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.
|
Post by mandelbro on May 16, 2017 11:12:26 GMT -5
Chris Sale's value isn't 83 wins to 87, though. It's like 83 to 89 or 90, the type of player who turns an otherwise 87-win team into a legitimate World Series contender. Coming off a 93-win season, they lost Ortiz but there wasn't a whole lot of reason to think they were a .500 team when they added Sale. If they end up there? Yeah, that stinks, and they've mortgaged their future to end up stuck in 87-win purgatory. I suppose I was more bearish than others on the team. You're losing Ortiz. You lost 1.5 wins at the hot corner in Shaw, and even if you kept him you were worried about losing that kind of production out of him. You had more more likely than not regression from Porcello (at least in terms of outcomes), Bradley, and Pedroia (who has already exceeded my expectations in terms of longevity). You're pretty sure the clock is going to strike midnight on Leon. Lost Koji. Wasn't expecting Kimbrel to be this good at all. For my money, they were a 83 team without Sale, albeit one with growth potential in the form of adding Benintendi, Xander turning into Power Xander, Swihart and Moncada lengthening the lineup, Eddie Rodriguez taking the next step. They've seemingly hit a bunch of worst-case scenarios and now they look like an 83 win team with Sale, but I would expect them to find their way to 87 this year.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on May 16, 2017 17:08:26 GMT -5
His career winning percentage is.473 It shouldnt surprise any of you that this organizations structure is gettin weaker and weaker.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 17, 2017 3:49:05 GMT -5
Some here are assuming Dombrowski wasn't trying to find better guys than Kendrick. I'm not sure what has or hasn't been reported, but I know I've heard either reported or from sources that the Red Sox were trying to find AAA SP depth and were having a hard time. We've talked about this on the podcast - when the MLB roster has 6 guys for 5 spots, it's very difficult to convince a good MLFA to sign with your club. The only reason they even got Kendrick is that he wanted to work with Bannister. So ok, do you want them to trade for AAA starting pitching depth? What player who is in between the gap of the 6 guys they had in MLB the likes of Owens/Johnson/Elias would you like them to trade for without giving up way more value to do so? They went out and found Velazquez, who people here are forgetting about. Maybe he'll get the next shot. Maybe he'll be a stud; maybe he'll be forgettable; maybe he'll be an ok fifth starter and bridge the gap to Price that's shortening. Or maybe that guy is Johnson. Who knows? But in spring training, the Red Sox were geniuses for finding Kendrick. Now he makes two bad starts and it's another indication that Dombrowski should be fired?And as others have said, the Buchholz money is meaningless in this discussion following the acquisition of Sale - they almost literally gave him away in order to get that money off the books entirely. That's not money that they then spent elsewhere or something. By the way folks... "Dumbrowski" has gotta stop. That's Twitter egg, sports talk radio caller nonsense. There's plenty there to criticize, but that nickname is just stupid. It really is below the level of discussion we try to have here. But the Red Sox weren't geniuses when they found Kendrick. In fact there was way too much hype. I specifically remember jmei reminding everyone that you can't rely on spring training to the hype. He said something to the effect every year we have guys come through spring training who do very well then they bust. So this year is supposed to be different? He said something to that effect. JMEI is pretty strong at calling things. I remember the year before he was calmly telling posters to cool it on Sam Travis and his strong spring training.
As for Velazquez-- I'm skeptical. Especially after I saw Kendrick with my own eyes. Basically many on this site have criticized our farm system and how DD has destroyed it. Now all of a sudden Velazquez is going to be a stud? I'm expecting "Kendrick" but hopeful he isn't. Can you blame me for that?
And regarding the sox going after another starter -- I know I'm in the vast vast vast minority. But can someone tell me why I'm wrong that for example we didn't go after someone like Jesse Chavez? Instead we could have not signed Abad and not gone after Thornburgh etc. Farrell doesn't seem to use Ross much either. Several posters on here were sort of very surprised he was sent down and remained there for quite a while. So what is his value, especially knowing Farrell doesn't seem to use him unless as last resort? He'd rather wear down Tazawa from last year.
I can be convinced otherwise-- but is there a reason? I've heard about "7th starter." But doesn't a "7th starter" have a different meaning for many teams? For a strong hitting team that 7th starter could be bad and you can get away with it. But the Red Sox weren't projected to be a strong hitting team this year, were they? And some other good teams that are vying for a title, they may project that they have a healthy enough staff / and have enough experience that the 7th starter isn't that important. But that's not the Sox, is it?
Didn't we sort of know that Pomeranz health was a huge question? Didn't we have a big concern for a combination of Wright's health and his effectiveness? Don't we sort of know that Erod can't be thrown out there every 5th day and not be expected to wear down by season's end without giving him some rest? Do we really think he is going to pitch 170-180 innings and then be strong for the playoffs when he hasn't pitched a full season yet?
So when I read that last year Pomeranz didn't throw his cutter much early on and this year he hasn't thrown it much. Apparently he is trying to loosen up before he throws it-- but isn't the reason we got Pomeranz for trading such a high prospect that his cutter gave him that extra third pitch to be a quality starter, or am I wrong? Shouldn't the Red Sox have known this or be prepared for something like this? Or am I wrong?
What I'm getting at is-- why should Pomeranz have been a lock to start the season with so many questions and we were all pretty certain he was not a 30 start 170 - 180 inning pitcher, right? To have him start the season and not throw the cutter, doesn't that make him more like what he was years ago- a bullpen type of pitcher? So you start the two injured pitchers(Wright and Pomeranz) in the bullpen to start while you have a Chavez type. Why wouldn't you have done something like this when you know your team isn't that great of a hitting team? So you need something better than the normal 7th starter, right? Because you aren;'t going to score that many runs, Thus, the Red Sox need someone better than your average 7th starter, right? Where am I going wrong?
When your 4/5 and 6 starters have questions on the length of games they can go in which two have had injury issues just last year, and your team is not built very much for hitting and primarily for pitching, shouldn't it been better thought out to get a starter that has better quality than your average number 7 starter? What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 17, 2017 5:56:53 GMT -5
Chavez and every other pitcher like him would not sign here to be the #7 starter. Don't know how many times it has to be said. Players want to pitch in the majors. They also wouldn't have been able to stash him in the minors without his approval if he has an option left which I doubt and they would have had to DFA him to put him there, so they would have had to leave ERod off the major league roster and the team would be worse. This is old, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 17, 2017 7:02:04 GMT -5
Chavez and every other pitcher like him would not sign here to be the #7 starter. Don't know how many times it has to be said. Players want to pitch in the majors. They also wouldn't have been able to stash him in the minors without his approval if he has an option left which I doubt and they would have had to DFA him to put him there, so they would have had to leave ERod off the major league roster and the team would be worse. This is old, I'm done. I respect you -- thanks for your input. I take it you didn't read more than a sentence from above.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 17, 2017 7:43:37 GMT -5
Some here are assuming Dombrowski wasn't trying to find better guys than Kendrick. I'm not sure what has or hasn't been reported, but I know I've heard either reported or from sources that the Red Sox were trying to find AAA SP depth and were having a hard time. We've talked about this on the podcast - when the MLB roster has 6 guys for 5 spots, it's very difficult to convince a good MLFA to sign with your club. The only reason they even got Kendrick is that he wanted to work with Bannister. So ok, do you want them to trade for AAA starting pitching depth? What player who is in between the gap of the 6 guys they had in MLB the likes of Owens/Johnson/Elias would you like them to trade for without giving up way more value to do so? They went out and found Velazquez, who people here are forgetting about. Maybe he'll get the next shot. Maybe he'll be a stud; maybe he'll be forgettable; maybe he'll be an ok fifth starter and bridge the gap to Price that's shortening. Or maybe that guy is Johnson. Who knows? But in spring training, the Red Sox were geniuses for finding Kendrick. Now he makes two bad starts and it's another indication that Dombrowski should be fired?And as others have said, the Buchholz money is meaningless in this discussion following the acquisition of Sale - they almost literally gave him away in order to get that money off the books entirely. That's not money that they then spent elsewhere or something. By the way folks... "Dumbrowski" has gotta stop. That's Twitter egg, sports talk radio caller nonsense. There's plenty there to criticize, but that nickname is just stupid. It really is below the level of discussion we try to have here. But the Red Sox weren't geniuses when they found Kendrick. In fact there was way too much hype. I specifically remember jmei reminding everyone that you can't rely on spring training to the hype. He said something to the effect every year we have guys come through spring training who do very well then they bust. So this year is supposed to be different? He said something to that effect. JMEI is pretty strong at calling things. I remember the year before he was calmly telling posters to cool it on Sam Travis and his strong spring training.
As for Velazquez-- I'm skeptical. Especially after I saw Kendrick with my own eyes. Basically many on this site have criticized our farm system and how DD has destroyed it. Now all of a sudden Velazquez is going to be a stud? I'm expecting "Kendrick" but hopeful he isn't. Can you blame me for that?
And regarding the sox going after another starter -- I know I'm in the vast vast vast minority. But can someone tell me why I'm wrong that for example we didn't go after someone like Jesse Chavez? Instead we could have not signed Abad and not gone after Thornburgh etc. Farrell doesn't seem to use Ross much either. Several posters on here were sort of very surprised he was sent down and remained there for quite a while. So what is his value, especially knowing Farrell doesn't seem to use him unless as last resort? He'd rather wear down Tazawa from last year.
I can be convinced otherwise-- but is there a reason? I've heard about "7th starter." But doesn't a "7th starter" have a different meaning for many teams? For a strong hitting team that 7th starter could be bad and you can get away with it. But the Red Sox weren't projected to be a strong hitting team this year, were they? And some other good teams that are vying for a title, they may project that they have a healthy enough staff / and have enough experience that the 7th starter isn't that important. But that's not the Sox, is it?
Didn't we sort of know that Pomeranz health was a huge question? Didn't we have a big concern for a combination of Wright's health and his effectiveness? Don't we sort of know that Erod can't be thrown out there every 5th day and not be expected to wear down by season's end without giving him some rest? Do we really think he is going to pitch 170-180 innings and then be strong for the playoffs when he hasn't pitched a full season yet?
So when I read that last year Pomeranz didn't throw his cutter much early on and this year he hasn't thrown it much. Apparently he is trying to loosen up before he throws it-- but isn't the reason we got Pomeranz for trading such a high prospect that his cutter gave him that extra third pitch to be a quality starter, or am I wrong? Shouldn't the Red Sox have known this or be prepared for something like this? Or am I wrong?
What I'm getting at is-- why should Pomeranz have been a lock to start the season with so many questions and we were all pretty certain he was not a 30 start 170 - 180 inning pitcher, right? To have him start the season and not throw the cutter, doesn't that make him more like what he was years ago- a bullpen type of pitcher? So you start the two injured pitchers(Wright and Pomeranz) in the bullpen to start while you have a Chavez type. Why wouldn't you have done something like this when you know your team isn't that great of a hitting team? So you need something better than the normal 7th starter, right? Because you aren;'t going to score that many runs, Thus, the Red Sox need someone better than your average 7th starter, right? Where am I going wrong?
When your 4/5 and 6 starters have questions on the length of games they can go in which two have had injury issues just last year, and your team is not built very much for hitting and primarily for pitching, shouldn't it been better thought out to get a starter that has better quality than your average number 7 starter? What am I missing?
I think you're not putting yourself in the prospective pitcher's shoes. If you're an available pitcher, would you prefer to to have a legit shot at a spot as a #5 starter where you have a good amount of control over your destiny or would you rather be Plan B or C and hope the pitcher(s) in front of you gets injured, which is out of your control? If it's me I'd rather control my destiny of being in the majors than ride the Pawtucket/Boston shuttle hoping for an injury.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 17, 2017 15:30:28 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm not saying the Red Sox were actually geniuses for signing Kendrick. I'm saying that the truth is somewhere between what everyone was saying he was after the spring and what he's thought of now, especially since it turned out he could be optioned. Also, I'm fairly certain that nobody is saying Velazquez is going to be a "stud." The question is whether he's going to be an adequate spot starter. Based on the early returns in Pawtucket, that's very possible and would be extremely valuable. Jesse Chavez is actually a great example proves the point that I and others are trying to make. He signed for a $5.75M deal with up to another $2.5M in incentives to compete for a starting job that the team hoped he'd win, with the Angels essentially penciling him into that slot (see www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/angels-to-sign-jesse-chavez.html ). We can all agree, I hope, that the Red Sox could not offer him the chance to compete for a starting job. Non-tendering Abad and not trading for Thornburg would have saved $3.55M against the CBT ($2.05M for Thornburg+$2M for Abad, less $544K for Shaw). Even if you add Ross's $1.83M to make up most of the difference of the Chavez deal pre-incentives and assume that he'd even sign despite knowing he's headed to Pawtucket if everyone's healthy, you've now almost gutted the bullpen (Ross and Thornburg were two of your most important guys entering the year, and you're replacing them with replacement-level guys) in order to sign a 7th starter. Is that worth it? Again, the issue is whether there were pitchers better than Johnson/Owens/Kendrick who would've been willing to sign with the Red Sox knowing that they were not going to make the rotation if everyone stayed healthy. I'm not going to pretend to have an encyclopedic enough knowledge of the players in the game to say how large or small that universe is, but my guess is that it's near-zero. I should also note that this relies on my assumption that trading for that player (and therefore taking the will of the player to sign somewhere with a better chance to make the majors out of the equation) would've required giving up way too much value, and that I'm fairly confident in this assumption unless someone can point out otherwise. soxjim, I just want to note that while you're focusing on just Pomeranz, the question isn't just about Pomeranz. The question is that 4/5/6 were Pomeranz, Rodriguez, and Wright in some order. You need to string together two starters' worth of starts with those three guys plus projected spot starts from guys in Pawtucket (a group that turned out to be Johnson, Kendrick, Velazquez, and perhaps eventually Owens, essentially). It wasn't crazy to think that those three guys were nearly enough. Free agents also would've thought so. We should also all note that if Price comes back and pitches well (sounds like they're going to bring him up after one rehab start on Friday), this becomes a far less important issue.
|
|
|
Post by rivenp on May 18, 2017 3:20:38 GMT -5
I can be convinced otherwise-- but is there a reason? I've heard about "7th starter." But doesn't a "7th starter" have a different meaning for many teams? For a strong hitting team that 7th starter could be bad and you can get away with it. But the Red Sox weren't projected to be a strong hitting team this year, were they? And some other good teams that are vying for a title, they may project that they have a healthy enough staff / and have enough experience that the 7th starter isn't that important. But that's not the Sox, is it?
What I'm getting at is-- why should Pomeranz have been a lock to start the season with so many questions and we were all pretty certain he was not a 30 start 170 - 180 inning pitcher, right? To have him start the season and not throw the cutter, doesn't that make him more like what he was years ago- a bullpen type of pitcher? So you start the two injured pitchers(Wright and Pomeranz) in the bullpen to start while you have a Chavez type. Why wouldn't you have done something like this when you know your team isn't that great of a hitting team? So you need something better than the normal 7th starter, right? Because you aren;'t going to score that many runs, Thus, the Red Sox need someone better than your average 7th starter, right? Where am I going wrong?
When your 4/5 and 6 starters have questions on the length of games they can go in which two have had injury issues just last year, and your team is not built very much for hitting and primarily for pitching, shouldn't it been better thought out to get a starter that has better quality than your average number 7 starter? What am I missing?
"not expected to be a great hitting team?...is this actually true??? the red sox led all of mlb in runs scored last year by a significant margin (and 2nd place colorado probably shouldn't even count when comparing this stat)...does replacing ortiz with moreland and a full year of benintendi drop the red sox all that much? ...or did sox significantly outscore their expected output last year? ...or was there actually that much regression expected this season?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2017 6:09:01 GMT -5
I, at least, expected a bit of offensive regression. They were among the healthiest teams in the league position player-wise, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on May 18, 2017 8:45:19 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a 5-man starting rotation.
The mistake y'all are making is sticking to the anachronistic idea that there is; it's much better to think of it in terms of innings - you have somewhere between 900 and 1000 innings you want from your starters. If you build a roster where you're depending on those innings coming from 5 pitchers - that's like a 3% probability (maybe 1 in 30 teams a year are lucky enough for that to happen) It's basically just a variant of the stars and scrubs approach for everyday players - this is Dombrowski's approach, it's highly fraught and it is not surprising that it has failed. A much better approach is to plan on distributing those innings among 7-8 pitchers, recognizing that one or more of them will be total zeroes in terms of value (e.g. I laid out exactly this scenario as a justification of the Sale trade, viz. at least one of Wright/Rodriguez/Pomeranz would almost certainly be worthless this season, unfortunately it's looking like it will be 2)
And lay off the canard about "guaranteeing starts" to prospective pitchers; there has never been such a guarantee in any contract and there never will be one. It's about $. Period. If the Red Sox offer more guaranteed $ than their competitors - the pitcher will come regardless of any perceived "guarantee or not" to start. Dombrowski wasn't offering guaranteed major league contracts - that is the issue. Now, he doesn't have the money to guarantee (because of the CBT), that's not entirely his fault (Sandoval/Ramirez), but it significantly is (Price).
It's not a wise strategy to adopt a 3% solution when you've gutted the farm for a 3-year window. This season has most likely come down to the prospect of a return of an effective Price (and no other starter goes south). Doesn't seem likely.
There is no such thing as a 5-man starting rotation.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 18, 2017 9:35:31 GMT -5
That's why we had 6 starters and a bunch of guys in the minors. I just don't get your point about 5 starters. You're acting like DD planned on using only 5 starters and that's just not true. He brought in Kendricks, the guy making a start tonight to go along with two former top 100 prospects in Johnson and Owens. Our pitching depth was one of the best in the majors. Out of our top 6 starters only one is lost for the season. We just need to get healthy and Price is getting close.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2017 10:59:43 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a 5-man starting rotation. The mistake y'all are making is sticking to the anachronistic idea that there is; it's much better to think of it in terms of innings - you have somewhere between 900 and 1000 innings you want from your starters. If you build a roster where you're depending on those innings coming from 5 pitchers - that's like a 3% probability (maybe 1 in 30 teams a year are lucky enough for that to happen) It's basically just a variant of the stars and scrubs approach for everyday players - this is Dombrowski's approach, it's highly fraught and it is not surprising that it has failed. A much better approach is to plan on distributing those innings among 7-8 pitchers, recognizing that one or more of them will be total zeroes in terms of value (e.g. I laid out exactly this scenario as a justification of the Sale trade, viz. at least one of Wright/Rodriguez/Pomeranz would almost certainly be worthless this season, unfortunately it's looking like it will be 2) And lay off the canard about "guaranteeing starts" to prospective pitchers; there has never been such a guarantee in any contract and there never will be one. It's about $. Period. If the Red Sox offer more guaranteed $ than their competitors - the pitcher will come regardless of any perceived "guarantee or not" to start. Dombrowski wasn't offering guaranteed major league contracts - that is the issue. Now, he doesn't have the money to guarantee (because of the CBT), that's not entirely his fault (Sandoval/Ramirez), but it significantly is (Price). It's not a wise strategy to adopt a 3% solution when you've gutted the farm for a 3-year window. This season has most likely come down to the prospect of a return of an effective Price (and no other starter goes south). Doesn't seem likely. There is no such thing as a 5-man starting rotation. Name one free agent starting pitcher that made $5 million or more and was stashed in the minors only because of better options in the majors and not because he sucked. I'd love to hear which teams do this. Also, how many free agent starting pitchers A) have options remaining and B) cannot refuse a minor league assignment. Because if the pitcher was any good at all, he'd be claimed when he was DFA'd. Buchholz could have refused a minor league assignment. Then what? Be forced to option our 2nd best pitcher ERod since he is the only pitcher who could be sent down?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2017 11:13:31 GMT -5
This is still Ben Cherington's team. Dombrowski has just added some expensive, occasionally healthy pitchers to it. Is it Cherington's team? Pedroia, Bradley, Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Barnes are all Theo guys. Sale, Price, Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Moreland, and potentially important pieces in Smith and Thornburg, all Dombrowski guys. Direct Cherington acquisitions who look to be important are probably just Benintendi, Leon, Hanley and Rodriguez. Cherington deserves some credit for the guys brought in while Theo was here, and some for the pieces Dombrowski traded to acquire his guys. But saying this is any one general manager's team seems misguided when it requires so much assigning of credit that is impossible to do without inside knowledge. Sale was acquired with Moncada and Kopech. Thornburg with Dubon and Shaw. Smith with Miley. Kimbrel with Margot, Guerra et al. The point is that Dombrowski generated the current team largely with assets Cherington accumulated. Cherington in 2013 kept nearly all of his assets, and used cap space from the Punto trade and FA to fill out that team. I would argue that the net talent across the organization appreciated under Cherington, and I think it's depreciating under Dombrowski.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on May 18, 2017 18:22:27 GMT -5
While I think what you're saying about walking into a situation has some merit, 1) he was around and intimately involved in building that team, and 2) his FA signings (Koji, Napoli, Victorino especially) played huge roles in 2013, as did the Punto trade. Dombrowski had less of a stamp on the 2016 team than Cherington did on 2013...much less. IMO taking pot shots (however juvenile is some posters opinion) is no less "annoying" than the plethora of posters that make inane derogatory comments about Farrell. My litmus test is the track record. By that accounting method Farrell and Dombrowski each have one World Championship. Difference being Dombrowski's ring is from 20 years ago. Farrell's has the same ring that Xander and Dustin both wear. Dombrowski has lived large and long from his one success. He has had the luxury of huge payrolls and not much to show for it since his initial success. He must be a good talker to his employers, because he keeps getting jobs with big payroll teams. IMO, that is where his talent lies. Farrell OTOH was a journeyman pitcher, pitching coach, who then had the fortune to sit at the right hand of a fantastic manager Tito Francona. Dombrowski "appears" enamoured by high profile talent from Daulton to Cabrera to Price (twice). Farrell does not appear to be enamoured by high profile talent (nor should he). Farrell's job is to mold and focus the talent to win, something his mentor taught him. Personally I don't believe either employee are among the best at their jobs. I think that just as Tito was the beneficiary of leadership on the field (Varitek, Lowell, Ortiz, Shilling) Farrell needs the same from Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts. Personally the only take charge player I've seen on this team is Chris Sale. I'm not sure Sale can do this on his own. I'm not convinced it is in the dna of any of the position players (perhaps Pedroia) to fulfill this role. Star power alone is not going to get it done, in 2017. I don't project a quick fix. Maturity of the young talent will help. I'm beginning to realize the clubhouse value of David Ortiz more with each passing day. Making the playoffs may help, but I would not expect this team to advance very far. This seems to be the trademark of a Dave Dombrowski roster. You need a Manager to get the most out of a Roster. Farrell is not that guy. The track record of mental mistakes by players in the field speaks for itself. Playing the Ortiz card is a Farrell bail out..
|
|
|
Post by p23w on May 18, 2017 21:04:16 GMT -5
IMO taking pot shots (however juvenile is some posters opinion) is no less "annoying" than the plethora of posters that make inane derogatory comments about Farrell. My litmus test is the track record. By that accounting method Farrell and Dombrowski each have one World Championship. Difference being Dombrowski's ring is from 20 years ago. Farrell's has the same ring that Xander and Dustin both wear. Dombrowski has lived large and long from his one success. He has had the luxury of huge payrolls and not much to show for it since his initial success. He must be a good talker to his employers, because he keeps getting jobs with big payroll teams. IMO, that is where his talent lies. Farrell OTOH was a journeyman pitcher, pitching coach, who then had the fortune to sit at the right hand of a fantastic manager Tito Francona. Dombrowski "appears" enamoured by high profile talent from Daulton to Cabrera to Price (twice). Farrell does not appear to be enamoured by high profile talent (nor should he). Farrell's job is to mold and focus the talent to win, something his mentor taught him. Personally I don't believe either employee are among the best at their jobs. I think that just as Tito was the beneficiary of leadership on the field (Varitek, Lowell, Ortiz, Shilling) Farrell needs the same from Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts. Personally the only take charge player I've seen on this team is Chris Sale. I'm not sure Sale can do this on his own. I'm not convinced it is in the dna of any of the position players (perhaps Pedroia) to fulfill this role. Star power alone is not going to get it done, in 2017. I don't project a quick fix. Maturity of the young talent will help. I'm beginning to realize the clubhouse value of David Ortiz more with each passing day. Making the playoffs may help, but I would not expect this team to advance very far. This seems to be the trademark of a Dave Dombrowski roster. You need a Manager to get the most out of a Roster. Farrell is not that guy. The track record of mental mistakes by players in the field speaks for itself. Playing the Ortiz card is a Farrell bail out.. Who would you have manage this team? Farrell is neither a motivator in the mold of Francona, nor a control freak like Showalter or Girardi. Playing the Ortiz card? So lame. David earned his leadership roll with the Red Sox. If you are in denial about team leadership in a clubhouse and a dugout, then you don't get it. Winning teams have players on the roster that take leadership rolls. Managers cannot appoint a team leader(s). An individual player has to want or accept it. FWIW Ortiz was not alone as a team leader for many years. He was the most outspoken position player team leader for at least half of his career. This team could/can use a position player to step up into a clubhouse/dugout leadership roll. The pitchers have one (possibly two). The value of player/leadership can not be quantified by evangelical sabermetricians. The proof that it plays a roll in baseball one need look no further than the dugouts of the World Series contestants over the past 12 years. Player team leadership often manages to return to the fall classic. In closing, player team leaders do not have to be the darlings of stat freaks. Millar and Gomes, however short their careers lent themselves to quasi leadership rolls on each team they played for. Mike Lowell had leadership qualities of a different nature. Zobrist falls somewhere in between a Lowell and a Gomes.. Posey is more akin to the Ortiz model. It's in the dna of the player to accept a leadership roll on a team. Managers have no say in the matter, GM's who are responsible for filling the positions on a roster do have input with respect to leadership. When Epstein went to Schillings house for Thanksgiving, he sent a message to Curt. Pedro (like Clemens before him) was not enough to get the job done. Schilling had an enormous affect on the pitching staff, so much so that a World Series was the result.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on May 19, 2017 7:10:01 GMT -5
I have to agree with Silverman here that there is no reason to decimate the rest of the Red Sox farm system to make another trade which might make them marginally better in the short term but mortgage the club's future in the long term. The Red Sox also would be better served getting rid of guys (e.g. Wren) who advocated trading for Smith and Thorburg given the cost to acquire them as well as the obvious injury risks they assumed in both cases. www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2017/05/silverman_now_is_not_the_time_for_red_sox_to_make_blockbuster_trade
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 20, 2017 12:58:20 GMT -5
Chris -- thanks for the response. you replied to me before is the para in quotes- for some reason it didn't copy above:
"soxjim, I just want to note that while you're focusing on just Pomeranz, the question isn't just about Pomeranz. The question is that 4/5/6 were Pomeranz, Rodriguez, and Wright in some order. You need to string together two starters' worth of starts with those three guys plus projected spot starts from guys in Pawtucket (a group that turned out to be Johnson, Kendrick, Velazquez, and perhaps eventually Owens, essentially). It wasn't crazy to think that those three guys were nearly enough. Free agents also would've thought so."
I have a few questions -- please note I am not arguing --- yet. And these questions I put on here are nothing more. You and redsox0417 and jimed know A LOT more than me. So thank you for the responses. And - which is why I said so often "where am I going wrong?" Maybe you or redsox0417 or anyone else can help with the following. The major questions I have below is --- "WHY? "
1--- WHY should Pomeranz have been considered the "4/5" starter and not the 6 or 7 to start the season in place of a guy like Chavez? With his injury issues and needing to warm up so he could throw his 3rd pitch- his cutter -- WHY put him as the 4/5 starter when we know that in order to be effective he needs to be able to be both healthy and throw THREE pitches? WHY didn't the Red Sox front office / evaluators KNOW he needed "time" to get his cutter going?
2--- WHY is there such a major concern with shoulder problems from pitchers but the Red Sox front office seemed to have little concern with Wright? OFC they can't predict injury (though they seemed a bit callous with Smith and Thornburgh but this "might be" different), but until the inexperienced and un-battletested" Wright proves he is healthy and can be effective for much of the season, WHY couldn't Wright be considered the 6th or 7th starter? Now that would have further diminished the point of having to pay so much for a 6 or 7 starter. Wright comes cheap and even when he eventually does come back, what guarantee is he?
3--- With the injury concerns of 1 and 2 above along with a certain question of effectiveness, WHY wouldn't there be more concern of how the Red SOX would have to manage ERod? If he is around 170 innings pitched or maybe more 180 or so -- won't he more likely wear down come playoff time?
4-- So regarding 1-3 above-- if the Sox got Chavez for example, WHY couldn't Pomeranz AND Wright start the season IN THE BULLPEN?
5-- So regarding number 4-- WHY wouldn't this SOLVE the SHUTTLING ISSUE? You don't sign Abad or Ross. Or both. And you don't trade for Thornburgh. You have saved money to remain under the cap? So WHY would there be a NEED to SHUTTLE when you have a couple of your starters (Pomeranz and Wright) starting the season in the bullpen?
***6 - For the poster redsox0417 --- Again I am not arguing but your last post to me you asked if I should put myself in a guy like Chavez's position. I did. Where am I going wrong here, if I ask the following two questions?
WHY couldn't the Red Sox guarantee he would be the 5th starter to start the season? As mentioned above in particular with 1 and 2, aren't there MORE QUESTIONS with Pomeranz and Wright at the start of the season, with their injury issues as an example, than Chavez?
THEREFORE, WHY couldn't there be a good case made/ pitched to Chavez that he is going to start as the 5th starter on a team projected to be the 2nd best team in the AL? Maybe an added bonus is that the Sox could show him they would be able to rest him during the course of the season thus preserving the 33 year old's arm a bit.
The Red Sox went "all-in" and imo by doing so they had to "lock-down" the starting pitching because their hitting was not going to be a strength. You can't afford to allow guys like Kendrick or Velazquez to start because you don't have the hitting to back up their potential high-probablity poor outing. Maybe you can -- but then your manager has to be smart enough to know these guys aren't 5 inning starters - which he didn't. IMO by allowing Kendrick and Velazquez to pitch, the front office and/or the manager has given away games. Thus it was poor management decisions that forced the team into a "mini-box." WHY not get that additional starter and put two others in the pen? Chavez would obviously at some point struggle. He goes to the pen and is easily replaced. ERod will need some rest and he is easily replaced too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 20, 2017 14:32:00 GMT -5
A pitcher in the bullpen cannot stay stretched out as a starter and just take spot starts. Wright probably could have, but there's no way Pomeranz could have.
I'm not sure why you think Chavez was a sure thing to be better than Pomeranz anyway. Chavez didn't make a single start in 2016 and had a replacement level season. That's not someone you guarantee a starter spot for. Plus, guarantees are worthless anyway because no team would pitch a worse pitcher as a starter if there are better options on the roster. Are you just looking at his stats this year and using hindsight?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 20, 2017 15:43:32 GMT -5
A pitcher in the bullpen cannot stay stretched out as a starter and just take spot starts. Wright probably could have, but there's no way Pomeranz could have. I'm not sure why you think Chavez was a sure thing to be better than Pomeranz anyway. Chavez didn't make a single start in 2016 and had a replacement level season. That's not someone you guarantee a starter spot for. Plus, guarantees are worthless anyway because no team would pitch a worse pitcher as a starter if there are better options on the roster. Are you just looking at his stats this year and using hindsight? Chavez made 47 starts in 2014 and 2015.
Does Erasmo Ramirez for TB do both? I think Danny Duffy from the Royals in 2014 might have done both. And looking at the Royals stats in 2015 - it looks like 3 - 5 pitchers did both-- Chris Young Joe Blanton Kris Medlen Jeremy Guthrie Danny Duffy
Why not Pomeranz if these guys can?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 20, 2017 15:52:21 GMT -5
A pitcher in the bullpen cannot stay stretched out as a starter and just take spot starts. Wright probably could have, but there's no way Pomeranz could have. I'm not sure why you think Chavez was a sure thing to be better than Pomeranz anyway. Chavez didn't make a single start in 2016 and had a replacement level season. That's not someone you guarantee a starter spot for. Plus, guarantees are worthless anyway because no team would pitch a worse pitcher as a starter if there are better options on the roster. Are you just looking at his stats this year and using hindsight? Chavez made 47 starts in 2014 and 2015.
Does Erasmo Ramirez for TB do both? I think Danny Duffy from the Royals in 2014 might have done both. And looking at the Royals stats in 2015 - it looks like 3 - 5 pitchers did both-- Chris Young Joe Blanton Kris Medlen Jeremy Guthrie Danny Duffy
Why not Pomeranz if these guys can? I don't know the exact circumstances of all of them, but it is not possible to be pitching in the bullpen for a month and just make an effective 5 inning start all of a sudden. That's not how pitchers work. You want your relief pitchers tighter so they have more velocity in short stints and you want your starters stretched out so they have more stamina. Pitchers who are in between aren't going to be great at either starting or relieving. An obvious exception would probably be knuckleball pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 20, 2017 18:30:03 GMT -5
SoxJim, When the Sox broke camp, Sale, Porcello, and Price were firmly penciled into the rotation. That's 3 spots gone.
Wright was considered healthy and coming back. The knee injury hadn't cropped up yet. E-Rod was considered a strong starting candidate given how well he pitched the 2nd half of 2016 when he got healthy and he was healthy.
Pomeranz was considered "healthy" although some of us were skeptical.
So that's six candidates and none of those last 3 were guaranteed, but you think Chavez, who's nowhere near as talented or established as the other 3, is supposed to be guaranteed a spot?
No, if I'm Chavez I don't spend my time hoping that one or two get injured and I certainly wouldn't expect Price to get hurt given his track record. I'd rather have a spring battle with a fringy fifth starter on another team than hope the Red Sox, who have six starters ahead of me, have at least two injuries to their starters.
The last thing Chavez wants is to ride the Pawsox/Red Sox shuttle hoping for an injury. He wants to battle somebody for the 5th spot and that's going to be a team with less established or penciled in starters.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on May 20, 2017 18:45:03 GMT -5
Is it Cherington's team? Pedroia, Bradley, Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Barnes are all Theo guys. Sale, Price, Kimbrel, Pomeranz, Moreland, and potentially important pieces in Smith and Thornburg, all Dombrowski guys. Direct Cherington acquisitions who look to be important are probably just Benintendi, Leon, Hanley and Rodriguez. Cherington deserves some credit for the guys brought in while Theo was here, and some for the pieces Dombrowski traded to acquire his guys. But saying this is any one general manager's team seems misguided when it requires so much assigning of credit that is impossible to do without inside knowledge. Sale was acquired with Moncada and Kopech. Thornburg with Dubon and Shaw. Smith with Miley. Kimbrel with Margot, Guerra et al. The point is that Dombrowski generated the current team largely with assets Cherington accumulated. Cherington in 2013 kept nearly all of his assets, and used cap space from the Punto trade and FA to fill out that team. I would argue that the net talent across the organization appreciated under Cherington, and I think it's depreciating under Dombrowski. My biggest problem is dumbrowski knew that Pomeranz, thornburg and smith all carried huge injury risks and he chose to ignore that fact. I have no problem with Farrell. He does pull an occasional bonehead move, but overall, he is getting .500 baseball out of a flawed team. There is a reason dumbrowski did not win in Detroit and now it is the reason our farm is system is significantly decreased and yet the product on the field is boring and lifeless. It is because he does know how to create a "team". He needs to go!
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 20, 2017 18:47:29 GMT -5
Sale was acquired with Moncada and Kopech. Thornburg with Dubon and Shaw. Smith with Miley. Kimbrel with Margot, Guerra et al. The point is that Dombrowski generated the current team largely with assets Cherington accumulated. Cherington in 2013 kept nearly all of his assets, and used cap space from the Punto trade and FA to fill out that team. I would argue that the net talent across the organization appreciated under Cherington, and I think it's depreciating under Dombrowski. My biggest problem is dumbrowski knew that Pomeranz, thornburg and smith all carried huge injury risks and he chose to ignore that fact. I have no problem with Farrell. He does pull an occasional bonehead move, but overall, he is getting .500 baseball out of a flawed team. There is a reason dumbrowski did not win in Detroit and now it is the reason our farm is system is significantly decreased and yet the product on the field is boring and lifeless. It is because he does know how to create a "team". He needs to go! Dude. Are you twelve? Use his actual name and not some childish nickname. We are adults here and nicknames lien "Dumbrowski" bring down the discussion value
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on May 20, 2017 22:00:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2017 1:34:53 GMT -5
A few things: 1) The nickname thing really ought to stop. This isn't talk radio, we're trying to keep discussion here thoughtful, imo. 2) Smith was an injury "risk" by virtue of delivery/slider, but the same could be said of Sale. Pomeranz's medicals were obfuscated and there was no reason to think he was a significant injury risk (until discovery, at which point their options were extremely limited and they were essentially screwed by MLB). Thornburg had a *relatively* minor injury issue that appeared resolved after a terrific full season. I have no issue with arguing the poor choice to trade for relievers, per se (because I agree, although I was OK with Thornburg thinking he or another reliever might be flipped if Barnes/Kelly broke out +/-Smith returned). As I've said way too many times, I never liked the Pomeranz acquisition, but I can understand and respect the rationale for it. But to frame the lot of acquisitions as huge injury risks...well, I disagree inasmuch as I don't think that they were *substantively* more risky than trading for pitching (and relief especially) in general. 3) I can't fathom why we're still hung up on the idea that a marginal MLB starter who's barely replacement level would somehow have made sense to this team, or vice versa. The Sox had a 4-5-6 trio who all had pitched recently to #3 level. There was no open slot. End of discussion. Using hindsight makes no sense here. Signing Chavez would have required *clairvoyance*, not good judgment. 4) I really hope this isn't the most pyrrhic "I told you so" of my life, but pretty much all of my depth fears are being realized with this team. That said, the near worst-case collapse of the pitching beyond Sale-Kimbrel-Rodriguez is beyond the pale. Then again, that's why the "All-In" approach is, to me, a foolish one. Here's hoping Devers is ready by July and helps salvage their season, because right now the Sox ship is sinking fast.
|
|
|