PDA

View Full Version : No Ace Up Cherrington's Sleeve



RedSoxtober
08-07-2014, 08:33 PM
when Cherington and the Red Sox tackle the rebuilding program, they do not see landing an “ace” as part of that task. In fact, it’s not even essential.

“We just want to be good,” said Cherington before last night’s game. “We need to build a good team, we need to win games. There’s different ways to do that. It’s nice to have an ace at the top of the rotation, but you can be good in different ways. We’ve had really good teams without that.”

...

Cherington was not saying yesterday that the Red Sox would not benefit from an ace. His comment, however, suggests strongly the team remains leery of long-term, big-money commitments to starters on the wrong side of 30. This is nothing new. The Red Sox have been preaching fiscal restraint ever since their payroll-shedding blockbuster with the Dodgers two Augusts ago.

The Red Sox were in terrible shape then with proven aces or near aces Lester and John Lackey, and they are back to terrible with those two now gone.

When the Sox look near the top of the standings, they see the Orioles and the Brewers and the Pirates and even the Yankees, with Brandon McCarthy atop their rotation, as ace-less teams.

In the Braves (with Julio Teheran) or the Angels (with Garrett Richards), they see aces who blossomed in-season versus an ace those teams were leaning on in April.

“There are plenty of teams that are contenders this year, teams that will be in the playoffs that don’t have that (ace),” said Cherington. “We just have to build a good team. We have to build a team that can win games. We know pitching’s a big part of that. There’s different ways of building a pitching staff.”Boston Herald

:facepalm:

bagwell368
08-07-2014, 08:56 PM
Toss in the report that Lester's side DID counter the stinking 4/$70M offer with a 6/$140Mish counter.

Now we know that Masterson will be our ace. Not the actual Masterson, just the best kid we come up with over the next season and a half would be a virtual Masterson. Huzza. With kids being developed to man well over half the team, and no serious money for FA's it looks like it'll be run as if we're Pittsburgh - spend when it looks like a playoff team, and run it tight it otherwise.

If that ownership group thinks 3 titles will mean we'll be happy for another 4-6-8 years of teams like '12 and '14, they have another thing coming.

Nomar
08-07-2014, 10:04 PM
He's not going to say "we need an ace" and make us look desperate for Lester. That would only drive up his price. Not saying we will get him but this doesn't change anything IMO.

celticsman2009
08-07-2014, 11:29 PM
Nice slip of the tongue Ben. We will have a top of the rotation starter next season. Ben will not allow this team to enter with Clay as our ace. Whether it's Lester, Hamels, Shields etc. who knows.

Bo Sox Fan
08-08-2014, 12:06 AM
I can't remember the last time a Red Sox team didn't go into a season either over, at, or just under the luxury tax threshold.

There's roughly $80 million available this offseason to reach that with only Koji and the starting rotation to address so something's fishy.

I think Ben is bluffing on the ace comment, or he truly plans to go bananas on beefing up the offence. (Sign a Hanley, trade for a Stanton + extension)

Haystack
08-08-2014, 12:21 AM
I don't see what the problem is. We didn't have an "ace" last year, just a guy with a high 3's ERA who got hot at the right time.

bagwell368
08-08-2014, 06:11 AM
I don't see what the problem is. We didn't have an "ace" last year, just a guy with a high 3's ERA who got hot at the right time.

His career from 2008-2012 inclusive had him with a 3.57 raw ERA (can't believe you just quoted his raw ERA); a 122 ERA+, and a 4th, 3rd, 5th, 9th in AL rWAR in that 5 year period. Those numbers clearly put him into the top 15 among all active starters during the same period, if not top 10. Labeling him a "just a guy with a high 3's ERA" doesn't resemble who he was at the time. Please name a starter from those 5 years that had 4 or more top 9 rWAR scores?

His performance this year (ERA+ in the high 150's) should be enough proof to indicate that the outlier was 2012 and first half of 2013. Perhaps you forgot Lester had 4 different pitching coaches between the final game of 2010 and the end of the 2012 season. Maybe you didn't examine the fact that Lesters ERA and slash was far worse with Salty catching him than the other catchers during his tenure and that he threw to Salty a great deal in 2012. In 2012 Lester pitched to Salty 19 games with a 5.67 ERA and a slash of: .307/.367/.502. To the others (Shop and Lavarnway): 14 games 3.86 ERA slash .233/.286/.371. Perhaps it's Salty and the two pitching coaches Lester had in 2012 were the problem? Ample evidence to argue that case.

goshhhjosh
08-08-2014, 08:40 AM
As a Red Sox and a Liverpool fan it would look bad for Henry if he didn't invest a considerable amount of money in rebuilding the Red Sox during the off season.

I say that because he's spent nearly £100,000,000 (≈$168,000,000) on Liverpool during their off season bringing in players, etc. (Granted they did sell some players to make money.)

Bostonians and Red Sox fans wouldn't look too kindly if he started to strip down on the Red Sox purchases and improvements.

I understand being leery of handing out huge contracts to aging players as the Red Sox have been somewhat burned recently (Adrian Gonzalez to some extent and that douche bag Carl "Let Me Bash Boston Every Chance I Get, I'm an Overpaid Dip **** With a Sperm Tattoo on My Neck" Crawford.) Like Bags said, the Red Sox fans won't stand for a mediocre team for long.

ciaban
08-08-2014, 09:37 AM
That's weird how demanding you guys are of this team, considering 3 world series titles is more than the last 86 years put together.
In fact, if i had told RedSox fans in 2003 that they could win 3 world series in the next 10 years but then suck for the following 10 years, 100% of you would have taken that deal. Even if the other option was having a good competitive team for the next 2 decades.

Haystack
08-08-2014, 10:47 AM
His career from 2008-2012 inclusive had him with a 3.57 raw ERA (can't believe you just quoted his raw ERA); a 122 ERA+, and a 4th, 3rd, 5th, 9th in AL rWAR in that 5 year period. Those numbers clearly put him into the top 15 among all active starters during the same period, if not top 10. Labeling him a "just a guy with a high 3's ERA" doesn't resemble who he was at the time. Please name a starter from those 5 years that had 4 or more top 9 rWAR scores?

His performance this year (ERA+ in the high 150's) should be enough proof to indicate that the outlier was 2012 and first half of 2013. Perhaps you forgot Lester had 4 different pitching coaches between the final game of 2010 and the end of the 2012 season. Maybe you didn't examine the fact that Lesters ERA and slash was far worse with Salty catching him than the other catchers during his tenure and that he threw to Salty a great deal in 2012. In 2012 Lester pitched to Salty 19 games with a 5.67 ERA and a slash of: .307/.367/.502. To the others (Shop and Lavarnway): 14 games 3.86 ERA slash .233/.286/.371. Perhaps it's Salty and the two pitching coaches Lester had in 2012 were the problem? Ample evidence to argue that case.

Don't be silly. Jon Lester in 2013 was nothing like Jon Lester in 2008. I would say that Jon Lester was an ace in 2009 and 2010 when he was 9th in WAR among starting pitchers and had an ERA, FIP, xFIP in the low threes. But between 2011-2013, I wouldn't consider him to be an ace. He was 16th in WAR and had an ERA, FIP, xFIP in the low 4's, or high 3's. And it wasn't just a matter of one bad catcher or one bad year. His peripherals began to decline in 2011, before his ERA did.

-Lavigne43-
08-08-2014, 01:26 PM
You're reading too much into this. No GM is going to make declarations publicly about acquiring a certain type of player. I've seen statements like this from GM's, and hours later they contradict themselves in a signing or trade.

Haystack
08-08-2014, 03:48 PM
You're reading too much into this. No GM is going to make declarations publicly about acquiring a certain type of player. I've seen statements like this from GM's, and hours later they contradict themselves in a signing or trade.

Exactly. What was Cashman's infamous statement about being ready to go into the next season with Bubba Crosby as his starting centerfielder?

xnick5757
08-09-2014, 11:38 AM
Toss in the report that Lester's side DID counter the stinking 4/$70M offer with a 6/$140Mish counter.

Now we know that Masterson will be our ace. Not the actual Masterson, just the best kid we come up with over the next season and a half would be a virtual Masterson. Huzza. With kids being developed to man well over half the team, and no serious money for FA's it looks like it'll be run as if we're Pittsburgh - spend when it looks like a playoff team, and run it tight it otherwise.

If that ownership group thinks 3 titles will mean we'll be happy for another 4-6-8 years of teams like '12 and '14, they have another thing coming.

X2


Red Sox have the highest average ticket price in the league.


We also only have somewhere around 100 mil in cap commitments for next year, and no long term commitments after 2015 except for Pedroia (TO's on Ortiz and Clay for 2016). Even including those two, we have somewhere around 50-60 million in cap commitments for 2016.


Hell, I would be happy with the team spending around 160 mil a year (which is still 20 mil under the lux tax!). The lester offer was an absolute disgrace - this team can afford to pay him (maybe not 140/6, but somewhere around there).


I am all for being fiscally smart with your team, and not signing tons of aging guys to long term deals, but this team doesn't have any bad contracts on the books. A guy like Lester, who can be (and has been) that #1/#2 guy for you is the kind of player the team needs to sign.

This team isn't that far away from competing - especially with the moves they made at the TD. A pitcher or two in free agency puts us right back in the mix.

RedSoxtober
08-09-2014, 12:06 PM
Nice slip of the tongue Ben. We will have a top of the rotation starter next season. Ben will not allow this team to enter with Clay as our ace. Whether it's Lester, Hamels, Shields etc. who knows.

Just be prepared. We've seen statements like this in the past and they've paved the way (PR wise) for decisions they made.

The primary problem I have with the comments is suggesting that the "no ace" approach "working" in 2014 could somehow be a pattern for the future. This season is clearly an aberration from years past. Trying to make an argument out of such unusual production would be foolish.

todu82
08-09-2014, 12:07 PM
I think this article is being overblown. I want the best team possible and think we can get that ace or no ace.

celticsman2009
08-09-2014, 03:54 PM
Ben's comments make it seem like yeah we can make the playoffs without an ace. But is that what we want now. We want to be the Pittsburgh Pirates, Brewers, Reds. Make the playoffs and be one and done. We want to be Baltimore? It pisses me off that people are ok with having a bad season because we won a World Series the year before. Like when are we allowed to be upset with how the season went. I'm sure Ben will field a good team next season, or do his best. But enough of the WS hangover. We should be contending every year with the money we have to offer.

theGhost-isGone
08-09-2014, 04:36 PM
Ben's comments make it seem like yeah we can make the playoffs without an ace. But is that what we want now. We want to be the Pittsburgh Pirates, Brewers, Reds. Make the playoffs and be one and done. We want to be Baltimore? It pisses me off that people are ok with having a bad season because we won a World Series the year before. Like when are we allowed to be upset with how the season went. I'm sure Ben will field a good team next season, or do his best. But enough of the WS hangover. We should be contending every year with the money we have to offer.

I agree for the most part. We could contend for a playoff spot without a Lester/Scherzer signing - considering we will certainly improve our line-up and other moves will be made. I think the competition in the AL East will be a bit less than we're accustomed to for a couple of years.

I agree that we'll need an ace if we want to move forward come post-season time, with teams like Oakland, Detroit and even Seattle/LAA/Texas teams that have a good top of the rotation and a solid line-up. Good pitching beats good hitting, so no matter how good we can make our line-up we're going to need at least one horse. Can Ranaudo/Owens be that guy? Maybe, but we shouldn't bank on that. Get somebody to push them down a spot in the rotation and we've suddenly got a competitive group of starters.

Bo Sox Fan
08-09-2014, 05:59 PM
With Ben saying he wants to "reload" ASAP and go for it again in 2015, I have a hard time seeing this team even making the playoffs with so many young unknowns in Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo and a couple guaranteed DL stints / lack of performance from Clay Buchholz as the new "ace" of your staff.

A very, very hard time. Something's gotta give.

theGhost-isGone
08-09-2014, 06:31 PM
With Ben saying he wants to "reload" ASAP and go for it again in 2015, I have a hard time seeing this team even making the playoffs with so many young unknowns in Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Ranaudo and a couple guaranteed DL stints / lack of performance from Clay Buchholz as the new "ace" of your staff.

A very, very hard time. Something's gotta give.

I think the first idea that's gonna go is Clay is our ace. He shouldn't even be in the rotation IMO, he should go to the pen. I think we can expect Rubby to be serviceable, he's had a pretty respectable season thus far. He should make a solid #3/#4 if you ask me, and one of Owens/Ranaudo could replace Lackey without much regression.

We need a proven, true Ace! Whether it's Lester, maybe Scherzer, Shields or if we can trade for somebody like Sale, we need to move on one this off-season if we really want to be competitive in '15. If we don't, I think that says much to Cherington's belief that we may have an Ace up and coming in one of our youngsters - maybe not in '15, but soon after.

grandsalami
08-09-2014, 08:24 PM
Just be prepared. We've seen statements like this in the past and they've paved the way (PR wise) for decisions they made.

The primary problem I have with the comments is suggesting that the "no ace" approach "working" in 2014 could somehow be a pattern for the future. This season is clearly an aberration from years past. Trying to make an argument out of such unusual production would be foolish.



Take what he is saying with a grain of salt. He is not going to say that we need an ace because that destroys leverage with both other teams and agents. It's like going to a car dealership and telling them that you really need a car. That will destroy all leverage you have with the salesman.

bagwell368
08-09-2014, 10:18 PM
That's weird how demanding you guys are of this team, considering 3 world series titles is more than the last 86 years put together.
In fact, if i had told RedSox fans in 2003 that they could win 3 world series in the next 10 years but then suck for the following 10 years, 100% of you would have taken that deal. Even if the other option was having a good competitive team for the next 2 decades.

It's Boston, too much is barely enough. I don't believe anyone here goes back earlier than 1966 - so forget 86 years, that's stuff in a book or what your grandfather says.

I'd take the deal for 3 rings and 10 years of suckville, but nobody offered, we have the 3 titles, you bet non pink hat fans are going to remain driven. I don't see Canadiens or Liverpool FC fans taking their feet off the pedal.

It must be la-la land that's made sports fans so "pacific"...

bagwell368
08-09-2014, 10:52 PM
Don't be silly. Jon Lester in 2013 was nothing like Jon Lester in 2008. I would say that Jon Lester was an ace in 2009 and 2010 when he was 9th in WAR among starting pitchers and had an ERA, FIP, xFIP in the low threes. But between 2011-2013, I wouldn't consider him to be an ace. He was 16th in WAR and had an ERA, FIP, xFIP in the low 4's, or high 3's. And it wasn't just a matter of one bad catcher or one bad year. His peripherals began to decline in 2011, before his ERA did.

Don't be silly? You're the one that was making broad claims using a single raw stat over a limited period of time.

One bad catcher, one year? Please - here is an entirely more thorough take:

2011:

Salty 23 starts 3.77 ERA 108 tOPS
Varitek 7 starts 2.48 ERA 68 tOPS

Certainly Salty was not awful, but was no match for Tek in 2011 w/ Lester

2012:

I already outlined Salty's garbage performance in 2012, but as a reminder his tOPS was 125, and Shoppach was 64.

2013:

Factoring in the playoffs with the regular season Ross topped Salty.

As I specified even with his down years including in the period since 2008, Lester is clearly an ace (the $22.57M FG WAR $ for the 6.7 years since the start of 2008 should demonstrate that). Looking at his performance since mid 2013 proves that his issues were not permanent. A more careful view at the catching situation and his pitching coach churn during this period should suffice to at least give a reasonable reason for what happened - if not the actual answer. His velocity dropped in 2011, and it's not gotten back to pre-2011 levels, but his performance has improved - perhaps indicating that's he's learned to pitch better with lesser stuff - that takes time as any pitcher past about age 15 could attest.

Not sure what your agenda is, but claiming Lester isn't an ace or isn't worth a sizeable contract based on what he's done since 2008 is a losing argument.

Haystack
08-09-2014, 11:00 PM
Don't be silly? You're the one that was making broad claims using a single raw stat over a limited period of time.

One bad catcher, one year? Please - here is an entirely more thorough take:

2011:

Salty 23 starts 3.77 ERA 108 tOPS
Varitek 7 starts 2.48 ERA 68 tOPS

Certainly Salty was not awful, but was no match for Tek in 2011 w/ Lester

2012:

I already outlined Salty's garbage performance in 2012, but as a reminder his tOPS was 125, and Shoppach was 64.

2013:

Factoring in the playoffs with the regular season Ross topped Salty.

As I specified even with his down years including in the period since 2008, Lester is clearly an ace (the $22.57M FG WAR $ for the 6.7 years since the start of 2008 should demonstrate that). Looking at his performance since mid 2013 proves that his issues were not permanent. A more careful view at the catching situation and his pitching coach churn during this period should suffice to at least give a reasonable reason for what happened - if not the actual answer. His velocity dropped in 2011, and it's not gotten back to pre-2011 levels, but his performance has improved - perhaps indicating that's he's learned to pitch better with lesser stuff - that takes time as any pitcher past about age 15 could attest.

Not sure what your agenda is, but claiming Lester isn't an ace or isn't worth a sizeable contract based on what he's done since 2008 is a losing argument.

As one of the "more SABR minded" posters, can you provide a single shred of "SABR minded" evidence that catcher ERA is actually credible, or are you just talking out your butt?

BostonSports96
08-10-2014, 12:06 AM
Didn't know where else to post this: http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/sox-be-agressive-pursuit-castillo

Sox are planning to go hard after Catillo, a guy who projects to be a good defensive outfielder in center or right with base-stealing ability and "15-to-20" home run power potential. If we get him, it may make Betts expendable in a trade because Castillo projects to be the same thing as Betts (leadoff hitting OFer).

BostonSports96
08-10-2014, 01:29 AM
Also, here is Mike Cameron sharing his story on overcoming his early career offensive struggles, along with his advice to JBJ: http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11333490/mike-cameron-pulling-boston-red-sox-center-fielder-jackie-bradley-jr?ex_cid=espnapi_public

bagwell368
08-10-2014, 08:29 AM
As one of the "more SABR minded" posters, can you provide a single shred of "SABR minded" evidence that catcher ERA is actually credible, or are you just talking out your butt?

You're going to go with a "proof by assertion" argument? Debate 101 tactics....

"Keith Woolner (Baseball Prospectus) concluded that there was no statistical significance between catchers' ERA and that the differences were purely a matter of chance variations or randomness. However, his study only used a subset of a subset of all catchers and pitchers because he only included batteries (pitchers and catchers) with 100 innings or more." - Rosciam In addition I'll add other stats like BAbip, RE24, and OBP, SLG stats which were found to offer a higher level of correlation to actual performance - which has been mentioned in the literature. No single SABR approved stat seems to have been developed yet.

Subjective and objective measures of Salty and other non Lavarnway catchers in his tenure in Boston both indicate that Salty performed poorly compared to them. There were multiple seasons, catchers, and pitchers to make for a good sample size. Please locate and cite a credible source that asserts Salty is a good defensive catcher, and cite it.

Since catching is considered either the 1st or 2nd most important defensive position by almost all viewers (SABR asnd otherwise), and the actual runs (plus and minus (RField for instance)) associated with catchers has a smaller range that positions such as SS, 2B, 3B, CF it's clear that the metrics that SABR approves of to date do not capture the actual performance of catchers and catcher/pitcher batteries very well. Until objective measures are found that can explain why Salty is a below average defensive catcher (by far more than FG or BR show), than any stat/observation which seems to bear out his poor play has to be considered for use since the the objective offerings in this area are very limited in scope.

bagwell368
08-10-2014, 08:34 AM
Didn't know where else to post this: http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/sox-be-agressive-pursuit-castillo

Sox are planning to go hard after Catillo, a guy who projects to be a good defensive outfielder in center or right with base-stealing ability and "15-to-20" home run power potential. If we get him, it may make Betts expendable in a trade because Castillo projects to be the same thing as Betts (leadoff hitting OFer).

I don't see Betts as an OF long term. He's an excellent defensive 2B. That's where he ends up, and that's his best value. Pedroia between injuries and aging could well be on the bench, DL, or at DH a lot and a lot sooner than most Sox fans think.

Haystack
08-10-2014, 03:37 PM
You're going to go with a "proof by assertion" argument? Debate 101 tactics....

"Keith Woolner (Baseball Prospectus) concluded that there was no statistical significance between catchers' ERA and that the differences were purely a matter of chance variations or randomness. However, his study only used a subset of a subset of all catchers and pitchers because he only included batteries (pitchers and catchers) with 100 innings or more." - Rosciam In addition I'll add other stats like BAbip, RE24, and OBP, SLG stats which were found to offer a higher level of correlation to actual performance - which has been mentioned in the literature. No single SABR approved stat seems to have been developed yet.

Subjective and objective measures of Salty and other non Lavarnway catchers in his tenure in Boston both indicate that Salty performed poorly compared to them. There were multiple seasons, catchers, and pitchers to make for a good sample size. Please locate and cite a credible source that asserts Salty is a good defensive catcher, and cite it.

Since catching is considered either the 1st or 2nd most important defensive position by almost all viewers (SABR asnd otherwise), and the actual runs (plus and minus (RField for instance)) associated with catchers has a smaller range that positions such as SS, 2B, 3B, CF it's clear that the metrics that SABR approves of to date do not capture the actual performance of catchers and catcher/pitcher batteries very well. Until objective measures are found that can explain why Salty is a below average defensive catcher (by far more than FG or BR show), than any stat/observation which seems to bear out his poor play has to be considered for use since the the objective offerings in this area are very limited in scope.

TL;DR - No. Seems a bit half baked to try to make Salty the scapegoat considering Lester had one of his best seasons with Victor Martinez catching.

Bo Sox Fan
08-10-2014, 04:17 PM
I don't know about anyone else but I sure have enjoyed life without Salty and him trying to throw runners out in center fiel oooops I meant second base every odd day of the week :shrug:

Thank you Christian Vazquez for being born.

sawxfan
08-10-2014, 05:09 PM
I don't know about anyone else but I sure have enjoyed life without Salty and him trying to throw runners out in center fiel oooops I meant second base every odd day of the week :shrug:

Thank you Christian Vazquez for being born.

Do kinda miss being a playoff/championship caliber team that can score some runs. Salty did some good things with the bat, appreciate what he did for us while he was here.

BostonSports96
08-10-2014, 06:27 PM
Do kinda miss being a playoff/championship caliber team that can score some runs. Salty did some good things with the bat, appreciate what he did for us while he was here.

Salty did have a couple of good moments with the bat while he was here, but if I had to choose between a catcher who can hit and sucks at D or an elite defensive catcher who sucks with the bat...I'd take the elite defender every time. Defense at catcher is critical to the success of a team's entire pitching staff.

I also won't miss seeing Salty looking silly while chasing sliders and curveballs in the dirt in 2 strike counts.

Bo Sox Fan
08-10-2014, 07:36 PM
Do kinda miss being a playoff/championship caliber team that can score some runs. Salty did some good things with the bat, appreciate what he did for us while he was here.

Uhh, I think your forgetting that David Ross took over as the starting catcher mid postseason because Salty was absolutely horrendous on both sides of the ball and couldn't be trusted anymore.

Haystack
08-10-2014, 09:24 PM
I miss pre-concussion David Ross.

bagwell368
08-11-2014, 06:49 AM
TL;DR - No. Seems a bit half baked to try to make Salty the scapegoat considering Lester had one of his best seasons with Victor Martinez catching.

In 2010, when Victor caught more than anyone else, the breakdowns were:

name games ERA

Tek 6 games 1.88
Brown 1 game 2.57
Cash 5 games 3.38
Victor 22 games 3.64

The other 3 combined for about a 2.6 ERA - or about a run less per game.

In 2009 in 5 games Victor did very well with Lester, but if you combine both seasons, he's still worse than the rest of the staff.

I think we are running into a rat hole. Your original comment about Lesters ERA and your characterization from that should be the focus here. In his career as a full time starter he's an ace, not some #2 journeyman type. He had one poor year - so did the team, he had two pitching coaches that year, worked with a catcher that both slash numbers, ERA, and the eye say Salty was well below average as reasonable reasons for his year. His recovery from that since the middle of 2013, including playoffs is clearly a sign that there is nothing wrong with him physically, or mentally/emotionally. He's go a contract situation and he's doing what he does in high pressure situations, excelling.

bagwell368
08-11-2014, 07:08 AM
Do kinda miss being a playoff/championship caliber team that can score some runs. Salty did some good things with the bat, appreciate what he did for us while he was here.

Good things with the bat?

His power was good, his OBP was generally awful. He has had one year when he finished the season batting above a 97 OPS+ (Sox 2013 118)

vs LHP: .205/.268 /.333
His career RISP is poor: .224/.300/.374
His career 2 out RISP is pathetic: .196/.287/.269
High leverage: .218/.286/.356
post season 2013: .188/.257/ .219

Basically he could hit in the first half of the year, no outs, nobody on, with a 4 run or larger lead. He was almost an auto out for a good pitcher that really needed an out.

Couple that with his D (fielding going to hell since the start of 2011; game calling and pitch framing always poor), and we now know why he was dealt 3 times in his career, and left to walk by the Sox.

He's not the worst catcher I ever saw, but the Rangers bargain basement "steal" did not pan out here. His career probably ends in 2017 after his Miami deal is done and he fails on a "make it" invite in ST. Lots of catchers wash out at age 32.

RedSoxtober
08-11-2014, 09:48 AM
TL;DR - No. Seems a bit half baked to try to make Salty the scapegoat considering Lester had one of his best seasons with Victor Martinez catching.

In addition to ERA, consider these numbers:

V-Mart: 2.63k/bb, .235/.321/.335
Varitek: 2.29k/bb, .153/.255/.237

The weakness in your "best season even with V-Mart" argument is that it fails to consider that his season could have been BETTER. V-Mart gave away at least half a run per game behind the plate but made up for that with his bat. Being good enough to get a very good season from a dominant pitcher seems somewhat faint praise.

ruckus16969
08-11-2014, 10:04 AM
Do kinda miss being a playoff/championship caliber team that can score some runs. Salty did some good things with the bat, appreciate what he did for us while he was here.

I have to agree. I didn't minds Salty at all

sawxfan
08-11-2014, 02:11 PM
Of course I know this and completely agree it needed to happen. Salty put up positive WAR numbers all three years he was in town, with a very solid 2.9 last year. I'm happy we didn't bring him back, but think he was solid for us overall. I'm just not down with ragging on players when they leave Boston.

sawxfan
08-11-2014, 02:14 PM
I mean of course I know Ross took over in the playoffs. Been faithfully watching the Sox for almost 40 years.

sawxfan
08-11-2014, 02:21 PM
Good things with the bat?

His power was good, his OBP was generally awful. He has had one year when he finished the season batting above a 97 OPS+ (Sox 2013 118)

vs LHP: .205/.268 /.333
His career RISP is poor: .224/.300/.374
His career 2 out RISP is pathetic: .196/.287/.269
High leverage: .218/.286/.356
post season 2013: .188/.257/ .219

Basically he could hit in the first half of the year, no outs, nobody on, with a 4 run or larger lead. He was almost an auto out for a good pitcher that really needed an out.

Couple that with his D (fielding going to hell since the start of 2011; game calling and pitch framing always poor), and we now know why he was dealt 3 times in his career, and left to walk by the Sox.

He's not the worst catcher I ever saw, but the Rangers bargain basement "steal" did not pan out here. His career probably ends in 2017 after his Miami deal is done and he fails on a "make it" invite in ST. Lots of catchers wash out at age 32.

His solid play in 2013 put us in position go far in the playoffs. He was a big part of this team last year.

bagwell368
08-16-2014, 07:25 AM
I have to agree. I didn't minds Salty at all

Did you read post #35 closely re: hitting and several earlier ones regarding his defensive results?

Salty sucked dung. Glad he's gone, and we'd have zero or one win more than AJP had he stayed but we'd be tied to him for several more years. Good riddance.

bagwell368
08-16-2014, 07:27 AM
His solid play in 2013 put us in position go far in the playoffs. He was a big part of this team last year.

Yup, that's his outlier year - the year he hit in the 2nd half, but he was feeble in the playoffs and Ross was not. If Salty kept getting featured in the playoffs instead of Salty I'd bet all I have that the Sox would not have won it.

bagwell368
08-16-2014, 07:39 AM
Of course I know this and completely agree it needed to happen. Salty put up positive WAR numbers all three years he was in town, with a very solid 2.9 last year. I'm happy we didn't bring him back, but think he was solid for us overall. I'm just not down with ragging on players when they leave Boston.

He was not solid for us overall, and as I proved last year rWAR and fWAR both well downplay the defensive strength or weakness of catchers in terms of runs being added to the formula. Salty sucked, he sucked very much outside of 2013, and lots of folks here were quite clear about that while he WAS here. He sucks this year which is starting to close the loop on his 2013 being a single peak year in an otherwise meh->bleak picture.

I didn't like him at all. Catcher is the one position I don't want to sacrifice D for a bit of offense - but look at that offense? He was good with the bases empty, no outs, no pressure and a 4 run or better lead - who needs that sort of hitter? His arm and glove and game calling and pitch framing were anywhere from below average to terrible.

Over the past 15 years Ross, Tek, Shoppach, and Vazquez were/are all distinctly better with the glove than Salty.

BoSox47
08-16-2014, 11:04 AM
I would keep vasquez too but the problem is how many defensive players can you keep on your team that cant hit CV, JBJ. Pretty much automatic outs 80% of the time sitting at the bottom of the order. Never mind the all around terrible Will Middlebrooks. If each get the standard minimum 3 AB's per game thats 1.8 hits per game from 3 players. Moves have to be made.

BoSox47
08-16-2014, 11:31 AM
Would you give up JBJ, Vazquez and Johnson for Hamels and do you guys think philly would do that?

BostonSports96
08-16-2014, 02:41 PM
Would you give up JBJ, Vazquez and Johnson for Hamels and do you guys think philly would do that?

Doubt it....Amaro Jr. likes to command ransom returns for his players when they don't deserve it. Price tag likely starts with one of Swihart/Betts/Owens.

theGhost-isGone
08-16-2014, 05:51 PM
Doubt it....Amaro Jr. likes to command ransom returns for his players when they don't deserve it. Price tag likely starts with one of Swihart/Betts/Owens.

I wouldn't even give up one of JBJ/Vazquez for him, and Johnson looks like he could be good. That's a pretty good package, though. I wouldn't move on an offer like that but if that's not enough to get RAJ to pick up the phone, I'd move on from Hamels.

ruckus16969
08-16-2014, 07:56 PM
Id like to see us get Lester back along with Shields and Hamels.

BoSox47
08-17-2014, 01:29 AM
I wouldn't even give up one of JBJ/Vazquez for him, and Johnson looks like he could be good. That's a pretty good package, though. I wouldn't move on an offer like that but if that's not enough to get RAJ to pick up the phone, I'd move on from Hamels.

Cole hamels is one of the top pitchers in the game right now and has been for a few years. Id give up them two in a heartbest if they wanted them for hamels only.

metswon69
08-17-2014, 02:22 AM
You're reading too much into this. No GM is going to make declarations publicly about acquiring a certain type of player. I've seen statements like this from GM's, and hours later they contradict themselves in a signing or trade.

Wouldn't compare the Mets and Red Sox situations but the Mets have taken the same approach. Now the Mets did it out of necessity given their financial issues but Sandy Alderson also took the approach of no 5+year deals to 30+ year old players (they made an exception with Wright being the face of the franchise) but it seems like they are taking a hard line stance in regards to pieces that face far more regression on 6-7 year deals. Certainly it limits the talent pool in regards to signing the best FA but I think the Red Sox are more comfortable in the idea of spending in larger quantities but avoiding longer commitment.

I'll say that with a grain of salt because perhaps they soften that stance in the offseason with such nominal payroll obligated to the 2015 roster (in regards to market size) but it is possible they don't find themselves looking to re-sign Lester or bring in a guy like Max Scherzer.

Station 13
08-17-2014, 11:03 AM
Would you give up JBJ, Vazquez and Johnson for Hamels and do you guys think philly would do that?

Doubt they want that. I would do it.

Station 13
08-17-2014, 11:07 AM
I would keep vasquez too but the problem is how many defensive players can you keep on your team that cant hit CV, JBJ. Pretty much automatic outs 80% of the time sitting at the bottom of the order. Never mind the all around terrible Will Middlebrooks. If each get the standard minimum 3 AB's per game thats 1.8 hits per game from 3 players. Moves have to be made.

Vaz has work very well defensively and game calling. I love how he is stealing strikes that are clearly balls. Think back how AJ butcher the staff by stabbing at pitches and not getting calls clearly in the zone or on the black. Vaz's fine for me since he work well with the young staff. JBJ/WMB can't be in the same lineup, and JBJ clearly has to wow them since Betts is raking.

Does Allen Craig plays 3B?

willyssox
08-17-2014, 11:47 AM
When I first read that it scared the H*ll out of me. Those teams may not have an Ace but how good are they really? Ben should hold his comments, wait n see if those teams make the Playoffs and then if they do how they finish. If any of those teams comes away with a Championship (highly doubtful) then his comments may have merit, right now it makes him look stupid.
If Ben thinks he can build next years team (and beyond) w/o spending real money on a top Starter or 2 in our case, then he's being as foolish as Theo was when he thought you could have a Closer by committee.

willyssox
08-17-2014, 11:55 AM
I couldnt agree more. People need to learn to judge a team season by season and not give a team a pass just because they won a Championship. Has anyone asked how it's even possible for 1 team to go from worst, to first (and a Championship) to one of the worst again? I'm not sure if thats ever been done before.
When you are a large market team, charge the highest ticket prices, fans Must expect a competitive team year in and year out, no exceptions.

bagwell368
08-17-2014, 09:04 PM
I couldnt agree more. People need to learn to judge a team season by season and not give a team a pass just because they won a Championship. Has anyone asked how it's even possible for 1 team to go from worst, to first (and a Championship) to one of the worst again? I'm not sure if thats ever been done before.
When you are a large market team, charge the highest ticket prices, fans Must expect a competitive team year in and year out, no exceptions.

That's nice. If there were weren't players getting hurt, not playing as well as expected (young and old), and key defections to FA - than you'd be right. But there are.

As a fan since 1966 overall I'm very pleased with the "new" owners. We would all like more, but to refuse to see and enjoy the great accomplishments of this time?

willyssox
08-17-2014, 09:31 PM
I have no idea what you're trying to say, what point you're making.
I have been a fan since apprx. 1970, so nearly as long as you. But that has little bearing on this discussion.
If you're ok with the Sox roller coaster ride over the last few years or so then fine But most fans that understand the difference between a small, medium(what they were when we were young) and large market team also understand that when you have the money, the prospects that the Red Sox have that they should be and remain competitive each and every year w/o another fan saying things like "you should learn to appreciate what we've been givin"..... of course I/we appreciate the Championships, it would be idiotic not to But like I said, this team should be competitive each and every year and they arent by their own doing. Ben himself admitted he didnt do enough this past Winter.
It is far too easy to blame injuries, unproductive players who once were, whatever but if we are to praise their achievements one year, applaud the GM one year, then the next year that they fail they deserve the opposite, they deserve to be judged. They are Not a Small or even a Medium market team, they are a Large market team, there is No excuse for failing 2 of the last 3 years. The 2013 Championship was fantastic but that is in the past and the team needed to have more added to it for the 2014 season, it never happened and they just couldnt overcome all the obstacles along the way, including Ben doing next to nothing. He has to learn from this experience and have a strong, bold Off Season.

ruckus16969
08-18-2014, 09:43 PM
I have no idea what you're trying to say, what point you're making.
I have been a fan since apprx. 1970, so nearly as long as you. But that has little bearing on this discussion.
If you're ok with the Sox roller coaster ride over the last few years or so then fine But most fans that understand the difference between a small, medium(what they were when we were young) and large market team also understand that when you have the money, the prospects that the Red Sox have that they should be and remain competitive each and every year w/o another fan saying things like "you should learn to appreciate what we've been givin"..... of course I/we appreciate the Championships, it would be idiotic not to But like I said, this team should be competitive each and every year and they arent by their own doing. Ben himself admitted he didnt do enough this past Winter.
It is far too easy to blame injuries, unproductive players who once were, whatever but if we are to praise their achievements one year, applaud the GM one year, then the next year that they fail they deserve the opposite, they deserve to be judged. They are Not a Small or even a Medium market team, they are a Large market team, there is No excuse for failing 2 of the last 3 years. The 2013 Championship was fantastic but that is in the past and the team needed to have more added to it for the 2014 season, it never happened and they just couldnt overcome all the obstacles along the way, including Ben doing next to nothing. He has to learn from this experience and have a strong, bold Off Season.

I have to somewhat agree. We lost Ellsbury and didn't even try to replace him. We banked completely on JBJ an in proven rookie. Then we basically let Drew go for the same reason. (I can almost let that go) we didn't add any SPing after Dempster left I could have lived with and we didn't address our need for an upgrade at the corner outfield position. I could have lived with one or 2 of these but not it all. Iim not a pink hat fan but I think we need to field a competitive team year in and year out.

I would have liked us to sign Cruz. Trade for SPing help and possibly added a platoon type bat for center field to play with JBJ

willyssox
08-18-2014, 09:49 PM
I agree. I have mentioned Cruz several times in other posts. David Ortiz himself said he went to management and begged them to sign his friend Cruz, who has crushed many a HR this year and signed for cheap. Ben made multiple mistakes and then after realizing he made mistakes did nothing to improve the team, then decided to trade a big chunk of the team away. He's a young & learning GM so I'll give him a bit of a pass but if he screws up this coming off season I'll be all over him for gross misconduct....

bagwell368
08-19-2014, 06:16 AM
I have no idea what you're trying to say, what point you're making.
I have been a fan since apprx. 1970, so nearly as long as you. But that has little bearing on this discussion.
If you're ok with the Sox roller coaster ride over the last few years or so then fine But most fans that understand the difference between a small, medium(what they were when we were young) and large market team also understand that when you have the money, the prospects that the Red Sox have that they should be and remain competitive each and every year w/o another fan saying things like "you should learn to appreciate what we've been givin".....

Our specs are over hyped in general. Since the big wave of 2006-08 it's been drier. We've done the job with FA's, a few trades, and retaining parts of the old core.

The game and rosters are cyclical. The Yanks have a bigger budget then we do, how have they been doing since 2003? I can't think of a big budget team that's always in it every year. Injuries, aging, bad signings, etc. all crop up and change the mix.


But like I said, this team should be competitive each and every year and they arent by their own doing.

So nobody else can do it IRL, but we must - why? Because of your warped expectations?


It is far too easy to blame injuries, unproductive players who once were...

Blame? Not blame - understand. Any clown can blame. We have a poster here that only comes out of the woodwork when something went wrong, and there is no insight, just a snarky comment. Are the Sox perfect? Not as long as LL puts his mitts on BC's activities including his moronic "effort" with Lester. Room for improvement? Always. Room for ridiculous and unattainable goals? Not for me. Did you ever stop to think that the AL East has other teams in it that are trying to maximize win totals and that the Sox team and effort is not in a vacuum?


there is No excuse for failing 2 of the last 3 years.

In your mind maybe. 2012 had a great deal to do with the Manager and the Coaches. BC didn't want that Mgr. - don't blame him.


The 2013 Championship was fantastic but that is in the past and the team needed to have more added to it for the 2014 season, it never happened and they just couldnt overcome all the obstacles along the way, including Ben doing next to nothing. He has to learn from this experience and have a strong, bold Off Season.

More money added to the 2014 wasn't going to assure any more wins. Quite a few FA's were flameouts. Anyone that thinks BC is in sole control of his actions isn't paying enough attention.

bagwell368
08-19-2014, 06:29 AM
I have to somewhat agree. We lost Ellsbury and didn't even try to replace him.

We didn't? The scouts and coachs reported that JBJ was ready - not be Ellsbury, but to be a far better defender, and a decent hitter - perhaps about 4.5 rWAR is what they figured. As with judgement calls, human beings, and a tough activity like baseball it didn't work out.

I myself wanted a RHH CF to take pressure off of JBJ, but, we didn't get one. The best one was given a starting job, the others were probably judged as not good values and then we got our other answer in Sizemore. If that move worked, everyone would be extolling BC as brilliant.


We banked completely on JBJ an in proven rookie. Then we basically let Drew go for the same reason. (I can almost let that go) we didn't add any SPing after Dempster left I could have lived with and we didn't address our need for an upgrade at the corner outfield position. I could have lived with one or 2 of these but not it all. Iim not a pink hat fan but I think we need to field a competitive team year in and year out.

You forgot Sizemore (who proved he was only a LF at this stage anyhow - but he looked fine in ST). Let Drew go? Drew refused the QO, then came back late with no S/T - blame the agent for that brain fart.

This teams pitching was just fine, any addition of a SP would have cost a great deal and moved someone off that was probably better anyhow (not counting Buchholz).


I would have liked us to sign Cruz. Trade for SPing help and possibly added a platoon type bat for center field to play with JBJ

What SP? Where was Cruz going to play? RF? So, sit down/trade SV because you knew in advance he was going to be hurt? LF? Sit/deal Nava off of that season? None of those guys including SV could be credible CF's in '14.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 11:26 AM
Its not just the money. When you have someone like Larry Lucchino spiuting off about how much smarter they are then the Yankees and how they figured out you dont have to give out long term contracts to win, on and on, Yes I/we should expect them to Win each n every year. Perhaps you're content to settle for less, to give them free passes when they fail but I am not. I watched years and years of mediocre to poor teams because management either wouldnt spend or wouldnt retain a proven player. Then this management group came along, had money, spent money, drafted well, developed well...then all of a sudden they made some poor choices and completely changed their philosophy. Now they rush prospects through the system to save money, they dont sign players past 3 years (minus Pedroia) and the team is suffering. Im not happy about this and no amount of sugar you through on it will make it any sweeter, excuses are just that, excuses, useless.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 11:34 AM
Dont blame him for agreeing with me. The Sox knew that JBjr wasnt anything like Ellsbury, not sure where youre getting your info but people saw enough of Jackie's ups and downs to know he was no replacement for Ells. Ben talked about acquiring a RH bat to compliment Jackie but never got him.
As for Cruz, he wouldve played Left field, not Right. Gomes should never have been signed to a 2 year contract, he had a long history of playing 1 year here & there. But regardless of his contract he couldve been traded. The Sox would be much higher in the division if they had signed Cruz per Papi's request but what does he/we know?
Sizemore should never have been signed, why is a large market team signing reclamation projects?
As for Drew, Blame Boras? You have got to be kidding me. There were no offers for Drew, no one wanted to spend the money then Ben or someone in the Red Sox organization thought it a good idea to bring a player back that had no Spring Training, thats on them not Boras.

RaginRondo17
08-19-2014, 12:53 PM
Drew was tied to a pick that is why no wanted to sign him, Boras overestimated his market and cost him what could of been a long term contract, he was still a free agent, we were scuffling, how exactly is that Cherrington's fault? He offered him a QO in the off-season, we wanted him back then.

Ortiz wanted Cruz? Well Cruz has to want to play in Boston as well, and he was coming off a PED suspension. Hindsight is always 20/20 and the moves we should of made in the off-season are always a lot more clear at the end of the year. Cherrington stuck to his game plan and didn't hand out any long term deals that would cripple us. We have money to spend in the off-season, prospects who could/can fill some holes on team friendly deals. Can't win them all.

ruckus16969
08-19-2014, 12:54 PM
Dont blame him for agreeing with me. The Sox knew that JBjr wasnt anything like Ellsbury, not sure where youre getting your info but people saw enough of Jackie's ups and downs to know he was no replacement for Ells. Ben talked about acquiring a RH bat to compliment Jackie but never got him.
As for Cruz, he wouldve played Left field, not Right. Gomes should never have been signed to a 2 year contract, he had a long history of playing 1 year here & there. But regardless of his contract he couldve been traded. The Sox would be much higher in the division if they had signed Cruz per Papi's request but what does he/we know?
Sizemore should never have been signed, why is a large market team signing reclamation projects?
As for Drew, Blame Boras? You have got to be kidding me. There were no offers for Drew, no one wanted to spend the money then Ben or someone in the Red Sox organization thought it a govod idea to bring a player back that had no Spring Training, thats on them not Boras.

Actually couldn't say this any better my self honestly.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 01:09 PM
You arent understanding how a Qualifying offer works if you think the Red Sox actually wanted Drew back all along. It is a formality that teams use to get compensation for a player, it has nothing to do with wanting a player back or not. After the season began & they struggled (and it was clear they werent getting a comp- pick) they thought Drew's bat would help them to win but severly underestimated the affect not having a Spring Training would have on a player.
Wanting Cruz isnt hindsight if you've been talking about it, like Ortiz did, since the Off Season. Dont be afraid to give a poster or two some credit for picking a player that happened to have a good HR year.
Cherington (1 R) severly underestimated what it would take to win this year and he eventually admitted it. There is no way to sugar coat it now, no way to make up excuses, he owned up to his short comings so we should respect that and stop making excuses....
As for what they can do going forward, of course they have money but what indication do we or anyone have that they will waiver from this ridiculous philosophy that you dont give long term contracts to anyone not named Pedroia. The Free Agent market this Winter is rather poor and there will be a number of teams bidding on very few good players. I/we have little assurance that the Sox will sign a player looking for more than 3 years. That would leave players like Lester, Scherzer, Sandoval, all good players they really should add out of the equation and the Sox no better off next year then this year.

RedSoxtober
08-19-2014, 03:01 PM
willysox, I don't have any problem with you having very high expectations of the Sox but I'm going to take exception with some of the specific statements here...


Now they rush prospects through the system to save money, they dont sign players past 3 years (minus Pedroia) and the team is suffering. Im not happy about this and no amount of sugar you through on it will make it any sweeter, excuses are just that, excuses, useless.
I think most of this is pretty far off base. What prospects have been "rushed"?
Last spring about 80% of Sox fans were calling for JBJ to make the team out of ST. He struggled and went back to PAW and hit .275/.374/.469 there. What was left to prove in the minors when his calling card was his glove?
Bogaerts had a nearly identical line to JBJ in PAW (.284/.369/.453) and showed tremendous poise in the greatest possible pressure moment in MLB. Was there any serious question that he'd at least be adequate with the bat as a SS? Granted he'd need to be a bit above average to make up for his fielding but he surely looked to be an MLB-ready bat.
Middlebrooks hit pretty well in his debut and basically nothing since. He was slated to start his third MLB season for the Sox as a 3B. Two seasons at MLB with a smattering of success doesn't suggest he was rushed (he's just bad).

I can't think of any reasonable argument about any other young player who might be considered a "rushed" prospect. Certainly there are very young pitchers in the rotation but their presence has to do with gaining experience now that the wheels are off the bus.


Dont blame him for agreeing with me. The Sox knew that JBjr wasnt anything like Ellsbury, not sure where youre getting your info but people saw enough of Jackie's ups and downs to know he was no replacement for Ells. Ben talked about acquiring a RH bat to compliment Jackie but never got him.
It'd be nice to have some source to back you up when you broadly refer to "people" who knew JBJ was or was not anything in particular. I'm sure that no one thought that JBJ was Ellsbury. Their skill sets are VERY different. That, however, does not mean that he was not Ellsbury's replacement. He was the player to replace Ellsbury but getting some of that offensive production was going to require pushing offense around the lineup. Let's be realistic: there's no one with Ellsbury's 2013 SB success (though his bat was hardly irreplaceable and this year it's back down).


As for Cruz, he wouldve played Left field, not Right. Gomes should never have been signed to a 2 year contract, he had a long history of playing 1 year here & there. But regardless of his contract he couldve been traded. The Sox would be much higher in the division if they had signed Cruz per Papi's request but what does he/we know?
Cruz has a 2.5WAR while the Sox trail fourth place TBR by 5 games and third place TOR by 7.5. Doesn't look like Cruz would have made as much impact as you think, especially with the rest of the OF underperforming to historic levels.


There were no offers for Drew, no one wanted to spend the money then Ben or someone in the Red Sox organization thought it a good idea to bring a player back that had no Spring Training, thats on them not Boras.
Suggesting that there were not offers for Drew is silly. DET has WS aspirations and has slunk by with two guys who underperformed Drew offensively at SS while also being defensively weaker. He had offers but none that Boras wanted public.


You arent understanding how a Qualifying offer works if you think the Red Sox actually wanted Drew back all along. It is a formality that teams use to get compensation for a player, it has nothing to do with wanting a player back or not. After the season began & they struggled (and it was clear they werent getting a comp- pick) they thought Drew's bat would help them to win but severly underestimated the affect not having a Spring Training would have on a player.
Um, at $14M this is no longer just a formality. The QO is now high enough that teams think carefully about whether or not to extend the offer. In many cases players are willing to take the one year deal that is required by the offer because it's far more in AAV than they'll get via FA. If your assertion were true then we'd have Salty behind the plate.

In fact, the QO system was designed to END the formalities of extending an offer to get a pick. It took a year to really take hold but it's no longer a carte blanche to a draft pick.

The Sox were on record at the start of the offseason saying that they'd be quite happy to take back Drew on the 1yr offer and either let Bogaerts work out at 3B or stay at SS in PAW. It was not simply a formality.


Cherington (1 R) severly underestimated what it would take to win this year and he eventually admitted it. There is no way to sugar coat it now, no way to make up excuses, he owned up to his short comings so we should respect that and stop making excuses....
He accepted responsibility for the poor play because it's his responsibility. Good for him. However, I'd love to have seen your predictions for the Sox in December. I'd defy almost anyone to have come close to predicting the level of decline we've seen across the board.


As for what they can do going forward, of course they have money but what indication do we or anyone have that they will waiver from this ridiculous philosophy that you dont give long term contracts to anyone not named Pedroia. The Free Agent market this Winter is rather poor and there will be a number of teams bidding on very few good players. I/we have little assurance that the Sox will sign a player looking for more than 3 years. That would leave players like Lester, Scherzer, Sandoval, all good players they really should add out of the equation and the Sox no better off next year then this year.
They don't have a philosophy against giving out contracts longer than 3yrs. They have a philosophy against giving out long term (5yrs or longer) contracts to players and that goes back at least a decade. They broke it and got burned so now they're returning to their core beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with maintaining roster flexibility and their high payroll better equips them to do it (their approach has been to offer higher AAV over fewer years). In the end you probably differ more with the WHO than the HOW.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 04:04 PM
If you cant see how their rushing prospects then I cant help you. Look at their plate appearances vs previous players.
As far as backing up something I say. I asked you to back something up first but you didnt, now you want to turn it around on me? How nice
You couldnt be more wrong about Drew, apparently you believed all the BS that Boras was slinging. There was no one or he wouldve been signed. The Yanks & Tigers had already lost their top picks, they had little to lose but money and yet they still didnt go after Drew.
You are also misguided about the long term contracts. They didnt get burned on any of their long term contracts, they got burned choosing the wrong players period. And it didnt go back a decade, did you forget about Lackey? It's only been the last 2 years that they havent given out any deals longer than 3 years, look it up.
These short term contracts, rushing prospects, believing in Bill James and his out of this World projections are why the Sox have failed this year and will continue to fail unless they make some changes.

ruckus16969
08-19-2014, 06:54 PM
Look we suck and we are gonna get a great draft pick for. Just hope they spend some money and field a competitive team next year

willyssox
08-19-2014, 07:01 PM
Thats what every good Red Sox fan hopes for BUT with their new philosophy of no long term contracts they pigeon hole themselves, something has to give or theyll live in the land of mediocrity for a long time.

bagwell368
08-19-2014, 09:21 PM
Yes I/we should expect them to Win each n every year. Perhaps you're content to settle for less, to give them free passes when they fail but I am not.

You're take on it is too global IMO. Miss the playoffs by a game = season sucks NO MATTER WHAT.

My take is not matter how good or bad a season is in total, within it are many choices and many grades - including coaches, minor league output etc. I'm an analyzer, and a critic, but, season wide results also have to fit into a longer span as well. I'll never believe the Sox have to be in the playoffs every year and that failure to do so is an automatic failing grade. That isn't analysis. That's 70's era Sox fan griping.


I watched years and years of mediocre to poor teams because management either wouldnt spend or wouldnt retain a proven player. Then this management group came along, had money, spent money, drafted well, developed well...then all of a sudden they made some poor choices and completely changed their philosophy. Now they rush prospects through the system to save money, they dont sign players past 3 years (minus Pedroia) and the team is suffering. Im not happy about this and no amount of sugar you through on it will make it any sweeter, excuses are just that, excuses, useless.

And judgement without insight is not for me.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 09:26 PM
I dont believe I said anything about the Playoffs. I said they should be competitive each & every year. That means a above .500 team, hopefully with a chance at the Wild card each year given the new format.

bagwell368
08-19-2014, 09:30 PM
Dont blame him for agreeing with me.

I wrote my post to that poster, if I wanted to address you I would have.


The Sox knew that JBjr wasnt anything like Ellsbury, not sure where youre getting your info

Never said he was - show me where I did. JBJ is a much better fielder than Ells, certainly not the basebrunner or hitter but the Sox figured he could be good for 1.0-1.5 oWAR this year, it wasn't ridiculous to think so.


As for Cruz, he wouldve played Left field, not Right. Gomes should never have been signed to a 2 year contract, he had a long history of playing 1 year here & there. But regardless of his contract he couldve been traded. The Sox would be much higher in the division if they had signed Cruz per Papi's request but what does he/we know?
Sizemore should never have been signed, why is a large market team signing reclamation projects?
As for Drew, Blame Boras? You have got to be kidding me. There were no offers for Drew, no one wanted to spend the money then Ben or someone in the Red Sox organization thought it a good idea to bring a player back that had no Spring Training, thats on them not Boras.

Not a fan of Gomes or the original deal. Cruz isn't a simple case of just signing the guy BTW, and NO way the Sox are in the race with no Gomes and Cruz on board. Retire that idea.

Sizemore had a good try out. It didn't hurt to sign him, it hurt that it stopped them from getting a RHH to platoon in CF however.

It's on Boras for not taking the QO. Drew's year has hurt his future value, that's his job. If WMV hadn't been hurt the Sox would not have signed Drew.

bagwell368
08-19-2014, 09:39 PM
You arent understanding how a Qualifying offer works if you think the Red Sox actually wanted Drew back all along. It is a formality that teams use to get compensation for a player, it has nothing to do with wanting a player back or not.

BS. A team has to calibrate in the chance that a player will sign. Of all the QO cases I can think of, Drew was probably the closest to an acceptance - and would have been if I was his agent.


After the season began & they struggled (and it was clear they werent getting a comp- pick) they thought Drew's bat would help them to win but severly underestimated the affect not having a Spring Training would have on a player.

WMB's failure is why Drew was signed.


Wanting Cruz isnt hindsight if you've been talking about it, like Ortiz did, since the Off Season.

Ortiz isn't the GM. He's said all sort of stupid things over the years, is this the do what Ortiz wants way of running the Sox? Will the official scorer give him more RBI's because he's the defacto GM? Will Ortiz get a 27 year contract as a player - because he wants it?

willyssox
08-19-2014, 10:32 PM
Look up JBjr's WAR right now, despite not being able to hit he has that WAR right now, so thats of little comfort. Please refer to Bill James's projections for JBjr, WMB & Bogaerts. All off the charts and beyond wrong.
As for Cruz, do you know how many Doubles & HR's he has this year? Of course he would have helped, please, thats just a ridiculuos statement. And he wouldnt have been the only guy I would have added.

Bo Sox Fan
08-19-2014, 10:52 PM
Cruz would have cost us a draft pick if I remember correctly, and is that not against the Sox new philosophy? Especially on a lousy 1 year deal?

As for Bradley and Bogaerts, they both got there feet wet at the ML level in 2013. Perhaps they are both suffering from a pre sophomore slump? I still want to see what they can do with a full 2015 season under their belt. Bill James predictions might actually be accurate, but he may have jumped the gun 1 year to soon.

willyssox
08-19-2014, 10:59 PM
I dont think you can spin Bill James's horrible projections any other way, they were miles off. I question how well prepared some of these young players are, they appeared "rushed" to me, with less plate appearances then some of the former prospects. Other than Ellsbury & Pedroia, what positional players have the Red Sox really developed that have had an impact on their team? >Answer, little to none.
Yes Cruz wouldve cost a pick but when you dont have power in your OF, what else are you to do? Sizemore certainly wasnt going to fill the whole. And he may have signed (very late signing by the way) for 1 year but that doesnt mean the Sox couldnt have signed him for 2-3 years, we'll never know because they whiffed & now he's providing some great numbers for our competition who happens to be way ahead of us.

bagwell368
08-20-2014, 05:35 AM
Look up JBjr's WAR right now, despite not being able to hit he has that WAR right now, so thats of little comfort. Please refer to Bill James's projections for JBjr, WMB & Bogaerts. All off the charts and beyond wrong.
As for Cruz, do you know how many Doubles & HR's he has this year? Of course he would have helped, please, thats just a ridiculuos statement. And he wouldnt have been the only guy I would have added.

I'm no fan of James' projections and haven't been all along.

Being a GM you have to make your own projections. If a guy is hurt, or doesn't perform it's an issue, if several don't it's a bigger issue. It was obvious JBJ wasn't going to match Ellsbury's WAR from last year, the question was, would he have a high enough percentage of it not to hurt. One thing is also clear - no way the Sox should have outbid the Yanks for Ellsbury.

I know what Cruz has done this year, and I never said he wouldn't have helped, I said the Sox wouldn't be in the playoff picture by simply adding him.

RedSoxtober
08-20-2014, 08:42 AM
If you cant see how their rushing prospects then I cant help you. Look at their plate appearances vs previous players.
I guess Mike Trout was rushed. He had roughly 300 PA fewer than Bogaerts. Or maybe the number of plate appearances a player has in the minors is the wrong measuring stick for determining if a player is ready. If you cannot see that promotions are based on evaluations that don't always translate to the box score then I can't help you.


As far as backing up something I say. I asked you to back something up first but you didnt, now you want to turn it around on me? How nice
If you'll remind me what I missed then I'd be glad to substantiate it with a quote or link.


You couldnt be more wrong about Drew, apparently you believed all the BS that Boras was slinging. There was no one or he wouldve been signed. The Yanks & Tigers had already lost their top picks, they had little to lose but money and yet they still didnt go after Drew.
The Tigers didn't go after Drew INITIALLY because they were quite happy with Iglesias. He was lost towards the end of ST (March 20 to be exact) and they were not initially certain that he'd miss the season. Having opted to go with Kinsler at 2B they opted to try to fill the via trading for Austin Romine. By the time Drew signed (May 21) Romine's slash had nearly bottomed out at .176/.256/.192 and he lost his starting job at roughly the same time that Stephen Drew made his MLB debut. Over the same two-week time period the Tigers watched their lead on the AL Central shrink and their run differential cut in half. That's the context in which Drew was signed. I'm sorry you cannot understand that the Tigers were involved with Drew given the evolving situation during the season.


You are also misguided about the long term contracts. They didnt get burned on any of their long term contracts, they got burned choosing the wrong players period. And it didnt go back a decade, did you forget about Lackey? It's only been the last 2 years that they havent given out any deals longer than 3 years, look it up.
I'm not misguided about the Red Sox policies. They were very public about their policy of deals for 4yrs or less during the early years of the Epstein FO. It was probably more accurately described as 4yrs or less for players on the FA market. It was discussed and debated quite a bit here because the "going rate" for top tier players was increasingly dictated by the length of the contract and seen by many as a weakness in the Sox approach to the market (as it is apparently again). They caved to the market and departed from the policy for an handful of players (Crawford, Gonzlaez, Lackey) and ran into the kinds of problems which the policy was intended to guard against. As a result they began following the policy more strictly. The Victorino and initial Napoli deal were partly a reflection of their return to first principles and partly a reflection of their expectations of the farm system.


These short term contracts, rushing prospects, believing in Bill James and his out of this World projections are why the Sox have failed this year and will continue to fail unless they make some changes.

The short term contracts have nothing to do with the failures. I'm not sure where you're getting that; what player or players would YOU have signed to a long term deal this offseason? Ellsbury? His .270/.340/.400 with 32 SB would hardly seem worth the $22M/yr AAV. Maybe his replacement was Choo (.243/.341/.372 for $130M/7yr)... nope. Cruz? You've made a lot about him but his impact would not have made that much difference with the entire team struggling to hit. Judging by the $8M/1yr deal he got I don't think the market agreed with you much either. I'm not sad they "missed" on a PED guy either. Who else might they have missed? The reality is that last year's market, much like this year's, was very weak for addressing their needs.

And again, I think the "rushing players" argument is :bs:. Bradley is roughly 10% below more realistic projections than James; Xander is about 25% below. These players were expected to be challenged in their MLB debut but still make an impact. They were clearly expected to be MLB quality players by many people around the game. You're simply looking in the rearview mirror their struggles and insisting that you knew better.

willyssox
08-20-2014, 11:44 AM
I agree about Ells, I wouldnt have paid him what the Yanks are.
As for Cruz, like Ive said he wouldnt have been the only addition I made last Winter.
Something has to change with the Sox, either they need to loosen their stance on long term contracts or better prepare their prospects, IE more at bats....because throwin prospects in spots, not adding a good veteran bat for protection just doesnt work.

bagwell368
08-20-2014, 05:21 PM
I agree about Ells, I wouldnt have paid him what the Yanks are.
As for Cruz, like Ive said he wouldnt have been the only addition I made last Winter.
Something has to change with the Sox, either they need to loosen their stance on long term contracts or better prepare their prospects, IE more at bats....because throwin prospects in spots, not adding a good veteran bat for protection just doesnt work.

Letting Lester "get away" in the spring is something I've brutalized them for. Sometimes smart guys out think themselves... the owners should get back in gear about budgeting soon, starting with the current Cuban phenom.

willyssox
08-20-2014, 05:36 PM
Depends on what you mean by "budgeting". Only giving out short term contracts has a ripple affect. It impacts more things then people realize. And Im not talking about just throwing good money after bad. They need to pay for top pitchers, even overpay. Same with a top Power bat(s). And whenever they introduce a rookie player they either need a veteran platoon partner to lessen the stress on the Rookie and compensate for whatever the Rookie cant provide, this could be a short term contract. Without these things they will continue to pigeon hole themselves with these short term contracts. It isnt about the money, its about finding the right player. Signing a Miggy, a Stanton, a Lester... to long term contracts would be a good thing, not a bad thing like they seem to think. Signing players like Carl Crawford to huge contracts is something they should forever avoid.

bagwell368
08-20-2014, 09:10 PM
Depends on what you mean by "budgeting". Only giving out short term contracts has a ripple affect. It impacts more things then people realize. And Im not talking about just throwing good money after bad. They need to pay for top pitchers, even overpay. Same with a top Power bat(s). And whenever they introduce a rookie player they either need a veteran platoon partner to lessen the stress on the Rookie and compensate for whatever the Rookie cant provide, this could be a short term contract. Without these things they will continue to pigeon hole themselves with these short term contracts. It isnt about the money, its about finding the right player. Signing a Miggy, a Stanton, a Lester... to long term contracts would be a good thing, not a bad thing like they seem to think. Signing players like Carl Crawford to huge contracts is something they should forever avoid.

This short term contract idea of the Sox is quite new to them. If it doesn't work, then I assume as smart business men who value the long term and short term outlook and value of their team I expect that they will change.

I don't like the Yanks model here, we don't have the money, and it's not sustaining itself at all well. I expect lots of money on development/drafting, FA and trades where there are holes. I expect occasional mistakes, and sometimes more of those coupling with things like injury. Like any normal system with motivated opponents, some years the results won't be very good. '13 makes the sag between '10 and '14 (304-307 not inc. '13) a lot more takeable.

Now a 80-82 next year won't irritate me as long as it looks like they are going to give us a strong stretch in '16-'20.

Greenmonster24
08-20-2014, 10:32 PM
You got to hand out longer then 3 years. They gave dice K 6 years and drew 5 years and lugo 4 in one offseason and won World Series the next year. I think Texas is happy with Beltra 5 year deal and Martinez doing well for tigers. Short term deals have also sucked for our team under theo. Not his fault but clement and renteria and jerks and smolts and brad Penny and doesn't include misses like texierra. You make it seem like before Crawford and Gonzales we never did. Those 2 are only ones over 20 million annually. I think Stanton like manny is a good exception as they knock I'm over 150 RBIs and role players like Beltra and Lowell and JD Drew and Napoli and varitek you can give up to 5 years and try fill rookies around them with 1 or 2 big bats. Manny and Ortiz was the reason we were always near top in runs scored all those years.

willyssox
08-20-2014, 11:25 PM
>>You make it seem like before Crawford and Gonzales we never did.<<

I make it seem? I could list every player and their contract but what's the point? Crawford was an easy, quick example of giving a less than AllStar player a huge contract.
I want them to be "Smart" with contracts but not shy away from spending big on the "right" players.

BostonSports96
08-21-2014, 06:59 PM
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11389687/boston-red-sox-detroit-tigers-front-runners-add-cuban-rusney-castillo-according-sources

Sox, Tigers in lead for Castillo

Poll: who where thinks a 5 yr/50-60 mill deal is worth the risk for Castillo?

ruckus16969
08-21-2014, 08:00 PM
I do. I'd take a shot on him. I'd actually try to stretch it out to 6 or 7 years at 60/65. To make it less money annually

willyssox
08-21-2014, 09:53 PM
Castillo's biggest attribute is his speed, typically you dont give speed guys contracts to far past 32 years old, so a 5 year deal would great. The yearly money doesnt matter to the Sox, they have tons of money.

xnick5757
08-21-2014, 11:05 PM
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11389687/boston-red-sox-detroit-tigers-front-runners-add-cuban-rusney-castillo-according-sources

Sox, Tigers in lead for Castillo

Poll: who where thinks a 5 yr/50-60 mill deal is worth the risk for Castillo?


with the way the market is going, a 5 yr 50 million deal isn't really that risky at all. He basically has to play at league average/slightly below league average to earn that contract

bagwell368
09-05-2014, 05:13 AM
Speaking of aces, maybe the Sox will awaken from their stupor on Koji now. The idea that a retooling team has the space and need of an ancient closer as opposed to dealing him at the deadline has proven to be a mistake.

The closer role can be filled by any number of wannabes in the system and the bulk of the money can be used to actually make a strong bid for Lester. I mean what's six years for a guy in his early 30's that is maybe the single most carefully used SP to debut since he came up (in his range of innings) in all of MLB - compared to going year by year with a slightly built 40+ year old closer?

Not every post 30 year old SP is a piece of toast in his 30's. Obviously if he was 3 years younger he'd be a "safer" bet per actuarial tables. He'd also cost perhaps $28-29M per.

RaginRondo17
09-05-2014, 08:05 AM
Matt Barnes:
7 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 6 SO, 0 BB

Garin Cecchini:
4-4 with a triple

willyssox
09-05-2014, 11:45 AM
>>This short term contract idea of the Sox is quite new to them.<<

It's funny that you say that, I was basically saying the same thing but RedSoxtober disagreed with me saying theyve had that policy all along, to which I completely disagree. He also fails to see that when you only give out short term contracts you pigeon hole yourself. A for instance would be, Stanton, Trout, Kershaw are let's say 28 years old & a free agent, you wont get them on a short term contract, you can only get them for at least 6 years, the Red Sox pass and sign Chris Denorfia(or alike) for 2 years & Matt Garza(or alike) for 2 years, were the Sox smart? I dont think so. It isnt about the length of contract as much as WHO to give or not give that lengthy contract to period.
Then when I said our prospects have been "rushed" which I firmly believe because of the lack of at bats & the lack of facing real adversity, he said no way just look at Trout and his lack of at bats. Which is ridiculous because Trout is a Special player, cant compare him & his fast rise to anyone.

bagwell368
09-05-2014, 01:02 PM
The Sox have used short term deals - usually for aging players, or players that are coming off of poor season(s).

But premium players and long deals? Sure - look at Crawford (gack); Manny;

I don't subscribe in any walk of life a hard set of requirements (outside of thou shall not kill, etc.). I prefer to see what comes up, make logical choices re those issues, and maybe build a small set of guidelines. Notice I didn't say "rules". It's a straight jacket, just like the fatal "30th birthday" line of demarcation.

I guess that means we must obtain Stanton ASAP so he doesn't get too far over the line. What will he get from the Sox when he turns 30? A black birthday card?

Honestly - get some good players in here, and leave the thinking out loud unsaid.

willyssox
09-05-2014, 01:09 PM
I completely agree. They seem to go in 1 direction for a little while until that doesnt work then take an about-face and go in a completely different direction. Perhaps the blind leading the blind, LOL, though its hard to find total fault when they won a Championship in between lousy seasons.
It should be a "Hot Stove" Winter for this team and I cant wait. Besides arms Im hoping for at least 1 lefty bat.

RedSoxtober
09-05-2014, 09:50 PM
>>This short term contract idea of the Sox is quite new to them.<<

It's funny that you say that, I was basically saying the same thing but RedSoxtober disagreed with me saying theyve had that policy all along, to which I completely disagree. He also fails to see that when you only give out short term contracts you pigeon hole yourself. A for instance would be, Stanton, Trout, Kershaw are let's say 28 years old & a free agent, you wont get them on a short term contract, you can only get them for at least 6 years, the Red Sox pass and sign Chris Denorfia(or alike) for 2 years & Matt Garza(or alike) for 2 years, were the Sox smart? I dont think so. It isnt about the length of contract as much as WHO to give or not give that lengthy contract to period.
Then when I said our prospects have been "rushed" which I firmly believe because of the lack of at bats & the lack of facing real adversity, he said no way just look at Trout and his lack of at bats. Which is ridiculous because Trout is a Special player, cant compare him & his fast rise to anyone.

The number of ways that you've misrepresented me here is absolutely ridiculous.


I did point out that the Sox have previously had a "short term" contract policy. That you don't recall it does not make it so. It was widely discussed here when 5-6 year deals were still relatively rare such as when Teixeira signed during the 2008-09 offseason. The reticence to go beyond 4yrs is why they were never serious contenders for Matt Holliday. Their replacement when Pedro left? Matt Clement on a 3yr deal. Their older history is replete with this stuff.
I never said that it was right to target short term deals that "pigeon hole yourself." In fact, I argued that the Sox' policy is not AT ALL what you've represented. Their stance on contracts has everything to do with age and ability. No deal longer than 4yrs for a 30yr old pitcher... could also be not longer than 7yrs for a 27 yr old. The key indicators are ability and the age of decline.
You clearly don't get the example of Mike Trout. You ranted about MiLB PAs as THE measuring stick about players' maturity in MLB. That's ridiculous and the example of Trout shows why: the key for promotions is a set of metrics which sometimes show up in the box scores. Your insistence on exceptions for "special players" proves exactly this.

willyssox
09-05-2014, 10:01 PM
They did Not have a short term policy before most recently, sorry.
I was the one that said this short term crap is pigeon holing them, I never said that you said it.
You dont understand the reference of Mike Trout, he is a "Special" player that Cannot be compared to anyone else. If you look through Red Sox history over lets say the last 10 years or so they have given most of their players more time in the minors, more plate appearances, more starts.... Red Sox reporters have written articles on this same subject.

RedSoxtober
09-08-2014, 10:33 AM
They did Not have a short term policy before most recently, sorry.
I was the one that said this short term crap is pigeon holing them, I never said that you said it.
You dont understand the reference of Mike Trout, he is a "Special" player that Cannot be compared to anyone else. If you look through Red Sox history over lets say the last 10 years or so they have given most of their players more time in the minors, more plate appearances, more starts.... Red Sox reporters have written articles on this same subject.

I understand the reference to Trout perfectly well. The point with Trout is very simple: PAs in the minors is not the only, or even the best, way to determine if a player is rushed through the minors. If it were then there would be no such thing as "special" players. The more you argue for it the more you demonstrate my point.

I'm not remotely suggesting that any of the Sox kids are in the same realm as Trout.

While you didn't attribute the pigeonholing comment to me, you did suggest that I also don't understand the concept.

RedSoxtober
09-08-2014, 05:26 PM
BTW, it looks like Bogaerts struggles at age 21 are more the norm that the exception. Here's a decent reference at bb-ref (http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=JYg8c) provided by weei.com

After last night's game Bogaerts commented on his line-out to RCF on an outside, offspeed pitch. He talked about going with the pitch and his awareness that he'd gone away from that. Is that something he's going to improve while raking in the minors? Or, perhaps, does he need the exposure at MLB to face those conditions?

What about Mookie? He MUST have been rushed since he's got 300+ fewer PA than Xander. Is his 130 OPS+, one that's improved the more regularly he's played, just luck? Not enough to go on? Or is he in the "special" category?

willyssox
09-08-2014, 07:30 PM
There's No need to bash me, bash the writers, radio personalities that have all brought up this very same subject, so it wasnt me who made it up or even originally expressed it.

bagwell368
09-08-2014, 07:45 PM
BTW, it looks like Bogaerts struggles at age 21 are more the norm that the exception. Here's a decent reference at bb-ref (http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=JYg8c) provided by weei.com

After last night's game Bogaerts commented on his line-out to RCF on an outside, offspeed pitch. He talked about going with the pitch and his awareness that he'd gone away from that. Is that something he's going to improve while raking in the minors? Or, perhaps, does he need the exposure at MLB to face those conditions?

What about Mookie? He MUST have been rushed since he's got 300+ fewer PA than Xander. Is his 130 OPS+, one that's improved the more regularly he's played, just luck? Not enough to go on? Or is he in the "special" category?

Xander looked ready in October. We all salivated waiting for him to start the season - anywhere on the Sox. He was living up to expectations through early June.

What was surprising is that once he got exposed:

1. He wasn't able to employ a different strategy fairly quickly
2. We started to wonder if he was just getting 85 MPH BP fastballs in practice, how come potentially the most important spec since perhaps Nomar, Lynn or Rice wasn't tested in-house in every corner case?

So it's not just the ugly collapse of XB (.175/.214/.259) the last 71 games. It's the way the Sox handle their specs at this time. Look at WMB, JBJ (yes not as highly rated), and XB - is it systemic, or just a blip?

Too early to tell. We better all hope it's not a pattern. Betts at this point doesn't have enough PA's (128) to qualify as a counter example. XB's first 238 PA's this year was: .304/.395/.464 (.392 BABIP however) - so maybe that's not another good counter after all.

RedSoxtober
09-10-2014, 11:53 AM
So it's not just the ugly collapse of XB (.175/.214/.259) the last 71 games. It's the way the Sox handle their specs at this time. Look at WMB, JBJ (yes not as highly rated), and XB - is it systemic, or just a blip?
The question at hand has been at what point do you consider them "rushed." I'll suggest that Bogaerts would not have been exposed to the kind of consistent analysis that demonstrated his weakness with soft stuff away. It's also possible that he may not have struggled quite as much in a season when things went more consistently Boston's way (perhaps he's trying too much for both team and personal reasons).

At any rate, he's hitting .357/.372/.595 since returning from the concussion DL. Whether the wayward elbow knocked some sense into him or just provided him the break he needed from the game to clear his head I don't know but he does seem to be re-emerging at the plate. Should he continue this pace through season's end he could post a line along the lines of .255/.310/.390. That'd be disappointing considering the expectations but not that far off from his line last season.


Too early to tell. We better all hope it's not a pattern. Betts at this point doesn't have enough PA's (128) to qualify as a counter example. XB's first 238 PA's this year was: .304/.395/.464 (.392 BABIP however) - so maybe that's not another good counter after all.

Betts, however, has continued to display his great eye at the plate. He's got 13K/20BB overall and 12/15 since getting to play everyday starting in mid-August. It's worth noting that his daily place in the lineup has come when 16/21 games were against teams pressing for the playoffs so he's not facing an ST-like pitching group. The k/bb metric, to me, suggests that he's not been "rushed" to MLB. His .313/.402/.513 line since mid-August also has him positioned to be in a very small class of players (19) who finished a season with 200+ PA and an OPS over 800 at his age. While much is comprised of HOF and All Star (but not HOF) names, not everyone "made it" ... but none of them regressed to the minors either. I'm not suggesting a future of greatness but the "rushed" label does not seem to apply.

The classic "rushed to MLB" example was Hansen, of course. We made a determination on him much more quickly than you suggest possible with Betts so I'll simply agree to disagree as to whether or not we can make him a counter example.

willyssox
09-10-2014, 02:44 PM
Whenever I bring up a player being "rushed" I get a heaping of grief. I like the way some people on here have broken things down but I dont like comparing one prospect to another. The Sox used to have a system that was very "systematic" for lack of a better word. They wanted each hitter to have X number of plate appearances in each level before promoting and now it seems they rely on the player to tell them when to promote him; IE if Joe Blow hits .320 for a couple or a few months then he must be ready for a promotion. The problem with that approach vs leaving a player in said league for X number of plate appearances is that they most likely wont face adversity. For me that adversity is a vital step in their progression. If they never face any adversity in the Minors, get promoted to the Majors, face their toughest test, suddenly face adversity they have never seen before, then how can we expect them to do anything but struggle?
As for references to Betts, he faced some adversity in Single A Lowell. Also, I dont think its fare to compare what he has done in 35 games & 121 AB's to a full season of Xander Bogaerts who has faced adversity for the first time. I think what we all need to do is just sit back, watch and wait. Not every prospect, regardless of how highly their ranked, makes it as a Pro-, we may end up with one or two of those unfortunately but it is what it is.

RedSoxtober
09-11-2014, 09:14 AM
Whenever I bring up a player being "rushed" I get a heaping of grief. I like the way some people on here have broken things down but I dont like comparing one prospect to another. The Sox used to have a system that was very "systematic" for lack of a better word. They wanted each hitter to have X number of plate appearances in each level before promoting and now it seems they rely on the player to tell them when to promote him; IE if Joe Blow hits .320 for a couple or a few months then he must be ready for a promotion.

This is categorically false. The Sox did indeed have an extremely systematic approach to the development of prospects. The system, however, was not at all connected to PAs. The system outlined very specific metrics to be addressed at each level of the organization. I use the word metrics a bit loosely because I am sure that some of the measurements are more subjective "eye test" evaluations. The system was the backbone of what Epstein once described as a "$100M player development machine" and it was collected into "The Book". Each prospect in the system got a copy of it so that they knew what was expected of them to advance; they also got an individual assessment so that they knew what specifics needed their attention at that level.

"The Book" helped produce many of the guys we look back to as being part of the championship core like Youk, Pedroia, Buchholz, and to a lesser extent Lester.

And The Book was written by Ben Cherrington.

willyssox
09-11-2014, 11:49 AM
It's Cherington, with 1 R.
Id like to see this "book" that you refer to & within this book I'm sure you'd find a specific amount of time that needed to be spent, either overall or per level, as I know for a fact it existed. You can see this in their history with older players, that has since been ignored and like Ive said, I am Not the first person that has talked about or written about this. Check with some of the Boston & RI writers that write about the Sox (theyve even talked about it at length on the radio show Felger & Mazz, give them a call), most of them have written about the changes in how they handle prospects.
I will say it again, if a prospect doesnt go through adversity while he is coming up through the system, then he may not be able to handle the definite adversity he will receive in the MLB. Between that and not having enough total at bats slows the players growth.

bagwell368
09-11-2014, 07:29 PM
The question at hand has been at what point do you consider them "rushed." I'll suggest that Bogaerts would not have been exposed to the kind of consistent analysis that demonstrated his weakness with soft stuff away. It's also possible that he may not have struggled quite as much in a season when things went more consistently Boston's way (perhaps he's trying too much for both team and personal reasons).

At any rate, he's hitting .357/.372/.595 since returning from the concussion DL.

Since Aug 30th he's hitting: .386/.400/.705 - but he's got a .412 BABIP as well. I wish he had a couple of more BB's.


Betts, however, has continued to display his great eye at the plate. He's got 13K/20BB overall and 12/15 since getting to play everyday starting in mid-August. It's worth noting that his daily place in the lineup has come when 16/21 games were against teams pressing for the playoffs so he's not facing an ST-like pitching group. The k/bb metric, to me, suggests that he's not been "rushed" to MLB. His .313/.402/.513 line since mid-August also has him positioned to be in a very small class of players (19) who finished a season with 200+ PA and an OPS over 800 at his age. While much is comprised of HOF and All Star (but not HOF) names, not everyone "made it" ... but none of them regressed to the minors either. I'm not suggesting a future of greatness but the "rushed" label does not seem to apply.

The classic "rushed to MLB" example was Hansen, of course. We made a determination on him much more quickly than you suggest possible with Betts so I'll simply agree to disagree as to whether or not we can make him a counter example.

Betts has looked good. On second thought I'm glad he didn't get moved to 2B. Just leave him in CF or COF for now. Still there is a showdown for CF/3B/one of COF's - where Betts ends up playing the most in '15?

Too bad they didn't let Pedroia play out the deal and sign Lester instead.

willyssox
09-11-2014, 08:14 PM
I talked with 1 of my writer friends that covers the Sox & he said we should expect Betts to be moved to 2nd base for potentially the rest of the year, especially since both Pedroia & Holt are out.

Soxfan85
09-11-2014, 08:28 PM
@nickcafardo 1m
James Shields is completely focussed on making the playoffs with Royals but he was surpised to hear the Red Sox may be suitor in offseason.

Hmmm

willyssox
09-11-2014, 08:33 PM
And Nick isnt the only Boston reporter who has stated that Shields would be a target of the Sox this off season. I'm kind of torn about this. If he's the #2 SP then great but if they think he'll be their #1, their in for a rude awakening.

Bo Sox Fan
09-11-2014, 09:29 PM
And Nick isnt the only Boston reporter who has stated that Shields would be a target of the Sox this off season. I'm kind of torn about this. If he's the #2 SP then great but if they think he'll be their #1, their in for a rude awakening.

The exact same thing was said about Lester being a "fake ace" going all the way back to 2007. He was clearly our "ace" for the past 6 years despite Red Sox fans not buying it and then all of a sudden... he gets dealt to Oakland and the puppets finally realize what Jon Lester meant to this pitching staff with a massive hole of uncertainty left at the top of the rotation.

There's no pleasing Red Sox fans and I think Shields would be a more than adequate top of the rotation arm to eat plenty of productive innings. Just because his name isn't Kershaw, Hernandez or Sale... Sheeeeesh

I hope there's something we don't know or there is something tight lipped that hasn't been leaked to the media and we bring both Lester and Shields to Boston along with (to a lesser extent) Masterson on the cheap end to fill out the rotation.

willyssox
09-11-2014, 09:46 PM
Going by "Stats" Lester wasnt an Ace til this year. Shields has a long history of play to look at, including AL East time, he is a #2, nothing more. A good replacement for Lackey, another guy that was supposed to be a #1 but never was for us. If Ben can get either Lester back or trade for Cueto & add Shields then theyll have a good 1, 2 punch for next year. If he Only adds Shields or a Shields & Masterson combination then they will be better than this year (not that that is hard) but they wont come close to 2013's numbers. Book it!

Bo Sox Fan
09-11-2014, 10:41 PM
Sidenote:

The price tag to acquire Giancarlo Stanton may have just dropped dramatically tonight, but for all the wrong reasons.

Hope he is ok.

willyssox
09-11-2014, 10:44 PM
It wouldnt surprise me if he ends up with a broken jaw or cheekbone. His value is still very high though : )

bagwell368
09-12-2014, 05:48 AM
Going by "Stats" Lester wasnt an Ace til this year. Shields has a long history of play to look at, including AL East time, he is a #2, nothing more. A good replacement for Lackey, another guy that was supposed to be a #1 but never was for us. If Ben can get either Lester back or trade for Cueto & add Shields then theyll have a good 1, 2 punch for next year. If he Only adds Shields or a Shields & Masterson combination then they will be better than this year (not that that is hard) but they wont come close to 2013's numbers. Book it!

Really? Since he became a regular starter in 2008, including this year, he's been top 10 in rWAR (4th, 5th, 3rd, 9th) and ERA+ (4th, 5th, 6th, 3rd) 4 times each among AL pitchers. Please locate and name how many other AL SP's have matched or exceeded that over these 6 seasons?

By way of comparison, Lackey who has 11 seasons as a SP, has managed 3 rWAR (8th, 8th, 3rd (all before 2008)) & ERA+ (10th, 5th, 1st (all before 2008)) top 10's. He's no match for Lester. Neither is Beckett.

The assertion that he's not an ace isn't backed up by the facts and by comparisons.

bagwell368
09-12-2014, 06:04 AM
I hope there's something we don't know or there is something tight lipped that hasn't been leaked to the media and we bring both Lester and Shields to Boston along with (to a lesser extent) Masterson on the cheap end to fill out the rotation.

Hope is a great thing, perhaps the best of things*

But the possibility of all three? That's what? $58M per for the 3 - minimum... no.

* 'Shank

Soxfan85
09-12-2014, 09:33 AM
GS Has multiple facial fractures and dental damage. Damn! I doubt he will be ready for 2015 maybe late '15.

RedSoxtober
09-12-2014, 10:49 AM
It's Cherington, with 1 R.
Id like to see this "book" that you refer to & within this book I'm sure you'd find a specific amount of time that needed to be spent, either overall or per level, as I know for a fact it existed. You can see this in their history with older players, that has since been ignored and like Ive said, I am Not the first person that has talked about or written about this. Check with some of the Boston & RI writers that write about the Sox (theyve even talked about it at length on the radio show Felger & Mazz, give them a call), most of them have written about the changes in how they handle prospects.

I couldn't care less who has discussed it. The history of past players need mean nothing more than the fact that those players required longer to make adjustments and hit the marks.

As for "The Book", what I described has been discussed in at least two separate articles in the Globe. One of them was a general article on player development and the second was describing Ben's pedigree for the GM post when he was awarded the job. They actually called it The Book in their articles. Since the Globe has moved to a paid subscription for their online articles I can't pull out the specifics but you're free to research it if you doubt what I've described.

Can you tell me how you "know for a fact [a specific metric for games played] existed"? Also, assuming it to be true, whose influenced its existence?

willyssox
09-12-2014, 11:24 AM
WAR is not the best way to judge a pitcher. If you look at the years he's pitched, minus this year, look at ERA, WHIP....compared to other starters, he doesnt rank within the top 15, probably even 20, that isnt an Ace or even a #1 Sp in most cases.

Station 13
09-12-2014, 06:34 PM
@nickcafardo 1m
James Shields is completely focussed on making the playoffs with Royals but he was surpised to hear the Red Sox may be suitor in offseason.

Hmmm

Why would Shields or any FA be surprise to hear something like that?

bagwell368
09-12-2014, 09:48 PM
WAR is not the best way to judge a pitcher. If you look at the years he's pitched, minus this year, look at ERA, WHIP....compared to other starters, he doesnt rank within the top 15, probably even 20, that isnt an Ace or even a #1 Sp in most cases.

ERA? You mean ERA+ or FIP? WHIP is a secondary stat - good for roto ball maybe, but sorry, other stats are as or more important. K/9, K/BB, etc.

Find me 15 or 20 (or 7.5 or 10) SP's that ranked in the top 6 in ERA+ 4 times or more in these six years in the AL and in both leagues.

What 15 or 20? AL only or NL and AL?

I'll assume you won't actually supply these findings?

willyssox
09-12-2014, 10:02 PM
I dont know what youre talking about & thanks for the vote of confidence, stop trying to pick a fight.
I just gave you a crapload of stats for Lester, all from the AL, if I include the NL then Lester will look even worse. Like I said, for a period of time early on he could have been considered a #1 But Never an Ace, look at the pitchers that lead the league during his years. I think why people confuse Lester with the word Ace is because of his shear volume of StrikeOuts each year (and Wins) but ignore how many people he walks, how many Hits & Runs he's given up.
In my mind a true Ace should have a below 3ERA (it can vary from year to year depending on what the best pitchers put up but under 3 is a good qualifier) a solid WHIP, low amount of Walks,...
A good example of an Ace (this year) would be Kershaw, Sale, King Felix, Cueto, Kluber, Lester...

bagwell368
09-12-2014, 10:17 PM
I dont know what youre talking about & thanks for the vote of confidence, stop trying to pick a fight.
I just gave you a crapload of stats for Lester, all from the AL, if I include the NL then Lester will look even worse. Like I said, for a period of time early on he could have been considered a #1 But Never an Ace, look at the pitchers that lead the league during his years. I think why people confuse Lester with the word Ace is because of his shear volume of StrikeOuts each year (and Wins) but ignore how many people he walks, how many Hits & Runs he's given up.
In my mind a true Ace should have a below 3ERA (it can vary from year to year depending on what the best pitchers put up but under 3 is a good qualifier) a solid WHIP, low amount of Walks,...
A good example of an Ace (this year) would be Kershaw, Sale, King Felix, Cueto, Kluber, Lester...

What crapload of stats?

Just took a quick spin through active SP's ERA+ and Lester looks to be around 11th in the entire ML.

Why NL and AL stats should be different only proves you're looking at the wrong things.

Giving up runs in the AL East is quite frequent and no black mark whatever - after adjustment.

Your mind? In most years the NL ERA is from .15-.45 lower then the AL, you mean you don't adjust?

So I'm talking to a guy that uses raw ERA? When the heck was the last time anyone purported to be serious and used raw ERA?

willyssox
09-12-2014, 10:25 PM
I listed a bunch of Lesters stats from 08 to last year, not sure how you missed it, its on here somewhere.
Once again I have no idea what youre talking about when you say this> Why NL and AL stats should be different only proves you're looking at the wrong things.<
I purposedly said I was ONLY looking at the AL & that if I listed the NL too that Lesters stats would look worse. And once again youre trying to pick a fight, stop it right now!
I posted the stats, if you cant find them thats your problem not mine. If you want to talk like a decent human being then let me know otherwise Im done with you and your assumptions and insults.

bagwell368
09-13-2014, 06:22 AM
I listed a bunch of Lesters stats from 08 to last year, not sure how you missed it, its on here somewhere.
Once again I have no idea what youre talking about when you say this> Why NL and AL stats should be different only proves you're looking at the wrong things.<
I purposedly said I was ONLY looking at the AL & that if I listed the NL too that Lesters stats would look worse. And once again youre trying to pick a fight, stop it right now!
I posted the stats, if you cant find them thats your problem not mine. If you want to talk like a decent human being then let me know otherwise Im done with you and your assumptions and insults.

I assumed you meant in the very recent past, not further back, that wasn't specified. Perhaps you could have given a URL or post number. Never mind, I'll make my own list and post that. You can either opine or not.

BTW, what's wrong with WAR for pitching comparisons - in particular over a career?

You seem combative in your own right. Not sure why, "picking a fight" - if that's your term for it is such a big deal. For some reason a fair amount of Red Sox fans claim he isn't a "true ace" or at least a "#1". They tend to stop saying that when faced with the facts.

willyssox
09-13-2014, 11:22 AM
I posted the stats in reply to You & the same day you started to antagonize me.
Its been written about at nauseum how WAR isnt the best or even good stat for pitchers. It seems to me that some of the people on here dont do enough reading.
As for being combative, you created it, watch your tone and people wont get so upset. We come on here to discuss baseball, moves or potential moves not to get backed into a corner and then have to defend themselves. Try learning some people skills, how to carry on a conversation with someone without antagonizing them. There is a good reason why people, including myself never thought of Lester as a Ace before this year, you refuse to believe it, thats your problem not mine. I have the stats, I know how he did & didnt stack up against the league. If you believe in whatever stats your reading then great But youll never convince me so Id drop it.

j-bay
09-13-2014, 08:55 PM
Jon Lester and James Shields? Don’t count on it.
According to a major league source, the Red Sox‘ offseason plan doesn’t include going after two high-priced free agent pitchers. There will be, however, undoubtedly heavy interest from the team when it comes to acquiring one top of the rotation starter.
The idea of the Red Sox going after the likes of multiple top-tier free agent hurlers — such as Lester, Shields, Max Scherzer, or Ervin Santana — has been an intriguing one, especially after Sox chairman Tom Werner stated on Thursday’s Dennis & Callahan show, “I wouldn’t say that we have limitless money, but we’ve got a lot of money to spend and we’re determined to go into the free agent market and improve the team.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/09/12/source-dont-count-on-red-sox-going-after-two-high-priced-pitchers/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

OK guys, I have a ?. On a 1-4 ran give me who you want highest to lowest and what you think will happen highest to lowest.
1.Lester- I miss him, I hope he comes back, doubt it....
2.Shields-Cheaper option, great pitcher, however reports are because he is cheaper that there will be more offers.
3.Scherzer-Would be pricy, however if we lose out on Shields and Lester, we might have to go all in
4.Santana-last resort....

As for most likely to happen, switch Shields with Lester.

willyssox
09-13-2014, 09:42 PM
Scherzer will be too expensive. Dont care for Santana (as a pitcher, I actually know and talk to him personally but try not to be bias because of it) but I know the Sox have shown interest in him in the past.
My choice would be 1. Lester for the #1SP role & 2. Shields for the #2 SP role.

GrkGawdofWalkz
09-14-2014, 08:16 AM
Until Lester signs with someone else, I find it impossible to know that he will or will not be back in a Red Sox uniform. While I do feel there is a good possibility he could sign somewhere else, there is no guarantee. I still feel that Lester and Andrew Miller will both be Red Sox in the 2015 season.

Norieaga
09-14-2014, 05:50 PM
I'd like to see the team think outside the box. If trading for Stanton isn't realistic then they should use the assets to acquire a guy like Matt Latos. Then, sign either Lester or Shields for the #2 role.

willyssox
09-14-2014, 06:31 PM
Cueto may be available this Winter, he'd be my first choice, then Latos.

BoSox47
09-14-2014, 07:26 PM
Scherzer will be too expensive. Dont care for Santana (as a pitcher, I actually know and talk to him personally but try not to be bias because of it) but I know the Sox have shown interest in him in the past.
My choice would be 1. Lester for the #1SP role & 2. Shields for the #2 SP role.

1. Lester
2. Scherzer
3. Shields
4. Santana

scherzer and shield could be flopped depending on money. Wouldn't be surprised if we didnt get any of them though.

Lester-Cubs
Shields- Angels
Scherzer-Cubs/Dodgers
Santana- who knows.

j-bay
09-14-2014, 09:02 PM
I know none of you all(including me) would like this, however, I would not be surprised if the Sox traded for Hamels. The Phillies have scouted both our Major League club aND Minor league clubs all August. Reports are they were looking for potential pieces for a Hamels trade and the Sox were interested.

willyssox
09-15-2014, 12:09 PM
Not just August, they scouted the Sox for over 2 months, Cafardo...remarked that he's never seen a team scout another team so much and for so long w/o pulling off a deal.

AI
09-15-2014, 04:57 PM
Kenta Maeda is a name that has been floated around as a possibility.

Norieaga
09-16-2014, 02:49 PM
Hamels is great but I'd rather save the 'specs and sign Lester. Both good lefties, Hamels only one year younger. Better to give up only cash.

willyssox
09-16-2014, 04:04 PM
Sorry to correct you but Hamels is Older than Lester by a few days. Hamels 12/27/83, Lester 1/7/84

Bo Sox Fan
09-16-2014, 07:05 PM
There's a hell of alot better chance we trade for Hamels after embarrassing Lester with our ridiculous low ball offer back in spring training and then... to rub salt in the wound... we ship him out of town at the trade deadline.

Just give up a simple draft pick to sign Shields and grab Masterson as a low risk high reward candidate all while continuing to save the entire farm system for when Miami eventually see's the writing on the wall with Stanton.

willyssox
09-16-2014, 07:54 PM
Are you saying we should have a rotation of 1.Shields, 2. Buchholz, 3. Kelly, 4. Masterson, 5. 1 of the kids ???
Because id be angry with Ben if we ended up with that crappy rotation.

Bo Sox Fan
09-16-2014, 08:27 PM
I don't think it's all that bad of a rotation and it's definitely more realistic compared to some people already penciling Lester at the top of the 2015 Red Sox rotation.

To be honest though, nobody really has a clue what Ben/Henry have up there sleeve this winter. We traditionally don't have this many latin american players, and the rotation is currently the furthest thing from a contending one.

I just expect alot of movement... Two, perhaps even three bold acquisitions through trade / free agency.

bagwell368
09-16-2014, 09:27 PM
As for being combative, you created it, watch your tone and people wont get so upset.

I've just read every post both of us had in this thread - over ten each, and there wasn't any problems with being combative, you even agreed with some of my posts. The last few on Lester you seemed to be irritated about your "crapload" of stats, and my not understanding/finding them.

Try taking the time to locate the URL and post number of your "crapload" of stats, and list them, if you would be so kind.


There is a good reason why people, including myself never thought of Lester as a Ace before this year, you refuse to believe it

Provide the data that "proves" it. A most simple request.


I have the stats, I know how he did & didnt stack up against the league. If you believe in whatever stats your reading then great But youll never convince me so Id drop it.

You haven't produced any data on this topic that I've been able to locate. I don't really care about convincing you, as long as I convince most others, and prove my point in an objective way, that will suffice.


I posted the stats in reply to You & the same day you started to antagonize me...Try learning some people skills...

Antagonize? The most memorable hit on that score re: you - started in late May/early June in the "Trade Ideas" thread, when it was you that were doing the antagonizing and had at least 5 posts scrubbed away by the mods. A writer that writes "incite" instead of "insight" and can't control their own emotions is now giving advice on proper behavior? Ironic indeed.

The topic at hand is Lester, not deportment. I'd like you to post the location of your prior "crapload" of stats, which I assume will include comparisons of every SP at or above his level since the start of '08.

RedSoxtober
09-17-2014, 08:40 AM
There's a hell of alot better chance we trade for Hamels after embarrassing Lester with our ridiculous low ball offer back in spring training and then... to rub salt in the wound... we ship him out of town at the trade deadline.

Just give up a simple draft pick to sign Shields and grab Masterson as a low risk high reward candidate all while continuing to save the entire farm system for when Miami eventually see's the writing on the wall with Stanton.
I agree; I'd rather spend only cash that prospects and cash on Hamels. My concern about Shields, though, is that he's likely to completely blow the Red Sox' argument. The conjecture is that he's a $20M guy for at least four years in the current market... but every single one of those years is coming after his prime. A much higher percentage of that contract is at risk for going bad than going after Lester (BTW, I'm not saying that they will sign Jon but only pointing out why Sheilds is riskier).

Norieaga
09-17-2014, 10:57 AM
Sorry to correct you but Hamels is Older than Lester by a few days. Hamels 12/27/83, Lester 1/7/84
No problem! I always--wrongfully--assumed Hamels was younger. Based on that we have even less of a reason to trade for him. I'd rather give Lester $50M more than Hamels is worth and save the farm, as opposed to bludgeoning a good chunk of the farm for a very comparable pitcher. I WOULD, however, trade a chunk of the farm for a player like Cueto, Latos, or Stanton.

RedSoxtober
09-17-2014, 05:45 PM
No problem! I always--wrongfully--assumed Hamels was younger. Based on that we have even less of a reason to trade for him. I'd rather give Lester $50M more than Hamels is worth and save the farm, as opposed to bludgeoning a good chunk of the farm for a very comparable pitcher. I WOULD, however, trade a chunk of the farm for a player like Cueto, Latos, or Stanton.

I'd be happy to land Cueto but, given that he's got only a year left (team option for 2015), I can't see giving up "a chunk of the farm." Two quality prospects or 2 + a high-ceiling, low floor guy? Sure.

j-bay
09-21-2014, 02:46 PM
Word on the street from Ken R yesterday is that Shields will sign with the Sox. Also I thin if the Sox traded for a 2nd pitcher it will be Hamels. The Phillies are STILL scouting the Sox.

BGeer091
09-22-2014, 09:08 AM
Word on the street from Ken R yesterday is that Shields will sign with the Sox. Also I thin if the Sox traded for a 2nd pitcher it will be Hamels. The Phillies are STILL scouting the Sox.

I've heard this too. Anyone listening to weei? What are they saying? I heard it from a friend who works for Pawtucket. .. he's a no body lol but he said Sox seem to think Shields to Boston is a certainty lol. I hope so. Hamels, Shields 1 2 is pretty good especially with Kelly at the 3, Rubby at the 4 and whoever at the 5. I'll take that.

RedSoxtober
09-22-2014, 11:33 AM
Word on the street from Ken R yesterday is that Shields will sign with the Sox. Also I thin if the Sox traded for a 2nd pitcher it will be Hamels. The Phillies are STILL scouting the Sox.

There is absolutely no way at all that Rosenthal could know this. At the absolute very best it's his speculation about what will happen.

With very little digging I'd guess that the 'word on the street' comes back to this tweet. Since the tweet itself is less suggestive than the comment suggests I'd not push it too far.

513393886396698624

BGeer091
09-22-2014, 02:45 PM
From my end it was more that it's believed Shields will sign with Boston. I take it as, if Boston offers a competitive offer he will sign. Not that he's going to sign no matter what...

matnautico
09-22-2014, 05:08 PM
Are you saying we should have a rotation of 1.Shields, 2. Buchholz, 3. Kelly, 4. Masterson, 5. 1 of the kids ???
Because id be angry with Ben if we ended up with that crappy rotation.

I think thats really what you should expect, one of Shields, Lester and Scherzer and a Masterson type (I want McCarthy) and IMO De la Rosa has earned a spot for next year.

ruckus16969
09-22-2014, 11:56 PM
Id like to see Lester, Shields and Masterson. Very unlikely but thats my wish

bagwell368
09-23-2014, 08:14 AM
Id like to see Lester, Shields and Masterson. Very unlikely but thats my wish

And your second choice?

$55-60M per on 3 SP's? No way.

Shields and Buchholz will cost ~$30M per alone. We've got a lot of in-house candidates to build a rotation with. Your choice is do the Yankee over spend on FA and trade the farm thing or see next year as another bridge year and do the tryouts, and perhaps find a $15M and a $10M for the min in our own system guys.

In particular when the line-up is going to go through mammoth changes in the next two years (Ortiz retires, Napoli goes FA, Cespedes leaves via FA or trade?, Pedroia continues to decline, 3B is still a ?, SS isn't much better, 2nd catcher, and which OF will we end up with?

Concern over fan interest means we won't sit still, but making moves for "PR impact" - sort of like Crawford - doesn't seem that appetizing. Perhaps Stanton might be the one guy that could be worth it. People won't pay money to see Shields pitch IMO - certainly not the average fan.

Bo Sox Fan
09-23-2014, 08:22 AM
Shields
Buchholz
Masterson
Kelly
De La Rosa

Bucky & Masterson get replaced in the next 2 years by Rodriguez & Owens.

Station 13
09-23-2014, 09:27 AM
Shields
Buchholz
Masterson
Kelly
De La Rosa

Bucky & Masterson get replaced in the next 2 years by Rodriguez & Owens.

That rotation is good for 65-70 wins.

Buccholz and Masterson as your 2-3? Ouch! Both are lucky if they combine to pitch 200 innings!

bagwell368
09-23-2014, 11:55 AM
That rotation is good for 65-70 wins.

Buccholz and Masterson as your 2-3? Ouch! Both are lucky if they combine to pitch 200 innings!

Don't be so negative! 67-73 at least...

There is one good thing about that rotation BSF, we'll be checking out some kids - but why pay so much to do what can be done much cheaper?

j-bay
09-23-2014, 01:22 PM
Like I said, I feel like its Shields and Hamels. The Phillies have been and still are scouting us for the last 2 and a half months. II think the Sox told the Phillies they were interested., the Phillies like the Sox pieces, and Hamels gave them the ok. My only ? is will the Phillies reduce their asking price. I imagine they want Betts, but that isn't going to happen. Also with the emergence of our trade deadline pick ups (prospects), does someone become available who wasn't in July.

BGeer091
09-23-2014, 03:14 PM
I'm not sure why you assume Betts won't happen. He's blocked essentially. So therefore he's expendable. He's not taking Pedroias spot and they didn't spend the money on Castillo not to play him. Whether we like it or not the signs point to Betts + for Hamels.

j-bay
09-23-2014, 03:59 PM
I'm not sure why you assume Betts won't happen. He's blocked essentially. So therefore he's expendable. He's not taking Pedroias spot and they didn't spend the money on Castillo not to play him. Whether we like it or not the signs point to Betts + for Hamels.

Betts could be traded but not for someone like Hamels. If he does, this board is going to flip.

Bo Sox Fan
09-23-2014, 06:21 PM
Don't be so negative! 67-73 at least...

There is one good thing about that rotation BSF, we'll be checking out some kids - but why pay so much to do what can be done much cheaper?

It's more of a worst case scenario but trust me, I want Lester back here more than any other free agent AND sign James Shields. Common sense tells me Lester ain't happening and Scherzer will eventually get waaay too expensive to even consider.

I do know Toronto wants to salary dump one or both of Buehrle and Dickey so maybe a Victorino swap (with other parts) would make some kind of sense to get a near guaranteed 200 inning eater #5 starter?

If we trade Betts for Hamels I will drink bleach and swallow hard to ensure I die so I don't have to see the second coming of Andrew McCutchen in a Philly's jersey for the next 6 years. Absolutely no ******* way Betts goes anywhere for anyone except Miami to get our monster bat.

Bo Sox Fan
09-23-2014, 06:44 PM
I'm not sure why you assume Betts won't happen. He's blocked essentially. So therefore he's expendable. He's not taking Pedroias spot and they didn't spend the money on Castillo not to play him. Whether we like it or not the signs point to Betts + for Hamels.

Betts being blocked is the furthest thing from the truth, if anything he's won the job as a staple in right field now, and for the long run unless Pedroia completely breaks down at 2B sometime in the next 6 years.

Victorino & Cespedes have 1 guaranteed year left and Bradley is a complete mess offensively. Castillo? No one has a clue what to expect. Nava is depth that's all. Betts is our only sure thing in the future of our outfield if you ask me.

2015
LF - Cespedes
CF - Castillo (vsLHB) Bradley (vsRHB)
RF - Betts

Obviously Vic, and one of Craig/Napoli have to go this winter... in all likely hood netting us some RP's or maybe a depth SP.

bagwell368
09-23-2014, 09:53 PM
It's more of a worst case scenario but trust me, I want Lester back here more than any other free agent AND sign James Shields. Common sense tells me Lester ain't happening and Scherzer will eventually get waaay too expensive to even consider.

I do know Toronto wants to salary dump one or both of Buehrle and Dickey so maybe a Victorino swap (with other parts) would make some kind of sense to get a near guaranteed 200 inning eater #5 starter?

If we trade Betts for Hamels I will drink bleach and swallow hard to ensure I die so I don't have to see the second coming of Andrew McCutchen in a Philly's jersey for the next 6 years. Absolutely no ******* way Betts goes anywhere for anyone except Miami to get our monster bat.

Ummm... I cannot see Betts in his prime matching AM in his. These last 3 years AM is:

.318/.402/.533

I got killed here 2-3 years ago talking about how Pedroia would decline due to injury, and what a great trade piece he'd make. Well Betts, along with that nasty contract are the final two pieces of data proving I was right - although the '13 title would have been a harder thing to attain. Still we wouldn't be looking at a very long contract that is starting to look like a dog. In the OF a .310/.385/.445 hitter is a good thing - at 2B it's a huge thing - too bad that's not Pedroia anymore and the chickenshite sox FO won't take the plunge on getting Pedroia out of here because he's so popular and with Ortiz soon to be done, he's the "face".

win red sox
09-25-2014, 07:27 PM
Maybe Ben can pry Latos or Cueto away from the Reds.

Norieaga
09-25-2014, 08:30 PM
Assuming there is zero chance we can trade for Stanton, I'd like to see us use the pieces to get either Sale, Latos, or Cueto. Then, sign Shields. That would be a solid-as-hell rotation. Also, should be noted that our first-round pick is protected. We can sign a guy like Scherzer and give up a second-round pick instead. Ideally, however, I'd rather we just break the bank and sign both Lester and Shields.

Food for thought.

ruckus16969
09-25-2014, 09:49 PM
Assuming there is zero chance we can trade for Stanton, I'd like to see us use the pieces to get either Sale, Latos, or Cueto. Then, sign Shields. That would be a solid-as-hell rotation. Also, should be noted that our first-round pick is protected. We can sign a guy like Scherzer and give up a second-round pick instead. Ideally, however, I'd rather we just break the bank and sign both Lester and Shields.

Food for thought.

It would be nasty to have a 1/2 punch of Lester and Scherzer or Lester and Cueto and plus sign a guy like Masterson or even Sheilds.

We could use 3 dependable guys. I'd like to stay away from Hammels just because of the cost in prospects.

ruckus16969
09-25-2014, 09:53 PM
I don't have faith in Clay Kelly RDLR or even Raundo as anything more then a 4th or 5th guy. At least to begin the year.

j-bay
09-25-2014, 10:15 PM
Look I don't know where to put this but here are my thoughts about this offseason. The whole Stanton to us thing is pretty much a pipe dream. This is what it was like with A-Gon on this forum I would say from 08-10. Maybe in a couple years, but I doubt it happens this off season. Same thing with Sale. No indication about giving up on him, and he is a key part of the franchise, so cross him out. Latos and Cueto are a maybe. I haven't seen any interest in a possible deal yet. Here are the guys I have seen rumors about so far.
Shields
Lester (don't know how much interest we have left in him, but I bet we at least talk)
Hamels
Tomas
Maeda
Sandoval (doubt we have anymore interest with how good GC has been)

Bo Sox Fan
09-25-2014, 11:19 PM
I'm warming up to our current offence and like it the way it is. Add a reliable left handed or switch hitting 3B (Headly) and we are set with Holt & possibly Cecchini ready as insurance to injury.

We should be pounding the free agent pitching market this winter. Shields, Uehara & Masterson almost seem to be a lock, and if by some divine miracle we lure Lester back with a blank cheque, we should be a Series contender again. There's roughly $75 mil to spend and that's before any Victorino / Napoli deals which could raise our spending spree even if we eat some.

I'm torn on Lester. He, Shields, Headley, Masterson and Uehara could all easily be had financially if the stars align. Hell, even Andy Pettite bounced from NY to Houston only to go back to NY.

Glass half full here, lol.

willyssox
09-25-2014, 11:27 PM
Sandoval over Headley please.

ruckus16969
09-26-2014, 12:03 AM
Sandoval over Headley please.

Panda would be my choice over Headley

ruckus16969
09-26-2014, 12:04 AM
But I'd like one of the 2

RedSoxtober
09-26-2014, 09:42 AM
Look I don't know where to put this but here are my thoughts about this offseason. The whole Stanton to us thing is pretty much a pipe dream. This is what it was like with A-Gon on this forum I would say from 08-10. You joined in July 2009 so I'm curious how you'd know.


Maybe in a couple years, but I doubt it happens this off season. Same thing with Sale. No indication about giving up on him, and he is a key part of the franchise, so cross him out.
Disagree with the logic. Of course the ChiSox are not "giving up on him". The question is whether they feel like they can compete in the next two years. If not then trading Sale for a king's ransom may be far more valuable to their rebuilding effort than holding onto him. The final pieces of the equation will be (a) the likelihood of Sale re-signing and (b) whether or not they think he is vital to marketing over the next two years.


Latos and Cueto are a maybe. I haven't seen any interest in a possible deal yet
These have been some popular names to throw out. However, both go FA after next year. If it were a year ago and they were in that situation then I would have considered either of them joining Lester and Lackey at the front of the rotation. Now? There are too many long-term issues to settle before trading a bunch of prospects for one year of either pitcher (unless you extend them, of course).


Sandoval over Headley please.

Why? Sandoval's defense is very good. You'd have to give up prospects for Sandoval and, like Cueto/Latos, he has only one year left of control. His offense has been in very steady decline just about since he won an regular job. He's notorious for being out of shape and with his build (5'11", 245lb) he is NOT going to age well at 3b. That doesn't strike me as an ideal situation regardless of the rest of what's on the market.

Headley beats Sandoval on Rdrs, costs only the cash you're willing to give, and likely signs on a 2-3yr deal. Seems to fit the Sox needs much better... unless you're willing to gamble on Cecchini's defense becoming acceptable.

j-bay
09-26-2014, 12:53 PM
You joined in July 2009 so I'm curious how you'd know.

I was originally a viewer of this forum between 08 and until I got here in 09. Its how I found out about the Jason Bay for Manny Ramirez news (I didn't use social media until 2011, and most of you were using it). You guys kept me up to date. I had to convince my Mom though to let me get on. I was about 13-14, and she uses internet and social media, but back then she was nervous about letting me on, because she was nervous I would give away personal info. She finally let me join a year later.

willyssox
09-26-2014, 01:36 PM
You joined in July 2009 so I'm curious how you'd know.


Disagree with the logic. Of course the ChiSox are not "giving up on him". The question is whether they feel like they can compete in the next two years. If not then trading Sale for a king's ransom may be far more valuable to their rebuilding effort than holding onto him. The final pieces of the equation will be (a) the likelihood of Sale re-signing and (b) whether or not they think he is vital to marketing over the next two years.


These have been some popular names to throw out. However, both go FA after next year. If it were a year ago and they were in that situation then I would have considered either of them joining Lester and Lackey at the front of the rotation. Now? There are too many long-term issues to settle before trading a bunch of prospects for one year of either pitcher (unless you extend them, of course).



Why? Sandoval's defense is very good. You'd have to give up prospects for Sandoval and, like Cueto/Latos, he has only one year left of control. His offense has been in very steady decline just about since he won an regular job. He's notorious for being out of shape and with his build (5'11", 245lb) he is NOT going to age well at 3b. That doesn't strike me as an ideal situation regardless of the rest of what's on the market.

Headley beats Sandoval on Rdrs, costs only the cash you're willing to give, and likely signs on a 2-3yr deal. Seems to fit the Sox needs much better... unless you're willing to gamble on Cecchini's defense becoming acceptable.

You are Mistaken, Sandoval will be a FREE AGENT, so it's only money & the Sox have tried twice to acquire him, so there's interest.

RedSoxtober
09-29-2014, 10:36 AM
You are Mistaken, Sandoval will be a FREE AGENT, so it's only money & the Sox have tried twice to acquire him, so there's interest.

Correct, I misread his FA info. Still find the other factors more compelling in favor of Headley.