Skip to content

Why did the Red Sox dump Marco Scutaro and his salary?

Jan 23, 2012, 10:47 AM EDT

scutaro getty Getty Images

I’m among the people confused by Boston’s move to dump Marco Scutaro and his $6 million salary on the Rockies for a marginal minor leaguer in Clayton Mortensen, in part because Scutaro was hardly overpaid and in part because the Red Sox’s in-house options to replace him at shortstop are so underwhelming.

It still doesn’t make much sense to me, but Alex Speier of WEEI.com offers a few details that explain the situation somewhat.

For instance, Speier notes that because of the wording of Scutaro’s contract the Red Sox would have taken a sizable luxury tax hit if they’d simply declined his 2012 option, so instead they exercised the option and then dumped him on the Rockies (who have no such luxury tax concerns).

There’s been plenty of speculation that the Red Sox shed Scutaro’s salary in order to make a run at Roy Oswalt and in the meantime they sliced nearly $8 million in money as it’s counted against the luxury tax. Speier reports that the Rockies were the only team willing to take on Scutaro’s entire salary.

As for why they’d trade Scutaro without having a good shortstop replacement waiting in the wings–particularly after parting with Jed Lowrie earlier this offseason–Speier points to the fact that he’s 36 years old, somewhat injury prone, and perhaps declining defensively. And for now at least the Red Sox feel more comfortable than you might expect with a time share between Mike Aviles and Nick Punto.

Whether or not all that adds up to the Scutaro salary dump being a smart move by the Red Sox is another issue–I’d still vote no, certainly–but at least it makes a little more sense than it did at the time.

  1. Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    The trade makes little sense on its own merit. It’s not a disastrous trade, as while Aviles is a below-average SS, Scutaro isn’t that far above average himself. Probably a win or two of a downgrade. But Scutaro did have surprlus value, and it seems like someone should have offered something more than an emergency starter/back of the bullpen arm with a minor league option for an above-average shortstop on a cheap one-year deal. Of course, the fact that they didn’t get something better than that for Scutaro might say that he wasn’t as valued by GMs as he is by statisticians, or that most teams are set at SS, which means it was just poor timing for trying to trade him.

    If they use the money to acquire a very good starter, an Oswalt or Floyd or Jackson or Wandy Rodriguez, then they probably come out ahead overall on the pair of moves, as the downgrade from Scutaro to Aviles is less than the upgrade from Padilla/Cook/Aceves to a very good starter. But if a deal follows, they could have come out FURTHER ahead on the paid of deals had Cherington been better able to leverage his cheap good SS.

    • bosoxfan1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

      Relax everybody. Have a little patience. There are, IMHO, a few more shoes to drop before all is said and done about trading Scutaro.

    • woody9x - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM

      Get used to it. Bobby Valentine is a moron.

      • pcpatti13 - Jan 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM

        I read & re read the article. Where did it say Bobby V had any input in the decision to trade Scutaro?
        Don’t condemn Bobby V for something the GM did.

  2. Old Gator - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM

    They didn’t dump him. He fell off their truck.

  3. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    Why did the Red Sox dump Marco Scutaro and his salary?

    Because they are incapable of making good decisions when it comes to SS.

    I would have thought Atlanta would jump at the chance to acquire Scutaro: he is a veteran SS, can play lots of other positions (ala Prado) and only needs a 1 year commitment. Then again, the Braves seem to suffer from the same affliction as the Red Sox when it comes to SS.

    • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

      What better decision should Boston have made at SS? There hasn’t been a good SS on the market in a long time. There’s a reason that most teams have poor SSs, not just Boston.

      What’s more, I’d say that getting Scutaro was a truly excellent decision. They paid 2 years and $12MM (and only $9MM in luxury tax dollars) for two years of above-average SS play. And while we’re criticizing SS decisions of each other’s teams: Jeter was paid $10MM more last year for a worse performance, and he’s still got $37MM left on that deal with limited upside.

