Holy ####. As I was reading this, I thought that Darren had begun his annual pants pissing (sorry Darren!).

MCoA weren't you the one saying that we should get worked up about the minor FA acquisitions? What changed?

We shouldn't get worked up about minor FA acquisitions. We should get worked up (to the degree that getting "worked up" about sports teams is reasonable) about the Red Sox not making any major acquisitions. They still might - this post advocates for aggressively going after Holliday and Halladay. But beyond that, there doesn't seem to be a lot that could make 2010 a particularly successful offseason.

EdIT: I have to say, "holy ####\" is the last thing I expected to read in response to this post. I was worried it was a little anodyne. But I guess I've pissed off the colostomy bag. Wordplay!

But I guess I've pissed off the colostomy bag

Not pissed off. Surprised, because I didn't expect it coming from you. :)

You said:

"but I think we should probably resign ourselves to it and start getting worked up about which 3rd tier FAs the Red Sox should acquire to fill these part-time jobs. It's still a reasonable playoff team, even if they don't make a free agent splash."

Signing A. Beltre for 3rd base and going with a platoon in LF might just gain back as many wins from the loss of Bay as inking Holliday, a guy I don't really like that much at the expected price.

I have to say, I'll be disappointed if the Red Sox don't land some kind of star this offseason, be it Halladay, Holliday, Lackey, Bay, Gonzalez or, I don't know, Aramis Ramirez. It may just be an idiosyncratic thing, but I was just kind of bored by the team last year. With Ortiz struggling and the team seeming to play like crap for long stretches (I'm still surprised they finished with 95 wins), I just didn't find them that fun until Victor Martinez came along. Adding another star would really go a long way towards getting me excited about this team for next year.

EDIT: I should say that last season wasn't that boring. It was certainly fun seeing Lester's emergence and the continuing surprise of seeing Kevin Youkilis hit for power. I had a lot of other stuff going on last summer besides baseball.

The Red Sox probably don't need to do much to project as the 2nd best team in baseball. It's frankly not realistic to expect them to be even with the Yankees in March every year. They're smart too and they'll outbid us for every major free agent they want

They're smart too and they'll outbid us for every major free agent they want

They're also both a little more reckless with their money and less concerned about contracts that might not work out. The Red Sox could probably outbid them if they want to (e.g., Dice-K), but they are a little more tight with the purse strings.

People really seem very concerned about landing a 3rd baseban, which would be way down my list for this team. Mike Lowell on 1 hip last year was still worth about 1 WAR and I suspect that will improve. And if he doesn't, you've got Youkilis with Kotchman at 1B. I'd be looking at SP and LF long before that.

I'm sure the last thing on the Red Sox list of worries is being left not having spent their budget. From the sound of some of the recent articles, they're already trying to prepare the fans for no big moves and a year or two of 'reloading' or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps adding Gammons to NESN is part of a plan to make people feel better about it. I think you all know where I stand on that, but in case you don't--it would be a disgrace. You don't charge the prices they charge and make the revenues they make and then rebuild. It's an insult to the fans' intelligence.

(BTW, Piehole, I already have a 4-part series on how I've come to terms with the team's conservative ways and it's constant quest to finish second. So no more wet pants for me!)

Actually, the Red Sox are a contender right now - with Hermida as the LF and Wakefield as the 5th starter.
Let's look at CHONE projections (I hope this table look right)



Let's do some back of the envelope estimates. The 5 staring pitchers are projected to start 137 games, so let's say that the starting lineup will play the same amount of games. Then the amount of runs above average the starters will generate will be (117+27)*(137/150)+(146-5*20)=178. Then the bench players play the remaining 25 games, and if they are all replacement players (and our bench will be significantly better), will have (-20 runs below average)*((9 hitters * (25/150)) + (1 pitcher * (25/30)) = -42 runs. So, with a replacement player bench, the Red Sox will win (178-42)/10=13.6 games above average, or 94.6 games. With bench full of 1 WAR players, which probably closer to the truth, the Sox win 96.7 games. So the Red Sox are one of the best teams in baseball right now, without any further moves.

That would seem surprising to many Sox fans. Why is CHONE so much more optimistic about the team? Because 2009 was a year full of adversity for the Red Sox and they still managed to win 95 games. Lowell, Ortiz & Dice-K had years which were worse than expected, and are due for a bounceback. The SS & C positions have already been filled by better players. Because of his bad defense, Bay is projected to be only around 1 win better than Hermida.

According to Craig Calcetatra, the Rangers have signed Harden for 1/7.5 + an option. Wow, that's a steal.

Well, Beltre projects a 4.2 win guy ar 3rd, Mikey as a 1.6--that's a very meaningful difference, obviously.

I'd like to see a big splash move, don't get me wrong. I'm just not crazy about Matt Holliday.

Safeco has really killed Beltre's numbers--but he stunk everywhere last year. What was his injury?

Yes, he had a very personal injury last year.

Yes, he had a very personal injury last year

???

edit-never mind. I googled it. Ouch!

I also see that Eric van seems high on signing Belte. That tempers my enthusiasm.

Too personal to discuss.

Ow, my...

According to Craig Calcetatra, the Rangers have signed Harden for 1/7.5 + an option. Wow, that's a steal.

No way you can say that without looking at his medical records.

Who the **** plays ML third base without wearing a cup?!?!!

I can say lots of things, Russlan. Just don't hold me to them. ;)

Who the **** plays ML third base without wearing a cup?!?!!

Nobody, now.

MLB Trade Rumors is making noise about Lowell being traded to Texas....
Ed Price Twitter

Who the **** plays ML third base without wearing a cup?!?!!

Nobody, now.

Actually, Beltre wasn't sure he would:

"I might be lying if I said [I would]," the Seattle Mariners third baseman said on Monday. "I tried it before, it's uncomfortable, I hate it and if it happens every 11 years of my career I'll probably take my chances."

If the team does not do a lot more to the roster this winter (except add an OF who can hit lefties, a couple of arms in the bullpen, and a starting pitcher reclamation project), the team might be very good, even separate from some of the points reflected in post #9. Why?

1) It is difficult to overstate how bad we were at C and SS all season, and at DH for the first two months. Matsuzaka was out/ineffective the entire year. Penny was pretty bad by the end of his time in Boston. Wakefield was hurt...remember the crap we were putting out on the mound for several weeks in late July/August...Tazawa, Bowden, Billy Traber, Smoltz, Penny, Paul Byrd...
2) Think about the 2010 team, vs. the 2009 team. Comparing the two, who's the better starting catcher, Varitek (2009) or Martinez (2010)? How about the backup catcher - Kottaras (09) or Varitek (10)? Clearly, the 2010 version is better in both cases.

Does anybody think that Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, or Drew will be significantly worse in 2010 than they were in 2009? There is no reason to think their combined perforance will be similar to 2009.

Does anybody think that Scutaro will not give them better play at SS than their 2009 revolving door? I mean, Nick Green got 209 plate appearances last year with the team...

Ortiz was very good from June 1st to the end of the season, but was shockingly bad in April and May. He ended up with an OPS of 101 in 150 games in 2009. Does anybody think he will be significantly worse than that in 2010 (perhaps more evenly distributed power numbers)?

With a full season of Buchholz, Matsuzaka seemingly healthy and with his head on straight, Beckett and Lester, does anybody think those four pitchers won't provide at least as good a performance in 2010 as they did in 2009? Consider this: the team won 95 games with the following pitchers making starts for the team:

Penny: 24 starts, ERA+ of 84
Smoltz: 8 starts, ERA+ 56 (!)
Tazawa: 4 starts, ERA+ 63
Matsuzaka: 12 starts, ERA+ 81
Byrd: 6 starts, ERA+ 80
Bowden: 1 start, ERA+ 49

Now, take Buchholz's ERA+ 111 over 16 starts, assume he gets no better in 2010, and give him 30 starts. Those 14 starts would replace Smoltz and Byrd's starts.

Matsuzaka, who was pretty bad in most of his 12 starts, should be at least league-average in 2010 (he is at 117 for his career, including his poor 2009). But screw it - let's just say he ends up at 100 over 30 starts - he would soak up his own 12 starts from 2009, Tazawa and Bowden's starts, and more than half of Penny's starts.

We know that when Wakefield pitches, he will give you league-average innings...what we don't know is whether he can make 10 or 20 starts a year at this point. So, having a legit option for when thaat occurs is important.

My point: this team had some real crap getting a lot of playing time in 2009, and very few players played above their established level of performance (Lester?) - and they still won 95 games. If Buchholz or Matsuzaka gets any better, the pitching could be a lot better than it was for much of 2009. Scutaro and a full year of Martinez not only vastly improve the club over last year's C and SS, but it moves guys like Varitek and Lowrie to the bench...which makes the bench a real asset for the team (last year, it was not an asset). I can see how, without Bay or Holliday, things could be OK...

How about the backup catcher - Kottaras (09) or Varitek (10)? Clearly, the 2010 version is better in both cases.

This one I'm not so sure on.

"but I think we should probably resign ourselves to it and start getting worked up about which 3rd tier FAs the Red Sox should acquire to fill these part-time jobs. It's still a reasonable playoff team, even if they don't make a free agent splash."

I meant that as mildly pungent criticism - 3rd tier FAs for part-time jobs is not a fun offseason to watch. I do think the Red Sox will be a "reasonable" playoff team, somewhere around 90-92 wins projected, if they go for the low-impact offseason that is being suggested in all the papers. I don't think the Sox should be playing low-impact, unless Henry's more strapped for cash than he should be.

SBPT - fans of every club think this is the year they'll make up the difference by upgrading the back of the rotation. I'd need to see the evidence that the Red Sox were particularly worse on this score than the normal MLB club to be convinced it's an area we expect improvement. The back of any rotation is bad, that's just what happens to everyone.

1) It is difficult to overstate how bad we were at C and SS all season,

Whoa. Varitek was pretty good the first half of the year, and Martinez was outstanding once they got him. Catcher was a weak position only in the middle of the season. Now, Varitek's second half was so abysmal that it dragged down the whole season for Red Sox catchers, but he did have an .826 OPS at the halfway mark.

Yeah, Red Sox catchers had a 750 OPS, 9th in baseball. They should be better next year, depending on how many games Martinez catches, but they were pretty good in 2009.

Where did they rank in throwing out attempted SB's?

Boof Bonser?

Boof Bonser?

I'm assuming he fills the Devern Hansack Memorial "Oh crap we got a couple doubleheaders and need a starter" role.

I agree with #22. Regarding the 'regression to the mean' faced by the Sox, I think regression to the mean for this team is upward pressure, not downward.

Particularly on the pitching side of the ledger. Nobody on the staff was particularly better in 2009 than we can expect for 2010, but many were worse. The team is building depth right now to replace terrible 2009 innings from Penny, Matsuzaka, Smoltz, Byrd, and so on. They don't need Lackey to do that, they just need 5 more Boof Bonsers and Matsuzaka back. Add another year of development for Buccholz, Bowden, Tazawa, et al.

The two biggest offensive black holes in 2009 have already been upgraded, three if you count Ortiz not sucking (which I'm not necessarily sold on). Replacing Bay and Lowell through some combo of Beltre/Hermida/Willingham/Lowrie/Max Ramirez/Tug Hulett/Kotchman/other forthcoming acquisitions shouldn't be all that hard either.

I like the approach so far this offseason of making low-risk, low-cost, high-flexibility moves. I don't want them to break the bank or the farm for a "name" guy just so they can say they did.

SBPT - fans of every club think this is the year they'll make up the difference by upgrading the back of the rotation. I'd need to see the evidence that the Red Sox were particularly worse on this score than the normal MLB club to be convinced it's an area we expect improvement. The back of any rotation is bad, that's just what happens to everyone.

MCoA - great point. I almost posted something to this effect earlier, but you said it better than I would have. Most every team has dreck at the back of the rotation, even if they plan well. That's just what happens. You just can't handwave all of those performances down to a 5.25-5.50 ERA and say that's the expectation going forward.

You could be right, that the Red Sox were particularly bad for MLB in this aspect last year, and that they are due for a bounce. But, again, as MCoA pointed out, that's the relevant comparison to make.

Particularly on the pitching side of the ledger. Nobody on the staff was particularly better in 2009 than we can expect for 2010, but many were worse.

Lester and Beckett were both better than we should expect them to be going forward. Wakefield's too, but that's closer. Ramom Ramirez's ERA was about a run lower than we should expect too. Okajima and Pap were a bit better than I'd think they'd be going forward.

I agree with #22. Regarding the 'regression to the mean' faced by the Sox, I think regression to the mean for this team is upward pressure, not downward.

As with most teams, it's mixed. Adding to the list above, I'd say Youkilis, Martinez, and Drew should be expected to dropoff.

Disagree on Lester, but I'm a Lester fanboy. Beckett, maybe, although he had some pretty bad stretches last yaer. You're right on Ramirez (at least one of them) and who knows with Wakefield.

Okajima and Papelbon were both worse last year than they have been at times in the last few years. I don't think there's any reason to believe they'll be much worse in 2010 than they were in 2009.

Martinez is a tough case to tackle because he was so awful immediately before joining the Sox. If you choose to evaluate only his Boston splits, sure, he might not be as good in 2010, but his 2009 season as a whole wasn't great. Youkilis I agree with you on, but I wouldn't expect his dropoff to be very high.

All in all, sure, there are a few cases here or there on the roster, but I think my point remains that in the overall scheme of things it's a cop-out to say "they won 95 games so they'll automatically get worse." Taking even a cursory look at the roster, I think, dispels a lot of that argument.

I posted a little rant in the CHB thread.

But don't people remember that Victor Martinez trade that happened just a few months ago? That doesn't count as a big splash because it didn't happen in the offseason? Its a much better move happening in July because it gave them a chance last year as well as vastly improving the team in 2010. Let's wait until we sell off our best players in salary dumps before we proclaim the brass to be giving up.

SBPT - fans of every club think this is the year they'll make up the difference by upgrading the back of the rotation. I'd need to see the evidence that the Red Sox were particularly worse on this score than the normal MLB club to be convinced it's an area we expect improvement. The back of any rotation is bad, that's just what happens to everyone.

I'm not sure I understand this. Shouldn't we just just make the best predictions we can for the individual pitchers and add them up, regardless of whether they happen to fall at the back of the rotation, the front, or somewhere in between? Buchholz, Matsuzaka, and Wakefield are at the back of the Sox rotation, but on many teams (KC, PIT, BAL, WSH, CLE, etc) they'd be at or near the front -- and you certainly wouldn't argue that would make them better pitchers.

Lester and Beckett were both better than we should expect them to be going forward.

I disagree. Beckett's FIP the last 3 years: 3.08, 3.24, 3.63. Don't see any reason why you'd expect his ERA to be worse than last year's 3.86. Lester's FIP the last two years: 3.64, 3.15. Not really any reason to include his numbers from before that when he throws 3.5 mph faster these days. Again, a safe bet not to to regress from his 3.41 ERA.

I do think we can expect some regression in their innings pitched just because the scenarios where someone misses most or all of a season are going to bring down the projections a lot more than the ones where they max out their innings (225 or so with this regime) would bring them up. They gave the team 415.2 IP in '09; 380 seems a reasonable projection for next year.

This thread is funny now. Especially if you look at the dates... all of this was from one week ago.

Especially #30.

As to the expecting regression etc. I think one thing you can always expect to 'regress' is health. Beckett and Lester started 64 games and threw a combined 415 innings. If you give me that again from them I'll be ecstatic, because I know they'll perform, but I'd expect at least a DL stint for one of them.

aaaand now it looks like we're stuck with Mike Lowell.

#### ing fantastic.

Especially #30.

I stand by every word.

FUUUUCK.