Sox Sign Drew

  1. 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. 

     

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    He got a raise off of these numbers:

    2012 29 TOT MLB 79 327 287 38 64 13 1 7 28 1 2 37 76 .223 .309 .348 .657  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG'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.




    He hit .223 with an OPS of .657. $9.5M

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to BannedOnTheRun--1918's comment:

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

    lol JBay yes we could....... Iggy is fine. this is a bull#crap team. IMO




    How is hitting .118 "fine"??




    well, the thought is that he will hit a bit higher than 118 and provide GG defense. but i agree that he could use another year in the minors. i like this signing



    Actually, if he spends one more year in the minors, what does it matter? Bogaerts is past him already.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    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.




    He hit .223 with an OPS of .657. $9.5M




    So for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Drew had an OPS of .657? That's not what baseball reference says. Oh, wait a minute, you were talking about last year only. I guess you must have missed the part where I said "prior to shattering his ankle". Or are you taking reading comprehension lessons from softlaw?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    carnie -Adding nothing as usual.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    carnie -Adding nothing as usual.




    ADG adding misinformation and whinging and crying as usual.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    And he's getting older. The point is the amount of money. They spend $9.5M on a guy not worth it, just like they did with Victorino, Napoli and Dempster in a year when the team is going nowhere.

    It's just "justification" for Lucchino preaching how much the team spent on junk t justify the highest ticket prices in baseball.

    They went to the flea market and picked up junk at a premium.

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    And he's getting older. The point is the amount of money. They spend $9.5M on a guy not worth it, just like they did with Victorino, Napoli and Dempster in a year when the team is going nowhere.

    It's just "justification" for Lucchino preaching how much the team spent on junk t justify the highest ticket prices in baseball.

    They went to the flea market and picked up junk at a premium.




    So don't go to the games. Don't buy the TV package. Vote with your wallet. But please quit whining.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    And he's getting older. The point is the amount of money. They spend $9.5M on a guy not worth it, just like they did with Victorino, Napoli and Dempster in a year when the team is going nowhere.

    It's just "justification" for Lucchino preaching how much the team spent on junk t justify the highest ticket prices in baseball.

    They went to the flea market and picked up junk at a premium.



    "And he's getting older?!"  He's 29 and they signed him to a 1 year deal!  If you want to whine like a 2 year old all the time, at least try making some sense.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx'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.



    Drew isnt a flashy SS but will make the routine plays everytime.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to mattb5fon's comment:

    Not JD. Family sweep complete



    Why not add another low OBP to the lineup.  I have no problem with our team looking for depth but at least sign or trade for someone who can get OB.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

    In response to mattb5fon's comment:

    Not JD. Family sweep complete



    Another low OBP and average defender to an already dismal lineup.  I have no problem with our team looking for depth but at least sign or trade for someone who can make things happen more often than not..

     




     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    And he's getting older. The point is the amount of money. They spend $9.5M on a guy not worth it, just like they did with Victorino, Napoli and Dempster in a year when the team is going nowhere.

    It's just "justification" for Lucchino preaching how much the team spent on junk t justify the highest ticket prices in baseball.

    They went to the flea market and picked up junk at a premium.



    Maybe you just arent living in today's market.  If every team is overpaying, the market has adjusted. Its you who is left behind.

    Backup 3B make 12M now.  Its a crazy new world.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Stephen Drew is the very definition of average defensively.  I think his career DWAR is like 0.5. He is the median defensive SS.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    I fail to see how this is a bad deal...  The sox get a player for 1 year that had very solid numbers prior to demolishing his foot.  He has something to prove and wants that long term deal after this year.  He is in his prime.  When healthy he plays hard and he has not missed many games other than when his foot exploded.  Yep....it's 9.5 million $.  A HUGE amount for somebody looking to prove his value but again IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!!!  The Sox are spending money...they are fielding what could be a very solid team.  Yes they are over-spending on some of their talent but at least they are spending money!!  Face it people....Iglesias is not the answer.  Great glove but the guy can't hit a ball. Drew is a sloid defender with a solid bat that will play a lot of games.  Plus it gives Xander another year to grow....AND he gives us a decent chip in Iglesias for a possible trade for a starting pitcher.  A package of Iglesias, Salty and maybe another solid prospect could get us some help!  To me it's a great signing!!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    So, we have 3 times the amount of bad deals, but they are 1/3rd the length.

    Again, why is that supposed to make me feel good?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So, we have 3 times the amount of bad deals, but they are 1/3rd the length.

    Again, why is that supposed to make me feel good?




    How can they be 'bad deals' in December?? 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So, we have 3 times the amount of bad deals, but they are 1/3rd the length.

    Again, why is that supposed to make me feel good?




    Moon you are really getting off the reservation lately....carnie is going to call you a bad name soon....maybe quitter or fussypants....

    but i think youre smart enough to know the saying about dressing up a pig.....the only  thing DrewII's signing tells me is that they lost faith in Iggy....doesnt this somewhat contradict ben's entire short term strategy/signings? what next, a 3b for 10 million in case middlebrooks swoons?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to georom4's comment:

    but i think youre smart enough to know the saying about dressing up a pig.....the only  thing DrewII's signing tells me is that they lost faith in Iggy....doesnt this somewhat contradict ben's entire short term strategy/signings? what next, a 3b for 10 million in case middlebrooks swoons?



    No, the fact that they're concerned about Iggy not being the answer for 2013 doesn't contradict the overall strategy at all...it's a one year deal so it fits the strategy. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosoxmal. Show bosoxmal's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Iggy would save more runs than Drew will drive, score and save---all combined. What kind of a bad joke is this!!!!!?????

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

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    Have to love all the positive vibes here in RS Nation. Did the RS overpay for 1yr? Of course. But no one was doing back flips when Adrian Beltre was 1st signed from Mariners coming off all those so so yrs in Seatle. 1 yr later he was the best thing since sliced bread. Drew had a 10 mil option for 2013 given from the big spending D Backs [declined by A's - who wanted to resign]. So basically the RS are paying him as if he really never got hurt or will bounce back and be that same player - its a gamble. The question is would you pay 9.5 mil for a SS who gives you:

    Drew [162 game avg] .265 avg  15 HR's  70 rbi's .330 obp .980 fielding% [3 seasons w/ 800+ ops]

    Drew like Beltre needs a big season to prove he's healthy and go back to FA and cash in like Beltre did. For RS had $ to spend and need to buy some time for Iggy or Bogaerts. Doesn't cost us any picks or players nothing to lose but some cash, but much could be gained. 

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox Sign Drew

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    So, we have 3 times the amount of bad deals, but they are 1/3rd the length.

    Again, why is that supposed to make me feel good?




    How can they be 'bad deals' in December?? 



    The same way the CC deal was a bad deal before the ink dried.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share