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 0.6226 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.
The world of catchers is pretty small. I can see how the Sox ended up settling for Cash. It still seems like they ought to be doing better than Cash, but I can't say I've got specific suggestions.
You beat me to the punch. But, he wouldn't be a backup for Boston long term. You trade for Snyder with the idea that he's your starter in 2011 (and maybe 2012, if you pick up the option).
Obviously one hopes the Sox can do better.
Well, presumably the Sox would be willing to give up a lot more if he's a 2.4 year solution rather than a stopgap.
At mlbtraderumors a few days ago, there was this...
Levski, what would you think the price for Snyder is? A B and a C prospect?
Warning in that Kotteras is poor defensively and classic TTO at the plate.
Heck, I've heard Lowell-to-Texas rumblings, and presumably Max Ramirez is even more available after the acquisition of five-tool phenom Bengie Molina...
At this point, with Vlad being the best or second best DH in baseball... it's hard to see that really making sense on the Rangers side. I don't know that the Rangers can really afford a 25 man roster spot on Lowell at this point anyways.
I'd think Snyder would make sense. He's not the starter in Arizona, he would be in Boston, and he could potentially be the starter there for a few years. Arizona is looking to shed salary I'm sure, and Boston can afford a few million on him.
The Globe had a story that said that they were informed that they went over the CBT threshold for this year. I think it's been pretty clear that this was going to be the case from the beginning of the year, so I doubt the Sox were actually caught off guard. If anything this bit of news strikes me as the Sox getting the PR out that they won't just absorb money to get a deal done.
At the moment, I find it hard to envision a scenario where the Sox are within 8-9 games of a playoff spot by 8/1/10.
The Devil Dogs are playing the execrable O's tomorrow, while Boston has the A's at 1015 EDT. I am not optimistic.
Despite sending him to the minors, I've never heard any real complaints about him from the team. I'd be surprised if they're looking to move him. He's signed through 2012 and Olivo's playing time will likely yield a mutual option for 2011, so Iannetta could be their best catching option for next season. Given that, I don't think the Rockies would move Iannetta without receiving someone pretty good in return.
I don't want this team making any deals for 2010. Any hope they have for this season depends on players coming back at least as soon as expected and Red Sox players never, ever come back as soon as expected. Play out the string and make a deal only if the player you're getting will help in 11 and beyond. Do not deal for a middle reliever because a) Bowden and co. have as good of a chance at succeeding as anyone you pick up, and b) you suck at that.
Edit: to add that, for the reasons stated above, I wouldn't go after DeJesus, even though he'd be a very nice fit. It will be more helpful to see what Nava and possibly Kalish can do.
Isn't the actual reason for looking for a catcher for 2011 and beyond is that he's a FA after this year and there's no guarantee he'll be back?
I dont think it will ever happen, but I'm just sayin.....
No question Beltre is playing somewhere else in 2011, he'd net something of value. Martinez as well.
I'm with Darren, making a trade for this year seems unwise. The farm has had a bad year so unless you move a top prospect you aren't getting anything in return and giving up quality for a middle reliever is a bad idea. They were leading the Wild Card race through the lost weekend in San Francisco so I don't think there is a need to fill holes, they just need to be healthy. If they drop out of things before they get back to health, c'est la vie.
Not seeing it. The players with the trade value are not the ones the team would be interested in selling, unless they've already decided that they will make no effort to bring Beltre back. Martinez is damaged goods so I doubt he nets much interest.
Why would trading Beltre preclude bringing him back? I assume if the Sox are the high bidder in the offseason he'd be happy to return to a contender playing in a park that seems to suit him.
I agree on Martinez, I doubt he plays enough before the deadline to re-establish his value.
Yes, but it's always easier to keep a guy than to lure him. It's also difficult to express that you want to keep him when you trade him without being guilty of tampering. There are also the draft pick issues. I'd rather just offer Beltre an extension now.
Youk is underrated by the fans outside Boston, but not by the stat-heads, so you just need to find a stat-head front office.
Youk is underrated by the fans outside Boston, but not by the stat-heads, so you just need to find a stat-head front office.
Youkilis is an interesting case. Normally I'd say trading someone like him was crazy, but the fact that he didn't reach superstar levels until he was nearly 30, makes me think his peak may be very short.
If I were a Red Sox fan, I'd be worried about a Hafnerion collapse in a year or two.
Yes, but it's always easier to keep a guy than to lure him. It's also difficult to express that you want to keep him when you trade him without being guilty of tampering. There are also the draft pick issues. I'd rather just offer Beltre an extension now.
Really? He's only been there 1/2 a season. With Boras as his agent, I'd guess he's going to test FA. Once he walks out of the clubhouse on the last day of the season, there's no difference between keep and lure. I'm pretty sure he goes to the high bidder, and the Sox certainly have the wherewithal for that.
They're simply not going to trade Youkilis in the middle of this on the chance he declines rapidly. That would be a way bigger white flag than trading someone like Beltre or Martinez.
Hafner peaked at 27-29 and was just about done by 30. The only category of comparison you offered was age at peak, and Hafner and Youkilis aren't actually comparable in their age at peak. On top of that, Hafner was an injury-prone DH. Youkilis is both durable and a good defensive 1B, a capable 3B. I don't see anything similar about them at all.
karl's obviously trolling us on this one, and snapper's hardly any better.
If the Red Sox go 3-7 or 2-8 over their next ten, we can have this "blow it up" discussion. Until then it just looks like fodder for karl and wishcasting Yankee fans.
What kind of extension would you offer Beltre? He's got a history of inconsistency, so I really have no idea what might be considered fair for him. If there is the possibility of acquiring a 3rd baseman (unlikely) or 1st baseman (more unlikely now that the Padres are good, I'm not sure they even move him in the offseason) in the offseason, I would offer him arbitration. But since I am unaware of any other good available options for either corner, I think you are right that it makes sense to try and lock him down for a couple of years, I just have no idea how you price a guy like him. And I think it's going to be pretty difficult to get him to sign a favorable deal with the year he is having.
I cannot believe there are serious comments about trading Youkilis. A team like Boston should be trying to accumulate these guys, not get rid of them. He's in his prime and shows no signs of slowing down.
QFT.
The seriousness of these comments I leave for you to judge.
I'm reallly enjoying him though. Obviously part of that is the great year but he's quirky enough to be fun, the one knee homers, the don't touch his head routine, and I'm a sucker for good base runners and he seems to be one.
Sorry to be the bastion of negativity, but I am having a real hard time coming around to the 33% chance of making the playoffs argument. I just dont see it as being remotely that high, and a little realism might help set this team up for next season.
Obv making a trade now is premature, but are we going to learn any more about this team in 12 days? If they are w/in pissing distance of the WC at the trading deadline, then sure, stay put, hold out for the injuries to heal. To me Bowden and Doubront make a better than typical "trade" to help the bullpen. However, if they do go 3-7 or 2-8 on this west coast trip, then I think its certainly defensible to trade your non-2011 bodies for help down the road.
I believe that most of the serious upgrades to Cash would be considered way too valuable to a team to wind up as the second or third-string catcher when Varitek and Victor are healthy.
I think (I'm a Yankees fan, of course) that Youkilis might bring back the greatest return, short of a starting pitcher unexpectedly traded. But I agree with Matt in the intro that superstar returns should not be the goal here, and Youk is too valuable to be part of a swap in which they get back average players.
The seriousness of these comments I leave for you to judge.
I'm not really serious about trading him, just saying his career shape perplexes me. I didn't realize the Red Sox controlled him at such reasonable prices, so they are fine money wise. But, if he were a FA, it would be tough to value him with confidence.
I'm not high on their chances this year either, as that injury-riddled lineup is really being exposed now.
But I still do like this team's chances for 2011-12 and I see no reason to make those prospects dimmer for the sake of a marginally better chance at an inside straight this season.
The issue is that the Red Sox can make small-bore moves that could have effects in the range of a win - which is a lot for a midseason trade. A competent catcher, a #3 reliever, these could improve the Red Sox in 2010 without having any particular impact on the Red Sox of 2011-2012 - that is, I think they could be obtained without giving up Kelly, Kalish, or Iglesias.
BPro still has the Sox between 27 and 33 percent to make the playoffs. The team is weaker without two of their stars, obviously, but the numbers show the difference being closer to a win than two or three. It's not enough to kill the projection of the season going forward.
I don't know what "exposed" means in this context, really. Baseball is still a game mostly composed of discrete events. An injured shooting guard can be exposed because defenses drop back off him and cover other players, and so the entire team suffers, beyond simply the difference in individual quality from the starter to his backup. Baseball teams don't really get "exposed" like that. Kevin Youkilis is still Kevin Youkilis with Daniel Nava in the lineup. Papi and Scutaro and Drew and Beltre aren't going to be "exposed". Cash sucks, he sucked when he was playing while hte Red Sox were winning some games, he sucks now while they're losing games. Nava, Hall, McDonald and Patterson are flawed players, but I expect them to continue to play at about the level they've played all year - they're reasonably dangerous hitters, though not as good as the guys they're replacing.
I've only been "blow it up and start again" since July 31, 2008 -- and so far since then I've seen steady decline overall, as I would have expected.
One hit, McDonald's 1st inning double on Saturday, from "non-regulars" in the three games this weekend. Maybe "exposed" isn't the right word but the nanny will hide anything else I want to call it.
I know, I know, don't feed the troll...
Record on 7/31/08 - 60-42, .588
Record since 7/31/08 - 182-132, .578
If that's the rate of decline, you'll forgive me for not panicking.
There have been tons of rumors regarding both teams. If Tampa Bay truly is willing to move Bossman Jr, or a pitcher like Wade Davis, they can get a lot in return. The Yankees have a plethora of options due to their financial clout (we all know this). The Yankees don't have glaring holes, really, but can handle an upgrade that most teams wouldn't even consider (say, from Vasquez to Oswalt, for instance; and yes I do value Oswalt above Vasquez while also being aware that Vasquez has really turned it around since the dreadful beginning to his season).
To my mind at least, The [Get Back, Devil] Rays are the snake in the grass. They could really benefit from upgrades at DH, 1B, or 1st/2nd Starter types. Plus their farm is so loaded that they can afford to give away legit talent with no present fear of gutting the system.
I may well be wrong, but I just don't see how the Sox can overcome all of this and land a WC. They've simply lost too many key contributors and the primary competition is likely to improve if they stand pat.
Jose, why even bother to engage him?
This is actually a really good point. Neither of the Sox' main competitors is going to remain static.
Great point about the Rays needing upgrades at easy positions, too. Oh, I know who they should get - Pat Burrell!
I just looked up his $$$, $5.1M in 2011, then a 2-yr option for $7.25 2012 and $8.25 in 2013.
Presumably his injury history, poor defense, and inconsistent offense mean the Pirates wouldnt require multiple prospects in return.
I'd still rather have Iannetta. Younger, cheaper, and likely better, but obv depends on the players it took to get him.
If theres one trade a Red Sox team on the razors edge of being buyers or sellers SHOULD ABSOLUTELY make its got to be a catcher that is under contract for at least 2011. Iannetta, Snyder, Doumit seem the most obvious candidates there. It helps them this year, 3 catchers isnt the worst thing to have, esp when each can hit a tick, 2 could DH/1B if needed, and you're expanding rosters not long after the third one gets back. It also improves the team next year and beyond by fixing an upcoming glaring hole.
Sometimes I just can't help myself. He is very frustrating.
We're even worse when he relieves (1-3). Give him a Day and send him on his way. He never was all that good, never could beat the good teams, but in 2010 he's sort of "single-fingertippedly" killing the Sox.
Tim Wakefield:
In the postasean: 5-7, 6.75(with 5 straight series equal to or higher than his career postseason ERA mark--IOW,
he's been especially bad since the semi-miraculous relief stint in the '04 ALCS)
Against the NYY's: 11-17, 4.92(with another ~10% of unearned runs)
Against winning teams: 67-94, 4.81(with another ~10% of unearned runs)
Not a good guy to have pitching important games. Important games are usually vs the NYY's, or another good team, or in October.
Looks like we might have our real starters back for a while. Maybe they can fuel a run.
I'm just hopeful our real starter doesn't suck worse than Wakefield has, which, you know, he did during his time on the club this year.
And I've got to admit, every time I start to think Wake should just hang it up, I read one of your dickish posts on him and I hope he hangs around longer just to piss you off. Hang in there Timmy.
You might try to be less impressionable, then.
Yes, I'm too mean to the multi-millionarire Timmy, by pointing out facts about his actual record.
And you might also improve your reading skills:
edit: clarity, sarcasm
Anyways, he's clearly not too good right now (even tho he wasnt awful last nite) and I feel bad he's going to get bumped again, but barring trade theres no alternative.
What do you guys think about Dustin Richardson. I'd like to keep him and Bowden on the roster until they prove they shouldnt be. Is it too early to think about releasing Okajima?
the regular season W-L records seem worse than they ought to, given the teams he pitched for, and their ability to
put up runs. A 4.8ish ERA for a Red Sox starter from '95-'10 ought to get you a better than a .416 winning %, no?
Perhaps this is where I get my impression of Wakefield as a pitcher who finds a way to lose the big game. Because he, like, does?
Here's hoping he either tuns it around or enjoys a happy retirement.
Hey, I'm not perfect. When it comes to Wake, anything that makes you miserable makes me a little happier.
Yes.
He was, we are told, injured. And, unlike Wake, he has not repeatedly let me down in big games over the years.
BTW, this was an under-credited high pressure dominant start by the man:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200709150.shtml
I was among the pants-pissers of 2007. Yes.
So when he, say, ruins the 2010 Red Sox season, that makes you happier? You need to work on this aspect of your personality. Its not good for one to delight in hate.
Myself, I wish he didn't stink. I like the man. But he does stink. And he was never all that good to begin with.
He was great in 2007, no question. Enough so (along with Lowell) to make the ######## about the Hanley deal silly.
That season is also the only time he's been that guy you want to pretend he is during his time in Boston.
Teddy's hated Wake for years, while Wake steadily put up solid numbers, did whatever was asked of him, and played many key roles in the greatest decade in Red Sox history. Eventually, of course, like all ballplayers and all everyones, Wakefield would decline. And now it seems like he has declined, and teddy is using that as an excuse to act like he was right all along. He's wrong.
I'll get right on that.
I tend to agree with this, and as much as I hoped he'd catch Clemens, I'd rather see him announce his retirement than continue to scuffle as he has.
Looking it up I'm struck by the fact that the Rays have used five starters all year long and the Yankees have had only two starts outside their top five. Well that just won't do.
Jed Lowrie, starting shortstop sayeth Extra Bases.
6 IP, 3 ER? Quality start! If Lackey had done the same, Mr. Statistical Cherrypicking Situational Logician would be telling us that's good pitching.
This is intellectually dishonest. That's not what I did. I feel I demonstrated that Wake has never been able to
pitch well against good teams or pitch well when it counts the most. Big games matter, they're not random.
He has markedly less successful pitcher than the Red Sox teams he has pitched for, over his career.
Were he solidly average, you'd expect him to be about as successful as the teams he has pitched for.
He was never all that good. Now he stinks. But I've alreaqdy said that.
1995: 18-9
1996: 18-14
1997: 15-14
1998: 22-11
1999: 7-10
2000: 8-9
2001: 6-11
2002: 11-4
2003: 16-17
2004: 16-14
2005: 18-15
2006: 11-12
2007: 19-12
2008: 15-15
2009: 14-7
2010: 5-11
-----------
Total: 219-185
From 2003-2010, the Sox have gone 114-103 in games Wakefield started.
It is when half your line-ups out, and the 2 teams you're chasing have lost already, and you've been spotted a 4 run lead.
The team needed him to hold that lead. He failed. Typically.
"6 IP, 3 ER? Quality start! If Lackey had done the same, Mr. Statistical Cherrypicking Situational Logician would be telling us that's good pitching."
No, I'd say it was typical pitching for Lackey. Lackey beats good teams, Wakefield doesn't. Provide evidence that
Wakefield has not pitched far worse against good teams or in the playoffs. Oh right. You can't.
It may be the case that latter-day Tim Wakefield will pitch worse than expected in the playoffs, and should be shunted out if possible. During hte regular season, though, Wakefield's overall numbers tell the story.
No, it's not typical - not until this season. The Red Sox have done well in games Wake has started. He's been a solidly average starting pitcher.
Not a good guy (Wakefield) to have pitching important games. Important games are usually vs the NYY's, or another good team, or in October.
Last night, he failed at his specialty: beating the sub-.500 team.
Even if it is the case, if a guy happens to be better at beating weaker clubs than would be expected, and worse at beating better clubs, this is close to meaningless for his regular season value.
Wake's sucked this year. It's your insistence that he's sucked in the past that everyone's disputing.
Of course not. They'd expect him to win at the rate of the team, I suppose, were he average. Those other guys are gonna
pitch .600-.650 ball.
You left out that the Sox could, more or less, always hit a little from 1995-2010
Nonsense. You simply explain them away. Because you like the ballplayer involved.
Strawman. I said he was never all that good, ie mediocre, and that he sucked against good teams, the NYY's, and in the playoffs.
Most big games would fit into these categories.
In fact, Tim Wakefield has been, just as I've been claiming, perfectly average in WPA for the Red Sox. Here are the numbers:
1995: +2.9
1996: -0.5
1997: +0.0
1998: +0.2
1999: -0.2
2000: -0.0
2001: -0.6
2002: +2.3
2003: +0.5
2004: -1.4
2005: +1.5
2006: +0.0
2007: +0.5
2008: +1.0
2009: +1.0
2010: -1.0
For a total of 6.9 wins above average by win probability added. Again, the criticism of Wakefield that you've consistently articulated is one that is covered quite precisely by WPA. If he "typically" lost the lead when it was given to him, that's exactly what WPA would show. It hasn't been typical, so it's not in the WPA numbers.
When you play in the AL East it really, really isn't meaningless.
And I'm not sure he's especially good at beating up on the bad teams.
And maybe he just WPA's against crappy teams? :-)
In 1392.0 innings against good teams, Wakefield has won at a .416 clip, and posted an ERA .80 higher than against the weak teams. I don't know if the ERA spread is particularly big, but its far bigger than Beckett and Lackey's.
Put it this way. The average good team is at what, .560? So if the average Red Sox team during Wake's tenure is at .550 or so, wouldn't you expect something near a .500 record in ballgames vs these teams? Not .416?
I suppose this is the kind of thing that gives me the distinct impression that Wake can't beat good teams.
I need to get some work done.
not necessarily, the 'rate of the team' changes depending on the success of the best SP. The success of, say, Lester doesn't say anything about the success of Wakefield, but it would affect how Wake succeeds compared to the rate of the team.
This is season, real record, expected record, difference. (I couldn't run the numbers for 1999-2002 because his relief numbers screw things up.)
1995: 18-9, 18-9, +0.1
1996: 18-14, 12-20, +6.0
1997: 15-14, 15-14, +0.1
1998: 22-11, 21-12, +1.0
2003: 16-17, 19-14, -2.7
2004: 16-14, 15-15, +1.0
2005: 18-15, 18-15, +0.1
2006: 11-12, 10-13, +0.5
2007: 19-12, 17-14, +2.2
2008: 15-15, 17-13, -1.8
2009: 14-7, 13-8, +1.0
2010: 5-11, 5-11, -0.2
--------------------------
Total: 187-151, 180-158, +7.3
Once again, no evidence of unclutchiness. The team's winning percentage matches what you'd expect given Wake's pitching and the team's offense.
But did you separate out the games from the big games*?
* Big games being defined, in the Teddionary, as those games Wakefield loses.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main