BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: If Sox ‘change,’ Theo’s game: Former GM hints at return

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 08, 2006

If Sox ‘change,’ Theo’s game: Former GM hints at return

Fun with Theo.

The Original Gary Posted: January 08, 2006 at 01:26 PM | 127 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: red sox

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 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 08, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#1811518)

Tons of good stuff in here.

Cherington and Hoyer again voiced high praise for Alex Cora as a “comfortable” choice to be the Opening Day shortstop, citing his formidable field intelligence.
...
"I don’t think the signing of (first baseman) J.T. Snow shows that we think any less of Kevin Youkilis - he’s going to get chances to play a lot," Cherington said.
...
Cherington said Dustin Petunia will get a look at shortstop during spring training.
...
"Adam Stern’s development is definitely not over," Hoyer said. "Hopefully we’ll get him to (Triple-A) Pawtucket and help him there with his development."
...
Left-handed starter prospect Jon Lester and right-handed reliever Craig Hansen will both begin the season in Pawtucket and will be promoted as soon as the team thinks they’re ready. A decision on whether or not Jonathan Papelbon pitches in the big league rotation or bullpen this season will depend on the needs of the club.

Most of this seems quite positive. The Sox seem prepared to cobble the available options into a shortstop, but they will not be going with Stern in CF. And Petunia will get his shot in spring - that should be exciting to follow. an actual spring training position contest!

The quote on Youkilis is not so heartening for me. I'd much rather see a straight-out statement that he's the starter. "Chances to play" sounds like a platoon or something.

Papelbon's flexibility is good for the team, especially since they seem to be having trouble getting the return they want on Clement/Arroyo/Wells. I think he'd be great in the bullpen, though he'd be a bit scary in mid-inning jams with those flyball/homer tendencies. Hansen to start in AAA gives another bullpen slot either to Papelbon or Van Buren, depending on whether the starter trades go down. Or a random lefty they pick up before spring, I guess.

2. Joel W Posted: January 08, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#1811547)

MCA, I was looking at Papelbon's homer tendencies--they don't really look that extreme. In Pawtucket his HR rate was 0.65 in a park with a HR factor of 1.59. In Portland his HR rate was .93 in a park with a PF of 1.18. Last year in Boston it was 1.06, which seems to be about average. It's actually pretty impressive that he underperformed in the majors last year, at least with his BB rate.

It definitely seems like his/Varitek's unwillingness to throw breaking pitches hurt.

3. Joel W Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#1811554)

His numbers as a reliever though were really quite good. 19 Ks, 7 BBs, and 2 HRs in 18 IP.

4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:07 PM (#1811564)

I don't think Papelbon is extremely homer-prone at all, my bad with the wording. And I did say I thought Papelbon would be really nice in the pen. I was just saying, thinking about watching the games as a fan, that he's a bit homer-prone for a top reliever - I was comparing him to the sort of very good pitchers who might come on for a playoff team with a one-run lead and runners on 1st and 3rd in the seventh inning.

5. Smokey Joe Wood Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#1811571)

A decision on whether or not Jonathan Papelbon pitches in the big league rotation or bullpen this season will depend on the needs of the club.

I think it's in the long term best interest of the team to give Papes another year as a reliever and spot starter, getting him 100-120 innings in increasingly high-leverage situations, maybe work him into the rotation in August depending on roster needs. A 2007 rotation headed by Beckett, Papelbon and Lester will be very good and cheap, and give us a lot of financial flexibility to go after hitters in free agency or trades.

Looking at the body types and pitching motions of Santana, Prior, and Sheets in 2003, which one would you have picked as most likely to be healthy and be the best pitcher in their league the next two seasons? Don't you have to credit some of that to the Twins' handling of Santana?

6. Joel W Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1811594)

SMJ,

They definitely deserve some credit, but there's definitely an element of luck. I don't know how we divide the credit up, but I can't blame the Cubs for Prior's ability to hurt places other than his arm.

7. BoSox Rule Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:28 PM (#1811598)

Who is Dustin Petunia? ;)

8. Joel W Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#1811599)

Agreed MCA, he'll be a bit difficult to watch in the late innings. However, the high K-rate, high-bb type is probably a bit better coming out of the pen with runners on, right? I mean if there's a runner on second and you're up 1, don't we want a guy who K's a lot of batters. I mean, I'd prefer a guy who is high K, low BB, but aren't the high K guys better at not allowing inherited runners to score?

9. Joel W Posted: January 08, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1811637)

So can we turn this into an official "who will the Red Sox get to play CF?" thread. Gathright's ZiPS was surprisingly "good." I'm sure Tampa overvalues him incredibly. I'd still hope we could get Langerhans from Atlanta for some bulpen help, as those seem to be matching needs.

10. Darren

Posted: January 08, 2006 at 10:08 PM (#1811653)

I agree, MCoA, that doesn't sound like Youks is the starter, it sounds like what you say about the guy who you don't have a spot for. Then again, maybe they didn't want to commit to him too loudly right after signing Snow and telling Snow he'd get a lot of ABs. I'm still dreaming of some kind of Mike Lowell trade.

I'd love Langerhans, I think. ZIPS says he'll hit .266 .352 .435, and his defensive rep is pretty good.

11. Darren

Posted: January 08, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#1811670)

What about Mota? Any chance that the Braves see him as a closer? They liked Kolb, after all. Maybe he fits their mold.

You'd think that Texas would be a natural trading partner for us for a CF. Here's what they have for OF currently (with ZIPS for 06):

Wilkerson lf .280 .387 .504
Dellucci rf .247 .357 .476
Hyzdu rf .242 .355 .457
Mench lf .264 .327 .474
Sarge Lite (heh) rf .260 .327 .432
Nix cf .254 .303 .454

Hey, let's trade for that Hyzdu guy! They've also apparently got a bunch of corner guys who may need to be pushed to the OF (Botts/Teixeria/etc). They need pitching, we need OF, git 'er done!

12. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 08, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#1811724)

So can we turn this into an official "who will the Red Sox get to play CF?" thread.

I said this elsewhere, but I'm starting to think that they're gonna stick Nixon out there and pray for 1200 runs.

And the next time I see "git 'er done", I'm going to kill someone with my mind.

13. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 08, 2006 at 11:20 PM (#1811726)

I don't know how we divide the credit up, but I can't blame the Cubs for Prior's ability to hurt places other than his arm.

You can blame the bad karma of Dusty Baker the Arm Assassin. Even if he didn't do it with his usage patterns, surely his aura caused it to happen.

14. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#1811768)

I'd still hope we could get Langerhans from Atlanta for some bulpen help, as those seem to be matching needs.

What do you think that the Sox have for bullpen arms that the Braves would want? Atlanta seeks a closer. That is also an area where the Sox have some question marks. Foulke's health has questions.

15. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:17 AM (#1811785)

As Darren said, Mota? Arroyo? maybe those plus a c level prospect...there are probably ways to go here. There's also Arroyo + Ellsbury as a PTBNL to Seattle for Reed, or something. I feel like there are iterations of cheap pitching + a mid-level prospect to find the Red Sox a serviceable CF.

As a related question to the CF question, of the top 5 prospects which ones are we least willing to give up? From least to most I'd go:

1. Marte
2. Papelbon
3. Pedroia
4. Lester
5. Hansen

I know healthy Lesters and Hansens are more valuable than Pedroia, but I definitely fear injuries for them more. They could probably also get more in a trade (though Hansen can't be traded till the summer). If the value is there on the other side, who do the Red Sox have to be willing to part with?

16. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#1811794)

As Darren said, Mota? Arroyo? maybe those plus a c level prospect

I don't think either are in the closer space.

17. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#1811799)

If Danny Kolb is...

18. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#1811806)

backlasher, your resistance to darren's dumb trade ideas is counterproductive. just humor him. say things like "langerhans, chuck james AND salt dog for mota". he'll sleep better at night if you do.

19. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#1811813)

Levski, some of those were my dumb trade ideas. But anyway, since I can't evaluate my/other team's players all that rationally, what would a trade consist of?

20. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:47 AM (#1811818)

If Danny Kolb is...

Then the Red Sox should go get him, because he can be had for cheap, and you got the same production out of him last year as you did for Foulke.

Moreover, the Braves didn't trade Langerhans for Kolb. They traded a pitcher with control problems that was in Leo's doghouse, who was coming off a year a successful year as a closer. As big a mistake as Kolb may have been, you can't even dress those others up as a closer.

You might want to save that one for the roto league.

21. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 01:25 AM (#1811841)

What do you think the Braves would want for Langerhans? Who is a closer who's available and affordable that they could get for him?

22. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 01:55 AM (#1811868)

Joel, I prefer to take a shot at Darren; that's all.

The Braves need someone who can actually close games (even if that's sort of overrated, right?). I'm sure they'd prefer someone like Timlin. I'd venture that if the Braves were truly desperate, they'd look into a Timlin for Langerhans swap. And they might take a shot at working out a trade for Foulke if the money/players were right. But Mota? Come on. The Braves aren't filming a sequel called "Meet the Mota Fockers", you know.

23. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 01:56 AM (#1811869)

They liked Kolb, after all. Maybe [Mota] fits their mold.

I just realized that this made it sound like Kolb and Mota are somehow similar pitchers, which they're not. I only meant that it is pretty tough to figure out the Braves' criteria for liking a player. They seem to trade for guys who don't seem that great, who end up being very good for the Braves. They also seem to deal some prospects who look good, but then tank once the Braves have dealt them.

I meant to say that, perhaps Mota would fit whatever criteria they have. He's been a pretty good pitcher for a few years.

24. Indiana Bob Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#1811877)

“If things change, maybe at some point it would be possible for me to return to the Red Sox,” said Epstein. Asked what would have to change, Epstein just smiled and said, “That’s personal between me and the Red Sox, but thank you for your interest.”

Is Epstein trying to pressure the Red Sox by talking about coming back again? Frankly, he is starting to sound a little pathetic. I really think he is overrated. I think the current two guys could do just as good a job.

25. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#1811879)

I'd venture that if the Braves were truly desperate, they'd look into a Timlin for Langerhans swap.

Red Sox just signed Timlin to a new deal. Can't trade him.

And they might take a shot at working out a trade for Foulke if the money/players were right. But Mota? Come on.

Mota was much better than Foulke last year, and he's cheaper and a shorter commitment. Both have health issues. As a non-doctor, without access to their medical records, I'd say that Mota looks like a better value.

26. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#1811885)

That being said, the Braves would probably gamble on Mota, if the price were right. But he'd make decent change in arbitration, and he's definitely not worth someone like Langerhans. Mota's pretty fungible as far as relievers go

27. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:04 AM (#1811886)

I should also point out that Voxter is right, my use of 'git er done' was inexcusable. Yuck.

28. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:14 AM (#1811899)

"Mota was much better than Foulke last year"

Yay, Darren knows sample sizes. And shoe sizes.

Foulke, age 33 next year, has had 700+ IP of 3.23 ERA (144 ERA+); his last 5 seasons as a closer (not counting last year) were spectacular. Last year he had health problems, but assuming he's fully recovered in 06, he's a good bet to be much closer to 2000-2004 level than 2005 season.

Mota, age 32 next year, has had 464 innings of 3.61 ERA (116 ERA+); his good seasons were 2 1/2 years in LA as Gagne's setup guy. He's been pretty bad since going to FLA, and last year suffered various arm troubles. Even fully healthy, he's not anywhere in the same league as Foulke.

I wouldn't trade Langerhans for Mota; I would consider trading Langerhans (and/or others?) for Foulke if the money/players involved were right. I'd much rather take a gamble on Foulke's pre-2005 track record than on Mota's two years in LA. Unless you want to mess with Mike Piazza's head.

29. The Flying Monkey Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#1811905)

i'd go...

1)pedroia
2)marte
3)hansen
4)lester
5)paps

obviously, paps is the guy i would trade. his strikeout numbers were good, but not mind-blowing. he's only pitched a combined 114 innings between the sea dogs and paw sox (hardly a huge sample)--whereas lester pitched 148 innings on the sea dogs alone last year. he has yet to display anything besides a fastball. on top of that, he's now 25--almost the same age as josh beckett. i think he's overrated by most everyone. i'd say his upside is a number three starter, but most likely he'll end up as a decent reliever. i would rather have traded him than sanchez.

30. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#1811922)

What do you think the Braves would want for Langerhans? Who is a closer who's available and affordable that they could get for him?

I don't try to read JS too much. Its too difficult to get into his head. However, in the past, if JS needed a closer, he has tended to do one of two things:

(1) Trade for an established closer. This is rare, e.g. Kolb..
(2) Trade for someone that he thinks can be a closer. This is usually the modus operendi. This has been largely successful, but with mixed results e.g. Berenguer, Pena, Karsay , Farnsworth

I think the long range planning has always been to have a closer in waiting that emerges through the system through some setup work (Wohlers, McMichael, Rocker) which has proved the best results because you could also count Lightenberg in this model. Clontz was the real bomb.

I actually think that they thought Capellan may be the next in line, but when he had a few workability problems they cashed out for Kolb. Now the cupboard is bare, but I think they would try McBride or even Devine before making a bad deal.

Now based on all of that, I thought the deal Bernal posited was plausible. David Riske is the type of pitcher that JS wanted. It also seems that JS likes the Cleveland system for developing and handling pitchers (e.g. Karsay, Reed, and Embree). If CLE offered Riske for Langerhans I could see that as the type of pitcher that JS would like.

Otherwise, I expect they will look for a hard throwing setup guy with good control or fixable control, who has had a few years of proven success. That has been a more expensive commodity this year so I don't know if they will find that just by trading away a surplus OFer. I don't think the core of the young pitchers will be available, unless they are packaged with one of Langerhans/Johnson and also return a ML corner OFer.

Moreover, if the Sox had an RP that the Braves had interest in, I would expect it would have been part of the Renteria deal.

31. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#1811955)

Foulke, age 33 next year, has had 700+ IP of 3.23 ERA (144 ERA+)...
Mota, age 32 next year, has had 464 innings of 3.61 ERA (116 ERA+)

I agree that Foulke has had a better career. But I don't think including stats from before about 2002 makes much sense. A weighted average would be much more revealing. Same for Mota. ZIPs does this presumably, and it looks like Foulke comes out a hair better than Mota, which doesn't come close to making up the difference in their contracts. It would, of course, depend heavily on their health too, which is why I cannot agree that Foulke is a much better target than Mota.

I wouldn't trade Langerhans for Mota;

Nor would I. But I (or more importantly Schurholz) might consider him to be part of a deal for Langerhans.

I would consider trading Langerhans (and/or others?) for Foulke if the money/players involved were right.

So you'd do Langerhans+ for Foulke, possibly? I doubt I'd do that as the Braves unless the Red Sox paid all of Foulke's salary.

32. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#1811962)

I don't try to read JS too much. Its too difficult to get into his head.

I completely agree. Why then are you so comfortable dismissing others thought on what might interest him?

33. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#1811978)

Not all of Foulke's salary, Darren, just some. I don't know what Mota's zips for 2006 in BOS is, but I'd be shocked if Foulke is just a "hair" better than Mota's. Foulke's zips was 3.73 ERA over 70 IP; Foulke is a very good bet to outdo his Zips by at least half a run or better, if his knees are fine. Mota's zips ERA was 3.64 in FLA, over 84 IP. That's generous, even for FLA, imho, and I don't see him having an ERA under 4 next year in BOS, even if he's fully healthy. At the end of the season, I'm guessing Foulke will be about 1 run per 9ip better than Mota, if not more, over the same number of innings, more or less. Say roughly ERA 3 for Foulke, 4 for Mota. That isn't a "hair" better, than's an entire woolly mammoth better.

34. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#1811980)

Why then are you so comfortable dismissing others thought on what might interest him?

Because its easier to figure out what somebody will not do then what they will do. Because I am somewhat familiar with what the Braves have sought to acquire

But I'm becoming even more interested in behavior. I did see someone mention something that seemed a little fanboyish. I inquired further, and stated what I knew. I saw a response that did not address that at all. I mentioned that. I also responded to your question. And this gets characterized as "dismissive." That is absolutley hilarious.

35. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:14 AM (#1811993)

if his knees are fine

Is there any information on this, though. Based on what we know, Foulke would scare the bejesus out of me. I don't know if he has his whole package. I also don't trust his personal prognosis of himself. Despite Foulke's impressive record, he's still a guy that blows saves. Sometimes he looks like a dominant reliever with 3 pitches that he can throw for strikes. Other times, he looks very hittable. I'm not sure if those differences aren't attributable to pain, or at least, I'd be concerned that was the case.

If he is A game Foulke, I think JS or any GM would tread a great defender/avg. hitter like Langerhans to get him, provided they could swing the finances. If he is slightly damaged Foulke, that equates to last year's Kolb.

36. Darren

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#1811996)

Because its easier to figure out what somebody will not do then what they will do.

Of course it's easier. JS will only acquire 0-2 closer/relievers. Guessing that any given player will not be one of them is quite easy. It doesn't mean that suggesting that player as a possibility is foolish.

</i>But I'm becoming even more interested in behavior. I did see someone mention something that seemed a little fanboyish. I inquired further, and stated what I knew. I saw a response that did not address that at all. I mentioned that. I also responded to your question. And this gets characterized as "dismissive." That is absolutley hilarious.<i>

I thought your roto comment was dismissive.

37. Backlasher

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:30 AM (#1812014)

thought your roto comment was dismissive.

LOL. Then what did you consider the Dan Kolb comment. Insightful, because it was pro-Red Sox. I know since you got that Professor Hat, you want to make this a rah-rah Red Sox place, but until the fiat comes down that this is just going to be 28 different Fan Forum's I'm still going to talk about baseball. If you want the discussion to be about baseball, you might want to make arguments about baseball instead of talking about behavior every time a non-Red Sox fan comes into the forum.

