Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) When I meant overrate, I meant that the organization overrated his talent level, not exactly his past performance. Like to the point where they might think he's good enough to take on bigger roles when he's not. I don't think they've done that all actually. Carrasco has campaigned for a shot at the rotation pretty much since he's been here and yet the Sox have kept him right where he's at. The Sox love him, and rightfully so, because he saves the bullpen and he gives the offense a chance to get back into games, plus if they're ever in a pinch he can spot start. And on top of all that, he's always ready to go, and he doesn't b**** when he sits for a week.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Carrasco isn't that great of a pitcher in all honesty. He doesn't have the stuff to be in a setup role. His fastball is okay, but his secondary pitchers just don't scream setup man. His under-arm curveball is nice, but once hitters see that enough, it won't be that effective. Keep Carrasco where he is. It seems like Ozzie and the organization loves to overrate the guy for some weird reason. Yeah, all Carrasco did for us was work 132 IP in 1.5 seasons out of the bullpen for us with a 3.82 ERA and a 1.33 WHIP. I agree that he's not a setup man and he belongs in LR, but let's not be stupid.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 03:42 PM) Gonzalez, being a sure thing, would cost several times more than it would to acquire Upton, who is a gamble but with tons of potential. That gamble should lower the price. I'm not so sure about that. Maybe Gonzalez costs a liiiiiiiittle bit more than Upton, but Upton isn't going to come cheap at all. Tampa has no reason to move him unless they get a massive package back in return. You don't give up a talent like that for a couple pretty decent prospects.

From MLBTR: Ouch.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) You're right, both are pretty much the same at this point. However, Dye ended last year hitting like crap while Guerrero ended the year pretty strong. Plus, I'd also say that Guerrero is actually a little better of a fielder than Dye at this point, but only because Dye sucks a lot. Lastly, I think Guerrero's name puts people in the seats. More so than Dye or Thome. I thought the Sox didn't have that much to spend, how are we going to afford both Guerrero and Putz? I mean, I would love to get both, but I just don't see it. If the Sox are able to offer a $1M base salary plus incentives to Putz then they should be in the market for him, and though I don't know what Vlad will get, there are a lot of DH types on the market and only so many DH slots available, so he might have to settle for something similar to the figure above.

2 years of Thornton at $5.25M combined is worth a ton. Thornton might be in line for $5M+ per from a major market team even just as a setup man if he was on the FA market right now, so he's very cheap for his production. I'd listen, but he would be a very, very, very difficult guy to move because then we'd have to sign someone like Gonzalez or Wagner if we wanted to try to replace him, and that would cost some good money plus a 2nd round pick (although thankfully because of our finish we wouldn't have to give up a first rounder). If a Thornton deal could get us a couple pieces for an Adrian Gonzalez deal I'd probably do it, but it would have to be a major haul, and the Sox would then have to sign another lefty. I like to see what the Braves would offer, given that they could lose both Soriano and Gonzalez while getting 4 high picks in return.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 07:31 PM) Frankly, yeah. Unless we have a ton of young guys coming up to take over 6-7 positions, giving AGon $20 million means that we'll have bargain basement guys filling other positions. And he wouldn't be the only one around then getting expensive: Quentin, Danks, $10 million already for Rios, Floyd, Beckham would be hitting arbitration. You could do it if you had a lot of young guys coming up...but you'd have just traded away all your young guys for Gonzalez! So basically, you're going for everything in the next 2 years, and you're expecing that you're going to have to blow it up once AGon hits FA unless you nail a draft or two You could be right, but let's say we give up Flowers, Hudson, D2, and Viciedo, basically gutting the top-end of the system. What if 2 years from now Flowers is a .240/.320/.420 hitter in the Majors, Hudson is a #3 in SD and puts up good numbers, D2 is about a .270/.330/.390 hitter who is running out of chances and has already been passed by a couple guys in the Padres' depth chart, and Viciedo is lumbering around in LF, although coming off a break-out year where he put up numbers like Carlos Lee in 2000 (.301/.345/.484). IMO that would be a pretty damn optimistic viewpoint for the Padres considering what can happen in deals like these (like the Johan Santana deal for instance). Now let's also say that with Adrian here we win two straight divisions and make two straight trips to the ALCS, and maybe even taste another W-S. Let's say we don't even win another W-S either. We just get very close on two straight occasions, and for two straight seasons we end up filling the ballpark from May through September, and even in April 2011, and we happen to attract another sponsor or two in the process, as well as get more of our games showcased on national TV. Yes, maybe some of our key cogs will be pretty expensive by the time 2012 rolls around (Danks, Floyd, Quentin, etc.) but we would also likely have more money to play with than otherwise, so instead of being forced to let Buehrle walk and trade one of our expensive young players, maybe we can let Buehrle walk and keep all of our young stars, or maybe we could let Buehrle walk and trade one of our young stars while extending Gonzalez, or let Gonzalez go for draft picks and keep all our young players plus bring back Mark, etc. The idea that if we trade for Gonzalez we won't be able to keep a young core isn't much of an idea because it basically assumes we'll be in the same spot financially going into 2012 that we are in currently going into 2010. Even if we gut the top level of our farm I doubt we're going to miss more than 2 of the players we sent out. In two years time we can find another #3 SP prospect who we're at least as excited about as Hudson, if not more so. We can find another power bat to stick at a corner IF or OF spot. Mitchell could be ready to step into the OF two years from now for all we know. It's no given we'd be in a bad spot. I said this before in another thread, but look at where we were two years ago and compare it to where we are now. We were just coming off the 2007 season and there was no reason to be hopeful about much of anything. We traded our two best pitching prospects that winter for a bust in Swisher and we didn't even get burned by it, at least not yet. That Swisher deal has the potential to be far more devastating than any Gonzalez deal IMO.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:10 PM) The difference between you and KHP is that you're advocating that they should've given another guy a chance in an attempt to see if a bad situation (Linebrink sucking) could be even partially rectified. I don't have a problem with that. But KHP seems to believe that he knows for an absolute fact that there had to be multiple guys they could've gone to that would've been better. Just like he claims to know for 100% fact that we could've gotten more for Brandon Allen than Tony Pena. That's the s*** that gets on my nerves. But you're right. This subject is pretty tired now. I'm done. Okay, so where did I say that I believed it was absolute fact that anyone would have been better? I posted the numbers of other players on our team who already *were* better. As far as minor league options, it's no guarantee, but I certainly wouldn't bet money on any one of those players coming up and posting numbers worse than Linebrink's in the second half, and it is in no way inconceivable for any of those guys to perform significantly better. You don't know unless you give those guys a shot. And at least if you go to someone else you're sending a message that you won't settle for that kind of performance. Thanks for bringing up the Pena trade again. I only said that I thought we could have gotten something better for Allen than Pena. You can disagree with that all you want, I don't know. I felt Allen was being underrated, and in general I don't like giving up position prospects for middle relievers. Furthermore I repeated about a thousand times over that I had no problem dealing Allen.

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) Just to make sure we're keeping the record straight here... He had a total of 57 appearances. After his first 38 appearances (through July 31st), Linebrink had a 2.48 ERA. And the Sox were 26-12 in games that he pitched. After appearance #44, on August 15th, he had a 2.98 ERA. Pull the plug and replace him with a minor leaguer yet? Nyet. It was in late August and September when he fell apart (over his final 13 appearances). Yes, he struggled from then on out, but when a veteran pitcher gets through 77% of his performances in a season with a sub-3.00 ERA, and then starts struggling... it's got to be extremely difficult for a manager/GM to think the pitcher can't turn it around the next time out. So when do you pull the plug and say some minor leaguer with zero MLB experience is a better option? I think it goes back further than that. Here's July 17th until the end of the year. Bolded are the occasions he gave up runs. Italicized are the occasions either he or someone else bailed him out of poor outings. The rest are good outings. Notice how infrequent they are. July 17 - 1 IP, 3 H, HR, 2 ER; comes in ahead 3, leaves ahead 1 July 18 - inherits 2 runners, faces one batter, gives up a hit, then is pulled and bailed out by someone else July 20 - faces 3 batters, gets an out, gives up a hit and walk July 24 - gets one out, gives up 2 hits, a walk, an earned run July 27 - nice outing, scoreless, gives up nothing over 1 inning July 31 - 1 IP, no runs, but gives up two hits and a walk in the inning, pitches around allowing 3 baserunners Aug 2 - 1.2 IP, 2 H, 2 BB, ER, gets bailed out Aug 9 - 1.1 IP, 3ER, 3H, 1BB, 1HR Aug 10 - 1 IP, gives up nothing, first strong outing since July 27th Aug 12 - 1 IP, only allows a walk, strong outing Aug 15 - 1 IP, only gives up a hit, 3rd strong outing in a row Aug 17 - 1 IP, 1 H, 2 BB, 1 HR, 3ER, comes in ahead by 3 and leaves with the game tied Aug 23 - 1 IP gives up nothing, strong outing Aug 25 - inherits based loaded bot. 7 of a tie game with 2 outs and gets out of it; then gives up 3 ER, 3H, HR and leaves with 2 outs in the 8th after blowing the game Aug 28 - 1 IP, only one hit, strong outing Aug 30 - 1.2 IP, 3 H, HR, 1 ER - inherits 3 base runners and lets them all score on top of his own handiwork Sep 2 - 1 IP, 2 H, no runs, good outing Sep 8 - 1 IP, 2 H, BB, ER Sep 11 - 1 IP, 3 H, BB, 2 ER Sep 16 - 1 IP, 1 H, no runs, strong outing Sep 17 - 0.1 IP, HBP, 2 H, BB, 2 ER loses the game in extras Sep 19 - 1.0 IP, 1 hit, strong outing Sep 22 - 1.0 IP, gives up nothing, strong outing Sep 26 - 0.2 IP, 5 H, 4 ER I don't know when you pull the plug in hindsight, but by watching his appearances you could see early on that there were going to be problems. From July 12th and going back Linebrink only allowed 7 ER combined and only 5 times had allowed more than 2 baserunners in an inning. From July 17th and forward he gave up 22 ER and allowed more than 2 baserunners 11 times.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 09:54 PM) Let me ask you this...during the second half of 2006, you know, when Mark Buehrle was getting lit up like a Christmas tree, were you pining for the Sox to bring up any random minor leaguer simply because "well, he can't be any worse than Mark right now." And your 2007 reference is kinda corny. First of all, we were out of it well before the all-star break. So it's a lot easier to throw some minor league crap (which Wasserman and Bukvich were) out there and seeing what happens. Second, none of the guys that were sent down that year had anywhere near the proven track record Linebrink has (even with the second half fades). And you can't even call 2008 a fade. It wasn't until he got hurt and then came back that he struggled. Which wasn't all that surprising. Third, and this goes for Shack as well, where are the names of these guys the Sox should've called up? Just any random pitcher? No matter who? Last I checked, we weren't exactly s***tin' out quality prospects, relief or any other kind for that matter. Go compare Mark's 2nd half in 2006 with Linebrink's second halves over the last few years and then get back to me. No, my 2007 reference was not kind of corny. Compare Linebrink's second half last year with those other players I mentioned. So wait, it's easier to send down s***ty relievers when we're NOT contending? That doesn't make any sense. One would think that an organization would have less patience when they're trying to win ballgames. Proven track record for Linebrink - I already responded to that a bunch in this thread. Linebrink hasn't had a good second half since 2005. Sure he has a proven track record if you want to go back 4 years to find the last time he had one. There were all kinds of options for all kinds of reasons. Santeliz, Harrell, and Link were already on the roster. Hernandez and Rodriguez were two options that the Sox would have had to add, but that the Sox wouldn't have minded cutting. There are always guys in other organizations and on the waiver wire. It's impossible to go back and see just all of what was out there because there were probably scores of arms available by the Aug 31 waiver wire deadline. Not all of them would have been better than Linebrink, probably not even half of them since we're considering all kinds of reclamation projects and so forth, but there were options out there. In-house or otherwise, the Sox could have at least made it know that Linebrink's performance wasn't acceptable and tried someone else. The point is, there is no reason to believe we couldn't have put someone better in there. We probably wouldn't have found another Carrasco or Wassermann in 2007, and I doubt we would have gotten enough of a boost to take the division, but the ideas that 1) there was no one better, 2) the Sox shouldn't be questioned over it, 3) bad contracts need MLB playing time, and 4) there was no reason to even TRY to replace Linebrink, all bother me.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 04:57 PM) The ones that matter, aka the teams higher ups, are the ones getting hung up on certain ages, i am certainly not the only one. It's been this way almost ever since the draft was implemented. Nothing is changing anytime soon. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, which is gonna have to be the case in this situation. Which teams are doing this? They all make moves for power arms past their expiration dates or whatever you would call them. Boston alone acquired Javy Lopez and David Aardsma from us.

Talent trumps everything else, including age, and age is only a factor when there is talent to go with it. If you're 32 and you have a Major League arm you're still going to be considered more valuable than some 20-year-old with next to nothing. The AAAA pitchers that go from Triple-A org to Triple-A org year after year are still better bets to get a shot in the Majors than some right-handed kid posting an ERA under 1.00 in A-ball by commanding an 87-89mph fastball with little to no movement, even though the vet is considered a non-prospect and the kid shows up on prospect lists. If some other organization has a 21-year-old Omogrosso dominating in the upper levels then I'd rather have him, but that guy is going to cost a pretty penny. Omogrosso has a Major League arm and he will get his shot if he can stay healthy. Whether he'll be able to throw good strikes in the Majors or not is anyone's guess, but his age is really irrelevant.

I started this whole argument by responding to Ranger's comments on some of the callers who would phone in to his show to b**** about Linebrink. I posted the stats a few pages back, and for the exception of about 5 innings or so from Nunez, everyone on the team was better than Linebrink in the second half. To assume there was no one who would have performed better than Linebrink is a massive assumption considering how bad Linebrink was. I've seen others comment on Linebrink's past success as well as his stuff as reasons to keep going to him over someone else on the farm. I'll respond by again pointing out that 1) Linebrink has had a terrible second half in each of the last 4 seasons, so for past success you really do have to go back pretty far, and 2) Linebrink's "stuff" doesn't mean jack if he can't use it properly. For example, why were Aardsma, MacDougal, Sisco, and Masset sent down in '07? We called up Ehren Wassermann that year, who in comparison has pretty much nothing as far as stuff, and yet Ehren performed extremely well. Ryan Bukvich, who also had much lesser stuff, came up in '07 as well and pitched a hell of a lot better than the other guys he was replacing. DJ Carrasco is yet another example of the "stuff" argument not always panning out. DJ has been one the most important pieces to our bullpen the last two seasons, possibly THE most important piece given the amount of innings he's taken off the arms in the back of the pen, and yet Carrasco will be the guy with the weakest stuff on the entire 2010 pitching staff. Carlos Torres is another one. Torres has pretty much nothing to work with at all, and yet he still was a much better pitcher in the second half than Linebrink was. At least Torres tries to mix it up and work to both sides of the plate rather than the "fastball right down the chute" style Linebrink uses. My whole point was that Ranger's arguments for running Linebrink out there were terrible arguments that can be easily refuted with statistics. The only reason the Sox ran Linebrink out there was because of the vast amount of money owed to him, and possibly, if you want to dig that far, because the Sox wanted him to help Peavy with his transition. Therefore it is a complete dick move for Ranger to laugh at the callers who voiced their displeasure on his show, because the callers were making valid points, and they had valid reasons for their complaints. And as I said before, if you don't want to blame it on the contract over the radio, then at least don't come here and start that s*** again because you're going to get an actual baseball argument in return. Ranger can make some points, and most of the time he does and he is easy to agree with, but he still can be a snob to a lot of his callers for no reason. It's one thing to rip on someone for saying something completely irrational, but you should at least look at the numbers first, because Linebrink really was that bad. Literally *anyone* else in our pen could have done better, and when it comes to what we had on the farm, there were definitely other options, including no-risk candidates like Derek Rodriguez and Fernando Hernandez, who everyone knew would be left unprotected after the season ended anyway. And again, I know Linebrink was out there because of his contract. That's the Sox decision, that's their money, their player, etc. But if you disagree with the Sox decision, you still have every right to b**** about it. Maybe b****ing about it is pointless and gets you nowhere (looking at the CF situation from 2006-09) but there's still a valid argument there.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) like the one guy was saying we in Chicago were a big market i don't see why our payroll can't be in the 115 to 120 range if the team wins they fill the stadium . The Twins payroll will be about 100mil after they extend Mauer the tigers is 125 mil there problem is they have a lot of dead money paying guys who are not playing but after 2010 2011 all that will be off there books . So in a year we will be in a dog fight with those 2 teams and to be honest i believe winning our division will be harder then people want to believe . The Twins moving to a outside stadium will only make them better in the long run because they will be better on the road better playing on grass fields so don't think because there moving outside that team will be bad if anything they will be better overall . I agree 100%, but that's down the road. If the Sox put together the right core and they win for a couple consecutive seasons while filling the park, the payroll will reach that, and it's even conceivable that we could hang around that point consistently for several years. The key is to keep talent coming up through the farm so that we can make trades for cheap stars and bring up pre-arb talent when we need to. The AL Central has only had a couple brief periods since its creation in 1994 where you could have called it the best division in the AL: 1994, 2000, 2005, and 2006. The Indians had a few great teams in a weak division, but the strongest period for the division was 2005-2007 (Sox, Indians, Twins, Tigers). Aside from 1994 and that 3 year period it has been pretty weak, so a higher payroll should work out pretty nicely for us if we could reach it and sustain it.

He's a lock to get in and saying he deserves to be in is an incredible understatement. That said, watch the asshole BBWAA stiffs overlook the anti-steroids stance and rip him for being a DH, delaying his entry until 2011. I really hope he makes the first ballot though. And yes, that #35 needs to go up in a ceremony this year. The Sox need to get on with building that statue if they haven't started already.

If we could find some way to unload Paulie while picking up Adrian, it would make worlds of sense to sign Matsui as a DH if he's still out there. Bringing in Matsui would be a nice way to attract Japanese sponsors and maybe give us a little more to work with. That said, I think we have a better shot at landing Adrian than we have trying to unload Paulie without eating significant cash or taking on an even worse contract.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) I believe Detroit is in alot of financial trouble with their organization and their city itself in the very near future, so I believe they are probably forced to have a payroll in a year or two in those effects. (Cincy as well) Thats why said players like Miggy and Granderson will probably become "dangled" by them to see what they can possibly net. No doubt about it. It's a shame though.. it would probably take a Beckham, Danks, etc.. crazy like that to make Dombroski even think of moving Miggy to us in the division. Miggy is a hellova talent and would just be a nightmare especially in this park. He is very much worth what he makes, but we are tied ourselves with 2 big contracts. I've made my Miggy love known with that Adrian thread from pages 17-19 a while back. Scary to think he will probably be much better this comming season improving from making the AL jump. I don't think Boston would have to give up Clay or really anything close to that. IMO, the Tigers aren't going to trade Cabrera unless ownership wants payroll basically cut in half between 2009 and 2010 (going from $129M+ down to the $70M or less range), and if that does become the case, there aren't many teams that will be willing or able to take on that deal. The Angels and Dodgers don't even look like they'd be able to take that on, so it's pretty much Red Sox vs. Yankees vs. Mets. Not a lot of leverage for Detroit. I don't think Cabrera will be moved, but if he is, it'll be kind of like the Peavy deal: a grossly low cost paid in talent for a truly elite player in his prime.

I wouldn't trust anything Olney is saying here. #1 The Tigers have $57.1M coming off the books after 2010 with Inge, Willis, Ordonez (including his buyout), Robertson, and Bonderman. If they trade Granderson they're looking at $67.1M off the books after 2010, which according to Cot's would have them only committed for $31.25M in 2011, and that is including Cabrera's contract. They do not need to trade Cabrera unless ownership is mandating something like a $70M payroll or less in 2010. Keep in mind the Tigers were also paying Sheffield this season and now that one is off the books. #2 The Tigers definitely are not trading Cabrera to an AL Central team. Even if they would, I doubt any other team in the division would take on that salary, including the Sox. The Sox don't do $20M+ players and it would be pretty unusual to see them start doing that in this current climate. It's likelier we sign both Chapmann AND Arguelles than it is we take on $126M in Cabrera over 6 years. #3 Olney is saying it is extremely unlikely that the Pads trade Adrian. Did he miss the $40M payroll for the future comments? Did he miss where the Pads sent out season ticket brochures without Adrian being mentioned in them? The Padres need to go young across the diamond right now, and they are such a bad team even with Adrian that they're not going to contend. If they're having so much trouble putting asses in seats even with Adrian there then they might as well deal him.

If you've seen Omogrosso pitch then I don't know how you could come away thinking "non-prospect." If he's healthy we should see him at some point in 2010.

I hope AJ never leaves. He can start now, and then when he shouldn't be starting anymore he can become Sandy Alomar again, and then when that's no longer an option he can become a coach.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 05:17 PM) I guess when you frame it in the sense that Hudson/Flowers would have to be moved for a difference maker....... .....picking from a pool of Crisp/Thome/Pods/Matsui isnt the worst thing in the world. It might not be pure insanity to see AJP moved for salary space to get Matsui. KW seems to always make the shocking move. Plus Flowers is of age and one day or another you're going to have to get him familiar with this pitching staff if you're really built for a 3-4 year window as we stand.......and Blanco could be had thru free agency. Putting Tyler Flowers of the career 27 MLB innings behind the plate in charge of a rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Garcia would indeed be "shocking."

Another idea if we could get Adrian for prospects: Konerko ($12M) + Linebrink ($5M in 10, $5.5M in 11) for Affeldt ($4M in 10) + Rowand ($12M in 10-12) + cash in 2012 Sox would cut $1M off the payroll. Affeldt would be the lefty setup man if Thornton becomes the closer, or else Affeldt would be the 2nd lefty. Rowand becomes our RF in 2011 for basically $6.5M if you consider Linebrink a sunk cost. In 2012, the Sox get about $5-6M cash from the Giants to make Rowand's deal worth it. The Giants OTOH would get out of about $12M in commitments to Rowand while upgrading 1B in 2010. S Crisp LF (if we do sign him) R Beckham 2B L Gonzalez 1B R Quentin DH L Pierzynski C R Rios CF L Teahen 3B R Rowand RF R Ramirez SS

GMJ at $11M + Gonzalez at $4.75M - Konerko at $12M = upgrading Konerko significantly for $3.75M It would all depend on how much in prospects the Angels would give up in order to dump that contract. Just for example, if doing this allows the Sox to keep Hudson and D2, then we also fill out a setup role in 2010 as well as keep Danks around to step in for GMJ mid-season if it looks like he's ready. I don't think 2010 would be the big issue with GMJ. The major blow to the Sox would be having $17.5M in 2011 locked up between GMJ and Linebrink, which is why I don't think the Sox would make that deal. IMO it still would make sense for the Angels to trade GMJ to the Padres in the deal, with the Sox sending Konerko to the Angels and cash in 2010 to the Padres to bring down GMJ's deal. The Angels would send prospects to the Padres in 2010 to make up for the upgrade of GMJ to Konerko, and the Angels would send lots of cash to the Padres in 2011. If the Angels straight released GMJ it would cost them $23M, but if they could work out a deal with the Padres where the Sox also covered cash, they may have to eat only about $9-10M of that. On the Sox side, they would replace Konerko with Adrian at about the same price while saving on prospects, and they'd be able to bring in a DH off the scrap heap for a few million.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) funny how so many people want pods resigned. he most likely going to regress offensively and his defense and base running is awful. id definatley take a chance on crisp. i think its a great possibility since we need a leadoff hitter and kenny always gets his guy I don't know if I've ever disagreed with anything you've ever said on this board. Love the av and sig too! I'm praying.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) I used to like Crisp, but I'm not sure I'd be a big fan of this move, but ultimately, as you mentioned Mario, it depends on what Kenny does between signing Crisp and the end of the off-season. If Crisp is our 4th outfielder (along with Kotsay), its a pretty damn good move. Coco is a plus defensive outfielder who can handle CF and spell Rios in the case of an injury. Offensively, when he's healthy, he's a bit better than Pods and is and all around more versatile player than Scotty. If the Sox are looking at Crisp as the starter and leadoff hitter, I really can't support the idea. Crisp hasn't had an above average offensive season in years and asking him to be your leadoff hitter or top of the order threat would be as massive of a mistake as the Sox asking Wise to lead-off to open the 2009 season. So in short...if the Sox sign him to a 1yr 1-2M a year deal to be our backup outfielder and insurance option, fantastic. If it is to be a starter, no thanks. I should also point out the Sox claimed DeAza off of waivers from Florida, who also fits the role of a 4th/5th outfielder and would be cheaper, albeit less proven than Crisp. I would have no problem with Coco playing CF and hitting lead-off if he could be had as cheaply as you're saying. Sox fans can talk about what they want in lead-off guys all they want, but you know we're going to have some fast guy at the top of the order again this year. Crisp at least is a solid hitter and a veteran, and adding his defense will help our pitching staff. At $1-2M guaranteed and without having to forfeit draft picks to sign him, I really don't see a huge risk here. The Sox have pretty much already stated that Figgins won't be a serious target because they can't afford him. ATM Crisp > Danks > De Aza > Pods (butcher due for a regression), and he's a much better lead-off option than what we started with last year in DeWayne Wise. I too would like someone better, but let's just be realistic. Our biggest need on offense is firepower and if we don't address that our offense is going to suck anyway. If we do, with our pitching, we can afford Crisp at lead-off.