Red Sox 'fully engaged' on signing AJ Burnett

by Randy Booth on Nov 19, 2008 1:16 AM EST in News Comment 24 comments

Well, it looks like the Red Sox have increased their interest in AJ Burnett:

The Red Sox's pursuit of Burnett complicates the Yankees' plans. A source close to Burnett said that a half-dozen teams are in contention for his services: the Yankees, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Braves, Phillies and Orioles. The Red Sox, the source said, have significantly increased their involvement in the pitcher in the past 36 hours and are now "fully engaged."

We've talked about it all offseason: he's going to cost a lot of money and he's going to give you one of two things -- a great season or an injury-filled one. If he has the same season as he did in 2008, the Red Sox would undoubtably have the best rotation in Major League Baseball.

With that said, will the Red Sox sign Burnett?

Poll

Will the Red Sox sign AJ Burnett?

Yes

63 votes

No

129 votes

192 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Consider me fully engaged in hoping this isn't true.

"Are you a real doctor, or a doctor like Dr. Pepper is a doctor?"

by Allen Chace on Nov 19, 2008 4:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I hope the Sox are just trying to drive the price up.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 19, 2008 7:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Me too.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Nov 19, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

And I think they probably are just trying to drive the price higher.

by Gnick on Nov 19, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; if the Red Sox are going to sign one of Lowe/Burnett, then Burnett for the extra $$$ it will require is the way to go. I think if the Sox are showing this much interest in AJ, Tex does not come to Boston. I cannot see them signing both.
Looking down the line @ all the young guys we have that we will need to pay, I don’t like us giving out 4-7 year deals to FA right now.

by matzushocka45 on Nov 19, 2008 7:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on the 4-7 year deal thing...for a pitcher

I don’t mind that kind of deal for a hitter. Those deals usually work out. Pitching free agent deals on the other hand usually tank. No to AJ if its more than 4 years.

by BTLove on Nov 19, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just sign Burnett

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 19, 2008 10:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If the Red Sox are serious about Burnett.

it’s likely because
1) They are concerned about Wakefield’s health.
and/or
2) They want to push Buchholz out of the rotation.

"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.

by 0157H7 on Nov 19, 2008 10:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Sox will be scary

With the addition of Burnett to their starting rotation. I think you pick up Burnett and either keep Wakefield or Buchholz in the pen, ready to be a long reliever/emergency starter.

I think Wakefield fills that role beautifully.

by Mosul_DolFan on Nov 19, 2008 10:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's difficult to put Wake in that role

Because of the need for another catcher to catch him.

by soxaholic on Nov 19, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 19, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very true.

But, either way, you are going to carry that extra catcher. You are just going to have to decide if you want him to play for 5-7 innings every 5 days, or do you want him to come in for spot duty whenever you have a situation needing the knuckler?

I guess it really depends on the catchers that you have, their hitting and defensive abilities outside the knuckleball, and what kind of rest they need – knees and all.

I guess thinking about it more and more, maybe Buchholz is that guy, but I still like the ability of Wakefield there because a long outing for him isn’t as taxing and he can be ready to again quicker.

by Mosul_DolFan on Nov 19, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I say we stop coddling our catchers and just make them catch Wake. Its not like we have an elite hitting catcher that we’re trying to keep healthy anymore. If these guys (i.e. Varitek) want to be on team, then I think we make them learn to catch Wake.

by BTLove on Nov 19, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather sign Teixeira

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Nov 19, 2008 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

And the Sox don’t need Teixeira.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 19, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t need him, but how nasty would the lineup be? I couldn’t even fathom where to put certain guys — guys that could hit No. 3, but would need to bat 7th in that lineup.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Nov 19, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And if we find a catcher who can hit and if Lowrie starts hitting righties a bit better

We could even start Cora more because it would not matter.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 19, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can Cora catch?

He hit better than Tek last year.

:-)

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 19, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sadly, this is true, based soley off of OPS+

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/varitja01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/coraal01.shtml

Interesting to note, 2008 was Cora’s best year as a Red Sox, batting wise, and his third best year overall (2002 and 2004 w/ LAD).

Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 19, 2008 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs