User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5422 seconds
42 querie(s) executed
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. Joel W Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#2068654)My problem with the FO is more in the nature of the free agent signings -- Wells, Clement, Renteria, Varitek all seemed to be overpays at the time as well as in retrospect. And I suspect that on average we've lost more in the trades we've made than we've gained. If we'd just held onto Hanley, Shoppach, Arroyo, Brian Roberts, and so on, wouldn't we be better off?
Brian Roberts?
(I'm totally fine with letting Damon walk, same with Lowe and Mueller and Cabrera. Just not Pedro. You let the good players go, and you keep the great ones.)
But this is hardly the point. Kyle "El Pedrocito" Snyder should finally fill that gaping hole not only in the rotation, but in the hearts of Red Sox fans.
I would be quite put out if John Henry just pocketed another 17 gabillion dollars every year instead of reinvesting it in the roster. I just want him to reinvest it in great players whenever possible.
yes, I think I agree completely. What I would like is for this organization to take an approach under which we homegrow most of our players (like the successful small-budget teams) and then put out the wallet for established, premier players (as opposed to the premier-for-a-year Pavanos and Beltres). The moves that sicken me are the ones where we overpay for middling talent. For example, this past offseason, I would have been glad to overpay for BJ Ryan but not for AJ Burnett.
My rotation would be Schilling, Wake, Arroyo, Papelbon, Lester.
But of course I'm not suggesting that the money we saved by not signing Wells/Clement/etc go unspent, just that it not be spent on mediocrities like Wells and Clement.
Not that Snow's DFA wasn't completely predictable 3 months ago.
i also think the replacement for pedro is NOT wells and clement. it's schilling. beckett replaces lowe or whoever was supposed to be the #2 starter. clement is #3 and so on. despite that, i think beckett's 2006 line will be a lot like pedro's 2004 line. and the sox 2006 line will probably look better than their 2005 line (despite their similarities thus far).
and as to arroyo, et al., let's just see how arroyo does after the all star break before we decide we'd be better off with him. no one expected him to pitch like he's pitching now, which suggests that it's probably a fluke and not his real talent level. and if it's a fluke, sure it'd be nice to have but it's not guaranteed.
I still don't think he'll hold up for that. I'm also not convinced that he'd be better than the 3.90 ERA guy he was with the Sox in 04.
As much as the results have been bad so far, I thought Clement was a good idea.
I sure wish I knew where the impostor who pitched the first half of last season in Clement's uniform went to tho.
CHOI WILL NOW BE FREEed
I miss Wily Mo Pena
What is this opinion based on? I figured he'd have signed with them for less.
I respect you a lot. But I think every sentence here is complete hogwash.
Kyle Snyder, or as I prefer to call him, Mecha-Pedro, has begun his BoSox career with a win over traditional NL powerhouse Washington. He will lead us all to glory, and then pancakes.
Getting Renteria's 2005 season was just #### luck. Clement's Sox ERA is probably over 5 now and he looks pretty toast - there's no reason he couldn't have been a league average starter with a healthy arm instead. Don't get me started on Arroyo. They've probably gotten about what could be expected out of Varitek, Wells and the FLA deal.
Letting Pedro go was fine. Even if Pedro's healthy for the deal, the Mets will probably end up paying about market value for the marginal wins he provides. The 25% (or whatever) of the time he gets hurt and provides significantly less value than that has a massive effect on his expected value.
Though this debate is entirely MdtM-P, I would ask you about the logic of the second two paragraphs?
In the first, you argue that the expected median/average performance of guys like Renteria or Clement shows that the Sox got bad luck. In the second, you argue that the downside risk of Pedro shows he's had good luck. It seems to me that you haven't accounted for the downside risk of Renteria and especially Clement, and you haven't exactly discussed how much better Pedro's median/average projection was than Clement's. I totally disagree that Pedro's downside risk was greater than Clement's.
Further, I think that "luck" is not a very useful category here. There are so many factors of which we are ignorant that go into baseball decisions, and that greatly affect player projections. I hold baseball teams to a far higher standard than I hold internet people, because the teams have so much more information. When some players go to crap and fall short of their internet-determined median projection, I give some blame to the team that made the acquisition.
They gave Renteria $40 million when he was worth maybe $30 million and only got $2 million (or whatever) of value from his one season. That's a bad deal that looks worse because of variance. Same thing with Clement.