      • phukyouk - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM

        Reyes, Jose
        his current deal aside im a little surprised that they didnt at least look at him.

      • bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

        Boston has never had, nor will ever have, a SS as good as Jeter. So go screw yourself, Ari.

      • phukyouk - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        Ari,

        i think that you, I and the whole world knows that Jeters contract was more based on past performance than what he had left in the tank. its kind of a bad analogy.

      • phukyouk - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM

        Bozo,

        i think you are officially our version of ‘Cepts

      • Bryz - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

        Ari, you seem to be confused. In your first post, you said this:

        “It’s not a disastrous trade, as while Aviles is a below-average SS, Scutaro isn’t that far above average himself.”

        But then in this post of yours that I’m responding to, you said this:

        “What’s more, I’d say that getting Scutaro was a truly excellent decision. They paid 2 years and $12MM (and only $9MM in luxury tax dollars) for two years of above-average SS play.”

        Which is it? Is Scutaro “not that far above average” or is he an “above-average SS”? Hint: It’s the latter.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

        The fact that it was based on past performance and not future performance makes it a bad contract, not a bad analogy.

        I’m not arguing that Boston hasn’t had its share of bad contracts, as has every team that delves into free agency. But to say that Jeter’s contract is somehow excused because it was paying for past performance is kind of silly. Paying for past performance while ignoring future performance is EXACTLY what makes a bad contract.

        I was a little surprised Boston didn’t go after Reyes as well, but apparently only one team can go significantly over the luxury tax, and it’s not the Red Sox. If you want to call that a poor SS decision, I suppose that’s fine; I’d call it a poor SP decision (Lackey) that has led to them being up against their payroll limit, but that’s probably just splitting hairs.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM

        How is “not that far above average” and “above average” different things?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        “What better decision should Boston have made at SS?” Ari Collins

        Not signing Lugo
        Not signing Alex Gonzalez
        Not signing Renteria
        Not trading away Jed Lowrie for a middle reliever while simultaneously dumping the only other MLB quality SS on the roster

        Aviles wasn’t good enough to keep the job in KC, and Punto is a lifetime backup. If this is the Red Sox version of rebuilding that dumping Scutaro makes sense. But dumping his salary, getting worse at SS and then spending more money on a starting pitcher seems to work at cross purposes.

        Maybe he was viewed as a “Francona guy” or maybe he had a KFC Club barcode on his keychain. That might help explain this, but from baseball perspective this does not make a ton of sense.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM

        Jeter in the second half of last season:

        .327/.383/.428 OPS=.811

        I’m not saying he’s earning his contract, but the guy is still better than Scutaro at baseball.

      • phukyouk - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM

        Ari,

        my point was that they weren’t paying a SS they were paying a Figure head of the New york yankees that just so happen to also play a little bit of short stop. THAT BEING SAID… if Jeets repeats his 2011 season in 2012 and then just half of that in 2013 and 14 i would say that it turned out to be an excellent contract.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

        Perhaps Jeter will be better than Scutaro next year. But while Jeter had a better second half than his abysmal first half, the first half counts too. And Scutaro had a great September, so… how you get there isn’t as important as where you end up. Jeter was worse than Scutaro last year, and overpaid instead of under.

        I’m not saying that signing Lugo or Renteria were great moves (though both underperformed their projections, and I’d say they were good moves at the time). I’m asking what BETTER decisions they should have made. Not signing Renteria isn’t a better move than signing Renteria. You need an alternative move.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

        Jeter in the second half of last season:

        .327/.383/.428 OPS=.811

        I’m not saying he’s earning his contract, but the guy is still better than Scutaro at baseball.</blockquote.

        BABIP second half:
        Jul – .343
        Aug – .427
        Sept/Oct – .385

        Not exactly something he's going to be able to do going forward. However, your latter comment still stands.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM

        Not signing Renteria isn’t a better move than signing Renteria. You need an alternative move. ARI COLLINS

        First, I don’t agree with your first point. Using any replacement level SS from the minors would have given the Sox the same production at league minimum.

