Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Josh Wilker Posted: January 03, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2272634)
The Globe recently floated the idea of oft-suspended, Freddy Krueger-faced Julian Tavarez serving as the closer.
   2. MSI Posted: January 03, 2007 at 01:36 AM (#2272652)
what's wrong with brendan donnelly?
   3. karlmagnus Posted: January 03, 2007 at 01:43 AM (#2272658)
I don't see any reason why Cordero will be better than whichever of Delcarmen and Hansen does best. Like last year, Sox will end up throwing away huge prospect potnetial for very little. No advantage to a $100mm development machine if you trade them away just as they're getting interesting.

BRING BACK DAN DUQUETTE!
   4. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2007 at 01:58 AM (#2272660)
I don't see any reason why Cordero will be better than whichever of Delcarmen and Hansen does best. Like last year, Sox will end up throwing away huge prospect potnetial for very little. No advantage to a $100mm development machine if you trade them away just as they're getting interesting.

BRING BACK DAN DUQUETTE!


Well, I suppose one solution to the problem of throwing away prospects for little return is to stop developing prospects, though I'm not sure that's the direction I'd go. ;)
   5. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 03, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2272663)
I don't see any reason why Cordero will be better than whichever of Delcarmen and Hansen does best.
You don't see any reason why the guy with 241.3 innings, 91 saves, 225 K and a 2.61 ERA would be better the best of a two guys who have a collective 103.3 innings with a 5.48 ERA? Guys who project for 4.06 (Delcarmen) and 4.73 (Hansen) ERAs?

One (but probably not both) of those guys could become good--maybe even great--pitcher some day. But as a Yankee fan, I'd love nothing more than to see Boston open the season with the bullpen they have
   6. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: January 03, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2272666)
I dunno - I think I'd rather see them weaken their everyday lineup in a trade for a "proven" closer who doesn't actually help them that much.
   7. villageidiom Posted: January 03, 2007 at 02:28 AM (#2272667)
The Globe recently floated the idea of oft-suspended, Freddy Krueger-faced Julian Tavarez serving as the closer.

That wasn't the Globe as much as it was Nick Cafardo's head. At the time his head was in the midst of a visual prostate exam. Though Tavarez as closer remains a possibility, take it for what it's worth.

I say option 3 happens within a month.

I'll take the over.

Any team with a "proven" closer will not want to part with him for a small or even middling price. I don't think a decent-to-good prospect will get it done. And I don't think the Sox FO wants to pay more than that, if they want to pay that at all.

Ultimately I think they opt for #4, under the veil of #2, and if/when they get to May and find it's not working, they go for #3. To elaborate, I think they will approach the season with 6-7 starting candidates, at least one of which is not currently with the team. They have a tryout of sorts for closer during ST, and whittle it down to 1 (publicly) or 2 (privately) by the start of the season. If option 1 fails in week 1, they go to option 2. (Note, this is not much different from last year when Foulke was the nominal closer at the start but Papelbon was inserted quickly when Foulke's short sample appeared unfit.) If that doesn't work, they either switch things around again and find an option 3 from within, or they switch back to option 1 or bounce between 1 and 2 until they can make a trade.

I would be very surprised, given how much effort they appear to be putting into NOT doing #3, that #3 would be done in a month. I recall quotes from Epstein a couple of years ago along the lines that the 2003 bullpen experiment was a failure of execution, not a failure of concept - that they'd had the right idea but the wrong guys. Doesn't mean they have the right guys now.

Interesting question... Is the 2007 personnel as it currently stands (if you assume Pineiro) better than the personnel in 2003? In 2003 they entered the season with a bullpen of Timlin, Embree, Fox, Howry, Mendoza, Lyon, and Woodard. Here's some fun:
Player      WPA w/BOS 03    WPA since then
Timlin         + 2.15           + 2.27
Embree         + 0.77           - 0.30 
Woodard        + 0.17             n/a
Howry          - 0.51           + 2.75
Fox            - 1.08           + 0.66
Lyon           - 1.25           + 1.53
Mendoza        - 1.51           + 0.70 

In 2003 they had a knack for either (a) getting otherwise good players to suck, or (b) giving up on players too early. Maybe they didn't have the wrong personnel in '03 (unless it was Cloninger/Wallace).
   8. Darren Posted: January 03, 2007 at 04:11 AM (#2272704)
Any team with a "proven" closer will not want to part with him for a small or even middling price.

