BOSTON — The World Series is over, the Red Sox finally got to introduce their manager, and New Englanders have spent the better part of the last month pondering how to make the team better in 2018. This is a time of year that includes a lot of suggestions for what president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski can do this winter — some of which are realistic and intriguing, others which make little to no sense.

I sought out as many of these suggestions as possible on Twitter, in order to explain (beyond even the limits of 280 characters) why the Red Sox should not do what many of you think they should do. And if you read between the lines, you get a pretty good sense of what I think they should do this winter.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Giancarlo Stanton.

We might as well start with the biggest one. Long the long-distance object of Red Sox fans' affection, Giancarlo Stanton is eminently available in a trade and coming off by far his best season, one in which he hit more home runs than anyone in 16 years. He'd be the perfect fit for an offense starved of power. I don't need to spoonfeed you the argument for adding Stanton.

The argument against trading for Stanton isn't as contrarian as you might think. It isn't, "Actually, Giancarlo Stanton is bad." It's just that Stanton is not worth the cost it would take to acquire him once you consider his massive contract.

That contract is why the Marlins are trying to trade him. Stanton signed a 13-year, $325 million deal three years ago that was heavily backloaded; Jeffrey Loria figured he'd sell the team before the big money really kicked in, and here we are. Stanton has made just $30 million of that deal over the last three years, leaving $295 million for the final 10 years of the deal.

But that’s just money, right, and the Red Sox can afford money. Boston will go over the competitive-balance tax in 2018 after staying under this past season, so there is room to add to the payroll. However, the serious penalties for spending too much clock in when a club goes $40 million over the tax. For next season, that would be at $237 million.

That’s what's called the second surcharge threshold. Any money spent beyond that point will be taxed at least 62.5 percent (for a first-time offender) and up to 95 percent (for a third-time or more offender). That surcharge exacerbates how bad a contract it is for Stanton.

And it's not just money anymore, because past that point a team will have its first draft pick moved back 10 spots in the draft order — which means it would hinder a club's ability to develop its own talent. It seems reasonable to look at that second surcharge threshold as a stricter salary cap for the Red Sox.

Stanton will count $25 million toward the luxury tax in each of the next 10 seasons. Yes, the Red Sox should have Hanley Ramirez coming off the books after 2018 (barring his option vesting), and Pablo Sandoval comes off after 2019. But there's long-term uncertainty about David Price, and Boston's young core is in line for extensions or free agency in the next three seasons. The CBT threshold increases each season, but not considerably. It'll still only be $210 million (with the second threshold at $250 million) in 2021.

Stanton does have an opt-out clause after 2020, meaning there's a possibility that the team that acquires him will only pay him $77 million over three years. But the opt-out clause shouldn't be considered a good thing. If Stanton is as good as you hope he is for you, he'll opt out after 2020 and you'll have to decide whether to re-sign him to a massive deal then — at a time when the player you’ve traded for him probably has yet to hit free agency. If he doesn't opt out, it's probably because he's been injured or underperformed (see: Price and Masahiro Tanaka).

While the injury concern isn't as pronounced as it would be for a pitcher, Stanton hasn't been a paragon of health over the course of his career, averaging 127 games per year over his seven full major-league seasons. In 2016, which is one season ago, he missed 43 games and slugged only .489.

If Stanton were a free agent, he almost certainly would not receive a 10-year, $295 million deal with an opt-out after three years, which means that theoretically, he should have negative trade value. There's a reason he wasn't claimed when he was placed on waivers in August. Miami would likely have to kick in some money — maybe close to $50 million — to make the finances more palatable.

But a new Marlins ownership would alienate whatever remains of the fan base by trading a player coming off the best season in franchise history as a salary dump. Miami needs to get some reputable major-league players back in a trade, meaning the Red Sox would have to give up talent in order to take on a bad contract. Trading Rafael Devers, Andrew Benintendi, Jackie Bradley, Jr. or Xander Bogaerts — any one of them, individually — would represent a theoretical overpay for Boston.

The Marlins' best hope is to get several teams involved on Stanton and drive up the trade price that way. After all, while giving up talent and paying that much money for Stanton may not be worth it on its face, doing so to add Stanton while also preventing him from going to the Yankees might change the equation.

