BBTF's Sox Therapy Discussion :: The Bourn Possibility

Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Bourn Possibility

Michael Bourn is still out there, and there’s no telling who’s going to bring him in. Although you always have to be careful making such assumptions when Scott Boras is involved, it’s starting to look like he’s not going to get the kind of megadeal he’s looking for. So, at what point might he make sense for the Red Sox? This is a really, really good player, who’s probably a good bet to give you about 3-5 WAR. If he could be had for 3-5 years for $15M per year or less, he’d be a very nice option.

Could he be had for the magical 3 years? I’m guessing no. But the Sox may well lose Ellsbury next year and having Bourn would be a great alternative, especially if he can be had fairly cheaply. There’s also a chance that Bourn doesn’t like any of his options and would take a Beltre-esque 1-year deal and take another shot next year.

Darren Posted: January 27, 2013 at 09:31 PM | 73 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Related News:

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. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:54 AM (#4356431)

If the Sox are signing him I think they have to sign him to 3+ years. I'd hate to give up a pick for one year of Michael Bourn. Let's assume this happens AND they let Ellsbury walk. For 2013 you've got;

Ellsbury - LF
Bourn - CF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Napoli - 1B
Middlebrooks - 3B
Drew - SS
Saltalamacchia - C
Victorino - RF

Then in 2014;

Bourn - CF
Pedroia - 2B
Ortiz - DH
Middlebrooks - 3B
Unknown - 1B (presuming something of meaning is done here to fill the spot)
Lavarnway - C
Victorino - RF
Bradley - LF (his arm can play in RF so maybe that changes)
Iglesias - SS

There's still some room to operate at 1st, short and catcher if needed. If Bogaerts progresses and wins the SS job I can see that being a pretty solid lineup.

The other option is that they deal Ellsbury this spring. Sign Bourn and trade Ellsbury for something, one of the Cardinals 1st base options maybe, and that would be a fairly interesting group.

2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4356499)

I really don't like the arrangement of Bourn's production. He's all speed - great defense and baserunning, no power, weak contact skills, not too many walks. With most fast players I think the "once he loses his speed" thing is overblown, since they can improve their other baseball skills and they're generally better athletes than slower players. Bourn lacks other baseball skills, and he needs a .350 BABIP to be an effective hitter. Obviously there's a point at which Bourn is too good to pass up at a certain price, but that price is pretty low for me. And he's a Boras client - someone else is going to go 5/85 before February is over.

I also don't like the giving-up-on-Ellsbury aspect to a prospective Bourn signing. Ellsbury has upside to be a foundational player for a championship team. A rich team can't be planning around not having Ellsbury. He might never be that good again, he might demand too much money, but I'd rather wait and be prepared to give him the big money he could deserve.

3. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4356503)

I assumed part of the reason Victorino was signed was because he could take over in CF if/when Jacoby leaves.

4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM (#4356507)

Maybe. Re-signing Ellsbury is still entirely possible, Victorino will be 33 next year, and Bradley may be ready then, too. I figured they got Victorino because they want someone with CF range playing in right field in Fenway. That Victorino gives them depth in center for the future is useful, but I don't think he's the plan.

5. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4356510)

I agree with Matt. I think Victorino in center is an "oh ####\" option 3 behind some order of re-signing Ellsbury and Bradley emerging.

6. Nasty Nate Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4356554)

I don't think we should assume that just because a player is unsigned late into the baseball winter, his eventual price tag will be a bargain.

7. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4356557)

Bourn's price will be a bargain, in so much as it will be at all, because he will cost the team that signs him the contract, plus their first round pick (to Atlanta), plus the slot money from that first round pick out of their potential signing pool for draftees.

8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4356559)

I agree with Matt. I think Victorino in center is an "oh ####\" option 3 behind some order of re-signing Ellsbury and Bradley emerging.

I don't see why Victorino in CF is scary. All the metrics have him above average the last 3 years.

Even at 34, he should be far from embarassing.

9. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4356562)

Agreed with @8. Victorino in a big CF park like Denver or Seattle would be questionable, but there's nothing about CF in Fenway that would suggest to me that he couldn't be perfectly cromulent as a CF in Boston.

10. Textbook Editor Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4356564)

Is it possible that the pick/slot money is considered (or is) more valuable than Bourn?

I hate, hate, hate the idea of signing Bourn. 2013 is a wash year. If we do great, fine. If we don't, I'm fine with that too. Giving up a pick and the slot money for the likes of Michael Bourn--at any price, for any # of years--is insane to me.

11. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4356566)

I think Jose meant "oh ####\" not in the sense that Victorino would be terrible out there, but rather Victorino in center means that Ellsbury is gone and Bradley isn't ready yet. That's not the outcome the fans or the club want, even if Victorino is cromulent out there.

Plus they'd still need another near-CF glove to handle right.

12. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4356570)

Bourn's price will be a bargain, in so much as it will be at all, because he will cost the team that signs him the contract, plus their first round pick (to Atlanta), plus the slot money from that first round pick out of their potential signing pool for draftees.

Which is why there might be some appeal for Boston - the Red Sox first round pick is protected. (Also why the Mets were reportedly trying to get their pick protected.) I don't think that the second-round slot money should be a determining factor, still it makes a difference.

13. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4356571)

Is it possible that the pick/slot money is considered (or is) more valuable than Bourn?

So far, it's pretty clear that the pick/slot money + the contract request has been too much for most teams. I think Boras will have to come down off of his 5 year/18 mil per demands to account for the pick/slot money.

14. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4356576)

I really don't like the arrangement of Bourn's production. He's all speed - great defense and baserunning, no power, weak contact skills, not too many walks. With most fast players I think the "once he loses his speed" thing is overblown, since they can improve their other baseball skills and they're generally better athletes than slower players. Bourn lacks other baseball skills

I mentioned in another thread that Bourn's WAR totals on both BBREF and Fangraphs causes me cognitive dissonance.

He has 14.3 WAR (BBREF) the past 3 years, 6th among all OFs
But among the 50 OF with the most War he's 47th in WAR batting runs
In baserunning/DP avoidance he's 1st with 29 - Maybin is 8th with 14 (15 less), Maybin at 8th is closer to Kemp at 37th than he is to Bourn at #1
Bourn is 2nd in WAr fielding runs to Gardner, but here's the real rub-

Bourn's last 3 years were his 27-29 years- 51 Fielding runs, best 3 year marks by the over 30 set? 18, 13, and then under 10

Let's say Bourn next 3 years his the same and has the same WAR baserunning score (which is possible even if he slows)
and drops to 25 WAR runs fielding (a terrific total for an over 30 OF)- he'd lose one WAR a year.

As someone else said, given his batting skills, he's almost certain to lose BABIP as well,

I can't but help seeing him as being a bad for his early 30 years (relative to his late 20s), not as bad bet as someone like Ryan Howard maybe- but everything revolves around his wheels, he's doesn't even have to get old, just banged up a bit

but assuming health in 2013, he'll likely be as good in 2013 as 2010-2012
This is true for all ball players, but he's a guy I think a GM has to sign for as few years as possible

15. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4356591)

I think Jose meant "oh ####\" not in the sense that Victorino would be terrible out there, but rather Victorino in center means that Ellsbury is gone and Bradley isn't ready yet. That's not the outcome the fans or the club want, even if Victorino is cromulent out there.

Yup. It's not that Victorino is a bad option but a Sox team that is successful in 2014 is not likely to have Shane Victorino as its centerfielder.

16. villageidiom Posted: January 28, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4356606)

I assumed part of the reason Victorino was signed was because he could take over in CF if/when Jacoby leaves.

When Jacoby gets hurt.

17. karlmagnus Posted: January 28, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4356625)

Career OPS+ of 90. No thanks. Sabers are putting altogether too much weight on fielding metrics to make that a decent player. Crawford was WAY better (OPS+ of 105, even after his lousy Sox seasons) and that didn't work out too well.

18. booond Posted: January 28, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4356652)

Bourn makes no sense. Of course Victorino made little sense, too. An OF of Victorino, Ells and Gomes/Nava is fine if all are healthy and playing near their ability. I wouldn't bet the house on any of that happening but adding Bourn won't make the boat lighter.

19. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4356696)

I don't particularly want Michael Bourn but it's hard to believe he wouldn't be a fairly sizable upgrade over Nava/Gomes. At worst Bourn is Nava with a whole bunch of speed offsetting a loss of power. If the price drops heavily on Bourn (and I think in the end it won't, Boras doesn't suck at his job) the Sox probably should consider it. The problem is it's Josh Hamilton at lesser numbers all over again. At some point enough teams will notice that Bourn is a "bargain" that he'll sign something fairly representative of his value.

20. Nasty Nate Posted: January 28, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4356701)

I don't particularly want Michael Bourn but it's hard to believe he wouldn't be a fairly sizable upgrade over Nava/Gomes.

It would be slightly incoherent to be trying to upgrade over a guy they just brought in.

21. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4356714)

Maybe I'm misreading the way they are approaching the season but I don't see Gomes as anything other than a platoon partner/backup. I can't imagine the Sox are looking to him for 450-500 PA. Even as a 4th outfielder there are still going to be 300 PA for him if he's productive.

22. booond Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4356824)

I don't particularly want Michael Bourn but it's hard to believe he wouldn't be a fairly sizable upgrade over Nava/Gomes.

Defensively, sure. On the base paths, probably. At the dish, a Gomes/Nava platoon should beat out Bourn. This doesn't count that, up until last season, Bourn had a sizable platoon split. Add in Bourn's salary and losing a #1, I don't see why the Sox would want him.

23. booond Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4356828)

I don't see Gomes as anything other than a platoon partner/backup. I can't imagine the Sox are looking to him for 450-500 PA. Even as a 4th outfielder there are still going to be 300 PA for him if he's productive.

Gomes needs a platoon partner. He's Cody Ross without the defense. My guess is they'll platoon him with Nava;, giving Gomes days off against better rhp.

24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4356832)

Gomes needs a platoon partner. He's Cody Ross without the defense. My guess is they'll platoon him with Nava;, giving Gomes days off against better rhp.

Gomes is an absolute butcher defensively. Lat time he played close to a full season in the OF (Cincinnati 2010) he was ~-20 with the glove. His bat can't carry his glove except against LHP.

25. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4356836)

Defensively, sure. On the base paths, probably. At the dish, a Gomes/Nava platoon should beat out Bourn.

Defensively, absolutely. Bourn is an elite defender. On the base paths, probably. At the dish, it's doubtful that any left-handed slap hitter (Bourn) is going to be equivalent to a RH hitter with even moderate wall-ball power to play off the Monster. Bourn is about the last guy who would benefit from Fenway's eccentricities.

26. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4356843)

Well, the Sox wouldn't lose a #1, they'd lose a #2 (which I think is about #45 or so) so that offsets it a bit. At the plate Bourn's been an awfully steady player and should project as having a better OBP than either Gomes or Nava though by a relatively small amount. Gomes obviously will bring a lot more power and Nava will have more though not by a massive amount. Add in the defense and baserunning and it's hard not to see him as an upgrade. Whether that's worth the money and the pick is open for debate. The sample sizes are small of course but Nava has troublingly disintegrated in both his MLB appearances. It's possible it's random but I think there is a good chance it's a guy being exposed by MLB pitching.

As I said earlier, I think the end result will be a contract that isn't worth the move but it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on the market. If he gets 3/24 or something silly like that it would be disappointing to let that go by the boards.

27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4356845)

At the dish, it's doubtful that any left-handed slap hitter (Bourn) is going to be equivalent to a RH hitter with even moderate wall-ball power to play off the Monster. Bourn is about the last guy who would benefit from Fenway's eccentricities.\

Really? Wouldn't a LH slap hitter have a lot of weak/medium flyballs to left that Fenway might turn into doubles?

28. Darren

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4356847)

If they're smart, they'll play Gomes as much as possible at home against lefties when he's in the field. On the road, he can DH a little against lefties and get the rare start in the OF too. I expect Nava to get the bulk of the playing time with Kalish out.

If MC is right above that someone will give Bourn 5/85, I don't think I'd want him and I'm sure the Sox would not. My thoughts were that if he's dropped enough to where the Mets are said to be in the running, he's got to be pretty cheap. How about 3/$55M with an opt out after the first year?

The guy does rely on speed but he had his best ISO of his career last year as well as his best walk rate. And sure, his speed is a big part of his defense, but it's not all of it. Even if his speed falls off a bit, he looks to be adding some old player skills already.

29. booond Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4356874)

If they're smart, they'll play Gomes as much as possible at home against lefties when he's in the field. On the road, he can DH a little against lefties and get the rare start in the OF too.

While I understand wanting to protect against his defense, he's a 970 ops guy against lhp. He should play everyday against LHP.

At the plate Bourn's been an awfully steady player and should project as having a better OBP than either Gomes or Nava though by a relatively small amount.

If they run the platoon correctly, it would be 350 vs 375 with Gomes/Nava having the advantage on obp.

30. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4356884)

If they run the platoon correctly, it would be 350 vs 375 with Gomes/Nava having the advantage on obp.

The problem with that thinking is the assumption of exclusivity against the "right" pitcher. Even in a strict platoon situation guys are going to face "wrong" handed pitchers. I'm not as bullish on Nava as others.

31. Darren

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4356889)

While I understand wanting to protect against his defense, he's a 970 ops guy against lhp. He should play everyday against LHP.

That's what I meant.

Also, the draft pick is a non-issue for me. You're talking about pick number forty-something, which on average, is pretty worthless. If the extra cash is only going to help at the margins, usually on guys who are, on average, worthless.

32. tfbg9 Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4356895)

How about 3/$55M with an opt out after the first year?

??? That aint happening.
And Nava getting 400 AB's depresses me. The Leauge figured him out (2nd half 2012: .197/.299/.368). He's gonna suck.

33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4356896)

While I understand wanting to protect against his defense, he's a 970 ops guy against lhp. He should play everyday against LHP.

Yes, and should basically never play if a RHP is starting, or if a RH RP comes into the game (especially if you have a lead).

34. Darren

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4356898)

On planning for Ellsbury to leave, I think it's okay. He was great in one season. In three of the past 4 years, Bourn has been better than him, and Bourn is only a year older. If you can lock in Bourn for half (?) what Ellsbury will cost, it's a reasonable tradeoff.

35. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4356928)

Ryan Kalish will have shoulder surgery and will miss spring training.

36. Darren

Posted: January 28, 2013 at 09:04 PM (#4357005)

??? That aint happening.

Then don't sign him.

And Nava getting 400 AB's depresses me. The Leauge figured him out (2nd half 2012: .197/.299/.368). He's gonna suck.

They figured out he was playing with a bad wrist?

37. OCD SS Posted: January 29, 2013 at 08:07 AM (#4357173)

Has this even been suggested now, or is it just a chance for MCoA to trot out an admittedly cool headline?

Also, the draft pick is a non-issue for me. You're talking about pick number forty-something, which on average, is pretty worthless. If the extra cash is only going to help at the margins, usually on guys who are, on average, worthless.

I don't think that's the case. With far fewer comp picks available the Sox 2nd rounder is going to be pretty close to the supplemental round, where they used to pick up guys like Buchholz, Ellsbury, and Masterson. Just because they weren't able to use the extra cap space on their picks in the 1st draft under the new system doesn't mean that their value is nil.

Regardless, I think the impact on Bourn's market shows that teams really do value the picks in the draft, especially with the new system.

(Also, Rickey (#7), the Braves do not get the pick of the team that signs Bourn; they get one Sandwich pick only. The other team's 1st or unprotected 2nd pick simply disappears.)

38. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2013 at 08:15 AM (#4357177)

The Leauge figured him out (2nd half 2012: .197/.299/.368).

That's 110 PA, driven down by a .234 BABIP.

39. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4357198)

I'm not a Nava fan. He's 30. He has very little power. He's cheap. We'll give him that. He gets on base a bit when there's a righty on the bump. That's about it.

Yes, he's a nice story.

Let's revisit at the ASB. I don't have big expectations.

40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4357207)

My vision of the Nava/Gomes platoon is basically that you have a strict platoon on the road, and at home you give most of the starts to Gomes with Nava coming in against tougher RHP. The hope is that (a) Gomes' dead-pull flyball bat will play up in Fenway and (b) Gomes' glove can be partly hidden in front of the monster.

A guy who can "get on base a bit" in the contemporary game is a valuable thing indeed. League average OBP runs about .320. If you get on base 35% of time or more, you're scoring a whole bunch more runs than the average ballplayer.

41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM (#4357268)

and at home you give most of the starts to Gomes with Nava coming in against tougher RHP

I don't know why you'd want to do that.

Gomes career vs. RHP is 222/307/424, 93 wRC+, and he's got the worse glove. If Nava can't outproduce that vs. RHP, he's not worth having on the roster.

42. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM (#4357286)

With Gomes at Fenway you are taking the shot that he can do a bit of what Ross did last year. Ross vs. RHP in his career is not unlike Gomes (.253/.312/.415) but according to Baseball Musings he hit .298/.356/.565 at Fenway vs. RHP last year. It's basically a "be the same hitter but luck into a few balls that hit or go over the Wall" approach.

43. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4357347)

A guy who can "get on base a bit" in the contemporary game is a valuable thing indeed.

Not so much for a LF'er, if that's the only thing he's good at. And he gets on base a bit only against RHP's. I can't recall, has Nava had some durability issues?
Semantics of course, but I'd say Nava is "worth retaining on the 40 man for the time being" rather than "valuable". YMMV...

What's a good definition, a quick definition, of an average ballplayer? 2.0 WAR per 600 PA's? Something like that?
I'm guessing Nava will have a 2013 that comes in below that. Hope I'm wrong. But so far, in the AL, he's at 1.3 rWAR thru 505 PA's.
And he's on the wrong side of 30.

PS-small sample blah blah blah, but Nava so far has a humongo Fenway/road split: .820/.616

44. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4357390)

They figured out he was playing with a bad wrist?

A bad wrist last year is not exactly a reason to expect a good "this year" from Nava.

45. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4357439)

I'd rather see the platoon partner job go to Sweeney. Career .338 OBP, better baserunner, fielder than Nava.
VS. righties he has done: .293 .347 .402...and at 28 he's a marginally better bet to not get worse than Nava.

46. Dale Sams Posted: January 29, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4357453)

re: Nava being figured out. Besides the possibility of playing with an injury, we also have to throw in permutations of 'playing outside his zone' for a starting job, trying to will the team out of a death spiral...all that crap. I know the possibility of it is certainly real, cause I saw a seasoned veteran like AGon doing exactly that. Just flailing away at ####. Given his age and his path to the majors, we'll probably never see what Nava's true injury-free stats are...but as part of a platoon, I don't think he's useless.

47. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 29, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4357542)

Agree with 45. Sweeney laps Nava defensively. In a DM/strat/OOTP world the Gomes/Sweeney platoon massively improves the defense by playing Gomes LF/Victo RF against LHP and Victo LF/Sweeney RF vs RHP (not sure if the CW on Victo's arm is as bad as I think it is or if I'm unfairly discounting his throwing due to a near-Ibanez level of gif/youtube blooper reel throws).

We also forget that Sweeney basically carried the Sox OF offensively in April 2012.

48. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4357702)

Sweeney hit well last season, before suffering the concussion.

49. Darren

Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4357867)

Sweeney hit .083 .185 .167 in the second half. He's gonna suck.

Sweeney hit well last season, before suffering the concussion.

A concussion last year is not exactly a reason to expect a good "this year" from Sweeney. (Edit: Neither do a broken toe or a self-inflicted broken pinky.)

What's a good definition, a quick definition, of an average ballplayer? 2.0 WAR per 600 PA's? Something like that?
I'm guessing Nava will have a 2013 that comes in below that. Hope I'm wrong. But so far, in the AL, he's at 1.3 rWAR thru 505 PA's.
And he's on the wrong side of 30.

What's a good definition, a quick definition, of an average ballplayer? 2.0 WAR per 600 PA's? Something like that?
I'm guessing Sweeney will have a 2013 that comes in below that. Hope I'm wrong. But over the past 3 years, in the AL, he's at 1.4 WAR thru 849 PA's.

We also forget that Sweeney basically carried the Sox OF offensively in April 2012.

He put up a .373 .394 .567 line in 71 PAs in March/April. Nava carried the offense from May 10 to June 24, with a .339 .452 .517 line in 147 PAs.

50. Darren

Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4357876)

All joking aside, I bet that Sweeney and Nava will duke it out for the platoon LF role. Sweeney's younger, more athletic, and has the prospect pedigree. The one big advantage that Nava has is that the big knock against him in the past couple years has been his inability to hit lefties, which makes him better, rather than worse, for a platoon job. I hope the Sox make the right choice in who they give the job to.

51. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4357883)

Cute.

Neither one is great shakes, but like was said already, Sweeney hits about the same, and is a much better fielder. And he's younger. And he's actually had an above average season at this level. He's been a better baseball player than Nava so far, and his versitality in the OF makes him a better bet for the team in 2013, I'd have to guess. Not by a lot, granted.

But whichever guy hits in ST is gonna get the job, probably.

52. tfbg9 Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:37 PM (#4357887)

Anybody have a hit chart for Nava's 2012?

53. villageidiom Posted: January 29, 2013 at 10:54 PM (#4357902)

Anybody have a hit chart for Nava's 2012?

Here.

54. Darren

Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4357916)

I don't agree that he's been better than Nava. Nava's been a better hitter and has performed better overall when given the chance. There are other reasons to favor Sweeney, though.

55. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM (#4357919)

The thing about Sweeney is he's a known quantity. Despite being younger than Nava he has a LOT more MLB experience and his track record at the plate is not good. It's not appreciably worse than Nava's but Nava at least has a bit of the unknown to him. Sweeney is a 90-95 OPS+ hitter, we know that and wishing it weren't so isn't going to change it. There is an excellent chance that Nava isn't any better but there is a chance. I'd rather see the Sox gamble a bit.

56. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:24 PM (#4357927)

I developed a deep, mostly irrational dislike of Ryan Sweeney last year. He was just so, so bad at the plate. He has this beautiful swing that somehow never produces power. He can't recognize breaking pitches, and he can't punish mistakes. He sucks at hitting.

I recognize his track record is better than that, but I really don't want to see him at the plate again for the Sox.

The problem is, for roster construction reasons, someone like Sweeney (let's not say Sweeney) makes more sense than Nava. Victorino is useful for his ability to back up CF, but an outfield of Gomes/Victorino/Nava is a scary thing. Unless you're planning on Jacoby Ellsbury not missing any games, it would make a lot more sense to have Gomes' platoon partner be a solid plus with the glove.

57. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4357932)

In crazy clowntown news, bullpen coach Gary Tuck will not return in 2013. Tuck famously stopped speaking to Valentine entirely, like an eleven-year-old in a family sitcom, and made the players relay messages between himself and the manager. I'm glad he's gone. I'm surprised the decision was Tuck's.

58. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4357937)

Haven't you guys been keeping up? Metsmerizedonline and mets360 are all over this. No more than three years for Bourn, though, even IF Boras is his agent.

59. Darren

Posted: January 29, 2013 at 11:40 PM (#4357945)

MC, JBJ and/or Linares will be ready to dominate out of the gate, so don't worry. That reminds me, has the CFBPS been renoobulated?

60. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 30, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4358190)

Renoobulation is an ongoing process. I need some new dials and levers and steam-joists before it can be fully back up to speed. And I have realized the CFBPS engine has cathected to me, and responds to my feelings. Some days I don't feel much like a crazy fanboy, and when the CFBPS is sad, it often just refuses to project anything. So we're working on that.

61. tfbg9 Posted: January 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4358215)

53-thanks.

Now if I could only interpret the damned thing...but, am I correct in stating that it seems to indicate that there is indeed
a reason Nava hits so much better in Fenway, SSSC aside? I ask this becasue if a significant portion of Gomes' utility to the team is his
projected ability to take advantage of The Wall, but if that is also a significant part of Nava's usefullness, then we have a bit of a
problem for Nava, no? If the idea was to give Gomes all the starts possible against LHP's, and a bunch more at home vs RHP's, and Nava really is a player
who is gonna have a big Home/Road split as well as a big platoon split, then there's another reason to give the job to Sweeney, who actually hit
a hair better on the road last year, SSSC again.

62. villageidiom Posted: February 01, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4360150)

Ryan Sweeney has company: Lyle Overbay signed a minor-league deal with Boston.

63. Dale Sams Posted: February 04, 2013 at 07:35 PM (#4362693)

Lowrie got traded to the A's for Chris Carter if anyone cares.

64. Darren

Posted: February 16, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4370802)

How about 3/$55M with an opt out after the first year?

??? That aint happening.

Is it wrong to bring this up?

65. tfbg9 Posted: February 16, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4370834)

No it is not wrong, but what I meant wasn't happening was the opt out after one year, not
the level of money per year/number of years.

66. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 16, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4370839)

Are you saying you thought it wouldn't happen because it was too generous to Bourn?

67. tfbg9 Posted: February 17, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4370948)

No. I was stating that I thought a contract with one guaranteed year and then a team opt-out was "not happening." Perhaps I misunderstood his post. But I thought this was a deal Bourne would never accept.

68. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4370951)

Darren was proposing three years guaranteed, with only Bourn having the option to opt out. Not an "option year" for the team, an "opt out" for the player.

69. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4370973)

I wouldn't want to have given Bourn an out. If the Sox would be surrendering a draft pick for a player I'd want to be damned sure that the guy was going to be a part of my time for several years.

70. tfbg9 Posted: February 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4370974)

Ahha. Well silly me then. But I rather doubt the Red Sox would have offered such a deal in any case. You never know I suppose.

71. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 17, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4371039)

If the Sox would be surrendering a draft pick for a player I'd want to be damned sure that the guy was going to be a part of my time for several years.

Well, if he opted out after one year, the Sox would get a supplemental pick if they didn't retain him. So they'd be trading a 2nd round pick one year for a supplemental the next.

I don't like opt-outs, either, since it makes planning the roster more difficult in the medium term. But I don't think the draft picks are a major issue.

It does appear that the Sox don't think they need another outfielder. They seem all-in on Jonny Gomes. I am concerned they are not making the right call.

72. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 17, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4371044)

Well, if he opted out after one year, the Sox would get a supplemental pick if they didn't retain him. So they'd be trading a 2nd round pick one year for a supplemental the next.

That's a point I had not considered. That definitely is more palatable.

I agree on Gomes though I wonder if Gomes is really Nava/Gomes. I'm not sure that's necessarily a major improvement but it would be fun at least. One other possibility is there is an internal plan to aggressively promote Bradley if he has a strong year. Him following an Ellsbury 2007-path would not be a shocker with an outfield of Victorino-Bradley-Ellsbury come the ASB.

73. Darren

Posted: February 17, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4371135)

I am concerned they are not making the right call.

There are about 35 things they've done in the past 2-3 years that I've felt this way about.

I agree with Jose that it was Kalish-or-Nava/Gomes and now it's just Nava/Gomes.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Bourn Possibility

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate