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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:36 PM (#3945315)
Who says no?


As a White Sox fan, I'd take Lackey and Crawford for Dunn and Rios in a second. In part because I can't bear to watch Dunn whiff anymore, and in part because I believe in the healing power of Don Cooper.
   202. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#3945319)
Does Lackey have some kind of "elbow clause" in his deal? Sorry if already asked, too depressed to look upthread.


If he missed "significant time" (not sure if that means 15-day DL or 60-day DL), the last year of his contract becomes an option year for the Red Sox at the ML minimum.

So, yeah, Lackey's got about $18 million worth of reasons to hide an elbow injury.
   203. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:40 PM (#3945320)
SIgn Albert Pujols. He and Youkilis split time at third base and DH.


You know what baseball fans of most other franchises would say? I mean, why not sign him and move him to catcher?
   204. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:42 PM (#3945324)
You know what baseball fans of most other franchises would say? I mean, why not sign him and move him to catcher?


He played third base this very season. And I don't really give a #### what fans of "most other franchises would say", this is a Red Sox blog, and this team needs to make a big move to shake things up. And that's the one that's staring them in the face.
   205. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:43 PM (#3945325)
Banner on Red Sox home page is now "We Won't Rest"

Yup, prepare for a nutty offseason.
   206. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:43 PM (#3945326)
The Mets are simply not going to take on $ in the long-term, so the Mets never agree to any trade involving Crawford.

Really? You'd think they favor deals that would save money in the short term, in exchange for spending more later.

Straight up, that deal would save the Mets $6M in '12 and $7M in '13. By '14 they'll either be out-of-the-woods, or the Wiplons won't own the team.
   207. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3945330)
He played third base this very season. And I don't really give a #### what fans of "most other franchises would say", this is a Red Sox blog, and this team needs to make a big move to shake things up. And that's the one that's staring them in the face.

WTF would Pujols agree to move to 3B at this point in his career? Are you really going to give him $50M more than the Cards or Cubs?
   208. SoSH U at work Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3945331)
If he missed "significant time" (not sure if that means 15-day DL or 60-day DL), the last year of his contract becomes an option year for the Red Sox at the ML minimum.


I can only speak for myself, but the proposition of a bonus year of John Lackey, even if he comes almost free, doesn't fill me with tidings of joy.
   209. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3945332)
My changes for this team, subject to change without notice:

1) Dump Ortiz. I don't care how good his season was. Everyone on the planet is sick of his pouty/whiny routine and watching his oversized ass pretend to run the bases.
2) Dump Varitek. Duh.
3) Recognize Lackey as both a ######## and a sunk cost that will remind Theo (or whoever) of the folly of massive free-agent contracts to non-elite players.
4) Foist Crawford on the Angels or something. His defense was never going to be the same going from TB to Fenway, and it now seems that he isn't going to be good over there. Which means we're looking at a guy whose offense can't carry a corner IF HE REBOUNDS. This is exactly what I was talking about when the Sox signed him, and it drives me nuts that I ended up being right. Cromulent left fielders with average defense practically grow on trees. You don't pay them twenty-three ####### million dollars. Does the guy even want to be here?
5) Don't assign a team captain until this team has an identity again.
6) Fire the whole ####### training and conditioning staff.
7) Fire Curt Young.
8) Throw the members of #6 and #7 off the Tobin...into somebody's house.
9) Keep Tito only if the players support him.
10) Keep Theo unless his idea for fixing things doesn't include most of the above.
   210. Nasty Nate Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#3945337)
Everyone on the planet is sick of his pouty/whiny routine and watching his oversized ass pretend to run the bases.


Which planet do you live on?
   211. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#3945338)
Is it understood that Crawford needs counseling? Or eye exams? I'd never heard either before.
   212. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:49 PM (#3945339)
Nate--I can't be the only one. Or even the only one on this board.
   213. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#3945340)
Gammons does think the team will make changes to the coaching staff and that the team will try to move John Lackey, possibly for a similarly bad contract like Barry Zito or Carlos Zambrano, although Gammons acknowledged neither option was appealing.


More fun, from WEEI. From Cot's:

Zito has 2 years/$46 million left (including buying out the last year)

Zambrano has $18 million next year with a $19.25 million vesting option for 2013 (Zambrano receives 2013 player option if 1) he is first or second in 2011 Cy Young vote or if he finishes in top 4 in 2012 Cy Young vote and 2) he is healthy at end of 2012)

Lackey has 3 years/$45.75 million left, but if he misses time for the elbow there is a ML minimum year/option they could invoke for 2015.

Given the above... I guess I'd take Zambrano (even though he's crazy), because there's little chance the option vests--and if it does, it would only be a 1 year deal and presumably you'd want to keep him.

A lot would depend on who the next pitching coach is, though. I think Young's probably gone. Who's available?

EDIT: vesting, not besting you idiot.
   214. The Essex Snead Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#3945342)
[204] Pujols played 5 whole games at 3B this year. For the first time in 9 years. And besides that, the problem during September wasn't the Red Sox offense, even w/ Youk out.
   215. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3945344)
I'm not hot on converting Bard to a starter. I am much more interested in checking out Aceves, Tazawa, and Bowden.

Also, it appears that Will Middlebrooks is quickly moving his way up the ladder, and may be ready to play 3rd base in Boston by 2013. If this is so, then 2012 will likely be Youkilis' last season of playing much 3rd. What I don't like about this, going forward, is that if you have Ortiz (who can only DH), and you have Gonzalez (who could only play 1st, albeit really well), then what do you do with Youk? His contract for $12M is up after 2012, with a $13M team option in 2013 ($1m buyout). I'll bet that the Sox want to keep him in 2013, but not at $13M. They'd probably try to rip up 2013 and get him an Ortiz-like three year deal.

Whatever you do, don't sign any of the middling starting pitchers on the FA market - they'll be overpriced. The Sox have failed to turn any of their starting pitchers since Buchholz into even league-average starters, and that killed us in 2011. I don't understand why Bowden can't be a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. He wasn't better than Weiland?
   216. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#3945348)
Simply put, no one knows whether or not Pujols would be interested in playing 3B or LF. Maybe he would. Maybe he would be happy to move there if the team that offered him the best contract also made that request. Maybe he would refuse to sign except to play 1B. It's not known.

I think it's pretty likely that Albert Pujols is the sort of athlete who could hold down a position other than 1B. That's not the issue, it's whether he'd want to and whether the Red Sox can outbid the Cubbies and Cards.
   217. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#3945350)
I don't understand why Bowden can't be a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. He wasn't better than Weiland?
Not since 2008. Bowden's career completely stalled out after AA, and he's nothing but a middle relief prospect now.
   218. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: September 29, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#3945351)
Jane you ignorant slut....
   219. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:01 PM (#3945354)
If I'm the Red Sox, one of my top priorities is moving Will Middlebrooks for value before his strikeouts catch up to him.

Youk at 1 year/$13 mil is a great bargain. Even in his past two injury-filled years, he's been far more valuable than that.

Bowden was excellent until they decided that what he really needed to do was get away from what had worked for him and instead focus on developing a slider. Then last year they put him in the pen where he was great until they passed him over for everyone else in the world. He's been a bit jerked around.
   220. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:03 PM (#3945358)
Supposedly Theo's holding an end-of-year presser today, but I can't find references to it anywhere--is it actually happening?

They apparently have 10 days to decide on Tito's options. Can they just pick up 1 of the 2 years, or is it 2 years picked up or none? The references to a "2 year option" on his contract has confused me.
   221. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#3945364)
If I'm the Red Sox, one of my top priorities is moving Will Middlebrooks for value before his strikeouts catch up to him.
I'm on board with this plan.
   222. cminsf Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:08 PM (#3945365)
I think it's pretty likely that Albert Pujols is the sort of athlete who could hold down a position other than 1B. That's not the issue, it's whether he'd want to and whether the Red Sox can outbid the Cubbies and Cards.

And whether it's worth risking $30 million/year to find out. That risk means he is probably going to have a greater expected value to another team.
   223. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#3945367)
I knew you would be, MC. :)
   224. booond Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:13 PM (#3945369)
Signing Pujols is crazy talk. He won't play 3b nor would the Sox want to take that risk. We have money spent for 1b and DH (Youk). Play Lowrie/Aviles at 3b. Concentrate efforts on another SP and psychological help for Crawford.
   225. booond Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:15 PM (#3945370)
They need a right-handed hitting outfielder who can play all three positions without killing you with the bat against LHP.
   226. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:19 PM (#3945374)
Look, I'm not saying do it at all costs. But it costs literally pennies to have Theo call up Pujols' agent and say "Gee, ya think Albert would at all be interested with being very rich and playing LF at Fenway (or 3B, or both)?"

I'm not saying Pujols would do it, but I'd actually be quite upset to find out NO calls were made at all to Pujols' agent.
   227. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:20 PM (#3945375)
I think it's pretty likely that Albert Pujols is the sort of athlete who could hold down a position other than 1B. That's not the issue, it's whether he'd want to and whether the Red Sox can outbid the Cubbies and Cards.
But how long could Pujols play somewhere other than 1B? He's going to be 32 next year, and I'm assuming it will take (at least) an 8-year contract to sign him. Gonzalez is signed to play 1B until 2018. If 2015 rolls around and Pujols is awful and/or unable to stay healthy at third or left, then they've boxed themselves into the same corner the Yankees are working on with Teixeira and A-Rod.
   228. booond Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:21 PM (#3945376)
Ron Santo... just sayin'
   229. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:24 PM (#3945378)
If 2015 rolls around and Pujols is awful and/or unable to stay healthy at third or left, then they've boxed themselves into the same corner the Yankees are working on with Teixeira and A-Rod.
Which corner is that? The corner where you split DH duties between two great, but aging hitters? That's not such a bad place to be.
   230. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:31 PM (#3945386)
Banner on Red Sox home page is now "We Won't Rest"

Yup, prepare for a nutty offseason.


Hasn't that been their slogan all season, since they found out the White Sox stole "We're all in"?
   231. booond Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:32 PM (#3945387)
Signing Pujols doesn't solve the major issue - starting pitching. The focus during the offseason should be pitching. The offense needs some help - Reddick in right field is a concern, Crawford in left is a concern - but the pitching staff is what drove the collapse.
   232. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#3945392)
Which corner is that? The corner where you split DH duties between two great, but aging hitters? That's not such a bad place to be.

More like $55M for 2 above avg. but nolonger great hitters.
   233. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#3945397)
More like $55M for 2 above avg. but nolonger great hitters.
Fair enough, but then the problem is their hitting, not their defense or being "painted into a corner" of playing them at DH.

The question really isn't about roster construction, it's about projections. Does it make sense to give a very large contract to a 32-year-old? Is the downside risk too great? Regardless of whether you have a 1B under contract or not, that's the problem and the operative question.
   234. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#3945402)
The question really isn't about roster construction, it's about projections. Does it make sense to give a very large contract to a 32-year-old? Is the downside risk too great? Regardless of whether you have a 1B under contract or not, that's the problem and the operative question.

I'd look at the 2nd ARod contract and say, yes, the risk is really high to begin with. You're adding to that risk by moving a 32 y.o. players up the defensive spectrum.

If you're going to spend $250-300M on Pujols, the last thing you do is increase the already very high risk by fooling around with his position.
   235. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:52 PM (#3945403)
I don't get to the official site much, so I missed the sloganeering.

The problem with pitching is we have very little to trade to get decent pitching, and the FA offerings are apparently quite middling. I'd be all for, say, trying to trade for someone like Kershaw or Hamels or King Felix or someone like that, but I don't think we have the parts now to get this done, and I'm of the mind that we don't ever again break that bank in the FA market on anyone other than a bona fide #1 ace. See Clement, Matt. See Lackey, John.
   236. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 07:55 PM (#3945410)
NESN's website will apparently carry a 4pm press conference with Theo and Tito. Has Tito done the end of year press conference with Theo before? Or is this a newsmaking appearance?
   237. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:00 PM (#3945417)
Or maybe just NESN will with no feed on the website...
   238. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:01 PM (#3945418)
I'm seeing that it will be on NESN, not the website. Which means people not in NE are out of luck, I guess. I'd really like to see what they have to say, but I don't think it's being covered otherwise.

Edit: found a link to a stream: http://www.necn.com/pages/necn_streampage
   239. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:05 PM (#3945421)
There's a SoSH thread covering the presser, too. I'm finding the commentary there more reliable than the stream so far.
   240. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#3945428)
Apparently WEEI has it too.
   241. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#3945438)
I'll wait for the transcript, but from SoSH it sounds like both Theo and Tito are blaming clubhouse tension, players not sticking up for each other, not helping each other on and off the field. If that's the case - and it's basically what most of us thought, down the stretch - my further conclusion would be that Tito is to blame for not fixing it. Yes, whichever players were bad teammates also deserve blame, but the manager's job is to manage all his players, even the jerks.

It sounds like Tito's gonna stay.
   242. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:17 PM (#3945442)
241 - That's what I'm getting too. From the SoSH thread it sounds like the FO is behind Tito though. In some respects I like the idea that they are going to hold the players accountable here but how and how does that improve a year from now?
   243. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#3945445)
From the SoSH thread Tito is truly pissed that the players weren't listening to him. That's great but he has to figure out a way to change that.
   244. Nasty Nate Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:23 PM (#3945450)
maybe he had "lost the clubhouse" after all...

If they are doing the conference together, does that all but guarantee his options are picked up or they negotiate some new multi-year deal?
   245. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:27 PM (#3945454)
maybe he had "lost the clubhouse" after all...
From what's come through on the stream and on SoSH, it sounds like Tito is saying pretty explicitly that he lost the clubhouse, and Theo's agreeing with him. I caught Theo taking the blame for players poor conditioning - I guess the idea is that over the offseason, it's the front office's job to make sure the players are doing their jobs?
   246. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:28 PM (#3945455)
I'll wait for the transcript, but from SoSH it sounds like both Theo and Tito are blaming clubhouse tension, players not sticking up for each other, not helping each other on and off the field. If that's the case - and it's basically what most of us thought, down the stretch - my further conclusion would be that Tito is to blame for not fixing it. Yes, whichever players were bad teammates also deserve blame, but the manager's job is to manage all his players, even the jerks.

It sounds like Tito's gonna stay.


Honestly it doesn't sound like Theo has stuck up for Tito much at all. I guess overall it's given me the impression of a slightly higher shot at retaining Tito than I thought before the presser started, but not really by much.
   247. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:30 PM (#3945456)
Put it this way: if Tito was coming back, why wouldn't they announce today that they're picking up the option years and show a true vote of confidence? I think the lack of expressions of confidence is pretty damning.
   248. the Centaur Nipple Paradox (CoB). Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:30 PM (#3945459)
[edit] maybe not, reading further in the thread.
   249. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:30 PM (#3945460)
I'm not getting that he's going to stay. Someone just asked Tito if, with all the stress, he needed to think about leaving. He said he's been talking with Theo and would continue to do so.

I also don't think this in any way guarantees Theo is back.
   250. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:31 PM (#3945461)
Honestly it doesn't sound like Theo has stuck up for Tito much at all. I guess overall it's given me the impression of a slightly higher shot at retaining Tito than I thought before the presser started, but not really by much.
You may be right. I think perhaps the simplest explanation of this press conference is that Tito's planning to resign.
   251. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#3945462)
Q: Tito, would you like to be back?

A: Theo and I talked earlier today, we will continue to talk (side stepped question)


Got that from SoSH. I'll overread it and say Tito wants to quit and Theo wants one more year with a bench coach/replacement alongside him.

Alternatively, Tito feels that he didn't get the required backing from Theo on the clubhouse issues and was left without any authority and wants to know how that's going to change.
   252. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:33 PM (#3945463)
And Theo has now said, a few times, went out of his way to say that the Tito question hasn't been answered.
   253. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:33 PM (#3945464)
If Tito lost the clubhouse, and it wasn't considerably helped along by the new additions/Lackey, he should go.
   254. Nasty Nate Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#3945465)
Put it this way: if Tito was coming back, why wouldn't they announce today that they're picking up the option years and show a true vote of confidence?


They could be possibly be negotiating an extension. I think last time they re-did the whole contract instead of picking up existing options. I'm not saying that's likely, but if there were any kind of negotiations happening, they wouldn't bother with the options and an announcement.
   255. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#3945466)
Francona bolted from the room. Again.

I will be shocked if he is back.
   256. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:36 PM (#3945467)
The stories we're gonna get this offseason, sheeeeeeeit. The clubhouse was obviously a complete ####### mess, no one had authority, players not working together, conflict spilling out onto the field during games. No way that doesn't trickle out, probably sooner rather than later.
   257. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:36 PM (#3945468)
Missed the first 15 minutes because of work damnit.

OK, so who'd they lose in the clubhouse? Who are the cancers that need to be cut out? Let the speculation begin.

And yeah, at the end I got the distinct impression Tito was leaning toward resigning/saying he doesn't want the option renewed, which I thought was a pretty possible outcome.
   258. the Centaur Nipple Paradox (CoB). Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:37 PM (#3945469)
Wow, here's a money quote from Theo, "Our decision-making process on big-ticket free agents has not been satisfactory. Not at all."
   259. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:37 PM (#3945470)
Whatever happens with Tito, he seems like a good guy and a classy guy, and I wish him well.
   260. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:39 PM (#3945471)
MCoA, yeah, the "Fenway Zoo" will be open for business this off-season. Might put the Steinbrenner Bros. to shame by the time April rolls around.
   261. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#3945474)
Whatever happens with Tito, he seems like a good guy and a classy guy, and I wish him well.


I will say this. I love the guy personally, I just think it is time for him to move on. I know I have spilled plenty of invective in his direction over the years, especially this year, but I don't wish him ill. I imagine it would be better for his health to leave anyway.
   262. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:43 PM (#3945475)
Got that from SoSH. I'll overread it and say Tito wants to quit and Theo wants one more year with a bench coach/replacement alongside him.


I think he's leaving the door open to deciding he wants to leave or that he doesn't want say "I'm coming back, baby!" only to have the team say no thanks.

The big stories that seem likely to get attention out of this are a) the team's out of shape/lazy and b) Tito lost the team/the team didn't get along.
   263. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:43 PM (#3945476)
Whatever happens with Tito, he seems like a good guy and a classy guy, and I wish him well.
Agreed.

Bill James had a note in his book on managers, thinking about what traits all great managers share. He explained that managers could be great in a myriad of ways, they could be problem-solvers or motivators, distant from their players or close to them, better with youngsters or veterans, but almost all of the great managers were miserable alcoholics. Tito Francona may be too healthy a person to be a great manager over the long haul.
   264. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:45 PM (#3945477)
Francona bolted from the room. Again.


This was mentioned by several people on the SoSH thread. I don't think there is anything there other than Terry Francona enjoys dealing with the press about as much as he would enjoy a good kick to the nuts. He leaves every press conference the same way.
   265. Dan Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:46 PM (#3945479)
I wonder how much of Tito losing authority within the clubhouse was due to this being his last year under contract. Maybe Riggleman wasn't as crazy as we all thought. And even if that wasn't a real cause, might Francona think it was a cause and thus hold it against the FO and ownership? I did kind of get a vibe during the presser of him feeling like he didn't have enough of an organizational backing to stand up to some of the players like he needed to.
   266. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:49 PM (#3945483)
but almost all of the great managers were miserable alcoholics

Weaver? Stengel?

Asking. Never heard that about either.
   267. Darren Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:50 PM (#3945484)

They could be possibly be negotiating an extension.


This strikes me as less likely than the Rays' comeback last night.
   268. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 29, 2011 at 08:50 PM (#3945485)
My friend, a big Red Sox fan, got married on Sunday and left for his honeymoon in Costa Rica Monday. I wonder what he knows/whether he cares.
   269. Textbook Editor Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:00 PM (#3945493)
"Our decision-making process on big-ticket free agents has not been satisfactory. Not at all."


That's... Interesting. Makes me think either Lackey or Crawford is considered a cancer in the clubhouse by Tito.
   270. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:01 PM (#3945495)
snapper - "almost all" was an exaggeration, and it wasn't James' wording. The point is that of the shared traits of great managers, alcoholism may be the most prominent.
   271. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:16 PM (#3945503)
"Our decision-making process on big-ticket free agents has not been satisfactory. Not at all."

That's... Interesting. Makes me think either Lackey or Crawford is considered a cancer in the clubhouse by Tito.
I don't think it's anything other than the simple objective truth. These are the "big-ticket free agents" signed by Theo Epstein, and WAR produced for the Red Sox under that contract.

