Email a copy of 'Red Sox Notes: Free Agents, Lucchino, Valentine' to a friend
Loading ...
By Mark Polishuk | at
Email a copy of 'Red Sox Notes: Free Agents, Lucchino, Valentine' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
John LeClair
I would take a pitching rotation of Lester, Buccholz, Haren, McCarthy, Doubront for 1 year deals or maybe 2 with a option for 3 for Haren. I wouldn’t mind that. Sign Napoli at 1st, maybe Hunter for right, Ross in left, maybe trade Ellsbury.
Spit Ball
I would like to see them struggle the year with the kids. Brentz, Bradley Jr. Iglesias, Middlebrooks, De Larosa, Lavarnway and Sands. Bogaerts/Webster/Barnes/Rodriguez need more seasoning, but perhaps they could contribute next year.
dc21892
Brentz and Bradley aren’t ready. Signing a Hunter, Haren and maybe some other one year deals would keep a competitive feel while the kids get ready.
johnsilver
MacPhereson left out Sanchez in his list. I would prefer him over any on that list, though it would take 3 years probably to grab him.
Agreed on all the major prospects, other than Lavarnway.. None are ready and Brentz probably never will be more than a backup anyway. Other than Bradley, they really don’t have a so called “starter” OF prospect above AA unless Kalish all of a sudden figures out a way to stay healthy for an entire summer.
Crucisnh
You’re overlooking Lackey. He’ll be back in the rotation next season, barring another injury.
Joseph Jonathan Herrera
I would be shocked to see Jackson in Boston, and to accept another one year deal. Hasn’t he proved himself worthy of a long term offer from somewhere? Maybe a return to LA?
Tko11
Id love Jackson in Boston, good strikeout pitcher would make a nice #3-4
Crucisnh
The problem is that the Sox rotation is partially set for next season with Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and Doubront, barring any trades, etc. And with 3 of those 4 already locked into long term deals, I’m not sure if it’s wise to lock up a 4th starter to a long term deal at this point, unless that guy is an proven ace.
Tko11
Well yeah they should not sign him long term but 1-2 years would be great if they can get it done. I think Jackson would fit in perfectly as the number 3. Lester, Buchholz, Jackson, Lackey, Doubront
Crucisnh
I have no problems with Jackson as a pitcher. Not really sure that he’d be interested in a 1-2 year deal. But if he was available for one, that might work for the Sox.
Joseph Jonathan Herrera
That was my thought exactly, I just don’t see him doing a one year deal again. Sure he would fit in for the Red Sox, but not on a three or four year deal he may command.
Crucisnh
Agreed. I think that EJ is looking for a long term deal. And I don’t see the Sox being interested in giving a middle of the rotation (probably a #3 or 4) starter a 3-4 year deal, given that 3 of the guys in the rotation are already locked up long term.
I personally think that the Sox are going to want to try to be more flexible in filling out their rotation, unless they can get a hold of a true top of the rotation ace (not that there are any to be had, mind you).
Lionel Bossman Craft
Its crazy how the Red Sox have ended up. How the mighty have fallen….
rkmarx 3
Honestly, am I the only one man enough to admit that I needed to look up the word ‘eschew’? By the way, it surprising has nothing to do with food.
aemoreira81
I think that Valentine WILL be back; it was either the players or him, and Cherington chose Valentine.
As for getting someone like Edwin Jackson, I can’t see him accepting yet another one-year contract; a two–year contract could entice him, however.
Michael 22
Don’t hold your breath on Napoli. He’ll want more than the Sox will ever want to pay out. Jackson or Haren are more realistic.