SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/18-8/21 Red Sox vs. Angels Series Thread
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 20, 2014 20:21:53 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises.
I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 20, 2014 20:29:23 GMT -5
We're like the Bad News Bears defensively this inning. Letting balls drop, overthrowing cutoff guys, not knocking balls down, forgetting to hold runners.... this is ugly. That inning is all on Buchholz. He's such a mental midget. When you take 30 seconds between pitches WTF do you expect? Walks a run in with Mike Bleepin Trout on deck. Even if Nava catches that ball the inning stays the same.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Aug 20, 2014 20:32:45 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. They're both club options according to Cot's, so it's not like they're a burden or anything. If he sucks before the options would kick in, worst case, they cut him. He's got one year at $12M to prove that he belongs at a big cost. If not, he either signs a new lower deal, or finds employment elsewhere. Where they sit now, they obviously need him to be a big part of the rotation. But if they get two pitchers this offseason, like many think they will, it becomes much less necessary that he be great
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 20, 2014 20:37:53 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. 2 months of peak Buchholz is worth at least $12m, and he'll play the rest of the year for free.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 20, 2014 20:48:54 GMT -5
Per Gordon Edes,
Let's hope for him that there is indeed no ligament damage.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 20, 2014 20:51:48 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. 2 months of peak Buchholz is worth at least $12m, and he'll play the rest of the year for free. The problem is the two months he's posting a 6+ ERA and negating all that value.
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Aug 20, 2014 20:56:55 GMT -5
Bogaerts is a mess. A trip to AAA should have been done weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 20, 2014 21:05:47 GMT -5
Bogaerts is a mess. A trip to AAA should have been done weeks ago. I was one of the people who was against this idea when people started suggesting it in July, and I was wrong. If I were the Red Sox I'd be very tempted to start him in AAA next year if things don't change. I'm not remotely ready to give up him -- but the Red Sox need to do something to ratchet down the pressure.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Aug 20, 2014 22:23:11 GMT -5
Finishing last two out the last three years should make rational people realize something is wrong with the FO, either personal or polices. When a major corporation fails like they have they, it is usually management, even though some will blame others. Saying they won one world series in this time span no longer cuts it, as well as pointing to their other past victories. That is the remote past, and there were different people running the team. Get you head out of the sands.There has been some changes, most notable is John Henry dictating policy and the absence of Theo's team. Ben is an organizational creature and a yes man. Next year they enter with a dubious pitching staff, including relievers, and question marks at third, short, center, and right field. Napoli will be a year older, and Papi will be hitting 40.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 20, 2014 23:01:07 GMT -5
Finishing last two out the last three years should make rational people realize something is wrong with the FO, either personal or polices. When a major corporation fails like they have they, it is usually management, even though some will blame others. Saying they won one world series in this time span no longer cuts it, as well as pointing to their other past victories. That is the remote past, and there were different people running the team. Get you head out of the sands.There has been some changes, most notable is John Henry dictating policy and the absence of Theo's team. Ben is an organizational creature and a yes man. Next year they enter with a dubious pitching staff, including relievers, and question marks at third, short, center, and right field. Napoli will be a year older, and Papi will be hitting 40. Yes and no. Ignoring the 2013 World Series is dishonest. Winning the World Series does count for something. What the hell else do you play for? And yes Theo was a big part of the 04 and 07 teams obviously and was a contributor to the 2013 team the way Duquette was a contributor to the 04 team, but Ben made a bunch of decisions that went right for the Sox in 2013. 2013 counts. It's not like because they received every conceivable break that a team could get that 2013 is simply chalked up as a meaningless fluke and doesn't count. I also think ignoring the 2012 and 2014 disasters would be dishonest, too. The Sox finished last just once in an 80 season stretch (between 1933 and 2011, they finished last in 1992), so stinking up the joint twice in three years can't be overlooked either. The Red Sox had just about everything go wrong and they didn't really make the best decisions at all times. The Sox of this decade are alot more prone to extremes. Last decade Theo had them winning 95 games consistently with a chance for a Championship. Ben and the Sox need to build something closer to what Theo during his tenure. This offseason will go along way in planting the seeds for the future. This team is certainly at a crossroads and it's fair to question the decision making of the team. I usually had a lot of trust in Theo. I'm not sure I have that in Ben right now. We'll see what the future brings. It's not hard to picture a bright future with Bogaerts raking, Swihart becoming young Tek, Betts becoming a dynamic leadoff hitter, Owens being a rotation stud, and others being productive young players. It's also not too hard to picture the alternative where the youngsters go the way of WMB and the veterans get older and older and the Sox occupy the basement for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Aug 20, 2014 23:19:28 GMT -5
Finishing last two out the last three years should make rational people realize something is wrong with the FO, either personal or polices. When a major corporation fails like they have they, it is usually management, even though some will blame others. Saying they won one world series in this time span no longer cuts it, as well as pointing to their other past victories. That is the remote past, and there were different people running the team. Get you head out of the sands.There has been some changes, most notable is John Henry dictating policy and the absence of Theo's team. Ben is an organizational creature and a yes man. Next year they enter with a dubious pitching staff, including relievers, and question marks at third, short, center, and right field. Napoli will be a year older, and Papi will be hitting 40. I disagree. I agree this team may be in for some lean years -- it is rapidly aging and there is a very real possibility that two of its top prospects can't hit major league pitching, which would lengthen the time until the team returns to contention -- but that isn't a sign of incompetence by the Front Office. It is a product of a changing environment and policies instituted by MLB to bolster weaker teams at the expense of stronger teams. First, the changing environment: For much of the "John Henry" era, the Red Sox had huge financial advantages over everyone else in the league except the Yankees. They were second in the league in revenue despite operating in a significantly smaller market than the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, Rangers, Astros, Braves and Nationals (in addition the Cubs and White Sox share a market approximately twice the size of the Boston market). Indeed, the Red Sox market is much, much more comparable to that of the Rays (both the Boston market and the combined Tampa--Orlando market have 4.8 million people; the New York market has 20 million). Over the last decade, a number of the other big market teams have closed the gap, increasing the competition for top-level talent (and driving up the cost of free agents). At the same time, the "supply" of free agents has fallen. Smaller market teams have learned to extend their control of core players through manipulation of service time and offering team friendly contracts early in a player's career that delay the onset of free agency. Second MLB policies: On top of this, it has become even harder to acquire talent through the draft. I did a quick look at the top 100 picks for the years 2002 to 2006. On average, a top 100 pick in the draft has about a 12% chance of achieving 10 WAR and about a 6% chance of achieving 20 WAR. And half of these players -- over half of the 20 WAR players -- are gone in the first ten picks. Good teams are punished by lack of access to top amateur talent. On top of that MLB has added slotting rules -- both in the draft and for IFA's -- to make it even harder for good teams to continue to acquire talent. The Red Sox haven't had a top 5 pick since 1967 -- at a time when there were only 20 teams in the league; they have only had two top ten picks. I really don't believe that most of the contributors to this site recognize (a) how good the Red Sox have been at acquiring talent via the draft or (b) just how small their margin for error is. MLB is constructed to achieve competitive balance by making it incrementally harder to acquire talent the longer a team remains good. The Yankees may have the resources to overcome this institutional bias (although they, too, may be succumbing; at the moment those resources only look good enough to get them extended mediocrity), but no one else does. The Red Sox went 45 years without losing 90 games; that's 45 years without being truly bad and 45 years without having preferential access to top amateur talent. It finally caught up to them.
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Aug 21, 2014 0:09:50 GMT -5
MLB is constructed to achieve competitive balance ------------------------------------------------------------ They can construct it any "competitive" way they choose but the RS are just a far, far better franchise than most in MLB. RS have to do better than this and I'm convinced they will. As many of us said last January they 'aren't having a good off-season.' They believed in WMB, Victorino, JBJ in ways they no longer can.
It's going to be difficult to get the personnel they need but I think the effort will be there. 2014 was sort of a wait-and-see year and it obviously didn't turn out well.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Aug 21, 2014 6:35:24 GMT -5
MLB is constructed to achieve competitive balance ------------------------------------------------------------ They can construct it any "competitive" way they choose but the RS are just a far, far better franchise than most in MLB. RS have to do better than this and I'm convinced they will. As many of us said last January they 'aren't having a good off-season.' They believed in WMB, Victorino, JBJ in ways they no longer can. It's going to be difficult to get the personnel they need but I think the effort will be there. 2014 was sort of a wait-and-see year and it obviously didn't turn out well. I'm confused. If people are souring on and criticizing the franchise due to what is increasingly looking like 2 last-place finishes in 3 years, doesn't that mean that the franchise ISN'T at this point a far, far better franchise than most in MLB? You can't just declare that the franchise is great and thus it is so. I think the point about increased competitiveness is a fair one. Also, let's remember that the "last-place" finish criterion is rendered less damning by the fact that divisions/leagues are smaller than they used to be in much of baseball's past. It's easier to finish below everyone else you are competing with in the printed standings -- and conversely, there's less distance to travel to get back to the top. Plus, this team isn't historically bad by any means. They're just blah.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2014 6:42:56 GMT -5
Finishing last two out the last three years should make rational people realize something is wrong with the FO, either personal or polices. When a major corporation fails like they have they, it is usually management, even though some will blame others. Saying they won one world series in this time span no longer cuts it, as well as pointing to their other past victories. That is the remote past, and there were different people running the team. Get you head out of the sands.There has been some changes, most notable is John Henry dictating policy and the absence of Theo's team. Ben is an organizational creature and a yes man. Next year they enter with a dubious pitching staff, including relievers, and question marks at third, short, center, and right field. Napoli will be a year older, and Papi will be hitting 40. Time for godot's weekly John Henry rant.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 21, 2014 10:13:25 GMT -5
I don't think the Red Sox performance is the result of MLB trying to establish "competitive balance." I don't see how the Sox have suffered in any respect different from any other team.
The Red Sox have plenty of money and it wrong to compare them with Tampa. The Sox market is all of the New England and parts of upstate New York. Besides that, so much of the revenue of all teams now is coming from national television deals. Every team now has enough money to operate profitably and competitively.
The problems with the team this year were partly foreseeable and partly just bad luck, but some of that was foreseeable. Last year's team was a bit of a fluke and everyone knew that, or at least they should have. The FO miscalculated in the off-season in a number of ways, and they have admitted that. Where does this stuff about Henry dictating policy come from? He is the owner and he always has been involved. Remember when he went on that trip to negotiate with Teixeira and made a fool of himself? At least he hasn't done that again. I think everyone in the organization - not just Henry - became gun shy about long term contracts, and for good reasons.
The Red Sox have built a very good farm system, and, barring trades, most of the starting lineups of teams in the next few years could be composed of players who came through the system. Not many teams are in that kind of position. There is discouragement now because of the poor performance of JBJ, Bogaerts, etc. but some of the young prospects will fail. That always happens. And some won't. I think Bogaerts will come around, and I think that if they give Betts the chance he will hit very well. I am dubious about JBJ, mostly because he has gotten very screwed up and I don't know if he can be fixed. I think it might help to get some better hitting instruction.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 21, 2014 11:57:33 GMT -5
The problems with the team this year were partly foreseeable and partly just bad luck, but some of that was foreseeable. Last year's team was a bit of a fluke and everyone knew that, or at least they should have. The FO miscalculated in the off-season in a number of ways, and they have admitted that. Where does this stuff about Henry dictating policy come from? He is the owner. and he always has been involved. Remember when he went on that trip to negotiate with Teixeira and made a fool of himself? At least he hasn't done that again. I think everyone in the organization - not just Henry - became gun shy about long term contracts, and for good reasons. . In hindsight the offseason was not orchestrated well, but it's easy to forget how hard it must have been to break up WS winner, especially one that seemed to overachieve based on how much they enjoyed playing together. I'd bet there are many moves BC wanted to make but didn't because of its potential clubhouse impact. I'm a big believer in team chemistry, but this past offseason is a good example of it having a negative effect on the long term outlook. IT should be much easier this time around.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 21, 2014 12:00:21 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. I guess I'm the only one left who still believes Buchholz will bounce back next year? He was great last night until he lost it for one inning. Ball was moving and hitting the mitt. And he looked decent after that inning (though was clearly getting gassed. He says most the year he's lost feel for his pitches on and off. It's not velo at this point. That he's had pinpoint accuracy before - and has showed this in greater sample sizes over his last few starts - at least gives me hope he can regain that.
|
|
|
Post by pedroiaesque on Aug 21, 2014 12:29:11 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. I guess I'm the only one left who still believes Buchholz will bounce back next year? He was great last night until he lost it for one inning. Ball was moving and hitting the mitt. And he looked decent after that inning (though was clearly getting gassed. He says most the year he's lost feel for his pitches on and off. It's not velo at this point. That he's had pinpoint accuracy before - and has showed this in greater sample sizes over his last few starts - at least gives me hope he can regain that. You are not alone, but the question I have is what do you consider bouncing back? Buchholz is prone to Jeckyll and Hyde seasons (and appearances... and innings). I believe he has it in him to replicate the first half performance of 2013. Indeed, considering the level he has been achieving in his most recent run (excluding crapping the bed for an inning or so every once in a while), gives some confidence that there truly isn't anything physically wrong, so he should be able to reach his peak again, at least for a stretch or two. Basically, for Clay, bouncing back would be exactly what he has shown to date: stretches of dominance interspersed with stretches of questioning whether he is even an MLB starting pitcher. When it comes to mid- and bottom-rotation starters, there are those that are league average every time out but can hopefully eat innings, and there are those that are Buccholz-esque, flashing promise but no consistency. As has always been the case, the question that I think is more important for planning for 2015 is whether Clay can stay healthy and consistently perform at, or near, his peak.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Aug 21, 2014 12:36:36 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just drinking the kool-aid, but I'm not so sure that the FO miscalculated in the offseason like many of you think. To me, it looks like they decided to risk a 'bridge year' to get a good look at their league-ready prospects (including still-unproven guys like Doubront and WMB). They did that. They're still doing that.
I'm sure they would have greatly preferred the fairy tale ending where all of the prospects play like stars immediately and they compete for another WS. But I do think they knew that growing pains and a poor record were strong possibilities. These people aren't stupid.
I just think they made a calculated decision to have a developmental year, for better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 21, 2014 12:42:05 GMT -5
I guess I'm the only one left who still believes Buchholz will bounce back next year? He was great last night until he lost it for one inning. Ball was moving and hitting the mitt. And he looked decent after that inning (though was clearly getting gassed. He says most the year he's lost feel for his pitches on and off. It's not velo at this point. That he's had pinpoint accuracy before - and has showed this in greater sample sizes over his last few starts - at least gives me hope he can regain that. You are not alone, but the question I have is what do you consider bouncing back? Buchholz is prone to Jeckyll and Hyde seasons (and appearances... and innings). I believe he has it in him to replicate the first half performance of 2013. Indeed, considering the level he has been achieving in his most recent run (excluding crapping the bed for an inning or so every once in a while), gives some confidence that there truly isn't anything physically wrong, so he should be able to reach his peak again, at least for a stretch or two. Basically, for Clay, bouncing back would be exactly what he has shown to date: stretches of dominance interspersed with stretches of questioning whether he is even an MLB starting pitcher. When it comes to mid- and bottom-rotation starters, there are those that are league average every time out but can hopefully eat innings, and there are those that are Buccholz-esque, flashing promise but no consistency. As has always been the case, the question that I think is more important for planning for 2015 is whether Clay can stay healthy and consistently perform at, or near, his peak. I am thinking 28 starts/180 innings with an FIP of about 3.50-75ish as a bounce back with about 6.6/3.0 K/BB He was out of his mind last year, but I think that's more in line with what he is. When his change-up is sharp his HRs go down and the ground balls go up.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 21, 2014 14:12:20 GMT -5
If the FO is serious about contending next year I hope that means that Buchholz will be pitching somewhere else. He simply is too frustrating and cannot be relied on. It's time for him to be moved on.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,304
|
Post by cdj on Aug 21, 2014 14:16:53 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch has one more guaranteed year he is going from 7.5million to 12 million. After that they are option years with nice raises. I pray Ben can find someone to take him. He is his own worst enemy. I guess I'm the only one left who still believes Buchholz will bounce back next year? He was great last night until he lost it for one inning. Ball was moving and hitting the mitt. And he looked decent after that inning (though was clearly getting gassed. He says most the year he's lost feel for his pitches on and off. It's not velo at this point. That he's had pinpoint accuracy before - and has showed this in greater sample sizes over his last few starts - at least gives me hope he can regain that. I completely agree with you, Guidas. Buchholz will bounce back next year. I've seen enough out of him over his last handful of starts to believe that. He let last night get away from him a bit but the stuff we are used to seeing from him is finally back.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Aug 21, 2014 15:14:58 GMT -5
What complicates Buchholz role next year is the overall stability of the rotation in 2015. We have a bunch of AAA guys on the cusp, and while some of them are certainly getting traded, we will probably have 1-2 young cost controlled pitchers in the rotation, and young guys equal uneven performances (generally speaking).
If there is a solid 1-3 or 1-4, a team can live with some level of unpredictability in the forth and/or fifth spots. But if Buchholz is in the rotation, he realistically cannot be counted on. Two rookies/young guys plus Buchholz means you have unpredictability for 3/5 of the rotation. It is not reasonable for a contending team to have that sort of rotation.
So the grand plan of having young, cost efficient pitchers with upside slotted in the rotation is in jeopardy, which will have ripple effects across the roster. Even if you believe one of the young guys (Workman?) is going to be pretty consistent, Buchholz's inconsistency is probably going to keep at least one young guy out of the rotation.
I don't think there is much risk of overstating how Buchholz's free-fall/unpredictability is going to negatively affect the team next year, from roster construction to actual performance on the field.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 21, 2014 15:30:06 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just drinking the kool-aid, but I'm not so sure that the FO miscalculated in the offseason like many of you think. To me, it looks like they decided to risk a 'bridge year' to get a good look at their league-ready prospects (including still-unproven guys like Doubront and WMB). They did that. ...and then they signed Stephen Drew? And decided to get a very good look at Jonny Gomes, one of the players whose assessment was least likely to change? Meanwhile having no interest whatsoever in seeing what Mike Carp can do with regular playing time?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 21, 2014 15:50:53 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier 2m Garrett Richards will have surgery next week on torn left patellar tendon. Expected out 6-9 months
|
|
|