SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/27-8/28 Red Sox @ Rockies Series Thread
cutz
Veteran
Posts: 2,321
|
Post by cutz on Aug 28, 2019 23:30:07 GMT -5
Nice Win
|
|
|
Post by kjkramer on Aug 28, 2019 23:30:18 GMT -5
Xander and Devers are just having HOF type of years. Betts might be the 4th most valuable player on our team.... possibly 5th factoring in total package of Vazquez...... how does he think he will get that mammoth contract?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 28, 2019 23:40:57 GMT -5
Xander and Devers are just having HOF type of years. Betts might be the 4th most valuable player on our team.... possibly 5th factoring in total package of Vazquez...... how does he think he will get that mammoth contract? Mookie is 15th in the majors in both bWAR and fWAR... in a down year. Like, do you think he's not going to get a mammoth contract?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 28, 2019 23:46:53 GMT -5
Congrats to Bogaerts on his first 30 HR season and he also has 100 RBIs, which while it's not a useful analytical stat, is still a cool figure nonetheless.
Also, E-Rod picks up win #16 with an outside shot of 20. Again, not the greatest useful analytical stat, but still a very cool number as well.
Brandon Workman was great again. I was surprised to read that he has a lower BA against than Koji did in 2013. Of course, he doesn't have anywhere near Koji's pinpoint control, but still, he has been impressive. I always thought he could be a useful pitcher, but I didn't think he could have a stretch this long where he dominates. He always had periods of dominance followed by injury or ineffectiveness where he couldn't get anybody out. Nice to see the consistency.
Now if Mookie can start hitting some HRs, the Sox would have four guys with 30 plus HRs, which I don't think they've done before?
|
|
|
Post by kjkramer on Aug 28, 2019 23:53:31 GMT -5
Betts might be the 4th most valuable player on our team.... possibly 5th factoring in total package of Vazquez...... how does he think he will get that mammoth contract? Mookie is 15th in the majors in both bWAR and fWAR... in a down year. Like, do you think he's not going to get a mammoth contract? [br I do think he will get a big contract but it should not be from us. We dont have the money. I keep JDM and buyout Devers and try to get a deal on a solid guy like Benni. I then trade Betts for cost controlled pitching.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 28, 2019 23:56:45 GMT -5
Betts might be the 4th most valuable player on our team.... possibly 5th factoring in total package of Vazquez...... how does he think he will get that mammoth contract? Mookie is 15th in the majors in both bWAR and fWAR... in a down year. Like, do you think he's not going to get a mammoth contract? Yeah, he's getting it. Just a matter of who gives it to him and when, not if he gets it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 29, 2019 1:49:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Aug 29, 2019 3:43:52 GMT -5
Ryan M. Spaeder @theaceofspaeder ·
#RedSox left side of the infield over their last 162 games played:
Xander Bogaerts - .312/.386/.569 114 R, 198 H, 91 XBH, & 129 RBI
Rafael Devers - .311/.365/.568 128 R, 200 H, 91 XBH, & 122 RBI
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Aug 29, 2019 3:57:55 GMT -5
I didn't think Bogaerts had it in him. Obviously he had the talent. Over a long season he tended to fade. He's matured into a competitor. He was offered a great deal and he had no problems taking it which is what you want to see from big Red Sox talents. Devers can get better. Probably not much but this is a kid who's not in his prime.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 29, 2019 5:23:13 GMT -5
I didn't think Bogaerts had it in him. Obviously he had the talent. Over a long season he tended to fade. He's matured into a competitor. He was offered a great deal and he had no problems taking it which is what you want to see from big Red Sox talents. It was that crouched batting stance 4 years ago where he was poking at the ball, instead of standing up and driving the ball like he is now. That batting stance was killing his potential 4 years ago. His whole floor and ceiling as a player changed when Cora and his coaching staff got here and changed his batting stance. He's been a completely different player than even the All-Star he was in 2016. He's been even better. It kind of ticks me off that the Sox stuck with a bad coaching staff for so long before 2018. They couldn't unlock Xander, when the talent was there to be this good all along.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 29, 2019 6:36:31 GMT -5
Great win!
