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.
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on May 22, 2015 6:42:26 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Bradley was first called up, did Farrell not state that the intention was to more or less platoon him with Victorino, with Bradley getting a lot of time against RHP? Something changed. If it wasn't the 11 AB, then what?
It's not as if Nava is hitting so well that they just need to get him in there.
Funny how in just a few weeks we've gone from "too many outfielders" to having no better option than Nava against a LH starter.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on May 22, 2015 7:50:23 GMT -5
Glad we gave Farrell a contract extension before the season...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 22, 2015 8:27:17 GMT -5
I just don't believe this idea that teams which are trying to contend will deliberately play a player they believe to be significantly inferior in order to "showcase" him and increase his trade value. Agreed. This whole "showcase" thing has developed in like the last two years and I wish I know where it was from. I guess from talk radio meatheads who always need some nefarious secondary reason for why a player who isn't performing continues to play. Anyway, it's not a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2015 8:44:10 GMT -5
Glad we gave Farrell a contract extension before the season... And it doesn't matter at all. It's not like they can't fire him.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 22, 2015 9:26:38 GMT -5
I just don't believe this idea that teams which are trying to contend will deliberately play a player they believe to be significantly inferior in order to "showcase" him and increase his trade value. I guess from talk radio meatheads who always need some nefarious secondary reason for why a player who isn't performing continues to play. Anyway, it's not a thing . There is a tipping point, to be sure, where it becomes counterproductive, but that doesn't mean the FO's don't want to have their investments to pay off. I think we've seen this year that there is point where they will let go and turn the page.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 22, 2015 9:46:55 GMT -5
As dumb as it may sound I'm beginning to think the credit for 2013 goes to the players and the way each of them raised their performance playing with the emotion of a city recovering from a tragedy. It's still early and there is time but I need to see more. I agree and I don't think this is dumb at all. Let's face it there was a synergy on that team that was infinitely pleasurable to follow. We want, as fans, to feel that again, but the chances of that are extremely remote. I know it's fashionable to dis Farrell, but the players say he was instrumental to that 2013 run. All predictive or reactinary FO decisions and mgr strategy are a small component to winning ballclubs. What is needed most, is production from the players in an atmosphere that is conducive to player enjoyment...an abstract concept that has no blueprint.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 9:53:40 GMT -5
I just don't believe this idea that teams which are trying to contend will deliberately play a player they believe to be significantly inferior in order to "showcase" him and increase his trade value. Agreed. This whole "showcase" thing has developed in like the last two years and I wish I know where it was from. I guess from talk radio meatheads who always need some nefarious secondary reason for why a player who isn't performing continues to play. Anyway, it's not a thing. Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2015 10:38:23 GMT -5
Agreed. This whole "showcase" thing has developed in like the last two years and I wish I know where it was from. I guess from talk radio meatheads who always need some nefarious secondary reason for why a player who isn't performing continues to play. Anyway, it's not a thing. Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season. And what's that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 11:33:54 GMT -5
Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season. And what's that? That they weren't worth keeping on the major league roster from the beginning of the season. I'm sure you've read some of the hundreds of posts I wrote about it last year and this year.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 22, 2015 11:36:21 GMT -5
There is very little a manager can do about players, especially "star" players who aren't hitting. And the fact the Sox are not hitting is the primary reason for the team's poor performance. The players know what's wrong. They admit they have been pressing and not doing the things they should, like moving runners over, etc.
There really are only two things that can be done by management in a situation like this. Option one is they can wait it out because the odds are good that most of the good hitters will hit eventually. It has always been the case in baseball that hitters are streaky. Batting averages are not the result of regularly hitting for the average. They are the result of streaks of very hot hitting and streaks of cold hitting. You can check the daily records of hitters and almost always you will see games of multiple hits and games of no hits. What you won't see are long strings of games with hits about the player's average every game. What has happened is that the whole team is in a cold streak. Most of the players will come out of it. Maybe not all of them.
Option two is that the personnel can be changed. I suspect that is about to happen in the outfield. Castillo probably will be with the team and starting very soon. Victorino is a really good player when he plays, but like last night when he should have played, he couldn't. He has to be replaced. Something clearly is wrong with Hanley. That has to be dealt with, but I have no idea what the right thing is to do. The outfield experiment with him really isn't working very well.
There is no replacement for Napoli in-house but management has to be thinking seriously about acquiring one. Sandoval has to be told to stop hitting righthanded, or benched against lefthanded pitchers, which is a real waste of his salary.
I think they have to wait on Ortiz. It is too early to tell if he is done, but the thought probably is beginning. I think Betts has a big BABIP problem that will resolve itself before long. Bogaerts is OK. He hasn't burst into stardom but he is a much better player than he was a year ago. I think his concentration on improving his fielding probably has taken away from his hitting, but by major league shortstop standards his hitting isn't bad. I think they either have to play JBJ or send him down. Nava cannot be a regular, even a platoon regular.
I suspect that option two is more likely to be the course management follows if things do not improve significantly very soon and, who knows, there might be a bigger shakeup than we can imagine.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 11:38:03 GMT -5
Agreed. This whole "showcase" thing has developed in like the last two years and I wish I know where it was from. I guess from talk radio meatheads who always need some nefarious secondary reason for why a player who isn't performing continues to play. Anyway, it's not a thing. Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season. The point is that the front office didn't keep those guys on the roster to showcase them for a trade. They did so because they legitimately thought they were as good or better than the next-best option (with an eye towards maintaining depth early in the season). Yes, sometimes when you play veterans coming off a bad season, you get Craig this year or 2014 Sizemore. But other times, you get 2013 Lackey or 2013 Drew, and guys who struggle early in the season are certainly capable of bouncing back (Ortiz in 2009, Nava last year, all the pitcjers this year).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2015 11:54:23 GMT -5
Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season. The point is that the front office didn't keep those guys on the roster to showcase them for a trade. They did so because they legitimately thought they were as good or better than the next-best option (with an eye towards maintaining depth early in the season). Yes, sometimes when you play veterans coming off a bad season, you get Craig this year or 2014 Sizemore. But other times, you get 2013 Lackey or 2013 Drew, and guys who struggle early in the season are certainly capable of bouncing back (Ortiz in 2009, Nava last year, all the pitcjers this year). This. You can certainly say the club was wrong for keeping a guy on the roster because they evaluated him incorrectly, but the point you're making has nothing to do with what was being discussed, this idea that they play guys to the potential detriment of the team merely to showcase them for a trade.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 12:26:29 GMT -5
Please don't tell me that no one saw the Allen Craig scenario play out exactly the way it has. Or the Mike Carp scenario last season. The point is that the front office didn't keep those guys on the roster to showcase them for a trade. They did so because they legitimately thought they were as good or better than the next-best option (with an eye towards maintaining depth early in the season). Yes, sometimes when you play veterans coming off a bad season, you get Craig this year or 2014 Sizemore. But other times, you get 2013 Lackey or 2013 Drew, and guys who struggle early in the season are certainly capable of bouncing back (Ortiz in 2009, Nava last year, all the pitcjers this year). There were reports however, that teams called Cherington to inquire about them and that he values(d) those players a lot more than other teams so no trades were made and a lot of time was wasted with below replacement level play. The entire point was that these players were pretty unneeded even if they were good and they were never going to get enough playing time. The problem is that you're left with either having good players you don't need or bad players that get DFA'd after helping lose games. And then there are other factors like cutting into Nava's playing time which also hurts him, and of course Castillo wasting away one of his prime years in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 13:00:03 GMT -5
This year has been difficult. I must say that for the first time since Valentine was here, I really have no trust in what the Manager/Farrell is doing. I mean, in the past, you could disagree with this move or that move, but still think he was ok overall. Now, he just strikes me as making the wrong tactical decisions, pretty much all the time, and I don't mean in the game. What looks like welcome patience at times really just looks like failure to act while the ship is sinking. Why isn't the line-up just changing even a little bit against lefties? Is it the end of the world if Napoli doesn't hit in the fifth spot? How long do you carry Mookie lead-off with that OBP? And Rusney in the minors? That and the mismanagement (whether it's through lack of trust or apparent dislike) of young players while veterans are coddled? Why is JBJ up there sitting on the bench? And why on earth is he playing RF, your weakest defensive alignment, when he's playing? Farrell really lost me this year.
And I'm sad to say, so has Cherington. From the terrible player evaluation at major league level to Trey Ball (I haven't given up on the kid, but man..), young players brought up to quickly only for Farrell to mess them up, it's really been hard to watch this. And I really don't trust that they'll make the right decisions going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 22, 2015 13:08:40 GMT -5
If the Sox give up on Bradley, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he has a trajectory similar to Moss, or Reddick. That is to say, a player who flourishes a little later in his career. I attribute at least a little of this to the relentless pressure in Boston. It's a very unforgiving environment, one that puts players and coaches under a microscope, that is to say, ready for dissection.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 22, 2015 13:19:49 GMT -5
The point is that the front office didn't keep those guys on the roster to showcase them for a trade. They did so because they legitimately thought they were as good or better than the next-best option (with an eye towards maintaining depth early in the season). Yes, sometimes when you play veterans coming off a bad season, you get Craig this year or 2014 Sizemore. But other times, you get 2013 Lackey or 2013 Drew, and guys who struggle early in the season are certainly capable of bouncing back (Ortiz in 2009, Nava last year, all the pitcjers this year). This. You can certainly say the club was wrong for keeping a guy on the roster because they evaluated him incorrectly, but the point you're making has nothing to do with what was being discussed, this idea that they play guys to the potential detriment of the team merely to showcase them for a trade. You guys are getting a little too cute in your counter argument here. I don't agree with Jimed, but the notion that a team isn't going to play someone, at least in part, to showcase them in a trade is terribly naive. The motivation to see what value a player has goes beyond just what WAR he is going to put up for your team, it is to see what value he may have to the value team as a possible trade piece. The Sox aren't the only guys evaluating their players, other teams are also.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2015 13:29:21 GMT -5
This. You can certainly say the club was wrong for keeping a guy on the roster because they evaluated him incorrectly, but the point you're making has nothing to do with what was being discussed, this idea that they play guys to the potential detriment of the team merely to showcase them for a trade. You guys are getting a little too cute in your counter argument here. I don't agree with Jimed, but the notion that a team isn't going to play someone, at least in part, to showcase them in a trade is terribly naive. The motivation may be to see what value a player has goes beyond just what WAR he is going to put up for your team, it is to see what value he may have to the value team as a possible trade piece. The Sox aren't the only guys evaluating their players, other teams are also. Not getting cute. We're saying that the Red Sox aren't going to play Nava over Bradley, if they think Bradley is better, just to showcase Nava for a trade. If they're playing Nava over Bradley, they do not think Bradley is better than Nava. Just like they did not think Nava was better than Gomes, etc. The point jimed made above that teams called on those other players and the Red Sox still didn't trade them squares with the above. If the goal was ONLY to get them traded, then they would've traded them. Now, "thinks is better" is a simplification of many factors. For example, they may think that the player they aren't playing is better in the short term, but that playing the other guy is better for the club in the long term. So you're folding in a number of things to that statement. The point is that they're not going to make a decision on the major league roster just to showcase a guy for a trade like that when they're trying to compete. Now, if they're out of contention, then sure, that might happen. That's not the case here though and not, I'd say, what happened in the cases of Craig this year or of Carp previously. Maybe you could say it with Craig last year when they were out of contention though.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 22, 2015 13:50:20 GMT -5
Not getting cute. We're saying that the Red Sox aren't going to play Nava over Bradley, if they think Bradley is better, just to showcase Nava for a trade. If they're playing Nava over Bradley, they do not think Bradley is better than Nava. Just like they did not think Nava was better than Gomes, etc. The point jimed made above that teams called on those other players and the Red Sox still didn't trade them squares with the above. If the goal was ONLY to get them traded, then they would've traded them. Now, "thinks is better" is a simplification of many factors. For example, they may think that the player they aren't playing is better in the short term, but that playing the other guy is better for the club in the long term. So you're folding in a number of things to that statement. The point is that they're not going to make a decision on the major league roster just to showcase a guy for a trade like that when they're trying to compete. Now, if they're out of contention, then sure, that might happen. That's not the case here though and not, I'd say, what happened in the cases of Craig this year or of Carp previously. Maybe you could say it with Craig last year when they were out of contention though. I mean this is just wrong. And the out of contention qualifier doesn't hold water, either. Let's take the Nava/Bradley situation. Both were not too good last year...but Bradley has options and Nava doesn't. Given they had an idea what their valuations of either player was before the season to the team this year, and assuming (in this case) they think Bradley is the better player, is it that hard to believe they would want to give Nava the at-bats in the beginning of the year to increase his value in a trade knowing Bradley has options? Or how about Craig? He was terrible last year. Castillo may have been a better player leaving camp. Is it that hard to believe that the Sox wanted to keep Craig on the 25 man to see if he could raise his value for a possible future trade while Castillo hones his craft? None of these decisions happen in a vacuum, so there may be other factors, but there are finite number of at-bats available, and if an organization is unwilling to risk present value v future value valuations to raise a guys stock..then they will be selling low on all their assets. I don't know to what extent this is a consideration, but I am certain it happens.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on May 22, 2015 13:50:57 GMT -5
This year has been difficult. I must say that for the first time since Valentine was here, I really have no trust in what the Manager/Farrell is doing. I mean, in the past, you could disagree with this move or that move, but still think he was ok overall. Now, he just strikes me as making the wrong tactical decisions, pretty much all the time, and I don't mean in the game. What looks like welcome patience at times really just looks like failure to act while the ship is sinking. Why isn't the line-up just changing even a little bit against lefties? Is it the end of the world if Napoli doesn't hit in the fifth spot? How long do you carry Mookie lead-off with that OBP? And Rusney in the minors? That and the mismanagement (whether it's through lack of trust or apparent dislike) of young players while veterans are coddled? Why is JBJ up there sitting on the bench? And why on earth is he playing RF, your weakest defensive alignment, when he's playing? Farrell really lost me this year. And I'm sad to say, so has Cherington. From the terrible player evaluation at major league level to Trey Ball (I haven't given up on the kid, but man..), young players brought up to quickly only for Farrell to mess them up, it's really been hard to watch this. And I really don't trust that they'll make the right decisions going forward. You realize than managing an actual baseball team, with actual people, is different than managing a fantasy baseball team, right? When you pull an underperforming player from your fantasy lineup, it doesn't matter. When you move around the lineup pieces on an actual team like a game of chess, it does matter to those players. And you're going to blame the manager for Rusney still being in the minors? Really? There's an old baseball maxim that the first third of the season is to figure out where you are and the second third of the season is to fix the problems. There are many people on this forum who interpret "first third of the season" as five games or less. I see a team that's actively working to solve the issues. Everyday Eddie Mujica is gone and Matt Barnes has been added to the bullpen. The team patiently allowed Uehara to get into rhythm and he looks like Koji again. The starting rotation has been given some patience, Masterson excluded, and they have responded. The team is patiently allowing its two young hitting stars to develop at their own pace, understanding that development is a process not an on-off switch. These moves are paying off. It's hard to solve every problem at the same time, especially with an impatient fanbase. The team is muddling through a terrible catching situation and is slowly trying to figure out RF. The team has cut bait (at the major league level) with Allen Craig. I've been around this site for a long time and I'm guessing by your (sub-10) number of posts that you are new. But when you question the front office for the development speed of a 20-year old Class A pitcher from a northern climate that was drafted as a high-ceiling project less than two years ago, you'll forgive me if I am not swayed by your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 22, 2015 13:56:13 GMT -5
Not getting cute. We're saying that the Red Sox aren't going to play Nava over Bradley, if they think Bradley is better, just to showcase Nava for a trade. If they're playing Nava over Bradley, they do not think Bradley is better than Nava. Just like they did not think Nava was better than Gomes, etc. The point jimed made above that teams called on those other players and the Red Sox still didn't trade them squares with the above. If the goal was ONLY to get them traded, then they would've traded them. Now, "thinks is better" is a simplification of many factors. For example, they may think that the player they aren't playing is better in the short term, but that playing the other guy is better for the club in the long term. So you're folding in a number of things to that statement. The point is that they're not going to make a decision on the major league roster just to showcase a guy for a trade like that when they're trying to compete. Now, if they're out of contention, then sure, that might happen. That's not the case here though and not, I'd say, what happened in the cases of Craig this year or of Carp previously. Maybe you could say it with Craig last year when they were out of contention though. I mean this is just wrong. And the out of contention qualifier doesn't hold water, either. Let's take the Nava/Bradley situation. Both were not too good last year...but Bradley has options and Nava doesn't. Given they had an idea what their valuations of either player was before the season to the team this year, and assuming (in this case) they think Bradley is the better player, is it that hard to believe they would want to give Nava the at-bats in the beginning of the year to increase his value in a trade knowing Bradley has options? Or how about Craig? He was terrible last year. Castillo may have been a better player leaving camp. Is it that hard to believe that the Sox wanted to keep Craig on the 25 man to see if he could raise his value for a possible future trade while Castillo hones his craft? None of these decisions happen in a vacuum, so there may be other factors, but there are finite number of at-bats available, and if an organization is unwilling to risk present value v future value valuations to raise a guys stock..then they will be selling low on all their assets. I don't know to what extent this is a consideration, but I am certain it happens. I don't think you're disagreeing as much as you think you are. "Raising a player's stock" isn't the same as "we're just playing this guy so other teams will see him play so that we can trade him." The latter one is what I'm saying isn't a thing. The former could be better phrased as "playing a guy so that he can increase his stock to either help the team directly or through trade," and has nothing to do with what the point is here. As for the rest of it, the assumption you're making regarding Bradley/Nava is exactly what we're NOT assuming. Right now, with the team struggling offensively, no, I don't think they're playing Nava over Bradley because they want to trade him. I think they're playing Nava over Bradley because they think he can help the lineup more right now. And I think that's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 22, 2015 14:04:44 GMT -5
Chris. I think your agreeing with me more than you think you are. Thanks for the dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 14:11:55 GMT -5
What was the role for Craig on this team if he wasn't terrible? To be able to fill in vs. LHP when both Victorino and Castillo were hurt at the same time? 3rd string 1B vs LHP?
I mean it's pretty darn clear that there was no need for him, whether he's good or bad. So what were they doing when playing him in the majors over Nava and over Castillo in the minors? I keep hearing we need a 1B for next year, but is that the goal of the 2015 season? If he was actually hitting somewhat in the majors, does Castillo never get called up? Was that the plan?
I never understood trading for him and I don't understand playing him in the majors when he can't catch up to inside fastballs.
They were just playing him to see if they could get him hitting again (which also comes at the expense of getting Nava hitting again BTW), but they really weren't going to gain much over the other options competing with him even if he did. Just a complete waste of time at the major league level. There didn't seem to be much of a goal there - he was either going to hit or he wasn't and no matter what the result, the team wasn't going to be better with him playing over Castillo unless you're talking about 90%/10% outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by chud on May 22, 2015 14:20:17 GMT -5
I just don't believe this idea that teams which are trying to contend will deliberately play a player they believe to be significantly inferior in order to "showcase" him and increase his trade value. You could be totally right, just an observation on my part to try and rationalize something that doesn't make sense otherwise...I like Nava for what he is, a cheap/versatile player with a little bit of talent...but assuming a few things: 1) the Sox know what Nava is by now and what he isn't and what he isn't is a valuable asset when he starts to cost more and when he doesn't have options like now...2) JBJ is a player they like on some level and don't want to give up on until they fully vet what he is, which i don't think they know yet at the mlb level...3) castillo has to be on the mlb roster...and with their view of trying to balance short and long term views of the mlb roster i think it makes sense to try over a short period of time to pull Nava's "norm" out of him to make him attractive to someone in order to get something a little more long term from another team and then keep both castillo/jbj...and think they also tried that w/ Craig if we can believe what was reported, and when they couldn't get anything from him, they demoted him...makes some sense to me and think that will be balanced with the 2015 team (i.e. if Nava doesn't get in going shortly to bring something in return back, he'll be put on waivers)...again, what the hell do i know, just my best guess
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 14:37:24 GMT -5
You realize than managing an actual baseball team, with actual people, is different than managing a fantasy baseball team, right? When you pull an underperforming player from your fantasy lineup, it doesn't matter. When you move around the lineup pieces on an actual team like a game of chess, it does matter to those players. And you're going to blame the manager for Rusney still being in the minors? Really? There's an old baseball maxim that the first third of the season is to figure out where you are and the second third of the season is to fix the problems. There are many people on this forum who interpret "first third of the season" as five games or less.I see a team that's actively working to solve the issues. Everyday Eddie Mujica is gone and Matt Barnes has been added to the bullpen. The team patiently allowed Uehara to get into rhythm and he looks like Koji again. The starting rotation has been given some patience, Masterson excluded, and they have responded. The team is patiently allowing its two young hitting stars to develop at their own pace, understanding that development is a process not an on-off switch. These moves are paying off. It's hard to solve every problem at the same time, especially with an impatient fanbase. The team is muddling through a terrible catching situation and is slowly trying to figure out RF. The team has cut bait (at the major league level) with Allen Craig. I've been around this site for a long time and I'm guessing by your (sub-10) number of posts that you are new. But when you question the front office for the development speed of a 20-year old Class A pitcher from a northern climate that was drafted as a high-ceiling project less than two years ago, you'll forgive me if I am not swayed by your opinions. I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you're saying; and I've traditionally subscribed to a season as a three-third model as well. I read Moneyball too. I've come to question that axiom though, as I believe it often leads to making decisions that tolerate mediocrity in the name of patience, and/or "we've got to see what we have". That and the fact that with more teams being in it in July because of the second wild card, it's a lot more difficult to wait around to plug holes. What was, for a long time, understandable patience in waiting for guys to turn it around, to me has become a weakness - an excuse for not making difficult decisions - and frankly, for making the wrong calls. By the time they make moves, it's certainly possible that they could be in a position where they must decide whether they're buyers or sellers at the deadline - with greater chances that they'll be sellers. I'm certainly not advocating for knee-jerk management. But I do believe that initial "see what we have" period is no longer 3 months, I think it's more like the first two months of the season, if that. I also realize players are not machines and this isn't fantasy baseball. But for the life of me, I don't understand how that can justify continuing to hit Sandoval up in the upper part of the line-up as a righty against lefties when he has had abysmal results time and time again. Or going with your weakest defensive alignment for a game or two when JBJ is in the line-up. Or the terrible management of JBJ. To me, that's not giving yourself the best chance to win night in and night out in the name of patience and the game not being fantasy baseball. Maybe it works out in the long run, but we're talking about a team that has been out of the playoffs by end July three out of the last four years, so I'm going to submit that something in the approach must be off. I saw the manager of the Rangers bring out his closer in the seventh the other night to snuff out a situation, so some other teams certainly seem to have a sense of urgency. I can't begin to imagine Farrell doing that in May to win a game. Now, this is not a good analogy, but it's like the Red Sox always taking the first pitch in the at-bat, being patient, trying to get the starting pitcher out so they can get to the bullpen. For a long time, that was the axiom - and it made sense. Today,that approach just isn't as effective, and they have to adjust. The best models evolve with context; they don't stay stuck in their ways because that's the way it's always been. The moves you point to, that they've made are fair ones. And the firing of the pitching coach was certainly an aggressive move towards fixing things - not that I'm advocating firing people. I'm blaming Cherington first and Farrell second for Rusney not being up. I shouldn't have mentioned Trey Ball, couldn't help it, lol. As for being new, that shouldn't really be all that relevant, should it? I've actually been lurking for a long time - never really got around registering, and once I registered, not really getting around to posting. Jeez, I thought you'd actually encourage posting more... On the flip side, I must say that I pretty much gave up on the team in early summer 2004, only for them to go crazy later that summer, and we all know how that one ended - so what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 22, 2015 15:02:13 GMT -5
There were reports however, that teams called Cherington to inquire about them and that he values(d) those players a lot more than other teams so no trades were made and a lot of time was wasted with below replacement level play. [...] And then there are other factors like cutting into Nava's playing time which also hurts him, and of course Castillo wasting away one of his prime years in AAA. Teams weren't inquiring on Craig or Victorino to offer to take on their entire contract plus give up a prospect or two. Teams were inquiring if the Red Sox would eat some of their contract to give them away, and the Red Sox weren't willing to do that. Speaking of which, I see Craig, rather than Victorino, is now your target. I guess the fact that Shane has been something like the third-best player on the team by prorated fWAR means it's harder to call for him to be DFAed because he "has nothing left." Finally, it's not like Nava and Castillo have been wasting away on the bench/in AAA. Nava has played in 25 of 41 games (which sounds about right) and Rusney has played all of 18 games in Pawtucket.
|
|
|