BBTF's Sox Therapy Discussion :: The Kyle Snyder era has begun

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.

1. Joel W Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#2068654)

I wonder, Toby, if the front office has learned its lesson. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time we have a GREAT player like Pedro at an older age, and what they do w/ him...obviously not many are great like Pedro...but the losing greatness versus losing goodness thing is a huge distinction that I think most of us, including those of us OK w/ letting go of Pedro at the time, have learned.

2. Sexy Lizard Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2068680)

When Snyder was a junior in college there were a lot of whispers about a bum wing, whispers he pretty much proved true. Classic Royals mistake draft. He's a really big fellow, built wide and an honest 6-6. Once a hard thrower, now another guy who could've been something had he been born with better connective tissue in his limbs.

3. Toby Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:32 PM (#2068691)

I'm still okay with letting Pedro walk, and with letting Damon walk, and pretty much with letting anyone walk who has been allowed to walk. When the front office exercises fiscal restraint I think it's done all right.

My problem with the FO is more in the nature of the free agent signings -- Wells, Clement, Renteria, Varitek all seemed to be overpays at the time as well as in retrospect. And I suspect that on average we've lost more in the trades we've made than we've gained. If we'd just held onto Hanley, Shoppach, Arroyo, Brian Roberts, and so on, wouldn't we be better off?

4. villageidiom Posted: June 19, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2068717)

Free agent signings are generally overpays. It's hard not to overpay them, and yet still get them.

Brian Roberts?

5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#2068740)

I'm still okay with letting Pedro walk, and with letting Damon walk, and pretty much with letting anyone walk who has been allowed to walk. When the front office exercises fiscal restraint I think it's done all right.

My problem with the FO is more in the nature of the free agent signings -- Wells, Clement, Renteria, Varitek all seemed to be overpays at the time as well as in retrospect.

The Pedro argument is that Wells/Clement/Renteria/Varitek is what you get when you exercise restraint with superstars - you get pretty good players. It's not that the front office made some big set of egregious errors in choosing which players to sign to 3/27 and 4/40 contracts during the 2004 offseason. Rather, it's that in a relatively shallow offseason, 3/27 and 4/40 contracts will go to players who don't really deserve them. If that's the case, and you have money that you have to spend, you should spend it on superstars even if they command larger contracts, and that's Pedro.

(I'm totally fine with letting Damon walk, same with Lowe and Mueller and Cabrera. Just not Pedro. You let the good players go, and you keep the great ones.)

But this is hardly the point. Kyle "El Pedrocito" Snyder should finally fill that gaping hole not only in the rotation, but in the hearts of Red Sox fans.

6. covelli chris p Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2068745)

yeah we really should have signed pedro.

7. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:04 PM (#2068748)

If we'd just held onto Hanley, Shoppach, Arroyo, Brian Roberts, and so on, wouldn't we be better off?

Who's in your rotation? You let Pedro walk, you didn't trade for Beckett, you didn't sign Wells or Clement. As best as I can tell, you've got Schilling, Arroyo, Lester, Snyder, Pauley. And that's to start the season, not at this point after inevitable injuries.

I would be quite put out if John Henry just pocketed another 17 gabillion dollars every year instead of reinvesting it in the roster. I just want him to reinvest it in great players whenever possible.

8. Toby Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2068762)

heh. Dave Roberts.

9. Toby Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#2068779)

Mikael,

yes, I think I agree completely. What I would like is for this organization to take an approach under which we homegrow most of our players (like the successful small-budget teams) and then put out the wallet for established, premier players (as opposed to the premier-for-a-year Pavanos and Beltres). The moves that sicken me are the ones where we overpay for middling talent. For example, this past offseason, I would have been glad to overpay for BJ Ryan but not for AJ Burnett.

10. Toby Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#2068785)

actually, Mikael, I think Pauley came over to us as part of the Dave Roberts deal, so you can't put him in the rotation.

My rotation would be Schilling, Wake, Arroyo, Papelbon, Lester.

But of course I'm not suggesting that the money we saved by not signing Wells/Clement/etc go unspent, just that it not be spent on mediocrities like Wells and Clement.

11. Foster Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#2068792)

Globe reports that JT Snow is being DFA'd to make room for Snyder.

Not that Snow's DFA wasn't completely predictable 3 months ago.

12. The Piehole of David Wells

Posted: June 19, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#2068806)

aren't we in first place? how much of an improvement would pedro give us over wells and clement and their replacements? 10 wins so far? 2+ runs of team ERA? i think most people wish we could have kept pedro NOW that he's doing what he's doing in shea stadium, but why should we assume that he automatically makes us a significantly better team than we have now. when the sox let pedro walk, i think most people around here just had faith that that was the right thing to do. AND, a few (if not more) said that they were happy the sox picked a value and stuck with it during pedro's negotiations. i think that people generally tend to overstate decline for older players and so a lot of people expected pedro to go to NY and benefit a little from shea, but why should we assume that pedro would be the same pitcher here that he is in new york? i think he'd probably be good, but maybe he'd be like beckett. despite the 2004 line, he didn't look great that year. he was fragile and watching him in close games was like watching isringhausen close games. every time he pitched it was "interesting." i still think it was the right thing to do.

i also think the replacement for pedro is NOT wells and clement. it's schilling. beckett replaces lowe or whoever was supposed to be the #2 starter. clement is #3 and so on. despite that, i think beckett's 2006 line will be a lot like pedro's 2004 line. and the sox 2006 line will probably look better than their 2005 line (despite their similarities thus far).

and as to arroyo, et al., let's just see how arroyo does after the all star break before we decide we'd be better off with him. no one expected him to pitch like he's pitching now, which suggests that it's probably a fluke and not his real talent level. and if it's a fluke, sure it'd be nice to have but it's not guaranteed.

13. Darren

Posted: June 19, 2006 at 11:06 PM (#2068846)

People talk about keeping Pedro like it could have been done with a wave of some magic wand. The Mets outbid the Sox for him at least twice for him, and may well have done so again. I also think (just MHO) that the Sox would have had to do more than just match the Mets to get the deal done. That means you're paying somewhere north of 4/54. 4/60? 5/66?

I still don't think he'll hold up for that. I'm also not convinced that he'd be better than the 3.90 ERA guy he was with the Sox in 04.

As much as the results have been bad so far, I thought Clement was a good idea.

14. John DiFool2 Posted: June 20, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#2068993)

Arroyo's K rate had dropped last year, which is often an indication of upcoming trouble-just not in this case.

I sure wish I knew where the impostor who pitched the first half of last season in Clement's uniform went to tho.

15. Dr. Vaux Posted: June 20, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#2069034)

American League teams sigining pitchers with no balls who sometimes struggled with their control in the National League is never a good idea. That's not hindsight; you can dig up where I posted at the time that Clement would implode in the AL.

16. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#2069143)

YES SNOW DFAed

CHOI WILL NOW BE FREEed

I miss Wily Mo Pena

17. Spivey Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:41 AM (#2069159)

I also think (just MHO) that the Sox would have had to do more than just match the Mets to get the deal done

What is this opinion based on? I figured he'd have signed with them for less.

18. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#2069171)

People talk about keeping Pedro like it could have been done with a wave of some magic wand. The Mets outbid the Sox for him at least twice for him, and may well have done so again. I also think (just MHO) that the Sox would have had to do more than just match the Mets to get the deal done. That means you're paying somewhere north of 4/54. 4/60? 5/66?

I still don't think he'll hold up for that. I'm also not convinced that he'd be better than the 3.90 ERA guy he was with the Sox in 04.

I respect you a lot. But I think every sentence here is complete hogwash.

19. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:09 AM (#2069353)

This debate is now moot.

Kyle Snyder, or as I prefer to call him, Mecha-Pedro, has begun his BoSox career with a win over traditional NL powerhouse Washington. He will lead us all to glory, and then pancakes.

20. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:13 AM (#2069359)

aren't we in first place? how much of an improvement would pedro give us over wells and clement and their replacements? 10 wins so far? 2+ runs of team ERA?

Though this debate is, as above, moot due to Mecha-Pedro, I will note that there was a season last year. A season in which the Red Sox just barely failed to win the division, and then got swept out of the ALDS in part because their starting pitching imploded. So that's the thing I used to point to, BS, as evidence for the utility of keeping Pedro.

21. JB H Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#2069364)

I don't really like a lot of the moves the Sox have done the last couple years, but variance has made them look worse than they were (I guess they're even now after Mueller/Ortiz).

Getting Renteria's 2005 season was just #### luck. Clement's Sox ERA is probably over 5 now and he looks pretty toast - there's no reason he couldn't have been a league average starter with a healthy arm instead. Don't get me started on Arroyo. They've probably gotten about what could be expected out of Varitek, Wells and the FLA deal.

Letting Pedro go was fine. Even if Pedro's healthy for the deal, the Mets will probably end up paying about market value for the marginal wins he provides. The 25% (or whatever) of the time he gets hurt and provides significantly less value than that has a massive effect on his expected value.

22. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#2069373)

JBH -

Though this debate is entirely MdtM-P, I would ask you about the logic of the second two paragraphs?

In the first, you argue that the expected median/average performance of guys like Renteria or Clement shows that the Sox got bad luck. In the second, you argue that the downside risk of Pedro shows he's had good luck. It seems to me that you haven't accounted for the downside risk of Renteria and especially Clement, and you haven't exactly discussed how much better Pedro's median/average projection was than Clement's. I totally disagree that Pedro's downside risk was greater than Clement's.

Further, I think that "luck" is not a very useful category here. There are so many factors of which we are ignorant that go into baseball decisions, and that greatly affect player projections. I hold baseball teams to a far higher standard than I hold internet people, because the teams have so much more information. When some players go to crap and fall short of their internet-determined median projection, I give some blame to the team that made the acquisition.

23. JB H Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:57 AM (#2069402)

You should judge a move by weighing the estimated value a team gives up against the estimated value a team gets. It's pretty hard to estimate a player's future value, but you have to try (there's also the fact that the talent market is finite which makes things impossibly complicated)

They gave Renteria $40 million when he was worth maybe $30 million and only got $2 million (or whatever) of value from his one season. That's a bad deal that looks worse because of variance. Same thing with Clement.

The Mets signed Pedro to a bad deal that looks fair so far because of variance. That he's avoided the injury disaster and the Mets still aren't getting any sort of bargain is why the deal was bad. I'll grant that the deal might be reasonable in reality though because there wasn't a corresponding pitcher of Pedro's value that they could sign to a fair deal. But I have a hard time believing that not resigning him was any sort of blunder

24. JB H Posted: June 20, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2069411)

I hold baseball teams to a far higher standard than I hold internet people, because the teams have so much more information. When some players go to crap and fall short of their internet-determined median projection

The Red Sox should be able to beat PECOTA if for no other reason than their knowledge of a player's health. Beyond that, I don't think their edge could possibly be very big.

If the Sox should be expected to be 10% smarter than PECOTA, well then they're never going to make nearly enough moves for us to know if they're falling below that standard. And that's without even factoring that they may knowingly sign bad contracts because of the market realities

25. Mattbert Posted: June 20, 2006 at 04:15 AM (#2069421)

Despite having watched one of the all time greats slip away, the front office can comfort themselves by knowing that they could probably lure another Pedro Martinez to Boston for a much more reasonable contract.

The 25% (or whatever) of the time he gets hurt and provides significantly less value than that has a massive effect on his expected value.

25% is a little out there. Since becoming a full time starter, Pedro has made at least 29 starts in 10 out of the last 12 years. The two exceptions were the strike-shortened 1994 season, and his injury in 2001.

He's averaged over 200 innings per year from 1995-2005, including the injury season. And lest we think his two highest IP seasons (1997 and 1998) are artificially muting the impact of his fragility on that average, it's worth pointing out that he's also averaged over 200 innings per year since the injury (2002-2005).

The Sox didn't exactly light out in pursuit of the healthiest pitchers in baseball once Pedro signed with the Mets, either. I suppose Clement was a durable dude (though now injured, of course), but Wells couldn't have been considered any more reliable than Pedro in the risk department.

26. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 20, 2006 at 08:07 AM (#2069474)

Right now I ilke Pauley better than Clement. At least Pauley throws strikes, hittable strikes, but at least strikes.

27. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 20, 2006 at 08:31 AM (#2069478)

all the marginal dollars/win-type stats wildly undervalue great players.

Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.

28. karlmagnus Posted: June 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM (#2069505)

29. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 12:57 PM (#2069525)

JBH,

I'm not sure what you think is hogwash. Do you think Pedro would have been much better than 3.90? His straight up league adjustment has to put him in the mid-3.00s. I'd say parks/defense/familiarity would take him the rest of the way. Maybe 3.60s instead?

Do you think the Sox could have gotten Pedro cheaper than the Mets did? Same price? When Pedro's option got picked up and he immediately announced that the team would receive no 'hometown discount,' I took that as a sign that he was going to the highest bidder. His comments since signing indicate to me that, if money was equal, he still would have wanted to leave.

These are all opinions, of course, so I can see how you might not see how right I am.

Snyder looked pretty good to me last night. Maybe he's something. He sure looks like Arroyo.

30. villageidiom Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:00 PM (#2069527)

I suppose Clement was a durable dude (though now injured, of course), but Wells couldn't have been considered any more reliable than Pedro in the risk department.

Wells' contract had a lot of non-guaranteed money in it. IOW they could better match potential pay with potential performance. Not so with Pedro.

Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.

And Damon. And Pavano. And Lowe. And apparently Clemens.

Meanwhile, can we all agree that Rob and Rany are spot on in their tirades against the incompetence of KC management.

I haven't read it, but I agree nonetheless.

31. Dr. Vaux Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:07 PM (#2069531)

I don't believe for one minute that Theo would have signed Pavano for any price. That was manufactured for the media.

Let's not get too excited about Snyder over one start in which he allowed 3 runs in 5 innings to one of the worst offenses in the weaker league.

32. BFFB

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:17 PM (#2069541)

Just an observation... When your payroll is North of 9 figures is it important if you are overpaying for a true superstar player? It's overpaying for ineptidue and mediocrity that kills a team not overpaying for high level performance!

I also wouldn't say that Boston exercised fiscal restraint with Pavano, the Yankees just threw more money at him.

33. Dizzypaco Posted: June 20, 2006 at 01:24 PM (#2069543)

The Mets signed Pedro to a bad deal that looks fair so far because of variance. That he's avoided the injury disaster and the Mets still aren't getting any sort of bargain is why the deal was bad. I'll grant that the deal might be reasonable in reality though because there wasn't a corresponding pitcher of Pedro's value that they could sign to a fair deal. But I have a hard time believing that not resigning him was any sort of blunder

I have never liked this kind of thinking, because it makes several assumptions that you just can't make. It assumes that there are lots of players out there available for a bargain price, and you should never pay a guy what he's worth.

Are the Mets better off having Pedro Martinez on the team or not having Pedro Martinez on the team?
Could they afford to pay him his contract?
Do they have an interest in being competitive?
Could they have taken the same money they spent on Pedro and gotten someone much better with it?

The answer to the first three of these questions is obvious, and even the fourth isn't hard to answer. The Red Sox pay roughly the same amount of money to Tek. They paid about the same amount to Renteria. I'd have taken Pedro.

BPro often criticizes free agent signings - there's rarely one they seem to like. But what are you going to do - not sign anyone if you can't get a bargain? You have to spend your money on someone. Otherwise, you're the Pirates.

34. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 02:39 PM (#2069589)

I'm not sure what you think is hogwash. Do you think Pedro would have been much better than 3.90? His straight up league adjustment has to put him in the mid-3.00s. I'd say parks/defense/familiarity would take him the rest of the way. Maybe 3.60s instead?

Do you think the Sox could have gotten Pedro cheaper than the Mets did? Same price? When Pedro's option got picked up and he immediately announced that the team would receive no 'hometown discount,' I took that as a sign that he was going to the highest bidder. His comments since signing indicate to me that, if money was equal, he still would have wanted to leave.

It was me who called it hogwash, not JBH. I dont know why your baseline for Pedro's performance was his worst year in a decade. I guess just because it was his most recent, but I dont think you give enought weight to the 2.25's he slung in both '02 and '03. I think you could have expected anything from 2.50-3.50 ERA's for each year of his current contract. The 4th year of the contract wouldnt be too much of an overpay, assuming ongoing inflation of player salaries.

I also disagree with you assesment of the contract negotiations, but we'll probably never know.

35. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#2069597)

I think I might shoot an angry email over to Jayson Stark for being such a smear-puppet.

Quotes from his article the week Pedro signed with the Mets:

We know because on Monday, he said yes to the New York Mets, to an offer of $50 million over four years that is as close to a definition of insanity in baseball as we have witnessed since -- what? -- the Mike Hampton contract?

oh yeah, Hampton contract, worse pitcher, more years, more $-per year.

They know -- everybody knows -- Martinez has a tear in his labrum that's practically as wide as the San Andreas Fault. One informed estimate put that tear as 90 percent full.

Maybe someone should tell the NL hitters about this tear.

But the way he worked these negotiations, the way he misled the Red Sox on his way to exotic Flushing Meadow, will not go down as his finest hour.

The complete details of this negotiation may never become clear. But this is how this deal went down, from what we know now:

Here's what we now know: this article will not go down as Stark's finest hour. Being a axe-jobbing shill takes away his credibility about negotiation details.

They can use some of Pedro's money on Edgar Renteria, a tremendous player and more cost-effective purchase.

Pass.

36. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:02 PM (#2069601)

I dont know why your baseline for Pedro's performance was his worst year in a decade. I guess just because it was his most recent, but I dont think you give enought weight to the 2.25's he slung in both '02 and '03.

That's a fair point. Any ZIPS-like projection would have put him much lower than 3.90. My feeling that the future would be more 3.90-ish was based partially on his drop in velocity.

I also disagree with you assesment of the contract negotiations, but we'll probably never know.

That's true. There's also the possibility that the Sox could have signed him before he ever became a FA, if they offered him 3/42 or 4/50 or something.

37. Dave Cyprian Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#2069606)

So did Synder get DFA'ed after the game or not?

38. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#2069607)

I also don't think we can say that the Red Sox problem was specifically that they didn't sign Pedro. Their problem was that they didn't sign good pitchers that were available. Millwood would have been a much better deal at 1/9 or whatever it was. They also would have gotten the draft picks from the Mets and a shorter commitment.

39. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#2069613)

No, Dave, see the other thread. He is still on the team. Van Buren got sent down and Hansen got called up.

40. Toby Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2069615)

There is no projection system that can account for the bizarre episode of Pedro being brought in to pitch "garbage time" in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS and proceeding to turn garbage time into anxiety time. At that point I would have paid him to go away.

41. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2069625)

At that point, Francona should have been fired mid-game. There's still ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO DO THAT WITH A HUGE LEAD AND THE WORLD SERIES LOOMING.

42. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2069630)

One thing we do know for sure is this:

Pedro Martinez as a Red Sock without Jheri curls: 6 years, 0 championships
Pedro Martinez as a Red Sock WITH Jheri curls: 1 year, 1 championship.

43. Toby Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#2069631)

I don't blame Francona, because I'm pretty sure it wasn't his idea, and I can understand how he could have been talked into it. He was looking at the upside and discounted the downside. It was a calculated risk and it went bad. It wasn't a risk I would have taken, but keeping Pedro happy wasn't part of my job description at the time.

44. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 03:37 PM (#2069638)

I don't blame Francona, because I'm pretty sure it wasn't his idea, and I can understand how he could have been talked into it.

This is reaching Homer Simpson proportions. I can also understand how someone would be talked into it, but that person should not be managing a major league team. If you're going to be talked into doing stupid things by your players, you're not doing your job.

I also think this might well have been Terry's idea, for a couple reasons. First, he may have thought it was a good way for Pedro to have the last laugh on the Yanks and thereby boost his confidence. Second, the Sox pitching was in a shambles coming into the game. He had probably told Pedro that he planned to use him for an inning. From what we know about Francona, he lives in mortal fear of not pitching someone he has planned to use. So he may have used Pedro just to stick to his plan.

45. Toby Posted: June 20, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#2069723)

Memo

To: Toby
From: Self

THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS

1. Race with Mikael
<strike>2.</strike> 1A. Francona with Darren

46. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 20, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#2069753)

Meanwhile, can we all agree that Rob and Rany are spot on in their tirades against the incompetence of KC management. Snyder is a VERY usable spare part, and clearly good enough to stick around with the worst franchise in baseball.

No.

I think it's more of an indictment of the Royals that players need to get out of that organization to have sucess. They've had too many years of poor coaching, develoment, training, scouting etc.

Even if Snyder wins 20 games for the Red Sox I'll stand firm that he'd never ammounted to anything with the Royals.

That's sorta why I see an X-factor when teams get pitchers from the Royals.

FOr instance, Jerremy Affeldt is terrible, but if the Mets traded for him, I wouldn't be surprised if he became an All-Star once he got actually coaching and scouting.

I'm really sorry I missed Snyder's start last night.

I bet he made lots of decent pitches to particular hitter's weaknesses that he never would have made with the Royals.

That's the value with Varitek and advanced scouting (which the Red Sox seem to be the best in the game at).

Didn't he strike Soriano out 3 times?
No way he does that with KC.

47. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 20, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#2069774)

You know, even at 3.90 Pedro would be worth his contract.
an I think he'd probably beat especially with the improvements in the Red Sox defense.

Fiscal restraint is one thing, but the Sox only seemed to execute it with Pedro.

And Damon. And Pavano. And Lowe. And apparently Clemens.

Clemens?
and the Red Sox offered Pavano MORE than NYY.
I don't think the wanted Lowe or Damon back.

The big thing here really is that had they shown the man who had built their franchise a little more respect, and talked about an extension earlier in the 2004 season, or even in 2003 the Red Sox wouldn't have had to get into a bidding war with the Mets.

I've heard fans older and wiser than me talk about how the impossible dream Red Sox were the catalyst for the rabid RS fanbase in New England. How without 67 and 75 the team and it's fans would be more like the pre-strike phillies, instead of in a league with the yankees.
Well, I kinda think Pedro's like that, all the Pedro v. Yankees, post-Clemens stuff certainly increased the Sox's pressence, I doubt NESN would be as big as it is today w/o Pedro.

48. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#2069782)

The big thing here really is that had they shown the man who had built their franchise a little more respect, and talked about an extension earlier in the 2004 season, or even in 2003 the Red Sox wouldn't have had to get into a bidding war with the Mets.

Well, they did pick up his option a full year earlier than they had to. That's showing respect, I think. And I thought they were negotiating an extension before the 04 season, they just didn't manage to get him signed.

From Pedro's comments since he left, it sounds to me like he was most upset that Schilling was getting a better deal and more respect than he was. I'm not sure the best way to handle that, but that may have helped to keep him.

49. Darren

Posted: June 20, 2006 at 06:52 PM (#2069788)

To: Toby
From: Self

THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS

1. Race with Mikael
2. 1A. Francona with Darren

First of all, it's supposed to be "To: Self; From: Toby." That's just plain funnier.

And second, I'm utterly humorless on the subject of Clemens leaving the Red Sox as well.

Am I wrong about Francona in this instance though? Is there any good reason, or even not-horrible reason to have Pedro pitching there? If there were any circumstance where you'd want your manager to stand up to a player and say no, wouldn't that be it?

