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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4195726)
Is there a Scenario 6: Felix Hernandez?

I don't think this is Deadline Scenario 3. Here you have a guy who is under control for 2 more years, is maybe on the market, helps you this year, and 100% helps you next year and the year after. I don't know if there are other players on the market like him, so I'm giving him his own category. You could even combine it with the clowntown exception. Boegarts and Lester for Felix. Who says no? </Simmons>
   2. OCD SS Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4195904)
A tweet by Olney has the Sox telling other teams flatly "No" on Lester. It seems like Boston might be willing to move Beckett and suddenly there's talk of the Phillies dangling Lee, both to Texas. It seems like the trade market is moving to fill the Dempster/ Garza/ Sheilds voids. Texas is also supposedly looking for an OFer and either the Red Sox or Phillies could be a one stop shopping destination for Texas (Ross has been mentioned for Boston).

My stand on # 3 has been established, I wouldn't mind seeing the Sox trade Ellsbury if it meant a great return. They need to clear out some of the relievers and OFers, so they need to do something, just as roster management.
   3. villageidiom Posted: July 30, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4195957)
Trading Jarrod Saltalamacchia sort of falls in between (2) and (4), since he’s isn’t a major talent who should return major prospects, but trading him without getting a B prospect would be disappointing. It also depends on the Red Sox’ analysis of Ryan Lavarnway’s glove. There better be legitimate prospects coming back, and they better be right to commit to Lavarnway. I’m skeptical of such a deal, but I also doubt it will happen.
See, this is where precriminations beget recriminations. If they trade Salty we will be tempted to read this as meaning they like Lavarnway's glove. We'll get all optimistified about Lavarnway having a downside of Johnny Bench, and wonder why he wasn't retroactively made the 2012 All Star Game MVP. And then we will find out through Lavarnway's actual play with the 2012-13 Red Sox that, as it turns out, the team mistook your advice and replaced Lavarnway's glove with a burlap sack of artifacts and bones, which rendered his already questionable defense as stable as Alexandra Raisman's parents during the uneven parallel bars qualifier. While that happens, Salty becomes, basically, Johnny Bench's daddy. And we'll wonder how we ever could have supported the trade in the first place.
   4. Textbook Editor Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4196030)
Trading Beckett: I'm on this bandwagon; others are welcome to join. Time to turn the page, etc. Thanks for 2007 and don't worry, we'll send your bags to wherever you wind up.

If Lee really is on the market, maybe Beckett as a "plan B" for some teams actually helps us, since Philly will likely ask for too much and not wind up moving him?

   5. Dale Sams Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4196048)
I'll come clean on reactions at the time.

Crawford: "Really? Well it's not my money and while he'll never be worth the contract, I certainly look forward to seeing him in a Sox uniform." That lasted about three games. He and Salty looked like they had never played a game in their lives.

Reddick: "He's going to do well in Oakland and we're getting back a fat, oft-injured RELIEVER." I hate trading every-day players for pitchers and especially relievers. I knew nothing about Sweeney.

Lowrie: "You guys have finally convinced me that he truly is injury-prone. Good luck Jed, I wouldn't be surprised if you made the AS game. The Astros have to send someone after all." Still don't like trading position players for relievers though.

Lackey: "Seriously? This horse-faced pinhead who says he hates pitching here? *This guy* is (then) the highest paid pitcher on the Sox?? I hope he's at least medocre".
   6. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 30, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4196049)
Is there a Scenario 6: Felix Hernandez?

I don't think this is Deadline Scenario 3. Here you have a guy who is under control for 2 more years, is maybe on the market, helps you this year, and 100% helps you next year and the year after. I don't know if there are other players on the market like him, so I'm giving him his own category. You could even combine it with the clowntown exception. Boegarts and Lester for Felix. Who says no?


Jack Z has told teams that Felix is not on the market, that he will not be traded under any circumstances. He's an untouchable.

Mariners have "untouchables" when it comes to trade time

Felix has also said in the most emphatic terms that he does not want to be traded.

Mariners' Felix Hernandez says it again: He wants to stay in Seattle

Felix is not on the market, and won't be going anywhere in the foreseable future.
   7. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4196082)
Crawford: Same thoughts as Dale Sams. Still remain optimistic he will be a plus in LF, obviously will never be worth the money.

Reddick: Never fell in love with him, always thought Kalish was going to be the one in RF. Still don't think he is going to be as fantastic as others seem to think. Thought Bailey and Sweeney were decent pick ups that fit with Bard moving to rotation.

Lowrie: Mr. Glass. Nice guy and all, but totally, completely undependable. Some people just don't stay healthy. Glad we got something for him.

Lackey: I hated the mouth breathing ogre while he was an Angel and continue to hate him now. Thought they overpaid for what would be at best their 3rd starter.
   8. booond Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4196083)
#1/2 are the only ones in play unless someone - not Sox - gets stupid.
   9. Joel W Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4196089)
I definitely liked the Crawford signing at the time. Also remain optimistic. I'm with AKA. Still think Reddick isn't this good, but I do miss his defense. I definitely defended the Lowrie one against the Ranys of the world, and stand by it. I think the saber community still undervalues relievers because we don't know how to predict them well. As to Lackey, ugh, the worst signing Theo ever made. Worse than Crawford. In particular, it will go down as awful because we would never have signed Crawford if we had just dumped all of the Lackey money and more at Matt Holliday and called it an offseason.
   10. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4196185)
Felix is not on the market, and won't be going anywhere in the foreseable future.


Seriously. They've already traded Ichiro. They're not going to trade the only other recognizable player on the team.
   11. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4196206)
On a possible Beckett trade, Nick Cafardo did his job and asked the Red Sox GM:
Just asked Ben Cherington whether reports of him trying to move Josh Beckett were accurate and he said no.
Obviously he's not supposed to confirm shopping a veteran on a long-term contract, but this is simply a denial, and it does seem reasonable that the rumors stemmed from other clubs asking and Cherington not giving them a blanket "no." (As he shouldn't.) So, we have less evidence that the Sox have perhaps diagnosed Beckett as a clubhouse cancer.
   12. OCD SS Posted: July 30, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4196536)
I argued strongly for the Crawford signing at the time, and I'm still no ready to give up on it. At the time it seemed like everyone thought the Sox needed to sign one of Werth or Crawford to help cover the OF, especially since at the time it didn't look like there was any way the Sox were going to get Kalish and Reddick on the field at the same time, let alone play them on either side of Ellsbury. I much preferred Crawford's all around game and youth, and felt that Werth would break down much too soon. I never saw Crawford breaking down at the beginning of the deal.

This year I would like to see Ben orchestrate one of those "F*Yeah!" trades, which means moving Beckett or Ellsbury (or both). I doubt one happens, but I'd prefer the Sox look past this year when making decisions. I can see the argument for just clearing out roster space by dumping Sweeney and redundant bullpen arms, but I'd like to see more than that.
   13. Textbook Editor Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4196557)
Just asked Ben Cherington whether reports of him trying to move Josh Beckett were accurate and he said no.


Boldfaced the key phrase. If Cherington is taking calls on Beckett... but not making the calls himself, and is listening to offers... but not offering a trade himself... then technically Cherington is not lying in that response...

A better question would have been: Would you trade Beckett if the right offer came along?

But then Carfado... he has some strange ideas about how to "fix" the team, so it doesn't surprise me he's not so good at asking questions that avoid generating easy non-denial denials.

EDIT: Editor, heal thyself
   14. Textbook Editor Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM (#4196563)
Buchholz starts the WC playoff game, right?
   15. Dan Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4196564)
If you had to make that decision today, then yes, easily.
   16. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4196570)
A better question would have been: Would you trade Beckett if the right offer came along?


Useless question as the answer is always "We listen to all offers, and if the right one comes along we have to look at it very seriously if it's going to improve our club."
   17. Dan Posted: July 30, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4196603)
Looks like Sweeney probably broke his finger punching a door after he went 0-4 tonight, so he's likely going nowhere.
   18. toratoratora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4196707)
Let's see- I was against the Crawford signing. I couldn't, and still can't, believe that they gave a guy whose game has few walks and was so defense dependent that much money.He had a career high OBP of .355 and a high SLG of .482, neither of which screamed elite player to me.Certainly nothing near as much cash as the Sox handed him.At this point, this has to be in the discussion for worst free agent signing ever.

I hated, as in abhorred the Lackey signing, but that was as much rooted in a personal dislike for Old Horseface as any statistical reason, other than the fact I thought he was too old for the length of the contract.

I was against both the Reddick and Jed trades, I wanted to see Josh get a chance and have this irrational idea that if Lowrie could ever stay healthy he could be a nice little player. Reddick though, that one hurts. What a season he's having...and how much would it have helped the Sox to have had him instead of the revolving door OF'er of the week that they've been running out there?

Now, in fairness, so as not to appear like I'm cherry-picking winners only, I was totally against the idea of the Sox pursuing Matt Holliday and now I wish to hell that they had signed him (it would have meant they wouldn't have needed Crawford the next season so it could have helped the Sox out twice). Worse, as ashamed I am to admit it now, I was for the Beckett extension.I had visions of him blossoming into an elite ace, following in the (rather large) footsteps of Clemens and Pedro.I ate that one before the all-star break.
And I was pro the A-gon extension, which is looking like a pretty poor investment right about now.

As for the team now, maybe I'm insane, maybe I've come fully around from my early season pessimism and dislike of this years model, but hell, this is a team that has taken some pretty incredible shots and is still hanging around the fringes of the race. If the starting pitching can ever get straightened out (All five Sox starters have era+ below 100-that's nuts from a staff this talented. The FO should throw truckloads of money at Dave Duncan in hopes of luring him out of retirement)and the injuries ease up, a few guys come back strong, this is a team with some depth that could do some damage.
Call me crazy,maybe I've become too immersed in the 2000 era optimistic Red Sox and forgotten the impending doom that was rooting for the Sox from 75-00, but I still have a touch of hope so I don't want to see the team do a thing.
Stand pat, make the race with the horses they have, then assess things after the season and make the necessary changes.

   19. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:08 AM (#4196768)
A better question would have been: Would you trade Beckett if the right offer came along?


Useless question as the answer is always "We listen to all offers, and if the right one comes along we have to look at it very seriously if it's going to improve our club."

Yeah, I would hope the answer to that question, when applied to anyone, would be "Yes." 'The right offer' can be made for absolutely everyone in the game.
   20. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:12 AM (#4196769)
and have this irrational idea that if Lowrie could ever stay healthy he could be a nice little player.


Hah, I have an irrational idea that if Jose Iglesias could ever hit he could be a nice little player. We can always dream, right?
   21. OCD SS Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:27 AM (#4196779)
Boldfaced the key phrase. If Cherington is taking calls on Beckett... but not making the calls himself, and is listening to offers... but not offering a trade himself... then technically Cherington is not lying in that response...


Cherrington isn't on the witness stand. He has no reason not stand there and baldly lie to a sports reporter, so parsing out his statements as if we can find the truth is kind of pointless. Give it about 8 hours and we'll know what's up.

   22. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 31, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4196819)
Cafardo tweets that the Nats are interested in Shoppach. That makes sense. He also says the Brewers are interested, which conversely does not make sense.
   23. Joel W Posted: July 31, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4196836)
The Beckett extension probably will still workout as a positive value deal for the Red Sox.

Just because I'm sick of complaining about the team, I want to say that I'm excited for the Clay Buchholz we have, because he is the Clay Buchholz we need. His ERA isn't sparkly because of the early season struggles, but over his last 11 starts he's been great. He's keeping the ball in the park and not walking batters and averaging 7 innings per start. That he is signed to an incredibly team-friendly deal through 2017 (with team options) is something we should be happy about.
   24. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4197173)
Ryan Sweeney to the DL, expected to miss 8 weeks. Ryan Kalish called up.
   25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4197194)
Kalish has been pretty bad in Pawtucket since getting sent down - 25%+ K-rate and a .293 OBP. On the other hand, Podsednik has not been much better and has the further drawback of being Scott Podsednik.
   26. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4197200)
Presumably it's temporary also. I would think they'll send Kalish back down in a couple days when Ortiz comes back and I don't think they have that freedom with Pods.

I haven't actually read anything lately about Papi's DL time. Is there reason to think he will or will not come back on time?
   27. Dan Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4197213)
Last I saw, they weren't expecting Ortiz back until at least Friday. I expect that in the short term, Kalish will play RF and Ross with do most of the DHing.
   28. villageidiom Posted: July 31, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4197221)
At this point, this has to be in the discussion for worst free agent signing ever.
If you extrapolate his first 1.5 years across the length of the contract, probably, yes. If you fill in the remainder with a reasonable projection based on his history, certainly not.
have this irrational idea that if Lowrie could ever stay healthy he could be a nice little player.
That's not irrational. It would be irrational (at this point) to believe Lowrie could stay healthy, but it's not irrational to think he'd be good when healthy.
   29. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 31, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4197231)
Testing italics</i>Testing again?
If you extrapolate his first 1.5 years across the length of the contract, probably, yes.
If you extrapolate his first 1.5 years across the length of the contract, Crawford isn't "in the discussion", he is the discussion. $142M for nothing would be by a good margin the worst contract ever.
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: July 31, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4197263)
If you extrapolate his first 1.5 years across the length of the contract, probably, yes. If you fill in the remainder with a reasonable projection based on his history, certainly not.


I'm not sure. The reasonable projections will all include his history of 2011-2012 as part of the basis.

I think it is rational to expect this to change, but at the moment it is the Soriano deal without the HR power or health.
   31. Dan Posted: July 31, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4197289)
Red Sox have apparently acquired old friend Craig Breslow, ostensibly allowing them to move Morales back into the rotation.
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4197294)
According to SoSH, it's Breslow for Albers and Podsednik. Can't complain about that.
   33. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4197296)
Red Sox have apparently acquired old friend Craig Breslow, ostensibly allowing them to move Morales back into the rotation.
Who is getting the boot for Morales? I assume Cook.
   34. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4197302)
They might go back to the six man rotation. I wouldn't be shocked if Cook gets the boot and I'll be very very happy if MOrales is in the rotation.

Breslow's splits haven't been extreme for a few years now. In 2010 and 2012 he was tough on both lefties and righties and last year he was not very good against lefties. Not saying I dislike the deal, just making a comment. I actually like the trade just for getting Albers out of town.

I wouldn't be entirely adverse to seeing this result in Andrew Miller taking some of Vicente Padilla's 8th inning work. Padilla is a one man heart attack. It seems like every game features base runners, hard hit balls and then something unusual or great that bails him out. He's a disaster waiting to happen.
   35. Joel W Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4197314)
Maybe Lester can go to the pen, relieving of us of our worst starter </only minor sarcasm>.
   36. Dan Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4197362)
Shoppach and Salty both in tonight's lineup again, with Salty DHing.
   37. Joel W Posted: July 31, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4197383)
I feel dense, did I completely miss something where having Salty and Shoppach in the lineup at the same time was a problem?
   38. Dan Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4197399)
It means neither got traded.
   39. Joel W Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4197453)
Thanks Dan. Apparently Lars Anderson was traded to the Indians for Steven Wright. I'm glad the long-time Boston comedian can return to the area.
   40. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4197475)
And Wright is not on the Tribe's 40 man so presumably he won't be on ours. With the negative one net from the Breslow deal this gets the Sox down to 38.
   41. Dan Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4197482)
In other news, it looks like Scott Atchison has a torn UCL and will obviously need TJ.
   42. Dale Sams Posted: July 31, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4197494)
I'm glad the long-time Boston comedian can return to the area.



He has a map of the United States, life-size. He hardly ever unfurls it.

I feel dense, did I completely miss something where having Salty and Shoppach in the lineup at the same time was a problem?


If there's an injury to Shoppach, we lose the DH.
   43. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 31, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4197524)
Steven Wright is a 27 year old knuckleballer, so that's kind of cool, at least. Wakefield was 28 when he started for the Red Sox.
   44. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4197530)
Stick Wright in the rotation immediately to replace Lester. Can't do any worse!

More seriously, with Wake to coach and lots of institutional memory, we have the best chance of any team to get value for Wright. Very good news.
   45. villageidiom Posted: July 31, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4197536)
Red Sox have apparently acquired old friend Craig Breslow, ostensibly allowing them to move Morales back into the rotation.
I assume the conclusion on Morales was made before it was clear they traded away Albers. Or is there more to this?
In other news, it looks like Scott Atchison has a torn UCL and will obviously need TJ.
Put him on the 60-day DL. Get that 40-man roster down to 37!

One underrated aspect of the team's current predicament is that they're 6th in line in the AL for waiver claims. Starting tomorrow lots of players are going to be on the waiver wire, and while teams can pull back any players that Boston claims, they also can't trade them to teams ahead of Boston in the standings if they do so. Space on the 40-man isn't a bad thing right now.
   46. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 31, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4197550)
Cherington has taken a fair amount of criticism this year and deserved most of it. I think he deserves credit for generally standing pat here, the temptation to do something had to be high but I think "no" moves was the right way to go here.
   47. Darren Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4197726)
Crossposted from main board: I'm just glad the Sox dealt Albers for something before it was too late. He's a replacement level reliever, who had a nice run during part of last year and another nice run during part of this year. Getting an actual good reliever for him is fantastic.
   48. Joel W Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4197746)
...and Podsednik, at best, a replacement level outfielder.
   49. Chip Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4197761)
That Podsednik was even seen as a chit with some value in a trade, given that he was acquired for the price of a minor league contract prior to this season, is a miracle that Cherington has to get credit for. And to Bobby V. for getting some positive production out of him in his time with the major league club.
   50. Dale Sams Posted: August 01, 2012 at 01:16 AM (#4197789)
I think the team has a solid 30%+ to make the playoffs. They seem to have settled into roles and have tremendous potential for upside (Glances at Pedroia, AGon and Ellsbury...doesn't look at Crawford).

And I don't see why Ciriaco can't become the fulltime SS. Even coming back to Earth on offense he seems to have great D, an arm and speed. Those are harder to fake than offense.

   51. Dan Posted: August 01, 2012 at 01:24 AM (#4197791)
Ciriaco has slow hands for a shortstop. And his batting success is entirely reliant on a .400+ BABIP. Riding him while he's still hot is okay, but they'd better be prepared to move on after he cools off. They avoided falling into that trap with Podsednik, so hopefully they'll do the same thing here.
   52. madvillain Posted: August 01, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4197793)
I think the team has a solid 30%+ to make the playoffs. They seem to have settled into roles and have tremendous potential for upside (Glances at Pedroia, AGon and Ellsbury...doesn't look at Crawford).


Yes, but do they have anyone with tremendous upside potential?
   53. Dale Sams Posted: August 01, 2012 at 01:36 AM (#4197795)
Really? You mean like on a DP? Cause Im thinking of the long throw he made today without hopping it, and the dive and throw he made to Pedey the other night as he was falling away from Dustin.

I'm honestly not even thinking of his bat, but I'll bet his line-drive rate is pretty good, so it's not entirely luck. His Pawtucket numbers are...ok..given the entire package, if that D I've seen is real...I'd start him over Aviles even if Ciriaco hit .280/.310/whatever. Obviously in this convo, Punto needs to just go home.
   54. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 01, 2012 at 01:37 AM (#4197796)
And to Bobby V. for getting some positive production out of him in his time with the major league club.


You just keep thinkin', Butch. That's what you're good at.
   55. RobertMachemer Posted: August 01, 2012 at 06:36 AM (#4197827)
At what point do we talk about Adrian Gonzalez? He had good overall numbers in July despite waiting until the last day of the month to draw his first walk...

Also, if you completely inverted tonight's batting order, you'd get one that superficially looked better (i.e., as if it had the better hitters in the right spots, based on OBP and SLG):

Ciriaco .357/.449
Shoppach .346/.508
Middlebrooks .331/.528
Saltalamacchia .292/.509
Ross .334/.523
Gonzalez .338/.441
Pedroia .319/.407
Crawford .306/.356
Ellsbury .337/.368
   56. Joel W Posted: August 01, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4197943)
He's had an OPS over .900 since June 20th. It's just weird because he's doing it as Tony Gwynn rather than as a guy who can hit 30 home runs, and his walk rate is absurdly low as others have noted. His contact skills really are amazing, it would just be nice if he could sit back and pull the crap out of the ball sometimes. He needs some heel-swinging lessons from Ortiz.
   57. Dan Posted: August 01, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4197963)
Some info about possible trades discussed with the Rangers:

According to multiple major league sources, one potential deal discussed by the Red Sox and Rangers prior to the non-waiver trade deadline included a package that would have sent Josh Beckett, Jacoby Ellsbury and Kelly Shoppach to the Rangers. It is unclear what player compensation the two teams discussed going from Texas to the Red Sox in such a deal.

The proposal was described by one source as nothing more than a theoretical back and forth of ideas that never progressed to the point where the Red Sox approached Beckett to discuss his 10-5 rights (which give the pitcher, as someone with 10 years in the majors and five with one club, the opportunity to veto a deal). Another source classified the talks as having reached a more advanced stage before hitting a wall.

"We did feel empowered to do something bold, we just didn't find something bold that made sense for us," Cherington said. "We explored a lot of things that were bold, and maybe even got close to a couple of things, but we just didn't feel like there was anything of the big, bold variety that made sense for us right now."

There was no deal involving Beckett that advanced to the stage where the pitcher was alerted by the Red Sox front office that a deal might be taking place.

   58. Dale Sams Posted: August 01, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4197965)
a package that would have sent Josh Beckett, Jacoby Ellsbury and Kelly Shoppach to the Rangers.


Were they getting Six Flags back? WTF?
   59. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 01, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4198030)
Were they getting Six Flags back? WTF?


Neftali Feliz. Sox doctors said his arm is fine.
   60. Mattbert Posted: August 01, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4198593)
Red Sox have apparently acquired old friend Craig Breslow, ostensibly allowing them to move Morales back into the rotation.

Can this happen, say, yesterday? If this team is serious about trying to sneak into the playoffs, they should probably give more innings to a guy who's pitched great when called upon rather than bending over backwards to avoid losing some mediocrity.
   61. tfbg9 Posted: August 01, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4198605)
Cook sucks. Sigh.
   62. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 04, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4200710)
Fire him. I am so ####### done with this meathead it's not even funny. Long fly out, line drive single, three run homer by three straight lefties with Breslow in the bullpen.

Look, it's not all his fault, the players deserve heavy blame but he is the wrong guy for this job in a big way. You don't put a loud mouthed, self-centered, me-first jackass into the mess that was this team. Someone (Chip?) asked why Aceves challenged Mauer with first base open and that's precisely the sort of thing that happens when communication is a ####### shitshow. Basic stuff gets missed over and over again.

If this makes me an idiot so be it but Bobby Valentine is a major part of the problem with this team. Two teams had epic collapses last year, one made major off field changes and one stayed the course. One of the two teams is sinking like the titanic and one is headed to the playoffs, I don't think that is random.
   63. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 04, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4200713)
Bobby Valentine: "Breslow doesn't have good numbers against those guys"

vs. Span 1 for 4
vs. Revere 0 for 1
vs. Mauer 3 for 7
vs. Morneau 2 for 5

I tip my hat to Bobby. Those are clearly statistically significant samples and he made the right call.
   64. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 04, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4200721)
If this makes me an idiot so be it but Bobby Valentine is a major part of the problem with this team. Two teams had epic collapses last year, one made major off field changes and one stayed the course. One of the two teams is sinking like the titanic and one is headed to the playoffs, I don't think that is random.

Not a Valentine fan, but it's been close to a full season (measuring from 9/1/2011) of sub-.500 performance, under two managers with records of some previous success. The players, particularly the pitchers, would seem more blameworthy, which isn't the same as saying they should keep Valentine.
   65. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 04, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4200730)
The Sox were 2-under for the second half last year, Clapper,so it's over a year -- even though most of that is the collapse.
   66. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 05, 2012 at 06:55 AM (#4200766)
Not a Valentine fan, but it's been close to a full season (measuring from 9/1/2011) of sub-.500 performance, under two managers with records of some previous success. The players, particularly the pitchers, would seem more blameworthy, which isn't the same as saying they should keep Valentine.


Absolutely true and as I noted the players definitely deserve a lot of blame. However, with basically the same group they played at a 100 win clip for five months last year. Under Valentine they have had no such stretch of good baseball.

To be clear the players are at fault. Players win, players lose. But Bobby has been the absolute wrong man for this job from day one and sticking with him is a mistake.

The Sox were 2-under for the second half last year, Clapper,so it's over a year -- even though most of that is the collapse.


They were 13 under in September, It's not that "most of it was the collapse", all of it was.

   67. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 07:49 AM (#4200768)
Aceves has a even platoon split this year (663/683 OPS against), and he had a reverse platoon last year (656/576) and for his career is 661/611, slightly reverse. His primary pitches are a four-seam fastball and a curveball, both of which traditionally have even platoon splits. He's a guy you leave out there to face both lefties and righties. I definitely want Alfredo Aceves out there in a high-lev 9th against lefties over Craig Breslow.

Also, this whole "since 9/1/11" thing bugs me. What changed in the makeup of the Red Sox roster on September 1st last year that makes it a useful endpoint? As best as I can tell, the main thing that happened is that a lot of Red Sox regulars got injured. It seems like an endpoint you use if you want to play fun games with endpoints, not if you have an actual analytical point to make.

BPro now has the Sox playoff chances at 8.4%, with most of that being odds of making the wild card play-in game. The Sox chances of making the actual postseason, then, are now under 5%. It's time to give up.

The time for precriminations is past. The time for recriminations is begun.
   68. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4200770)
Kevin Youkilis homered twice last night for the White Sox. He's hitting 256/377/488 for them in 33 games. There doesn't appear to have been any notable improvement in the clubhouse atmosphere, but there's been a notable lack of Red Sox players hitting home runs and drawing walks. What a ####### shitshow that trade was.
   69. RobertMachemer Posted: August 05, 2012 at 09:27 AM (#4200786)
The 2010 Red Sox won 89 games. The 2011 Red Sox won 90 games. The 2012 Red Sox, who've probably dealt with more injuries than either, are on pace to win about 80 games. Why isn't the simple explanation of "it's the players" sufficient?
There doesn't appear to have been any notable improvement in the clubhouse atmosphere, but there's been a notable lack of Red Sox players hitting home runs and drawing walks.


That's silly. I mean, you know you have no idea what the problems in the clubhouse are/were. You might as well say that there doesn't appear to be an increase in quarks.

On the other hand, since Youkilis was traded, Adrian Gonzalez has been MUCH better. Yes, the hitting has been worse in July/August: how much of the offensive difference can be attributed to "David Ortiz is injured?"

What if the putative clubhouse problem were bigger than Youkilis? Let's pretend there was a problem and that it was caused by, say, Youkilis and Beckett and Lester and Pedroia. Let's say that Adrian Gonzalez and Crawford, in whom you've invested big money, can't play their best around these jerks, and Ellsbury is telling you that he's going to leave unless something changes. How do you deal with the problem? If, after trying various ways to get them to all play nice together, you decide you need to get rid of one (or more) players, which one (or ones) do you get rid of while still trying to field as competitive a team as you can both in 2012 and beyond? Doesn't it have to be Youkilis first, among the ones listed? Youkilis is the one whose replacement (even if not as good) is already here, Youkilis is more often injured, Youkilis is older, and Youkilis probably has lost the least trade-value by not playing well to start 2012.

I'm not a fan of chemistry -- I think winning often begets chemistry, and much more rarely does it work the other way around. I was surprised that the Red Sox decided to trade Youkilis, and I'm not surprised he has hit well for the White Sox. Sorta like I'm not surprised that Jed Lowrie (who hasn't played since getting injured on July 14, incidentally) has hit well for the Astros. These things happen. Maybe Youkilis will stay healthy. He's generally been a good player when healthy -- much better than Jacoby Ellsbury, who has had exactly one season in which he's hit particularly well, and for whom people are ringing their hands about his departure in a year or so. But if you think the talent on the team is there to win games but the team is underperforming for several years and you try changing managers and the team still underperforms, then it seems reasonable to think either that your evaluation of the talent was wrong or that there's something else about the players themselves which needs changing. Trading Youkilis seems as reasonable an attempt to address a perceived problem as any.
   70. RobertMachemer Posted: August 05, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4200791)
"Wringing" their hands. Editing doesn't seem to be working. I don't know where "ringing" came from. I blame Albert Belle.
   71. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4200793)
What if the putative clubhouse problem were bigger than Youkilis? Let's pretend there was a problem and that it was caused by, say, Youkilis and Beckett and Lester and Pedroia. Let's say that Adrian Gonzalez and Crawford, in whom you've invested big money, can't play their best around these jerks, and Ellsbury is telling you that he's going to leave unless something changes. How do you deal with the problem?
You deal with that problem but telling Gonzalez and Crawford that, yes, maybe, the Gang of Four are a bunch of jerks. But they're MLB players and they have to handle it. And you address the issue of Ellsbury when it comes.

But trading Youk to try and fix that is just exchanging one set of inmates running the asylum for another. That's not a good solution for the team.
   72. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4200804)
The 2010 Red Sox won 89 games. The 2011 Red Sox won 90 games. The 2012 Red Sox, who've probably dealt with more injuries than either, are on pace to win about 80 games. Why isn't the simple explanation of "it's the players" sufficient?
Because the underlying statistics of the 2011 and 2012 Red Sox project them as .590 and .530 teams, respectively. The players, as individuals out of the context of team play, produced well. There is something more going on here. The choke in 2011 was driven by exceptionally poor performance in the clutch, along with injuries and underperformance, and the 2012 team is continuing that trend.
But if you think the talent on the team is there to win games but the team is underperforming for several years and you try changing managers and the team still underperforms, then it seems reasonable to think either that your evaluation of the talent was wrong or that there's something else about the players themselves which needs changing. Trading Youkilis seems as reasonable an attempt to address a perceived problem as any.
So, the problem isn't actual baseball skills of the players, but instead it's chemistry? Then I think we agree, but we need to do a lot more than just point to the club's W% to understand it. If the problem is chemistry, why should it be only the fault of the players? If the problem is chemistry, then that fault runs right through the organization.

I agree that the Red Sox' fundamental problem isn't the underlying talent of the players, but something else causing that underlying talent to be suppressed and not translate into actual runs and wins. So if the problem is a lack of chemistry, poor management, bad communication leading to untreated injuries and the like, shouldn't I give the Sox a wide berth to determine that a particular player in a clubhouse problem? I'm twisting myself around a bit, but I still say no. I don't trust this club's management. From ownership to presidency to baseball ops to the manager to the coaching staff and the training staff, none of them have earned the benefit of the doubt. They can be right that the clubhouse needs a shakeup, and they can get that shakeup wrong by trading away a valuable player who was needed for at least 2/3 of the games of the last month while not fixing the clubhouse problems.

They can also get that shakeup wrong by trading a valuable player at the absolute nadir of his value, after benching him and in the middle of a bad slump. If they'd waited to move Youkilis until the deadline, it's likely they could have gotten talent in return instead of AAA filler.

EDIT: Totally misread Robert's post initially, and was ungenerous and harsh in response. My apologies. I've edited most of that out.
   73. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4200809)
I mean, you know you have no idea what the problems in the clubhouse are/were.
There have been continuing leaks to the press complaining about Bobby V, players have continued underperforming in general and coming up small in the clutch. We have evidence that the clubhouse remains a mess, and the we haven't seen any improvement in play. I'm sticking with my original claim.
   74. RobertMachemer Posted: August 05, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4200822)
From ownership to presidency to baseball ops to the manager to the coaching staff and the training staff, none of them have earned the benefit of the doubt. They can be right that the clubhouse needs a shakeup, and they can get that shakeup wrong by trading away a valuable player who was needed for at least 2/3 of the games of the last month while not fixing the clubhouse problems.
Well, the problem is that it's hard for the owner to fire himself. And it's really too early to know how good/bad people like Cherington and Valentine are. (I mean, I find Valentine irritating as all get out, but I'm unconvinced that the reasons I find him irritating are interfering with the Sox's ability to win games).

The Sox aren't playing well in the clutch and haven't for... how long? Since last September, right? Since when does bad performance in the clutch in less than a season's worth of games have much predictive value? Teams that have done well in blowouts and lost close games are more likely to win tomorrow than teams which do the reverse, and teams will frequently have seasons where they just, overall, don't win when they ought to. It happens.

If you believe in chemistry, and if you blame that for the team's performance, then what can you do if you're the management but trade someone like a Youkilis? If you don't believe in chemistry, and if you think the talent is here to do considerably better, then either the team is being grossly mismanaged on the ground level (and I don't think there's a great argument for that), or the injuries are to blame, or random statistical variance is to blame, and there's nothing to do but grit your teeth and wait patiently for the 'luck' to change. Or the talent isn't here, in which case, you might as well start getting players like Will Middlebrooks a chance to get used to the majors.

Again, I didn't love the trade of Youkilis, but I also think that the trade looks worse right now than it necessarily will later on if Youkilis's back acts up. If you're the GM and you want to address the chemistry while there's still a chance to turn the season around, and if you think that there simply isn't a way for everyone to play nicely together, who do you trade instead of Youkilis?

   75. Chip Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4200830)
It's not Youkilis, or Lowrie, or the lack or Ortiz the last couple weeks, or any of that. It's this:

Home pitching: 4.70 ERA, 1.364 WHIP

Road pitching: 3.82 ERA, 1.247 WHIP

There's your whole season right there. They're the only sub-.500 team in all of MLB with a winning road record.

Maybe there's hope that their schedule the rest of the way is road heavy?
   76. Swedish Chef Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4200833)
but I also think that the trade looks worse right now than it necessarily will later on if Youkilis's back acts up.

They are still paying 75% of Youkilis salary, so it's not like it would be a huge improvement compared to keeping him.
   77. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4200848)
The Sox aren't playing well in the clutch and haven't for... how long? Since last September, right? Since when does bad performance in the clutch in less than a season's worth of games have much predictive value? Teams that have done well in blowouts and lost close games are more likely to win tomorrow than teams which do the reverse, and teams will frequently have seasons where they just, overall, don't win when they ought to. It happens.
I don't understand what you're arguing. It seems like now you're suggesting that the main problem is ill fortune. Your first argument was that the problem was the players, but now you're suggesting that the players are fine, and the only problem is the bad fortune and random variation that led to underperformance of runs and wins expected.

Or do you think that the players are worse than their individual statistics? How do you see that working?
   78. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4200850)
If you believe in chemistry, and if you blame that for the team's performance, then what can you do if you're the management but trade someone like a Youkilis?
I don't know, but trading Youkilis didn't work. It's an extremely high-risk move to dump a good player for nothing, and you better be damn confident it'll work.
   79. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4200852)
It's not Youkilis, or Lowrie, or the lack or Ortiz the last couple weeks, or any of that.
It's all of those things. The starting pitching has underperformed by several wins, Josh Reddick would have been worth a couple wins, Youkilis could have added a win, clutch underperformance cost them a couple wins, and so on. None of these problems are exclusive of the others.
   80. booond Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4200854)
Kevin Youkilis homered twice last night for the White Sox. He's hitting 256/377/488 for them in 33 games.
Nice timing for your comment. Before yesterday his slugging was hovering around .400.
   81. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4200856)
Nice timing for your comment. Before yesterday his slugging was hovering around .400.
First, the homers count. I'm not being selective in my endpoints, I'm considering his whole record since the trade. Second, an OBP-heavy 780 OPS beats the crap out of a DFA and and a middling International League pitcher. Youkilis by any measure has been a valuable MLB player on the White Sox, even with six homers instead of eight, while the Red Sox have needed a corner bat and have gotten zero production from the return on the trade.
   82. booond Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4200857)
I'm not being selective in my endpoints,


Of course you are.
   83. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4200858)
I'm being selective, perhaps, in choosing to bring up the Youkilis trade today rather than yesterday, but that's rhetorical, not substantive. I'm not doing anything shady with the numbers, as you imply.

Why do you think a better estimate of Youkilis' value wouldn't include his numbers last night? If you wouldn't exclude his homers last night, then we don't actually disagree on the substance of the thing. You just think I should wait until after an 0-for-4 to bring it up, maybe?
   84. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: August 05, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4200859)
Trading Youkilis was a good idea. Trading him for nothing was not.
   85. Chip Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4200863)
It's all of those things. The starting pitching has underperformed by several wins, Josh Reddick would have been worth a couple wins, Youkilis could have added a win, clutch underperformance cost them a couple wins, and so on. None of these problems are exclusive of the others.


Yes, but I'm grumpiest about the pitching.
   86. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4200864)
Trading Youkilis was a good idea. Trading him for nothing was not.
I basically agree. I'd break this up into a couple points.

If you have given up on 2012, you absolutely need to trade Youkilis. The Sox weren't going to pick up his option because he's redundant on the 2013 roster and they need that $13M if they plan on maintaining about the same payroll. As Drew says, if the Sox were planning to deal Youkilis, they should have looked to maximize the return rather than run him out of town on a rail.

If you haven't given up on 2012, then you should strongly consider trading Youkilis, but only for a return that makes the club better. If there had been a 3-way trade opportunity, perhaps including the A's, that brought back a good shortstop or a starting pitcher, then it would have made some sense. Once again, that requires maximizing Youkilis' value to maximize the return, and the Red Sox did the exact opposite of that.

It is possible to argue that Youkilis was a huge problem in the clubhouse and the Sox would have performed even worse if he were there, spreading his sweaty brand of malcontent. But that seems like way too much to take on faith, especially from this management team.
   87. booond Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4200875)
Why do you think a better estimate of Youkilis' value wouldn't include his numbers last night?


I'd like to wait to see how this ends up and not pick points that tell a certain story at its best time. Before the home runs he'd struggled and was 2-for-18. And he was horrible with the Red Sox. There are many stories in a season's worth of numbers, you picked to tell yours at the best possible time. Let's wait for it to all shake out before we decide Youk's value for 2012.


   88. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4200877)
I, as usual, agree with most of what MCoA has to say, including above. One additional point, though - I don't believe Youkilis was going to perform at the level he has in Chicago if he had stayed in Boston. What he is doing in Chicago doesn't matter to me, in terms of evaluating the trade.

The real challenge with this team is that you can't really make a major trade to upgrade this team, because the only real way to make this team a lot better is if Lester and Beckett start pitching consistently very well, and Ortiz comes back healthy and soon. If Lester and Beckett were giving us 7 IP, 2 or 3 ER per start every 5th day, this team would look a lot better very quickly. No trade is going to address that. Buchholz is back on track - he generally pitched very well again last night, 7 IP, no ER (though his errors led to unearned runs).
   89. RobertMachemer Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4200884)
I don't understand what you're arguing. It seems like now you're suggesting that the main problem is ill fortune. Your first argument was that the problem was the players, but now you're suggesting that the players are fine, and the only problem is the bad fortune and random variation that led to underperformance of runs and wins expected.
I'm not sure that I'm making much of an argument in any direction other than against certainty. I don't know why the Sox are a .500 team this year when their Pythagorean record says they should be winning more games. I know that it's not unusual for teams like that to start winning games, but it's also not unusual for the luck to continue to stay out. I don't know why Beckett, Lester, and Gonzalez have hit worse this year than I would have expected since we haven't heard of any particular injuries; I'm not sure it makes sense to assume they won't bounce back, but if they don't, then I guess they're not as good as we thought heading into the season or the random variation monster is really boning us this year. I'm not sure why Crawford, Ellsbury, and Youkilis did not hit as well as we would have expected, but their injuries seem as likely a reason as any (though again, it's possible that they played too few games for their variation to even out, and it's also possible -- especially in the case of Ellsbury -- that they're just not as good as previous years might seem to indicate).

About the only thing I'm sure of is that it's too early to jettison Cherington. Most of the players who have hurt the Sox (in regards to performance vs. preseason expectations) are the ones that were assumed to be the heart of the team from last year (and thus the players no one was thinking of trading before the season began). Although there are individual players/positions on which the Red Sox bet poorly, the new players, on the whole, have been a net positive. Valentine? Harder to say -- it is his job to get the whole team to play well; that the old players have, as a group, played poorly (relative to expectations) could be placed on his head... unless one thinks that it's due to variation, chemistry, or injuries. (If it's chemistry, again, that could be down to Valentine, but it's not as if the team was reported to have good chemistry before he joined the team).

What am I arguing? Patience. For instance, you can't just say that the Youkilis trade didn't work because the trade wasn't done to win in July, it was likely done to (1) improve the clubhouse (presumably -- and we have no idea if it accomplished that), (2) to win more games for the entire season (and the season is far from over), and (3) to give Middlebrooks MLB playing time without a veteran looking over his shoulder (and it has accomplished that... when Middlebrooks has been healthy).

You seem to be looking at the team and blaming management. It's not clear to me that management is to blame for the players' underperformance, and even if it is, I'm not sure what's to be done about it -- the upper management isn't going anywhere, and it's not as if the Sox weren't underperforming for the on-field management before Valentine. If the fault lies more with the players, is it due to injuries, variation, lack of talent, or chemistry? In response to the first two, all you can do is be patient. In response to the third, well, then there's no reason to be terribly disappointed. If it's chemistry, then you try moving players, hoping not to move someone key. Pedroia, Lester, Beckett (to name three, assuming they are as good as we thought they were before the season) seem to be a lot more key components to the 2012 World Championship Red Sox than Youkilis. So though I (in my complete ignorance of how the players really get along in the clubhouse) would have tried to keep Youkilis, I'm not fatalistic about the team's management because he was chosen to be the fall guy for the chemistry problems -- getting rid of him seems as likely a choice as any of the others, once one decides that chemistry is the problem and looks to dealing with it by trading someone.
   90. Swedish Chef Posted: August 05, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4200892)
Let's wait for it to all shake out before we decide Youk's value for 2012.

The White Sox have got 1.3 WAR for $2M and Zach Stewart (worth approximately $0). They are $4M or so in the black already from that trade.
   91. Jittery McFrog Posted: August 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4200899)
One additional point, though - I don't believe Youkilis was going to perform at the level he has in Chicago if he had stayed in Boston. What he is doing in Chicago doesn't matter to me, in terms of evaluating the trade.


Even if Youk was guaranteed to suck in Boston henceforth, I don't see any reason why he couldn't perform for the other 28 non-Boston teams as he has in Chicago. There were a number of teams that could have given up more than Chicago gave up and still "won" the trade handily. His performance in Chicago does matter in the sense that it shows what he can do for other clubs, so I don't really understand how the Sox front office couldn't get more for him.

(All the usual caveats about not knowing clubhouse stuff apply, of course.)
   92. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 05, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4200956)
The Red Sox acquired Danny Valencia for minor leaguer Jeremias Pineda. Valencia will report to AAA.
   93. karlmagnus Posted: August 05, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4200967)
That looks at first sight like another trade we lose. Don't see why we need a spare 3B so urgently (though Valencia clearly better than Punto) and Pineda looks to have been distinctly promising though at a very low level/too old for the league.
   94. Dale Sams Posted: August 05, 2012 at 03:06 PM (#4200975)
and the Sox would have performed even worse if he were there


It took Manny pushing down old men and sandbagging a PH appearance*, after years of being Manny. Youk is disgruntled and he gets the Last Train to Clarksville?? Made no sense.


*And at the time, I, and everyone else gave a collective shrug and said "Manny doesn't like to bat on his day off".
   95. Dan Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4201350)
Reddick now has more HR than anyone on the Red Sox, despite playing half of his games in Oakland, one of the tougher HR parks in the league. He's hitting .261/.333/.516 for a wRC+ of 131, walking in 9.5% of his PA, and has stolen 9 bases without being caught. DRS has him at 14 runs above average on defense, while UZR says 8.1 so far but on a 14.7/150 pace. He also has 12 OF assists, double the total of Red Sox RFers (though one of his came while playing CF).
   96. Nasty Nate Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4201359)
I understood trading Youk, but I figured the trade would either clear his salary off the books or bring back a player who would help in 2012.
   97. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4201370)
One more for the clowntown files. Ortiz may seek alternative treatment:
Ortiz, who was eligible to come off the 15-day disabled list last Wednesday, explained the proposed treatment is a kind of anesthesia. The treatment would not be, however, any kind of shot, according to the designated hitter.

"I'm thinking about it. Not cortisone. I have to talk to the doctors," said Ortiz, who hasn't played since July 16. "I have to get more information. The doctors have given me some ideas because I'm still very sore. I have to talk to them to see what's up."
On the one hand, "a kind of anesthesia" as a short-term injury treatment sounds stupid dangerous. On the other hand, the Red Sox medical staff probably mri'd the wrong ankle and gave him a prescription for "bortisone", so there isn't really a winner here.
   98. Textbook Editor Posted: August 06, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4201378)
If you want a conspiracy theory, they could just be screwing up Ortiz's treatment so he's considered "injured" and "getting old" and thus not worth re-signing...

But, yeah, the most likely explanation is continued incompetence.
   99. villageidiom Posted: August 06, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4201838)
His performance in Chicago does matter in the sense that it shows what he can do for other clubs, so I don't really understand how the Sox front office couldn't get more for him.
He was a frequently-injured player, coming off yet another injury, whose hitting had not yet demonstrated he was truly healthy, and was possibly a clubhouse malcontent who contributed to the team's chemical/actual collapse in 2011. And under contract for 3 more months.

In retrospect, he's healthy, he's hitting, the Boston clubhouse is still reportedly a mess and the team isn't winning any more than before. So, yeah, the subsequent stuff indicates all the reasons nobody would outbid the White Sox were crap. But nobody, not even the White Sox, knew this at the time of the trade.
   100. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: August 06, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4201845)
Pineda looks to have been distinctly promising though at a very low level/too old for the league.


Based on 142 PAs with a .500 BABIP? Pineda is a 21 year old in rookie ball. He is no one's idea of promising.

Valencia seems like more a move for 2013 than 2012. I wouldn't read much into the timing of it.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6010 seconds
41 querie(s) executed