BBTF's Sox Therapy Discussion :: The Wages of Losing

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. Joel W Posted: April 25, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4115575)

There might not be scarier words in sports than a visit to James Andrews, so yeah, I'm concerned.

102. Mattbert Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4115597)

I do think it's interesting, though, that there aren't many SP that only throw FB/Slider, with only a few changeups.

The archetype for that pitching style, for me, would be Kevin Brown. However, as Bard himself admits, his fastball doesn't have that wicked movement and sink. I'd certainly be more than happy if Bard develops into a starting pitcher not quite as good as Kevin Brown, though.

103. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4115598)

Do the Red Sox have any insurance on Crawford's contract? Or does this mean they'll be paying $40M for 0 WAR over the first two years of a seven-year deal?

104. Textbook Editor Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4115599)

If Crawford winds up needing TJ surgery, they need to approach his whole status as a write-off, and if they ever get any value out of him, it's a bonus. And so they'll need to overpay to get RF production and assume LA production only out of LF going forward.

105. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4115605)

I assume that position players usually come back ok after TJ surgery. Any data on it?

106. TomH Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4115607)

where is the panic? did it all go out the window with 2 wins over the Twins? what is wrong, Sox fans? I want MORE PANIC!! DOOM AND GOOM!!

seriously, the standings are funny. A 4-way tie for first.

107. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4115609)

Can Will Middlebrooks play left? It can't be that hard.

108. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4115622)

Can Will Middlebrooks play left? It can't be that hard.

Tell that to Kevin Youkilis who looked utterly helpless out there.

In all seriousness I don't think Middlebrooks is a guy you move. If he keeps playing well he's going to be the Sox starting third baseman by 2014 and potentially next year. I don't think you want to retard his development by asking him to learn a new position in the big leagues right now.

Ross looks fine to me in left. He's not a star but I can see him being a perfectly cromulent player out there, probably more valuable than Crawford was a year ago. I also wouldn't hate taking a look at Lars from time to time. I really think it is worth finding out if maybe he's one of those guys who for whatever reason just blossoms at the big league level. I don't think he'll be a star but I can easily see a scenario where Lars/Ross becomes a decent platoon.

EDIT: From a long term perspective I still have hopes for Kalish and Brentz is at AA (though off to a rough start).

where is the panic? did it all go out the window with 2 wins over the Twins? what is wrong, Sox fans? I want MORE PANIC!! DOOM AND GOOM!!

I'm still, something. I don't know if panicked is the right word but I don't feel a lot better about this team than I did two days ago. So far they've gone 2-0 against one of the worst teams in baseball with tremendously advantageous pitching matchups and a bullpen solution that is not likely to exist in three days.

109. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4115637)

Do the Red Sox have any insurance on Crawford's contract? Or does this mean they'll be paying $40M for 0 WAR over the first two years of a seven-year deal?

Overpaying for a player of Crawford's overrated skill set was never a good idea. No, I didn't expect it to look this bad in April of year 2. But it never looked good.

110. TVerik Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4115657)

If Crawford-Lackey-Matsuzaka don't contribute in any way to this Sox team this year and their money is deducted from the payroll, are the Sox an average-payroll team?

In other words, do they have no particular payroll advantage over the competition on the field?

*EDIT*

The answer, I think, is "no". I have them at $130 million, about the same as the Tigers. Still top-five, and changing places with the Angels.

111. Nasty Nate Posted: April 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4115676)

If Crawford-Lackey-Matsuzaka don't contribute in any way to this Sox team this year and their money is deducted from the payroll, are the Sox an average-payroll team?

No, still above average and still 2nd-most in the division.

112. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 25, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4115715)

If Crawford-Lackey-Matsuzaka don't contribute in any way to this Sox team this year and their money is deducted from the payroll, are the Sox an average-payroll team?

I think you'd have to make a similar adjustment to other teams to make that adjustment. While other teams are unlikely to have so much payroll on the DL they will have something out there.

113. Dale Sams Posted: April 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4115725)

Ahhh...I remember when people would get onto me for calling Crawford "Fragile and a slow healer"

114. Nasty Nate Posted: April 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4115732)

I think you'd have to make a similar adjustment to other teams to make that adjustment. While other teams are unlikely to have so much payroll on the DL they will have something out there.

I think his hypothetical was if none of them played a single game this year. You would have to adjust the other teams also, but there aren't many large-dollar guys who won't play an inning (Madson, maybe Victor Martinez and Chris Carpenter, anyone else?)

115. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4115739)

Ahhh...I remember when people would get onto me for calling Crawford "Fragile and a slow healer"

Aren't you the same guy who insisted any idea that Jed Lowrie was injury prone was ridiculous?

116. Dale Sams Posted: April 25, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4115748)

Aren't you the same guy who insisted any idea that Jed Lowrie was injury prone was ridiculous?

He's still alive isn't he????

Edit: The actual theorm is: "There's no proof that PLAYERS I LIKE are 'injury prone' rather than 'unlucky'."

Wheras Carl Crawford is a malingering piece of #### who would rather go under the knife and take a year off, while getting paid 20 million, then take the field and get called names.

117. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4115758)

Seriously? Malingering? The guy's been killing himself to get back on the field. You can say Crawford's shown poor judgment in his rehab, but his poor judgment is a function of being too driven to play.

EDIT: That was a joke in 116, at least sort of, I think. I'll leave the response.

118. Dale Sams Posted: April 25, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4115766)

Yeah I was joking. Though didn't Lackey say "I don't think I need TJ, but I'll get it for peace of mind". That one did make me go, "Huh?"

119. TVerik Posted: April 25, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4115835)

Matt, didn't you and I have a back-and-forth about a Crawford signing back when he was a Devil Ray? I'll see if I can find the thread, but I believe I took the "he'll be overpaid" side and you took the "he'll be worth it" side.

120. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4115843)

I argued that Crawford was pretty great a bunch of times - I felt the reasonably compelling statistical case that Crawford was a legitimate star was being overlooked because he didn't have a saber-y profile. On the blog here, I advocated against signing Crawford for big money before it happened, then came around at the time of the signing, and spent a lot of last year defending it. In retrospect, I should have stuck with that 2nd position. There were too many moving pieces in the pro-Crawford argument - he needed to be most of the player he'd been for just two years previously, and he needed to be as good as some, but not all defensive metrics say he is, to be worth the money. It wasn't a good signing at the time.

And, of course, no one predicted any of what actually happened.

121. TVerik Posted: April 25, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4115848)

And, to be explicit, I would have bet a mortgage payment that he'd be better than 0 WAR through the first two years of his contract (if that indeed happens).

122. Pingu Posted: April 25, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4116264)

I argued that Crawford was pretty great a bunch of times - I felt the reasonably compelling statistical case that Crawford was a legitimate star was being overlooked because he didn't have a saber-y profile. On the blog here, I advocated against signing Crawford for big money before it happened, then came around at the time of the signing, and spent a lot of last year defending it. In retrospect, I should have stuck with that 2nd position.

I didnt know Mitt Romney posted here.

123. Answer Guy Posted: April 25, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4116282)

Overpaying for a player of Crawford's overrated skill set was never a good idea.

Exactly. The list of things he can't do even at his best (play CF, draw walks, hit 30 HRs) is too long to make him the highest paid OF in MLB.

124. Answer Guy Posted: April 25, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4116285)

I wouldn't necessarily say Crawford's skill set is overrated. But you gotta remember what team this is. Why would you waste all that money to hire a speedster to play LF at Fenway, a position that does not really require speed?

125. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 25, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4116350)

And, of course, no one predicted any of what actually happened.

Well, no, but when a great player goes bad, he doesn't kill you. See ARod. In the three worst years of his career, 2009-2011, he was a 3 WAR player.

