How about trading for Carl Crawford?

[sangar]

The Red Sox definitely paid more than the industry expected. That said, he played most of last year at age 29. Part of Boston's decision to sign Crawford had to do with their park and what they projected from him, offensively. Obviously last year was a disaster, and it seems silly to pay Crawford $20 MM for his 33/34/35 years. But if we're honest the reason this deal looks SO bad is because the absolutely unthinkable happened in 2011. I don't know anyone who voiced the concern that Crawford would be 3-5 wins worse in offensive production right off the bat.

I really don't think honesty is required to recognize his 2011 season was far worse than even the most pessimistic projections. But, even with reasonable rationalization, this is still a prime example of why these premium FA contracts are not reasonable for the average teams.

[Stotle]

I really don't think honesty is required to recognize his 2011 season was far worse than even the most pessimistic projections. But, even with reasonable rationalization, this is still a prime example of why these premium FA contracts are not reasonable for the average teams.

I think there's an argument for that being true, certainly. Which is why teams need to be smart about who they extend and how much they give to that person. Good organizations will let the right people walk or trade them, and will extend the right people. No one will get it right all the time.

[Stotle]

Agreed. Nor should we be overly pessimistic moving forward - some regression to his norm (as DH noted) should be expected. Still, a precipitous drop from that (4 WAR) norm is a definite risk - and given the overall contract, the odds of it ever working out in BoSox favor appear slim. It may not be a debacle or disaster. It's likely to be pretty inefficient. And, further, they have one expensive year sucked into a .2 WAR. And, leverage-wise, it's unknown if they'll have a year during this contract where they ever could have used even a pre-peak Crawford's production more than this year given their thin margin of faltering/failure.

That said, I still find it odd that they spent so much to put him in LF in Fenway. (I guess we all do, in retrospect.)

There's so much going on in that organization right now, it will be interesting to see how the winter plays out. Heck, I'm dying to see some Sox scouts down in Jupiter starting Thursday -- they usually send a good contingent.

[Lucky Jim]

There's so much going on in that organization right now, it will be interesting to see how the winter plays out. Heck, I'm dying to see some Sox scouts down in Jupiter starting Thursday -- they usually send a good contingent.

Ellsbury's explosion mitigates the Crawford under-performance a bit. So there's that.

They have huge revenue. They have a great, broad-based system that is energetic and inventive while diversifying and spreading risk. I'm not worried for them (save from more silly broadsides from the Globe about dietary habits and insufficient moxie). I do think some of their recent signings (Crawford, Cameron) attempted to capture defensive value in somewhat ham-handed ways, but they did it right with Beltre, so it's not as if they haven't had their hits, too.

The vortex of the team (in a good vortex way) is clearly Pedroia and Ellsbury and Gonzalez. Some regression can probably be expected from Gonzalez next year (.380 BABIP on roughly the same LD%, a career-high GB% and a career-low FB% though an up-tick in the latter could spell more HRs) and Pedroia (huge WAR bump from an astronomical UZR) and probably even Ellsbury, but there's room for Crawford to make some of that back up.

Seems to me, though, that they've clearly gotta be hoping that their amateur spending starts to pay off fast. Not sure your take on Lavernway, but I guess he - with Brentz - make up the instant future position-wise? They have a few arms in the system, too. I'd like to see a fleshed-out write up on their system.

For all of their great system-building (and I am a fan) their MLB roster-building has at least pointed out some of the pitfalls that are out there. Particularly for teams that have less margin for error.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Some regression can probably be expected from Gonzalez next year (.380 BABIP on roughly the same LD%).........

A .380 babip does seam ridiculous, but AG is so good at going to LF it wouldn't surprise me if he maintains. If they come in, expect more HR's to RF.

[Lucky Jim]

A .380 babip does seam ridiculous, but AG is so good at going to LF it wouldn't surprise me if he maintains. If they come in, expect more HR's to RF.

Looks like I edited to account for this (a bit) while you were posting.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Looks like I edited to account for this (a bit) while you were posting.

No worries.

[Lucky Jim]

No worries.

We should probably note that the best LH hitter in Sox history (Ted Williams) put up a lifetime .328 BABIP (with some spikes) and the best LH hitter-going-to-LF that I can recall (Wade Boggs) put up a .370ish(?) BABIP. As good as Gonzalez is, I think .380 may be very hard to maintain (given his rather ordinary BABIP prior). I don't know.

[Stotle]

Ellsbury's explosion mitigates the Crawford under-performance a bit. So there's that.

They have huge revenue. They have a great, broad-based system that is energetic and inventive while diversifying and spreading risk. I'm not worried for them (save from more silly broadsides from the Globe about dietary habits and insufficient moxie). I do think some of their recent signings (Crawford, Cameron) attempted to capture defensive value in somewhat ham-handed ways, but they did it right with Beltre, so it's not as if they haven't had their hits, too.

The vortex of the team (in a good vortex way) is clearly Pedroia and Ellsbury and Gonzalez. Some regression can probably be expected from Gonzalez next year (.380 BABIP on roughly the same LD%) and Pedroia (huge WAR bump from an astronomical UZR) and probably even Ellsbury, but there's room for Crawford to make some of that back up.

Seems to me, though, that they've clearly gotta be hoping that their amateur spending starts to pay off fast. Not sure your take on Lavernway, but I guess he - with Brentz - make up the instant future position-wise? They have a few arms in the system, too. I'd like to see a fleshed-out write up on their system.

For all of their great system-building (and I am a fan) their MLB roster-building has at least pointed out some of the pitfalls that are out there. Particularly for teams that have less margin for error.

I think Lavernway will start back in AAA, but Boston will use him as soon as they are convinced he can handle the defensive side of things. I really like Brentz and think he can grow into a good #2 or #6 hitter depending on which way the contact rate goes. I worry about him in Fenway's RF some, but there is still time for him to show more focus in the outfield. I likened him to a right handed Markakis when he was draft eligible, though I think his game is projecting more power and a lighter hit tool thus far.

I think Middlebrooks is potentially in play by mid-year next year, and certainly by 2013. Reddick will get another shot -- who knows if he earns more time.

[CA-ORIOLE]

We should probably that the best LH hitter in Sox history (Ted Williams) put up a lifetime .328 BABIP (with some spikes) and the best LH hitter-going-to-LF that I can recall (Wade Boggs) put up a .360ish(?) BABIP. As good as Gonzalez is, I think .380 may be very hard to maintain.

Probably so, it just wouldn't surprise me. If it's lower, I would not be surprised to see it compensated by more walks and HR's and an even higher OPS. AG is that good right now. I think he has a good chance of becoming the premier hitter in the game very soon.

[.500_OR_BETTER]

Any thoughts as if the O's should go after Sizemore?

I think he could be easily signed at 5/$60MM.

CF: Sizemore

LF: Jones

DH: Reimold

Also provides a solid lead off.

Just IMO. don't flame me.

[Lucky Jim]

Any thoughts as if the O's should go after Sizemore?

I think he could be easily signed at 5/$60MM.

CF: Sizemore

LF: Jones

DH: Reimold

Also provides a solid lead off.

Just IMO. don't flame me.

This guy? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2197&position=OF

I'm not giving him, or Tom Sizemore, that kind of money.

No flame intended - it's just all risk, w/ some outside shot at high-upside reward.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Any thoughts as if the O's should go after Sizemore?

I think he could be easily signed at 5/$60MM.

CF: Sizemore

LF: Jones

DH: Reimold

Also provides a solid lead off.

Just IMO. don't flame me.

There has been discussion about Sizemore in other threads, but his injury risk probably doesn't make him worth a long term contract. Even at 5/60.

don't flame me.

Any more dumb ideas?

[.500_OR_BETTER]

This guy? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2197&position=OF

I'm not giving him, or Tom Sizemore, that kind of money.

No flame intended - it's just all risk, w/ some outside shot at high-upside reward.

I was not that aware of all his injuries since 2009. I just thought he was injured in 2010.

Of course to get someone we would have to overpay some but I am guessing he would take close to what his 2012 option was.

There has been discussion about Sizemore in other threads, but his injury risk probably doesn't make him worth a long term contract. Even at 5/60.

Any more dumb ideas?

Sorry, I am new here

[DrungoHazewood]

Any thoughts as if the O's should go after Sizemore?

I think he could be easily signed at 5/$60MM.

I think you could probably get Sizemore on a heavily incentivized deal. I won't seriously try to predict what he'll get, but I'm thinking something like $5M base for a couple years, with playing time incentives that could more than double it. Maybe 2/10 with $1M per 100 plate appearances.

There's just no way any halfway sane team is giving anything close to 5/60 for a guy who's been worth two wins over the last three years combined.