The Mets signed Pedro to a bad deal that looks fair so far because of variance. That he's avoided the injury disaster and the Mets still aren't getting any sort of bargain is why the deal was bad. I'll grant that the deal might be reasonable in reality though because there wasn't a corresponding pitcher of Pedro's value that they could sign to a fair deal. But I have a hard time believing that not resigning him was any sort of blunder
The Red Sox should be able to beat PECOTA if for no other reason than their knowledge of a player's health. Beyond that, I don't think their edge could possibly be very big.
If the Sox should be expected to be 10% smarter than PECOTA, well then they're never going to make nearly enough moves for us to know if they're falling below that standard. And that's without even factoring that they may knowingly sign bad contracts because of the market realities
25% is a little out there. Since becoming a full time starter, Pedro has made at least 29 starts in 10 out of the last 12 years. The two exceptions were the strike-shortened 1994 season, and his injury in 2001.
He's averaged over 200 innings per year from 1995-2005, including the injury season. And lest we think his two highest IP seasons (1997 and 1998) are artificially muting the impact of his fragility on that average, it's worth pointing out that he's also averaged over 200 innings per year since the injury (2002-2005).
The Sox didn't exactly light out in pursuit of the healthiest pitchers in baseball once Pedro signed with the Mets, either. I suppose Clement was a durable dude (though now injured, of course), but Wells couldn't have been considered any more reliable than Pedro in the risk department.
Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.
I'm not sure what you think is hogwash. Do you think Pedro would have been much better than 3.90? His straight up league adjustment has to put him in the mid-3.00s. I'd say parks/defense/familiarity would take him the rest of the way. Maybe 3.60s instead?
Do you think the Sox could have gotten Pedro cheaper than the Mets did? Same price? When Pedro's option got picked up and he immediately announced that the team would receive no 'hometown discount,' I took that as a sign that he was going to the highest bidder. His comments since signing indicate to me that, if money was equal, he still would have wanted to leave.
These are all opinions, of course, so I can see how you might not see how right I am.
Snyder looked pretty good to me last night. Maybe he's something. He sure looks like Arroyo.
Wells' contract had a lot of non-guaranteed money in it. IOW they could better match potential pay with potential performance. Not so with Pedro.
Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.
And Damon. And Pavano. And Lowe. And apparently Clemens.
Meanwhile, can we all agree that Rob and Rany are spot on in their tirades against the incompetence of KC management.
I haven't read it, but I agree nonetheless.
Let's not get too excited about Snyder over one start in which he allowed 3 runs in 5 innings to one of the worst offenses in the weaker league.
I also wouldn't say that Boston exercised fiscal restraint with Pavano, the Yankees just threw more money at him.
I have never liked this kind of thinking, because it makes several assumptions that you just can't make. It assumes that there are lots of players out there available for a bargain price, and you should never pay a guy what he's worth.
Are the Mets better off having Pedro Martinez on the team or not having Pedro Martinez on the team?
Could they afford to pay him his contract?
Do they have an interest in being competitive?
Could they have taken the same money they spent on Pedro and gotten someone much better with it?
The answer to the first three of these questions is obvious, and even the fourth isn't hard to answer. The Red Sox pay roughly the same amount of money to Tek. They paid about the same amount to Renteria. I'd have taken Pedro.
BPro often criticizes free agent signings - there's rarely one they seem to like. But what are you going to do - not sign anyone if you can't get a bargain? You have to spend your money on someone. Otherwise, you're the Pirates.
It was me who called it hogwash, not JBH. I dont know why your baseline for Pedro's performance was his worst year in a decade. I guess just because it was his most recent, but I dont think you give enought weight to the 2.25's he slung in both '02 and '03. I think you could have expected anything from 2.50-3.50 ERA's for each year of his current contract. The 4th year of the contract wouldnt be too much of an overpay, assuming ongoing inflation of player salaries.
I also disagree with you assesment of the contract negotiations, but we'll probably never know.
Quotes from his article the week Pedro signed with the Mets:
oh yeah, Hampton contract, worse pitcher, more years, more $-per year.
Maybe someone should tell the NL hitters about this tear.
Here's what we now know: this article will not go down as Stark's finest hour. Being a axe-jobbing shill takes away his credibility about negotiation details.
Pass.
That's a fair point. Any ZIPS-like projection would have put him much lower than 3.90. My feeling that the future would be more 3.90-ish was based partially on his drop in velocity.
I also disagree with you assesment of the contract negotiations, but we'll probably never know.
That's true. There's also the possibility that the Sox could have signed him before he ever became a FA, if they offered him 3/42 or 4/50 or something.
Pedro Martinez as a Red Sock without Jheri curls: 6 years, 0 championships
Pedro Martinez as a Red Sock WITH Jheri curls: 1 year, 1 championship.
This is reaching Homer Simpson proportions. I can also understand how someone would be talked into it, but that person should not be managing a major league team. If you're going to be talked into doing stupid things by your players, you're not doing your job.
I also think this might well have been Terry's idea, for a couple reasons. First, he may have thought it was a good way for Pedro to have the last laugh on the Yanks and thereby boost his confidence. Second, the Sox pitching was in a shambles coming into the game. He had probably told Pedro that he planned to use him for an inning. From what we know about Francona, he lives in mortal fear of not pitching someone he has planned to use. So he may have used Pedro just to stick to his plan.
To: Toby
From: Self
THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS
1. Race with Mikael
<strike>2.</strike> 1A. Francona with Darren
No.
I think it's more of an indictment of the Royals that players need to get out of that organization to have sucess. They've had too many years of poor coaching, develoment, training, scouting etc.
Even if Snyder wins 20 games for the Red Sox I'll stand firm that he'd never ammounted to anything with the Royals.
That's sorta why I see an X-factor when teams get pitchers from the Royals.
FOr instance, Jerremy Affeldt is terrible, but if the Mets traded for him, I wouldn't be surprised if he became an All-Star once he got actually coaching and scouting.
I'm really sorry I missed Snyder's start last night.
I bet he made lots of decent pitches to particular hitter's weaknesses that he never would have made with the Royals.
That's the value with Varitek and advanced scouting (which the Red Sox seem to be the best in the game at).
Didn't he strike Soriano out 3 times?
No way he does that with KC.
an I think he'd probably beat especially with the improvements in the Red Sox defense.
Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.
And Damon. And Pavano. And Lowe. And apparently Clemens.
Clemens?
and the Red Sox offered Pavano MORE than NYY.
I don't think the wanted Lowe or Damon back.
The big thing here really is that had they shown the man who had built their franchise a little more respect, and talked about an extension earlier in the 2004 season, or even in 2003 the Red Sox wouldn't have had to get into a bidding war with the Mets.
I've heard fans older and wiser than me talk about how the impossible dream Red Sox were the catalyst for the rabid RS fanbase in New England. How without 67 and 75 the team and it's fans would be more like the pre-strike phillies, instead of in a league with the yankees.
Well, I kinda think Pedro's like that, all the Pedro v. Yankees, post-Clemens stuff certainly increased the Sox's pressence, I doubt NESN would be as big as it is today w/o Pedro.
Well, they did pick up his option a full year earlier than they had to. That's showing respect, I think. And I thought they were negotiating an extension before the 04 season, they just didn't manage to get him signed.
From Pedro's comments since he left, it sounds to me like he was most upset that Schilling was getting a better deal and more respect than he was. I'm not sure the best way to handle that, but that may have helped to keep him.
To: Toby
From: Self
THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS
1. Race with Mikael
2. 1A. Francona with Darren
First of all, it's supposed to be "To: Self; From: Toby." That's just plain funnier.
And second, I'm utterly humorless on the subject of Clemens leaving the Red Sox as well.
Am I wrong about Francona in this instance though? Is there any good reason, or even not-horrible reason to have Pedro pitching there? If there were any circumstance where you'd want your manager to stand up to a player and say no, wouldn't that be it?
Anyway, the Pedro non-signing has been hashed out pretty thoroughly by now, hasn't it? I think it was a mistake, but not a totally unreasonable one. I tend to think that Pedro had one foot out of town, but I could certainly be wrong about that.
What's more interesting to me is analyzing the front office's moves more generally. Many of those moves must be analyzed together-- this last offseason, in particular, was a bundle of interconnected moves.