He wouldn't have to be a proven closer, just a proven good reliever. That alone would make their pen much better. However, the 'decent to good' part was probably wishful thinking for a closer. It'd be more realistic for someone like Gregg or Qualls.

I would be very surprised, given how much effort they appear to be putting into NOT doing #3, that #3 would be done in a month.

But isn't this exactly what they did with Coco last year at this same time? They gave up a bunch to get back something they desperately needed. I'd say they overpaid a bit but it was worth it (or so it seemed to me) because it filled such a huge need.

Interestingly, at the time they dealt for Coco, they had already let two pretty good stopgaps go off the board: Davanon and Byrnes. Both had better years than Coco and cost very little. Still wish they could have snagged one of them.

WPA really bothers me. Why do people use it when it introduces so much context-dependent stuff into the data?
   9. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 03, 2007 at 04:29 AM (#2272711)
WPA really bothers me. Why do people use it when it introduces so much context-dependent stuff into the data?
Because it proves Papi is a clutch GOD!!!!!111 while A-Rod always CHOKES!!!!!!1111
   10. Sean McNally Posted: January 03, 2007 at 04:36 AM (#2272713)
The Cordero trade possibility scares and excites me for the following reasons

1) He's a damn good closer and the Sox would be better with him BUT

2) As a Nats season ticket holder, they're gonna suck regardless, so why the hell do they need a closer anyway and prying a prospect or two from Boston would be a major coup.

However, he's quite popular in DC and I doubt the front office would deal him without asking for a king's ransom in return.
   11. Darren Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:05 AM (#2272720)
Is Dempster available? He's been pretty good as a reliever, though a bit walkie. And he's a bit pricey if they're just going to replace him with Wood.
   12. villageidiom Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:22 AM (#2272727)
Why do people use it when it introduces so much context-dependent stuff into the data?

I had it handy, and I didn't expect other measures would tell a materially different story. Either that, or I'm a small part of a vast conspiracy to irritate you.

But isn't this exactly what they did with Coco last year at this same time? They gave up a bunch to get back something they desperately needed.

From Boston's perspective, yes. From Cleveland's perspective, the Indians had an outfield surplus and were willing to spend that surplus to get worthwhile players/prospects from Boston. I just don't see as good a fit this year, if only because we're talking about quality relievers instead of outfielders. From the perspective of a trading partner, be it Washington or any other team, nobody has a "surplus" of quality relievers.
   13. NTNgod Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:23 AM (#2272728)
And he's a bit pricey if they're just going to replace him with Wood.

The Cubs finally appeared to have learned their lesson on counting on Wood to be healthy to begin a season.
   14. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:38 AM (#2272733)
Is it a possibility at all that Lester is ready for Opening Day? Would the Red Sox even consider keeping Papelbon as the closer?
   15. Darren Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:38 AM (#2272735)
From the perspective of a trading partner, be it Washington or any other team, nobody has a "surplus" of quality relievers.

I think that some teams do. The Astros, for instance, have 2 closer types, and a couple additional good relievers. They could certainly find innings for each of them, but at some point, they are going to have good pitchers throwing low leverage innings. If they have a hole elsewhere, they'd be better off trading away one of their many good relievers to fill it.

I think you're right though that not too many teams are in this position.
   16. Darren Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:42 AM (#2272736)
Is it a possibility at all that Lester is ready for Opening Day? Would the Red Sox even consider keeping Papelbon as the closer?

Everything they've said is that he's starting this year. There's some debate over whether it's health-related or whether they just think he's more valuable there. If they sign Clemens, what they do with Pap will answer that question.
   17. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:44 AM (#2272738)
Depending on the health of Duaner Sanchez, the Mets might have a surplus. The Red Sox might like Heilman but I don't think the two teams are a good fit.
   18. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:49 AM (#2272740)
If they signed Clemens, their weakest starter would be Beckett. A year as ninth inning saves pitcher might do him some good.
   19. Russ Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:50 AM (#2272741)

I think you're right though that not too many teams are in this position.


The Pirates are in this position as well, with Gonzalez, Torres, Capps and Sharpshorbaylisslef. And, fortunately for the Red Sox, the Pirates are almost certainly to do exactly the worst possible thing when making decisions about which ones to trade and for what.
   20. villageidiom Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:51 AM (#2272743)
The Astros, for instance, have 2 closer types, and a couple additional good relievers. They could certainly find innings for each of them, but at some point, they are going to have good pitchers throwing low leverage innings.

Don't worry... Whether we get a closer or not I'm sure we'll have good pitchers throwing low-leverage innings, too.
   21. Darren Posted: January 03, 2007 at 05:55 AM (#2272746)
The Pirates are in this position as well, with Gonzalez, Torres, Capps and Sharpshorbaylisslef. And, fortunately for the Red Sox, the Pirates are almost certainly to do exactly the worst possible thing when making decisions about which ones to trade and for what.

Yeah, but the Red Sox are guaranteed to acquire exactly the wrong relief pitchers as well. Sort of an immovable object/unstoppable force thing. In the past, the Pirates' stupidity has been trumped by the Red Sox poor relief pitcher judgment (Sanchez trade).

Plus, the Pirates might yet find a stupider deal with the Yankees, who like Gonzalez. Maybe they'll deal for this year's version of Shawn Chacon, whoever that is.
   22. karlmagnus Posted: January 03, 2007 at 01:43 PM (#2272841)
If they sign Clemens, their weakest starter will be Clemens. At some point, the guy has to hang them up, and I see no reason why the Sox should spend $20mm proving that Clemens has passed that point.
   23. Honkie Kong Posted: January 03, 2007 at 01:47 PM (#2272844)
There is an option not mentioned, which is Papelbon back as closer, with Tavarez/assorted dreck as 5th starters.
I believe this to be the most likely outcome if Paps gets lit up in the first month, and the Sox get off to a slow start..
   24. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 03, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2272952)
"There is an option not mentioned, which is Papelbon back as closer, with Tavarez/assorted dreck as 5th starters."

When you have a closer who posts an ERA under 1.00, why would you want to leave him in that role? It's much more fun to put him into a DIFFERENT role. Just think how smart everyone will think you are if it works!

Next up: David Ortiz to CF!
   25. plim Posted: January 03, 2007 at 07:11 PM (#2273122)
When you have a closer who posts an ERA under 1.00, why would you want to leave him in that role? It's much more fun to put him into a DIFFERENT role. Just think how smart everyone will think you are if it works!


sounds like a good idea. let's move manny from right to left.

oops...
   26. Fat Al Posted: January 03, 2007 at 10:39 PM (#2273385)
ESPN.com now saying that a 1-year $4mm deal for Pineiro is just about done.
   27. Josh Posted: January 03, 2007 at 11:13 PM (#2273417)
Ultimately I think they opt for #4, under the veil of #2,

Bingo. I'm not sure if THIS pen is particularly better suited for that then THAT pen, fwiw.
   28. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: January 03, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2273437)
In this market, 1 year at $4 million is a very good deal for Pineiro.
   29. Darren Posted: January 04, 2007 at 12:57 AM (#2273515)
That article calls it a $4 mil deal, but it's really $2 mil + $2 mil in incentives.

As a reliever

06: 24.1 IP, 19 H, 3 HR, 10 BB (5 IBB), 20 K, 4.81 ERA
Career, 70 IP, 51 H, 5 HR, 35 BB (5 IBB), 62 K, 3.21 ERA

Eh. Nothing here screams great or awful. I'd put a lot more stock in the scouting report on him.
   30. Darren Posted: January 04, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2273579)
Wow, I misread that. I thought it was $4 mil including the $2 mil. WTF is going on here? $4 mil guaranteed for this guy, $3 mil for Timlin, $1.6 mil for Romero. They better have a really good idea that one of these guys is going to be very good. Otherwise, I'm wondering why they didn't just plunk down the cash for Speier or someone.

I mean, let's assume for a moment that this goes reasonably well. Pineiro throws 70 IP at a 4.00 ERA. That has to be considered a good result with him. But the Red Sox are paying $4-6 mil for that. That's just not a great value.

Of course, I'll be happy to eat my words if he throws 80 IP at a 3.00 ERA.
   31. karlmagnus Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2273589)
he'll come in useful if they have to make heavy demands on their 9th starter because of injury, like they did last year. 5.00 ERA and good nerves would be well worth having in that role.
   32. karlmagnus Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:17 AM (#2273591)
he'll come in useful if they have to make heavy demands on their 9th starter because of injury, like they did last year. 5.00 ERA and good nerves would be well worth having in that role.
   33. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:09 PM (#2273761)
ESPN says it's a guarantted $4 million for this year. If he meets his incentives for games finished, it rises by $2 million to around $6 million and possibly kicks in a team option for 2008.
   34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:17 PM (#2273767)
I think that's it for the Sox on the bullpen. I could be wrong here, but (a) I don't think there's money left in the bank and (b) that does it for the roster spots, anyway.

Timlin, Donnelly, Okajima, Pineiro, Delcarmen, Romero, Tavarez

That's seven relievers, six on guaranteed contracts and one who's gotta be assumed on the roster. There's no room for that long-rumored closer. There's upside there, but, jeez, this makes a weird little bullpen. I hope the Sox know what they're doing, but, well, there aren't a ton of reasons to assume that they do.
   35. Josh Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2273771)
Unless Delcarmen and/or Hansen are traded, I think the only remaining move this off-season (other than invites) will be officially finalizing the Drew deal.
   36. Fat Al Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:27 PM (#2273775)
What's Donnelly's story? He strikes me as the presumptive closer in this group. Was his fall-off last year attributable to anything in particular?
   37. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2273777)
Was his fall-off last year attributable to anything in particular?
No longer being able to put pine tar on the ball, perhaps?
   38. pkb33 Posted: January 04, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2273786)
The Globe recently floated the idea of oft-suspended, Freddy Krueger-faced Julian Tavarez serving as the closer.

That wasn't the Globe as much as it was Nick Cafardo's head.


Tavarez seems more likely to start (based on his sneakily-good, GB-happy stint at the end of last year) than close, imo.
   39. tfbg9 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 03:59 AM (#2274493)
Career, 70 IP, 51 H, 5 HR, 35 BB (5 IBB), 62 K, 3.21 ERA


Most of that was before he got "hurt" and lost it.
   40. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:50 AM (#2275358)
Our bullpen will get shat on from a great height again, like the last two years. I can feel it...
   41. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:53 AM (#2275360)
I have this sinking feeling we're going to lose like, 80 games. I try not to trust my gut when it comes to the Red Sox.

That said, the bullpen is still a shaky proposition, so . . .
   42. karlmagnus Posted: January 07, 2007 at 05:57 PM (#2275833)
Bullpen would have been fine in 2006, if we hadn't lost Wells, Clement and half of Wakefield. It was asked to do too much.
   43. villageidiom Posted: January 07, 2007 at 11:15 PM (#2275971)
km, I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence, but I'm in complete agreement on the second.

The bulk of pitchers who end up in relief are inconsistent. If they were consistently good, they'd be made into starters, closers, setup guys, or even OOGYs. If they were consistently bad, they wouldn't make any MLB rosters. What's left are inconsistent pitchers: enough flashes of brilliance to be still employed, but not so much as to be moved to (and kept in) a more important role.

Each year as far back as I can remember, the Red Sox have stocked the last few spots in their pen with such pitchers. So has every other team. I'm not so sure that the 2006 bullpen's failure was due to the injuries in the rotation, as each of their veteran relievers going into the season (except Timlin) had an inconsistent past. But, yes, because the rotation had 5-inning pitchers subbing for the numerous injured starters - and one of the non-injured pitchers (Beckett) couldn't seem to pitch deep into games, either - the bullpen was asked to do too much.

In 2007, if Wake's back is back, they'll have three pitchers (Schilling and Matsuzaka being the others) who can pitch deep into games with consistency. If Papelbon makes the transition well, they'll have four. If the team can increase the average starter IP by 1 inning over what they did in 2006, the bullpen workload will drop by 30 to 40 percent. And that is a recipe for success: reducing the time your (theoretically) worse pitchers are in the game. This was one of the points of getting Schilling and keeping Wake: they get you deep into games.

So, yeah, maybe Timlin and Donnelly are done, and maybe Pineiro and Romero were done a couple of years ago. But if the starters can get the job done, I don't think we're really going to care. If the starters can go 7 it would take a colossal failure of the entire pen for the whole season to make a dent in their playoff chances.
   44. Darren Posted: January 08, 2007 at 12:26 AM (#2275992)
If the starters can go 7 it would take a colossal failure of the entire pen for the whole season to make a dent in their playoff chances.

I think you've mentioned this before, and while it's a good point in general, I think you're reaching with the starters going 7. Nobody goes seven anymore save the most durable and effective starters. Barry Zito, who just got an 8/126 contract based largely on his consistency and durability, has never averaged 7 IP per game. Only rare workhorses like Livan and Buehrle have repeatedly averaged 7 IP per game.

To expect that even three of the Sox starters to do so (or even fantasize about it) is unrealistic. If the team averages 6.5 per start, I think they'd be in excellent shape, and I'm pretty sure it'd be above average. It would mean that the started soaked up ~1050 innings, leaving 410 for the pen, which is very doable.
   45. villageidiom Posted: January 08, 2007 at 12:54 AM (#2276005)
I think you've mentioned this before, and while it's a good point in general, I think you're reaching with the starters going 7. Nobody goes seven anymore save the most durable and effective starters.

When I said 7, I was operating under the (incorrect) recollection that they were averaging 6 per start in 2006. They were actually just under 5.8 IP/start last year. The White Sox led MLB last year at 6.4... so, yes, 6.5 would be above average.

And I think they have the personnel to get there. Last year Schilling averaged 6.6; in Wake's last full season (2005) he averaged over 6.8. Matsuzaka could conceivably average in that neighborhood. If the rest of the staff can average ~6.1 or better they're in range of 6.5.
   46. Darren Posted: January 08, 2007 at 06:03 AM (#2276110)
Where are you getting the IP/start data?

If 6.4 was the best in the league, I'd be thrilled if they matched it or even came in at 6.3. One thing they may do if they get Clemens is go with a 6 man rotation and let their horses (Schilling, Matsuzaka, Wake) go longer in games.
   47. villageidiom Posted: January 09, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2276856)
Where are you getting the IP/start data?

MLB.com sortable team stats. You can get splits; choose "as starter". You have to divide IP by G, but if that's the worst part... Anyway, league average last year was just over 5.8, meaning the Red Sox were just below average.

Anyway, this linky should get you there.

The drop-down boxes to the left don't let you choose earlier years, but if you fiddle with the URL you can get it. In 2005 the White Sox led the league with a 6.6; Boston was 9th in MLB with 6.2. League average was 6.0. In 2004, the A's led with 6.4; Boston was 3rd with 6.2; league average was 5.9. So...
Year  MLB avg    High    Boston   Boston Rank
2006    5.8       6.4      5.8      17th
2005    6.0       6.6      6.2       9th
2004    5.9       6.4      6.2       3rd 

Even after losing Pedro, and with Schilling only getting 11 starts, they managed to maintain their IP/G levels in 2005. Credit David Wells with that, as he averaged around 7 1/3 per start. Wow. I keep pointing to Wake's injury having a big impact in 2006, but losing Wells was huge, too.
   48. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 10, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2277806)
crickets? did sox therapy die? i need some therapy.
   49. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 11, 2007 at 08:51 PM (#2278752)
I'd like to bring somethig up, and I'm not sure where else I might do it.

What is UP with the Dennis and Callahan show on WEEI? Is there a bigger pair of loathsome, disgusting, imbecilic cretins in all of US media? I sometimes get the urge to listen to sports radio, but all these guys do is rant about how liberal ideals are destroying the country, ted kennedy is worse than hitler, all Muslims and Brown People want to kill us, the ACLU wants to take away your christmas tree...oh, and they are the world's worst baseball analysts.

Can't we have some sort of concerted effort to get these asshats fired? Why do they have a sports talk show anyway?
   50. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 11, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2278762)
WJ, I couldn't agree with you more. At least Rush Limbaugh is an intelligent, loathsome, disgusting, imbecilic cretin.

Dennis is a local sports TV guy; Callahan writes for the Boston Herald. You probably know that much, though - you live in the Boston area, no?
   51. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: January 11, 2007 at 09:10 PM (#2278769)
I do live in Boston but didn't really know who they were. I can't listen to the show for more than five minute without my blood starting to boil and my skin starting to crawl. One of these days I'll need to call in.
   52. 1k5v3L Posted: January 11, 2007 at 09:31 PM (#2278786)
crickets? did sox therapy die? i need some therapy.


darren's plan to cut internet traffic is working. everyone is doing so much thinking, there just isn't enough time for posting.
   53. villageidiom Posted: January 12, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2278931)
One of these days I'll need to call in.

Yeah, that'll show 'em.

Just don't listen to D & C. They're not worth the effort. Their politics don't irritate me as much as it irritates many people I know. What irritates me is Gerry Callahan's overwhelming indignation toward anyone not like him. I've met John Dennis; he's not entirely likeable, but it's in a relatively harmless way.

I used to listen more to Glenn Ordway, but now his show is about 10% worthwhile radio, 10% stupidity, and 80% several-people-trying-to-shout-over-each-other-indecipherably-until-your-ears-bleed. I'm not a big fan of the latter two. (And of the 10% worthwhile, 8% is the whiner line.)

By far, Dale & Holley are the reason to listen to WEEI. Mostly Holley.
   54. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: January 12, 2007 at 12:34 AM (#2278948)

Just don't listen to D & C. They're not worth the effort. Their politics don't irritate me as much as it irritates many people I know. What irritates me is Gerry Callahan's overwhelming indignation toward anyone not like him. I've met John Dennis; he's not entirely likeable, but it's in a relatively harmless way.

I used to listen more to Glenn Ordway, but now his show is about 10% worthwhile radio, 10% stupidity, and 80% several-people-trying-to-shout-over-each-other-indecipherably-until-your-ears-bleed. I'm not a big fan of the latter two. (And of the 10% worthwhile, 8% is the whiner line.)

By far, Dale & Holley are the reason to listen to WEEI. Mostly Holley.


They're simulcast into the Hartford area now. I pretty much agree with vi
   55. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 12, 2007 at 12:35 AM (#2278950)
Gerry Callahan is just a straight-up racist. It's like that old Improper Bostonian piece on rejected city slogan: the cosmopolitanism of the Northeast, the unfiltered racism of the Deep South. Boston's gotten better since then - I'm posting from the South End / Roxbury, where the city is at least trying to help a multi-racial, mixed class neighborhood grow - but Callahan is a hold-over from the old ways.

I try to learn the EEI schedule just so I can be sure never to have to listen to him. When the Herald put all their columnists behind the subscription wall, it was a nice little relief.
   56. Darren Posted: January 12, 2007 at 01:30 AM (#2278968)
new thread up re: the Sox prospects. Nice stuff by Temple.
   57. 1k5v3L Posted: February 20, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2300598)
from rotoworld

In an interview with the Boston Globe’s Gordon Edes that will air Wednesday on NESN, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein hinted that Jonathan Papelbon remains an option to be the team’s closer this season.

There's some speculation that Papelbon may soon be named the team's closer, with owner Tom Werner indicating that a decision on the role had already been reached. If Papelbon is going to close, then it's likely Jon Lester, Joel Pineiro and Julian Tavarez would compete for the fifth spot in the rotation. Feb. 20 - 12:59 pm et
Source: Boston.com
   58. villageidiom Posted: February 20, 2007 at 09:34 PM (#2300686)
Gordon Edes, on the Boston Globe's blog, has already debunked the "Werner indicating that a decision on the role had already been reached" part. Werner & Henry made a joke (during an interview with Edes), and when it showed up in print on the Globe blog the humor didn't really translate well.

Edes also added that the "revelation" of Papelbon not being completely ruled out as a closer is nothing new.
   59. 1k5v3L Posted: February 20, 2007 at 10:16 PM (#2300717)
Gordon Edes, on the Boston Globe's blog, has already debunked the "Werner indicating that a decision on the role had already been reached" part.


party pooper
   60. villageidiom Posted: February 20, 2007 at 11:09 PM (#2300755)
Hey, it's not like I'm trying to keep things quiet around here. We're all just too busy looking for Manny. Last word is that he's busy claiming paternity of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
   61. Daryn Posted: March 21, 2007 at 05:08 PM (#2315357)
The Boston Herald, based on no apparent information, is annointing Tavarez as the closer. Does anyone have any supporting or contrary information?
   62. chris p Posted: March 21, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2315386)
The Boston Herald, based on no apparent information, is annointing Tavarez as the closer. Does anyone have any supporting or contrary information?

sounds crazy to me ... pineiro seems like he's putting it together.
   63. chris p Posted: March 21, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2315387)
the tavarez as closer thing seems to be based on timlin going down. i think pineiro will be the guy, at least to start the season.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3718 seconds
41 querie(s) executed