Cherington On Papelbon, Ortiz, Free Agents

Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington discussed a number of topics with reporters today, and's Rob Bradford has the details in these two posts.  The hot stove highlights…

  • The Red Sox didn't make a formal offer to Jonathan Papelbon, who reached a four-year, $50MM agreement with the Phillies today.  Cherington said he discussed "concepts" of a new contract with Papelbon's agents Sam and Seth Levinson, but didn't make an offer since Papelbon's asking price simply didn't fit into Boston's offseason plans.
  • Cherington said he wasn't given the option of matching the Phillies' offer by Papelbon's representatives, but he didn't think such a step was necessary.
  • Given the number of closing options on the market, Cherington didn't think his team would feel comfortable offering a four-year contract to a closer as the Phillies did with Papelbon.
  • The Red Sox have been talking to David Ortiz's representatives and Cherington said he wants to re-sign the veteran slugger.  "Because of what I feel, and I think he feels, is a little bit more of a defined market for that role it's been easier to engage sooner," Cherington said.  "It's probably less likely to be a situation where he gets into the market and there's something that he's pushed into a corner on. David knows we want him to be here. We want him to be back with the Red Sox. We want him in our lineup. We've had a lot of dialogue to see if there's a way to do that and I think that will continue."
  • Cherington feels that beyond the top free agent starters, there is "a lot of risk" in the pitching market this winter.  "There are options, but riskier and would require some sort of bounce back from injury or bad luck or performance to some degree," the Boston GM said.  "We're going to be exhaustive in looking at ways to build depth to the rotation an the bullpen. We do believe we have some internal options that will help us."

42 Responses to Cherington On Papelbon, Ortiz, Free Agents Leave a Reply

  1. David McCutcheon 4 years ago

    They didn’t want to pay Paps that amount because they have a brain. I feel like Philly should receive draft picks for being that stupid rather than surrendering their own, sort of like handicapping the system to meet their level of stupidity. “Good for yoooou! Here’s a cookie!”

    • Mariners4Ever 4 years ago


    • vonhayesdays 4 years ago

      How many picks did the sox get for signing carl crawford or bobby jenks ?

    • nm344 4 years ago

      I got news for you.  Phillies a going to get an extra draft pick by signing Papelbon instead of Madson.

      • MmmRocks 4 years ago

        No they aren’t. They wouldn’t have lost any draft picks for signing Madson.

        • Phillies_Aces35 4 years ago

          They lose their first round pick for signing Papelbon but they potentially get another team’s first round pick + a supplemental rounder.

        • nm344 4 years ago

          They are gaining 2 by not signing Madson.

  2. missyae 4 years ago

    Looks like they dont have a defined plan yet

    • start_wearing_purple
      start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      I disagree.

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      You can’t really have a defined plan with these kinds of things because situations are so fluid, especially this early in the off-season.

    • MmmRocks 4 years ago

      That’s a good thing. GM’s that plan out their dream scenario and hold out for their favorite players for every position end up having to overpay or not having a backup pan.

  3. start_wearing_purple
    start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

    I do like that Cherington is approaching the offseason with caution. He seems to realize that the team only needs minor tweaks rather than an overhaul. I’m looking forward to what he will do.

  4. jgordon 4 years ago

    depth to the rotation an the bullpen.your missing a D there.

    • jmcbosox 4 years ago

      youre missing an e there

      • Dylan 4 years ago

        You’re missing an apostrophe.

        • jmcbosox 4 years ago

          im also missing a period but i wasnt the one correcting the article.  it was irony, you know, the opposite of wrinkly.

  5. commenter3346 4 years ago

    Instead of overpaying Papelbon, they’ll proceed to overpay Ortiz.

    • wolf9309 4 years ago

      possibly, but by a whole lot less.

    • MmmRocks 4 years ago

      I’d rather pay $12 million for an everyday player who will hit 30 HR and dirve in 100 RBI than pay more for a pitcher who will pitch less than 70 innings.

  6. First test for Cherington passed: don’t give a ridiculous contract to Papelbon. That $12.5 million can be used for someone who will give 200 innings, not 75.

    • dc21892 4 years ago

      Completely agree. Paps will be greatly missed, but he saved Boston a boatload of money signing elsewhere.

    • MmmRocks 4 years ago

      Couldn’t agree more.

  7. Get Grady Sizemore and two bullpen arms after you get Big Papi. Then we’ll call it a done offseason.

    • Timin01835 4 years ago

      No rotation depth?

    • flickadave 4 years ago

      Who are going to take Lackey’s and DiceK’s turns in the rotation? I think that we might need 2 or 3 starters too.

    • flickadave 4 years ago

      Who are going to take Lackey’s and DiceK’s turns in the rotation? I think that we might need 2 or 3 starters too.

    • PWNdroia 4 years ago

      Grady Sizemore won’t help our already lefty lineup.

  8. Steve_in_MA 4 years ago

    I want two compensation picks for Ortiz.  Offer him arbitration, Cheri, and let him walk.

    We need at least two starters.  I suggest that Cheri get busy in figuring out how we are going to round out the rotation.

  9. NomarGarciaparra 4 years ago

    We’ve all been saying it for years: Papelbon will walk when he reaches free agency.

    Paps has reiterated over and over again that he wants to set the market for closers…and I just thought there was no way Epstein (who knew Epstein would be gone by the time Paps free agency came around) would make that happen. Good job on Cherington’s part!

  10. jbhoboken 4 years ago

    Good Job put it with Ruth, Lyle, A-Rod,Damon,Beltre,Martinez and sign someone like Drew or Matsuzaka____If I had more time I could give you 25 more either way

  11. commenter3346 4 years ago

    I did read it. Paying Ortiz anything over 1/10 is ridiculous & I highly doubt that he’d take that deal seeing as he started out wanting a 3 year deal.

    On top of that, this is the Red Sox. They overpay someone every off season.

  12. dc21892 4 years ago

    Ortiz can want a 3 year deal all he wants, but he’s not getting it from anyone.

  13. flickadave 4 years ago

    2/20 is ridiculous how? Papi puts up great numbers every single year. He is a totally proven commodity that thrives in the pressure cooker of Boston. Pay the man.

  14. PWNdroia 4 years ago

    With Theo Epstein they did.

  15. bjfan 4 years ago

    could you be stretching the truth just a little with your “one of the best teams in the history of baseball”  ??????

  16. Steve_in_MA 4 years ago

    This is not intended to be cocky, because this plainly doesn’t matter at all.  We lost.  But its not too far of a stretch, as an assertion, if you take their mid-season run in isolation and extrapolate it into a full-season comparison.  Excluding the first 12 games in April and the 27 games in September, the Sox went 81-42 over the middle 123 games.  That’s a pace to go 107-55, which would put them in the top 4 or 5% of teams, all-time.  It is meaningless, but somewhat true.

  17. bjfan 4 years ago

    I am sorry, but this is too funny.  If we don’t count this, and then we don’t count that, then they were one of the best teams in history.  How about the Mariners, they won 116 games.  Maybe they would be considered a “better team in history”.

    You can’t extrapolate anything, when you are deciding on the best teams in baseball history. 

  18. notsureifsrs 4 years ago

    to be fair, you’re the only one talking about an unqualified claim of “best teams in baseball history”. the original claim was qualified by “during the middle of the season”, the part of the sentence you intentionally left out in your reply. the next one was qualified similarly

    you absolutely have a point that being the best for 60 or even 120 games doesn’t make you one of the best overall, but why are you making it? they didn’t say otherwise

  19. bjfan 4 years ago

    You are right, it is a moot point.  But when someone proclaims a team “one of the best in the history of baseball”, which is what the original poster stated, I just couldn’t let it go by.  It doesn’t matter whether it is in the middle of the season, or the end or the first two games.This does not  qualify a team as the “best in the history of baseball”.    If he had said, the Sox were the best during the SEASON, during that time period, so be it, he might have been right.  Too many people throw around the term “the best”.  If you remember, there were stories written before the season even started that the Sox were the “best team ever”.  Not true then, and not true now. 

    But I will leave it.

  20. notsureifsrs 4 years ago

    aaand you’re still right. sort of, at least. you’re still misquoting him by cutting out the words “during the middle of the season”, but no matter. the dude abides

  21. bjfan 4 years ago

    the Red Sox were one of the best teams in the history of baseball during the middle of the season when they were playing well. Quote/unquote.

    I would assume that if someone says they were one of the best teams in the history of baseball, which is what YOU said, that is what they mean.  Perhaps, you should not be so snarky and actually read what YOU wrote.

  22. Steve_in_MA 4 years ago

    Precisely.  Thank you.

Leave a Reply