Those moves haven't been perfect, by any stretch, but overall I would give the FO a good grade-- one of the best in MLB, I suspect. In fact, perhaps an interesting way to evaluate those moves would be to compare them with the moves made by other teams. Obviously, KC is no match. But how does, say, Beane's or Ricciardi's work over the last few years compare with Epstein's? Kenny Williams? It's harder to compare, say, Byrnes or Minaya, since they haven't been on the job long. And, of course, each team operates in a slightly different context, with regard to payroll, existing farm system, etc. But the goals are the same, I think: to win championships, and, preferably, to do so in a manner that makes future championships a reasonable possibility. Who's the best at this? Is it still Beane?
Yeah there is. It's called F you, New york.
Anyway, we need pedro back because:
1) The Sox significantly misread the market, and there is serious discussion on SOSH that Beckett may get 4/50 because there's few free agent pitchers available. Beckett getting Pedro money? WTF?!
2) Clement and Beckett both have ERAs over 5, and Pedro could shoot baseballs out of his ass and have an ERA lower than 5.
I really like Theo as a GM, the Red Sox's 'system' under his watch has become one of the best in baseball (development, medical, scouting, etc etc etc).
But even his pre-2004 signings always seemed lucky.
I can't remember too many examples here, but I recall lots of 'failed moves', that would have left the Red Sox with worse players than they eventually put out on the field.
Edgar Alfonso being the first choice for second base in 2003, Theo pursuing the pre-white sox Contraras. Javy Vasquez being the first choice in winter 2003, and Schilling being the fallback.
I know there were some more, I 'm forgeting.
While he's still a damn good GM, I think Theo got lucky from 2002-2004, and now that luck has turned.
I think the answer to your question in 49. is your response in 48. That is, the reason to let Pedro pitch in that situation is to give the little prima donna the respect he claims he should be getting.
Game 7 had nothing to do with it. He was going to start Game 3 no matter what he did. FFS, it was his throw day, he just threw in an actual ballgame.
Why was he going to start game 3 no matter what? He started game 5 on October 18th. If he doesnt pitch in game 7 he can start game 1 of the WS (October 23rd) on the normal 4 days of rest. I dont understand.
Because the team had decided that in the likely event of very poor weather at Fenway, it would be preferable to start Pedro, who had been having trouble all season loosening up in cold weather, in the warmer climes of St. Louis.
Throwing 25 pitches on your throw day didn't affect their decision. 25 pitches is not a start.
well it turned out to not be a big deal.
But if they lose in 5 or 6 and only pitch Pedro once (a la the 1999 ALCS) it would have been a big deal.
If he pitches games 1 & 5, he could also be used in a potential 6 or 7 as an emergency reliever.
Remember when Curt Schilling was all "I'm healthy and I had a great April." And then he threw 133 pitches, and we were all "stupid Francona and Schilling" and he sucked for May. I like that I'm all, "oh man, he has a 7:1 K:BB ration and he's awesome again and he's thrown 100 innings so far this season."
I realize that I do this w/ the Sox, or have done this w/ them every year for about 4 years now. I get so fed up w/ them right about now and through July and then I rerealize that they have a pretty good team. This year, I think that the Pythag is BS given the front of the bullpen/back of the bullpen dichotomy.
Oh and despite Wily Mo Pena playing Center for awhile, the Red Sox are 15th in the league in DER, and I think that adjusted that probably puts them in the top 5 of the league given Fenway's BABIP bias.
Not like old school Japanese Baseball Masaichi Kaneda 400 IPs a year 30 starts 30 relief appearences 25 complete games, but coming in ON THEIR THROW DAYS, to pitch to a couple of batters, maybe to exploit platoon advantage?
The main concerns are obviously
1) HOw effective the starter will be in relief on his relief cameo
2) How much it will affect his scheduled starts
3) How much it will affect his long-term health
Pedro pitching on 4 days rest in 2004 he just wasn't that good, he is a significantly better pitcher with extra rest.
You have to have Schilling throw games 2 and 6 because he couldn't hit and needed extra time between starts.
So you have Pedro start game 3 and 7. Therefore he was available to pitch in game 7 of the ALCS when the Sox had no rested arms in the pen. They had made the decision that he might pitch in game 7 before game 6, that's why Pedro was in Boston seeing a physical therapist that day.
To say they risked losing the most important game in the teams history, and the WS, just to appease a guy they didn't try that hard to sign in the off-season, is insane.
You seem to be pretty sure of this, so certainly you can produce some evidence?
I've heard fans older and wiser than me talk about how the impossible dream Red Sox were the catalyst for the rabid RS fanbase in New England. How without 67 and 75 the team and it's fans would be more like the pre-strike phillies, instead of in a league with the yankees.
That's oversimplifying. Without 1967 through 2005, the Red Sox fan base wouldn't be what it is today. The last time the Red Sox had back-to-back years with fewer than 80 wins in each was 1965-66. 1967 was the start, for sure, but the team hasn't really gone through a significant uncompetitive rebuilding phase in 40 years. Even their worst year in that period (1992) was sandwiched by an 84-win season and an 80-win season. Granted, they're not "really" in contention with an 80-win season; but if you bought a ticket there was almost an even chance that they'd win that day. That goes a long way toward keeping the fan base happy.
The main concerns are obviously
1) HOw effective the starter will be in relief on his relief cameo
2) How much it will affect his scheduled starts
3) How much it will affect his long-term health
Depends on what's expected in a side session. If they're maintaining their usual velocity in a side session, they could be effective doing a relief cameo, AND not affect scheduled starts, AND not affect long-term health. If their side sessions are lower-velocity, lower-stress sessions, putting them an in-game situation could lead them to overdo it, and all three concerns would be affected adversely.
I agree. They planned to use Martinez in game 7 because Foulke had pitched 5 and two-thirds innings over the prior 3 days, and Lowe has not expected to have so many effective innings. (plan was probably something like Lowe innings 1-4, Pedro 5-6, Embree/Timlin/Myers 7-8-9 with Foulke lurking as the wildcard/desperation move).
However once they found themselves getting 6 innings out of Lowe and a 8-1 lead, I think they should have changed the plan. Try to get the final three innings with a patchwork of Myers-Timlin-Embree, neither of whom had pitched the day before. If NY cuts the lead against them to 5 or less, you still have Pedro available. If the lead increases you could eke an inning out of Leskanic or Wakefield. And then Pedro could pitch Game 1.
Bingo. Francona said as much after the ALCS.
I can't believe that a 1-inning relief appearance in the 7th inning with the Sox holding a 7 run lead still causes so much angst. They pitched Pedro because the staff was exhausted (no Foulke available for Game 7), because it was his day to throw, because doing so gave him both an extra day of rest AND allowed him to pitch in warmer St. Louis AND set Schilling up to pitch in Fenway twice AND set Pedro up to pitch a Game 7 in the WS.
He got knocked around a bit. Big deal. All angst over that move should have dissipated 5 seconds after Bellhorn hit the fair pole the very next inning.
I miss Pedro. I agree with the sentiments here that the Sox have hopefully learned their lesson in regards to superstar players; pay to keep them, let the above average ones walk. Maybe they did learn; they let Damon walk but signed Ortiz to an extension.
like, to letting lowe keep pitching. according to the espn.com boxscore, he had only thrown 69 pitches through 6 innings.
No angst here. Pedro's my favorite player and this period is the favorite week of my life, so I enjoy breaking down the minutae.
The risks of the Pedro relief move werent dissipated by the Bellhorn HR the next inning (off the fan in left, not the pole in right), they were dissipated the next week when the Sox obliterated any chance of the Cardinals winning the series before Pedro could make his potential 2nd WS start.
Lowe had pitched on the 17th, had the 18th and 19th off, then pitched again on the 20th. I think he was gassed - as the rest of the team was.
Yup. Bellhorn's homers:
Game 6: opposite field shot to left, bounced off of fan, initially ruled a double, correctly overruled to home run
Game 7: led off 8th inning with a mammoth shot off Gordon off of the RF fair pole. Fox had a mic in the pole and the ball made a huge crashing/clanging sound upon hitting the pole.
Game 1: GW 8th inning HR off Pesky Pole.
Add to that his 2 out 2 run double in Game 2, and Bellhorn had himself one helluva postseason streak there. He was immense.
and the idiot son of jack buck mentioned that it was a horrible sound. was it a horrible sound to him becuase he was rooting for the yankees? maybe?
NOBODY wanted Lowe back.
Sounded to me like an empire falling. An EVIL empire!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main