I doubt most Sox fans want all-fantasy, all-the-time, either, but you appear to be cultivating a few.

And I must admit, I got trolled into your little rhetoric. I thought you were asking a serious question. Now, its clear you just wanted someone to take up some time, and you were going to post that pointless rhetorical question no matter what was answered. Well, I won't make that mistake again. Shame on me for going against my instinct.

But I hope this thread doesn't disappear in another reorganization.

38. NTNgod Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:44 AM (#1812036)

that equates to last year's Kolb

Why Mazzone undid everything Maddux told Kolb is STILL a mystery to me. He turned Kolb from an unusual, but effective pitcher (strikeout ratio be damned; until he tired at the end of 2004, he was giving up basically singles and a few walks) throwing nothing but sinkers, back into the slightly-harder throwing, but straight-as-an-arrow fastball pitcher he was prior.
(while you wouldn't want all your pitchers to be like Kolb, it appears to be how to get maximum effectiveness out of KOLB)

My jaw dropped when I first saw Kolb throw the opening week, and WHAT he was throwing. I guess we'll see this season if, reunited with Maddux, Kolb returns to usefulness .

/back on topic

39. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#1812044)

Why do threads where BL participates nearly always devolve into name calling?

40. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#1812052)

Flying Monkey,

I think Papelbon's age, relative inexperience are positives.

41. J. Cross Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:34 AM (#1812113)

Riske would be a good choice for the Braves. I'm guessing they'd view Hansen as not quite ready. Maybe a Sisco or Burgos from the Royals.

42. JB H Posted: January 09, 2006 at 10:15 AM (#1812202)

The Sox also continue to talk with the Dodgers and Athletics about a possible three-way deal involving David Wells, who would go to LA, while the Sox would facilitate the return of Jay Payton to Boston, with Payton presumably happier in an everyday role than he was as a backup last year.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/01/09/sox_still_keep_eye_on_tejada/?page=2

Lots of Manny stuff there too

I'm really glad that Payton's on the radar, despite the stuff last year. Wells for Payton is probably the best the Sox can do if Crisp/Reed are going to cost more than Clement/Arroyo. I'd guess the Sox could get a B prospect headed their way in a Wells for Payton deal too, considering Payton was traded for Chad Bradford a few months back

43. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:33 PM (#1812217)

Despite Foulke's impressive record, he's still a guy that blows saves. Sometimes he looks like a dominant reliever with 3 pitches that he can throw for strikes. Other times, he looks very hittable.

I'm guessing from this description that you are referring to Foulke's poor performance in 2005. Before 2005, Foulke never had "three pitches he could throw for strikes" - he was purely fastball/changeup. He started dicking around with a slider in 2005 when his knees got bad and he couldn't get batters out with his normal two-pitch routine. (We called that the "Chico slider" and feared for our lives when it appeared.)

Foulke at his best simply dominated with two pitches. If your vision of good Foulke is a three-pitch reliever, you're probably remembering a good game or two from last year, not his best performances before. When I'm optimistic about Foulke, I imagine him returning to his best years with just a fastball and a change, and the slider packed away for good.

44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 12:44 PM (#1812221)

Otherwise, I expect they will look for a hard throwing setup guy with good control or fixable control, who has had a few years of proven success.

While I can't predict what Schuerholz will do - other than to suggest it'll probably work - if that's what he's looking for, what's wrong with Guillermo Mota?

Mota's been a setup guy for a few years, Mota's best pitch is a 93-96 fastball, and he had a short period of excellent control before it deserted him last year.

Mota's success was only for two years, and he did struggle in the closer's role last year, so those are the downsides. (Riske completely bombed as a closer, too, though.) But given that we don't know exactly what Schuerholz or Cox thinks, Mota seems to fit into at least some projections of their interest.

45. NTNgod Posted: January 09, 2006 at 01:05 PM (#1812232)

If your vision of good Foulke is a three-pitch reliever,

Given some of the pictures floating around the Internet of Foulke in various inebriated states, perhaps he meant Foulke was a three-PITCHER reliever. That I could believe :)

46. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#1812396)

I'm with MCA on Foulke. Here's the thing though: The Red Sox have about 10 good bulpen arms. Suppose they enter the season and a few of them are pitching well, say Foulke, and a couple others have good ERAs even with not the best peripherals. Say then that Atlanta is contending but still needs pen help, isn't that when you try to make a deal for a CF? My friend pointed out that it would be a lot easier if the Sox were going in to the season with an Endy Chavez out there who can catch the ball and then let themselves find a CF part way through the season.

That or they could get one now.

47. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 09, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#1812481)

"The Red Sox have about 10 good bulpen arms."

Uh huh. And yet...

2005 Boston Red Sox bullpen ERA: 5.15

Boston Red Sox bullpen ERA rank among major league teams, 2005: 29th out of 30

2003-2005 Boston Red Sox composite bullpen ERA: 4.62

Red Sox relievers who could be said to have pitched well (in any way, shape or form) for Boston in 2005: 4 (DiNardo in 14-2/3 innings, Timlin, Papelbon, Myers)

Red Sox relievers who could be said to have pitched well in 2005, and are still on Boston's roster: 3 (DiNardo, Timlin, Papelbon)

Relievers added by Boston during the off-season: 2 (Seanez, Mota)

Average number of innings Rudy Seanez has pitched per year since 2000: 34-1/3

Guillermo Mota's 2005 ERA: 4.70

48. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1812545)

I'm sure I could cherry-pick a set of stats that make the Red Sox bullpen look amazing.

I'd focus on Seanez' and Timlin's 2005s, Foulke and Mota in '03 and '04, and I'd mention future ace reliever Hansen, marked as having the best fastball and slider in the system and likely headed to Boston by midsummer.

Joel's statement about 10 good bullpen arms is defensible, but I think it's helpful to look at the ZiPS projections Joel put together, which basically showed a whole bunch of ~4.00 ERAs. That'd be a very big improvement from 2005, and a very nice bullpen, but also probably the worst bullpen you could create out of "10 good bullpen arms" - ie, ten guys who are all pretty good but none all *that* good.