But when a merely good player goes bad, you're left with mediocrity or worse. That's why you don't sign good players to outlandish contracts.

Especially when just how good his defense was was up for reasonable debate, and Fenway's left field caps his defensive value anyway. And when since he's a corner OF who doesn't walk or have home run power, he needs to be just so at everything else to have real value - hit .300, steal bases, hit triples... The problem with a player like him is that his eggs are concentrated in too few baskets. You don't overpay for this kind of player.

126. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 25, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4116388)

Why would you waste all that money to hire a speedster to play LF at Fenway, a position that does not really require speed?

This seems to have been a consistent line of thought since they made the signing. The Sox play 81 road games and I saw too many teams in my youth hampered because the Sox were "built for Fenway Park.". Get good players and you will be fine, the problem has been that Crawford was not a good player last year.

127. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 26, 2012 at 12:29 AM (#4116578)

7-10! Meanwhile the Orioles are in first, the season is still insanely young and out of all the problems to have a crazy terrible bullpen is definitely the one you can actually fix during a season.

128. Joel W Posted: April 26, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4116587)

Right now I am looking at the 2003 bullpen just to remind myself how bad they were for so long. In March and April, Ramiro Mendoza threw 16 innings with a 9 ERA. Mike Timlin had a 4.5 ERA. Embree had a 9 ERA. They were a complete disaster. As a pen they had a 5.68 ERA in March/April, a 5.15 ERA in May, and a 5.72 ERA in June.

It's really not the bullpen, at the end of the day, that has me thinking this team is doomed to failure. Ultimately, it's the fact that our three best starters have stunk so far, and show no signs of not stinking. Buccholz is somebody who I believe can "figure it out" but with Lester, dating back to last year, it feels like something is really off.

129. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 26, 2012 at 02:21 AM (#4116609)

And when since he's a corner OF who doesn't walk or have home run power, he needs to be just so at everything else to have real value - hit .300, steal bases, hit triples... The problem with a player like him is that his eggs are concentrated in too few baskets. You don't overpay for this kind of player.

That's what made last year so crazy, though - Crawford actually has lots of ways he adds value. Even when he's not hitting, he's been a great baserunner, but he looked bad last year. I thought of him as a pretty smart ballplayer, but it seemed like he made all kinds of dumb decisions. He's played excellent defense (granted not at a premium position), but somehow that feel apart too. He should have at least added value in those areas, but seemingly every aspect of his game collapsed last year. He's probably overpaid even when firing on all cylinders, but pretty much he threw a rod last season.

130. Ron J Posted: April 26, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4116612)

#103 I'd be surprised if was fully insured if it's insured at all. There was an article (Forbes IIRC, but I'm not certain) about the sports insurance business. Basically something like 2/3 of the people who had been in the reinsurance side (IE buying up part of the policy) got out around a decade ago. As a consequence it was practically impossible to insure more than about $7 million of a contract. (Nobody currently in the field wants to be on the hook for all of a major contract)

And premiums had reached the point that several teams (the Giants being the only one I'm moderately confident of) had either completely stopped insuring contracts or were part of a multi-team arrangement which basically self-insured.

That's all old info. Maybe there are new players.

131. Answer Guy Posted: April 26, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4116676)

Theo's last three big FA contracts could be three of the worst free agent signings of all time.

132. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 26, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4116698)

Ultimately, it's the fact that our three best starters have stunk so far, and show no signs of not stinking. Buccholz is somebody who I believe can "figure it out" but with Lester, dating back to last year, it feels like something is really off.

I don't think you can say Beckett has stunk. That first start was horrific but his last three have been very good I thought, two of them against good offenses.

I have the opposite opinion of Lester/Buchholz. I think Lester will work it out but Buchholz scares me.

133. Nasty Nate Posted: April 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4116724)

The Crawford contract is starting to resemble the Soriano one ... only with more money, more DL time, and fewer home runs! ug

I have the opposite opinion of Lester/Buchholz. I think Lester will work it out but Buchholz scares me.

I agree. I'm worried about more DL time for Clay.

134. Mattbert Posted: April 26, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4116865)

Theo's last three big FA contracts could be three of the worst free agent signings of all time.

Crawford, Lackey, and...?

Matsuzaka?
Drew?

135. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 26, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4116913)

I agree. I'm worried about more DL time for Clay.

I'm with ya'll, although I'm more worried about Lackey-style complete suckage with no DL time.

136. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 26, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4116923)

I was watching last night's Twins-Sox game, and the Minny announcers (Tom Kelly was doing color but this was mainly the play-by-play guy) said that in his view Fenway was responsible for David Ortiz's success.

No; the Twins just cut bait on him way too soon, letting him go for nothing.

137. Dale Sams Posted: April 26, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4116948)

This team is going nowhere with that bullpen in those roles.

Cook SP

Aceves LRP
Hill
Atchison
Padilla
Tazawa
Melancon mopup
Morales SU
Buchholz closer (yup)

dfa

Albers
Thomas

138. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 26, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4116975)

Buchholz closer (yup)

Buchholz would be a horrible reliever. He is at his best when he can mix all his pitches, he is generally a slow starter (his worst OPS inning is the first) and despite his "stuff" he is not a guy who misses a lot of bats.

139. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 26, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4116992)

When Buchholz is throwing 95 he does pretty well, but he hasn't thrown that hard since 2010. I could see a move to the bullpen improving his stuff if he can regain some velocity. I don't see why he couldn't mix his pitches in relief.

140. Dale Sams Posted: April 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4117037)

Right now the closer has to "Be better than Aceves". Isn't Aceves putting on about 3 runners per game? I do note the point about being a slow starter. He did well in relief in 2007, but that was a handful of games, and a long time ago....if he would be a horrible reliever, then they need to trade, demote or DL him cause there's no more wiggle room for his performances.

And for the billionth time, why can't the starters close on their "side session days"

Anyone have the email of ANY GM? Please ask.

141. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 26, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4117045)

Aceves is currently rocking a .400 BABIP, and two of his five walks allowed have been intentional. His WHIP is pretty fluky high. I don't think Aceves is a good closer, but I don't think there is a good closer in the organization right now who isn't in the starting rotation.

I'd rather weaken the farm system than the rotation, so hopefully Cherington is working the phones to get another relief pitcher.

142. Dan Posted: April 26, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4117152)

Word is that Crawford is going to miss 3 months for the elbow. So you can pretty much write off the first two years of that contract now.

143. Fourth True Outcome Posted: April 26, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4117164)

It's pretty damning that I was relieved to learn Crawford was only out for three months, huh?

144. Textbook Editor Posted: April 26, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4117166)

Word is that Crawford is going to miss 3 months for the elbow. So you can pretty much write off the first two years of that contract now.

Well, I just thank god they planned and had a top backup lined up in spring training... oh... wait...

145. TVerik Posted: April 26, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4117171)

I was watching last night's Twins-Sox game, and the Minny announcers (Tom Kelly was doing color but this was mainly the play-by-play guy) said that in his view Fenway was responsible for David Ortiz's success.

No; the Twins just cut bait on him way too soon, letting him go for nothing.

Why is the second paragraph an answer to the first one? I think they can both be true (indeed, my initial inclination is to agree twice), and don't contradict each other at all.

146. TomH Posted: April 26, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4117173)

positive news:

The Sox are on pace to set a MLB record for most doubles hit by a team in a season.

The current record is held by the '08 Rangers with 376. They did not have any one superb 2-bag batter, but did have 13 players with at least 17.

Boston has doubled 49 times in 17 g, well above the league avg of 33 2Bs in 18 g played. Of course Fenway is THE notorious place to hit doubles. The Sox have led the league the past 2 years with 350+ both times, so it wouldn't take TWO much of a push to wind up near 400 as a team.

Note the Rangers finished a mere 21 games off the division led in that season.

147. Textbook Editor Posted: April 26, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4117235)

So Crawford's apparently going to be out 3 months rehabbing the UCL--instead of having the surgery. We all know what that means:

a) He comes back, struggles in August/September and
b) has to have the surgery anyway over the off-season
c) misses all of 2013 as well

3 years, $60 million, 0 WAR

Crawford may well wind up being the position player's version of Mike Hampton.

What a ###########.

148. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 06:23 AM (#4117356)

It's certainly true that surgery carries risks and lots of injuries can heal without surgical intervention. The problem is that the Sox have had a couple of recent ####### on this score, which makes it hard for me to trust that they're making the right call.

I liked both (a) how Tazawa pitched last night and (b) how Bobby V likes to give guys a chance to throw a few innings out of the pen when they show they've got something.

149. UnclePab Posted: April 27, 2012 at 06:33 AM (#4117358)

The problem is that the Sox have had a couple of recent ####### on this score, which makes it hard for me to trust that they're making the right call.

Can anyone think of the last time the Red Sox had a player go the rest and rehab route, and it worked? It could be like remembering plane crashes, but not all the times they land safely, but it certainly seems like in the recent past "rest and rehab" players end up needing surgery down the road anyway. Hope they got it right this time.

150. Answer Guy Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4117474)

I was referring to Mastsusaka. One good year out of six.

J.D. Drew may have sucked by the end of his deal but he earned his paycheck more often than not.

151. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4117485)

I would argue two good years, 2007 was better than the final numbers which were skewed by a pretty bad September. Certainly not up to expectations but I think a perfectly reasonable rookie year.

152. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4117488)

The amount of money Theo wasted on long and medium-term free agent contracts is really epic. Matsuzaka's contract actually comes out as one of his best. He produced positive on-field value!

Don't forget Julio Lugo, Edgar Renteria, Matt Clement, Mike Cameron, John Smoltz, the second Lowell contract.

If Theo had just been bad at free agent signings, instead of historically awful, he might have won four or five World Series. I guess you could also say that some bad luck with FAs balanced out the great luck the Sox had with drafting and development in his tenure.

153. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4117491)

And in news of mild optimism, these are Rich Hill's stats through his rehab so far:

9 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 1 HR, 2 BB, 18 K

He should be back within the week.

154. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4117496)

He should be back within the week.

Please God tell me this is the end of Justin Thomas.

155. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4117505)

It surely is.

(Now watch Hill's elbow 'splode on the mound tonight.)

156. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4117513)

Oh, wait. Apparently Cafardo tweeted yesterday that Hill should come up tonight. No news of this move actually happening yet, though.

157. Joel W Posted: April 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4117581)

15-20 good innings out of Rich Hill before an elbow explosion would be worth a lot to this bulpen. Time for Bailey to get healthy, maybe some time for Melancon to get right, maybe for Dice-K to show something allowing a starter to move to the pen, time for a trade, I don't know. All I know is it might mean some time to not have Justin F'ing Thomas throw innings for the Red Sox.

158. Nasty Nate Posted: April 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4117592)

I suggested in December that Junichi could be a surprise closing candidate; make me a genius Bobby V!

159. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 27, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4117653)

It's official: Hill up, Thomas down.

160. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4117670)

The problem of trading for a reliever is who could you even get? Huston Street's the name I've heard, but would it make more sense to pick up someone with a record of being decent to push Mr. 5 HR's in 2 IP down the depth chart to join the dry drunk?

161. Nasty Nate Posted: April 27, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4117680)

Former Sock Kyle Weiland has been put on the DL.

162. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 27, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4117685)

Former Sock Kyle Weiland has been put on the DL.

You spelled Jed Lowrie wrong.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate