Sox Sign Drew

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to hill55's comment:

    This offseason the Red Sox have handed out Major League contracts* to eight players who will be at least 30 years old on Opening Day 2013: David Ortiz, Ryan Dempster, Mike Napoli, David Ross, Shane Victorino, Jonny Gomes, Stephen Drew and Koji Uehara.

    That's eight roster slots on an aging team that keeps getting older.

    * plus minor league contracts to 30-year-old Mitch Maier and Drew Sutton, who turns 30 in June



            Most players don't reach the majors before there 24th birthday.

            Teams control them for 6 years.

            Math tells us free agency is usually dominated by 30 year olds.

           

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    They may as well just trade away Iglesias and Lavarnway, and give them a chance to start somewhere else.

     

    I am a huge fan of great defense at SS, but I said the same thing about Iggy 2 years ago. We are paying him $2M a year, and if we are not going to give him a chance, we should trade him.




    Hopefully that is the plan, for Iggy's sake, and Bogaert's sake, and for Drew's and Ciriaco's sakes for that matter.  A AA starter with loads of potential that has not yet shown the complete stuff would be about right, straight up, IMO.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Koolga. Show Koolga's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    I wouldn't be suprised if the Sox are lining up for a pitching trade..  They could use Iggy and Salty (and maybe Jacoby) as a package for a front line starter.

    By having the other pieces in place, they are ready if the situation arises.

    Also, Bogaert's prob the SS of the future anyways, and that gives him till 2014 to be ready.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Two years ago, there were loads on this board clammering for Theo to get Drew. If we are all honest here, this was another bridge signing.  But the bridge is to Bogaerts, not Iggy, IMO.

    For the record, I think getting Drew was prudent.  But I think the money is high.  There is no way that Drew was brought in to back up Iglesias in case he falters.  Drew was brought in as the starter, IMO.  He would not have signed without such an assurance from Ben at deal time.  You cannot rebuild your value sitting on the bench, and from Drew's perspective this is a deal to rebuild value and re-enter FA next year and land a big contract.  Worked for Beltre, hope it works for Drew as well.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from VeniceSox. Show VeniceSox's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to carnie's comment:

    Prior to shattering his ankle in 2011 Drew posted OPSes of .875, .683, .836, .748 and .810. I'd take that offensive production from the SS position. He also looked very good in the field with Oakland last year. Oh, and he'll be playing for a contract. I like it.



    I like it too... Iggy is definitely not ready and I have my doubts he ever will be.  He has been touted for the past 2 or 3 yrs now and every time he comes up he never hits!!

    All these posters complaining will complain no matter who they get yet they almost never offer alternative solutions...

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from VeniceSox. Show VeniceSox's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

    Christ this team sucks



    Then I suggest you dont watch or follow.... pretty simple!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to J-BAY's comment:

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

    Christ this team sucks



    We could use him, too;))



    Haha, yes. I'll vote for that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from VeniceSox. Show VeniceSox's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Signing run of the mill veterans to short term contracts seems to be Cherington's way of doing things.  It flopped last year and I think it will flop again this year.  I don't think the money saved on the deal with L.A. is being spent wisely. Another last place finish looks probable.  I honestly don't see how so many on here continue to defend Ben.



    Ok lets say that youre right....how about a blueprint of what you would have done??

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

    Well there are numerous articles and stats to show just what a magical glove can do at SS. If there was ever a league or a team that could afford a lame hitting SS it would be Boston. We would benefit from a .225 hitting Wizard of Oz if you ask me. The other positional players need to tally the runs.

    But I guess most of you want 3rd tier proven .260 hitting gloving SS types at the most crucial spot in the defense.




    at the most crucial spot in the defense.

     

    yes

    finally a member of RSN that appreciates

    jeters defense and why he got those GG

    how could they win all those games

    if he was as bad as so many say ;-)



    PED's ;-)

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    appearing in 79 games and batting .223 with a .657 OPS and seven home runs.

    Unlike his brother, S. Drew is not a good fielding SS. So, anyone understand how the above numbers equate to 10 million contract offer? His last 3 years make his weak career median averages even worse.

    Folks, there is no defense for this move. Ciriaco and Iggy and Pedroia should have been set in stone for 2013 Red Sox, yet the incompetent Cherry decides to unload 10 million on S. Drew?

    It started out from a point where Ross was an overpay but a fit and a low single digits overpay. Then, it went to an overpay for declining and health issues Napoli but Napoli is a fit and the overpay is such that the 15M value overpay can be defended.

    Now, it's become almost as absurd as "Crawbust, he's a great player".

    "Dumpster" will be no better than a committee of retreaded tires and farm hands that cost low single digits for one season. A 20 million plus overpay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Drew will end up a big write off if the Red Sox playoff bubble pops early. But, he can't be defended because he's worse than the altnerative at a tiny fraction of the cost for Drew.

    Drew has injury issues and has done nothing to make himself more than a glorified career UIF'er.




    Now I like this move even more...

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    appearing in 79 games and batting .223 with a .657 OPS and seven home runs.

    Unlike his brother, S. Drew is not a good fielding SS. So, anyone understand how the above numbers equate to 10 million contract offer? His last 3 years make his weak career median averages even worse.

    Folks, there is no defense for this move. Ciriaco and Iggy and Pedroia should have been set in stone for 2013 Red Sox, yet the incompetent Cherry decides to unload 10 million on S. Drew?

    It started out from a point where Ross was an overpay but a fit and a low single digits overpay. Then, it went to an overpay for declining and health issues Napoli but Napoli is a fit and the overpay is such that the 15M value overpay can be defended.

    Now, it's become almost as absurd as "Crawbust, he's a great player".

    "Dumpster" will be no better than a committee of retreaded tires and farm hands that cost low single digits for one season. A 20 million plus overpay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Drew will end up a big write off if the Red Sox playoff bubble pops early. But, he can't be defended because he's worse than the altnerative at a tiny fraction of the cost for Drew.

    Drew has injury issues and has done nothing to make himself more than a glorified career UIF'er.



    If you hated Aviles at 1.2 million last year you have  got to hate Drew 10 times more with what he is getting paid.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    It just seems like the Sox signed a lesser talent at a higher price than they had last year.  I guess it will be a wait and see how it works type of situation.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    Do ya think that he came from the same APPLE TREE  ???????????




    Yes he is, but hopefully a healthier, more resilient branch of the tree!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Insurance . Hah! What a joke. An insurance policy for one year , with a ten million dollar premium.  What in the world are we insuring ?  

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    I'm not a hater like those who hate The Bible, and I'm not referring to the baseball bible. However, this is at least 5 times worse than Aviles, on the value and fit scale.



    I agree.

    It makes no sense at all. 

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Yes, Carnie, and you loved Crawford when I said "avoid Crawford like the plague".

    You like punishment, so you must love cherry.



    Funny, I don't remember you saying that. I'd say put up your old post, but you've been banned so many times they are surprisingly not available. :-)

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bt33. Show bt33's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    thought there was no reason not to play iglesias for a full year and see how he hits, but clearly they've decided he's unlikely to hit consistently at the major league level at this point. perhaps he starts at triple a, because unless there was ome kind of platoon going on it would seem like a waste to have him on the bench. especially because they have ciriaco is their as a utility guy. doesn't bode well for iggy being here probably as one would think there is at most a two year time frame for bogaerts

    clearly drew is a very expensive insurance policy/stop gap measure and obviously the sox are content to overpay guys for shorter contracts. seems like drew was a 5-6 million per guy and thought he might have commanded 2 @10 or 12 or something like that. 

    also don't think they are necessarily done. there may be a couple of guys sitting out there who don't wind up getting the years they wanted, though they would also probably go into the season as is. adding a first base/outfielder type (swisher? berkman?) and perhaps another proven starter to the mix are probably not outside the realm of possibility. seemingly, there are a few chips available (ells/iglesias/lavarnway/sweeney/de la rossa?/aceves/one of the lefty relievers) to potentially bring in a piece or two via trade. can't see them parting with their key prospects though.

    all in all it's impossible to get too excited about the 7 players they brought in, but agree with it or not they were obviously intent on limiting years no matter what. it's difficult to argue with the people who thought hamilton was the way to go as he was the one impact everyday player out there, and I certainly understand those who wanted anabel sanchez, though the class was weak. also think those who thought they should simply fill a few holes, lie in the weeds for next year and beyond have a point, but there is the reality of having to roll out a team the fan base will go and see. the red sox were not about to spend 80 million and get crushed by the fans and the press when they won 70 games.  

    this approach was their idea of how to birdge the gap to their promising youngsters. they stay away from any and long term deals that would jeapordize future flexibility. not saying it's the right way to go, and for the short term this team is unlikely to be anything but mediocre, but there is more to be hopeful for now than there was prior to the trade. think they are bringing in likeable guys who have mostly been good clubhouse guys. 

    think you have to be most concerned with the napoli, dempster, and victorino signings because they overpaid for all of them and they are not really moveable if things go wrong. at the same time they had giant holes and needed to fill them with proven players. it's not like there are kids raring to go right now. by almost all accounts brentz/bogaerts/bradley/barnes/webster etc. still need a year or two to be ready. dempster will be 36 in may so that's something to think about, but he's only signed for two years and they needed someone who could come in and give them innings. he will do that. he may not hold up against the al beasts, but he'll go out and pitch. if he's terrible, this team isn't winning anything next year anyway, so we're down to one year going into 2014. post 2014 the sox are done with lackey and dempster (although if Lackey turns it around they have the extra option year). it all boils down to lester and bucholtz anyway - they stink this team stinks. they return to form the team will at least be in playoff contention. 

    we'll see how they perfrom in 2013. that's ultimately the test. personally, not crazy about dempster. certainly napoli is not ideal defesnively at first base by any means. seems like they are still missing a big bat in the line-up. hate the idea of ellsbury going (though that seems like a given at this point). they are without a solid, go-to starter at the top of the rotation. think having bailey and aceves at the top of the relief staff is really shaky. they could use at least one more solid vetran rh reliever. oh well. don't think it can get worse than last year. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts