't Smoltz and Penny cost something like $12 M? That's not "low-risk". For that kind of money, you can at least get a guy who's as good a bet as possible to give you 180-200 IP of 100 ERA+.

...will that 100 ERA+ guy sign a 1-year contract?

...will that 100 ERA+ guy sign a 1-year contract?

No. Will flushing $10+ M down the toilet this year fill the hole in this year's rotation and next year's rotation?

No long-term commitment -- "good." 43-year-old Tim Wakefield still slotted in the 2010 rotation whether the Smoltz/Penny gamble works or not -- not good.

The Red Sox spent a lot of money trying to fill a short-term need and failed. That wasted money didn't help them fill their long-term need. Even if Smoltz had been good or Penny average, it wouldn't have helped them fill their long-term need. What's to like?

Low-risk, high-reward is a good thing. Smoltz/Penny did not, in any way, meet the criterion of "low-risk." They were expensive and injured. And with the incentives, Smoltz had little chance of being high-reward (relative to cost).

Now, high-risk, high-reward is often just fine. And if the article had described Smoltz/Penny as high-risk, high-reward, I wouldn't have opened my big trap.

Not that it's happened in this thread (mostly been in the papers and fanboy websites), but can anyone who comes up with a Gonzalez trade proposal not include a 1B prospect (Freddy Freeman, Ike Davis, Lars Anderson, etc...)? One of the reason for the Pads to deal him is that they have a perfectly good replacement 1B masquerading as an OF in Kyle Blanks. Additionally, moving Blanks to 1B ful-tim should help the OF defense considerably.

Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard and Kelly.

Definitely agree that high-risk/high-reward is a much better description. There are definite low risk reclamation projects but the money involved disqualified the Smoltz/Penny combo.

edit: that being said, $11 million for 1.5 pitcher seasons is not a huuuge risk.

Buchholz, Ellsbury, Bard and Kelly

That's way too much. I can see (Buchholz or Ellsbury) plus two, but not both. Or just Buchholz and Ellsbury. Trading a guy who's around 25 win shares for Buchholz and Ellsbury who were together around 25 win shares last year (and who figure to be worth more) is a steal for San Diego.

that being said, $11 million for 1.5 pitcher seasons is not a huuuge risk.

Not quite sure what you're saying. The Red Sox got a total of 171 IP out of Penny and Smoltz which is 1 "season" (or maybe a smidgen more) of innings. If you were confident that would be average-ish innings, that's certainly not a huge risk. As it turns out, Penny was around replacement level and Smoltz was terrible (in actual results if not necessarily in peripherals).

Given they were both coming off injury, given Smoltz was hurt bad enough they didn't even expect him before midseason, it seems to me the risk of replacement-level performance was quite high and that you probably shouldn't have expected much more than maybe 180 IP out of them combined. With Smoltz's incentives I think just about the only way this could have really paid off for them is if he gave them 1/2 a season of classic Smoltz and another stud for their playoff rotation.

But I am cherry-picking a bit. They also gave a few million to an injured Saito and he certainly paid off as well as you could have hoped.

It's just the structure of these things I don't like. Back when the Yanks gave Lieber $2 M (I think it was) to mostly rehab for a year and then held something like an $8 M option on him for the following year is fine -- you're only out $2 M if it blows up and you have yourself a reasonably priced good starter for the next year if things worked out.

If someone wants to offer Sheets a contract along the lines of $2 M guaranteed for 2010 with incentives that push it up to, ohh, $10 M along with a club option for 2011 at $10 M with a $1M buyout (or a vesting option based on 2010 performance) -- that looks fine to me. Fiddle with the numbers a bit if necessary.

Low-risk, high-reward is a good thing. Smoltz/Penny did not, in any way, meet the criterion of "low-risk." They were expensive and injured. And with the incentives, Smoltz had little chance of being high-reward (relative to cost).

Walt, you seem to be saying that a deal can't be low-risk, high-reward if the player doesn't pan out. That seems to rely a bit too heavily on hindsight to evaluate the decision-making process behind the deal.

The assessment of risk depends on the team too, doesn't it? Chucking $10-12M at a couple pitchers for one year who could be pretty good is a very risky move for a team like, say, the Twins. For a team with the resources of the Red Sox, that's not going to scupper them if it goes sideways. I feel the Sox FO looks at years of commitment as the risky commodity, and high dollars for a short period gives them a lot less heartburn. When you hear low-risk, high-reward used to describe a Sox deal, it's just about always something like the Smoltz, Penny, and Saito gambles. A potentially expensive, usually incentive-laden, but short-term contract thrown at a guy who used to be good in the not too distant past and might be coming off injury.

The Sox are all about limiting their long-term exposure by avoiding lengthy deals that could handicap them for years if they screw up. The Smoltz/Penny gamble more or less failed (although Penny was really good for several weeks when the rest of the rotation was hopeless, which helped), but so what? They know their core is probably good enough to push for the playoffs even if these gambles around the margins fall through. And now they're not tied to a Derek Lowe or Ollie Perez type deal, so they can roll the dice again on a Harden or a Sheets or even a Pedro to add some cover for those back of the rotation spots.