It won't take long for the Red Sox to get to work this offseason.
It's expected the team will present Xander Bogaerts with a contract offer soon after the regular season ends. Until about a week after the conclusion of the World Series, when Bogaerts must declare whether he's opting out of his current contract, the Sox have a window of exclusivity and would be foolish to not take full advantage.
After that, the team will have to determine whether to present qualifying offers to any of their own free agents, while also deciding what to do on a few team options.
But those aside, there are other determinations for the organization to make. Most do not have obvious answers.
Nevertheless, we present questions that have lingered from a (likely) last-place finish;
1) What happened to Rafael Devers in the second half?
Yes, the hamstring pull absolutely impacted his swing and production. But is there something more going on here?
Since the break, Devers went into Saturday slashing .222/.294/.368 with just five homers and 29 RBI in 45 games. He's not guaranteed to hit 30 homers for the season.
In the same season in which he showed considerable progress defensively, the 2022 season will go down as his worst full season offensively since 2018, his first full year in the big leagues.
And should any of that be of concern in a winter in which the Red Sox are probably going to offer him more money than any Red Sox player has ever been offered in an effort to extend him past next season?
Just asking.
2) Do the Red Sox have specific plans for Garrett Whitlock and Tanner Houck for 2023?
Are they both headed back to the bullpen? Both ticketed for the rotation? Is one relieving and one starting?
For some time now, these two have been inexorably linked, and for good reason: until the more recent arrival of Brayan Bello, Whitlock and Houck are the two most talented pitchers to join the parent club in more than a decade. We know the team's poor track record in developing young pitching. Now that they have two (Whitlock having come up in the Yankee system, yes, before the Rule 5 draft), what do they have in mind?
A case could be made that they should both head to spring training as relievers since the duo, coupled with a rejuvenated Matt Barnes and John Schreiber would give the Red Sox about two-thirds of their late-inning bullpen already in place.
But the Sox should probably exhaust every possibility they can before they assign the two as relievers. Starting pitching is, simply put, more valuable.
Either way, a plan needs to be in place, independent of what else the Sox do to address holes in their pitching staff this winter.
3. Have they seen enough from the combo of Reese McGuire and Connor Wong to go into next year with the two having locked down the catcher's spots?
If the Sox intend to acquire a No. 1 catcher -- either through trade or free agency, it's going to cost plenty. Signing one will consume a big part of the budget, and trading for one will mean packaging some top-end talent from the farm system.
But if they've liked what McGuire (as the presumed No. 1) and Wong have shown them in the final month or so, they can cross a big item off their winter to-do list and move onto other items.
4) How do they see the DH role for next year?
It's tough to make the argument that they should give Martinez a qualifying offer. His bat looks slowed and the dropoff in his home run total is more than a little troubling. It may be that Martinez could help someone else with league-average production, but that's not what the Red Sox got for the vast majority of Martinez's soon-to-be-expiring five-year deal. And it's probably not worth $19 million, the estimated value of the qualifying offer.
So where does that leave the Sox? Do they go after another a veteran hitter who could be both more productive and affordable? A Trey Mancini type, for instance? Do they see the spot as one that could be split between Bobby Dalbec and Franchy Cordero, each defensively challenged but with untapped offensive potential?
Or do they use it to rotate various position players through, giving them some time off their feet? Devers and Bogaerts (assuming both remain), Trevor Story and others could each DH a day or so a week.
That's not how the Red Sox have ever treated the position. For most of his career in Boston, David Ortiz called the job his own, and Martinez followed him. That accounts for almost two decades of the position.
A new approach, however, might be in order.
5) Is there room for Eric Hosmer?
Triston Casas has hit four homers and has shown a disciplined approach for a rookie. Then again, Dalbec looked impressive in the final month of 2020.
It's clear that, barring some complete downturn in production, Casas is the team's first baseman of the future. Most project him as a future star.
When the Red Sox traded for Hosmer at the deadline, it was to give them a bridge between Dalbec/Cordero and Casas while also providing a much-needed defensive upgrade at the first base position.
But before he could have much of an impact, Hosmer developed lower back issues and hasn't played since Aug. 20. Since then, Casas has arrived and been mostly impressive.
Does that make Hosmer redundant? The initial plan was to have him mentor Casas and perhaps get the majority of playing time at the start of next season. But if Casas is showing that he's ready to handle the spot pretty much full time, why keep Hosmer? You don't need to replace Casas late in games because of questions about his defense. And because Hosmer is, like Casas, a lefthanded hitter, there aren't any pinch-hitting or platoon scenarios in place here.
Hosmer is under control for three more years at major league minimum salary. That makes him a nice trade chip for the Red Sox this winter. They can wait around until some team doesn't like the free agent options and sell them on a 33-year-old experienced first baseman, to be paid a little more than $800,000. A lot of teams would have interest.
Or, do they need to hedge their bet for now on Casas and hold into Hosmer as a valuable insurance policy?
_____________________
Maury Wills, who passed away last week just shy of his 90th birthday, was a game-changer who helped make the stolen base such a big offensive weapon for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Wills played 15 seasons in the big leagues, all but three of them with the Dodgers, the franchise to which he was most closely associated. Post-playing career, he briefly managed the Seattle Mariners.
But he also had a short association with the Red Sox. In spring training of 1996, GM Dan Duquette and manager Kevin Kennedy brought Wills to Fort Myers to work with Red Sox baserunners. (Wills knew Kennedy from their time together with the Dodgers).
Early each morning, before full squad workouts began, Wills would take a handful of Red Sox players and offer them tutelage on baserunning. The Red Sox had a "sliding pit'' constructed past the bullpens for baserunners to get in some reps.
"I can't teach a player to run faster,'' acknowledged Wills at the time. "But I can get him from first to third or second to home quicker, based on technique. It all starts with wanting to be a good baserunner. A lot of players don't want to be good baserunners. They don't care about it. Once they get a base hit, they think their work is over. Really, it's just starting.''
Wills also stressed a change in mental approach.
"You have to eliminate any feel of failure,'' he noted. "You cannot be afraid.''
Wills saw potential in outfielder Troy O'Leary, whom he envisioned stealing 20 bases, while venturing that Dwayne Hosey was capable of "50, easily.''
Turns out, Wills was overly optimistic. The Red Sox stole 91 bases, a minor drop from their total of 99 the previous season. O'Leary, meanwhile, despite being an everyday player, managed just three steals (he was caught twice). And Hosey, who played just 28 games, swiped six while being thrown out three times.
Wills was a .281 career hitter who was only an average defender at short. But he led the NL in stolen bases six straight seasons, became the first player to steal triple digits in a season (104 in 1962) and, in an era when offense was depressed as much as its been in the modern era, helped the Dodgers win three World Series by finding another offensive weapon with which to score runs.
For that alone, his career deserves another look from the Hall of Fame era committees.
_________________________-
Baseball dodged one bullet Friday night, but wasn't as fortunate with another.
As luck would have it, the two most noteworthy games on the schedule (Red Sox vs. Yankees; Cardinals vs. Dodgers) were both exclusive to Apple+ telecasts.
That meant that Yankee and Cardinal fans without access or the means to Apple+ were unable to watch Aaron Judge try for Nos. 61 and 62 and Albert Pujols try for Nos. 699 and 700.
Judge came up short; Pujols hit both milestones.
It's understandable that Major League Baseball would seek other broadcast partners for itself. Its new ESPN deal actually dropped in value (by about $200 million) from the previous year, and MLB was eager to make up for some of that lost revenue by partnering with steaming services like Apple+ and Peacock.
Plus, it's probably smart business to partner with streaming services who typically claim a younger demographic. Baseball can use all the help it can get in attracting a younger viewing audience.
Finally, a total of approximately 50 games a year (two every Friday, for the length of the season) is caring out a relatively small piece of MLB's seasonal inventory. Contrast that to the NFL's decision to have Thursday Night Football exclusive to Amazon Prime, though, to ward off congressional intervention, the league smartly makes those games available on over-air affiliates in the markets of both teams involved.
But as Friday drew closer, MLB's refusal to reconsider making both games available to a wider audience -- especially in St. Louis and New York -- looked petty and short-sighted.
Imagine the embarrassment MLB would have faced had Judge done what Pujols did -- homer twice, thus setting one of the game's most cherished records in front of a greatly diminished viewing audience?
(Yes, Apple+ has had an introductory promotional offer in which fans could watch the games in question for free this year. But many TVs are not smart TVs, and few older fans are going to watch a three-hour telecast on a desktop or laptop or tablet.)
It would have been far more fan-friendly for MLB to make some arrangement with Apple+ -- offer them a refund for games lost, compensate them with two additional games at no cost next year, etc. -- in order to make the games more widely available. Instead, MLB dug in its heels and stubbornly refused to budge.
Bad move.