But the teams rumored to have preliminary interest in Stanton aren't Boston's close competitors in the American League. New York has four outfielders, a stated goal of getting under the competitive-balance tax and one presumes an interest in adding Bryce Harper in 2019. Houston and Cleveland seem unlikely to wade into the deep end of that financial commitment.

This is all why trading for Stanton would be a tempting but bad idea in a normal offseason. But it would be especially bad this offseason, given the availability of a similar option on the free-agent market in J.D. Martinez.

Martinez is older than Stanton, and he has many of the same health concerns, averaging 130 games per season over the last four years. But, he's been nearly as productive over those four seasons as Stanton:

Stanton (2014-2017): .271/.366/.573/.939, 154 OPS+, 150 HR

Martinez (2014-2017): .300/.362/.574/.936, 149 OPS+, 128 HR

Yes, Stanton's better — an advantage made more pronounced if we account for age, defense and Fenway Park, since Stanton is more of a pull power hitter than Martinez is. But Martinez will require likely half the years of commitment as Stanton (without the opt-out clause), negating some of the age gap. The Red Sox wouldn't need to give up talent to acquire him and they'd likely play him at designated hitter. It's just money.

Even if the Red Sox can't sign Martinez, who just switched agencies to work with Scott Boras this winter, Stanton shouldn't be their Plan B. It would make more sense at that point to accumulate depth and perhaps target someone like Jay Bruce as a first base/designated hitter option.

Trading for Stanton would be the ultimate buy high — an overreaction to both his unbelievable (and unsustainable) second half and Boston's own 2017 power outage.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sign Eric Hosmer.

Eric Hosmer is a good player that would make the Red Sox better. He's an old-fashioned first baseman who hits the ball to all fields for a good average, hits doubles more than homers and fields the position reasonably well, depending on which defensive metric you trust most.

But he's an imperfect fit for this Red Sox lineup and organization, and as he is coming off a career season is liable to make more than he's worth this winter, especially considering the draft-pick compensation tied to him with the qualifying offer.

Boston's biggest need in the lineup isn't just for a power hitter; it's for a right-handed power hitter. Hosmer fits neither of those designations.

If we sketch out not just the 2018 Red Sox batting order but into 2019 and 2020 as well, Boston's middle of the order is likely to involve Mookie Betts, Rafael Devers and Andrew Benintendi. That’s two lefties and one righty, so in an ideal world, you're getting another righty to complement that group. Also, Fenway Park is easier for a righty to exploit for power.

Hosmer's 25 home runs this past season represent a career high. He's likely to hit for less power than guys like Betts, Devers and Benintendi to begin with. He's also the type of player whose power seems most tied to the composition of the baseball. Before baseball's home run boom started at the 2015 All-Star break, Hosmer had never even hit 20 homers in a season; he had homered once every 40.9 plate appearances. Since then, he's homered once every 25.4 plate appearances. If the ball is altered back to where it was a few years ago, his power is likely to regress.

It's tempting to attribute Hosmer's low power numbers to Kauffman Stadium and suggest that he'd be due for more homers with 81 games at Fenway Park. However, he's barely hit more homers on the road than at home in his career (67 to 60) and his slugging percentage has been higher in Kansas City despite a better batting average on the road. And Fenway isn't exactly a bandbox to straightaway right and right-center.

Signing Hosmer would lock the Red Sox into him at first base for the foreseeable future, closing off one of the simplest avenues to adding a legitimate power bat. It would also close off a possible move across the diamond for Devers, should Boston ever need to consider one. And it would limit the paths to the majors for Sam Travis and especially Michael Chavis. The presence of those prospects shouldn't deter the Red Sox from making a big move, as it seemed to last year with Edwin Encarnacion. But it should be a factor in the decision-making.

In general, Hosmer has some of the same warning signs to me that Pablo Sandoval had. He's a nice player whose reputation exceeds his actual production because he's been good on the postseason stage. He's not the type of player who should hit in the middle of a good Boston order, nor one who should be given a long-term deal averaging close to $25 million per season.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade Jackie Bradley, Jr.

The common perception has been that in order to add a power bat, the Red Sox need to clear space in the outfield. As explained above, this ignores the opening at either first base or designated hitter to add said power bat.

Although Jackie Bradley Jr.'s 2017 slash line — .245/.323/.402 — was disappointing, it's important to look at the context of that disappointment. In the middle of 2015, when Bradley was back in Triple-A Pawtucket, the hope was that the center fielder could find a way to become a baseline viable offensive player so that the Red Sox could capitalize on his remarkable defense in the outfield. If Bradley could only hit .240 rather than the interstate batting averages he'd carried in his first two seasons…

Instead, Bradley raised the bar in 2015-2016. A pair of transcendent hot streaks in August 2015 and May 2016 stand out, in particular, but over those two seasons he posted an OPS roughly 20 percent better than the league average — in addition to the value he provided in center with his glove. For those two seasons, he was one of the most valuable players in the American League: Bradley ranked 27th in the AL in WAR according to Fangraphs, and the 26 players in front of him all had substantially more at-bats than him.

Indeed, even accounting for a step back in 2017 that was at least partially attributable to injury bookends, Bradley has been the eighth-most valuable outfielder in the American League over the last three seasons. Trading him now would be selling low on one of your most valuable assets — one who's shown himself capable of hitting 25+ home runs in a season and carrying the offense for months at a time while playing Gold Glove defense at a premium position.

It's also worth wondering whether Bradley might be one of the players who benefits most from the change in the manager's office, given the ups and downs he experienced during John Farrell's tenure.

This doesn't mean that the Red Sox should never consider dealing Bradley. It's unlikely that Boston will be able to retain all of its young core beyond initial free agency; Xander Bogaerts is a free agent after 2019, Bradley and Mookie Betts after 2020. Considering the Sox have a natural center fielder in Andrew Benintendi playing next to Bradley, he would make sense as the odd man out in that trio. Boston should explore dealing Bradley, but probably not until after 2018 or more likely 2019 in order to rebuild the farm system for the next wave of young talent.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade Xander Bogaerts.

Like Bradley, Xander Bogaerts is a good player who appears disappointing given the context around him. At this point, the shortstop has been outstripped by other, younger shortstops in his own league, and it's reasonable to alter the projections that accompanied his major-league arrival. He has not emerged as an MVP candidate in the same vein as Houston's Carlos Correa or Cleveland's Francisco Lindor, and even slightly older, more veteran guys such as Anaheim's Andrelton Simmons and New York's Didi Gregorius had better seasons than him this past year.

But do you remember the revolving door the Red Sox had at short before Bogaerts? Let us remind you of the Opening Day starters who preceded him: Jose Iglesias, Mike Aviles, Marco Scutaro, Jed Lowrie, Julio Lugo, Alex Gonzalez, Edgar Renteria, Pokey Reese, Nomar Garciaparra. The best seasons by a Red Sox shortstop since Garciaparra was traded? Bogaerts in 2015 followed by Bogaerts in 2016.

It's fair to wonder whether Bogaerts will be worth his next contract, due up when he becomes a free agent following 2019. Will he want to be paid as an elite shortstop or merely an above-average one? How long can the Sox plan on him sticking defensively at shortstop, or will they have to project a future with him at third base or in a corner outfield spot, where his bat won't play as well?

However, Bogaerts has always struck me as the member of the young core likeliest to sign an extension with Boston, and it might be worth exploring this winter provided the leverage the Sox might have after a down season. The idea of dealing Bogaerts for some prospect return now and replacing him by signing Cincinnati's Zach Cozart to play short seems, well, short-sighted to me. Even accounting for Bogaerts' down 2017 season and Cozart's breakout one, Bogaerts has been the better player over the last three years. He's younger and cheaper for the next few years than Cozart, who will play next season at 32 and whose defense is likely to regress relatively quickly as he ages and whose offense is certain to regress once he leaves Great American Ball Park (or if the ball is changed as he, like Hosmer, has seen his power shoot up since the middle of 2015).

(The bolder play would be signing Cozart to play short now, with Bogaerts moving to third and Devers to first. That, however, would probably be jumping the gun on those positional switches and limiting your chance to add power to the lineup.)

Why the Red Sox shouldn't "just get rid of" Dustin Pedroia.

2017 was a tough season for Dustin Pedroia, starting with the theatrics in Baltimore and ending with him looking like a shell of himself while making the last out of the Division Series. Now he's undergone significant knee surgery and will be out at least until Memorial Day next season, making 2018 the first time in a dozen seasons he won’t be manning second base for Boston on Opening Day.

This all feels like a pivot point in Pedroia's Red Sox tenure, the time at which he moves from a primary figure to a complementary one.

But that doesn't mean it's time to give up on him completely. Considering his health concerns and the years left on his contract, Pedroia's trade value is minimal. The Cavaliers aren't taking another sub-six-footer from Boston who's going to miss the first few months of the next season.

And Pedroia, when healthy, remains a productive player. He was Boston's best hitter throughout the month of July — just before his knee started acting up again and impairing him for the final three months of the season. His .369 on-base percentage still led the team by a fair margin, and he rated out as an above-average offensive performer; his defense may never be Gold Glove-caliber again, but it should return to solidly above-average once his knee is stable again.

Pedroia's former teammate and new manager Alex Cora may have to have some tough conversations with him over the next season-plus — about moving down in the order, about growing even more conservative on the bases and about more regular days off — but Pedroia can still be a useful player whose long-term extension isn't particularly onerous financially.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't play Mookie Betts at second base, like, ever.

Did you see what happened to Pedroia there over the past several seasons? Have you noticed how difficult it is to maintain one's production into his 30s while playing the keystone?

Mookie Betts is an incredible asset in Fenway's right field — maybe as valuable a defensive asset as any in baseball. While second base is a more natural position for him, he hasn't played it in three seasons and there's little evidence to suggest he'd be as good there as he is in right. Moving him there, even on a part-time basis, would expose your most valuable asset to an increased injury risk, and that’s not smart baseball.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade Hanley Ramirez.

To trade Hanley Ramirez at this point, the Red Sox would have to pick up the large majority of the $22 million remaining on his contract, accept nothing beyond symbolism in return and replace his spot in the order. It makes sense only if you think this is a case of addition via subtraction, and I don't think Boston is quite at that crossroads with Ramirez.

With one year remaining on his deal — because we’re assuming the Sox are wise enough to prevent that option from vesting — Boston's best chance at squeezing value out of Ramirez is for him to have a bounceback offensive season, which may be unlikely but isn't unfathomable; perhaps time at first base and the need to perform in a contract season will "engage" him more than in the past.

The Red Sox should make it clear to Ramirez that he will need to play first base on a regular basis next season, as that greatly opens up their options to add to the offense this winter. If he's not amenable to that idea or if it becomes obvious relatively early that a rebound season isn't in the works, you can cut bait with him then.

Why the Red Sox shouldn’t trade David Price.

Part of the complexity of Miami's attempt to deal Stanton stems from how to properly gauge his 2020 opt-out clause. Dealing David Price this winter, after a season in which he was twice sidelined by elbow inflammation, would be almost insurmountably complicated.

Even though Price pitched well, the Red Sox would have to eat a significant portion of his remaining salary — likely having to work out a premature decision on the opt-out clause from Price or parameters for how much they buy down depending on that eventual decision after next season. The very act of putting him on the trade block would reignite questions about his health: If Price is indeed healthy, why would you be trying to trade him?

There's simply no way the Red Sox could get back anything close to equal value for Price at this point in time, and considering they're in a win-now window of contention, they shouldn't give him away for nothing to help save the 2021 team financially. Boston's best hope right now is that Price delivers a trademark David Price season in 2018 and decides to opt out, freeing them from the final four years of his contract.

Why the Red Sox shouldn’t move David Price to the bullpen permanently.

I pushed the idea of putting Price in the postseason bullpen early in September, and I toyed with it (not publicly) even before he went back on the disabled list in July. Price certainly looked like his old self in that role down the stretch of the season and into the ALDS, tossing 15 1/3 scoreless innings with just 12 baserunners and 19 strikeouts.

But using Price as frequently as the Red Sox did in the postseason isn't realistic in the regular season, when you're trusting your starters to go a little deeper and the middle innings aren't nearly as high-leverage as they are in October.

Further, this isn't a case where Price's stuff was really playing up in a small sample. This is what David Price is capable of over longer stretches as a starter. Just last summer, Price had a 1.91 ERA over the five starts that preceded the July one that put him on the disabled list. He shut out the Yankees over eight innings. He's a dominant starter when healthy.

The best use of Price is as a 200-inning workhorse, not as an 80-inning fireman.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't pursue a top-three starting pitcher.

Over the last three years, the Red Sox have added:

—An eventual Cy Young winner in Rick Porcello

—A past Cy Young winner in David Price

—A perennial Cy Young contender in Chris Sale

—An All-Star in Drew Pomeranz

In order to do that, the Red Sox have expended considerable financial and prospect capital — their two best pitching prospects in trades, an eventual MVP candidate outfielder in a deal, and close to $75 million in salary next season for those four.

And you want to add someone else???

The top-end starters this winter are Jake Arrieta and Yu Darvish with Alex Cobb and Andrew Cashner the next tier down. Signing any of them would likely preclude the Sox from adding the high-end power bat that appears to be a bigger need.

Adding a pitcher to the front end of the rotation would push somebody off the back end; in this case, that would probably be Eduardo Rodriguez, who's the only cost-effective member of the quintet at this point. Rodriguez has yet to fulfill the promise he showed in 2015, but it would be unwise to move on from him considering those four starters mentioned up top could all be gone by the end of 2019.

Let's face it: The prime mover of this question is the failure of Boston's starters in consecutive postseasons. But I think those failures point less to a need to overhaul those starters than to a need to buttress them during the season. Stated another way, maybe Chris Sale and Rick Porcello would pitch better in October if they didn't have to pitch as much April through September.

So the Red Sox should target depth. With Rodriguez out to start the season, they have Steven Wright, Brian Johnson, Roenis Elias and Jalen Beeks as fill-in candidates. (Wright, if healthy, represents a pretty good option.) Bringing in one more arm, perhaps on an incentive-laden deal, to play the Doug Fister role would make sense; Fister himself is a free agent. Unearthing a reclamation project or a pitcher poised for a breakout, as the Astros did with Charlie Morton, would be ideal.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sign Eduardo Nuñez.

OK, this is more from the player's perspective than the team's.

Eduardo Nuñez spent the first six seasons of his career fighting for regular playing time in New York and Minnesota. When he finally played his way into it in 2016, he emerged as an All-Star, then backed up that season with an even better one in 2017 split between the Giants and Red Sox. Over the last two years, he's hit .299 and played all around the infield.

That means that, while Nuñez would seem to be the perfect guy to bring back to fill in for Dustin Pedroia until the second baseman is back, Nuñez himself should have greener pastures elsewhere. He should be able to find a team that can hand him everyday playing time for two to three years rather than two to three months, and he should take it.

From Boston's point of view, then, it would likely have to overpay Nuñez to get him to come back, and the Red Sox don't have enough room financially (under that second surcharge threshold) to sign a guy like J.D. Martinez and Nuñez. Furthermore, prolonged play for Nuñez at second base would reveal to a greater extent his defensive shortcomings at the position, especially in comparison to Pedroia.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sign Mitch Moreland.

Unlike those around him in the lineup, Mitch Moreland largely lived up to expectations in 2017. The Red Sox touted a guy who routinely hits 20+ homers; he hit 22. They touted his defense; he's a Gold Glove finalist. They believed he'd rebound from a poor 2016; he had one of the best offensive seasons of his career.

In spite of all that, Boston should quit while it's ahead with Moreland.

Bringing Moreland back would essentially mean the Sox are getting the 2017 band back together for a reunion tour in 2018 offensively. The offense would likely perform better, given the internal improvement you'd expect from Betts, Bradley, Bogaerts, Devers, etc. But you'd have no safeguards in the event that those guys didn't improve — or one of them went down with an injury. It would be the equivalent of standing pat with the 2015 rotation in advance of 2016 instead of adding a Chris Sale.

Moreland is a good player who has value. If he can't find a multi-year deal on the open market and expresses an interest in returning to the Red Sox as a part-time player — insurance in case Hanley Ramirez can't play first base — Boston should reciprocate. But they should not enter next season with him penciled in for another 576 plate appearances.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trust their internal depth at second base.

The day the club announced Dustin Pedroia's surgery, Dombrowski said it would not change Boston's offseason outlook, pointing to the multiple internal candidates to play second base in Pedroia's absence — a stance he reiterated on Monday. True, the Red Sox have we're-talking-several different guys capable of filling in at second base, including Brock Holt, Deven Marrero, Tzu-Wei Lin and Marco Hernandez.

Each of those four is capable of filling in at second base, but Boston's isn't looking necessarily for a "fill-in." Pedroia is going to be out at least two months, and that’s a best-case scenario. None of these four seem ready, at this moment, to accrue what we'll conservatively estimate is 250 plate appearances at the keystone.

Holt hasn't been healthy or hit in two years. The Red Sox must seriously consider non-tendering him, since the other three people on this list appear as suited to the utility infield role. Marrero cannot hit right-handed pitching, and last I checked, most pitchers outside of Boston still throw with that hand. Lin's slick glove and penchant for solid plate appearances — he walked more than 13 percent of the time in the majors — make him an intriguing player, though his minor-league history (including last year at Triple-A, after his swing changes) and peripheral numbers suggest even his nominal success last year in the majors probably isn't sustainable over a longer period. Hernandez has the best bat of the group, but he's coming off a lost season truncated by shoulder surgery in May.

We saw what happened to the Red Sox when they trusted their internal depth last season at third base. If Pablo Sandoval failed, surely Holt or Josh Rutledge or Hernandez could cover the hot corner. Instead, all three spent significant portions of the year on the disabled list, and the Sox had to rely on the call-up of Rafael Devers in late July.

Nowhere does it make more sense for Boston to follow the example of the Dodgers and wield some portion of its financial largesse to build depth than here, where Pedroia's status is an open question even beyond Memorial Day.

I'll be honest: I don't know the best solution here. I don't know whether the Tigers are willing enough to deal with Dave Dombrowski to trade Ian Kinsler's relatively friendly contract (he'll count for $6-7M against the luxury tax) to Boston. I don't know whether Brandon Phillips could excel in an eventual part-time role. I don't know whether Chase Utley wants to play another season, especially if it isn't on the west coast. I don't know whether Howie Kendrick can play second base anymore. I don't know whether Jose Reyes is done. I don't know whether the Padres would move Yangervis Solarte or the Diamondbacks would trade one of their surplus middle infielders (Chris Owings, Nick Ahmed, Ketel Marte and Brandon Drury). I don't know whether the Rangers are finally ready to give up on Jurickson Profar. But I'd spend time finding all those things out before I trusted the quartet of internal options.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Jose Abreu.

It's possible we don't harp enough on how much the failed pursuit of Jose Abreu in the fall of 2013 altered things for the Red Sox, who likely overcompensated 10 months later by signing Rusney Castillo. The timing of each player's free agency was awkward for Boston: Abreu's at a time when the Sox were still in the playoffs and still relying on Mike Napoli to win pivotal ALCS games with long home runs, Castillo's in that sliver of the 2014 season when Boston appeared ready to give up on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and not yet believe in Mookie Betts.

Abreu has turned out to be an outstanding player, one who has averaged better than 30 and 100 in his first four seasons. After seeing diminishing returns in his second and third seasons, he rebounded in 2017 with another terrific year, racking up a career-high 82 extra-base hits.

So yes, Abreu would be a wonderful fit for the Red Sox — better even than J.D. Martinez, given his ability to play first base and the shorter-term commitment it would entail for someone who just finished his age-30 season. (Abreu has two years of arbitration eligibility remaining.)

But the Red Sox don't have the prospects left to trade to Chicago, because they're already with Chicago. A deal for Abreu in which Boston gives up two more big-time prospects would push the Red Sox all in over the next few seasons with little hope of contending in a stacked American League beyond 2019 or 2020. It would move them from an already precarious position into looking way too much like the 2014 Tigers — and it should be clear that’s not a good thing.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Freddie Freeman.

I mean, they should, if the Braves make him available. But he's not. The same logic applies for Mike Trout, Jose Altuve, Clayton Kershaw, etc.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Joey Votto.

Now Joey Votto is an even better hitter than Freeman who could potentially be available, and I've been tempted enough in the past by this possibility to know off the top of my head that Votto has six years and $157 million left on his contract, with a $22.5 million average annual value counting toward the luxury tax. It's a slightly lesser commitment than what you'd have with Stanton, but not a better one given that Votto turns 35 next season.

The idea of planting the game's preeminent on-base machine in the middle of the Red Sox order is indeed tantalizing. Over the last nine seasons, Votto has OBP'd better than .400 eight times, while the entire American League East has seen 10 such seasons. But David Ortiz is just about the only player who has aged gracefully into his upper 30s in the last decade, and Votto has already spent his career in the field. That’s too big a financial bet — not to mention whatever substantial piece you trade to Cincinnati — to make on Votto.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Miguel Cabrera.

Take all of the negatives we just ran through with regards to Votto, add $33 million and a player coming off a career-worst season rather than another phenomenal one, and you get Miguel Cabrera. He'd count $31 million against the luxury tax, meaning the Red Sox would approach the second surcharge threshold with this one acquisition. Cabrera's OPS last season was a feeble .728, and while he should rebound from that, it'd be unwise to count on any more prime production from him.

I struggle to think of a worse move Boston can make, unless the Tigers eat an absurd amount of the remaining money on Cabrera's deal.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sign Mike Moustakas.

Like his long-time Royals teammate Hosmer, Mike Moustakas is an imperfect fit for Boston as a left-handed hitter. His 38 home runs last season represent a 73 percent jump over his previous career high, so it's unclear whether that’s a 28-year-old's natural progression or an aberrational prime season. Thirty-six of his 38 homers went to right or right-center; Kauffman Stadium is big out there, Fenway is bigger.

Moustakas' defense at third has shifted from outstanding to below-average, perhaps a result of 2016's torn ACL. He should rebound to about an average defender at the hot corner, but his presence on the Red Sox would force Devers across the diamond to first — at a time when the youngster still has a chance to have more value as a third baseman.

While Moustakas will cost less than Hosmer, he won't necessarily be cheap. The five-year, $95 million Sandoval contract might be his benchmark, and he'll require draft-pick compensation after being handed a qualifying offer. That’s a lot of money to pay someone to hit sixth.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Marcell Ozuna.

The team dealing for Ozuna should possess the high-level minor-league talent Miami would want in return and a hole in the outfield that Ozuna would address. The Red Sox don't fit either of those criteria.

Leveraging what's left of the farm system to acquire another outfielder — and then playing him at DH or turning around and dealing Bradley to restock the minors — doesn't seem a wise use of resources.

You might be thinking, Well wait a minute. What if you have a suitor for Bradley who will give you decent prospects back, and then you swing a slightly larger prospect package to get Ozuna? Isn't that an upgrade?

You can make that argument, but I'd probably go back to being higher on Bradley than you. Ozuna is coming off a monster, 37-homer season. He also was in the minors as recently as 2015 and has a lower ISO than Bradley over the last three seasons, not to mention the defensive gap between them and the additional year of team control Bradley presents. I don't know that I'd swap the two straight up; maybe I'm crazy.

(If your next point mentions Ozuna's 124 RBIs last season, well, I don't care.)

Why the Red Sox shouldn’t trade for Kyle Schwarber.

Schwarber is coming off a down season, and he's an AL player stuck on an NL team that is doing its best to find regular playing time for him. It would make sense for Chicago to swap Schwarber to the junior circuit for more of a clear fit going forward.

The problem for the Red Sox is they don't have what the Cubs likely want in return: young pitching. Schwarber isn't worth giving up a pre-arbitration talent like Andrew Benintendi or Rafael Devers, and Boston doesn't have the high-end, near-majors pitcher that would make the deal worthwhile for Chicago.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't overhaul their approach to baserunning.

The Red Sox cost themselves too many outs on the bases last year; this is a non-controversial statement. They have brought in Tom Goodwin as a new baserunning coach, and both Dave Dombrowski and Alex Cora discussed altering Boston's approach on the bases.

Altering is fine; overhauling would be misguided. This is still an athletic team that should be able to harvest value out of that athleticism on the bases, provided they're smarter about it. Mookie Betts and Xander Bogaerts are two of the best baserunners in the game, consistently taking the extra base and almost never paying the price for that audacity.

The problems last year centered on Andrew Benintendi, Dustin Pedroia and Hanley Ramirez. Pedroia and Ramirez aren't fast enough to take the chances they do; that has to be communicated to them more relentlessly next season. Benintendi, though, has to refine when he's aggressive. When Cora talked Monday about knowing the right situations to be aggressive, it seemed like a blueprint for an upcoming conversation with Benintendi.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sell high on Drew Pomeranz.

I'll cop to the fact that earlier this season, while Pomeranz was pitching about as well as anyone in the American League, I wondered whether moving him this winter to recoup some prospects a year before he hit free agency might make some sense. But a few things have altered that thought.

Most importantly, David Price went back on the disabled list last July, and Eduardo Rodriguez underwent knee surgery in October. The Red Sox thus don't have a surplus of established and reliable starters to allow them to move Pomeranz for minor-league assets. (If everyone else were healthy, the Sox could have conceivably viewed a reasonable prospect haul as worth the downgrade from Pomeranz to a returning Steven Wright.)

Second, the manner in which Chris Sale — and Pomeranz himself — faded into the postseason leads me to believe the best way for Boston to pitch better next October is to get its pitchers there with bullets left in the chamber. That means periodic rest throughout the season for the starting five, and that means having more than five established starters to cycle through the rotation.

Third, Rick Porcello did not recover in the second half of the season as I kind of thought he would, so he's a larger question mark entering 2018 than I anticipated.

And fourth, Boston's competitive window is as open now as it's going to be for a few years. Which leads me to my next point…

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sit out this offseason.

I'm probably of a more conservative bend when analyzing free agency than most, and I can envision a scenario in which I would have argued that standing pat this winter and relying on the likelihood of internal improvement would be enough for the Red Sox.

But the landscape around the Sox suggests that's the wrong course of action.

Looking into the next several years, 2018 is shaping up to be Boston's best chance of serious championship contention. Their pitching staff faces serious uncertainty beyond 2018: Drew Pomeranz is a free agent, David Price might be one. Chris Sale and Rick Porcello follow in 2019. If Price doesn't opt out, it probably means he's compromised in some way, and his contract may limit Boston's ability and/or willingness to extend Sale into his 30s.

The young core is young but it's not as controllable as you might think. Xander Bogaerts is a free agent after 2019, Mookie Betts and Jackie Bradley, Jr. the year after that. The chances of retaining all three appear slim.

And then there's what's going on around the Red Sox. Yes, the Astros and Indians look really good right now — but they'll face some of that uncertainty as their young talent approaches free agency as well in the coming years. The frightening team is, of course, the Yankees — who have an excellent young core and who plan to be under the competitive-balance tax this coming season in order to snag one of the major free agents next winter, be it Bryce Harper, Manny Machado or someone else. New York will be a worthy foe in the American League East again in 2018, and it might be a dominant one by 2019.

The Red Sox lost a chance to win the pennant when they entered the 2016 postseason looking like the American League's best team. You don't get many opportunities; this upcoming season may be the last for a little while.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't trade Jay Groome.

Let's be honest: Trading pitching prospects isn't bad business. The one Dombrowski deal I instantly disliked was his swap of Anderson Espinoza for Pomeranz, and I feel differently about it now that Espinoza has missed a season with Tommy John surgery. Most of the time when you deal a promising pitching prospect, he ends up as Tony Armas rather than John Smoltz.

But you need to have some kind of inventory in your system, and Groome is the only high-level pitching prospect currently in Boston's. At a time when four of the five current starters may be gone in the next two seasons, it's important to have some kind of option developing internally. The last Boston draft pick to provide the Red Sox with more than one win above replacement as a pitcher was selected in 2006 (Daniel Bard). The Sox haven't drafted a starter who could provide them that much value since 2005 and Clay Buchholz.

Why the Red Sox shouldn't sign Clay Buchholz as a depth starter.

I cannot see any reason against this.