2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

by Randy Booth on Nov 19, 2006 11:58 AM EST in News Comment 18 comments

Here are our holes, so to say:

C - Jason Varitek
1B - ??? (Kevin Youkilis)
2B - Dustin Pedroia
SS - ??? (Pedroia, Julio Lugo, Alex Cora)
3B - ??? (Mike Lowell)
LF - ??? (Manny Ramirez)
CF - ??? (Coco Crisp)
RF - ??? (Wily Mo Pena, Trot Nixon, JD Drew)
DH - David Ortiz

SP - Curt Schilling
SP - Josh Beckett
SP - Jonathan Papelbon
SP - Tim Wakefield
SP - ??? (Daisuke Matsuzaka)

RP - Mike Timlin
RP - ???
CP - ???

Keep in mind, I listed only absolute locks. If there is trade speculation at all, I didn't list them. If there is speculation that a player may lose their job, I didn't list them.

I feel confident in this list, but it also poses a problem for Sox fans: look at all the question marks. Obviously, 2/3 of those ??? will be filled by the current player or a player in the parenthesis, but it still means a lot of work needs to be done.

Here are some key free agents that I'd like to see the Sox at least LOOK into:

SP Roger Clemens
SP Jason Schmidt
SP Ted Lilly
RP Justin Speier
OF JD Drew (maybe)

Clemens would be nice for obvious reasons. Schmidt is just one of the best. Lilly would be nice to have because A) he's a lefty and B) if he's on the Sox, he wouldn't kill us anymore. I think Speier is a solid bullpen arm. He could either close or set up with Timlin. Drew puts up some pretty good numbers as long as he's healthy.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Assuming Lester is ready to come back midseason, he could step into the rotation and Wake could become the primary long reliever.

by RSNexile on Nov 19, 2006 12:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

And Speier just signed with Los Angeles/Anaheim/California/Disney.

by RSNexile on Nov 19, 2006 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Nuts. N to the uts.

This contributes to a nagging feeling I have that LAAA will be a major force in 07.

Vote for Pedroia

by britsoxfan on Nov 19, 2006 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

we talked about this in earlier postings, but Wake isn't a good idea as a reliever because we would take Variteks bat out of the lineup in the 7th inning every time he comes in. Thats 50 appearances, 3-4 innings of no Varitek bat is 150-200 innings lost (about 60-70 ABs for him).

by forage on Nov 19, 2006 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No

How far do we realistically expect 'Tek to bounce back from his sub-par '06/ knee injury?

"If you're in love with the game, you can't turn it on and off like a light. It's something that runs so deep it takes you over." ~Billy Martin.

by jscape2000 on Nov 19, 2006 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No

I would say at LEAST enough that he'll be a more palatable option hitting in the later innings than Mirabelli, Huckaby, and Kottaras in the later innings. Honestly, he wouldn't HAVE to bounce back at all to be a more palatable option (at this point) than any of those three likely backup catcher candidates in the late innings.

by Allen Chace on Nov 19, 2006 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Forget Speier

He signed with the Angels

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

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 19, 2006 8:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

I think we need to take Lester completely out of the discussion for 2007. He is young and strong, and might find himself back in Boston before the end of the saeason. But the focus now should be on his health and nothing else (not to suggest anyone here isn't wishing him the very best). Lester is going to be far, far from pitching condition when he finishes his fight. If you figure most pitchers need least a year to get back to full health, expect longer for Lester. Remember the terific Jeff Grey?

We should hope to see Lester competing in '08, and in full strength by '09. We can certainly hope for better, but we shouldn't expect it.

by alfredoz on Nov 20, 2006 2:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Clemens is not coming to Boston. It's just a trial balloon he floats every year to get more money from Houston. He has no intention of leaving Texas.

Schmidt would be nice, if he could stay injury-free and regain his 2002-2004 form.

Ted Lilly? With the 1.43 WHIP and 4.31 ERA? I suppose he's marginally above average. But he gives up a lot of HRs, which would not make for a good fit with Fenway.

JD Drew? No.

by RickD on Nov 21, 2006 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

So if Manny is indeed traded for E. Santana, et al, what are the chances of flipping Santana for Crawford?

by tommy.otm on Nov 21, 2006 8:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Hopefully zero.... They need a young starter a helluva lot more than they need a guy whose strengths the Sox won't use and whose weaknesses are exactly what the Sox don't want.

by brady12 on Nov 23, 2006 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Crawford in Boston would be amazing. I daresay we've never had a player like him. Does it seem unlikely that Tampa Bay would ever deal with us, considering all the bad blood? Beanball aside, our front office has pulled some suspicious moves with them.

Echoing RickD, we must keep Drew out of Boston. This guy was openly disliked and not respected in the Dodgers clubhouse. Looking at the overpriced, underwhelming free agent maket, I have a crazy idea for right field: Trot Nixon. Unless his health is in question (beyond his normal brittleness), he's looking more and more like a reasonable option.

by alfredoz on Nov 22, 2006 1:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Crawford has pretty poor on-base numbers. He has a career .326 OBP. Sure, he steals a lot of bases. But that won't happen in Boston.

I echo the sentiment on Drew, especially for the money and years they he is rumored to get. I also hope the Sox don't get Julio Lugo, unless he signs a very cheap short-term contract (which won't happen).

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

by Drugs Delaney on Nov 22, 2006 7:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

.326 career OBP, but that's including .290 and .309 when he was 21 and 22. Hr's increased but OBP and slugging every year, up to .348 and .482 last year. He's only 25. Other than Manny, there's no LF on the market I'd rather have. Of course, I'd rather have Manny.

by tommy.otm on Nov 23, 2006 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

pardon the typos, too much turkey...

by tommy.otm on Nov 23, 2006 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Have the Sox made Trot an offer? I don't understand why it's assumed that he won't be coming back.

by BlowUp on Nov 22, 2006 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

So far I've heard no news of interest in Trot anywhere. We all know how much time he's missed, and we've seen a major drop in power. But he still plays a decent right field, and his BB/K in '06 was 60/56! He's still easily an 800+ OPS guy who would come cheaper than most. And if he breaks down again, lets begin the Ellsbury era.

I feel like we'd definitely be targeting Trot right now if he'd been on a different team these last few years. How else to validate the inane Drew buzz?

by alfredoz on Nov 22, 2006 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Roster Locks and Hopefuls

Checking out Drew's stats at baseball-reference.com

Drew's stats, to this point in his career, are most similar, among all ballplayers in the database, to (get a load of this)...Trot Nixon!

Don't we already have one of those? Constantly injured, overrated when he was young, white outfielders who has had exactly two moderately impressive seasons in the bigs?

Anybody who has complained about Manny's "work ethic" should compare how many games he has played over the years as opposed to Drew. Manny took a lot of heat this year for missing a month because of an injury and "only" playing in 130 games, a number that was considerably less than his average of 152 2/3 for the previous three years.

Drew's been in the bigs for eight seasons and has only managed more than 135 games twice, and indeed, has only managed more than 109 games four times. In 2005, at the age of 29, he only played in 72 games. In 2003, at the age of 27, he played in 100. In 2001, at the age of 25, he played in 109.

Basically he misses a huge portion of the season every other year. And his bill is due.

by RickD on Nov 28, 2006 9:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs