Red Sox Notes: Draft, Betts, Lester

The Red Sox have fewer wins than the Royals since the start of the 2012 season, but having losing years before and after a World Series victory has its advantages, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports writes. They’re going to have a very valuable top draft pick next year (if the season ended today, they would pick in the top ten, just as they did in 2013) and a bigger international signing pool. Meanwhile, they retain the financial edge they have over other teams — they’re already reloading for 2015 with the acquisitions of Yoenis Cespedes and Allen Craig, along with the impending addition of Rusney Castillo, all of whom will have significant salaries going forward. Here are a couple more quick notes out of Boston.

  • The Red Sox placed Mookie Betts, Brandon Workman and Rubby De La Rosa on revocable waivers today, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe tweets. All are valuable young players, so it’s a strong possibility they’ll be claimed, at which point the Red Sox will pull them back. It probably isn’t likely any of them will be traded.
  • With Cespedes and Craig in the fold and Castillo soon to join, manager John Farrell says the Sox will hunt for pitching this offseason, WEEI.com’s Alex Speier tweets. Boston, of course, dealt Jon Lester and John Lackey at the trade deadline, although it remains possible that the Red Sox could re-sign Lester when he becomes a free agent this winter.


58 Responses to Red Sox Notes: Draft, Betts, Lester Leave a Reply

  1. Seamaholic 11 months ago

    What is the point of putting someone like Betts on waivers? I don’t understand the business of baseball sometimes.

    • start_wearing_purple
      start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

      Hearing what’s out there. With the signing of Castillo the Red Sox have a clear surplus in the outfield. There’s always the possibility that some team will make the Sox an offer of something they want. Or there’s a possibility it will open lines of communication with some team about a larger deal centered around Betts.

    • 108 stitches 11 months ago

      Sounds like they were gauging what Hamels or Stanton might cost this winter. Nothing worth trading for would likely make it to the Sox and those three probably don’t get you either Hamels or Stanton but teams are forced to do their due diligence and a team like the Red Sox can gauge how other teams value these guys. Say Loria or the Marlins GM really likes Betts and needs him in a Stanton deal. That info would get back to the Sox front office and would tip them off to how much the Marlins might like Betts. This is all hypothetical but it’s how you “play hardball.” Revocable waivers in August is more often than not a way to gauge other teams true interest in your players/prospects over the next year. Plus the Angels just lost 2/5ths of their starting rotation for instance. Why not check out what might work?

  2. Bonesaw McGraw 11 months ago

    So Lester is in the headline, but there’s no actual news about him.

  3. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    Betts, Bogaerts, Nava, and Victorino to the Mets for Colon, Gee, Tejada, and Wright?

    • Gersh
      Gersh 11 months ago

      That trade would never happen.

      • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

        Probably not, but is it an unfair proposal for either team? If so, which one?

        • 108 stitches 11 months ago

          The Red Sox. They do not want Colon because he has no place on their 2015 team. They do not want Gee because he is about to be arbitration eligible and has never had as much as 1.5 fWAR and he is not better than any of the Sox cost controlled AAA arms. They don’t want Tejada because he’s not really that good and he’s arbitration eligible for the second time. The would sooner start Brock Holt at Short. David Wright is declining and is running out of tricks so as good as he’s been the Red Sox do not want him and the six years and 107 million left on his contract which takes him to age 38. Now seeing that the Red Sox want NONE of that, lets explain why they would not do this. It mostly comes down to the 11 years of team control over Betts and Bogaerts and their potential value. Nava provides a lefthander bat off the bench for first and the outfield. Victorino could get traded but may offer value if healthy. That’s why.

    • HitDog 11 months ago

      Your opinion has been traded for a player to be named later, or cash considerations.

      • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

        Cute. With what aspect of my opinion do you disagree?

    • nhsoxfan 11 months ago

      let me put that one in the trade calculator and see what happens

      • nhsoxfan 11 months ago

        boston would be getting almost double the value back in players this would never happen. Start simple like Blake Wheeler for Barnes, Bradley, and PTBN

        • nhsoxfan 11 months ago

          *Zack oops

          • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

            The Mets need an outfielder with a modicum of offensive ability. That disqualifies JBJ from the conversation altogether and you want the Mets to take him and a young pitcher, something that they already have plenty of, for one of their best young pitchers? How does that make any sense?

        • 108 stitches 11 months ago

          “boston would be getting almost double the value back in players” I personally think your calculator is broken.

        • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

          JBJ has absolutely no trade value whatsoever. I like my proposal better, although I hope that it never happens, because it would improve the Red Sox dramatically.

          • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

            Bradley is a 2-win player, even with a 60 wRC+. In free agency, a win is worth approximately $5 million. Obviously he’s not a free agent but he’s worth $10 million already. Considering his floor is so high and a minor league track record that suggest his offense will improve, it’s a little foolish to suggest he has “no trade value whatsoever.” He’s basically an offensive adjustment away from being Juan Lagares.

          • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

            And when he makes that adjustment, he will be Juan Lagares, but at the moment, I don’t think that the Marlins would have any interest in either Bogaerts or JBJ for a Stanton package and the Mets are most certainly not going to trade Wheeler for Matt Barnes and a player who is an offensive adjustment away from being a player who they already have.

          • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

            In the context of a discussion with a trade with the Mets, I agree Bradley wouldn’t be very useful. Nobody is arguing that Stanton would go for JBJ+Bogaerts either, especially since the Marlins seem that close to contending. I can see a reasonable package for a mid-tier starting pitcher such as Kennedy or Feldman headed by Bradley, but to say he has “no trade value whatsoever” seems a little ignorant.

    • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

      Absolutely horrible deal. You’re considering trading controllable stars on Bogaerts and Betts for no (cheap) controllable assets other than Gee, who has shown limited value and not even 2fWAR in any full season yet. Wright is an aging asset and offers declining value, and Bogaerts himself would contribute more than Wright over the remainder of the deal for $100m less. I must say the Sox prospects haven’t shown much yet and MLB players have been valued very highly during the trade deadline, but trading two parts of the future for a bunch of average players really isn’t the way to go.

      • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

        Wright is a below average player in CitiField, who could be a phenomenal player in Fenway, which is just as speculative on my part as you thinking that Bogaerts will contribute as much over the next six years. If Wright remains stuck in Queens for the remainder of his contract, it will not be hard for Bogaerts to outperform him over that time, but only time will tell if that actually happens.

        • Wright isn’t worth his contract right now. He isn’t even a guarantee to be traded as a salary dump and that’s something that the Mets would never consider. He’s worth more to them than any other team and they wouldn’t consider trading him unless it was for top prospects, which isn’t going to happen. You should really stop with the Wright trades, especially to the Red Sox, who don’t like big contracts anyway.

          • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

            If the Mets were open to trading Wright, which they aren’t, the Dodgers and the Red Sox are the only teams who would be a fit for them. A Kemp for Wright swap would probably make a lot of sense for both the Mets and the Dodgers and would definitely be better for me as a Yankees fan, but I think that Wright’s only chance to recapture who he was as a player is to be traded to the Red Sox. As I have written elsewhere, Betts is never going to have the chance to play for the Red Sox with Castillo and Pedroia locked in at their positions. This might have been a down year for Bogaerts and he very well could turn his game around next season, but if he doesn’t, his trade value is going to be about as high as JBJ’s or Jesus Montero’s are right now. If the Sox wanted to cash out on the value that Betts and Bogaerts have right now, they could do a lot worse than Wright. Do I expect that this will happen? Of course not. I don’t even want it to happen. I just think that it should happen.

          • I just gave you plenty of legitimate reasons for why the Red Sox (and pretty much every other team), are not as fit for him. Economics, value, age, etc. There’s nothing in your argument that makes any sense in the real world for the Mets or the Red Sox.

          • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

            The Red Sox need a third baseman with power. In a ballpark like Fenway, I believe that David Wright could be their best option short of Adrian Beltre. You disagree. I get it. The only reason that the Mets have not shopped David Wright is their fear of a fan revolt, which is ridiculous, because I think that most Met fans have come to the realization that he is spooked by CitiField and the Mets will be able to get more out of whomever they get in return for him than they will get from him. When they get over this fear, they will eventually trade him for somebody and my guess is that it will be for another bad contract like Matt Kemp’s or for a former top prospect whose value has been somewhat diminished, but is worth taking a risk on like Bogaerts.

          • David Wright makes money for the Mets. He’s their star. That’s not ridiculous, especially when you consider he has little value right now on the trade market. There’s no reason to move him. He put up monster numbers last year and now his value is significantly lower. The Red Sox don’t want him. They have a franchise player. No one wants him. So suggesting to move him makes no sense like the vast majority of your other trade proposals.

            I get that you don’t care to scout other team’s depth charts to make trade suggestions that could actually happen. But that doesn’t mean you should toss logic out the window completely. Wright trades lack logic.

          • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

            This argument proclaims that David Wright, a 4-WAR player with declining value and a $20m/year contract, is worth trading two of the Sox best prospects, Bogaerts and Betts, who have two more years of league-minimum salary and three years of arbitration. I think this is just a flaw in understanding value on your part.

          • Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

            Let’s assume for sake of this discussion that the Mets were willing to trade Wright and the Red Sox wanted him. What do you think is fair value for him?

            In a previous thread, I thought that a Cespedes and Middlebrooks for Wright swap made sense for both teams, but my thinking now is that the Red Sox would like to have both Cubans on the team for at least the first half of the season so that Cespedes can help Castillo adjust to MLB.

            If it is safe to assume that Craig does not have as much trade value as Cespedes, who would the Red Sox have to throw into the deal to make up the difference? Nava? Victorino (if healthy)? If the Mets wanted Betts, would they have to sweeten the deal on their end with another player? If so, who? Gee? Flores?

            Is Betts, Craig, Middlebrooks, and Nava for Flores and Wright fair for both teams?

          • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

            Now, so far, you have made very weak arguments in all of your claims. You seem like an intelligent person with your use of proper grammar and knowledge of basic baseball. I will only continue responding if you make some arguments backed up with numbers, because for the surprising amount of intelligence that you show in these conversations, you seem to lack fundamental baseball economics.

        • Kevin Kim 11 months ago

          Since Citi Field moved its fences in:

          wRC+, home/away:
          2012: 139/142
          2013: 154/157
          2014: 115/85

          In fact, Citi Field plays at an above average rate for HR for right-handed hitters. Though Wright’s not exactly a HR hitter anymore, I think you’re mistaking Wright’s decline with his inability to play in Citi Field.

          Now, I agree that Wright’s offensive production would increase at Fenway, banging line-drive doubles off the wall wouldn’t be a problem. He’s at a point in his career where decline is evident however, and seems most appropriate as a 4-win player at $20m a year. it’s a little ridiculous to trade your two best, cheap and controlled young prospects with high upside for an aging star.

  4. start_wearing_purple
    start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

    The simple truth is I doubt the Sox will want to commit the resources to sign Lester. He’s going to cost more now to sign that he would have even just a month ago. Lester may even get more bids than Scherzer at this point since more teams might be attracted to the fact that he won’t cost an additional draft pick on top of signing him.

    I think it’s more likely that Boston will go all in on a guy like Shields to anchor the staff. Then try to sign Masterson on a one-year incentive laden deal to give him a chance to rebuild himself.

    • Uncontrite 11 months ago

      The sox FO has stated they are competing in 2015, and they know what it takes to build a winner. Going after Shields wouldn’t be a terrible idea, but if that’s all they do then they are going to be in the same position at this time next year. They have a clear surplus to trade from, 2 actually, 1 of young pitching and the other of controllable outfielders. That hopefully means they will use the money to get either that 1 or 2, and use the prospects to fulfill the opening that the money does not cover

      • start_wearing_purple
        start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

        I’d also be surprised if we heard the last of a Phillies/Sox Cole Hamels trade. At the deadline the story was the Phillies and Red Sox were scouting each other’s teams very throughly.

        With Castillo signed on with the Sox, Betts is far more likely to be moved as the centerpiece of a major trade. Hamels seems to be someone the Sox would target.

        So I guess I should have said I also expect the Sox to add another starter through trade.

        • Uncontrite 11 months ago

          Those are my thoughts exactly, but I am just not optimistic of the price RAJ is most likely setting. Depending on the price, the reds won’t likely be able to keep all of their starters that are going to hit free agency in the next couple of years, so it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to inquire on Latos/Cueto and offer up some combination of Betts/JBJ (if he has any value left) and young pitching or a SS prospect

          • start_wearing_purple
            start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

            That’s an interesting point about the Reds. Though I’d be more curious about the price of Leake since he’s a free agent after next season.

          • Uncontrite 11 months ago

            Last time I checked Latos and Cueto were both free agents after the 2015 season. Which would make them perfect targets because either of them would slot into the top 2 slots in the sox rotation if acquired. they also might be willing to accept extensions in the 5-6 year and 100-115 million range, which might be more appealing to the sox. The prospect haul would be significant, but a deal around Betts and a SP prospect could open talks for one, but hell, while you’re shopping inquire on both, the worse that can be said is no.

        • Dylan 11 months ago

          What do you think a fair deal is for Hamels?

          I wouldn’t mind seeing Victorino come back in the deal to offset some of Hamels money for Red Sox. If Betts is part of the deal, I’d hope to trade Utley as well why his value is high. I know the Phillies would want a top arm as well in this deal to try and fill in that rotation.

          • start_wearing_purple
            start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

            Honestly, no clue. My guess is any deal would start with Betts and Ranaudo, after that is anyone’s guess. All I’m willing to say beyond that is my bet is the Sox would say Owens and Swihart would be off limits.

          • Uncontrite 11 months ago

            Do you think the Phils would be interested in Kelly? I would love to trade him cause watching him pitch is brutal

          • start_wearing_purple
            start_wearing_purple 11 months ago

            I actually think Kelly is a fine #5 starter.

          • Uncontrite 11 months ago

            I agree with purple, RAJ would probably ask for 2 of Betts/Swihart/Owens, which I wouldn’t do, but if the deal is something like Betts, and 2 SP not named Owens with a lottery ticket prospect to top it off, I say pull the trigger.

  5. meep 11 months ago

    would be funny to see dodgers trade for Rubby De La Rosa it be like the dodgers traded nothing in the boston trade they made. but that would never happen he too good of a young player to be traded

    • Eli 11 months ago

      Wish Colleti never included him in the first place. Was taking on Crawford and Beckett seriously not enough to get an aging Adrian Gonzalez? I know it was a waiver wire deal, but come on, lets trade value for value. Worst part of it is that now the Dodgers actually need a pitcher like Rubby.

  6. Michael 11 months ago

    The general consensus is that the Red Sox have a surplus of outfielders. If they can’t hit, it doesn’t constitute a surplus.

  7. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    Why silly? The Mets have too many starting pitchers and the Red Sox have too many outfielders. Wright is a good player in a bad ballpark who could be a great player in a ballpark like Fenway. Betts is never going to play for the Red Sox and Bogaerts has lost a lot of value this season and could go the way of JBJ if he has another bad season next year.

    A deal like this would give the Red Sox the chance to cash out on his current value rather than risk a complete collapse. Tejada was a throw-in who plays good enough defense to be a #9 hitter on a good offensive team, which the Red Sox will most certainly be next year. Still think that it is a silly proposal?

  8. HitDog 11 months ago

    Yes, it still is. Especialy with your opinion on Betts. Good night.

  9. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    With the acquisition of Castillo, how do you see Betts getting any playing time on the major league level with the Red Sox?

  10. 108 stitches 11 months ago

    They do need starters, I just do not see either Colon or Gee helping much next year in the AL East. Not much more than their young arms such as De La Rosa and Owens in particular, perhaps even Ranaudo. I also would rather keep Betts and Bogaerts unless it’s for an impact bat and I do not think at this point David Wright is it. He might have a couple years left but he’s signed up for 6. I don’t know you make some points and the names are not silly on their face but I’m not wild about the salaries, service time and ages of the players from the Red Sox stand point. Victorino will likely not be back through some kind of trade and what will happen with Betts/Bogaerts should be interesting. Both are 21 and I hope they both have full time rolls on the Red Sox next year. If they wash out, they wash out. I still like them both enough that I wanna see them both play. I actually watched a lot of Betts at Second Base this spring in Portland. Honestly…..I’d sooner part with Pedey and his contract if possible. Call me crazy but…..Betts is going to be an impact player defensively and offensively going forward barring the unforeseen.

  11. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    Except for the part about trading Pedroia, which is never going to happen, you make a ton of sense. Both Colon and Victorino will most likely be traded this offseason, but not for each other, and both the Mets and Red Sox will most likely get marginal prospects in return for them. I just think that they could have more of an impact for both teams if they are traded for each other. The same is true for Gee and Nava.

  12. Again you fail to include the economics from either the Mets or the Red Sox end. I don’t really understand how you think the Red Sox of all teams would take on a 100+ reclamation project or why the Mets would send away their franchise player.

  13. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    I am not saying that they would. I am saying that they should. I think that Wright would make the Red Sox a much better team next year and beyond and I think that if he remains with the Mets, he will continue to have more seasons going forward like this one. Meanwhile, the Mets also need help in a number of areas and whether that help comes in the form of MLB players or major league-ready prospects doesn’t really matter. If they want to have a functioning offense to go along with their quality pitching, they need to move Wright.

  14. Wright won’t bring back impact talent with that contract and the Red Sox should not add a declining player in his 30s. Wright’s problems aren’t specifically related to Citi Field. He’s just past his prime.

  15. Kevin Kim 11 months ago

    Basically you’re saying that since the Mets need to get rid of a player, the Red Sox should agree to a trade. That’s not exactly how business is done anywhere let alone baseball.

  16. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    I disagree. I think that if you put Wright in a hitter-friendly ballpark like Fenway and surround him with some legitimate hitters like they have in Boston, he would hit much better.

    I am not sure what your definition of impact talent is, but I think that if the Mets and Red Sox were willing to do a deal for Wright, whatever the Mets got back would be fair value.

  17. Bertin Lefkovic 11 months ago

    You’re forgetting the other part of my equation is that the Red Sox need to upgrade themselves at 3B very badly. Yes, there are other options to Wright, which I have discussed at length throughout this thread. Some of them are significantly better options. Others aren’t.

  18. Kevin Kim 11 months ago

    I thought I had made a post regarding the value of Wright and how much he’d be worth to the Sox, but I suppose it was too long and deleted. My basic point is that Wright is a negative asset to the Sox, one that’ll be paid like a superstar til 2020 when in reality he will most likely only have value for a couple more years. Value-wise, it would be much better off paying the league minimum to Holt and upgrading other positions and keeping the position fluid for a long-term option instead such as Cechini (or perhaps even Holt if he keeps producing) and investing the money into less risky options. Of course, to the Red Sox, money isn’t as big a deal as some other low-payroll teams, but seriously – paying $20m a year for a former star? Perhaps not the worst idea if the Sox go all in on next year, but it just doesn’t seem reasonable.

    Also, Wright has played basically evenly at home/away the past three years since Citi Field moved its fences in, as mentioned in an earlier post. Unless I’m missing something I don’t see how his ballpark is hindering his performance.

  19. 108 stitches 11 months ago

    I know the Pedroia comment is preposterous on many levels and can’t really be done. If something happens this winter and Betts is traded to a team in need of a 2B I would not be surprised one bit if Mookie outplayed Pedroia over the next six years. It’s not a given but I think of Betts as “The Laser show 2.0.” Sort of a more athletic upgrade on the original. Time will tell. I’m not exactly positive he cannot play shotstop either. I watched him a bunch at Portland and he was tossing darts both from the outfield and crossing the bag at second on double plays. Plus he has a quick transfer. Athleticism, range and fundamentals are not the issue.

Leave a Reply