Al Yellon
Editor
Bud Selig: Athletics Could Get Approval To Move ... Out Of Bay Area - May 17
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Worst Call Of The Year? - May 18
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
The Bobby Valentine .Gif Of The Year - May 19
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Grading on the Curve - May 20
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
MLB: My Favorite Illegal Cartel - May 20
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 20
Marc Normandin
Contributor
Josh Reddick, And Having Patience With Prospects - May 18
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
Baseball On Par With Other Professional Sports In Dealing With Bad Umpires - May 20
Hey, here's a new one: the Boston Red Sox just dumped salary and created a hole in their lineup?
Well, yeah. They did. The Sox have traded Marco Scutaro, their best shortstop, and sloughed off Scutaro's $6 million contract, which seems a pittance considering a) Scutaro's been worth something like $22 million over the last couple of seasons, and 2) Scutaro's departure apparently leaves shortstop in the hands of Nick Punto, who 3) can't hit.
There's one thing to be said for Punto: Though he's not actually played a great deal of shortstop in his career, he seems to be fairly adept at the position. It's possible that the Red Sox's internal metrics suggest that Punto can play Gold Glove-quality shortstop, nearly every day. Unlikely. But possible.
The Red Sox did receive Clayton Mortensen from the Rockies in the deal, and Mortensen joins a long list of candidates for the back end of Boston's rotation.
He's not a particularly good candidate, though. Almost 27, Mortensen's spent most of the last four seasons with various Class AAA teams, and posted an uninspiring (1.88) strikeout-to-walk ratio. In limited major-league action he's been significantly worse.
So again, this looks mostly like a salary dump. And a $6 million salary dump, at that.
It almost seems that there must be something else to this story. Why Clayton Mortensen? Scutaro's a legitimate every-day shortstop, good enough to play for most of the teams in the majors. The Sox really couldn't do better than Mortensen? Do they see something in him that we can't see? Do they have a deal lined up for another shortstop? Did they really need that $6 million to afford Roy Oswalt or somebody?
Even leaving aside that the Red Sox usually have pretty good reasons for doing what they do, might this be the strangest deal of the winter? And are the Rockies really this smart?
That's a lot of questions, I know. But that's what happens when I am nonplussed.
37 comments
19
Jan 24
3
Jan 23
4
Jan 23
Trying To Figure Red Sox' Angle ... And Failing
37
Jan 22
Mark Ellis Injury: Dodgers 2B Has Emergency Leg Surgery
Adam Lind Placed On Outright Waivers, According To Report
Orlando Hudson Signing With White Sox, Says Robin Ventura
Brandon McCarthy Lands On 15-Day DL With Strained Right Shoulder
Emilio Bonifacio To DL With Sprained Thumb
Lance Berkman Leaves Game With Knee Injury
Chipper Jones Likely To Miss Weekend With Leg Contusion
Danny Duffy Indeed Having Tommy John Surgery
Diamondbacks' Chris Young Comes Off Disabled List
Allen Craig, Kyle McClellan Hit DL
More News »
Comments
Punto/Aviles
With a higher upside, would seem like there’s a fair chance Aviles could get the majority of time at SS.
by John Leary on Jan 22, 2012 12:47 AM EST reply actions
Oh god Leary. How could I forget? This move has one person written all over it.
Allard Freaking Baird.
by Justin Bopp on Jan 22, 2012 12:53 AM EST up reply actions
I think the questions are valid, but the answers are even more perpexling.
The whole thing of “they know something we don’t” and getting value out of that is based on buying low/selling high. If everyone (us) thinks Boston should have gotten more, then they should have. Right?
by Justin Bopp on Jan 22, 2012 12:49 AM EST reply actions
Well if they do use the money to get Oswalt...
…then it amounts to a Scutaro-for-Oswalt trade plus a couple of million if the latest estimates are correct. Wouldn’t that be a worthwhile trade, Mario for a year of Roy? I know he hit well last year, but how many productive 37-year-old SSs have there been? I bet the Sox also get another option before thyey’re done
--
‎"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
--Isaac Asimov
---
by TLBKlaus on Jan 22, 2012 12:53 AM EST reply actions
Sure, but...
Even with all that, I am surprised that
1. Scutaro’s $6 million would keep the Red Sox from signing someone, and
2. They couldn’t get more for him than Clayton Mortensen? Do that many teams really think Scutaro’s not worth $6 million and a Grade B prospect?
by Rob Neyer on Jan 22, 2012 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
I do think that the idea of moving Scutaro
…makes more sense than what they got for him in this instance. Unless they’re enamored w/Mortenson’s groundball numbers, perhaps? I think this must be part of a wider strategy that will become clear[er] later.
Either that or Cherington’s simply insane and this will be even more fun than we thought!
Hey, isn’t Edgar Renteria available? On second thought, I’ll take Glen Hoffman.
--
‎"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
--Isaac Asimov
---
by TLBKlaus on Jan 22, 2012 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed
It’s the first one (that $6M would keep the Sox from making another signing) that really befuddles me. When has $6M ever forced the Red Sox to get rid of a player they actually wanted and needed?
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Jan 22, 2012 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
Since the new luxury tax rules...
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
@JamesDaBear
by jameslcrockett on Jan 22, 2012 2:19 AM EST up reply actions
Presumably they can use that money to plug another hole
Punto & Aviles combined for 2.1 WAR in 500 PA last season. They are both on the roster either way. Scutaro produced 2.9.
But RF is open, and their SP is still questionable.
Maybe they pay Oswalt on a 1-year deal, then move Bard back to the pen. Or they bid on Cespedes or Soler to play the corner.
by PortlandYankee on Jan 22, 2012 1:01 AM EST reply actions
Where were the Braves?
I assume the Red Sox will make another move, quite possibly signing Oswalt. I still don’t think this move makes total sense, though.
From the Red Sox’ perspective, they had to be able to get more for Scutaro, right? Specifically, shouldn’t the Braves have been in the picture? They need a SS, and a player with on-base skills, AND they have a surplus of young pitching.
This is a bizarre move.
by KWMc on Jan 22, 2012 1:02 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Where were the Giants?
The Giants will start the season with Brandon Crawford at short. He’s good to very good defensively but can’t hit a lick. Sure, they’ve been burned by Renteria, Tejada and Cabrera, but those guys were already in decline when Giants got them. Scutaro would have been perfect fit on Giants this year and they could have offered someone better than Mortenson. It’s baffling.
@hangingsliders
facebook.com/hangingsliders
by Wendy Thurm on Jan 22, 2012 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
I'm confused, but am good for a quote;
“Value judgments are destructive to our proper business, which is curiosity and awareness.”
-John Cage predicting the possibility the Red Sox FO someday will take this literally.
FanGraphs should consider a venue for a Gallery Night... they could even serve a cake with a Win Expectancy Chart of the 7/7/11 Brewers' game etched in the frosting, and 7-up. Oh, yeah - and t-shirts that say "SABR-Friday." I'm totally there.
by Jess'HittheBall on Jan 22, 2012 1:04 AM EST reply actions
Bard
If they move Bard back to the pen, which I think they will do eventually, then the Lowrie-for-Melancon trade looks more questionable.
I’m not convinced the Red Sox went into this offseason with a great plan.
by KWMc on Jan 22, 2012 1:22 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
They probably didn't, with all the managerial distractions.
by revived0103 on Jan 22, 2012 1:37 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed. This is a befuddling one.
A DRaysBay and FanGraphs writer from Cubs Stats.
@BradleyWoodrum
by BWoodrum on Jan 22, 2012 1:26 AM EST reply actions
Isn't this
…also a tacit admission that the Red Sox screwed up in picking up his option? They picked up a $6M team option instead of waiting to see if he picked up a $3M player option or letting him become a free agent. It looks like, in retrospect, either of those two latter scenarios would have been preferable to the team.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Jan 22, 2012 1:38 AM EST reply actions
How?
This way they got Clayton Mortensen out of it and don’t have to pay a cent. If they decline the option, they either save Team X $3m or get nothing. Mortensen > nothing.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
@JamesDaBear
by jameslcrockett on Jan 22, 2012 2:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, Mortensen is better than nothing. However, I think Scutaro should have brought back a better player. There aren’t a lot of shortstops that get on base frequently and play adequate defense. Even if the Red Sox pick up a pitcher to offset the downgrade on offense, I don’t think the Red Sox got fair value for Scutaro.
by KWMc on Jan 22, 2012 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
That's a valid opinion.
But it sure doesn’t mean the Red Sox screwed up in picking up his option.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
@JamesDaBear
by jameslcrockett on Jan 22, 2012 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, the Red Sox were certainly correct to pick up is option. They just should have also let him play SS for their team.
by KWMc on Jan 22, 2012 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You could say that about several other MLB teams too...
especially considering the team that traded for him didn’t give up anything for him, took on his entire salary… and has no intention of playing him at shortstop. Boston was looking to give him away just to get his salary off the books, yet no other team was willing to trade nothing for him to play shortstop for them? Maybe it’s not all that simple?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
@JamesDaBear
by jameslcrockett on Jan 23, 2012 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
There was a $1.5M buyout attached to the club option
By picking up the option and giving him away, they saved $1.5M.
by steel sox on Jan 22, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
It's really simple folks...
If the Sox hadn’t picked up Scoot’s option he would have been gone in a second. So, as has been said, this turns out to be a trade of Scoot for Oswalt, assuming we sign him. That’s a no-brainer.
The $$$ issue involves the Luxury Tax. I read something about the further over it they go, they end up facing up to a whopping 40% tax! So, that’s why they are trying so hard to stay under or just over the threshold. There are few ways for the Sox to dump salary and this deal seems to be one of the best ways to do so.
Aviles, should have no problem doing what Scoot has done over the last 2 years, with probably better defense and hopefully similar offense.
So, it’s the right move and I don’t get the confusion. Oh, and as for why we only got Mortensen, well that’s apparently what Marco and his 6 Million Dollar salary are worth in a trade. If there were a better deal available, I’m sure we would have taken it. Sox, did just fine here.
by Mike Test on Jan 22, 2012 1:50 AM EST reply actions
Okay. Maybe.
Scutaro’s OPS+ over the last three seasons is roughly the same as Aviles’ career mark, so maybe they’re roughly equivalent there.
But Aviles has demonstrated neither the ability to stay healthy and productive for a whole season, nor the ability to play shortstop every day and play it well.
I’m not saying Aviles/Punto + Oswalt isn’t more valuable than Scutaro. Again, I’m just surprised that $6 million matters to the Sox. But apparently it does.
by Rob Neyer on Jan 22, 2012 2:48 AM EST up reply actions
Don't the Rockies already have a pretty good starting shortstop?
Can’t see them giving up much in the way of prospects for someone they are going to use as a backup, although you are right that it seems likely that the Sox could have gotten more from someone else for Scutaro…
by aronofsky40 on Jan 22, 2012 8:36 AM EST reply actions
The Rockies
I don’t get why the Rockies felt like it was a good idea to spend $6 million on a backup shortstop. Sure they didn’t need to give up much in the way of prospects but it seems like they could have spent that money at a position of need.
by Drakos on Jan 22, 2012 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
And it's a sucky trade for Scutaro too...
as he’s obviously good enough to be starting for somebody.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 22, 2012 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
Trade bait?
My first thought was about the Rockies, too. What is their angle? Perhaps they’ll just turn around and deal Scutaro elsewhere.
by Jim Baker on Jan 22, 2012 9:32 AM EST up reply actions
it is pretty simple guys
Scutaro will be the Rockies starting 2B, which is most certainly Colorado’s biggest position of need. Scutaro has played plenty of 2B in his career
"Some guy on the net thinks I suck, and he should know - he's got his own blog." - Nick Hornby
"Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est"
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Jan 22, 2012 9:46 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
True.
by aronofsky40 on Jan 22, 2012 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
And Scutaro doesn't have a strong arm
(especially on account of shoulder problems the last two years) and is probably better off at second base.
by steel sox on Jan 22, 2012 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Read the original article announcing the trade
It speculates that Scutaro will slot in at 2B (a black hole for years in Denver).
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
by jbg2772 on Jan 22, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Pure speculation here
Scutaro was at the center of the Valentine-Phillips feud at the Mets. (Here.) Perhaps there’s some bad blood there?
As much as I doubt it, it’s the only way this deal makes sense to me.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 22, 2012 12:13 PM EST reply actions
Where was the rest of the league?
I agree with the prevailing sentiment that the rest of the league seemed to have under valued a good shortstop, especially in an offseason where teams have a need. I don’t get it. My guess is the Red Sox needed the money quick to make a move on Oswalt (though, yes, that seems weird for the Sox), and that they didn’t let enough teams kick the tires on Scutaro. Still, it’s weird.
And as for the Rockies being “that smart,” I’ve always thought they were smart. They know how to value Tulowitski, and have managed to avoid terrible decisions.
Also, that Scutaro-Valentine article was excellent insight, even if it probably had little to do with the trade decision.
by Real Tom on Jan 22, 2012 12:50 PM EST reply actions
Aviles is better than Scutaro
UZR/150
Aviles: 12.4
Scutaro: -2.8
wOBA
Aviles: .323
Scutaro: .322
2012 Age
Aviles: 31
Scutaro: 36
And Punto’s a better fielder than both of them. I think the Sox saw they had an aging, replaceable shortstop and had better use for that $6m.
by theterminizer on Jan 22, 2012 12:51 PM EST reply actions
Those stats are a little misleading. Aviles accumulated 4.4 WAR in 2008, fueled partly by a .357 BABIP, but only 1.1 WAR since. From 2008-2011, Scutaro had 12.7 WAR, and he had a .332 to .323 advantage in wOBA. It’s really hard to argue that Aviles is currently a better player than Scutaro.
by KWMc on Jan 22, 2012 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
We have to consider that Scutaro prefers 2nd base over playing ss, and he’s had shoulder problems the last 2 years. So maybe Ben figured that he’s better off moving $6mill now and using that money on other players (hopefully a RH OF or Oswalt) than having Scutaro playing hurt or on the DL. That said, neither Aviles or Punto seem appealing; if not for the problems in LF and RF (Crawford and Kalish injuries) I would rather have Iglesias playing.
by Jarbo on Jan 22, 2012 3:44 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed