Re: Why was Scutaro traded?
posted at 2/23/2012 12:20 PM EST
In Response to Why was Scutaro traded?
[QUOTE]The Sox traded their starting SS and don't really have a contingency plan in place heading into the season, so it begs the question as to why Marco was dealt. The sox have options at SS, but all come with big question marks, can Iglesias hit over .200? Are either Aviles or Punto really good enough defensively to be an everyday SS? 1. I think the prevailing thinking at the time was that Marco was dealt so the Sox could add an additional arm and still stay under the luxury tax but that has not happened, maybe it still will and maybe trading Marco was just about $$$. 2. The sox just had to have Clayton Mortenson. Don't think so. 3. It has be rumored that Marco was the guy (or 1 of the guys) leaking things to press regarding last years clubhouse issues, so maybe the F.O. thought he should not be brought back. I wasn't a huge fan of Scutaro but he provided a lot more certainty at SS than any of the remaining options, so unless it was just a straight financial decision, I wonder somewhat why the move was made.
Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
Yes, there certainly is some mystery to be untangled in the Scutaro trade. I was of the Well-That-Frees-Up-Money-For-A-Bonafide-Starter thinkers. Didn't happen.
I am coming around, though, to what I think, for better or for worse, is the the FO modus operendi this off-season: We have lots of talent in-house, some of it untapped as to its potential: Lets tap it or go home.
Hence the faith that Bard will turn into starter, Salty (with a boost from Shoppach) will keep improving, and, in the interest of slashing payroll, Aviles, given an everyday job will be a perfectly serviceable SS (very solid offensively and acceptable defensively, like Scutaro) until Iggy is ready. And, even without the vet retreads they bought low on, either Miller or Doubront could make the leap to major league starter until Matsuzaka comes back.
All risks. But, interesting in that they are risking young (relatively).