49. standuptriple Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#1812578)

Dusty Baker the Arm Assassin
Hilarious. I will consider that his actual name from now on.

50. OlePerfesser Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:22 PM (#1812606)

To summarize some of the issues that appear to have come to a head in the past few days:

1) Tejada is out of the Beantown SS picture.

This would appear to virtually guarantee that we go into the season with a platoon of Cora and Graffanino (or Pedroia, if he demonstrates readiness in ST). If you bat that combo 8th or 9th, it's a mild improvement, all things considered, over the wreckage of Renteria we saw last year, but not great.

2) Manny's very much back in the Beantown picture in LF.

This ensures the heart of the lineup will be formidable, though it does mean a rangy CF is a must. Sox should also have a Gene Stephens-like caddy around to minimize the adverse impact of Manny's glove in certain situations, and that should affect bench construction.

3) It sure looks like Theo's planning to come back as soon as Lucchiavelli goes on to his next venture.

Which could be soon: Being part of the DC Power Scene should appeal to LL's ego, and Beelzebud could make that happen.

4) The CF options are dwindling down to a precious few.

Ultimately, I think Joey Gathright's going to wind up being the guy. TB's got little use for him except as a trade chit, and everybody else seems to have settled on other solutions (the O's, e.g., are apparently willing to take a flyer on Corey Patterson). Maybe a 3-way with SD or LA, Wells for prospect(s), prospect(s) to TB...

If, after all the drama, we wind up with a lineup of Euclis, Loretta, Papi, Manny, Trot, 'Tek, Lowell, Cora, and Gathright, how excited are we?

51. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#1812629)

If, after all the drama, we wind up with a lineup of Euclis, Loretta, Papi, Manny, Trot, 'Tek, Lowell, Cora, and Gathright, how excited are we?

That's a team that should win 90, given conservative but not hope-abandoned estimates of Foulke and Schilling, and could win quite a few more with good seasons from the hurt-in-'05 contingent. At this point, it's basically what I expect from the offseason.

How I feel about this set of moves will greatly depend on the health of Foulke and Schilling. If the front office has saved money (at least $10M unspent, it seems) and picked up some young talent at the expense of those super-important marginal wins 92-95, I'll be unhappy. If they've done so with a team that projects in the area of 95 - that's the healthy Foulke / healthy Schilling scenario - then I'm fine.

I think there are a few guys here - vi definitely, Darren maybe - who expect quite a bit more from this offseason than Gathright and done. I hope they're right.

52. covelli chris p Posted: January 09, 2006 at 05:59 PM (#1812656)

hopefully one of the center fielders in the minors will make a big leap forward. i think if stern is healthy he could be a better option than gathright by the end of the season.

53. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 09, 2006 at 06:05 PM (#1812665)

"I'm sure I could cherry-pick a set of stats that make the Red Sox bullpen look amazing."

I'm sure all Red Sox fans could do this. Just don't expect anybody else to take it seriously.

"Joel's statement about 10 good bullpen arms is defensible, but I think it's helpful to look at the ZiPS projections Joel put together"

10 good bullpen arms? Sounds like 57 known communists. All of the relievers on Boston's roster have bigger but(t)s than your DH. Is Foulke a good arm? Sure, if he's healthy (a big IF). Is Mota a good arm? Sure, if you discount the fact that he's sucked for the last 1-1/2 years. Are these guys who have never pitched effectively (or at all) in the majors "good arms"? I don't know -- is there a Red Sox exception to TINSTAPP?

It's great to have 2006 ZIPS projections, but you might actually want to take a lot at Boston's 2005 ZIPS projections. If you do, you'll see a lot of relievers predicted to post ERAs in the 4.00s or lower, and a few other guys projected in the high 4.00s and low 5.00s. Presumably all of these guys were "good bullpen arms." And yet, the team's bullpen posted an ERA of 5.15. How, exactly, did that happen? And why is this year going to be any different or better?

54. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#1812780)

hopefully one of the center fielders in the minors will make a big leap forward.

If the FO wants Stern to start the season in AAA, that means the Pawsox will have at least 3 CFs on its roster in Stern, Durbin and Murphy, 4 if Moss can play center (anyone know if he can?). This makes me think that the Sox aren't looking for more than a stopgap solution in center to start the season, unless they can land a Crisp or Reed without giving up the farm. Are there MLEs for these guys anywhere?

55. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#1812785)

Sounds like 57 known communists

I doubt there are 57 communists working for the Red Sox. Too bougy.

56. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#1812811)

MCA,

Just so you know, that wasn't a ZiPS projection. I wanted to be somewhat conservative in my predictions for the Red Sox, and I thought the bulpen ERAs seemed off. These are the actual ZiPS

Hansen/3.51
Timlin/3.67
Foulke/3.73
Papelbon/4.14
Delcarmen/4.28
Dinardo/4.30
Seanez/4.22
Van Buren/4.42
Mota about 4.00 (don't know exactly, as we don't have the Fenway translation)

By variance, some of these guys are going to have good first months. That's how things usually work. And Lucky Henry, just because ZiPS was wrong about the Red Sox last year doesn't mean it will be wrong about the Red Sox this year.

57. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#1812834)

Are there MLEs for these guys anywhere?

Yeah - I can bring it up when I'm at home later.

Preview - Moss sucks, Murphy sucks, Durbin sucks, Stern sucks except in one small sample.

I believe that none of those four will be passable major league regulars next year without huge, huge steps forward.

58. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#1812841)

Which is why I agree, we need a CF, and with a CF the Red Sox have a really good team, cause I think we have about 92 wins on this team right now, and a solid CF gets us to 95 wins.

59. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 09, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#1812856)

All of the relievers on Boston's roster have bigger but(t)s than your DH.

Now that is just a filthy lie. I would put David Ortiz' butt up against any butts in the Sox bullpen any day of the week.

60. covelli chris p Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#1812893)

I believe that none of those four will be passable major league regulars next year without huge, huge steps forward.

what's "passable"? i said better than gathright ... not a very high standard.

bottom line is, no smart gm is going to just give us a center fielder. (unless bavasi does something stupid), we will either pay alot for a good (but not great) center fielder or go into the season with around replacement level production. since i think pedroia will produce above replacement level at shortstop, i think we can take replacement level production from our center fielder. it's not the best option for the 2006 team--that would have been signing damon to an absurd contract--but i can deal with it.

if we get better defense, healthier pitching, and a halfway decent bullpen, there's no reason why we can't match (or pass) last season's record ... big if's, i know, but what are you gonna do?

61. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#1812908)

MCA - any estimate of how a Stern/Durbin platoon might fare? I have no idea what their splits are like, but they at least have good defensive reps.

62. Mister High Standards Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#1812922)

I think that 92 win projection is outragiously high based on the current roster.

One thing to keep in mind in re: to projections is that the "average" projection works out because you have about as much "breakout risk" (upside) with "collapse risk" (downside). The reason the projections for the redsox are imho far to high is the "collapse risk" isn't equal to the "breakout risk".

I haven't run regular projections in 2 years now, but spent a lot of time with them in the 5 years previous.

63. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 09, 2006 at 08:31 PM (#1812934)

Preview - Moss sucks, Murphy sucks, Durbin sucks, Stern sucks

no wonder pedroia looked so hot; his competition for the spotlight was pretty bad

64. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:02 PM (#1813012)

Let's do this again.

1) A weighted mean will not in fact weight the breakout differently from the collapse. Do you know if ZiPS uses the median as opposed to a weighted mean?

2) How much collapse risk do the Red Sox have? If they're 2b Loretta breaks down, they have a pretty good prospect in behind him. If Lowell sucks at 3b, they have a pretty good 1b in behind him. They have 7 potential starters and 10 potential bulpen arms (some crossover). 1 of their starters didn't provide anything last year. Their closer was god awful.

3) That win projection which I offered is a run projection using ZiPS and then adding in some time for crappy players, and assuming that the pitchers wouldn't be as good as their ZiPS, and assuming that the Red Sox would enter the season with Cora and Stern at SS and in CF, one of which I don't believe will be true, and definitely won't be true by the end of the season. The projection came out to 94 wins, and then I subtracted 2 wins just because for some reason I didn't feel comfortable with thinking that the Red Sox were actually a 94 win team this year.

So explain, please, why 92 wins is outrageously high? Why is the Red Sox collapse risk worse than that of the Yankees or the Blue Jays? Yes, the Red Sox have old pitching, but they have so many starters for whom the marginal downgrade just isn't that much further. They don't have much collapse potential at 3rd, or 2nd because they have very good prospects there. They don't have much collapse potential at SS or CF because they suck right now. David Ortiz could get hurt, but I doubt his injury potential is much higher than any other player. Manny Ramirez has been one of the healthier players in the game the past few years, and the Red Sox have been very good about letting him rest when needed. Does anybody remember Youkilis's last injury? That leaves Trot Nixon who could be hurt, and some bulpen arms. That's about it.

65. covelli chris p Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#1813057)

The reason the projections for the redsox are imho far to high is the "collapse risk" isn't equal to the "breakout risk".

this is a good point, and it's a reason why the red sox need to get younger (early signs have been that the red sox are actually trying to get younger this year, so that's good). if you fill your preseason roster with well compensated old guys, it will look good on paper, but there will be injuries. if you have young guys, there will be some pleasant surprises mixed with duds.

66. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#1813078)

MLEs...

245/300/365 - Durbin
230/285/340 - Moss
245/295/350 - Murphy

270/345/360 - Gathright, and if you add in his MLB performance - 275/330/350

Adam Stern had 100 good PA in 2005, and his combined line is solid - 265/320/415. I find it much more like that line is a pretty big fluke... no, I'm wrong. Adam Stern's 2004 MLE is 295/340/410. That's darn good. His numbers before 2004 are beyond crap (he couldn't manage an OBP over .300 in A ball), so that should drop his projection a reasonable amount, but Adam Stern, if healthy and if good at defense, might just be a useful player this year.

67. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#1813084)

We know Gathright is fast. How good does that make his defense?

68. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1813138)

The reason the projections for the redsox are imho far to high is the "collapse risk" isn't equal to the "breakout risk".

I think this is a good point, but I do wonder how you might quantify "far too high"? From a very amateur perspective, I can buy a difference of 2-3 wins based on unequal collapse/breakout possibilities, but I have trouble buying anything over 5 wins except in the most extreme of circumstances, and I don't think this roster is extremely risky, just overweighted.

I've got the Sox around 90 wins with a fictitious below-average but above-replacement CF. Next week I'm going to futz around with the Lahman database and try to make some Marcels for the team. I'm expecting that the Marcels will come out well below the ZiPS numbers, which just look too darn high. I'll see, though. (unless I don't.)

69. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1813159)

MCA,

My predictions of what you'll find w/ ZiPS

Manny and Ortiz look just about right. So does Varitek (surprisngly consistent the past 3 years). You'll be surprised that Nixon looks just about right, because he was very good in 2003, good in 2004, and ok in 2005, but you think patterns exist more than they do. Loretta looks high, but when you look at his PF in SD and in BOS it makes sense. However, he probably is too high since he actually hasn't been hurt much by SD. You, nor I, knows what to do with Lowell, so use the number mgl gave us in that mini-study. I think it was like an .800 OPS. Youkilis is a whole different story. I think he'll be good for the .400/.400 but we'll see.

70. covelli chris p Posted: January 09, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#1813198)

IF nixon is healthy i expect him to hit, but i don't see him being above average defensively.

71. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 09, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#1813220)

Nixon's way too high. His 5/4/3 projection is an 875 OPS, and that's with no regression to the mean or age adjustments. ZiPS has him at 880. Cora beats his 5/4/3 by even more than Nixon, and Ortiz is much too close to his for my liking. This is all just impressionistic, and I'll see if I run the numbers, but my impressions of what looks right are definitely, though not extremely, different from yours.

72. OlePerfesser Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:37 PM (#1813324)

Speaking of "collapse rate," and MGL's little study of bouncebacks, did the Sox miss a nice long-shot bet on Corey Patterson? I think he's very likely to continue to suck--but to paraphrase Miracle Max "likely to suck" means "has a small chance to be fine."

I don't know much about the minor leaguers the O's gave up to get him, but the price seemed nice 'n' low. And he's solid defensively; if I had to choose between Patterson's offensive prospects and Gathright's, I don't know which I'd favor.

Given how many other "high-variance" types we have, maybe Patterson should've been part of our deliberations. (This is, as much as anything, a sign of how desperate we're getting.)

73. Joel W Posted: January 09, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#1813348)

Desperate. If you do what mgl did in that study which was to basically use a 4-year-average Patterson still sucks. Not that the sox have anybody good right now, and maybe it would have been worth having a warm body there for leverage, but...

74. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#1813369)

Speaking of desperate, Jeff DaVanon is really not a bad option. A guy with a career .749 OPS isn't a bad option, especially if he's usually hitting from the left side in Fenway.

75. 1k5v3L

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#1813379)

DaVanon supposedly failed his physical with AZ, which is why he wasn't signed. Word is he has shoulder problems (torn labrum ?) He might not be that valuable next year.

76. Backlasher

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#1813388)

if that's what he's looking for, what's wrong with Guillermo Mota?

Mota hasn't exactly shot the lights out over the last 1.5 years. I've seen JS make trades for relievers having difficulties before, e.g. Stan Belinda, but never giving up anything of terrific value for the reliever.

Relievers are usually packaged in bigger trades, and like I stated, if JS were interested in the Sox collection, I think we would have heard more about that in the Renteria deal.

77. OlePerfesser Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#1813457)

...maybe it would have been worth having a warm body there...

FWIW, Patterson's 50th percentile PECOTA forecast for '05 was .277/.328/.474.

His actual was .215/.254/.348, which was well below his 10th percentile forecast on all fronts. Wow. Maybe Patterson's body wasn't warm but in rigor all year.

OTOH, Mike Lowell's '05 50th %ile PECOTA was .279/.348/.502, and his actual was .236/.298/.360, which was slightly above his 10th %ile for AVG and OBP, and well below it for slugging. If we're at all optimistic (fooling ourselves?) that Lowell's worth giving ABs to to see if he's going to bounce back, why wouldn't we be similarly willing to roll the dice on Patterson if the alternatives are Adam Effing Stern or Joey Can't Steal First Gathright? Seems to me, with all the question marks we've got already, that '06 is shaping up as a "cross-your-fingers-for-some-big-bouncebacks" year, with the consolation prize being you've got some kids coming if you crap out.

BTW, Patterson's ZR the last 3 years has been .869, .898, .900.

78. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#1813463)

Cause Mike Lowell was good in 2004 and 2003. And Joey Gathright can get to first at an average rate, he just can't get to second.

79. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#1813487)

How, exactly, are the blue jays threatening?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2006_zips_projections_toronto_blue_jays/

80. Darren

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#1813495)

I was just thinking today that it's surprising that Davanon hasn't been signed by the Sox already. I know he flunked the physical but he's reportedly now fielding offers of ST invites. He's worth the gamble of a guaranteed deal for the Sox, unless he's really guaranteed to be finished. Same might have been said of Byrnes, who would have at least been entertaining to watch out there. He and Manny together would have been scary fun.

81. Darren

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#1813502)

Another funny thing about Davanon: I read a couple of scouting reports on him (Waymore, ESPN), and both stressed how awful he was as a righthanded hitter, and that he should consider just hitting lefty. His career numbers tell a different story:

vs. left: .269 .383 .423
vs. right: .254 .342 .397

82. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:37 AM (#1813638)

SJ's post over in the big Yankees prospects thread reminded me that while Joel has inspired us to look at a whole lot of 2005 projections, we haven't had any Crazy Fanboy projections so far.

Petunia: wins SS job in spring, 550 AB, 311/380/462
Youkilis: 500 AB, 294/416/448
Papelbon: 140 IP, 2.77 ERA, 156 K, 54 BB
Ortiz: 414/608/917 in close and late situations
Beckett: makes The Leap, 219 IP, 2.48 ERA, 261 Ks

Oh, and because it wouldn't be CFBPS without him...

Byung-Hyun Kim: 84 IP, 3.41 ERA, 3-6 in first half with Detroit Tigers, traded to Red Sox in midseason in return for an improving Dave Murphy and cash considerations, throws 112 IP, 3.31 ERA, 8-4 with big wins down the stretch. Who drops out of the rotation for him? who cares? CFBPS takes care of it.

83. Phil Coorey. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:41 AM (#1813643)

Looks about right Mikael. :)

84. Josh Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1813651)

Youkilis: 500 AB, 294/416/448

IIRC, that is pretty close to Bill James's actual projection :D

85. covelli chris p Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:53 AM (#1813845)

Same might have been said of Byrnes,

please stop that!

86. Buzzards Bay Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#1813847)

Stern looked over his head in every AB ....and that might be gracious..Ft Meyers tryout Murphy and Ellsbury...if it's scary pull the trigger in March...with a better idea of MLB-wide shuffling...

87. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 10, 2006 at 08:38 AM (#1813972)

Youkilis: 500 AB, 294/416/448

If his OBP is 416, I really coudln't care less what he slugs.

88. OlePerfesser Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#1814082)

Just to get further under covelli's skin: I second the notion that Byrnes should've been pursued. Even if he's embarrassing in CF in April/May, then you've still got a pretty good platoon-mate for Trot and caddy for Manny. Neither of which we've obtained yet, BTW.

On Euclis, leave us remember that (a) his lifetime line is .265/.376/.411, (b) he got only 79 ABs last season, and (c) he's 27. My concern is that as he gets more exposure, the walk rate goes down as pitchers conclude you really don't have to worry about his power. I'd feel better if we were counting on him to replace Mueller's production at 3B, IOW, than if we were counting on him to be an above-average producer at 1B.

89. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#1814109)

I'd feel better if we were counting on him to replace Mueller's production at 3B, IOW, than if we were counting on him to be an above-average producer at 1B.

Yes, but he's replacing Millar's production. We just need the overall production lost/added to be equal from last year. I see a clear downgrade in CF, a clear upgrade at 1b, and a clear upgrade at 2nd. SS is murky.

On Euclis, leave us remember that (a) his lifetime line is .265/.376/.411, (b) he got only 79 ABs last season, and (c) he's 27. My concern is that as he gets more exposure, the walk rate goes down as pitchers conclude you really don't have to worry about his power.

Is there any evidence that this happens? Maybe as pitcher's realize that he won't swing at pitches on the black that they either a) try to throw them there, walking him more or b) throw him more hittable pitches and he hits .300, and his slg goes up even if his ISO goes down. I just don't get how this mechanism is supposed to work, and if it makes sense theoretically if it actually exists empirically. My guess is it doesn't.

90. OlePerfesser Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#1814116)

Is there any evidence that this happens?

Not to my knowledge. (Study opportunity for the non-lazy!) But it's a subject of some speculation among performance analysts, though chiefly for guys with extremely limited power. I don't think Euclis's power is negligible, and, IIRC correctly, there's been some reporting that he's on a major conditioning program this winter, which is nice to hear.

91. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#1814176)

OleP,

I could understand the theory for a player like Pierre or Castillo, who put the ball on the ground a lot. But Youkilis isn't a ground ball hitter (I think), he's just not a very powerful one.

92. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#1814191)

Guys getting on major conditioning programs make me nervous. It's a) usually a euphemism for steroids, b) hitting a baseball is a tremendously complex mechanical process and messing with the muscle groups could really have the potential to screw that process up, and c) if you do it wrong (and it's easy to do it wrong) you can develop strength imbalances which can lead to injury. Luckily, a) it's probably not steroids because that would be insane b) Youkilis' main talent, his batting eye, would likely not be effected by any physical changes. There's always the possibility of injury, but I would hope that Youkilis is working with excellent trainers who can try to make sure it's done right.

93. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1814479)

Youkilis is at Athletes Performance in Arizona - he was there last year, too, so this isn't a change. I saw an interview with him on NESN in which he managed to use the words "Athletes Performance" about seventeen times in two minutes. He sounded like the fourth-string rapper in the St. Lunatics trying to sell "Pimp Juice" or something, it was pathetic.

94. OlePerfesser Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#1814509)

You lads are so young...

1) If you had been on this earth in 1967, you'd know that a trainer named Gene Berde was largely responsible for The Impossible Dream.

2) If you are listening to anything to do with "lunatics" or "pimps," you are wasting valuable hours that could be spent obsessing over the CF problem.

95. Joel W Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#1814532)

FWIW, PECOTA predicts Lowell to have a 17.8 VORP next year according to a Jim Baker article (which means there almost ready, which is more exciting, so sad that that's exciting). Anyway, that would be pretty awful if PECOTA was projecting that number for full-time play. That's Freddy Sanchez territory. Anyway, my guess is that PECOTA thinks that since Lowell fell off so much last year he'll get less playing time or something. We'll see.

96. OlePerfesser Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1814545)

Sad note: J.T. Snow's dad Jack passed away at age 62.

Condolences.

97. OlePerfesser Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:45 AM (#1815332)

And something new from ESPN's Rumor Mill:

Jan 10 - With the acquisition of outfielder Corey Patterson, it's likely that the Orioles will trade center fielder Luis Matos, The Baltimore Sun reports.
Several teams, including the Red Sox, Mets and Pirates, have inquired about Matos' availability this offseason.

Hmm. I'd be interested in him as a possible 4th OF. He can go get the ball (though he has an unfortunate tendency to try to go get it through walls). His lifetime .260/.316/.379 isn't very inspiring, but he'd do better as a platoon-mate and defensive sub. For which reason I'd expect the O's to hold onto him, since they have identical needs as the Sox in this regard.

98. Nasty Nate Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:53 AM (#1815339)

I suggest we platoon a lunatic with a pimp in centerfield

99. Darren

Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#1815445)

Hooray, a lunatic or a pimp to talk about. And I've got a new toy to use on him! I just starting putting together a spreadsheet of defensive values (DZR?) using Chris Dial's formula, which correlates pretty well to UZR. I've only got 2005 data for OF right now, and it doesn't include anything for arm, which is usually pretty neglible anyways (right?).

It has Matos as +8 /150 g in CF. (For comparison, Reed is +20 in CF, Coco is +11 in LF).

I'd be interested in him as a possible 4th OF. He can go get the ball (though he has an unfortunate tendency to try to go get it through walls). His lifetime .260/.316/.379 isn't very inspiring, but he'd do better as a platoon-mate and defensive sub.

Is he the reckless type? That would explain his rather inconsistent record so far--good when healthy, horrible when not. I wouldn't worry too much about the career line, it includes his lousy age 21-23 seasons. ZIPS has him at .281 .339 .408, which sounds a little high. Probably end up somewhere in the middle (.270/.330/.400?).

I think he'd be a very nice fit for the Red Sox. Good defense and decent bat, right in the middle of his prime at age 27. Just enough service time that he's starting to cost money + no star power = low acquisition cost. If the price is reasonable, I'd get him and stick him in CF as my opening day starter. Thus, you're no longer over a barrel in negotiations for Reed/Coco/etc.

So what would a reasonable cost be? Is Arroyo too much? (I say yes.) Maybe a larger deal including Arroyo or Clement(w/cash) + lesser prospect for Matos and a better prospect?

100. Darren

Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:53 AM (#1815475)

I think I'm going to go crazy if they don't do SOMETHING soon. Arrghghgghhg!!!!

Matos and Majewski for Arroyo/Clement and Moss, is that too much to ask? Reed for Clement and Shoppach and ??? Coco+??? for Marte?

Please, something happen already!

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, January 08, 2006

If Sox ‘change,’ Theo’s game: Former GM hints at return

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics