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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,754
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jun 2, 2015 13:42:06 GMT -5
For all the things to be critical of John Farrell about, I don't think chemistry is one of them. Most of our players seem to be either leaders or complete team players. It's frustrating to lose, but I really think these are a tight knit group of guys. Chemistry is not to blame in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 2, 2015 13:43:18 GMT -5
Though they're "only 4 behind", my philosophy is to get to .500 and then worry about how many games behind you are. This team has really not shown an ability to win consecutive series and have yet to sweep a team this season. At 7 games under .500, this is just getting to the point of sad. Even if they squeak in by some miracle they aren't going to beat anyone. The Sox have around a -50 run differential. This isn't a team that's four games under .500 because they lost a couple extra-inning games and have a 2-9 record in one-run games. They've been absolutely, consistently, and roundly humiliated by nearly every team they've played. They show absolutely zero indication of being a playoff-caliber team, and even if they back in, they're most likely not going anywhere. If they go on a 12-2 run, I'll change my tune. Talk about a wing and a prayer. Why can't team actually make a trade that helps their team incrementally and also play better (or go on a run as you say) ? Are those mutually exclusive events? The 4 games (now 4.5) is just a marker at this point in the season showing that they are close to the division lead. It is eminently attainable when you still have over 100 games lef in a season.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 13:48:55 GMT -5
I'm saying a manager's persona can have an effect has on the players' ability to perform to the best of their capability. Compound that with average (at best) in game management, and thus we see the results. So, again, you are using the team's results to justify that there is bad chemistry between management and the team. Do you have a specific example of where Farrell's personality or interaction with the players has hampered the team? I am not aware of any; if anything, the way he has dealt with the players (Ortiz benching, no blowback from Nieves firing) says the opposite. So, I am interested in what I am missing.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 13:51:10 GMT -5
Josh Macri ?@josh_Macri 52m52 minutes ago #RedSox fans, is there any fire under the smoke about Farrell's future? @alexspeier tells @buster_ESPN the answer bit.ly/1Iacs8y (I'll give you an hint - Speier's answer is "none")
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 13:52:16 GMT -5
For all the things to be critical of John Farrell about, I don't think chemistry is one of them. Most of our players seem to be either leaders or complete team players. It's frustrating to lose, but I really think these are a tight knit group of guys. Chemistry is not to blame in my opinion. Do I dare repeat myself? I agree the chemistry is fine between the players. It's the chemistry between the players and the manager that concerns me.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 13:53:40 GMT -5
The Sox have around a -50 run differential. This isn't a team that's four games under .500 because they lost a couple extra-inning games and have a 2-9 record in one-run games. They've been absolutely, consistently, and roundly humiliated by nearly every team they've played. They show absolutely zero indication of being a playoff-caliber team, and even if they back in, they're most likely not going anywhere. If they go on a 12-2 run, I'll change my tune. Talk about a wing and a prayer. Why can't team actually make a trade that helps their team incrementally and also play better (or go on a run as you say) ? Are those mutually exclusive events? The 4 games (now 4.5) is just a marker at this point in the season showing that they are close to the division lead. It is eminently attainable when you still have over 100 games lef in a season. Because at this point of the season, no teams are trading anyone other than the Peguaro types.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 2, 2015 13:54:22 GMT -5
Really good right now, maybe. In two years? Probably not. $44M for two years of 2014 CC Sabathia is not inviting to me at all, especially when it blocks Owens, Johnson, and probably Kopech at that point. Yuck, no thanks. Dude...What you know about the future is purely conjecture. And the chances of either 3 of the guys you just mentioned being in his class in 3 yeras is purely conjecture. Not trying to single you out here......an I apologize if it comes across this way....but there are a lot of people that write with such certainty about future events that it seems your coming back in time to enlighten us. Cole Hamels makes us a better team today. I can say that with a high degree of certainty. That is where my mindset is....let's make the moves to help us win today. I have been on the record...that doesn't make me a leper.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 13:55:25 GMT -5
For all the things to be critical of John Farrell about, I don't think chemistry is one of them. Most of our players seem to be either leaders or complete team players. It's frustrating to lose, but I really think these are a tight knit group of guys. Chemistry is not to blame in my opinion. Do I dare repeat myself? I agree the chemistry is fine between the players. It's the chemistry between the players and the manager that concerns me. Maybe you're confusing good chemistry with winning more often. I haven't heard one player complain about anything. Until you hear that, you're just making it up.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 2, 2015 13:55:28 GMT -5
For all the things to be critical of John Farrell about, I don't think chemistry is one of them. Most of our players seem to be either leaders or complete team players. It's frustrating to lose, but I really think these are a tight knit group of guys. Chemistry is not to blame in my opinion. Do I dare repeat myself? I agree the chemistry is fine between the players. It's the chemistry between the players and the manager that concerns me. But you have been asked and still haven't provided any examples. You've just stated that you think it's an issue. Why specifically?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 2, 2015 14:00:23 GMT -5
Talk about a wing and a prayer. Why can't team actually make a trade that helps their team incrementally and also play better (or go on a run as you say) ? Are those mutually exclusive events? The 4 games (now 4.5) is just a marker at this point in the season showing that they are close to the division lead. It is eminently attainable when you still have over 100 games lef in a season. Because at this point of the season, no teams are trading anyone other than the Peguaro types. You don't know that. but continue on. Yes, June trades are rare, but they have happened, and more importantly there is no rule against it happening.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 14:05:01 GMT -5
I'm saying a manager's persona can have an effect has on the players' ability to perform to the best of their capability. Compound that with average (at best) in game management, and thus we see the results. So, again, you are using the team's results to justify that there is bad chemistry between management and the team. Do you have a specific example of where Farrell's personality or interaction with the players has hampered the team? I am not aware of any; if anything, the way he has dealt with the players (Ortiz benching, no blowback from Nieves firing) says the opposite. So, I am interested in what I am missing. Why is it that whatever tinkering, or even permanent changes are made on the field, or even with the coaching staff, the bottom line (ability to win games) always stays the same?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 14:09:43 GMT -5
So, again, you are using the team's results to justify that there is bad chemistry between management and the team. Do you have a specific example of where Farrell's personality or interaction with the players has hampered the team? I am not aware of any; if anything, the way he has dealt with the players (Ortiz benching, no blowback from Nieves firing) says the opposite. So, I am interested in what I am missing. Why is it that whatever tinkering, or even permanent changes are made on the field, or even with the coaching staff, the bottom line (ability to win games) always stays the same? Because very few players are playing well, not because the players don't like the manager.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jun 2, 2015 14:14:11 GMT -5
A few thoughts:
- I'm patient. This team (despite their best efforts) has yet to convince me that they are truly a bad baseball team. We have so many guys underperforming career norms. I think we're more likely to bounce back by letting our guys make their adjustments and figure things out than we are selling low and buying high in a series of panic trades.
- The only guy in the current rotation who I'm worried about is Porcello. He's been a bad pitcher this year. But Buchholz/Miley/Kelly are rounding into shape as serviceable starters, and one of Wright/Rodriguez can plug the last hole in the rotation. I believe ERod is ready to get outs at this level and I really hope he hits the ground running, but that's the homer in me talking.
- I'm honestly very surprised that Hanley has been this bad defensively. He's too athletic for this. But just as we expect Mookie to improve in center with experience, so should Hanley - the benchmarks are obviously different but the point is that inexperienced players should improve when given experience. With his ability to hit, even an improvement from 'butcher' to 'below average' would have us coming out on top in the deal. I definitely don't think the answer is to move him to another new position, and I DEFINITELY don't think the answer is to force another good hitter out of the lineup (or onto another team) in doing so.
- Regarding Farrell... I generally think that coaches of professional sports receive too much credit and blame for the way things are going. There are exceptions to that rule (Gregg Popovich in basketball on the good side; Bobby Valentine in '12 on the bad side) but those tend to be extreme cases. I believe Farrell falls comfortably into that middle ground somewhere. I don't love him, and I don't hate him.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 14:14:55 GMT -5
Do I dare repeat myself? I agree the chemistry is fine between the players. It's the chemistry between the players and the manager that concerns me. But you have been asked and still haven't provided any examples. You've just stated that you think it's an issue. Why specifically? What choice do the players have? They're professionals, they're not going to openly criticize their manager. It's subtle, but it can be very profound. And like I've said previously, it's compounded by his not so great in game management.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,754
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jun 2, 2015 14:17:16 GMT -5
Matt Kemp was a lot like Hanley last year in LF. Even more odd since he spent his career in CF and has speed.
He has been considerably better in RF though.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 14:22:37 GMT -5
What choice do the players have? They're professionals, they're not going to openly criticize their manager. It's subtle, but it can be very profound. And like I've said previously, it's compounded by his not so great in game management. Gerry - Perhaps you are not familiar with the Boston Red Sox, the Boston media market or former manager Robert John Valentine, or perhaps you have blissfully had those memories wiped from your brain stem. In any event, you made a statement, have been called on it several times and have been unable to give a concrete example. Stop digging. Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 14:31:46 GMT -5
What choice do the players have? They're professionals, they're not going to openly criticize their manager. It's subtle, but it can be very profound. And like I've said previously, it's compounded by his not so great in game management. Gerry - Perhaps you are not familiar with the Boston Red Sox, the Boston media market or former manager Robert John Valentine, or perhaps you have blissfully had those memories wiped from your brain stem. In any event, you made a statement, have been called on it several times and have been unable to give a concrete example. Stop digging. Sincerely, Time will tell. Life is more than what meets the eye. No more posts by me. Btw, I grew up within walking distance of Fenway Park and have been a die-hard Red sox fan for about 60 years, and have a very sound memory.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 2, 2015 14:38:52 GMT -5
Time will tell. Life is more than what meets the eye. No more posts by me. ...I'll show myself out.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 14:51:26 GMT -5
Time will tell. Life is more than what meets the eye. No more posts by me. Btw, I grew up within walking distance of Fenway Park and have been a die-hard Red sox fan for about 60 years, and have a very sound memory. Not looking for you to leave, and I'm not questioning your memory. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when you state something as fact, you've got to be able to back it up. There's a lot of institutional memory in this forum. We remember the good years and the not-so-good years. You've got about 20 years on me. My following goes back to the early 1970s. Chalk this up as a learning experience, and let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 2, 2015 15:01:16 GMT -5
Ryan Hannable @ryanhannable 51s51 seconds ago David Ortiz was asked if he thinks ownership should take drastic action: "No, I don't think so."
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 15:10:34 GMT -5
One of the major reasons I love baseball is that is such an optimistic sport - and so many of its fans and its players are as well. Of course Ortiz would say that no major changes should be made. That's his spirit. That's what he should say. And, being an optimist myself, I hope he is right.
But when I force myself to be a realist I don't see how the major changes can be avoided at some point.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 2, 2015 15:17:28 GMT -5
Time will tell. Life is more than what meets the eye. No more posts by me. Btw, I grew up within walking distance of Fenway Park and have been a die-hard Red sox fan for about 60 years, and have a very sound memory. Not looking for you to leave, and I'm not questioning your memory. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when you state something as fact, you've got to be able to back it up. There's a lot of institutional memory in this forum. We remember the good years and the not-so-good years. You've got about 20 years on me. My following goes back to the early 1970s. Chalk this up as a learning experience, and let's move on. If It wasn't obvious it is my opinion, than my fault. I have no problem moving on, I tried to but the return replys kept coming. I gave examples, no one seemed to get it. How do you explain chemistry? It's like trying to explain love? I practically live and die by this team... and am very heartbroken. I''m just trying to answer the question as posted by the original post. Strictly my opinion. Please, let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 2, 2015 15:24:59 GMT -5
One of the major reasons I love baseball is that is such an optimistic sport - and so many of its fans and its players are as well. Of course Ortiz would say that no major changes should be made. That's his spirit. That's what he should say. And, being an optimist myself, I hope he is right. But when I force myself to be a realist I don't see how the major changes can be avoided at some point. Or maybe he didn't want to be included in the drastic action.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 2, 2015 15:51:13 GMT -5
I hate to be cynical when it comes to baseball. It's my break from reality.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 2, 2015 16:01:01 GMT -5
Because at this point of the season, no teams are trading anyone other than the Peguaro types. You don't know that. but continue on. Yes, June trades are rare, but they have happened, and more importantly there is no rule against it happening. The Kim-Hillenbrand trade happened on May 29. But yeah, those kind of deals are the rarity - this time of year, it is typically the DFA-type trades that happen.
|
|
|