Hot Stove Rumors: Red Sox Considering Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Beltran
Fresh off acquiring Adrian Gonzalez from the San Diego Padres for three prospects and a player to be named later, the Boston Red Sox are considering acquiring one of several slugging outfielders, including former Tiger Magglio Ordonez and current Met Carlos Beltran.
According to multiple reports headlined by ESPN's Adam Rubin, Boston is kicking the tires on trading for New York's slugging superstar center fielder just days after including his young cousin, Reymond Fuentes, in the deal for Gonzalez.
The Mets reportedly have opened the door on Beltran, who is coming off an injury-diminished season in 2010 and is fast approaching free agency in 2011.
A career .282 hitter with an .853 OPS and a plus rating as a defender, Beltran hit just .255 and posted his lowest ever UZR/150 (-8.6) in 2010. At the moment, Beltran may be a buy-low candidate, but the Mets may also be reluctant to deal him before the season begins. If he can re-establish some value in the first half, the Mets might turn Beltran for a bigger haul near the trade deadline.
That said, Boston apparently considers the 33-year-old Beltran a fallback option should they fail in their pursuit of other available outfielders, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post.
The primary bat Boston is discussing rests in the hands of former Detroit Tiger Magglio Ordonez.
Ordonez, who turns 37 in January, hit .303 with an .852 OPS in just 84 games on the 2010 campaign. Not nearly the defender Beltran has long been, Ordonez represents an excellent option against lefthanders in a lineup frought with lefty bats. The right-handed Ordonez knocked southpaws around at a .371 clip in 2010. What's more, Ordonez posted an 1.171 OPS against lefties last year and owns a .967 career mark in that same category.
As such, Ordonez represents the best possible option for the lefty-heavy Sox should they be able to sign him to a short-term deal.
For breaking Red Sox news updates, follow Peter on Twitter at BoSoxUpdate.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?