Would the Sox have interest in Furcal?

May 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM

13 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

I happened on this in Buster Olney's blog today and it didn't sit right with me;

"Heard this: Rafael Furcal wants to re-sign with the Dodgers, but if he does not have a new deal by midseason, he will test the market in the fall. He's 30 and is going to be expensive; he will command the type of deal that few teams can afford. He'd be perfect fit for the Red Sox, with his .453 on-base percentage, if Boston looks to supplant Julio Lugo. He's playing at an All-Star level, writes Mark Whicker."

I have a few reactions:

1. How do you get rid of Lugo's contract? What do you do with him?

2. Is Furcal's skillset really a necessary need for the Sox?? I think Ellsbury has the leadoff spot sewn up in Boston for the foreseeable future.

3. Is he that much a step up from Lugo for the cost it would take to (a) sign him and (b) remove Lugo?

Furcal is clearly a better player than Lugo, don't get me wrong...but I don't see the fit here. What does everyone else think?

Categories: Rafael Furcal

PREVIOUS: Matsuzaka wins despite walking too many

NEXT: In Tribute: Matthew Beaudoin

Discussion

13 Comments on "Would the Sox have interest in Furcal?"

Posted by Evan Brunell, May 6, 2008 12:22 AM

I think Tim just stole my column for tomorrow. Booo, Tim!

But you ask different questions than I do, so let's go with the flow:

1) The Red Sox are among baseball's best in recognizing a sunk cost and moving on. They will dump him on the highest bidder and eat the money.

2) I don't see why not... it's a similar skill set to Lugo and we have him, don't we? Wouldn't a lineup of Jacoby first and Furcal second be a burner lineup? Furcal has more power than Pedroia anyways.

3) Now here's the issue, one which I passably examine in tomorrow's article. I don't have a conclusion, but here's my conclusion right here: No.

Posted by Jc, May 6, 2008 12:40 AM

Furcal is way overrated, his babip right now is over .400, there no way he keeps this up, his career obp is.352, not impressive, and his slugging is .412, meh... and his career ops+ is 96, i don't know what the deal about this guy is

Posted by Tessie's Dad, May 6, 2008 12:52 AM

Do we really want to poach another Dodger? And how much longer does Lowrie stay on the shelf? If we're looking to replace Lugo, that can be done from within, right?

Posted by Mostly Running., May 6, 2008 12:55 AM

What Tessie's Dad said. There is no reason for us to lock as much money as will be needed in a SS when we have Lowire available.

Posted by Shane, May 6, 2008 1:48 PM

Does Furcal have more power than Pedroia?

From baseball reference their 162 games a year averages are (ignoring the fact that Pedroia is going to get better):

Furcal

AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI

654 111 187 32 7 12 59

SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB

37 10 66 93 .287 .352 .412 96 270

Pedroia

AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI

596 87 179 45 1 9 60

SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB

9 2 51 52 .301 .360 .423 103 253

3hrs vs 13 doubles at the top of the order? Furcal would steal you more bases, but is that an area we desperately need on the team? For, what 15 mil a year?

Posted by Evan Brunell, May 6, 2008 1:57 PM

Whoops, I stand corrected, Shane. Shame on me for not confirming, but I think Pedroia will never get 15 HR a year, like Furcal has. I'm not sure what Furcal would get a year, but $15M does sound right.

Posted by Tom A, May 6, 2008 2:50 PM

Yeah Tim I really think you're right here. I saw what Buster wrote this morning to and can't for the life of me see the fit here. There can (and probably will be) a good discussion in the Sox front office this offseason about what to do with Lugo, but I think this will be more related to whether we'd replace him with Lowrie or some other cheaper short-term option.

To think about this numbers wise, next year Lugo is probably making around $9 million and to trade him it and get anything for him you'd probably end up paying about $10 million (5 per year) to the team you're trading him to. Now if your alternative is Lowrie who you can pay the minimum that's fine, but if you'd be paying Furcal $15 per year for 3 or 4 years its probably not worth it. Furcal might get you .075 extra in OBP and a slight bit more power, but I don't think that's worth paying the equivalent of $20 million per year for the next two years (factoring in the Lugo money).

Just my take on it. I think you're spot on Tim.

Posted by Tom A, May 6, 2008 2:52 PM

Just a quick addendum. I think you'd also have to consider the miserable run we've had with locking up middle-aged shortstops the last 4 years as well. Seems like one of the few weaknesses in the Epstein regime.

I for one would be up to letting Lowrie have a crack at it over paying someone else $9-10 million per year.

Posted by TALL THRILL, May 6, 2008 2:58 PM

It isn't the $15M that Furcal will ask for that bothers me... it is the 5 YEAR commitment.

I would be surprised if the Dodgers let Furcal walk, I'd keep an eye on Chin-Lung Hu. The only way Furcal hits free agency is if the kid (24) proves he can handle major league pitching (.695 OPS in 60 MLB ABs).

With how low everyone is on Julio Lugo, and with his contract, it would be a difficult lopsided trade for Theo right now. I know most fans think this is impossible, but if Julio has a successful year and actually creates some trade value for himself, it probably makes sense to keep him around since our need is SS. If he sucks, (you're all shaking your head already), at the end of the year we might need to look elsewhere. But there are options that won't cost $75M+.

We have all seen Jed Lowrie (24). It is also worth noting that Oscar Tejeda (18) is a promising SS prospect in A ball, "with the tools to advance quickly through the system."--Sox Prospects

#10

Posted by TALL THRILL, May 6, 2008 3:02 PM

I get the potential 5 year demand from a discussion over at "Baseball Trade Rumors."

#11

Posted by Mr Furious, May 6, 2008 3:11 PM

No thanks.

Time to get off the "new shortstop on the decline" carousel and go young. If I'm paying $15 mil a year at that position I'd rather it be the next Hanley Ramirez (sob) than the corpse of Furcal.

#12

Posted by Zach Hayes, May 6, 2008 4:53 PM

I'd pass on Furcal and go with Lowrie while trading Lugo for some prospects. We can spend our money on someone like Ben Sheets instead.

#13

Posted by Shawn Medeiros, May 6, 2008 8:24 PM

UMMM I will take Jed Lowrie over both. Thank you.

Less money and a developing talent that already fits in with the clubhouse. A hungry younger player at that.

VERY HUNGRY!

via RSS

Poll

Which former Red Sox would you most like to see on the team this year?(answers)

MVN: Most Valuable Network