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2019 8:13:45 GMT -5
Hate to be the turd in the punch bowl. But, you can throw every stat achieved this year in the garbage. Bogey and Devers are great. Wouldn't lean on this year though. Fringe players are opsing in the 800 and 900's.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 29, 2019 8:22:53 GMT -5
They are 1 & 2 in the American League in extra-base hits and 1 & 3 in total bases! You can still rank players when stats are inflated. "70 extra-base hits" might be less meaningful but "leads the American League in extra base hits" means the same thing it always would.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 29, 2019 10:15:27 GMT -5
In that context, it’s great. Like Yaz winning batting title in 68. Slash lines are kinda meh this year
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 29, 2019 11:33:11 GMT -5
In that context, it’s great. Like Yaz winning batting title in 68. Slash lines are kinda meh this year .301 batting average to lead the league.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 29, 2019 20:53:47 GMT -5
In that context, it’s great. Like Yaz winning batting title in 68. Slash lines are kinda meh this year .301 batting average to lead the league. ...and the immortal Danny Cater finished second at .292 so the Sox traded Sparky Lyle for him. Cater never approached the relatively lofty average of that year and Lyle became a multi year star with the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 29, 2019 21:01:20 GMT -5
.301 batting average to lead the league. ...and the immortal Danny Cater finished second at .292 so the Sox traded Sparky Lyle for him. Cater never approached the relatively lofty average of that year and Lyle became a multi year star with the Yankees. I think Cater hit .290 actually but your point stands. Brutal trade. Sparky pissed off the brass. Probably with his birthday cake shenanigans. Cater was a total bust. One of their worst deals - at least until the Bagwell/Andersen deal.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 30, 2019 5:10:58 GMT -5
.301 batting average to lead the league. ...and the immortal Danny Cater finished second at .292 so the Sox traded Sparky Lyle for him. Cater never approached the relatively lofty average of that year and Lyle became a multi year star with the Yankees. The Cater trade was three years later. He had hit .276 / .308 / .364 the year before we traded for him, with a whopping 0.7 WAR. Not that WAR existed back then, but I knew he was terrible, and so did anyone else who had read Percentage Baseball and learned that OBP and SA were meaningful and BA was not.
No one ever talks about why they felt they needed to trade for a 1B three-and-a-half weeks before the season started. Earlier that winter they had traded the incumbent, George Scott, along with CF Billy Conigliaro, to the Brewers in exchange for "CF" Tommy Harper. Which was odd, because Harper was a LF who would play CF for maybe 10 games a year, and he was coming off a season where Total Zone had him at -14 R/150 in LF. Oh, and the Sox still had Reggie Smith for CF (5.6 WAR, +13 in CF). WTF?
Now, that already sounds like a terrible trade. Scott was just 28 and had 25.0 WAR left on him. Harper was 31, was coming off an 0.9 season, and had 6.8 WAR left. Billy C was about to have 1.2 WAR in 201 PA while Harper managed 1.4 in 641.
But we also threw in our pretty good platoon starter in RF, Joe Lahoud (coming off 1.5 WAR in 301 PA, 2.6 WAR per 650 PA the next 4 years). And we sent them Jim Lonborg (10.1 WAR left) and Ken Brett (15.5, including 2.7 at the plate) in return for Marty Pattin (12.8) and a supposed key to the trade, Lew Krausse, who had gone from 1.3 WAR over 918 career innings to 2.3 in 180 the year before ... and had less than zero left, putting up -1.7 before we released him.
(I can still remember hearing about this trade ... and I was apoplectic. I've hated a lot of trades over the years; this may have been the one I hated most. Harper in 1970 had had a fluke 7.4 WAR season, and it appears as if the same MLB scouts who saw him play LF and thought he'd be a better CF than Smith also thought he'd be that 7 WAR guy again. The trade only makes sense if you think that Harper is a much better player than Scott, instead of the opposite, which was kind of obviously the case.)
Oh, and Rick Miller debuted that year in CF and had half of Harper's value ... in 111 PA.
I did promise you the reason why they thought Scott was expendable. After being snagged in the Rule 5 draft by the Cardinals and returned, Cecil Cooper had had a fine year in AA (.343 / .386 / .493) and then hit .310 / .388 / .452 in 49 PA after a September call-up. He was rough defensively, and the AA numbers don't project him as MLB ready, but the plan was for him to take over at 1B.
He had a bad spring training, and they panicked. He had a fine year in AAA (.315 / .369 / .468) which suggests he would have been as good as Cater at worst. Somehow he didn't get it started at the plate until 1975 -- that's got to be another story.
They lost the Lyle / Cater trade that year 3.6 to 1.0, and 16.5 to 3.6 career. But it was the Scott trade that made it necessary, and they lost it that year 9.8 WAR to 3.2.
So their big off-season rebuild cost them 9.2 WAR, and they lost the pennant by 1/2 game.
Imagine if they had kept Scott for three more years (4.9. 6.7, 4.2 WAR) and then dealt him for his perceived worth in pitching before the '75 season.
Two years later they would trade 26.9 WAR of Ben Oglivie for 0.7 of Dick McCauliffe ... they may well have had the best amateur scouting and the worst professional scouting / assessment in MLB.
So, keep complaining about Cherington and Dombrowski, all you youngsters.
BTW: I think it's Bill Lee that claims the team had to trade either him or Lyle before the start of the season because of a roster jam. But this isn't true. They started the season with a rotation of Pattin, Ray Culp, Sonny Siebert, Krausse, and Luis Tiant (who would soon swap roles with long man Gary Peters), and a pen of Ken Tatum, Lee, Bobby Bolin, and Roger Moret. Moret had options left and pitched just three times before he was sent down in mid-late May and replaced by John Curtis. Lyle and Lee had been 2nd and 3rd in bWAR on the 1971 pitching staff, so the suggestion that they were competing for the last spot on the staff is nuts to begin with.
The other dimly known truth: the Sox in mid-season purchased Mario Guerrero from the Yankees. But the Lyle / Cater trade had been receiving so much bad press that Sox talked the Yankees into allowing them to announce that there had been a PTBNL in the trade, and Guerreo was it! And that's the way you'll see it at b-Ref, but it's an after-the-fact fiction.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 30, 2019 8:27:44 GMT -5
...and the immortal Danny Cater finished second at .292 so the Sox traded Sparky Lyle for him. Cater never approached the relatively lofty average of that year and Lyle became a multi year star with the Yankees. The Cater trade was three years later. He had hit .276 / .308 / .364 the year before we traded for him, with a whopping 0.7 WAR. Not that WAR existed back then, but I knew he was terrible, and so did anyone else who had read Percentage Baseball and learned that OBP and SA were meaningful and BA was not. No one ever talks about why they felt they needed to trade for a 1B three-and-a-half weeks before the season started. Earlier that winter they had traded the incumbent, George Scott, along with CF Billy Conigliaro, to the Brewers in exchange for "CF" Tommy Harper. Which was odd, because Harper was a LF who would play CF for maybe 10 games a year, and he was coming off a season where Total Zone had him at -14 R/150 in LF. Oh, and the Sox still had Reggie Smith for CF (5.6 WAR, +13 in CF). WTF?
Now, that already sounds like a terrible trade. Scott was just 28 and had 25.0 WAR left on him. Harper was 31, was coming off an 0.9 season, and had 6.8 WAR left. Billy C was about to have 1.2 WAR in 201 PA while Harper managed 1.4 in 641.
But we also threw in our pretty good platoon starter in RF, Joe Lahoud (coming off 1.5 WAR in 301 PA, 2.6 WAR per 650 PA the next 4 years). And we sent them Jim Lonborg (10.1 WAR left) and Ken Brett (15.5, including 2.7 at the plate) in return for Marty Pattin (12.8) and a supposed key to the trade, Lew Krausse, who had gone from 1.3 WAR over 918 career innings to 2.3 in 180 the year before ... and had less than zero left, putting up -1.7 before we released him. (I can still remember hearing about this trade ... and I was apoplectic. I've hated a lot of trades over the years; this may have been the one I hated most. Harper in 1970 had had a fluke 7.4 WAR season, and it appears as if the same MLB scouts who saw him play LF and thought he'd be a better CF than Smith also thought he'd be that 7 WAR guy again. The trade only makes sense if you think that Harper is a much better player than Scott, instead of the opposite, which was kind of obviously the case.)
Oh, and Rick Miller debuted that year in CF and had half of Harper's value ... in 111 PA. I did promise you the reason why they thought Scott was expendable. After being snagged in the Rule 5 draft by the Cardinals and returned, Cecil Cooper had had a fine year in AA (.343 / .386 / .493) and then hit .310 / .388 / .452 in 49 PA after a September call-up. He was rough defensively, and the AA numbers don't project him as MLB ready, but the plan was for him to take over at 1B.
He had a bad spring training, and they panicked. He had a fine year in AAA (.315 / .369 / .468) which suggests he would have been as good as Cater at worst. Somehow he didn't get it started at the plate until 1975 -- that's got to be another story.
They lost the Lyle / Cater trade that year 3.6 to 1.0, and 16.5 to 3.6 career. But it was the Scott trade that made it necessary, and they lost it that year 9.8 WAR to 3.2. So their big off-season rebuild cost them 9.2 WAR, and they lost the pennant by 1/2 game. Imagine if they had kept Scott for three more years (4.9. 6.7, 4.2 WAR) and then dealt him for his perceived worth in pitching before the '75 season.
Two years later they would trade 26.9 WAR of Ben Oglivie for 0.7 of Dick McCauliffe ... they may well have had the best amateur scouting and the worst professional scouting / assessment in MLB.
So, keep complaining about Cherington and Dombrowski, all you youngsters. BTW: I think it's Bill Lee that claims the team had to trade either him or Lyle before the start of the season because of a roster jam. But this isn't true. They started the season with a rotation of Pattin, Ray Culp, Sonny Siebert, Krausse, and Luis Tiant (who would soon swap roles with long man Gary Peters), and a pen of Ken Tatum, Lee, Bobby Bolin, and Roger Moret. Moret had options left and pitched just three times before he was sent down in mid-late May and replaced by John Curtis. Lyle and Lee had been 2nd and 3rd in bWAR on the 1971 pitching staff, so the suggestion that they were competing for the last spot on the staff is nuts to begin with. The other dimly known truth: the Sox in mid-season purchased Mario Guerrero from the Yankees. But the Lyle / Cater trade had been receiving so much bad press that Sox talked the Yankees into allowing them to announce that there had been a PTBNL in the trade, and Guerreo was it! And that's the way you'll see it at b-Ref, but it's an after-the-fact fiction.
Well hell, if Guerrero is included as part of that Cater/Lyle deal, then it was ALL worth it!!It doesn't excuse O'Connell's pickup of Cater, but I think there was some sort of mandate from above to dump Lyle....which is really a shame. Perhaps with Sparky Lyle as closer the Red Sox would have won the 1975 World Series. As it was they blew the lead in Game 2 although to be fair it was an infield hit that tied the game, and we know the lefty the Sox chose to pitch the 9th inning of Game 7 - Jim Burton, and how that turned out. Rather have had Lyle pitch that inning! Perhaps Lyle would have swung the division race to the favor of the Sox in 1977 although Campbell did pitch well that year - just not as good as Lyle I suppose. I wasn't around for any of that but it seems to me the moves were intended just to shake things up just for the sake of shaking things up. In 1968 they were 86-76, in 1969 they were 87-75, in 1970 they were 87-75 again, and in 1971 they were 85-77. They were basically the same team for four years running and nowhere near as good as the Orioles were at that time. I guess they wanted to make change for the sake of making change, which isn't really the best way to make decisions. Panicking about Cecil Cooper's slow spring training or dealing Ben Oglivie because you're deep in outfielders for a guy on his last legs in McAuliffe were some horrible moves. And generally I think Dick O'Connell was a good GM, but that comes in comparison of the banana republic situation they had before him. O'Connell was a breath of fresh air compared to Pinky Higgins as GM or Bucky Harris or Joe Cronin before him. But like you said O'Connell made his mistakes, but I do think you can say he left the Red Sox in much better position than he found them in. I'm not even sure that's up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan511 on Aug 30, 2019 8:27:52 GMT -5
...and the immortal Danny Cater finished second at .292 so the Sox traded Sparky Lyle for him. Cater never approached the relatively lofty average of that year and Lyle became a multi year star with the Yankees. The Cater trade was three years later. He had hit .276 / .308 / .364 the year before we traded for him, with a whopping 0.7 WAR. Not that WAR existed back then, but I knew he was terrible, and so did anyone else who had read Percentage Baseball and learned that OBP and SA were meaningful and BA was not.
No one ever talks about why they felt they needed to trade for a 1B three-and-a-half weeks before the season started. Earlier that winter they had traded the incumbent, George Scott, along with CF Billy Conigliaro, to the Brewers in exchange for "CF" Tommy Harper. Which was odd, because Harper was a LF who would play CF for maybe 10 games a year, and he was coming off a season where Total Zone had him at -14 R/150 in LF. Oh, and the Sox still had Reggie Smith for CF (5.6 WAR, +13 in CF). WTF?
Now, that already sounds like a terrible trade. Scott was just 28 and had 25.0 WAR left on him. Harper was 31, was coming off an 0.9 season, and had 6.8 WAR left. Billy C was about to have 1.2 WAR in 201 PA while Harper managed 1.4 in 641.
But we also threw in our pretty good platoon starter in RF, Joe Lahoud (coming off 1.5 WAR in 301 PA, 2.6 WAR per 650 PA the next 4 years). And we sent them Jim Lonborg (10.1 WAR left) and Ken Brett (15.5, including 2.7 at the plate) in return for Marty Pattin (12.8) and a supposed key to the trade, Lew Krausse, who had gone from 1.3 WAR over 918 career innings to 2.3 in 180 the year before ... and had less than zero left, putting up -1.7 before we released him.
(I can still remember hearing about this trade ... and I was apoplectic. I've hated a lot of trades over the years; this may have been the one I hated most. Harper in 1970 had had a fluke 7.4 WAR season, and it appears as if the same MLB scouts who saw him play LF and thought he'd be a better CF than Smith also thought he'd be that 7 WAR guy again. The trade only makes sense if you think that Harper is a much better player than Scott, instead of the opposite, which was kind of obviously the case.)
Oh, and Rick Miller debuted that year in CF and had half of Harper's value ... in 111 PA.
I did promise you the reason why they thought Scott was expendable. After being snagged in the Rule 5 draft by the Cardinals and returned, Cecil Cooper had had a fine year in AA (.343 / .386 / .493) and then hit .310 / .388 / .452 in 49 PA after a September call-up. He was rough defensively, and the AA numbers don't project him as MLB ready, but the plan was for him to take over at 1B.
He had a bad spring training, and they panicked. He had a fine year in AAA (.315 / .369 / .468) which suggests he would have been as good as Cater at worst. Somehow he didn't get it started at the plate until 1975 -- that's got to be another story.
They lost the Lyle / Cater trade that year 3.6 to 1.0, and 16.5 to 3.6 career. But it was the Scott trade that made it necessary, and they lost it that year 9.8 WAR to 3.2.
So their big off-season rebuild cost them 9.2 WAR, and they lost the pennant by 1/2 game.
Imagine if they had kept Scott for three more years (4.9. 6.7, 4.2 WAR) and then dealt him for his perceived worth in pitching before the '75 season.
Two years later they would trade 26.9 WAR of Ben Oglivie for 0.7 of Dick McCauliffe ... they may well have had the best amateur scouting and the worst professional scouting / assessment in MLB.
So, keep complaining about Cherington and Dombrowski, all you youngsters.
BTW: I think it's Bill Lee that claims the team had to trade either him or Lyle before the start of the season because of a roster jam. But this isn't true. They started the season with a rotation of Pattin, Ray Culp, Sonny Siebert, Krausse, and Luis Tiant (who would soon swap roles with long man Gary Peters), and a pen of Ken Tatum, Lee, Bobby Bolin, and Roger Moret. Moret had options left and pitched just three times before he was sent down in mid-late May and replaced by John Curtis. Lyle and Lee had been 2nd and 3rd in bWAR on the 1971 pitching staff, so the suggestion that they were competing for the last spot on the staff is nuts to begin with.
The other dimly known truth: the Sox in mid-season purchased Mario Guerrero from the Yankees. But the Lyle / Cater trade had been receiving so much bad press that Sox talked the Yankees into allowing them to announce that there had been a PTBNL in the trade, and Guerreo was it! And that's the way you'll see it at b-Ref, but it's an after-the-fact fiction.
Lol geez that’s pretty bad. And I thought Cherington was god awful, that GM makes Cherrington look like a hall of famer. I grew up with Duquette in the 90s and I always admired his ability to find talent.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 30, 2019 8:53:11 GMT -5
The Cater trade was three years later. He had hit .276 / .308 / .364 the year before we traded for him, with a whopping 0.7 WAR. Not that WAR existed back then, but I knew he was terrible, and so did anyone else who had read Percentage Baseball and learned that OBP and SA were meaningful and BA was not. No one ever talks about why they felt they needed to trade for a 1B three-and-a-half weeks before the season started. Earlier that winter they had traded the incumbent, George Scott, along with CF Billy Conigliaro, to the Brewers in exchange for "CF" Tommy Harper. Which was odd, because Harper was a LF who would play CF for maybe 10 games a year, and he was coming off a season where Total Zone had him at -14 R/150 in LF. Oh, and the Sox still had Reggie Smith for CF (5.6 WAR, +13 in CF). WTF?
Now, that already sounds like a terrible trade. Scott was just 28 and had 25.0 WAR left on him. Harper was 31, was coming off an 0.9 season, and had 6.8 WAR left. Billy C was about to have 1.2 WAR in 201 PA while Harper managed 1.4 in 641.
But we also threw in our pretty good platoon starter in RF, Joe Lahoud (coming off 1.5 WAR in 301 PA, 2.6 WAR per 650 PA the next 4 years). And we sent them Jim Lonborg (10.1 WAR left) and Ken Brett (15.5, including 2.7 at the plate) in return for Marty Pattin (12.8) and a supposed key to the trade, Lew Krausse, who had gone from 1.3 WAR over 918 career innings to 2.3 in 180 the year before ... and had less than zero left, putting up -1.7 before we released him. (I can still remember hearing about this trade ... and I was apoplectic. I've hated a lot of trades over the years; this may have been the one I hated most. Harper in 1970 had had a fluke 7.4 WAR season, and it appears as if the same MLB scouts who saw him play LF and thought he'd be a better CF than Smith also thought he'd be that 7 WAR guy again. The trade only makes sense if you think that Harper is a much better player than Scott, instead of the opposite, which was kind of obviously the case.)
Oh, and Rick Miller debuted that year in CF and had half of Harper's value ... in 111 PA. I did promise you the reason why they thought Scott was expendable. After being snagged in the Rule 5 draft by the Cardinals and returned, Cecil Cooper had had a fine year in AA (.343 / .386 / .493) and then hit .310 / .388 / .452 in 49 PA after a September call-up. He was rough defensively, and the AA numbers don't project him as MLB ready, but the plan was for him to take over at 1B.
He had a bad spring training, and they panicked. He had a fine year in AAA (.315 / .369 / .468) which suggests he would have been as good as Cater at worst. Somehow he didn't get it started at the plate until 1975 -- that's got to be another story.
They lost the Lyle / Cater trade that year 3.6 to 1.0, and 16.5 to 3.6 career. But it was the Scott trade that made it necessary, and they lost it that year 9.8 WAR to 3.2. So their big off-season rebuild cost them 9.2 WAR, and they lost the pennant by 1/2 game. Imagine if they had kept Scott for three more years (4.9. 6.7, 4.2 WAR) and then dealt him for his perceived worth in pitching before the '75 season.
Two years later they would trade 26.9 WAR of Ben Oglivie for 0.7 of Dick McCauliffe ... they may well have had the best amateur scouting and the worst professional scouting / assessment in MLB.
So, keep complaining about Cherington and Dombrowski, all you youngsters. BTW: I think it's Bill Lee that claims the team had to trade either him or Lyle before the start of the season because of a roster jam. But this isn't true. They started the season with a rotation of Pattin, Ray Culp, Sonny Siebert, Krausse, and Luis Tiant (who would soon swap roles with long man Gary Peters), and a pen of Ken Tatum, Lee, Bobby Bolin, and Roger Moret. Moret had options left and pitched just three times before he was sent down in mid-late May and replaced by John Curtis. Lyle and Lee had been 2nd and 3rd in bWAR on the 1971 pitching staff, so the suggestion that they were competing for the last spot on the staff is nuts to begin with. The other dimly known truth: the Sox in mid-season purchased Mario Guerrero from the Yankees. But the Lyle / Cater trade had been receiving so much bad press that Sox talked the Yankees into allowing them to announce that there had been a PTBNL in the trade, and Guerreo was it! And that's the way you'll see it at b-Ref, but it's an after-the-fact fiction.
Lol geez that’s pretty bad. And I thought Cherington was god awful, that GM makes Cherrington look like a hall of famer. I grew up with Duquette in the 90s and I always admired his ability to find talent. Believe it or not O'Connell despite some terrible moves, was actually a good GM or a real GM, something the Sox never had before. They used the crony system. Yawkey was kind of neglectful of the team by the 1950s and he let his cronies run the team. He had very incompetent men running the team. O'Connell was the first guy that wasn't a drinking buddy of Yawkey's to assume the GM position and he and Neil Mahoney were part of a big effort to really build the farm system and to integrate the Red Sox. And those efforts paid off with the 1967 Red Sox and a franchise that had 16 straight winning seasons - this after 8 straight losing seasons. O'Connell got the Red Sox to two World Series and they came within one win twice of winning those Series. I think overall he did a good job for the Red Sox. He made his share of mistakes as Eric Van pointed out, but if you look at the big picture of where the Red Sox were in the early to mid60s as to where they were when he was unfairly ousted by Jean Yawkey in 1977, you see a guy who did a great job putting the Red Sox on the right track. And his dismissal wasn't peformance based. It was simply that Jean Yawkey did not like him. She liked Haywood Sullivan - now THERE was a guy who was very incompetent!! And Buddy LeRoux who was seen as a shyster. So Mrs. Yawkey eventually bought the team upon Mr. Yawkey's death after Sullivan and LeRoux tried to and failed to. Dom DiMaggio tried to buy the team, but when Mrs. Yawkey got involved there was no chance anybody else was going to own it and out went O'Connell. Eventually LeRoux tried to take the team over from Mrs. Yawkey and Sullivan in 1983 and reinstall Dick O'Connell as GM. He did that takeover on the night the Red Sox were honoring Tony Conigliaro who had been stricken by a stroke and was in a coma (I think he was in a coma if I recall correctly). Extremely classless. It resulted in a court case and Mrs. Yawkey won although a few years later Sullivan fell out of her good graces. Perhaps it happened when she blamed McNamara for blowing the 1986 World Series and told Sullivan that the manager he hired cost them the Series. The court case coincided with the appt of Lou Gorman as GM as Sullivan got kicked upstairs. Eventually John Harrington became Mrs. Yawkey's favorite and Sullivan was bought out I believe. And as you remember Harrington took charge of the Red Sox upon Mrs. Yawkey's death until the sale to Henry, Werner, and Lucchino.
|
|
|