-Edgar Renteria, 0.4 WAR for $16M
-Matt Clement, 2.6 WAR for $26M
-Jason Varitek, 7.7 WAR for $40M
-Julio Lugo, -0.4 WAR for $36M
-J.D. Drew, 13.0 WAR for $70M
-Daisuke Matsuzaka, 9.6 WAR for $90M
-Mike Lowell, 3.1 WAR for $36M
-John Lackey, 0.6 WAR for $34M
-Carl Crawford, 0.0 WAR for $14M

The Sox under Theo have done a brilliant job developing talent and signing them to favorable extensions, they've done a solid job with acquiring talent through trade and extending talent still under contract, and Theo's early record acquiring complementary, medium- and small-ticket free agents is astounding, his more recent record is mixed. With big-ticket free agents, it ranges from unmitigated disasters, to mitigated disasters, to acceptable but unimpressive.
   272. Jittery McFrog Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:37 PM (#3945529)
-Mike Lowell, 3.1 WAR for $36M


I thought the Lowell/Beckett acquisition was during Theo's brief hiatus, no?

EDIT: Oh I see, you're only including post-contract, not post-trade pre-contract. Nvm
   273. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:38 PM (#3945535)
...and it was almost certainly the best deal on the list, if you include his production for the Sox after the trade but before the contract.
   274. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:44 PM (#3945542)
but almost all of the great managers were miserable alcoholics

Weaver? Stengel?

Asking. Never heard that about either.


weaver definitely had his share of DUIs. I wouldn't be surprised if he was an alcoholic. Miserable? At least choleric.
   275. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:45 PM (#3945545)
I thought the Lowell/Beckett acquisition was during Theo's brief hiatus, no?
Lowell filed for free agency after the 2007 season and then re-signed with the Sox for $36M for 2008-2010. That's the big ticket free agent contract that qualifies for the list.

The Sox have done well trading for talent and extending that talent after the trade (Schilling, Beckett, Gonzalez, Crisp), as well as extending guys already under contract (Ortiz, Beckett, Youkilis, Pedroia, Lester).
   276. aleskel Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:46 PM (#3945546)
Stengel?

I can't remember where I read it (maybe in a Roger Angell piece), but Stengel never issued a curfew for his players when they were on the road, with one rule: they couldn't drink in the hotel bar, because that was where HE wanted to do his drinking
   277. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 29, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#3945553)
276 - sounds familiar
   278. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 29, 2011 at 10:48 PM (#3945582)
If Tito stays then we gotta clean house, the player heirarchy/structure has to change.
   279. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: September 29, 2011 at 11:33 PM (#3945611)
Beckett,

Who has had more WAR since the trade, Beckett or Hanley?
   280. ray james Posted: September 30, 2011 at 12:20 AM (#3945626)
#276.

I think it was in the first Bill James Historical Abstract. Or maybe the second but I'm certain that's where I read that.
   281. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 30, 2011 at 01:33 AM (#3945663)
Who has had more WAR since the trade, Beckett or Hanley?
Hanley, obviously. I didn't say every trade was great, I said the overall record was solid.
   282. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 30, 2011 at 02:15 AM (#3945685)
I can't remember where I read it (maybe in a Roger Angell piece), but Stengel never issued a curfew for his players when they were on the road, with one rule: they couldn't drink in the hotel bar, because that was where HE wanted to do his drinking

I don't think you're gonna find a baseball lifer from that era who didn't drink, sometimes to excess. Doesn't make him an alcoholic.
   283. The District Attorney Posted: September 30, 2011 at 02:23 AM (#3945692)
I've had enough of "if we can just 20 starts out of this guy" guys. I want some guy who is going to make 35 ####### starts. The last few years it seems like we are trolling for starters by Flag Day, enough. How about "hey, let's get a guy who can actually pitch without worrying that his arm is going to travel further than the ball on any given ####### pitch."
Hey, you guys want Mike Pelfrey?

We would just need a bright, shiny thing back.
   284. Dale Sams Posted: September 30, 2011 at 03:00 AM (#3945717)
Thank you Theo Epstein. You have justified every piece of clothing I soiled, and every complaint i made right down to '25 guys 75 cars." I'm glad they lost, because honestly, this #### has been going on for years and it finally caught up.

No, seriously. In 24 hours, thanks to Theo, I have gone from feeling sad and unahppy with myself for saying \"#### those guys." Now i can say it without guilt. #### THOSE GUYS.

Maybe they'll trade Beckett. Look at his gut. And while he had a great season and didn't hit people out of spite, he's still a pinhead.
   285. Darren Posted: September 30, 2011 at 03:02 AM (#3945721)
What has been going on for years? Coasting? Not being in shape? Bad chemistry?
   286. Dale Sams Posted: September 30, 2011 at 03:22 AM (#3945734)
What has been going on for years? Coasting? Not being in shape? Bad chemistry?


Little things. Little dumb things that add up. The biggest off hand would be the shitty start the team gets every year. There's Paps and Becketts stubborn pinheadedness. A 160 mill payroll team that:

Starts catchers that get stolen on at will (Vlad? Vlad Guerrero stole third?-last year)
45 year old pitchers whose leg drags behind him a dead seal tied to his waist (also last year I think)
Starts a 3B who literally cannot run (Lowell at his worst)

There's other stuff I can't remember, but there are Dirt Dogs...and there are slobs just collecting paychecks.


...and good god. No more ####### 35+ old fat 'pitching upside' projects. Get some ####### athletes on the mound please.
   287. Dan Posted: September 30, 2011 at 03:45 AM (#3945749)
Pelfrey would actually make a lot of sense for the Red Sox. As a guy who's pretty dependable for some decent innings, he could solidify the rotation. Even if they did get a guy like him though, I'd like to try Bard as a starter in Spring Traning because of the potential upside there.
   288. Richard Posted: September 30, 2011 at 04:52 AM (#3945792)
I can't remember where I read it (maybe in a Roger Angell piece), but Stengel never issued a curfew for his players when they were on the road, with one rule: they couldn't drink in the hotel bar, because that was where HE wanted to do his drinking

Jim Bouton says this in Ball Four.
   289. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: September 30, 2011 at 01:41 PM (#3945930)
I'd like to try Bard as a starter in Spring Traning because of the potential upside there.


I think there is a lot of downside there too. He was SO bad as a starter that I'd be fearful of bringing back some lost difficulties and messing him up.
   290. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 01, 2011 at 07:15 PM (#3947484)
Bard didn't get over his case of the yips until he converted to relief.
   291. Something Other Posted: October 03, 2011 at 09:26 PM (#3949848)
Pelfrey would actually make a lot of sense for the Red Sox. As a guy who's pretty dependable for some decent innings, he could solidify the rotation. Even if they did get a guy like him though, I'd like to try Bard as a starter in Spring Traning because of the potential upside there.
Yeesh. This thread looks dead but 287 deserves comment. Pelfrey is a notorious headcase who has decent years when he keeps his HR rate down, and gets destroyed when he doesn't. He's also getting expensive, given what he does. You're right about something, though for the wrong reasons. Pelfrey would be a great 5th starter for a team with a big payroll, who can afford to shell out $6m or so in 2012 for a guy whose downside is an 80 ERA+ in 180 innings. He's not remotely dependable "for some decent innings", though. Think of him as an innings eater who, in the fifth slot, won't disappoint you and does have real upside. I suspect you'd want to do a very careful study of flyballs against Pelfrey and how he'd fare in Fenway. It's possible he'd simply get wrecked there.

edit: his last four years, ERA+: 113, 81, 107, 78. His home/road OPS against splits are 701/841. Outside Shea/Citi he's barely worth having on your staff.
   292. Dan Posted: October 03, 2011 at 11:51 PM (#3949997)
Take a look at the dreck the Red Sox used in their rotation this season and tell me that Pelfrey isn't a lock to be an improvement. And if they bring back Bedard (or a comparable reclamation project/upside adventure), they'll have another upside guy, but the Sox still need some depth that can be relied on to make 6 inning starts and keep the team in games if they lose starts from the top line talent.

This team had something like 3 quality starts in the month of September. $6M to Pelfrey to be a 6th starter/long reliever would be much better spent than a few million on Wakefield again, etc.
   293. Something Other Posted: October 05, 2011 at 03:48 AM (#3951974)
Sure, Dan. I think that's pretty much what I said. You're looking at him as a 6th starter, I see him as a 5th guy. Not that much difference. In either case, it does seem exactly like the kind of move the Red Sox should make, instead of more Smoltz-type experiments. I'm surprised the high payroll teams don't routinely go after these guys. Every year a team misses the playoffs because they gave a whopping number of starts to Jose Lima types.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5545 seconds
55 querie(s) executed