Why moving Pedroia to shortstop just makes sense
There has been an enormous amount of speculation surrounding the Red Sox's plans on how to best address the void at the shortstop position in recent days, a void that has been plaguing them since the dramatic downfall of the once iconic Red Sox, Nomar Garciaparra.
Early this off-season, much of the rumors pointed towards the seemingly inevitable signing of free agent shortstop Marco Scutaro to take over the middle infield duties alongside Dustin Pedroia. With such a shallow pool of available shortstops at the moment via free agency, Scutaro, who is coming off a career season with the Blue Jays (.282/.379/.409), has quickly become regarded as the most highly sought after player at his position this off-season. I, myself, am not buying into Scutaro being the answer that the Red Sox are searching for, and apparently I'm not alone in this thinking. Forget the fact that Scutaro, prior to 2009, was a career sub .260 hitter with a fielding percentage of .977 at the shortstop position. The fact of the matter is that the former Blue Jays shortstop, recently turning 34 years of age, had posted mediocre numbers in the seasons prior to last and appears to be yet another beneficiary of a career season entering free agency. Scutaro's 2009 numbers, in comparison to his career totals, look eerily similar to those of Julio Lugo circa 2006 in the same regard. A 2006 season that prompted the Red Sox to sign Lugo to a lucrative deal that benefited only Julio's bank statement.
Assuming that the thought of signing another Lugo-type shortstop caused Boston's front office to collectively shiver in disgust, Theo and Co. seem to be attempting to get creative in the way that they go about attacking this whole shortstop epidemic.
Enter Dustin Pedroia.
Recently, reports have surfaced suggesting that the Red Sox brass has approached the diminutive second baseman with the idea of moving him back to his collegiate position, that being shortstop. Casual baseball observers may not be familiar with the prowess displayed by Pedroia during his time manning shortstop for the Arizona State Sun Devils. After beating out Ian Kinsler for the starting spot at ASU, ultimately forcing the future Rangers' star to transfer to Missouri, Pedroia went on to accrue All-American honors at the position. After being drafted, Pedroia turned in 42 errorless games at shortstop in the minor leagues before being moved to second base to make room for Hanley Ramirez. The former rookie of the year even still takes ground balls at shortstop during the season. Pedroia himself is not only welcome to the position swap, he has actually done a bit of lobbying for the change through the media. Pedroia was quoted as telling ESPN's Peter Gammons:
"They've asked me if I think I could play shortstop, they've put it out there, and I've told them I'm all for it. I can do it. I can't wait for [Terry Francona] to call me and ask, 'Can you do it?' I can do it. I really want to do it."
Reading that particular quote is interesting to say the least. It seems as though Pedroia begins his verbal thought process restraining his eagerness to attempt the transition. However, by the end of it, Pedroia comes off sort of giddy, almost as though he wanted to end the interview on the spot and force Gammons to accompany him to the nearest baseball diamond for infield practice. The fact remains that Pedroia can accomplish such a transition, and as you just read, he'll be the first to inform you of that.
However, the benefits of a move such as this go beyond simply filling the hole at shortstop. By doing so internally with an already proven commodity (without having to reach into their pockets), this allows the Red Sox to then shift their focus on nabbing one of the available free agent second baseman, a market significantly deeper than that of the its shortstop counterpart. What this does is create more, potentially cheaper, options for the Red Sox.
Rather than being presented with a 34 year-old Marco Scutaro as the most attractive middle infield acquisition option, the Red Sox now have the choice between Orlando Hudson and Placido Polanco. Not to mention reports that the Marlins and Reds have made Dan Uggla and Brandon Phillips, respectively, available to potential suitors. For the sake of comparison, let's single out Brandon Phillips from that bunch (I choose him because to me, he is the most appealing option from the previously mentioned group of second baseman). As stated earlier, Scutaro, six years older than Phillips, experienced a career season in 2009. Phillips on the other hand, had by his standards, just a solid season a year ago. While most of Scutaro's numbers were career highs, Phillips had a season pretty consistent to that of his 2006, 2007, and 2008 campaigns. That being said, here are the statistics:
2009 Season BA OBP SLG R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB FPCT
Brandon Phillips .276 .329 .447 78 161 30 5 20 98 25 .988
Marco Scutaro .282 .379 . 409 100 162 35 1 12 60 14 .984
At first glance, you wouldn't be wrong in pointing out that these are relatively similar numbers. However, aside from having a slight edge in OBP and runs scored, Phillips is the smart play here. Not only has the younger Phillips shown more consistency the past four seasons and offers a significant advantage in the power game, he also represents a threat on the base paths, a characteristic that the Red Sox have come to hold in high regard in recent years.
The question then becomes whether the Red Sox would be better off signing Marco Scutaro or putting together a deal to acquire Brandon Phillips. Both come with their own aspects of negativity. In signing Scutaro, a Type-A free agent, the Red Sox would be forced to surrender compensatory draft selections to Toronto. While on the other hand, assuming that the Reds are shopping Phillips in an effort to cut down on salary commitments, the Red Sox will likely have to surrender a package of prospects to Cincinnatti in order to pry Phillips from the Reds.
In my opinion, the Red Sox's most intelligent move would be to, in fact, shift Pedroia to shortstop and make a move on Brandon Phillips. Phillips, assuming no restructuring would be done to his contract prior to arrival, would be under contract through 2011 commanding around $19 million during that span. If not Phillips, I'd say it's hard to argue against the general idea of at least moving Pedroia over to shortstop in an effort to expand Boston's free agent options, regardless of who they would eventually sign from that group.
If Pedroia is more than willing, and judging by his comments I think it's safe to say that he is, to make the move then I don't see any reason not to explore this option more in depth. Not only does it create more options for Boston via free agency, but it will also finally put a stop to the seemingly neverending search for a reliable and impactful starting shortstop from both an offensive and defensive standpoint. I think I speak for all Red Sox fans when I say that this would be a welcome change from what we've reluctantly grown accustomed to.
0 recs |
36 comments
|
Comments
a couple things
a .05 difference in OBP is not a small difference. That’s like saying the difference between a .250 BA and a .300 BA is a small difference. I like Phillips a lot, but there’s no way around the fact that his OBP is horrible, and if we had him, he’d be batting out of the 9 hole.
That said, he’d be a great 9-hitter, and when he gets on he is a decent offensive force. Also a great fielder. If Pedroia could actually handle ss (which I’m skeptical of, but I’m fairly confident the FO won’t stick him there unless they feel like they have decent evidence that he can), that would be a great middle defense. Again, hinging on the fact that Pedroia can make the switch well.
And then the other big question is what would the cost be. He’s not really underpaid, but is a great young player with a couple of years of team control. He’s going to be fairly expensive prospect-wise. What would you be willing to give up for him? From the looks of it, Cincinatti is just looking for good, young players in general, but I feel like Phillips would take quite a bit.
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why this does not make sense.
Brandon Phillips is a poor offensive player (career wOBA of 0.322 never exceeding 0.354 despite the power). Brandon Phillips is coming off of a wrist injury than hindered his offense and defense. If we assume Phillips can return from his injury, why not assume Lowrie can from his (at least the Sox know Lowrie’s medical case a lot better than the do Phillips’ case)? If so, Lowrie will be a 2-3 WAR player at SS. Pedroia will, at best, maintain his value at SS (that is assuming the positional gain plus an average loss in his defense). Let’s assume Phillips is a 3 WAR player. In that case we are spending to essentially have a status quo in the infield. We are also perhaps taking more risk (Phillips health +Pedroia’s adjustment VS Lowrie’s health). It is not a crazy idea, but I still see the best option being stay with Lowrie and sign an Everett as a backup.
by Buzzy on Dec 2, 2009 11:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Pedroia lacks the arm strength to be an elite SS
That’s why the Sox moved him. If he can’t throw runners out from the SS/3B hole, he’s close to useless. He is an elite 2B. The Sox are better off finding a legit defensive SS (Lowrie, Everett, etc) and keeping Pedroia at 2B.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 2, 2009 11:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Excellent point
I certainly like the concept of shifting Pedey to short to have better offseason options than Scutaro, but I don’t see him being able to cover the position nearly as well.
If anything, it does give us some options, and that’s a good thing.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Dec 2, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't doubt it's a bargaining ploy.
If this is the case, than should we assume the Sox are looking around the trade market for shortstops?
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 2, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they probably are looking
since the options are so weak in free agency. I don’t think this as a bargaining ploy would be too effective for trades, just because if they’re really pursuing a shortstop, then that signals they don’t think Pedroia is a good choice for it anyways. Probably a more effective bargaining tool for free agents because they need to sign somewhere and having an option takes away a little leverage.
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you forego that much leverage...
…by stating L’il Dusty as an option for SS but looking at free agents/trade possibilities anyhow. The whole baseball world knows that he’s one of the best 2B in the league. No one would be surprised if the Sox wanted to, and in fact preferred to, keep him there. But it says that they are not (as) DESPERATE for a shortstop, meaning Scutaro’s agent can’t say, “well…hope Jed gets better, then”.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Dec 2, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good point
if your going to sign a bad offensive player make it an elite ss either way you have a week bat but this way you have a proven glove at both middle infield positions.
by CAMOJOE on Dec 2, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Polanco
Why is Polanco only a brief mention here? If the Sox shift Pedey to SS, I’d argue Polanco is a fantastic pickup. Solid batting (nothing too special, but that hardly seems a problem considering the alternatives), but what’s more important you get a Gold Glove 2B who seemingly competes with Youk year in and out for least errors from a position player. A previous post extolled the value of defense – with Polanco, you get adequate offense (no downtick like Adam Everett) and phenomenal D.
Additionally, considering Polanco will not cost a draft pick, I don’t see how this is a bad move.
by aprihoda on Dec 2, 2009 11:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
he is old
and would provide about 3 WAR-so similar to Phillips. I don’t see that as enough of a gain to not go with Lowrie and move Pedroia to short when he could suck.
by Buzzy on Dec 2, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe old
But, still a good player. Compared with Hudson (in my opinion, the next best option in this plan), the statistics are similar and he’s only 2 years older. Besides, we don’t have to commit to anything long term with him – which seems to be the preference so we have room to bring Iglesias up in 2010-11.
by aprihoda on Dec 2, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Polanco
Polanco is a Type-A free agent if I remember correctly, so we’d be surrendering draft picks upon signing him.
I believe he just turned 34 as well, it’s true that we wouldn’t have to commit to him long-term, but that being said I don’t think it makes much sense to lose draft picks and sign a guy who is only going to be a quick fix. Especially if we’re puting forth the effort to have Pedroia re-adjust to the SS spot.
I like Polanco myself, especially his defensive capabilites, but I would rather see us invest in someone that we can potentially parlay into a long-term deal assuming everything would work out correctly.
by Logan Lietz on Dec 2, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're going to go this route, I'd prefer Alberto Callaspo
Word is that he’s available, on the semi-cheap. Better OBP, young enough that we could expect improvement over decline, seems to have developed his power stroke, a switch hitter…
He’s got middling defensive numbers at 2nd compared to Phillips, but last year was his only negative year by UZR.
He won’t cost as much dollar or prospect wise, he’ll be a better fit in the Red Sox offense, and he won’t be a black hole on defense.
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 2, 2009 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm liking this. The Royals probably don't care since they are at least 3 years from contention.
Their GM is a dumbass and I don’t think they think Callaspo is their SS of the future….
"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko
by sox-inda-south on Dec 2, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and Dan Uggla guys? Really?
Did we learn nothing from Lowell and Bay last year? DEFENSE IS A REAL THING
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 2, 2009 12:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This.
The only player who should shift position is Ellsbury (to LF)
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
by radiohix on Dec 2, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
does Elllsbury have the offense
to carry LF?
I.E. – don’t teams usually expect more offense out of LF? Not that Ellsbury is bad offensively, but it is all relative to position. Even if he is above-average offensively for a LF, I suspect he is farther above average for a CF. If you move him to LF, you now have to find a CF who has waay above average offense.
That’s just my off the top analysis of the suggestion – I haven’t looked at Ellsbury’s value relative to replacement LF & CF but I’m guessing that it plays out like that.
by mmmmm on Dec 2, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Position Adjustment
He loses the +2.5 for CF and then loses -7.5 in LF adjustment. That totals 10 runs or 1 WAR lost in the move. If his defense jumps to neutral or better than he makes up that 1 WAR. If his defense failed though he would be horrible there.
by TroyPatterson on Dec 2, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
specifically
UZR/150 of -10.6 in CF and +21.8 in LF. Now admittedly LF is too small a sample size (only 80 games) but by all accounts he looks much better at reading the ball there. He should have above average LF defense. I really wish he could figure out how to read the ball better in center, because it just seems like such a waste to have someone with his potential for range in left field
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his defense is close to a drastic enough difference to make up for it
fantastic in his time in left field. Most people’s scenarios which involve moving him to left also involve signing Mike Cameron to a one year deal- great defensively with a good amount of power and generally great offense. While it would be a bit of a step down in offense, it would be one of the best defensive outfields in MLB.
I love the idea for 2010, personally, but I’m not sure where it leaves us for 2011, unless Kalish and/or Reddick have fantastic years and are ready to step up in 2011.
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Reddick doesn't need a fantastic year.
His ETA should be another late-year here, and then potentially starting the year with Boston in ’11
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 2, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah true
Reddick was kind of an afterthought, I was mostly thinking of Kalish because from what I’ve heard he projects as more of a CF than Reddick, which could allow us to keep Ellsbury in left if he excelled there.
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other way around if you ask me.
It’s a bit of a contentious issue. Kalish has more speed, Reddick gets better reads.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 2, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm one of the guys who would love seeing us sign Cameron
1. We very likely wont be worse than with Bay (we might even be better), and only slightly worse than with Holliday
2. Bay will age fast (i think) and can only DH in 2 years and it might very well have to be 5 years to get him
3. If we sign Cameron instead of Bay we get 1st Round pick and 1 supplemental, if we sign him instead of Holliday we only get 1 first round pick
4. financial flexibility: 1Y/10M is much better than 5/75-7/119 ( Deals discussed for Bay/Holliday)
5. We would be perfect set for a fantastic Free Agent Class 2010 with all our money coming of the book next year
6. defense is still underrated thats why Cameron is basically so cheap
7 next year Reddick might be ready for starting in the OF and we can spend our money on more critical positions e.g. C, SS, 3B
At the moment i would even go so far and say 1Y Cameron>6Y+ Holliday >>>5Y Bay
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 2, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the numbers
I forgot to factor in that his defense would take a positive jump at LF.
I have always liked Cameron. He’s streaky with the bat and strikes out a lot, but he has some pop and plays great center field. I do kind of like the idea of renting him for a year and saving cash for a big run at the 2010-2011 free agent class.
I’m not surprised that Ellsbury has an easier time in LF. CF is always the toughest read. I’m guessing that it is especially tough in Fenway because the deep corner forces you to play CF pretty much straight up on average. In some parks you can cheat to one side or the other on either righties or lefties and get a better read on one set of hitters or the other.
by mmmmm on Dec 3, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Injury Risk
I think the big thing we are forgetting is health. A positional change has an increased risk according to Will Carroll. He found injuries rose 30% in that of a player switching positions.
It’s possible that because he has played this spot before it might be less, but would you want to risk losing Pedroia for part of 2010 to add one of these second basemen?
by TroyPatterson on Dec 2, 2009 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
I just think the risk vastly outweighs any possible gains. Are any of these second basemen that good?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Dec 2, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My Pitch for Polanco
First of all he is worth 3.8 WAR over the past 3 years. He proves that he can do it defensively which is more consistent year to year. We would have to TRADE for Phillips where as all we have to do is SIGN Polanco. He wasn’t offered arbitration so it doesn’t cost us draft picks. Polanco is also the only player listed who has proved he can hit in the AL consistently.
When you compare him to Hudson (2.8 WAR) or Phillips (3.8 WAR) who will cost us players in a trade, it seems like a no brainer. Don’t get me wrong I am all for trading for a player but when you can sign a player that is worth the same amount you sign him. Its only money.
Also, the old part, he is the same age as Scutaro. The fact that he is 34 also means we can sign him to a short term deal.
The fact is because we are uncertain about the health of Lowrie and Lowell we need to sign someone and Placido has been a great player and teammate his whole career.
by drabidea on Dec 2, 2009 5:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think everyone's taking this pedroia as ss thing too seriously
considering the Sox have said they’ll only do that after they’ve already exhausted all their other options at shortstop.
by wolf9309 on Dec 2, 2009 7:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
and you are citing fielding percentage? So Jason Bay was the best fielder in the league?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Dec 3, 2009 2:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Unbelievable
He used twice!!! Someone need to introduce this young man to UZR, +/-, Fan rating, TotalZone…anything but fielding percentage!
To zobrist; verb – to overlook the superiority of a person or object based on misleading sensory or conversational factors. e.g. "My teacher totally zobristed me on that paper – I’d included all the points he asked for but I didn’t drone on about Grover Cleveland enough. He’s totally biased towards Cleveland. What’s worse is that Danny Dukowski got an A, and his prose style is terrible. He’s a total Victorino." deadspy3 - Amazin' Avenue
by bloodysock04 on Dec 3, 2009 4:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















