Skip to content

Shane Victorino could be activated Wednesday

Apr 22, 2014, 11:20 PM EDT

shane victorino getty Getty Images

Some positive news here for the last-place Red Sox.’s Sean McAdam reports that outfielder Shane Victorino may be activated from the disabled list Wednesday if he makes it through his third minor league rehab game Tuesday night at Triple-A Pawtucket without experiencing any issues.

Victorino has been on the shelf since late in spring training with a Grade 1 strain of his right hamstring.

The 33-year-old native of Wailuku, Hawaii batted .294/.351/.451 with 15 home runs and 21 stolen bases in 122 games last season for the eventual World Series champions. Red Sox outfielders are hitting a combined .211/.296/.341 this year.

  1. tfbuckfutter - Apr 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM

    Victorino is clearly the 3-6 runs that have been missing in most games.

    Also, have we given up on the Sizemore experiment yet?

    • uyf1950 - Apr 22, 2014 at 11:45 PM

      He should help especially since neither Sizemore or Bradley for that matter are contributing very much right now. But I think you are being a bit overly optimistic with the 3-6 runs.

    • drewzducks - Apr 23, 2014 at 12:59 AM


    • dan1111 - Apr 23, 2014 at 3:56 AM

      Yes, I totally agree that the Sox should give up on any player who has a seven game span of poor play. And while they are at it, why not release any starter who has two bad starts in a row?

      Once they have exhausted their entire roster, they can start over by acquiring the Marlins for a player to be named later. Since they won’t have any actual players at that point, they will have to try to send back one of the players they just traded for as the PTBNL. But it will probably work.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 23, 2014 at 10:13 AM

        You’ll have to forgive Buck. He hates the Red Sox.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM

      They can just send Bradley down and keep everybody, if they think Victorino or Sizemore can be the everyday CF.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM

        Bradley’s the full-time centerfielder now. They didn’t hold a parade to announce it, but the decision has been made.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 23, 2014 at 8:43 PM

        Well, they sent Nava down instead, so it was the same effect. After he performed so well last season I am surprised they shipped him to the minors.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 24, 2014 at 10:18 AM

        He really looked awful this year. And given that he has options, sending him to the minors is the smartest move. Presumably, someone else will get hurt and he’ll get called up again.

        This is pretty much the same thing that they did with Middlebrooks. He looked great, so they traded Youkilis and made him the third baseman. The next year, Middlebrooks played poorly (as has Nava) and they sent him back to Pawtucket. I could have the timing off, but when Drew got hurt (or maybe when Igesias was traded?), Middlebrooks was called back up and contributed again.

        One of the things that I like about the current Red Sox management is that they seem to assemble a 40-player roster, knowing that injuries and assorted bad news are inevitable. I think — and I’m not trying to pick a fight here — that the Yankees generally do things in the opposite way. That they try to assemble the best starting nine, starting rotation, and bullpen that they can and then have to hope no one gets hurt. The challenge (for the Red Sox and any other team) is that the guys who provide your depth probably aren’t very good or they’d be starting elsewhere. I remember the Nationals being so fond of Chad Tracy in 2012 (their playoff year). And all the spring training profiles said how great it was, for the Nats, to have a guy like Tracy on the team — someone who contributed and didn’t mind being a part-time player. But the fact is (no offense to him), Tracy’s not all that good a player. He just had a good year. And in 2013, he lost 100 points of OBP and 100 points of SLG. It’s just so hard to assume a good bench.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 24, 2014 at 11:02 AM

        I agree with your assessment of the Red Sox having a good 40 man, and have enviable depth.

        I think the Yankees have done a pretty good job of it in some areas, but not so much in others. I mean, Ichiro is their 5th outfielder for crying out loud. They have decent, if unheralded, pitching depth which will be tested immediately this season. They are pretty weak on infielders, even in the starting 9, so we will see what happens there.

  2. edelmanfanclub - Apr 23, 2014 at 2:12 AM

    Nava is going to be optioned or Carp is gonna be DFA

  3. proudlycanadian - Apr 23, 2014 at 6:20 AM

    The last place Red Sox need all the help they can get.

  4. henryd3rd - Apr 23, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    Please tell me again why it was that Sox management didn’t offer Ellsbury a contract?

    • dan1111 - Apr 23, 2014 at 9:05 AM

      Because their time horizon for planning is more than 20 games?

    • 18thstreet - Apr 23, 2014 at 10:19 AM

      (a) Because they thought Bradley could take over centerfield.
      (b) Because losing Ellsbury nets them a draft pick.
      (c) Because Ellsbury costs a lot of money per year.
      (d) Because Ellsbury was demanding a lot of years.
      (e) The combination of (c) and (d).
      (f) Because Ellsbury has a history of injuries.
      (g) Because Carl Crawford — a prior expensive free agent who matches up well with Ellsbury — didn’t work out.
      (h) Because Ellsbury didn’t want to sign an extension before hitting free agency.

      But you knew that. You knew all of that.

      • proudlycanadian - Apr 23, 2014 at 10:59 AM

        Good summary. Too bad they are very unlikely to get a draft pick for Drew.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 23, 2014 at 11:50 AM

        Ellsbury is close to sure production at an elite level, while draft picks are anything but sure to produce.
        Ellsbury > Crawford by any measure

        As for the injuries, I think the Sox did more to aggravate that situation than they did to resolve it. They had players publicly calling him out as soft, while the Sox medical team didn’t notice the guy had broken ribs.

        Why is a team with huge revenue and a rabid fan base suddenly unwilling to pay for elite players? I understand they were burned by some acquisitions who displayed poor character, but I think that was an issue with some of their existing players and terrible (TERRIBLE) choice in manager that season.

        Last year the Sox were great because they brough in some complimentary pieces to pair with their existing superstars, and the complimentary guys exceeded expectations. This year, they let one superstar go and I think it is only fair to expect some level of regression from the lesser pieces.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

        Just to be clear: in making that list, I was not endorsing the decision. I was just explaining a well-known list of reasons the Sox did not renew Ellsbury.

        I would love to have kept him around, though I did worry about his injuries. No one can know the future, though.

        In a perfect world, he would have stayed for four more years and then gotten old somewhere else. Given that the Yankees are paying him for seven (I think), I’m okay with how it worked out. I think the contract will, eventually, look a lot like Teixeira’s (and many others): good at first, then not.

        On the other hand, if he ages like Kenny Lofton or Rickey Henderson (not implausible!), this will look terrible for the Red Sox. They never made a real effort to keep the guy.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Apr 23, 2014 at 12:21 PM

        I am just a bit floored by the Sox recent player payroll decisions, and the perception of them. While it is to Pedroia’s credit that he wants to stay in Boston, even at a reduced rate, why was that a binary decision? Until very recently Boston had the second highest payroll in MLB, and seemed to be thriving (in spite of/because of) it. They have been lowballing Ortiz for a few years, didn’t even offer Ellsbury a contract and are already talking about cheap offers for Lester.

        Why are players in the Boston market expected to sign at a discount, while the ownership reaps in the bucks?

      • dan1111 - Apr 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM


        “Ellsbury > Crawford by any measure”

        Not really. At the time of their respective deals, their career hitting and overall value were virtually the same. And at the time, Crawford was a year younger and had been much less injury-prone.

        The deal they gave Crawford was widely regarded as an overpay, but it was quite a bit less than what Ellsbury ended up getting from the Yankees.

        I don’t think the Sox are “unwilling to pay for elite players”. They were unwilling to make this particular deal, and rightly so, in my opinion. I will be surprised if Ellsbury is worth $21,000,000 per year to the Yankees at the tail end of that contract.

      • 18thstreet - Apr 23, 2014 at 4:48 PM

        Incidentally, I think this was a great piece about how Ellsbury might age:

        There’s also a link, there, to a longer piece on the topic.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2268)
  2. B. Crawford (2229)
  3. H. Pence (2187)
  4. B. Harper (2109)
  5. C. Seager (1972)