"Lupica is trying to make sense of a strategy he doesn’t understand."

But you do understand it, right, Jim? So you can spin... er, explain it to those of us who are too dumb to realize that the Red Sox MEANT to suck last year.

On one of the Ricciardi threads a few weeks back, somebody said (and I'm paraphrasing) that sabermetrics will be considered mature when it's acknowledged that you can have good Moneyball GMs and bad Moneyball GMs. A nice start would be an admission that Epstein is a fairly middle-of-the-pack general manager, very good at some things (finding offensive players, keeping Boston in the headlines), and fairly horrible at other things (acquiring pitchers who are above replacement level, understanding the value of defense).

(acquiring pitchers who are above replacement level, understanding the value of defense).

Yeah, he clearly misunderstood the value of defense with that Nomar trade in '04...

I agree with Mulligan. Jim, if you're going to assert that Lupica's reading of this situation is wrong and yours is right, IMO you have some burden of proof. How do you know that there was a conscious four-pronged strategy to wait for Julio Lugo's free agency?

A nice start would be an admission that Epstein is a fairly middle-of-the-pack general manager, very good at some things (finding offensive players, keeping Boston in the headlines), and fairly horrible at other things (acquiring pitchers who are above replacement level, understanding the value of defense).

I just don't see that. I can see Riccardi being seen as a middle-of-the-pack (if not bad) Moneyball GM. I can even see DePodesta being called bad. I may not agree, but I can see it. But Epstein? Averaged 93 wins over four seasons, ALCS his first season, World Championship his second season, ALDS his third season, and finally a 3rd place finish, which coincidently came after he was gone from the position of GM for most of the off-season. And I don't want to make excuses; if you want to dock him for that season, go for it. And if one wants to analyze his performance on a micro-level and criticize him for some things, that's cool too. But I don't see how one can say he's not a good GM.

Mike Lupica doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

This is how angry readers are supposed to sound, on mornings like this, when you tell Mike Lupica to #### off.

"Yeah, he clearly misunderstood the value of defense with that Nomar trade in '04..."

Red Sox rank among all MLB teams in defensive efficiency:

2006: 27th

2005: 23rd

2004: 8th

2003: 24th

If you think that one trade is a valid response to the above, I don't know what else I can say to you.

theo was terribly overrated when the sox won the world series. same with francona, who is not a stud manager.

he's not a stud gm, but he's not bad at all. i'd say better than average, which is pretty good considering his age and the market.

i think depo did a very nice job in l.a. for setting the groundwork.

ricciardi, i'm underwhelmed.

but the opening line:
Mike Lupica doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

can be applied to many things lupica writes/speaks about. as good a reason as any not to read his stuff.

I agree w/those above disagreeing w/Jim. I'd even suggest that perhaps that kind of editorializing is best placed in the Sox blog, not the general Newsblog. If it's such a piece of #### article, don't post it, or post it elsewhere, then rip it to shreds.

They knew they weren’t in a position to vie for a World Series.

Really? They were in 1st or tied for 1st for much of the 1st half of the season. I don't find at all convincing your retrospective read of what the Sox were up to last year.

Mulligan, the Red Sox didn't suck last year. They finished 86-76 (.531). Although that result, when compared to the previous three seasons (2005 95-67 .586, 2004 98-64 .605, 2003 95-67 .586), is disappointing, saying they sucked mischaracterizes their performance in 2006.

As for the idea that Epstein is middle of the pack, I can't see how he can be judged that way based on the track record of the team during his tenure; that's unless, of course, the sole criteria is winning a World Series every year.

At this point, I'd access his performance as well-above average to excellent. Does that mean I'll judge him that way forever? No, it doesn't. Does it mean he hasn't made any mistakes? No, it doesn't. What it does mean is he's made more smart decisions/moves than a lot (but not all) his peers.

First of all, this Lupica column is all over the place. I'm not sure how Jim was even able to get any kind of main point out of it in the first place.

Secondly, can we try to cut out some of the spin that always surrounds this franchise's every move? Boston responded to its problems the way any other team might -- by throwing gobs of money at them. Why were the problems there in the first place? Poor talent evaluation (and some bad luck). Are Red Sox fans simply disillusioned by the lack of a grand strategy by their Camelot front office?

"Really? They were in 1st or tied for 1st for much of the 1st half of the season. I don't find at all convincing your retrospective read of what the Sox were up to last year."

I'm especially troubled by these two statements contrasted with one another:

"They knew they weren’t in a position to vie for a World Series."

"they tried to... do their best to put a credible playoff contender on the field"

Isn't a "credible playoff contender" a team that, under the best of circumstances, hopes to make the playoffs? And doesn't everyone acknowledge that any team making the playoffs has a chance of winning it all?

"And if one wants to analyze his performance on a micro-level and criticize him for some things, that's cool too. But I don't see how one can say he's not a good GM."

My opinion that Theo is a mediocre GM is based on things like:

1. Defense -- see my post #6

2. Failure to construct any sort of bullpen. Since '03, Red Sox relievers have pitched 1878-1/3 innings, and compiled a combined ERA of 4.59. Their bullpen ERA ranks among all major league teams:

2006: 21st

2005: 29th

2004: 11th

2003: 28th

3. The trading away of good young players, which seems to run contrary to what Jim said about long-term competitiveness, as well as Theo's comments about his "player development machine." You can talk about developing young talent. And you can trade away Hanley Ramirez, Anibel Sanchez, Cla Meredith and Andy Marte all in one off-season. You can't do both.

4. Some evidence that Theo doesn't have a coherent plan. Signing Renteria to a big contract and then trading him after one season? Similarly, there's some evidence of being caught flat-footed, of not looking forward enough. If you trade your major league shortstop AND your minor league shortstop, then -- surprise surprise -- you need to fill that gap. If you lose your center fielder to free agency, you need to find a replacement. If you get rid of your only guy who can catch a knuckleball, maybe you better be sure his replacement has that same skill.

Two other points:

A. I have never understood how Theo and Beane could be lumped together as good or great GMs. I think Beane is one of the best 2-3 GMs in the game, because of what he does with what he has (in terms of payroll) and in spite of his playoff failures (which I think you can attribute largely to luck). By contrast, Theo has the 2nd highest payroll in the game, year in and year out, and his success is based on winning a World Series. This doesn't compute.

B. I'm sure people would defend Theo by saying "he's just had bad luck -- he's brilliant." But I am not a baseball insider. I don't know what Theo's plan is. And I don't assume -- because he's a young, good-looking guy with a nice resume (just like me!) -- that he knows, either. You have to evaluate a GM based on what actually happens, as opposed to what looks good on paper, or what SHOULD happen. That means I give Theo major props for getting Ortiz and Mueller -- I don't care if no projection system said those guys would be as good as they were. They were great, period. Just like most of Theo's pitching acquisitions have been horrible, period.

the Red Sox didn't suck last year. They finished 86-76 (.531).

I would say the season was very disapointing considering the team took a step back, and the organazation traded away a c considerable amount of young talent.

I disagree with some of Jims points above, I do agree that the reason the Sox were not very active in the free agent market last year relative to this year isn't a change of strategy but based on the players available in those years.

I do agree that the reason the Sox were not very active in the free agent market last year relative to this year isn't a change of strategy but based on the players available in those years.


Can either of you clue in a non-believer in some way as to why you think this way? Statements by the FO, unsuccessful bids on players, anything? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the evidence I've seen makes it about even odds that the organization was drunkenly lurching, trying to throw money at a third-place finisher.

Eric, if they held tight last offseason and not made any moves to improve the club then I would agree with you. They did make moves to improve the club, they just did it in the trade market rather than through free agents. They aquired three players who expectations were high for who didn't end up improving the club in Beckett, Crisp and Loretta who were all considered major pickups.

If they liked the free agents or the prices on free agents they would have made those moves in the cash market rather than giving up talent for it.

"Mulligan, the Red Sox didn't suck last year. They finished 86-76 (.531)."

You're right -- they did finish 86-76. They also allowed more runs than they scored. But you're correct in that, instead of saying "The Red Sox sucked last year," I should've said "The Red Sox front office sucked last year."

I probably don't need to say this, but a GM has to make his team better in the long term or the short term (or, if he's really good, both). The Red Sox had the second highest payroll in baseball, yet their GM's wound up making their team worse in '06 AND possibly worse in the future.

By contrast, Theo has the 2nd highest payroll in the game, year in and year out, and his success is based on winning a World Series. This doesn't compute.

I speak for no other man, but to me Beane is one of the top GMs because he has a low payroll, gets his teams to the playoffs, and even when they don't make it they're still in contention. I'm a Cubs fan. My criteria are fairly simple. :-) For Epstein, it's the same thing: playoffs, World Series, playoffs, 3rd place with contention most of the season. Do I think he's a genius? Not at all. Do I think he's as good as Beane? No, haven't seen evidence of that yet. But to me he's obviously a good GM. I don't care what the payroll is, if you consistently get your team to October baseball, you're good.

I don't see any change between 06 and 07 except that the salary cap jumped by $15M. The Sox have added, since 2006, about 15M in payroll. Nothing weird, except for ownership's insistence on a payroll that stands exactly at the luxury tax threshold.

I disagree that the Red Sox were less active last year, relative to payroll. They added payroll, $9M to Lowell, $5M to Beckett, 3M to Crisp, Pena, Tavarez. They had less money to spend because of the luxury tax, but they spent it on quite a bit of talent. Becuase they didn't like the free agent market, they went after talent in trades, but it was just as active as this offseason, relative to payroll space. I definitely disagree with Jim's statement that the Sox weren't trying to win last year - they spent $130M on baseball players, they were by definition going all out to win last year. They just didn't do a very good job of it.

The Def Eff stat is problematic, becuase Fenway massively inflates batting average. The Sox coming in 8th is like other teams coming in 2nd or 3rd. Theo hasn't built great defenses except in '04, this is true, but Def Eff hugely overstates the issue. Further, what does it matter if Theo's teams haven't had great bullpens or defenses, if they've won anyway? And they have won, three playoff appearances in four years, and a world series. You're picking out the weak aspects of the team and ignoring that in order to be as good as the Sox have been, other aspects of the team must be really, really good to balance out the weaker aspects.

And, of course, that's what every good GM does. They build a team with some weaknesses, and balance those out with some strengths. Pointing out that a team is imperfect is hardly evidence of even relative incompetence.

I don't really know what to with evaluating GMs on a grand scale. The job is so different based on payroll. There are a couple of other clubs in the 100+M payroll range, and Theo has generally done better than them, but the sample size is tiny. I think he's good at what he does, and I don't want the Red Sox to replace with him another GM.

Red Sox rank among all MLB teams in defensive efficiency:

2006: 27th

2005: 23rd

2004: 8th

2003: 24th

He could have dumped Manny and replaced him with Juan Pierre or Scott Podsednik , and their efficiency rating would have improved substantially. And you would then rate him higher as a GM?

Maybe Theo is smart enough to know that when he has to compromise, to take offense over defense, esp. in his ballpark. Players who are A+ offensive forces are rarely A+ defensive players. Of course when the next Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays are available, I'm sure Theo would be happy to sign them.

Also, a great offensive player can generate many more runs than a great defensive player can save. The pitcher has so much impact on defensive runs scored that Defensive Efficiency is a minor statistic and should remain so. Has anyone every tried correlating both offensive and defensive efficiency with winning percentages? Having not done any research I will guarantee offensive efficiency correlates much more highly.

Considering that the team won 86 games and only fell out of first when they encountered a month that included their starting catcher, shortstop, right fielder, DH and 3 members of the rotation all out for some or most of the month, it wasn't that bad a season or a surrender year.

As for Lupica. He just wants to criticize Theo. Eh. So what? My favorite part was knocking Theo because Boras put on a stall in the Dice-K negotiations. Does Lupica think Theo should force Boras to the negotiating table at gunpoint?

I probably don't need to say this, but a GM has to make his team better in the long term or the short term (or, if he's really good, both). The Red Sox had the second highest payroll in baseball, yet their GM's wound up making their team worse in '06 AND possibly worse in the future.

We'll see over the next few years whether you are correct. It's the long view that's important. I don't think we can definitively access last year's moves until a few years from now. A year ago a lot of fans were still cursing the Sox's failure to resign Pedro; this year the perspective is a little different.

In my mind, the evolution of Josh Beckett is pivotal. If Beckett reaches his potential and becomes the dominant starter they were expecting, the Marlins trade was well worth making. If he continues to pitch as erratically as he did last year, the prudence of the deal is dependent on the ongoing play of Lowell, Sanchez, and Ramirez.

Epstein preached patience last season as things fell apart. Lucchino burned. Epstein said the Red Sox couldn't spend with the Yankees. Now the Red Sox pay more than $100 million, in posting fees and contract, for Matsuzaka.

This quote is the one that prompted me to post. It's at the crux of the point.

Lupica suggests there is an organization shift in the front office based on free agent acquisitions and the lack of action when things fell apart last season. I disagree. As Matt mentioned above, the Sox were perfectly willing to increase payroll last season in the Beckett trade. They were not interested in throwing money around in free agency, however, because they didn't cherish the free agent players. They were also not interested in overpaying for the players available at the trade deadline.

Lupica suggests Lucchino wanted to do more in last year's free-agent market and at the trade deadline. He also suggests the Matsuzaka signing indicates a change in the Boston power structure because it indicates a change in team policy. I say it does no such thing.

JC, thanks for the editorial tip. I'm sorry if my post distracts from the ongoing steroid and political discussions you enjoy so much.

JC, thanks for the editorial tip. I'm sorry if my post distracts from the ongoing steroid and political discussions you enjoy so much.

I don't read the steroids threads at all, but if you'd like to stop them, perhaps we can not see 14 articles on Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame candidacy. Think that might have something to do with it?

I'm entirely with Jim on the fact that this Lupica article is lousy and incoherent. I disagree about some other things though. First and foremost, as I am sure to point out every time the Yankees' brilliance is brought up, the payroll has to be a factor when evaluating a GM. Therefore, on a $120 mil+ payroll, 86 wins has to be considered a pretty awful year.

During the 05-06 offseason, I thought they were attempting to balance between planning for the future and trying to win now. Crisp was arguably as good as Damon, but much younger and cheaper. Beckett cost some prospects, but he appeared upgrade the rotation greatly right now and was young enough to do so in the future as well. Wily Mo looked ready to contribute right away but was under control for a while and only 24.

I do believe that at some point in the mid-summer, they decided that the injuries were too great and that in order to get back into the race, they'd have to sell out the future. When the offseason came, they went back into the business of trying to win now as well as down the road.

And holding up the Nomar trade as some sort of feather in Theo's cap just doesn't fly. It was, at best, defensible, and at worst, a terrible trade when it was made. If you want to give him credit for finding a good defender, I'd point to installing Lowell and Agonz last year, or picking up Pokey and Payton a couple years ago.

Although I think there are some very valid criticisms of the Sox management, I don't agree with this one: 4. Some evidence that Theo doesn't have a coherent plan. Signing Renteria to a big contract and then trading him after one season?

Deciding that they'd rather have Coco than Renteria doesn't mean they didn't have a coherent plan. They could very well have thought that Renteria was still a good option but decided that dealing him to get Coco, at a much cheap price, was a better option.

I agree with JC. Saying the Sox weren't intended to contend last year is silly and revisionist.

JC, thanks for the editorial tip. I'm sorry if my post distracts from the ongoing steroid and political discussions you enjoy so much.

Gee, I don't know what to say. Since by the second sentence the sarcasm is clear, then obviously you don't appreciate my pointing out that typically such editorial spin has been preserved for team blogs, and most "newsblog" type intros aspire to Repozian wit and irrelevance (i.e., "objectivity"). Ultimately, of course, I don't give a ####. I don't see, however, why you remain so ####### defensive. You're the one who's made clear you'd like the site to be a repository for media, baseball intelligentsia and so on to visit. Then why the hell post a Lupica article only to begin by commenting, "He doesn't know what he's talking about," especially when you follow it up w/an analysis that sounds more ignorant than Rush Limbaugh's weekly analysis of Hungarian classical music.

I think it's pretty fair to criticize the Red Sox for their seeming lack of an overall plan. Just look at their shortstop situation. At the end of 2004 they had Orlando Cabrera. They replaced him with Renteria, dumped him and got Alex Gonzalez and now signed Julio Lugo. Has that been an overall upgrade? Probably not but it's been an upgrade in how much they are paying. They've done the same thing with starting pitching. Letting Pedro walk, trading for Beckett, trading away Arroyo and now signing Matsusaka. They are probably better off now but they are certainly paying a lot more than they were before. They've also done similar things at 3rd base and in the outfield. Of course, if you spend enough money, it doesn't really matter if your GM knows what he is doing but I think people expect more out of Theo than they do of Cashman.

At the end of 2004 they had Orlando Cabrera. They replaced him with Renteria, dumped him and got Alex Gonzalez and now signed Julio Lugo.

In the process they've also added a few high draft picks and Coco Crisp.

as I am sure to point out every time <strike>the Yankees' brilliance is brought up</strike> there is oxygen in the air and I don't see any pigs flying the payroll has to be a factor when evaluating a GM.

I thought that needed punching up.

SJ,

They knew they weren’t in a position to vie for a World Series. Instead of throwing money around foolishly on the best *available* talent (like they had done in the Clement and Renteria deals), they tried to accomplish four things simultaneously: 1) do their best to put a credible playoff contender on the field (a marketable product),

There is a difference between putting together a credible playoff contender that you believe might make and get lucky in the playoffs and a team which you believe is a World Series team.

In 2006 the Mets were a World Series team; in 2006 the Padres were a playoff contender. There was a decided difference in expectations. The Mets expected to play extremely well and make the playoffs and World Series, even if some things didn't go well; the Padres hoped to make the playoffs, if a bunch of things went in their favor. Although the expectations for the Sox were somewhere in the middle between those two, the Red Sox were clearly closer to the Padres rather than the Mets.

Going into spring training the Sox had a lot of question marks: Would Schilling be able to bounce back? Would David Wells be healthy? Would Keith Foulke recapture his 2004 form and anchor a quality bullpen? Would Gonzalez and Lowell contribute enough with their bats to be positive contributors? How would Kevin Youkilis play at 1st? Could Coco Crisp replace Damon? Although I agree most people thought they'd be a playoff competitor, there were plenty enough question marks to make that belief uncertain.

Prior to the season I was very unsure about the team's prospects. Although I thought the team could potentially be very good *if everything went right* I knew there was enough problems that the potential was there for the team to not contend at all. I equivocated so much that a few co-workers who often ask me questions about the Sox, joking demanded that I predict whether they'd make the playoffs or not. My answer? If everything goes right. On the Red Sox mailing list my preseason prediction was a 93-69 record (certainly a playoff contender, but not a record that would get the Sox into the playoffs).

So, while I agree they were a playoff contender going into the season (with a potential crapshot chance), I don't agree they were a team the front office expected to legitimately vie for a World Series championship.

In contrast, even with the current roster questions and two months before spring training, I'd classify the 2007 team as legitimate World Series contenders.

Secondly, can we try to cut out some of the spin that always surrounds this franchise's every move? Boston responded to its problems the way any other team might -- by throwing gobs of money at them. Why were the problems there in the first place? Poor talent evaluation (and some bad luck). Are Red Sox fans simply disillusioned by the lack of a grand strategy by their Camelot front office?

The last sentence of this paragraph contradicts the goal of the first sentence, obviously.

Lupica suggests Lucchino wanted to do more in last year's free-agent market and at the trade deadline. He also suggests the Matsuzaka signing indicates a change in the Boston power structure because it indicates a change in team policy. I say it does no such thing.

I don't really agree with Jim on the larger point about this article, but he's 100% right on this one. Hating on Lucchino is very popular, but suggesting that this offseason shows a power shift demonstrates only that the person making the claim hasn't followed the Red Sox very closely.

In contrast, even with the current roster questions and two months before spring training, I'd classify the 2007 team as legitimate World Series contenders.

It seems to me the biggest difference in your impression of last year's team and this year's teams is the difference between prospective and retrospective analysis. The question marks you saw on last year's team largely remain. What will 40 yr. old Schilling do? What can we expect of ANY of their starters? Who will anchor the bullpen? Will Crisp be better? Will Lowell repeat his "good" performance? Will Manny be on the team? How about Drew?

I agree that this year's team is a legit WS contender, but I thought last year's was as well.

I think we can all agree that Lupica's a jacka$$. This fact of life can, however, co-exist alongside a verdict that the Sox had a really bad off-season last year.

Let's not forget that the central feature of last off-season was a 3-month pi$$ing match between Theo and Lucchiavelli, during which a lot of chefs were spoiling the strategic broth. It's more than reasonable to say that last off-season lacked a coherent philosophy; no reason why it should have had one, given that the FO lacked coherent leadership.

I don't think it's possible to generalize about whether the Sox have changed plans or not; it's damed hard to figure out what last year's plan was, since so many people were involved in calling the shots.

Maybe all we're seeing this winter is a determination not to screw up so royally. This year, it appears, they simply decide to identify some prime targets and go get them; to add talent without subtracting much. And I don't think they're done.

It seems to me the biggest difference in your impression of last year's team and this year's teams is the difference between prospective and retrospective analysis. The question marks you saw on last year's team largely remain. What will 40 yr. old Schilling do? What can we expect of ANY of their starters? Who will anchor the bullpen? Will Crisp be better? Will Lowell repeat his "good" performance? Will Manny be on the team? How about Drew?

I agree that this year's team is a legit WS contender, but I thought last year's was as well.

We're talking about a matter of opinion. Even not knowing who'll end up being the closer, I'm much more confident in the team's prospects because the question marks are less critical.

Let's take Schilling, for example. Going into 2006 Schilling was a much bigger question mark, due to his health, than he is today. In 2005, Schilling appeared in 32 games (11 starts) and compiled an 8-8 record with a 5.69 ERA, 121 hits and 87 Ks in 93.3 inning. In 2006, he started 31 games and was 15-7 with a 3.69 ERA, 220 hits and 183 Ks in 204. Based on last year's performance his health is certainly less of a concern.

Another important factor is his role on the staff. At this point, even if he ends up the opening day starter, he is the number three guy in the rotation. Beckett and Matusaka now occupy the top two spots. Although they have some question marks, I'm confident, based on what I know about the two of them, they will combine for 33-43 wins next season. I did not have this same confidence about any two of the Sox's starters last year.

I'm also much more confident in the Sox's starting nine than I was last season. The overall talent level is much higher. They will certainly score more runs than they did last year. Their overall defense should also be much improved.

The team's question marks are not the same. The prospects for this year's team are much higher as the team is clearly better. What's nice about this discussion is we'll find out soon enough whether my confidence is well placed or not.

Well, that's certainly true; we'll find out soon. It's odd to see someone at BTF speak of a pitcher's projected performance in terms of wins, rather than by stats that would support winning or losing. Beckett's performance is probably not a question mark: he'll probably be as mediocre as usual, so no reason for excitement there, and if you're counting him as 1 or a 2, then I like NY's chances. Matsuzaka's an ENORMOUS question mark, IMHO. As is Papelbon. Schilling's at that age where I think what you can expect is the unexpected. Last year one anticipates injury and recovery, and he supersedes that expectation. We'll see this year. What about your closer? How much better will the lineup be?

I agree, by the way, w/Ole P, that Boston is not done. I think he posted somewhere else that they're going balls-out to win this year, cost be damned, and I agree w/that as well.

Beckett and Matusaka now occupy the top two spots. Although they have some question marks, I'm confident, based on what I know about the two of them, they will combine for 33-43 wins next season. I did not have this same confidence about any two of the Sox's starters last year.

I'd take the under on that projection unless Marty McFly's Sports Almanac says (1) they're both going to be healthy, (2) Beckett's going to regain quality while maintaining the increase in innings he had last year, (3) Matsuzaka is guaranteed to pitch well in a new league with tougher opposing offense and almost certainly lousier supporting defense.

September 06' I was offered tickets by customers,suppliers,friends and even a neighbor that had a mini-season ticket package that had been in the family for years - we found out in 06'----they didn't want to go----Biz of Baseball had a study of what-in general terms-the playoffs mean,dollars and cents.You can't quantify apathy. Point the divining rod south to Baltimore to see that sellouts aren't pre-ordained.The Bosox F/O is sensitive to this

Although they have some question marks, I'm confident, based on what I know about the two of them, they will combine for 33-43 wins next season.

Wait, the low end of the prediction is 16.5 wins apiece? That's pretty confident, considering Beckett has topped out at 16. As for the 43 wins, I'll take any bets someone wants to put on that.

I assumed he's expecting Matuszaka to win 28 games and Beckett 5.

I assumed he's expecting Matuszaka to win 28 games and Beckett 5.

I'll chalk you up with 5 wins for Beckett in the pool. What's your Matsuzaka prediction?

One dollar!!!!!!!!

*applauds and jumps up and down, to the chagrin of hetero- and homosexual audiences alike*

I'd really like to know where the 33-43 confidence interval came from. Doesn't this suggest that 38 wins would be near the top of the most likely scenarios? Here are the number of MLB pitchers with more than 18 wins each of the past three seasons: 3(2004), 4(2005), 2(2006). All of them pitched at least 218 innings. Contrastingly, Beckett has 1 season with at least 180 IP. The most wins by any pitcher who failed to throw 180 innings last year: 12.

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out, wins are tough to predict. Schilling threw 204 innings with a sub-4 ERA last year and had just 15 wins. Mussina had 15 as well, along with a 3.51 ERA in 197 innings for the highest scoring team in the league. Only 3 teams had a pair pitchers combining for 33 or more wins last year, and the pitchers involved weren't even the perceived top 2 in the rotation heading into the year (Garland and Garcia, Rogers and Verlander, Wang and Johnson/Mussina). It would make much more sense to claim 400 innings of 3.50-4 ERA or some such thing rather than 33-43 wins. Judging by recent history, the line on wins should be lower than that for the top 2 of any rotation, let alone for an injury-plagued guy and one who's never pitched in the league before.

I'll chalk you up with 5 wins for Beckett in the pool. What's your Matsuzaka prediction?

I don't usually do predictions. I just speculate about steroids usage. But I'll play:

Matsuzaka:

14-8, and "yes" to PEDs.

Let's turn this into a Beckett projection thread!

I project that he'll go 17-12 with a 5.22 ERA and be placed as high as third on Cy Young ballots.

Gotta say the wins prediction is absurd ... unless you mean games they start which the Red Sox win -- then I could see 33 as the downside and 43 as a reasonable upside (assuming they start 60+ between them).

As to Renteria being evidence of "no plan" ... what the heck is the problem of deciding you made a mistake and moving on? They thought Renteria at 4/$40 was a better value than Cabrera at 4/$32 -- hard to argue with that in my opinion. But they weren't very happy with Renteria -- can't argue with that too much though I don't think he was much worse than they should have expected. You move him and bring in a fine and cheap defensive SS as a stopgap. Now whether Lugo is worthwhile or just another Renteria remains to be seen.

Having a plan and then sticking to every single aspect of it, including the bits that don't seem to be working, is just not smart. If the Red Sox had no coherent plan, you'd see a lot more unforced moves than we've seen.

As to Theo, given the Cubs' payroll, I'd much rather have Theo than Hendry. With the Yankees' payroll, I think I'll go with Cashman. With the Indians' payroll, I don't think I have a good idea of what Theo could do with it so I'll call that undecided.

Every time I read a thread about Beckett and Matsuzaka these days, I can't help but think of Nate Silver's comments about Fenway and the AL East's effects on projecting the Red Sox's pitchers. It's hard to think about having 4.80 represent a median ERA in Fenway.

Having a plan and then sticking to every single aspect of it, including the bits that don't seem to be working, is just not smart.

But it's working so well in Iraq...

If the Red Sox had no coherent plan, you'd see a lot more unforced moves than we've seen.

The big boo-boo was the Mirabelli trade, and at the time that seemed like a "forced" move. Epstein has since commented to the effect that they felt forced to do it, but they really weren't, and that panic always makes for a bad trade.

Lupica suggests Lucchino wanted to do more

There's really no way to read that Lupica column except as a sequel to the CHB one that made Epstein put on a gorilla suit. He writes as if Theo took candy away from him, but then Lucchino gave it back. Which I'm sure he did.

"The Def Eff stat is problematic, becuase Fenway massively inflates batting average. The Sox coming in 8th is like other teams coming in 2nd or 3rd. Theo hasn't built great defenses except in '04, this is true, but Def Eff hugely overstates the issue. "

And yet, in the four years before Theo arrived, the Red Sox did fairly well in defensive efficiency. They were 7th in '02, 8th in '00 and 4th in '99 (they were an Epsteinesque 24th in '01).

"Further, what does it matter if Theo's teams haven't had great bullpens or defenses, if they've won anyway? And they have won, three playoff appearances in four years, and a world series."

This sounds a lot like "count the ring." Theo inherited a team that, in the season before he took it over, scored 194 (!) runs more than they allowed. He inherited a team with (1) the best pitcher of his generation, (2) one of the best hitters of his generation, (3) a lot of other good players, and (4) a big commitment to payroll in the future.

Theo has "scored" as GM, but only because he started out at third base. Let's not pretend he got there because he hit a triple.

Lupica's Sunday article is always in competition with Peter Vescey's articles for least coherent.

Theo Epstein has a plan, and I'm not sure what it is. In 2003, he was Jamesian with the anyone-can-close scenario and floundered all year looking for one and then signed Keith Foulke for $8MM per (very high three years ago!).

Then he signed Renteria and bailed on him right away only to sign a similarly-tempered Jd Drew for twice the money.

He dealt Andy Marte for Coco Crisp with Jacoby Ellsbury in the system already. Then rebuilt the Marlins for Beckett and Lowell. There seems to be a prospect issue in the organization, no?

Fake Teams

If you assume that you're dropped into the 2005 offseason having already lost Pedro, I think it would be revisionist to declare the Beckett trade a bad one. There were issues with Beckett, and I don't think anyone could have predicted 200 innings of teh suck out of him, but IMO it was a trade that made a ton of sense at the time. I'd have pulled the trigger on that one back then, and likely would do so even today.

. In 2003, he was Jamesian with the anyone-can-close scenario and floundered all year looking for one and then signed Keith Foulke for $8MM per (very high three years ago!).

Having a good relief pitcher is not antithetical to a different model for bullpen usage. The reason the 2003 bullpen floundered wasn't because there wasn't a closer - it was because none of the pitchers were very good.

Then he signed Renteria and bailed on him right away only to sign a similarly-tempered Jd Drew for twice the money.

He signed Renteria, who showed up overweight, and didn't play particularly well. I don't see what J.D. Drew has to do with Renteria.

He dealt Andy Marte for Coco Crisp with Jacoby Ellsbury in the system already.

Jacoby Ellsbury had just been drafted, and had all of 139 at bats in professional baseball - all at low A. You're saying he shouldn't have sought out of a long term CF solution because a recent draftee started had 139 good at bats?

Then rebuilt the Marlins for Beckett and Lowell.

He traded a prospect who, for all his tools, had a pretty mediocre minor league performance record, and a good pitching prospect for a guy who was by all indications already as good as that pitching prospect could have hoped to become. Yes, he missed the AL-NL issue with Beckett, but I see no reason to believe that anyone else knew of the degree of the issue at the time either. It's pretty hard for me to hold the Beckett trade against him, when there was every reason to believe it was a solid move at the time.

Oh, and he wasn't in the organization when this move was made either.

There seems to be a prospect issue in the organization, no?

I don't believe so, no.

I'm not saying Theo can't be legitimately criticized - I'm saying that the criticisms you're mounting are the wrong ones.
He pretty clearly dropped the ball in a bad way with the Mirabelli trade. I wasn't thrilled with the Crisp trade at the time either, but it didn't have anything to do with Jacoby Ellsbury. We never really got a chance to see what Crisp could do however, as I'm not going to hold the finger injury against Epstein there. I think he made a mistake in not going after B.J. Ryan harder last year - the Sox had no reason to believe Papelbon could be as good as he turned out to be at the time, and now that he can't close anymore, it's coming back to hurt them. He drafted poorly in 2003, focusing too much on low upside guys.

Epstein's not a genius, but a lot of the criticism of him in this thread is unfounded.

A couple of things I'm curious about.

First, since we are all blaming Theo Epstein for the moves made during the last off season, when he wasn't actually the GM, should we also blame him for trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson?

Second, how is it possible to blame Theo for "dumping" Renteria, as if Andy Marte was nothing, and then blame him for trading Marte, as if Marte is one of the greatest prospects of all time?

I always review moves with information known to (or should have been known by) the person I'm looking at at the time of the move. No need to give Theo a bad mark b/c of Crisp if we assume the thumb was the problem with Crisp - that isn't an injury that on can predict. OTOH, if Drew shows up with a dinky knee (or the shoulder that we know know about), then that IS Theo's fault - he could have/should have known about that ahead of time.

If signing Renteria was a bad move (and I think it was), it was because the RS did not do their homework. From a statistical POV, I think the signing was very defensible. The year he had in Atlanta - essentially avg defense with a 360/440 line - is about what was expected, give or take a little, is what is hoped for from Lugo, and, if it comes to pass, is worth about $8-10mm. FWIW, in the Three Team SS Swap of 2005, Renteria has put up the best two year line. If it is true that he couldn't do that in Boston b/c of the IF grass, the media pressure, his love for Lobster than caused him to put on 10 pounds - whatever is unique to Boston - that is Theo's fault for not having tried hard enough to figure that out ahead of time.

If you are looking overall at a GM, though, it is really hard to look at anything but winning %. I understand he inherited a team - but he also didn't dismantle it right before it was time. In all events, if you do not want to give Theo credit for 2003/2004 b/c it wasn't "his team," we can't really evaluate 2005/2006 because it he still hasn't set up "his" team yet. Hold off until 2007/2008 is rolled out.

I don't see how he can do worse than an I right now, but an I is certainly defensible.

"First, since we are all blaming Theo Epstein for the moves made during the last off season, when he wasn't actually the GM, should we also blame him for trading Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson?"

You raise a good point. Perhaps we shouldn't talk about Epstein (or other GMs) at all, but should talk about the Front Office generally. I think it's difficult to know in any front office who is the prime mover behind every single move. Didn't I hear that Epstein was still advising even while he was doing his Hamlet impression? Can we assume that some moves made by every MLB teams are driven by folks other than the GM (the owner, assistant GMs, etc.)?

"Second, how is it possible to blame Theo for "dumping" Renteria, as if Andy Marte was nothing, and then blame him for trading Marte, as if Marte is one of the greatest prospects of all time?"

Let's see:

1. Red Sox acquire Renteria. Great move!

2. Renteria has a bad year (albeit one not too far out of line with the rest of his career).

3. Renteria is traded -- for Marte, a top prospect. Great move!

4. Marte is traded -- for Crisp. Great move!

Let me put it this way: if you were listing these three players in order of how much you think they'd help your team, now in the future, wouldn't Crisp wind up at the bottom of that list?

1. Red Sox acquire Renteria. Great move!

2. Renteria has a bad year (albeit one not too far out of line with the rest of his career).

3. Renteria is traded -- for Marte, a top prospect. Great move!

4. Marte is traded -- for Crisp. Great move!

I haven't seen anyone arguing this. I have seen lots of people arguing the opposite. Once again, either they dumped Renteria or Marte is a great prospect, but both can't be true.

Let me put it this way: if you were listing these three players in order of how much you think they'd help your team, now in the future, wouldn't Crisp wind up at the bottom of that list?

I wouldn't put Crisp at the bottom of the list a year ago. Crisp had a bad, injury plagued year, so obviously he doesn't look too good right now. One year ago, Renteria looked a lot like Crisp does today.

Let me put it this way: if you were listing these three players in order of how much you think they'd help your team, now in the future, wouldn't Crisp wind up at the bottom of that list?

Today, or at the time of the trade?

"He signed Renteria, who showed up overweight, and didn't play particularly well. I don't see what J.D. Drew has to do with Renteria."

I suspect, should he sign for 5/70, that your perception of this will change.

"Let me put it this way: if you were listing these three players in order of how much you think they'd help your team, now in the future, wouldn't Crisp wind up at the bottom of that list?"

Personally, Crisp would still be at the top. Last year screams out injury-affected fluke season to me.

I'd even suggest that perhaps that kind of editorializing is best placed in the Sox blog, not the general Newsblog.

I do not concur. I prefer intros to give the news with a point of view that can inspire discussion, as has happened here.

That's b/c you're an idiot. (That p.o.v. should inspire discussion!)

I have come to respect a lot of the Red Sox gans here--kevin, MCoA, vi, and Darren come to mind, although I disagree with them a lot--but I do sense that the history of the Red Sox, both long-term and recent, creates this weird combination of arrogance and defensiveness in some Red Sox fans, and there is also this need to constantly portray the FO as something really, really, really special. It is worse on some Red Sox blogs than it is here. It's funny--Lucchino is exactly the same way--arrogant, defensive and convinced he is really, really, really, special--so it makes sense that he has landed in Boston, and this column will piss him off too, if he reads it. Lupica is annnoying, but who really gives a #### what he thinks? This is a guy whose role model was Dick Young. I can see ripping Lupica just for the hell of it, but does anybody think Epstein and Henry and James give a #### about what Lupica says? Given the level of identification that this subset of fans has with the Red Sox FO, Lupica should be just a fly buzzing around your collective head.

The Red Sox are a big-money, east coast team, with a lot of smart guys in the FO and a lot of intelligent fans, and a bunch of loudmouth fans. Things didn't work out so well for them last year, so they spent a shitload of money this year, in part because the Matsuzaka situation allowed them to flex their muscles while staying at the luxury tax line for Seligitical purposes. Nothing wrong with any of that, but I sometimes wish folks could leave it there.

3) increase the overall talent level of the organization to enhance their long-term competitiveness

If this is the case, the Beckett trade looks even worse.

Speaking of Beckett, I wonder if the Red Sox have considered him as a closer? The blister thing might make that impractical, I suppose. Still, it seems like something to investigate.

That's b/c you're an idiot.

Great Seinfeld reference!
(Serenity Now / emotional Jerry / shiksappeal episode:
George: You know, all these years, I've always wanted to see the two of you get back together.
Elaine: Well, that's because you're an idiot.)

Consider discussion inspired.

I suspect, should he sign for 5/70, that your perception of this will change.

Should Drew sign for 5/$70M, he will suddenly become a fat guy who doesn't hit, and leads the league in errors? Or what exactly?