Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 19, 2014

red sox - First move for Red Sox should be to revisit Stephen Drew - WEEI | Rob Bradford

No! No! No! Leave Bogaerts where he is. Let Drew sign a long-term deal with another team. Fill in at third as best they can.

It’s time.

The Red Sox should make their move on Stephen Drew (whatever that move might be).

It might not work out, but it will be worth a try. At this point, they need to try something.

Jim Furtado Posted: May 19, 2014 at 07:46 PM | 77 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox, stephen drew, xander bogaerts

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Depressoteric Posted: May 19, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4709818)
I just think it's hilarious that Stephen Drew -- a legitimately valuable, Major League starter-quality shortstop! -- is still unemployed. First time this has happened (non-Barry Bonds division) since the days of collusion?
   2. rufus was here Posted: May 19, 2014 at 08:11 PM (#4709829)
He had the option to play for $14 million/year for one year. Not good enough.

Then he (and his agent) didn't realize how much teams would value the draft pick they'd give up if they signed him.

Real question: What's going on in Drew's head right now?
   3. Sonic Youk Posted: May 19, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4709836)
I agree this would made them a win or two better, but I hope they just leave Bogaerts the hell alone. To my eyes, he is getting noticeably better at short, and I think hes a franchise player there.
   4. puck Posted: May 19, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4709840)
When can Drew sign with someone without the team losing a pick--after the draft? I'd imagine he'd sign pretty quickly after that.
   5. Walt Davis Posted: May 19, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4709842)
The article notes that the draft pick comp goes away in three weeks.

The article also says the Red Sox should only sign Drew if he agrees to a contract covering the rest of the year at about $9-10 M. So, not gonna happen.

The Sox are in an interesting spot. They're mediocre but the whole division is and Drew could make the difference between the playoffs and going home ... or, from the other perspective, it's still pretty much a 5-way coin toss even if Drew does improve them by 1-2 wins over the rest of the year. On the third hand -- they know their kids way better than I do but I've not really seen anything in Middlebrooks that would make me hesitate about replacing him long-term, so if Drew is willing to move to 3B or the Sox don't think Bogaerts future is at SS, bringing in Drew for 2.5 years looks reasonable.

I never thought I'd say this but Luis Valbuena has become an effective 3B platoon type and, if they find a better solution, would be happy to shift into even more of a bench role. I'm probably forgetting somebody but Callaspo is the only other 3B that pops to mind that you might be able to pry loose right now. Maybe Headley if you want to pony up the dough (FA next year it seems).
   6. Cat Named Manny Posted: May 19, 2014 at 09:09 PM (#4709849)
I don't know about everyone else, but for me this was the perfect "bridge year." A championship in the bank gives you the chance to transition to younger players without having the crazy "win-now" attitude mucking things up, and the Sox certainly seemed to be taking that approach in the offseason. Signing Drew would be a conflicting signal, not to mention that it would kill any chance for Middlebrooks to recover any trade value later in the year, assuming you like Garin Cecchini enough to include Middlebrooks in an offseason deal (*cough*Stanton*cough*).
   7. Every Inge Counts Posted: May 19, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4709869)
Stephen Drew will likely be a Tiger in 3 weeks I am willing to bet.
   8. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 19, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4709876)
I don't know about everyone else, but for me this was the perfect "bridge year." A championship in the bank gives you the chance to transition to younger players without having the crazy "win-now" attitude mucking things up, and the Sox certainly seemed to be taking that approach in the offseason.


Bingo. I'm the biggest Red Sox fan you'll ever find, and I am absolutely fine with the team bouncing along around .500 for now - as long as it is happening in the context of incorporating the impressive stable of young talent their system is producing. Consider:

- They let two free agents go in Drew and Ellsbury, but are able to replace them with Bogaerts and Bradley. In exchange for dealing with a season of rookie volatility, they save at least $30 million in payroll in those two positions, combined; get better defense in CF already; and basically tell a 21-year-old who rockets through the system, has hit at every level, has his head on very straight, and was a postseason contributor to a World Series champ already that it is his position, period.

- Instead of succumbing to the temptation to give Saltalamacchia a multi-year deal, they let him go, sign Pierzynski to a one-year deal, and allow two strong catching prospects to develop without pressure to come up (Swihart and Vazquez).

- You let Middlebrooks show you if he can play in the bigs every day or not (I say, "not"). You let Cecchini play in AAA; if he rocks it out, and Middlebrooks struggles, maybe you bring Cecchini, maybe you don't. You are saving so much money on the Bradley/Bogaerts replacement that if you need to get a stopgap at the deadline, you can. Bottom line: You don't clog up 3B for multiple years waiting for Cecchini in 2015.

- Mookie Betts is now considered one of the best prospects in the minors, but as a second baseman, is blocked by Pedroia. The organization is now starting to play Betts in the outfield, a position Betts used to play a lot in high school, and which he's been practicing all season already. As soon as he looks comfortable in the OF, he'll be in AAA before the year is out. He turns 22 in October, and is hitting .382/.453/.586 with more BBs than Ks, 19 SBs, 3 CSs. He did this last year, too. He could be playing in the outfield for Boston by the end of 2015, certainly the beginning of 2016 - right when Victorino's contract is up.

They are going to be in the AL East race most of the year if they don't make any moves, and the winner of the division may struggle to win more than about 92 games. If the team can do everything described above with their lineup and still be hanging around the playoff chase, how badly do really need Stephen Friggin' Drew? There is zero chance Drew is coming back to Boston.
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4709915)
I like Drew (and was probably higher than I should have been on him before 2013, so I was happy to see him have a good year), but it's retarded to sign him with Bogaerts and Pedroia on the team.

The Yankees and Mets could use him, to name two. In fact, he'd have been a better signing than Granderson. (Yeah. Tigers could use him too.)
   10. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4709936)
Am I the only one who thinks that, worst case, Drew stands to make a lot more than $14 million for four months' work since the Yankees and Red Sox (and who knows what other teams) are going to ignite a bidding war as soon as the draft is over?
   11. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:55 AM (#4709946)
Hard to see a bidding war being ignited when they're not falling all over themselves to sign him now, nor have they been for the past several months.

As to the Yankees signing him to replace Jeter: it is not going to happen. It will not happen. Never. Ever. Ev-ah.

I am convinced that the Yankees have, for some time, simply accepted that it would be too much trouble to deal with the media/PR of flat out benching him when he's healthy, or moving him off of shortstop, at any time, from now until the end of the year. If the past two decades of "His defense sucks! Move him to center field! Oh, look, ARod is on the team now, move him to third! Oh, he's old now, DH him!" have told us anything, it has told us that.

He will be the Yankees' regular starting shortstop until the end of the year.
   12. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:58 AM (#4709948)
Is Drew a huge upgrade over Brandon Ryan for the Yankees?
   13. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:21 AM (#4709951)
As echoed above, there is no chance the Sox sign Drew. It's silly to even suggest it. Everything broke right for the team last year and they still barely got by Detroit in the ALCS. Even with Drew, even back dooring their way into the playoffs, it's still a crapshoot as to whether you'll win.

Xander will be fine.

Hopefully Middlebrooks can show something then they can trade high and use one of the prospects mentioned by #8 next year. The mistake they made was not selling high on Nava. I liked the Sizemore gamble(still do). If the Sox can somehow(and all teams need this) get consistency out of starters 3,4 and 5 they'll be fine.

Ellsbury would've been nice to keep, but not at the price NY gave him, it's too much, too long and contradicts the newer philosophy the team has with respect to contracts for older players.
   14. Walt Davis Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:26 AM (#4709953)
Is Drew a huge upgrade over Brandon Ryan for the Yankees?

It's more a question of whether he's an upgrade on Ryan/Solarte/Johnson/Roberts/etc. The answer might still be no but it's the right question -- there's no law that says Drew and Ryan can only play SS.
   15. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM (#4709958)
It's funny that they are still only 3 or so back, fun being in a race where the winner of the division might not need to break .500...

Loved post number 8 btw
   16. John Northey Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:21 AM (#4709975)
Kendrys Morales catches me as being the biggest loser in the draft pick sweepstakes, followed closely by Drew. Drew I could see getting close to $14 mil still but Morales? A DH with a 120 OPS+ lifetime on the wrong side of 30 is just not a $10+ mil player. Both clearly should've taken the $14 mil and lived with it.
   17. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:17 AM (#4709986)
it would kill any chance for Middlebrooks to recover any trade value later in the year, assuming you like Garin Cecchini enough to include Middlebrooks in an offseason deal (*cough*Stanton*cough*).


Why would the Marlins trade a legitimate superstar for a package of guys like Middlebrooks? That doesn't make any sense.
   18. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4709989)
I've been buried and not following the Sox very closely, but I don't really get why they would sign Drew at this point either unless it was no more than the $14 mil prorated and for 2014 only. And even then, seems to me they were pretty lucky with what they got out of him last year, and he's not a great bet to both repeat that level of performance *and* stay healthy.

Bogaerts is hitting just fine for a SS. I'd rather see they come up with a creative solution for 3B instead rather than move him there, unless based on his defense they are starting to feel Boegarts won't stick at SS for long.
   19. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:41 AM (#4709995)
I'm moving more and more toward the idea of seeing if Brock Holt can hit an empty .270-.280 for a few weeks and give Cecchini another 4-6 weeks to get to a point where he's ready for a call up. Everything I've read says he's not ready yet but I don't think he's that far away either. I'm not looking to rush him but a mid-season call up seems feasible.


Why would the Marlins trade a legitimate superstar for a package of guys like Middlebrooks? That doesn't make any sense.


They wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised if WMB were part of a deal for Stanton but I think if the Sox make such a deal it's built around one of the pitchers (probably Owens) and either Betts or Cecchini.
   20. jmurph Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4710007)
I don't know about everyone else, but for me this was the perfect "bridge year." A championship in the bank gives you the chance to transition to younger players without having the crazy "win-now" attitude mucking things up, and the Sox certainly seemed to be taking that approach in the offseason.


I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Pedroia is not young. Ortiz is very not young. Ditto Victorino. Lester. Lackey. Napoli. The core of this team, in both talent and expense, is either at the tail end of their prime or at the realllllly tail end of their prime. You don't punt a year of a championship-caliber core to transition to a couple of young guys.

And for the record I don't think the Sox did that- I think they're just underachieving to a degree, and I think they miscalculated at C/3b.
   21. Jim Furtado Posted: May 20, 2014 at 09:02 AM (#4710011)
It's tough to really know about Middlebrooks. I still believe he can be an above-average 3B. He clearly needs to make some adjustments at the plate, however. Unfortunately, the way he's keeps getting hurt prevents him from getting the ABs he needs to work through the problems. Cecchini can probably already hit enough to be a positive spot in the big league order. His defense, however, still needs a lot of work.
   22. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 20, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4710013)
Jim - You're a lot more optimistic about Middlebrooks than I am. I think it's pretty easy to know about him and he just isn't that good. He'll show the occasional flashes (the power is very real) to be enticing but in the end his career is going to be Francouer's without the internet snark.

jmurph - I don't think they miscalculated at catcher. I hate Pierzynski but he's not actually that bad and it's not like Saltalamacchia is that good. The biggest problem right now is the opposite of last year. Last year no one really had a career year, everyone was just a little better than expected. This year everyone is just a little below expectations.

I've said it elsewhere that I think the key is just hanging around. I think they have the most talent in the division and at some point they are going to rip off a 15 out of 20 hot streak. If they don't get buried before that (and it's possible they will) I think the division is there for the taking.
   23. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: May 20, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4710024)
The analysis of the Red Sox season fixates on 3B because it's the one area where they can Do Something to improve in-season. That explanation of early struggles is what sells; fans don't like to wait and see. But this was an 85-win team going into the season that's underperforming in several areas: the LF time share, Bradley, Pierzynski, and the starting rotation, not to mention Victorino's start. The extra 3-5 wins the rest of the season that the Red Sox will need to be division favorites will be found by improvements in these areas. To contend for a World Series, they'll need to roll sevens at all of these positions like they did last year. A half-season of Drew would not meaningfully change the Red Sox odds of the playoffs or World Series.

That said, Drew does make sense for this team if he's able to slot into a Zobrist-like superutility role at 3B/OF/backup SS, not just taking away at-bats from Middlebrooks, but Sizemore and Herrera, as well. That may be what they are grooming Betts to do, but Drew at the right price would still retain trade value in 2015-16.
   24. J. Sosa Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4710052)
What is the consensus on Bogaerts? Is he going to stick at short? I admit that I've always had him pegged as a third baseman although I understand the thinking behind giving him every chance at SS. The main reason I thought that way though was that I didn't think WMB should play into it at all when considering where to play Bogaerts. If anything I'm lower on WMB than Jose. If Cecchini was part of the reason I get that, but not WMB.

To be truthful I'm kind of kicked back and relaxed about this season. My only concern is that they don't do anything dumb. If a major trade is made it should be made for a long term piece, otherwise I'm happy with the team keeping the prospects and hoping that they qualify out of a bad division. If the team believes Cecchini and Bogaerts are the long term solution on the left side, I don't want them to sign Drew even though I really like him.
   25. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4710057)
I think the Yankees are more likely to go after J.J. Hardy in the offseason than sign Drew this year.
   26. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4710065)
What is the consensus on Bogaerts? Is he going to stick at short?


I think the determining factor might be Deven Marrero. If Marrero plays himself into the job (he's quietly having a terrific year) then he'd push Bogaerts to third. From what I've seen the reports on Bogaerts all along have been pretty accurate. He can play short passably well but he might eventually grow out of the job. I honestly mean this as praise but he's similar to Jeter at short, not flashy and not with a ton of range but pretty reliable on what he gets to. UZR has him middle of the pack so far this year which is fine. Sometimes you get a play not made but the offset is an excellent bat for the position.

If Marrero pushes himself into the mix that's a hell of a left side. Marrero is slick defensively and the Sox could put out there a crazy good defense up the middle with JBJ, Marrero, Pedroia and Vazquez behind the plate. That assumes success from a bunch of prospects that isn't a sure thing by any means.

tl;dr Yes Bogaerts can play short well enough to let the bat carry him.
   27. Cat Named Manny Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4710068)
Why would the Marlins trade a legitimate superstar for a package of guys like Middlebrooks? That doesn't make any sense.


If I had said that, I would agree with you. But I do think Middlebrooks could be one of the pieces they would include, if he recovers any value (which, granted, he does not currently have).

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Pedroia is not young. Ortiz is very not young. Ditto Victorino. Lester. Lackey. Napoli. The core of this team, in both talent and expense, is either at the tail end of their prime or at the realllllly tail end of their prime. You don't punt a year of a championship-caliber core to transition to a couple of young guys.


Pedroia is on a long-term deal and will be in Boston for quite a while, so I don't think that supports your argument much, even if he's over 30. Everyone else you mentioned or implied is on a short-term deal precisely because the Red Sox wanted to have low-cost veterans bridge the gap to a younger core like Bogearts, Bradley, Middlebrooks/Cecchini, Swihart/Vasquez, Betts, etc. Citing their age as a reason to go for it now – while ignoring the fact that the Sox already won the thing they would ostensibly be going for now - doesn't make any sense to me.
   28. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4710071)
Am I the only one who thinks that, worst case, Drew stands to make a lot more than $14 million for four months' work

Yes. The only way he makes a lot more than $14m for 2014 is if it is part of some multi-year deal that is extremely front-loaded.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Pedroia is not young. Ortiz is very not young. Ditto Victorino. Lester. Lackey. Napoli. The core of this team, in both talent and expense, is either at the tail end of their prime or at the realllllly tail end of their prime. You don't punt a year of a championship-caliber core to transition to a couple of young guys

The post you quoted wasn't suggesting punting the year.
   29. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4710075)
If I had said that, I would agree with you. But I do think Middlebrooks could be one of the pieces they would include, if he recovers any value (which, granted, he does not currently have)
.

Oh, I see. You were just trotting out the old "I think that other team will trade their dollar for 3 of our rusty nickels" trope. Carry on.
   30. jmurph Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4710084)
Citing their age as a reason to go for it now – while ignoring the fact that the Sox already won the thing they would ostensibly be going for now - doesn't make any sense to me.


You go for it now because it's extremely difficult to build a championship-caliber core, and the Red Sox already did the hard work of doing that. With that in mind, they should have done a better job at 3b and C, and possibly the outfield (I did like the Sizemore hedge for Bradley, so I don't criticize their decisions in the OF too severely).

The post you quoted wasn't suggesting punting the year.


Eh, perhaps "punt" is too strong, but it did mention "bridge year" and referred to a "transition to younger players without having the crazy "win-now" attitude mucking things up."
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4710090)
Eh, perhaps "punt" is too strong, but it did mention "bridge year" and referred to a "transition to younger players without having the crazy "win-now" attitude mucking things up."


True, but the "transition to...(etc)" doesn't necessarily waste the core they have - especially considering the franchise's willingness to make mid-season trades.

It would have been ridiculous to make the transition to younger players by trading Lester, going super-cheapo at C, letting Napoli walk etc.
   32. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4710149)
After reading this thread, I took a second to look at Boston's roster thus far this year. Because of winning the whole thing last year, because the Bruins were one of the favorites to win the Cup, and because the AL East has been pretty blah so far this season, it's been easy to not get too exercised one way or the other about the season thus far. They are 20-23...but only three games out of first place, and the team in first place (Yankees) seems to be kept together with duct tape and prayers. None of these five teams are terribly scary...but none of them are terrible, either. This is like a marathon where your job is to just make sure nobody gets too far ahead, nobody is going to break the course record...you just stay in the pack...then, in the end, somebody makes a late push. The funny thing, too, is that the only two teams in the AL that are rocking it out are Oakland and Detroit - meaning that even the two wild card slots may well be in play for the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the AL East. Seriously - 86 wins may get you into the Wild Card game.

If you had told me that Boston's offense would be pretty terrible at C, 3B, and the entire outfield; and that the only starting pitcher really getting it done was Lester...and the Red Sox would be 3 out of first place (and 2.5 out of the WC) at the quarter-pole mark of the season...I would be very surprised.
   33. Cat Named Manny Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4710163)
Oh, I see. You were just trotting out the old "I think that other team will trade their dollar for 3 of our rusty nickels" trope. Carry on.


Yeah, I wasn't doing that either. I said nothing about who else I would include in a package for Stanton because that wasn't actually the point. I'm sure you prize your mind-reading sills quite highly, but I assure you they need some fine-tuning.

You go for it now because it's extremely difficult to build a championship-caliber core, and the Red Sox already did the hard work of doing that.


Kind of by accident, but yes, by definition their 2013 core of players was a championship-caliber core. And they lost a key piece of that core – plus two other not-insignificant pieces – to free agency, specifically to 1. allow younger, ready-now players get the experience they need to become part of a longer-term championship-caliber core, or 2. avoid blocking prospects who would be ready in the next year or so. If the young guys/placeholders struggle, so be it, they have the championship and they don't need to scuttle the project in which this is the bridge year; if they do great, then they remain a championship-level team even as they transition between the two cores.

This year was a transition year, by design, no matter what happened in 2013. The championship simply makes it easier/more palatable for that transition to be more difficult than hoped.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4710183)

That said, Drew does make sense for this team if he's able to slot into a Zobrist-like superutility role at 3B/OF/backup SS, not just taking away at-bats from Middlebrooks, but Sizemore and Herrera, as well. That may be what they are grooming Betts to do, but Drew at the right price would still retain trade value in 2015-16.


He's only ever played SS, even in the minors. Sure, maybe you can play him at third (although his offense is stretched there), but outfield? I don't see it.
   35. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4710192)
This year was a transition year, by design, no matter what happened in 2013.


I'm not sure. If the 2013 team had been sub .500, it is plausible that they would have done some more "win-now" moves this past offseason at the cost of the future.
   36. jmurph Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4710212)
I don't like "win-now" being used as a pejorative in reference to one of the richest franchises in sports. "Win-now" as a negative is Wil Myers for Shields, not paying Stephen Drew. There's no mortgaged future there.

And I'm not trying to belabor the point, but I think 33 is just a wildly rosy scenario about the future of the prospects. Bogaerts is different, it was reasonable to think he could contribute right away this year at an above-average clip. But the others are likely 2-3 or more years away from stardom, if they ever get there, at which point Ortiz is retired, Napoli/Victorino/Lester/Lackey are likely elsewhere, and Pedroia is past his prime.
   37. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4710219)
But the others are likely 2-3 or more years away from stardom, if they ever get there

But if we're talking about blocking young players, the relevant time period isn't how far away they are from stardom, but how far they are from being starters (or close enough that you want to try them). Most, if not all, of Bradley, MBrooks, Bogaerts (I know you acknowledged him), the catching prospects, Geccini (sp?), and Betts, are likely to be major league caliber in 2015.
I don't like "win-now" being used as a pejorative in reference to one of the richest franchises in sports.


Me neither.
   38. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4710230)
You all are nuts. And this obsession over WMB is approaching fetish territory. He's been as dead to me for the last 12 months as my old Ford Maverick. And yet so many people think they can get that car (WMB) started. He's over. Maybe Beane can do something with him in three years.

As for "transition" or "Bridge year"....bridge from what??? The Sox didn't field a WS winning team last year, they fielded a playoff contender that drew four aces. And everlasting kudos to them. (Gets on knees and bows profusely)...but this team has no business being a sub .500 team in 2014. Ben was handed a 91 win team and now 2 out of 3 years is looking to end below .500 (yes, early blah blah blah)Ending under .500 was something Theo never came close too.

I look at the OPS+ of each field player and there's not a shocker in the bunch. The pitchers are all about right except for Clay. The BP looks better than expected.

Rant over...Hi Nate!
   39. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4710234)
As for "transition" or "Bridge year"....bridge from what???


A bridge from salty to the catching prospects, a bridge from Mbrooks/Bogaerts at third to someone else, a bridge from ellsbury to a prime Bradley.
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4710240)
The Sox didn't field a WS winning team last year, they fielded a playoff contender that drew four aces. And everlasting kudos to them. (Gets on knees and bows profusely)...but this team has no business being a sub .500 team in 2014. Ben was handed a 91 win team and now 2 out of 3 years is looking to end below .500 (yes, early blah blah blah)Ending under .500 was something Theo never came close too.


It seems like you're switching between 'results' and 'talent level' based on whichever criteria makes the Sox org look worse...
   41. boteman is not here 'til October Posted: May 20, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4710251)
@Ken_Rosenthal: Sources: RedSox sign Drew.

@Ken_Rosenthal: Source: Drew deal with RedSox is for one year. Free agent again at end of season. Draft-pick compensation will not apply.

@Ken_Rosenthal: Again, by signing mid-season, Drew exempt from qualifying offer at end of year. Getting $10M (pro-rated $14M QO), per @joelsherman.

@Ken_Rosenthal: RedSox do not get pick they would have received if Drew had signed elsewhere before draft. But that wasn’t happening and now they get Drew.

@Ken_Rosenthal: Drew expected to be at Fenway tonight. Not clear whether he will be in uniform for RedSox.


So there.
   42. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 20, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4710257)
I really wish the phrase "bridge year" never came into my life. Every team occasionally needs to give the kids a look but that doesn't mean you are tanking the season. The Sox are what, 3rd/4th in payroll this year? It's not like they rolled out a bargain basement club. The plan is to be a contender this year it just hasn't happened yet. Maybe it won't but the way to get the Ellsburys, Pedroias and Lesters is to try the Bradleys, Bogaerts and Workmans.

Right now the pitching is too inconsistent (a massive change from last year despite identical personnnel) and the offense is a huge disappointment. Maybe it won't come together. I'm actually confident in the offense but the pitching worries me. Peavy and Buchholz look like two guys who aren't getting any better. Despite all that it is way too early to write this team off unless you are also writing off Tampa (2 games behind Boston), Texas (1/2 game better), Cincinnati (identical record). Hell, the Sox are closer to first place than the Dodgers.
   43. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4710277)
Tampa is waiting on pitching, right? Same with NY, right?...whatttt are the Sox waiting on? Victorino's bionic implants to get back? Nava to force his way onto the team for the umpteenth time? Peavy is just Peavy, I don't know what's wrong with Clay.

Also, building your team around prospects who are lightly tapping on the door so as not to wake the baby, seems suspiciously like drafting based on need and not the talent available. Which I thought was a big draft no-no.

Long story short. They should have retained Salty and Drew. Neither were going to command earth-shattering contracts. Get Workman up for Clay, drop Sizemore for Nava. I don't care if he's not lighting up Pawtucket. Sending down the fifth placed OPS+ guy after one month was insane.
   44. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4710279)
This thread is hilarious.
   45. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4710288)
(Shrug)

That's what happens when people bottle up their 'state of the Red Sox opinions' for a quarter of a season because "WHOOOO WORLD SERIES CHAMPS!"

Cross-index that with the fact that outside of Pedroia and Papi , pretty much every player has crazy caveats about them. Why can't we just have solid (on D and O), relatively healthy guys who don't need to be platooned, and don't strike out a lot? :>
   46. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4710289)
Drew at SS, Bogaerts at 3B. Well:

- This probably says something about what the market for Drew was going to be next month...it couldn't have been that great.

- I am decidedly not a Middlebrooks fan, and I am guessing the management is coming around to that conclusion, as well. He will have nowhere to play, unless injuries nail the left side of the infield.

- This coming off-season, the team will have several options: Keep Bogaerts at 3B, and give Marrero a shot at the job; slide Bogaerts back to SS, and give Cecchini a shot at the 3B job; or have the flexibility to trade/sign either a SS or a 3B.

- Who is Kendry Morales going to call now to complain about the draft pick compensation system?
   47. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:46 PM (#4710292)
Tampa is waiting on pitching, right? Same with NY, right?...whatttt are the Sox waiting on? Victorino's bionic implants to get back? Nava to force his way onto the team for the umpteenth time? Peavy is just Peavy, I don't know what's wrong with Clay.


What pitching is New York waiting on? The return of Old Hoss Pineda? I don't know why Victorino returning to form is such a ridiculous expectation. I think you are too close to the Sox and seeing the flaws. I don't think the Sox have any more flaws than any of the other teams in the division. I'm sure if Saltalamacchia were still with the Sox you'd be pointing out he had a .573 OPS in May and still couldn't play defense.
   48. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4710295)
I'd probably say "Same ol streaky Salty. At least he isn't AJP" ...I think his defense has improved. Or I MIGHT say "Oh god, when is this prospect you guys rave about going to be ready?"

Yanks lost Sabathia (who I won't count out because he's Sabathia) Pineda, and Nova (a career ERA+ 100) guy, right? Okay, I admit they are waiting on some guys who definitely have warts.
   49. tfbg9 Posted: May 20, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4710310)
Torn by this a bit. I like Drew, he's a good ballplayer, just can't hit LHP, and it's never a bad idea to have as many good ballplayers as you can. But, Bogaerts needs to play at SS to fully realize whatever
potential he has, IMO.

But the Sox are a better team right now with Drew, and its a 1 year deal.
   50. villageidiom Posted: May 20, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4710311)
Okay, I admit they are waiting on some guys who definitely have warts.
As far as topical treatments for warts go, I wouldn't expect it would take much to improve on pine tar.
   51. Chip Posted: May 20, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4710322)
As Gammons pointed out on the radio just now, discussing this deal, the Sox are getting crushed by right-handed pitchers so far. Exchanging Drew for Middlebrooks really helps balance the lineup in that regard. He also suggested Middlebrooks is headed back to Pawtucket when he comes off the DL.
   52. J. Sosa Posted: May 20, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4710324)
Is Boras going to give Drew 4 million?

edit: To clarify, that's facetious. But he wasn't well served by his representation. It will be interesting to see whether the long term plan is Bogaerts at third or at short. Maybe Cecchini will end up being traded. Like Balboni says they have options. I'm ok with it as I don't think Bogaerts is a SS going forward anyway.
   53. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: May 20, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4710344)
Boras lost money on this deal, too.
   54. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4710351)
So I'm a little confused. If Drew and Boras waits three more weeks then the whole draft pick compensation deterrent is gone and more teams are in on Drew. You waited this long. Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?
   55. tfbg9 Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4710352)
Robothal broke this story, I see. So, I guess Boras only spoon-feeds Heyman non-embarrassing "scoops"?
   56. tfbg9 Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4710354)
"Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?"

Duh! George Mitchell!
   57. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4710356)
So I'm a little confused. If Drew and Boras waits three more weeks then the whole draft pick compensation deterrent is gone and more teams are in on Drew. You waited this long. Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?


I'm sure they have an idea of the market. They have to weigh the chances of some injury on another team happening soon that would change the market against the Sox' offer presumably going down or being withdrawn over time.
   58. KT's Pot Arb Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:32 PM (#4710364)
So I'm a little confused. If Drew and Boras waits three more weeks then the whole draft pick compensation deterrent is gone and more teams are in on Drew. You waited this long. Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?


The Red Sox agreed not to extend Drew a QO after the season making him an unrestricted FA, this is actually a win for Team Boras (or at least not as big a loss as expected).

Going out as a free agent on offseason has to be much better than trying to get a deal in mid June.
   59. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:32 PM (#4710365)
Can the Sox offer him a QO again?
   60. Rob_Wood Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4710367)
no
   61. Davo Dozier Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4710376)
If drew had accepted their Qualifying Offer originally (back in December), could the Red Sox have offered him yet another QO in December of 2014? Or was it just a 1-time thing?
   62. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:52 PM (#4710377)
Wakes up, comes into work, checks Primer.

Sees Sox have re-signed Drew, re-reads post #13, looks like an idiot.

Goes back to work.
   63. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 06:52 PM (#4710378)
re #61, Yes they could have. But after opening day, the signing team can't offer a QO.
   64. dr. scott Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4710383)
So the Sox could have done this right after opening day and just be down a few more million right? Drew would still a free agent at end of season, and Sox don't lose drift pick. Is that correct?
   65. Depressoteric Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4710384)
So I'm a little confused. If Drew and Boras waits three more weeks then the whole draft pick compensation deterrent is gone and more teams are in on Drew. You waited this long. Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?
There was no market for Drew otherwise, either on a single-year contract or longer-term, at least not on the terms the Red Sox were willing to offer. Three weeks later and that $10 million gets pro-rated down to something more like $9 million, and believe it or not there aren't too many teams looking for a midseason acquisition of a guy who hasn't seen real live pitching since last October.

Scott Boras absolutely f**ked over Stephen Drew on this one. Just a terrible, terrible job of representation on his part. Kendrys Morales was similarly screwed over.
   66. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:19 PM (#4710388)
So the Sox could have done this right after opening day and just be down a few more million right? Drew would still a free agent at end of season, and Sox don't lose drift pick. Is that correct?


Yes, if drew would have agreed to it. At the time, though, the sox still had some hope for a draft pick.
   67. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:35 PM (#4710394)
Yes, if drew would have agreed to it. At the time, though, the sox still had some hope for a draft pick.
...and, presumably, for Middlebrooks. Two trips to the DL and a ~75 OPS+ probably changed the equation a bit.
   68. Dale Sams Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:47 PM (#4710401)
SS who OPS+s 111 at age 30, and plays great defense...and 29 teams think he isn't worth their 16th-75th (Yanks) pick? The league is stupid.
   69. Davo Dozier Posted: May 20, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4710403)
re #61, Yes they could have.


I wonder if a decent compromise to this Draft Pick Compensation problem might be to just remove that stipulation--the Qualifying Offer is just a one-time thing, if a player accepts it for the 2015 season, once that season's over, he's a completely free free agent, with no draft pick compensation attached.
   70. Nasty Nate Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:00 PM (#4710407)
and 29 teams think he isn't worth their 16th-75th (Yanks) pick?


He wasn't going to sign for the league minimum.
   71. PreservedFish Posted: May 20, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4710435)
Why not 3 more weeks and a chance for a better market?


It's not like the deadline would have unveiled any surprises. He's probably been negotiating with teams regarding both pre- and post-draft deals. I'm sure he knew what would have been available in June.
   72. KT's Pot Arb Posted: May 20, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4710489)
Scott Boras absolutely f**ked over Stephen Drew on this one. Just a terrible, terrible job of representation on his part. Kendrys Morales was similarly screwed over.


Drew is going to make back the $4M he lost many times over in a long term deal this winter. This is clearly a big win for Drew, forfeiting a small portion of this years deal broke him out of QO hell.
   73. Walt Davis Posted: May 20, 2014 at 10:19 PM (#4710513)
Well, I got this one wrong.

Kendrys Morales catches me as being the biggest loser in the draft pick sweepstakes, followed closely by Drew. Drew I could see getting close to $14 mil still but Morales? A DH with a 120 OPS+ lifetime on the wrong side of 30 is just not a $10+ mil player. Both clearly should've taken the $14 mil and lived with it.

I think Morales and Cruz were guys who should have obviously taken the QO. Drew not and he's lost "only" $4M so probably worth the gamble on average, he just lost the bet.

Last year no one really had a career year, everyone was just a little better than expected. This year everyone is just a little below expectations.

I think you're understating last year. Compared to their pre-season ZiPS, the offense was something like 17 wins above expectations. All told the offense/defense was credited with 19 WAA or 2 WAA per position. That's not everybody a little better than expected that's literally everybody better than expected, some by a lot. They weren't necessarily career years but awfully close in many cases -- 6 WAR out of Ellsbury and especially Victorino, Ortiz's best season since 2007, 4 out of Napoli and 3 out of Salty were well above. 5.2 WAR out of the combo of Carp, Nava and Gomes? They even got 1.4 WAR out of Iglesias before he was traded and .5 WAR out of Quentin Berry as PR and def replacement.

It would be a lot of work but I've got to believe that was one of the best position player over-performances relative to ZiPS in the last decade.

This year they're dead average from the position players, with replacement level production from the Gomes/Carp/Nava/Grady combo. Bradley's at replacement level. If those two things continue through the year, that's a loss of about 7 WAA right there.

Anyway, they are powerful at DH and 2B and at least above-average at 1B. They are/were below-average at 3B, LF and CF. 37 year-old Cs are not a great idea but at least they were both above-average 36-year-old Cs so probably still at least average.

On Middlebrooks-Stanton: I think this has been sorted out but a tip ... if you don't think Middlebrooks has much value and would be no more than a third piece to a Stanton trade, don't mention him in connection with a Stanton trade unless preceded by 2 big prospect names. It's bound to mislead people. Go for "maybe Middlebrooks could bring back somebody like Bourjos" (the Freese trade). That might still be unrealistic but not superficially insane. :-)





   74. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: May 20, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4710545)
Drew is going to make back the $4M he lost many times over in a long term deal this winter.


Just think how great his pending long-term deal would be if he were only two years younger.
   75. KT's Pot Arb Posted: May 21, 2014 at 02:48 AM (#4710586)
Just think how great his pending long-term deal would be if he were only two years younger


Just think about how great his long term deal would have been if he hadn't had a spiral fracture of his fibula combined with shredding most of the ligaments in his ankle the middle of the year prior to free agency.

The 3 and a half years before that injury he averaged 3.5 WAR and 148 games per year, and he would have been a 29 year old free agent. Forfeiting a draft pick would have been minor when spread out over a 6 or 7 year $100M deal.
   76. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: May 21, 2014 at 09:04 AM (#4710607)
Just think about how great his long term deal would have been if he hadn't had a spiral fracture of his fibula combined with shredding most of the ligaments in his ankle the middle of the year prior to free agency.


He's still that guy. He's just two years older.

Now, if he turns in a good season this year with both stick and glove, then he may get that multiyear deal. Of course, that might be trickier given his absence of Spring Training, and that it would defy his personal history of back-to-back good regular seasons. And it's probably not what we should expect to see from a 31-year-old who hasn't had a really good full offensive season since 2010 (those 2013 numbers don't look nearly as good when you factor in the last 54 plate appearances, and in terms of evaluating who Stephen Drew is now, I don't see why you shouldn't). His .253/.333/.433 becomes something like .233/.298/.415, which is much less mouthwatering for teams looking to give out the big deals.
   77. villageidiom Posted: May 21, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4710777)
The Red Sox agreed not to extend Drew a QO after the season making him an unrestricted FA, this is actually a win for Team Boras (or at least not as big a loss as expected).
They didn't agree to do it; those are the rules. CBA Article XX.B.3 (emphasis added):

The following provision shall apply only to each Player who
becomes a free agent under this Section B after having been continuously under reserve (without interruption) to the same Club (either at the Major or Minor League level) since Opening Day of the recently completed championship season (“Qualified Free Agent”).

During the Quiet Period, the former Club of a Qualified Free
Agent may tender the Qualified Free Agent a one-year Uniform
Player’s Contract for the next succeeding season with a guaranteed salary that is equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid Players each year (“Qualifying Offer”)...


Since early April, Drew could not receive a QO this offseason. The only difference* between then and now is the passage of time and money.

* And presumably the availability and palatability of an offer.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(83 - 6:30am, Jul 28)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogSchoenfield: Why didn't the Braves win more titles?
(50 - 6:23am, Jul 28)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogFull Count » Mike Carp, Felix Doubront and the challenges of player discontent on a struggling team
(7 - 6:19am, Jul 28)
Last: Jim Furtado

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3292 - 6:14am, Jul 28)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogDJ Short: Maximum stay on Hall of Fame ballot changed from 15 to 10 years
(57 - 6:05am, Jul 28)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDodgers and Diamondbacks Triple-A teams involved in wild brawl
(12 - 5:43am, Jul 28)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogFull Count » Mike Carp explains why he requested a trade from Red Sox
(18 - 3:18am, Jul 28)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(106 - 3:02am, Jul 28)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRoger Angell goes into the Hall of Fame
(28 - 12:49am, Jul 28)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(967 - 12:31am, Jul 28)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogGiants purchase contract of 2B Uggla
(8 - 12:09am, Jul 28)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-27-2014
(145 - 11:46pm, Jul 27)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogHoVG: John Rocker Shows Up in Cooperstown… “Survivor” Up Next
(31 - 10:52pm, Jul 27)
Last: depletion

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(7 - 9:28pm, Jul 27)
Last: neilsen

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(100 - 6:40pm, Jul 27)
Last: Scott Fischthal

Page rendered in 0.8930 seconds
52 querie(s) executed