50. PJ Martinez Posted: June 20, 2006 at 06:56 PM (#2069790)

I _love_ Pedro. I think that's obvious. But calling him "the man who had built their franchise" is a bit of a stretch. Though he is probably as responsible as any single player in the last, oh, ten years, maybe twenty, for the popularity of the team. Ortiz would be on that list, though he arrived late. And Clemens would be on that list if you go back 20 years. Also Nomar, Vaughn, maybe Boggs.

Anyway, the Pedro non-signing has been hashed out pretty thoroughly by now, hasn't it? I think it was a mistake, but not a totally unreasonable one. I tend to think that Pedro had one foot out of town, but I could certainly be wrong about that.

What's more interesting to me is analyzing the front office's moves more generally. Many of those moves must be analyzed together-- this last offseason, in particular, was a bundle of interconnected moves.

Those moves haven't been perfect, by any stretch, but overall I would give the FO a good grade-- one of the best in MLB, I suspect. In fact, perhaps an interesting way to evaluate those moves would be to compare them with the moves made by other teams. Obviously, KC is no match. But how does, say, Beane's or Ricciardi's work over the last few years compare with Epstein's? Kenny Williams? It's harder to compare, say, Byrnes or Minaya, since they haven't been on the job long. And, of course, each team operates in a slightly different context, with regard to payroll, existing farm system, etc. But the goals are the same, I think: to win championships, and, preferably, to do so in a manner that makes future championships a reasonable possibility. Who's the best at this? Is it still Beane?

51. Flynn Posted: June 20, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#2069796)

There's still ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO DO THAT WITH A HUGE LEAD AND THE WORLD SERIES LOOMING.

Yeah there is. It's called F you, New york.

Anyway, we need pedro back because:

1) The Sox significantly misread the market, and there is serious discussion on SOSH that Beckett may get 4/50 because there's few free agent pitchers available. Beckett getting Pedro money? WTF?!

2) Clement and Beckett both have ERAs over 5, and Pedro could shoot baseballs out of his ass and have an ERA lower than 5.

52. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 20, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#2069799)

I know I'm totally unreasonable when it comes to Pedro.

I really like Theo as a GM, the Red Sox's 'system' under his watch has become one of the best in baseball (development, medical, scouting, etc etc etc).

But even his pre-2004 signings always seemed lucky.
I can't remember too many examples here, but I recall lots of 'failed moves', that would have left the Red Sox with worse players than they eventually put out on the field.

Edgar Alfonso being the first choice for second base in 2003, Theo pursuing the pre-white sox Contraras. Javy Vasquez being the first choice in winter 2003, and Schilling being the fallback.

I know there were some more, I 'm forgeting.

While he's still a damn good GM, I think Theo got lucky from 2002-2004, and now that luck has turned.

53. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#2069800)

Oh man if the Sox had lost to STL in 6 with Pedro only pitching once (game 3) beacuse of ALCS game 7. . . arghh, I wont even think about it.

54. Toby Posted: June 20, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#2069807)

Darren,

I think the answer to your question in 49. is your response in 48. That is, the reason to let Pedro pitch in that situation is to give the little prima donna the respect he claims he should be getting.

55. Flynn Posted: June 20, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#2069830)

Oh man if the Sox had lost to STL in 6 with Pedro only pitching once (game 3) beacuse of ALCS game 7. . . arghh, I wont even think about it.

Game 7 had nothing to do with it. He was going to start Game 3 no matter what he did. FFS, it was his throw day, he just threw in an actual ballgame.

56. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2069837)

Game 7 had nothing to do with it. He was going to start Game 3 no matter what he did. FFS, it was his throw day, he just threw in an actual ballgame

57. Flynn Posted: June 20, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#2069842)

Why was he going to start game 3 no matter what? He started game 5 on October 18th. If he doesnt pitch in game 7 he can start game 1 of the WS (October 23rd) on the normal 4 days of rest. I dont understand.

Because the team had decided that in the likely event of very poor weather at Fenway, it would be preferable to start Pedro, who had been having trouble all season loosening up in cold weather, in the warmer climes of St. Louis.

Throwing 25 pitches on your throw day didn't affect their decision. 25 pitches is not a start.

58. Nasty Nate Posted: June 20, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2069898)

Are you saying that if Pedro had NOT pitched in game 7, and its the day of Game 1 and the Sox have to choose between Tim Wakefield and Pedro Martinez, each with the exact same number of days off since last pitching, they would have chosen Wake because its a little chilly? I find that hard to believe. I think it was the combo of the weather-situation and #45 having gone in game 7 (throwing in an actual game is different than routine throw-day throwing).

59. Darren

Posted: June 21, 2006 at 12:08 AM (#2070103)

Well, you're still going to have Pedro for only 2 games anyways, so game 1 vs. game 3 may not be a big deal.

60. Nasty Nate Posted: June 21, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#2070255)

Well, you're still going to have Pedro for only 2 games anyways, so game 1 vs. game 3 may not be a big deal.

well it turned out to not be a big deal.

But if they lose in 5 or 6 and only pitch Pedro once (a la the 1999 ALCS) it would have been a big deal.

If he pitches games 1 & 5, he could also be used in a potential 6 or 7 as an emergency reliever.

61. Joel W Posted: June 21, 2006 at 08:00 AM (#2070539)

This is very off topic, but I haven't seen an optimistic thread at all recently:

Remember when Curt Schilling was all "I'm healthy and I had a great April." And then he threw 133 pitches, and we were all "stupid Francona and Schilling" and he sucked for May. I like that I'm all, "oh man, he has a 7:1 K:BB ration and he's awesome again and he's thrown 100 innings so far this season."

I realize that I do this w/ the Sox, or have done this w/ them every year for about 4 years now. I get so fed up w/ them right about now and through July and then I rerealize that they have a pretty good team. This year, I think that the Pythag is BS given the front of the bullpen/back of the bullpen dichotomy.

Oh and despite Wily Mo Pena playing Center for awhile, the Red Sox are 15th in the league in DER, and I think that adjusted that probably puts them in the top 5 of the league given Fenway's BABIP bias.

62. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 21, 2006 at 11:29 AM (#2070553)

What's the official BTF Party line on Starters coming in for short relief on their throw days?

Not like old school Japanese Baseball Masaichi Kaneda 400 IPs a year 30 starts 30 relief appearences 25 complete games, but coming in ON THEIR THROW DAYS, to pitch to a couple of batters, maybe to exploit platoon advantage?

The main concerns are obviously
1) HOw effective the starter will be in relief on his relief cameo
2) How much it will affect his scheduled starts
3) How much it will affect his long-term health

63. Jon T. Posted: June 21, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2070695)

In regards to why Pedro threw game 7...

Pedro pitching on 4 days rest in 2004 he just wasn't that good, he is a significantly better pitcher with extra rest.

You have to have Schilling throw games 2 and 6 because he couldn't hit and needed extra time between starts.

So you have Pedro start game 3 and 7. Therefore he was available to pitch in game 7 of the ALCS when the Sox had no rested arms in the pen. They had made the decision that he might pitch in game 7 before game 6, that's why Pedro was in Boston seeing a physical therapist that day.

To say they risked losing the most important game in the teams history, and the WS, just to appease a guy they didn't try that hard to sign in the off-season, is insane.

64. villageidiom Posted: June 21, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#2070760)

and the Red Sox offered Pavano MORE than NYY.

You seem to be pretty sure of this, so certainly you can produce some evidence?

I've heard fans older and wiser than me talk about how the impossible dream Red Sox were the catalyst for the rabid RS fanbase in New England. How without 67 and 75 the team and it's fans would be more like the pre-strike phillies, instead of in a league with the yankees.

That's oversimplifying. Without 1967 through 2005, the Red Sox fan base wouldn't be what it is today. The last time the Red Sox had back-to-back years with fewer than 80 wins in each was 1965-66. 1967 was the start, for sure, but the team hasn't really gone through a significant uncompetitive rebuilding phase in 40 years. Even their worst year in that period (1992) was sandwiched by an 84-win season and an 80-win season. Granted, they're not "really" in contention with an 80-win season; but if you bought a ticket there was almost an even chance that they'd win that day. That goes a long way toward keeping the fan base happy.

The main concerns are obviously
1) HOw effective the starter will be in relief on his relief cameo
2) How much it will affect his scheduled starts
3) How much it will affect his long-term health

Depends on what's expected in a side session. If they're maintaining their usual velocity in a side session, they could be effective doing a relief cameo, AND not affect scheduled starts, AND not affect long-term health. If their side sessions are lower-velocity, lower-stress sessions, putting them an in-game situation could lead them to overdo it, and all three concerns would be affected adversely.

65. Nasty Nate Posted: June 21, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#2070809)

You have to have Schilling throw games 2 and 6 because he couldn't hit and needed extra time between starts.

So you have Pedro start game 3 and 7. Therefore he was available to pitch in game 7 of the ALCS when the Sox had no rested arms in the pen. They had made the decision that he might pitch in game 7 before game 6, that's why Pedro was in Boston seeing a physical therapist that day.

To say they risked losing the most important game in the teams history, and the WS, just to appease a guy they didn't try that hard to sign in the off-season, is insane.

I agree. They planned to use Martinez in game 7 because Foulke had pitched 5 and two-thirds innings over the prior 3 days, and Lowe has not expected to have so many effective innings. (plan was probably something like Lowe innings 1-4, Pedro 5-6, Embree/Timlin/Myers 7-8-9 with Foulke lurking as the wildcard/desperation move).

However once they found themselves getting 6 innings out of Lowe and a 8-1 lead, I think they should have changed the plan. Try to get the final three innings with a patchwork of Myers-Timlin-Embree, neither of whom had pitched the day before. If NY cuts the lead against them to 5 or less, you still have Pedro available. If the lead increases you could eke an inning out of Leskanic or Wakefield. And then Pedro could pitch Game 1.

66. Josh Posted: June 21, 2006 at 06:05 PM (#2070824)

The <strike>Kyle Snyder</strike> <u>Jason Johnson</u> era has begun

67. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#2070882)

You have to have Schilling throw games 2 and 6 because he couldn't hit and needed extra time between starts.

So you have Pedro start game 3 and 7. Therefore he was available to pitch in game 7 of the ALCS when the Sox had no rested arms in the pen. They had made the decision that he might pitch in game 7 before game 6, that's why Pedro was in Boston seeing a physical therapist that day.

To say they risked losing the most important game in the teams history, and the WS, just to appease a guy they didn't try that hard to sign in the off-season, is insane.

Bingo. Francona said as much after the ALCS.

I can't believe that a 1-inning relief appearance in the 7th inning with the Sox holding a 7 run lead still causes so much angst. They pitched Pedro because the staff was exhausted (no Foulke available for Game 7), because it was his day to throw, because doing so gave him both an extra day of rest AND allowed him to pitch in warmer St. Louis AND set Schilling up to pitch in Fenway twice AND set Pedro up to pitch a Game 7 in the WS.

He got knocked around a bit. Big deal. All angst over that move should have dissipated 5 seconds after Bellhorn hit the fair pole the very next inning.

I miss Pedro. I agree with the sentiments here that the Sox have hopefully learned their lesson in regards to superstar players; pay to keep them, let the above average ones walk. Maybe they did learn; they let Damon walk but signed Ortiz to an extension.

68. covelli chris p Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#2070912)

However once they found themselves getting 6 innings out of Lowe and a 8-1 lead, I think they should have changed the plan.

like, to letting lowe keep pitching. according to the espn.com boxscore, he had only thrown 69 pitches through 6 innings.

69. Nasty Nate Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#2070915)

If you can help it, you dont go into a series with your undeniable top two pitchers slotted in for games 2 and 3. You choose games 1-2 for them.

No angst here. Pedro's my favorite player and this period is the favorite week of my life, so I enjoy breaking down the minutae.

The risks of the Pedro relief move werent dissipated by the Bellhorn HR the next inning (off the fan in left, not the pole in right), they were dissipated the next week when the Sox obliterated any chance of the Cardinals winning the series before Pedro could make his potential 2nd WS start.

70. ericr Posted: June 22, 2006 at 01:16 PM (#2072127)

Nate, the fan in left was Game 6. Bellhorn hit a right field pole job in game 7.

71. Josh Posted: June 22, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2072172)

like, to letting lowe keep pitching. according to the espn.com boxscore, he had only thrown 69 pitches through 6 innings.

Lowe had pitched on the 17th, had the 18th and 19th off, then pitched again on the 20th. I think he was gassed - as the rest of the team was.

72. Nasty Nate Posted: June 22, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#2072273)

ericr, yeah I mixed it up. I was thinking of <strike>Smellhorn's</strike> Bellhorn's home run in game 1 vs the Cardinals. His game 7 one hit the pole too?

73. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: June 22, 2006 at 06:21 PM (#2072454)

ericr, yeah I mixed it up. I was thinking of Bellhorn's home run in game 1 vs the Cardinals. His game 7 one hit the pole too?

Yup. Bellhorn's homers:

Game 6: opposite field shot to left, bounced off of fan, initially ruled a double, correctly overruled to home run

Game 7: led off 8th inning with a mammoth shot off Gordon off of the RF fair pole. Fox had a mic in the pole and the ball made a huge crashing/clanging sound upon hitting the pole.

Game 1: GW 8th inning HR off Pesky Pole.

Add to that his 2 out 2 run double in Game 2, and Bellhorn had himself one helluva postseason streak there. He was immense.

74. covelli chris p Posted: June 22, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2072584)

Fox had a mic in the pole and the ball made a huge crashing/clanging sound upon hitting the pole.

and the idiot son of jack buck mentioned that it was a horrible sound. was it a horrible sound to him becuase he was rooting for the yankees? maybe?

75. tfbg9 Posted: June 22, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#2072592)

maybe? Ab-so-###-ing-lute-lee.

76. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 23, 2006 at 04:50 AM (#2073027)

I don't think the wanted Lowe or Damon back.

NOBODY wanted Lowe back.

77. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: June 23, 2006 at 05:14 AM (#2073043)

except the bar owners and operators of Landsdown street.

78. Darren

Posted: June 23, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2073286)

I believe he asked, rhetorically, if that was the most sickening sound you've ever heard. Strangely, it wasn't.

79. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: June 26, 2006 at 02:01 PM (#2076243)

That was McCarver who labeled it "the worst sound in the world."

Sounded to me like an empire falling. An EVIL empire!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate