The Red Sox have made an offer to free agent right-hander Edwin Jackson reports ESPN's Jim Bowden (on Twitter), and the two sides are currently in talks. A source told Bowden that they prefer Jackson to Roy Oswalt, to whom they also made an offer.
Jackson, 28, might be willing to accept a one-year contract according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. The Scott Boras client has thrown at least 199 innings in each of the last three years, with a 3.96 ERA, 7.1 K/9, 3.00 BB/9, and a 44.0% ground ball rate during that time. With Josh Beckett and Clay Buchholz carrying injury concerns, Jackson would add a much needed innings eater to Boston's staff.
Interesting. What if both of them accept? I know it won’t happen(money, roster space, luxury tax etc) but that would be a pretty great starting 5.
I’m curious if maybe this is a power play to get Oswalt to sign for less. Act like they will get serious about Jackson, send him an “offer” and then get Oswalt to break. I’m only thinking this cause I’m assuming Jackson is wanting a bit more than the 7-8m they’ve got available. I sure hope they seriously are pushing for Jackson, but I dunno.
Jackson would be a great fit if we can get him as a #4 or 5 starter!
We must have different understandings of “great”.
Beckett, Lester, Bucholz, Oswalt and Jackson would be a great starting 5.
With possibly Bard/Aceves if Oswalt has back problems.
Aceves might spot start but not Bard. He will either be in the pen or a starter.
‘(Bard) will be in the pen or a starter’! Well thank goodness for Leonard….and I thought Bard would be at short!
Come now, be nice. It wasn’t the best wording, but he clearly meant that Aceves could (as last year) be used in a flexible role, whereas Bard’s will be fixed and defined coming out of Spring Training.
he clearly was saying that Bard will not be a spot starter. He’ll be in the pen or rotation for the duration of the season and wont bounce back and forth.
How don’t you get that. Do you understand the inherent flexibility implied in the term spot starter? It means the pitcher would move between both roles. So I stated that while Aceves could fill such a role that Bard would not. Bard will be one or the other. Geez.
How don’t you get that. Do you understand the inherent flexibility implied in the term spot starter? It means the pitcher would move between both roles. So I stated that while Aceves could fill such a role that Bard would not. Bard will be one or the other. Geez.
He means full time. Wow, chill.
Roy Oswalt is archaic and Edwin Jackson is a stopgap pitcher and nothing more. While Oswalt may have been great once, neither of them could be considered great now and in the AL East they will be downright dreadful. But since our other options are either recovering from TJ surgery or Aaron Cook (ugh), I guess they’d do in a pinch.
well, no it won’t happen but i don’t see why not, when we have the richest men on earth as our owner…
are you kidding me ? Oswalt has back issues and Jackson is nothing special. Why do you think Cashman passed on both.
I dunno. Why did Cashman sign a SS that can’t play SS? Some things are just a mystery.
And Oswalt pitched well at the end of the season with no back problems and Jackson would be a very serviceable #5 for the Red Sox. On the Yankees he would have been a #2 or 3.
I dunno. Why did Cashman sign a SS that can’t play SS? Some things are just a mystery.
And Oswalt pitched well at the end of the season with no back problems and Jackson would be a very serviceable #5 for the Red Sox. On the Yankees he would have been a #2 or 3.
I guess that Luxury Tax thing is OK when you get the player you want…
Wish they had one or two outfielders like that guy Ellis Burks!!! 🙂
It’s not like this is a video game, if one signs the other offer is off the table.
Finally Edwin gets some love this offseason.
What injury concerns are associated with Beckett and Buchholz?
Both had past injuries, but both have clean bills of health at the moment.
Buchholz had back problems last year.
How are you a Rays AND Sox fan?
they both had back issues last year
Hmmm…sometimes I wonder if some of these back problems are related to chronic hip flexor strains.
As I said before I’m happy that Cherington is making an effort to sign a good starting pitcher,
Maybe it’s opposite of trying to lure Roy. Maybe they have been trying to lure Edwin the entire time and just using Roy to do it.
Get 1 of the 2. Been a great offseason so far. Make it even better.
“Been a great offseason so far.”
You mean for Baseball in general or the Red Sox?
It hasn’t been a bad offseason. Got a closer and serviceable 4th of for a 4th outfielder. A solid set up guy for an injury prone middle infielder. The only mis step might be Ross and he might surprise. And Scutaro was traded so we could get either Jackson or Oswalt. It has been better than good so far.
Also, the Sox need a SS but that’s just nit picking.
And we got a new GM and Manager. Dunno if those moves are “good” yet, but definitely notable.
To me, this is a point that has been overlooked all offseason in regards to the Red Sox. They had a horrible September and October, no doubt about it, and it brought a lot of negative publicity and reactions to a city already replete with negativity and overreaction (see: Shaughnessy, Dan). But the front office did not overreact to the situation; Cherington et al took their time and made very methodical moves, waiting out the market for the positions they needed to upgrade. They didn’t make an emotionally-charged reactionary signing or trade in order to improve PR that could hamper the organization going forward. The Sox, for the majority of 2011, were one of the best teams in baseball. They had a few small holes but one of the best cores in all of baseball, both on offense and defense with some high-ceiling pitchers at the top of their rotation.
There were/are obviously holes on this team, but they are small holes that don’t need front-page acquisitions to improve. The Sox improved the team without reactionary moves. That is a huge success.
Also, Ron Swanson is my hero.
getting rid of francona was definitely reactionary
Yeah but it sounded like that was as much Francona’s decision as anyone else’s.
it sounded like that’s how the interested parties wanted it to sound
Maybe so, but a manager change really shouldn’t have much impact in either direction. It may have been reactionary if it were to have been a flat-out firing, but it’s not a crippling move for future contention or one made to significantly increase the chances of contention in 2012.
I know someone will twist my words on this but I’ll try to make it sound clear:
I think Terry Francona was one of the best things to happen to the Red Sox over the last couple of years. A huge part of the Sox success could be laid at the style that Francona brought to the Sox.
However, Francona’s style was he was a player’s manager and that style could have been part of the deeper problems. It’s quite possible that the Sox now need a manager to reign in the more colorful elements on the Sox to make sure the younger guys don’t develop bad habits.
Again, Francona should be remembered by all Red Sox fans as a hero. But I don’t think his split with the Sox was reactionary.
I agree. Loved Tito from beginning to end, but it was time for a change. It will be good for the Sox and good for him too.
Perhaps, Francona’s 2011 coaching staff had the wrong makeup. I find it hard to believe John Farrell would put up with some of the antics. But, you Red Sox fans are most familiar with how Farrell dealt with Boston’s pitching staff.
the idea that the team had deep problems at all is part of the reactionary-ness of boston and, in part, its ownership. tweak any of a thousand things by an inch and the team is in the playoffs and competitive for a title
removing francona isn’t a one-inch tweak; it’s jerking the wheel. replacing him with valentine is another one
i don’t have any reason to think francona was incapable of putting an end to beer drinking during games or whatever else people want to pretend was the ‘root’ of the ‘big’ problems the 2011 sox had (for all of one month)
they wanted a clean slate, a big change. i’m not going to analyze the merits of that decision. i’m only pointing out, in response to eMK above, that it was definitely reactionary
Opinions will vary..
I agree, SS is a position of little value and not something worth nitpicking over.
We should just sign an over the hill former all star who can’t play defense for 45 million. Maybe Nomah is available.
..
There was a healthy dose of sarcasm there. I mean the Sox have people to play there but neither is ideal. It would be nicer to have a steady, slightly above average player there but you can’t win them all.
I still say Oswalt signs with the Rangers because that is what he wants.
john, you’re kidding? mr blister? he’s good for 4 months when and if motivated; and Buch, you never know how he’ll come back…
edwin isnt great, but he would be very much needed depth
clueless or lying. beckett has averaged 29 starts per year in boston
I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s clueless.
Very true, but for a front line pitcher, 29 starts per year means they still miss about a month of the season each year.
only 19 guys have pitched more innings during that time. the only ones in that group who have been more valuable are felix, halladay, lee, verlander, sabathia, and haren
So we should only include pitchers on his level? If you look at the last 5 years, as opposed to looking at his entire career in a Red Sox uniform, he ranks 34th in games started. And in the last 4 years he ranks 45th. Health is a concern for Beckett, However I do not think it is as a big concern. I’m just saying 29 starts is not a whole lot of starts for a front line pitcher, though certainly it’s a fair amount.
“if you look at the last 5 years, as opposed to looking at his entire career in a Red Sox uniform”
you mean as opposed to looking at the last 6 years? you wouldn’t be picking cherries here, would you?
“in the last 4 years he ranks 45th. Health is a concern for Beckett”
it’s a concern for kuroda too then, you’d say? he’s only made 3 more starts than beckett during that time. by the standard you just introduced, that’s a “health concern”
but i don’t think you would say that; i doubt anyone would. because kuroda isn’t a health concern. and neither is beckett. that standard is bunk
it’s not either workhorse or health concern; there are dozens of durable, reliable starters in the middle
I’m not cherry picking because you first compared Beckett to some of the top talent in the game in which you certainly can. However, keep in mind that some of the top talent in the game, 1 – Has done better than Beckett (and others of course) in more recent years, and 2 – Were not even playing in the majors back in 2005 which is what you’re going back to. Lincecum, Kershaw, Hamels are a few examples.
Kuroda is on a 1 year contract and has been healthy the last 2 years. He’s less likely to get an injury than Beckett who has 3 more years and about $48 million more left.
Edit – 2006 I mean.
ok, but now you’re shifting the goalposts a bit. your conclusion that beckett is a health concern wasn’t based on the fact that he was injured in 2010. it was based on his starts over the last 4 years
my point has never been “beckett is a workhorse” or “beckett is one of the most durable guys in baseball”. some guy suggested he was fragile so i posted his average starts per year. you then suggested 29 starts per year could in some way still mean he’s an injury concern, so i added context about the very limited group of players who have been more durable
if you still want to say that he’s an injury concern because, despite the fact that we don’t consider other guys who average a similar number of starts per year injury risks, beckett was injured two years ago … ok then. we have very different definitions. i think sabathia has spoiled you
as far as i can see, there’s workhorses, there’s injury concerns, and there’s everybody in the middle. by the numbers, beckett’s in the middle
Now that’s what I call being more informative. Gets a Like from me. Fair statement and I agree with you now.
“notsureyubroughtUPkuroda”
Anyone who says the Sox are absolutely certain Beckett is good for 200 IP in 2012 is really being naive.
What he’s done over the last 4 years is more relevant than what he’s done over the last 6 years and ignoring the quality of the innings thrown is as important as the # of starts missed.
The Sox don’t need “keep me in the game” innings from Beckett because he’s not a #4 or #5 starter, he’s your #2. If you want to chalk up 2010 to being influenced by his injury (which you logically should) then I have to laugh when you point to something like “he averaged 29 starts a season over the last 6”. Yeah, he may have, but how many of those starts were sub par as a result of an injury that kept him from pitching up to his ability. And if you don’t then you just have to say he simply pitched poorly because he pitched poorly and not use his health as an excuse.
Because if you want to count the last 6 years, and it really should be 3 or 4 because that’s more relevant when the guy is turning 32 in May, then you have to say that his injury issues resulted in a completely wasted 2010 season PLUS whatever other DL stints he’s had over the last few years.
As for Kuroda, he’s as much of an injury concern as any other 35+ pitcher but I’m not sure why he’s relevant in a discussion about an innocuous comment like that which was made about Beckett.
you’re not sure why? did you follow the conversation? serious question, not being snarky. because it’s spelled out pretty clearly
MB brought up beckett’s start total over the last 4 years to show that beckett is a slight injury concern. kuroda’s total is 3 off that mark. kuroda signed a couple weeks ago with MB’s team. has he or anyone else been talking about kuroda’s injury concerns? no. and they shouldn’t. there aren’t any. so either his standard is bunk or the same is true of beckett
“Anyone who says the Sox are absolutely certain Beckett is good for 200 IP in 2012 is really being naive.”
good luck finding someone here who said that
Again…there’s no need to bring up Kuroda because NO ONE is saying that there SHOULDN’T be mild concerns if he can hold up for 200 IP in 2012. He’s 35 + and is as much of an injury risk as any other pitcher that age. Again, it ALMOST sounds like you bring Kuroda up because the meat of the discussion is between Sox fans vs Yanks fans in this discussion.
I don’t think MB and certainly not I, intend this to be a bashing of Beckett. I think it’s safe to say that if he were a FA this year we would have loved to have him on a 2 or maybe even 3 year deal because he’s THAT good when healthy.
However, and I’ll repeat this again, to use the # of starts averaged over the last 4 or 6 years to demonstrate his durability WITHOUT discussing how injuries have effected the games he HAS PITCHED is completely meaningless. Beckett is getting paid $16 mil per not just to take the ball but to take the ball and pitch like a FOR guy and in 2010 he simply didn’t do that. We all know it was because of his injuries so call it what it is. He may have taken the ball when hurt but the results were no better than a #5 starter.
Josh Beckett when healthy is an ace. Josh Beckett when hurt pitches like AJ Burnett circa 2011.
I don’t have FIP to use but check this out:
2008:
Aug 17-Sept 5 = 1 start
(right elbow injury)
2009: Healthy. 32 starts
2010:
Apr 27 – Aug 3 = 5 starts
May= 3 starts = 17 IP/15 ER
The entire season was a loss and he never posted an FIP under 4 for the entire season except for July and even then it was only 2 starts.
2011:
Beckett pitched 30 starts but suffered thru an assortment of injuries (not incl the intestinal flu) such as left knee injury, right ankle injury and stiff neck injury. It didn’t have an effect on his performance but still, they were injuries none the less.
you’re not bashing him and i’m not defending him. we’re talking past each other about definitions
no one has called kuroda an injury concern. it was never brought up when he signed just recently. beckett is being called an injury concern. the two are right next to each other on the list that was mentioned as evidence that beckett is an injury concern. bringing up kuroda makes perfect sense for that reason. if it’s evidence for beckett, it has to be evidence for kuroda. both or neither
maybe you think it’s both? hard to tell from your comments
your point about pitching injured is going over my head. beckett’s been a top starter in 5 out of 6 years by the numbers (1 of the last 2, 2 of 3, 3 of 4 – however you want to slice it). injured pitching performances are accounted for. again the fact that he’s not cc sabathia doesn’t make him an injury concern. not even close
if you count innings instead of starts, there are even fewer pitchers that have been more durable than beckett over the last 4 years. you’re making my argument for me
i didn’t introduce the 6 year sample as a basis for prediction; it was a response to a boston fan badmouthing beckett’s durability. he’s been very reliable for boston
as i clarified for MB, the question isn’t “is beckett a workhorse?” it’s “is beckett an injury concern?”
the answer to both of those questions is no. he gives you 27-32 stars per year. there is one exception in 6 years – 2010 – in which he suffered an injury from which he proved to be fully recovered one year ago. it’s a non-issue
By no means am I calling it a useless or bad stat, but I don’t consider Innings Pitched a great stat, as it is more of a managerial decision. You and I both know from years passed, that very often Francona left starters pitch 6-7 innings despite giving up 5-6 runs , and Girardi has let starters only go 6-7 innings despite giving up 1-2 runs.
exactly why i didn’t use IP originally. but then he brought them up =P
clueless or lying. beckett has averaged 29 starts per year in boston
I suppose they could offer Jackson 3 years and backload it a bit to keep under the tax?
The Luxury Tax goes by AAV, so back-loading has no impact.
Back-loading wont help the luxury tax position as it is based on average annual value of the deal, with all years being equal.
Even with deferred payments? Was not aware it went by AAV, thanks for clearing that up.
Jackson wouldn’t be bad at all on a short deal.
Jackson is not what the Red Sox need imo. The red sox keep on handing out contract to avg pitchers while other teams sign STARS. Just wait till next year when some ACES might be available.
If it’s a one-year deal then I hate to say it but he may be exactly what the Sox need, a guy who can throw a decent 200 innings as the #4 starter.
That said if he’s going to be expensive and a multi-year deal… then it’ll look like a knee jerk reaction.
Well said.
If Jackson wants more than 2 years I doubt we sign him. I don’t think our last starting signing will stop us from being in on the aces next year.
Other teams sign STARS cause other teams need STARS. The Red Sox don’t. They have STARS at 1b, 2B, 3B, CF, and LF as well as 3 very solid to great starting pitchers. The rest of the team doesn’t need to be stars. Average to above average will do.
Youkilis is not STAR potential any more and Crawford was bust last year
One year in on Crawford so I am not worried yet. Youk is still one of the best all around hitters in the league when he is healthy.
But health is the issue for aging players you have to consider seriously. Youkilis was a star in the past not anymore. Crawford would be an average player he may not be able to perform like he did in Trofican Field. Wait and see
But health is the issue for aging players you have to consider seriously. Youkilis was a star in the past not anymore. Crawford will be an average player and he may not be able to perform like he did in Troficana Field. Wait and see
Youkilis and Crawford have had one bad year and they were both injured. And most teams would take Youk’s numbers from 3B any day with a .883OPS. He just has to stay healthy.
Crawford wasn’t hurt for most of the season dude…cmon.
Youkilis and Crawford have had one bad year and they were both injured. And most teams would take Youk’s numbers from 3B any day with a .883OPS. He just has to stay healthy.
Youkilis is one of the best hitters in the game, and Crawford was a bust last year.
Apparently Disqus hates me today
Youks may have been injured and there might be real doubts as far as if he can stay healthy but he is still a star caliber player WHEN healthy. As for Crawford, yeah he sucked last year but don’t you think it’s too soon to write him off?
Other teams sign STARS cause other teams need STARS. The Red Sox don’t. They have STARS at 1b, 2B, 3B, CF, and LF as well as 3 very solid to great starting pitchers. The rest of the team doesn’t need to be stars. Average to above average will do.
It would be better to get a two year deal, with next years market having a lot of good young FA, he will get paid less next year than he would this year.
Am I the only one who wonders about a guy who is 28 years old, but about to join his 7th major league team already?
I doubt Jackson will take a 1 year deal. Possibly 2 years but doubtful on 1. If for no other reason if he were to hit Free Agency next year his value would be considerably less when you look and see how right now potentially the FA market for starting pitchers looks come the 2013 season. He’s probably wouldn’t even be considered one of the top 6 in that market. But that’s just my opinion.
so now the red sox have money to offer. what happened to not wanting to go over the luxury tax.
If they somehow did sign E-Jax and Oswalt, what do you think we could get in return for Beckett…for example the royals need a veteran starter…who hangs up first Beckett and Doubront for Montgomery, Odorizzi, and Starling?
Royals.
it’s a fit, who do you think if fair for Beckett in return (from any team, not just KC)
The Royals.
it’s a fit, who do you think if fair for Beckett in return (from any team, not just KC)
To the Rockies for Tyler Chatwood, a B prospect and a bit of cash looks decent.
To the Rockies for Tyler Chatwood, a B prospect and a bit of cash looks decent.
Beckett better then both Jackson and Oswalt.
true, but the sox need to revamp the farm, i’m not just speculating and trying to determine how much Beckett is worth
true, but the sox need to revamp the farm, i’m not just speculating and trying to determine how much Beckett is worth
The Sox don’t need to revamp their farm, there’s plenty of talent down there and the Sox aren’t exactly in a position to trade veteran players for prospects.
… Disqus is awesome…
Cherington would take that in a second. Moore would hang up in less time than that.
in terms of prospects, what do you think Beckett is worth? Dwyer and Odorizzi?
in terms of prospects, what do you think Beckett is worth? Dwyer and Odorizzi?
Seriously? You think the Royals would give up 3 of their best 4 prospects for that? I only see these type of ridiculous trade ideas from Red Sox and Yankees fans…
pure speculation, i don’t really know what Beckett is worth, he’s extremely effective but slightly injury prone, so i’m trying to determine that
One guy makes a silly proposal and suddenly he represents all Red Sox and yanks fans? Oh please. I’ve seen ridiculous proposals from someone from every fanbase.
So get over it.
One guy makes a silly proposal and suddenly he represents all Red Sox and yanks fans? Oh please. I’ve seen ridiculous proposals from someone from every fanbase.
So get over it.
Royals. I just can’t see them giving up their best prospects for an aging (but still effective) starter.
what do you think Beckett is worth
I replied in a post further down.
It seems by what the writers are saying like Gammons for instance that Oswalt doesn’t appear to want to pitch in the east But we’ll find out soon enough.The Red Sox made an offer early this after noon and if he doesn’t reply in the next few hours they’ll nix it.
This is just My take, but if I’m Oswalt I want to win so I pick a team based on that moreso than what I’m offered, since he will be offered a lot of money regardless.
I’m kinda in the middle (as a die hard Sox fan) between wanting E-Jax and Oswalt. Both have their strengths/weaknesses..
I’m kinda in the middle (as a die hard Sox fan) between wanting E-Jax and Oswalt. Both have their strengths/weaknesses..
All I know is that if both wind up signing for 1 year each, I’d prefer (even as it isn’t my $$ being spent) whoever was cheaper but Jackson in a long term deal vs Oswalt in a short term. I could see the Red Sox getting him on a long term deal with deferred $$ so they can get their guy w/o much cap room worry.
Jackson is an “innings eater” because he’s pitched at least 199 innings per year for three years? Wilbur Wood and Fergie Jenkins must be laughing hysterically.
How about he did it at age 25, 26 and 27? Better?
How about he did it at age 25, 26 and 27? Better?