        That said, it is the GMs job to find or create opportunities. Based on moves other GMs pulled off, I would say there were a number of ways the Sox could have improved at SS. They could have held onto Orlando Cabrera or Lowrie, signed Furcal, Peralta or Reyes, traded for Yunel Escobar, Elvis Andrus or JJ Hardy. Alexei Ramirez and Stephen Drew have been rumored to be available. Ninja GMs acquire players nobody knew were available.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM

        traded for Yunel Escobar, Elvis Andrus or JJ Hardy. Alexei Ramirez and Stephen Drew have been rumored to be available

        I know this is a bit hypocritical coming from a Yankee fan, but do other GMs have a say in this? Why would Ari deal Drew or the Rangers deal Andrus? Escobar wouldn’t be an upgrade over anyone they had, and Ramirez is mostly def with no bat.

        Yes keeping Cabrera looks good now, but maybe Bos wasn’t willing to meet his asking price back then? No one knew Renteria would develop butterfingers [and possibly be unable to handle Bos press].

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

        Renteria was well above replacement level. Most of those guys listed weren’t available, and those that were free agents signed at prices that are beyond Boston’s current payroll. And Orlando Cabrera? He hit far worse than Renteria the year after we let him go.

        It’s not like Boston could have drafted or traded for Tulo. Since 2003, there haven’t been many great shortstops, and unless you’re fortunate enough to have a Jeter (pre-2010) or Tulo, you’re scrounging like everyone else.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 2:20 PM

        “Using any replacement level SS from the minors would have given the Sox the same production at league minimum.”

        Yeah, but dude, how would they know that? He was one of the better shortstops in the league before he came over. You can’t judge a GM solely on results of FA signings, you have to consider the process. Cabrera wanted something crazy at the time, like 8 years and 64 million if I remember correctly, so we let him go. But you know what, picking him up at the deadline was one of the best SS decisions ANY GM has made in years, because along with Mienktwiz (not gonna bother) they played a huge role in shoring up our defense and winning us the World Series. Getting rid of Nomar for Cabrera was a great move, and not overpaying for him was too.

        Like Ari said, most of those guys weren’t available, and most of them aren’t great. How are we supposed to just trade for Elvis Andrus or Stephen Drew? The reason good young short stops don’t get traded often is because they’re rare. It’s not even remotely as simple as you’re trying to make it sound.

      • bigharold - Jan 23, 2012 at 3:14 PM

        “But to say that Jeter’s contract is somehow excused because it was paying for past performance is kind of silly.”

        It’s about as silly as ignoring the fact that Jeter’s contract had more involved than just on field performance. Bernie Williams didn’t get the kind of contract that Jeter got because, .. well he wasn’t Jeter.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM

        The Jeter contract involved the Yanks having more money than everyone. Nothing else. It was both a bad business and bad baseball decision. Why are you fighting this?

      • rexryanisablowhard - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

        Last I checked, this story is about the Sox dumping Scutaro without having other solid options. When did this story become Jeter or any other SS mentioned? Haters hate and winners (Jeter) win, it’s just what they do. Clearly the reason Scutaro was dumped was because he played too hard in September and almost ruined the Sox epic choke job. Good luck with Julio Inglesias Jr and Little Nicky Punto.

      • bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

        phukyouk – Jan 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM
        Bozo,

        i think you are officially our version of ‘Cepts

        __
        No, py…I’m the version of every Red Sox fan pre-2004, who took every shot that they could at the Yankees, fair or unfair. The response that I get here is merely proof that they (the Red Sox fans) have no problem dishing the insults but that they can’t take their own medicine in return. The wussiest fan base in all of sports, bar none.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM

        Theory #1: All Boston fans are crybabies who can’t take getting insulted, and those are the only people giving you thumbs down. Because this is a Boston Red Sox fan blog and we’re all Boston fans.

        Theory #2: Your insults are factless rude attacks on an otherwise civil and constructive discussion board, and that’s why you get thumbs down.

        I’m going to go ahead and guess that Theory #2 is more likely.

  4. uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

    Aaron, so the Red Sox “sliced nearly $8MM off their luxury tax bill for 2012.

    The Red Sox right now are at the threshold of $178MM for 2012 assuming Ortiz only settles for or gets about $14MM via arbitration or on average via a 2 year agreement.

    Assume the sign Oswalt which seemed to be the general view here for about $8MM. The 42% rate on $8MM which they are over the threshold by is $3.36MM. Now I realize I didn’t go to MIT but saving $2MM in luxury tax money by dumping $6MM in salary. Only to now have a $3.36MM bill should you sign the $8MM pitcher Oswalt.

    And now it could be argued are the Red Sox any better off. My opinion and it’s only that is, no. Everyone can say what they want. But now they will have a SS by committee and 3rd baseman that has not proven he can play 3rd base on a day to day basis and a left fielder who based on 2011 has to make Red Sox fans cringe every time there is a ball hit his way. Again this is just my opinion, but right now the left side of the Red Sox defense looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Plus the Red Sox gave up some offense by moving Scurato.

    I just do NOT and can NOT see this as a win for the Sox even if they sign Oswalt. That’s just my opinion.

    • uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

      Sorry the first sentence should be:

      “sliced nearly $2MM off their luxury tax bill for 2012″, by dumping $6MM in salary.

      Again apologies for that.

    • bloodysock - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

      Under the way the contracts are calculated for tax purposes, the Red Sox dumped $7.67 million in Competitive Balance Tax payroll for 2012 by sending Scutaro to Colorado.

      • uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM

        That was IF they did NOT exercise his option per the article above and I quote “Speier notes that because of the wording of Scutaro’s contract the Red Sox would have taken a sizable luxury tax hit if they’d simply declined his 2012 option, BUT THEY DID EXERCISE HIS OPTION. So that sizable luxury tax hit was not a factor.

        The only hit they should have or would have taken was on their total payroll exceeding the $178MM threshold. So again my original comment is accurate.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:15 PM

        That is incorrect. Read it again, particularly:

        “for the coming season, he would have counted for not just his $6 million salary for luxury tax purposes, but instead $7.67 million (the difference between the $17 million he’d make and the $9.33 million for which he’d counted in 2010 and 2011).

        In dealing Scutaro to the Rockies, the Red Sox shed $7.67 million in CBT payroll for the coming year.”

        Your understanding of the situation is off. Had they declined his option, they would have paid $3.17MM in CBT. Had they picked up his option and kept him, they would have paid $7.67MM in CBT. They have $7.67MM in CBT to spend that they didn’t have last week, which happens to be slightly less than what Oswalt is rumored to be getting (and significantly more than what Floyd would cost in CBT).

    • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

      Your math is screwy. Boston jettisoned $7.67MM in luxury tax money by trading Scutaro, per the article linked above. If Oswalt costs $8MM, which, as you say, is the general view, then by switching the two players and contracts they have cost themselves $330,000, and at 142% that comes out to grand total of $469,000. I’ll take trading Scutaro for Oswalt and paying half a million more any day of the week.

      As to your other points, Youk was a well-above average 3B even with the time he missed, 2011 is over and Crawford is expected by pretty much everyone to bounce back (if not necessarily to the level Boston paid for and thought it was getting), and Mike Aviles, Boston’s starting shortstop who is not a committee, is not much of a downgrade from Scutaro, especially when you consider that Scutaro might not have been able to stay on the field enough to continue to be above-average.

      • uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

        Ari, you’ll forgive me I have have some doubt about Crawford bouncing back. As I seem to recall you were one of his main advocates and repeatedly last year insisted he was going to bounce back. Well guess what he didn’t. Oh, I would expect some minor uptick in his performance in 2012 they same as would would expect some minor downturn in Ellsbury performance. But I would hardly expect either to revert to their pre 2011 performances.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM

        Well, you’re one of the very very few not to project Crawford for a big bounceback, so pardon me while I believe everyone else and not the one Yankee fan concern trolling.

        ZIPS: .282/.325/.448
        FGFans: .292/.340/.455
        James: .286/.332/.436
        RotoChamps: .270/.317/.431

        Even the lowest projection is a serious serious upgrade over last year, and the 2nd lowest is probably more what I’d personally expect.

      • uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

        OK Ari, so they effectively jettison $7.67MM in salary. I still don’t think it makes sense to drop your starting SS at $7.67MM and potentially sign a starting pitcher for $8MM. It still cost them more in luxury tax dollars. And now they have NO Starting SS as I previously mentioned as well as the other issues. Which Red Sox fans want to or seem to glance over or dismiss.

        You can stick your head in the sand and continue to say Youkilis is an above average 3rd baseman even with the time he’s missed but what about his replacement. What about the SS by committee and the offense lost at that position. What about IF Crawford only has a slight bump up in performance. What about if Buchholz continues to have “issues” that prevent him making a full seasons starts. What about if the RF by committee doesn’t pan out.

        I realize every team has issues some more than others. But in order to come to grips with those issues they first have to be acknowledge. And that my friend is what very few Red Sox fans seem willing to do. That’s just my opinion of course.

      • uyf1950 - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM

        OH Ari, were were having such a nice discussion until your most recent comment “… one Yankee fan concern trolling.” I didn’t realize these blogs were only meant for “fans” of the teams topic. I’ll be sure to drop Craig an email and ask him when they instituted that policy.

        I guess then when you or other Red Sox fans comment on a topic about the Yankees you consider your actions trolling. Or are you the type of person that advocates “do as I say not as I do”. That comment about trolling is not worthy of a true baseball fan, here on this site. And only smacks of frustration on your part.

        Have a nice day I’m done discussing this topic with you.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

        I didn’t say you couldn’t post here! Continue your biased posts by all means, and feel free to consider my posts biased as well, especially with regards to the Yankees.

        Your projection for an only slight uptick for Crawford goes against what sabermatrician AND traditional fans believe. So, as I said, pardon me while I fail to be overly worried by your concern on Boston’s behalf.

    • bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

      You didn’t go to MIT? Don’t fret, uyf…neither did any of the Boston natives. They have to import the students since none of the local products have the brains to get in.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

        I’m, uhh, pretty sure that Boston’s representation at MIT is well above its percentage of the country’s population. That’s what happens when a college is in your greater metropolitan area.

        Eventually bozos will attack Boston in a way that makes any sense. After all, this is the year the world ends, right?

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        Yeah I’d say he’s about 0 for 600 since being here. Coherence is just difficult for the guy. Millions and millions of sperm and he was the fastest. What a world we live in.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM

        I’m pretty sure Bozo is just a complete troll, but I really wanna believe he’s actually this stupid. It’s entertaining in a ridiculously annoying way.

      • aceshigh11 - Jan 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM

        He’s a very sick individual.

        How much do you want to bet he’s a Republican too?

      • phukyouk - Jan 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM

        He COULD BE Manny… i mean that guy REALLY hated the sox…

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 23, 2012 at 4:42 PM

        Millions and millions of sperm and he was the fastest. What a world we live in.

        if only we could have signatures here. Shame :(

      • bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:53 PM

        Ari Collins – Jan 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM
        I’m, uhh, pretty sure that Boston’s representation at MIT is well above its percentage of the country’s population. That’s what happens when a college is in your greater metropolitan area.

        Eventually bozos will attack Boston in a way that makes any sense. After all, this is the year the world ends, right?
        ___
        Far less than 10%…pretty pathetic, given that it’s a local school.

        BTW, not a Republican.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

        Again, considering that Boston is far far less than 10% of the country’s population, the fact that 10% of a top-notch school is from Boston is pretty damn good, and far more than I expected.

        And were those goalposts hard to carry? We went from “none of the local products have the brains to get in,” to “umm, 10% of MIT’s population isn’t really all that much.”

        Your logic is peccable.

  5. hushbrother - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    If the Red Sox are “comfortable” entering 2012 with those guys at SS it won’t take long for them to realize their mistake. Neither of those guys has any business playing even semi-regularly for a contending team.

    • phillyphreak - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

      Not to leave an endorsement for Nick Punto or anything but…

      “Neither of those guys has any business playing even semi-regularly for a contending team.”

      …..he was on the Cardinals last year. They won the World Series in case you forgot….

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM

        Just change it to, “Neither of these guys has any business STARTING for a contending team” and it works perfectly.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jan 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM

        Was he a starter for the Cardinals? I know he played during the playoffs, but he stunk it up at the plate.

  6. sknut - Jan 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

    Maybe if they traded him earlier this offseason they would have gotten more value for him? I would guess most teams are more or less set and would only do tinkering with the roster at this point.

  7. mashoaf - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

    Glad to see the Red Sox are making great moves after they’ve bashed Theo’s past moves.

  8. unclemosesgreen - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

    Aviles / Punto are more than capable of holding it down at a “Scutaro” level, and for a lot less money.

    The real reason they were comfortable doing this, however, is a certain young Mr. Jose (don’t call me Julio) Iglesias. Having a very temporary and inexpensive solution at SS while giving the kid a chance to develop further in AAA is a sound organizational decision.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

      Except he’s the epitome of all def, no bat. The guy hit .235/.285/.269 last year at AAA.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM

        But he DID hit .333 in 6 at bats at the major league level eh, eh?? Trying to be optimistic…

      • bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

        Not optimistic…more like delusional.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM

        Yeah, that was kinda the joke you dolt.

  9. natstowngreg - Jan 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    Typical East Coast bias. No one has asked the obvious question — why did the Rockies acquire Scutaro?

    Basically, they get one season of him as their starting 2B at $6 million, while giving up nothing much talent-wise. Doesn’t seem unreasonable. Why they’re not going to start him at SS over this kid Tulowhathisname is beyond me, though.

  10. bigharold - Jan 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM

    “… why did the Rockies acquire Scutaro?”

    Because they needed a utility infielder, .. because that’s what he is and always has been.

    I don’t see Scutaro as a big loss except that their replacement options are not as good. As far as getting Oswalt, .. be careful what you wish for. The RS already have three pitchers with back trouble. Adding Oswalt could adds one more.

  11. Jonny 5 - Jan 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    In all fairness to the BoSox here. Scutaro is no wiz @ SS and he’s 36. Looking at UZR tells me that his best thing going for him is his bat, which is backwards for the position really. With the weakness in UZR @ 3rd base, and SS as it was I think teams drool over hitting that direction. If the AAA guy is an upgrade defensively (i’m assuming so) it’s probably going to work out well for the team, allowing less through on that side. Offensively? Do the BoSox really need more of it? They led in offense last season and probably need more defense actually. It’s not a bad move even if on the surface it’s a head scratcher. To me anyway.

  12. patsandsox - Jan 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM

    I thought trading Lowrie, who I liked, for the kid Melonson was a good trade. Dumping Scutaro for this bum and acting like they are the Royals is disgraceful. I really dont get this one. No wonder Theo got out of dodge, although I think this mess is his making with all his boneheaded freeagent signings: Renteria, Lackey, Lugo, Drew, etc. I always wonder why Theo gets a free pass, I think they won despite him.
    Now having no legitimate SS, no rightfielder, no 4th or 5th starters its looking pretty scetchy unless more moves are made soon.
    The lineup should be great again. I think if they can get Beckett in shape he will have good season. I like the new manager, he certainly knows baseball.
    Its this acting like a small market team that really seems stupid
    Get Oswalt and a right fielder and they will be looking good. Keep the door closed on Wakefield and Tek, their days are long gone

  13. bozosforall - Jan 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

    The delusional Red Sox train continues to chug along in New England. Wooo wooooo!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches