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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 5, 2015 15:17:09 GMT -5
Not playing Castillo everyday is baffling. Really frustrating Yeah, just puzzling. What's going on over there?
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 4, 2015 17:10:49 GMT -5
I don't get the excitement for Dombrowski; sounds like greener grass on the other side. I mean, I like him generally (and I must say he's a snappy dresser), but this ain't Friedmann we're talking about here. He's been giving contracts in Detroit that over the long run will make the Sandoval deal feel like a bargain(Verlander, Miggy, Fielder, etc.); will leave a farm system in pretty rough shape. I mean, Keith Law ranked Detroit's farm system the worst in baseball last January - it's probably a little better now thanks to recent trades. Year after year, his bullpens have been terrible. If DD was doing that in Boston, we'd be killing him on this board.
The excuse is always that the owner made him give the bad contracts, but that's quite a cop-out. People want to get rid of Ben, fine. But if Cherington gets fired, he'll leave a Red Sox team that's in much better shape to win in the short and medium terms than what Dombrowski is leaving in Detroit. I guess it depends on the role, and DD has the type of experience you're looking for in general, for a President of Baseball Ops role. But other than that, I really don't see much there that's fundamentally better than what we've got.
To me, option 1 is you keep Cherington, get rid of Allard Baird and find wherever Bill Lajoie (or somebody like that) is to work with Ben; if you get rid of Ben, go get whoever is the next analytically minded young GM out there (though you'd probably still need a Lajoie type).
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 3, 2015 12:23:57 GMT -5
Imo Heyward isn't leaving the Cards. They liked him enough to trade Miller for him in hopes having him this year would give them an edge in resigning him. Since then they've corrected a flaw in his swing leading to a good season and they're set for a new TV deal. Back to Eric's point I'd be open to dealing Swihart if they think Vazquez is an elite defensive C who could produce some good OBp. I'd prefer signing a top guy (Price or Cueto) and dealing for a good #2/#3. I'd prefer Carasco and wouldn't mind taking Bourne back to be a 4th OF. Start with Margot and Johnson and add another piece or two. Maybe Miley goes to a third team bc I think the 4/5 should be Porcello/ERod with Owens getting another year in AAA and on call for Buch when he goes down. I'm not sure I'd want to go all in for Gray and start a package with Margot+Swihart. I think we could sign a top guy and trade for a 2/3. This is pretty much where I am. Only difference I have with you is if we can get Gray for Swihart+Margot+, I'll take my beat up Chevy Camarro and drive them to the airport myself.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 3, 2015 9:46:14 GMT -5
I'm pretty set against signing any pitcher to a huge deal this winter (Cueto, Price or Zimmermann). If I was to hand out a big contract, I would sign Heyward. Heyward will be just 26 next season, and plays great RF defense giving him a high floor. If he doesn't hit his offensive peak, he's still a 3+ WAR player with a slightly above average bat and plus glove. He doesn't have big K rates or plate discipline issues. He's low risk compared to the moves we've been making. Moving Hanley to 1B and filling one OF spot with Heyward could really solidify our defense (which will aid the pitching) and our lineup. An argument to make is that Bradley could perhaps give you what Heyward brings to the table currently. But Heyward has much higher power potential and offensive upside. The remainder of the season will give us a better sense of what to expect from JBJ though. If things go well you could package/trade him for a SP like Ross, or hold onto him because of his production and low salary. Regardless, I think Heyward should be an intriguing option for us. How do you fix the biggest problem this team has - the pitching - if you put your big FA money in Heyward?
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 1, 2015 10:38:03 GMT -5
I put this in the "Fixing the Sox" thread, but maybe it belongs here. I think the biggest problem is the pitching, thus the focus below. On the hitting, it's really resolving the Hanley/Sandoval positional issues and bringing in a good hitting 1B. Other than that, I really don't see what else you can do, given contracts and all that. I've been wary of trading Miley, but on second thought, I don't think you can have Miley, Porcello, Buchholz and Ed Rod as key members of the rotation. Too much mediocrity (Miley/Porcello), injury (Buch) and rookie transition risk there. Obviously you can't get rid of Porcello and Ed Rod is a good-looking rookie, so you keep him. That means one of Miley or Buch has to go. I'm not a Buch fan, but I've come around to the fact that despite his warts, you have to keep him, because his upside is very good, and he's got higher fWAR than Miley and all that. Ultimately, I see two main paths here: -Rebuild: they don't use the word, but they essentially hold on to the top 10 prospects, go with Miley/Porcello/Buch/Ed Rod/Rookie (Johnson or Owens/cheap FA). You'll probably be last again, but that's what happens when you rebuild. The focus is on transitioning to the next great team in 2018-19 and phasing out old players with terrible contracts. I would be ok with this approach, but I don't think this ownership has the balls to do something like that in this market. Most expensive tickets in baseball, impatient fans, screaming media and all that. But seeing how Toronto is being set up, Baltimore somehow has our number and New York still seems to find a way, I don't think that's a terrible option. -Win Now - build a team designed to win now (as in 2016). The problem is I don't think they can do this without bringing in an ace and a #2, so that Buchholz slots in at number 3. Then you have a Ace 1/#2 starter/Buchh/EdRod/Porcello rotation, with Johnson and Owens in the wings. The problem is how you get the 2 frontline guys. I think you buy one (Cueto or Price) and you trade for one. I hate long term contracts for pitchers (I was against giving one to Lester), but I think I'd give Price something like the Scherzer deal. These are the rates for that type of pitcher, as much as I think they're terrible. Cueto may be $150 mil. I don't see how you get another strong starter without a trade. You bite the bullet and do a 3-1 for a Sonny Gray or a Carrasco or somebody, if they can be had. People say Tyson Ross, but I just see Miley. Maybe you swing a Sandoval for Shields trade, or something like that. But I think you'd have to trade one of the top-5 guys plus a JBJ and a couple of the 10-20 guys to get your cost-controlled #2. Then you do a reverse Miley trade or something, shipping him out for 1 or 2 high upside bullpen arms. -I guess there's a possible third approach, where you kind of go a bit halfway on the above two - you keep your top prospects, but trade fringe guys like JBJ for mediocre pitchers and bring in a Zimmermann or something. which may be what they've been trying to do. I just think you'd get the worst of both worlds, having a somewhat ace, but a mediocre rotation and trading kids who'll likely go on to be good players somewhere else. You'd sell tickets and be a little competitive, but I don't think this makes you good enough to compete with Toronto/New York/Baltimore; you spend more money to end up last anyway, so I don't really see the point. Not an easy offseason. But I think the biggest changes have to be in the FO (not necessarily firing Ben, but something has to happen there) and at manager level (I think Farrell has to go, but I don't think they'll let him go). All the above is kind of moot if they can't do a better job evaluating talent and migrating the kids to the major leagues. Read more: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2737/fix-sox?page=45#ixzz3hZtSbuIu
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 1, 2015 10:28:11 GMT -5
The Sox want to remain competitive and hopefully not destroy the core of what the "Next great Red Sox team" that Ben C talks about should look like. If Ben messes with that core to appease shor-term desires I think that's a bad sign that the Sox will keep on this treadmill. [Clipped for length] I'm sure there are a lot of flaws in my "plan", and I know that prospects get injured/wash out, but this is the first time in a long time the Sox have good viable prospects at all positions. I like this plan for the most part. I've been wary of trading Miley, but on second thought, I don't think you can have Miley, Porcello, Buchholz and Ed Rod as key members of the rotation. Too much mediocrity (Miley/Porcello), injury (Buch) and rookie transition risk there. Obviously you can't get rid of Porcello and Ed Rod is a good-looking rookie, so you keep him. That means one of Miley or Buch has to go. I'm not a Buch fan, but I've come around to the fact that despite his warts, you have to keep him, because his upside is very good, and he's got higher fWAR than Miley and all that. Ultimately, I see two main paths here: -Rebuild: they don't use the word, but they essentially hold on to the top 10 prospects, go with Miley/Porcello/Buch/Ed Rod/Rookie (Johnson or Owens/cheap FA). You'll probably be last again, but that's what happens when you rebuild. The focus is on transitioning to the next great team in 2018-19 and phasing out old players with terrible contracts. I would be ok with this approach, but I don't think this ownership has the balls to do something like that in this market. Most expensive tickets in baseball, impatient fans, screaming media and all that. But seeing how Toronto is being set up, Baltimore somehow has our number and New York still seems to find a way, I don't think that's a terrible option. -Win Now - build a team designed to win now (as in 2016). The problem is I don't think they can do this without bringing in an ace and a #2, so that Buchholz slots in at number 3. Then you have a Ace 1/#2 starter/Buchh/EdRod/Porcello rotation, with Johnson and Owens in the wings. The problem is how you get the 2 frontline guys. I think you buy one (Cueto or Price) and you trade for one. I hate long term contracts for pitchers (I was against giving one to Lester), but I think I'd give Price something like the Scherzer deal. These are the rates for that type of pitcher, as much as I think they're terrible. Cueto may be $150 mil. I don't see how you get another strong starter without a trade. You bite the bullet and do a 3-1 for a Sonny Gray or a Carrasco or somebody, if they can be had. People say Tyson Ross, but I just see Miley. Maybe you swing a Sandoval for Shields trade, or something like that. But I think you'd have to trade one of the top-5 guys plus a JBJ and a couple of the 10-20 guys to get your cost-controlled #2. Then you do a reverse Miley trade or something, shipping him out for 1 or 2 high upside bullpen arms. -I guess there's a possible third approach, where you kind of go a bit halfway on the above two - you keep your top prospects, but trade fringe guys like JBJ for mediocre pitchers and bring in a Zimmermann or something. which may be what they've been trying to do. I just think you'd get the worst of both worlds, having a somewhat ace, but a mediocre rotation and trading kids who'll likely go on to be good players somewhere else. You'd sell tickets and be a little competitive, but I don't think this makes you good enough to compete with Toronto/New York/Baltimore; you spend more money to end up last anyway, so I don't really see the point. Not an easy offseason. But I think the biggest changes have to be in the FO (not necessarily firing Ben, but something has to happen there) and at manager level (I think Farrell has to go, but I don't think they'll let him go). All the above is kind of moot if they can't do a better job evaluating talent and migrating the kids to the major leagues.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 31, 2015 13:06:51 GMT -5
This time of year, I get very excited to see my favorite team in my favorite sport do some things to improve the product. Unlike so many who follow these boards, I don't talk myself into every prospect meeting or exceeding their kindest projections. We want the same thing, we just differ on how to get there. I can handle a losing season or two, but this is atrocious, and I am losing my patience. As of today, I see no reason to believe we'll be competitive in the AL East for at least 3 years. Toronto is too good. NY will make a power move again. Baltimore owns us for some reason. Tampa is the only team I could see falling behind us due to their offensive woes. If you're cool hoping that 2019 will be a better time as a fan, more power to you. I'll gladly take the side of Red Sox Nation who wish to see dramatic changes, even if they're risky, NOW. In all honesty, I feel like you on the bolded, man. Add to that the fact that I've lost my trust in the ability of this Front Office to make the right changes, and in the Manager, I think this is the most down and frustrated I've been with the Sox since the John Henry era started. Where we differ is I don't think trading all the top prospects you have is really a sustainable proposition. As Jimed said above, you want perceived value, you have to do a 3 for 1 or 4 for 1 with your top prospects, like San Diego did or Toronto is doing. And Toronto is close enough that it makes sense for them to do this. The Red Sox are nowhere close to that. And you still run the risk that whoever you get back becomes terrible in Boston for some inexplicable reason. I think this team tied itself up with last season's moves. They're screwed with older players making tons of money and not delivering, guys playing at positions that are not theirs, a bad manager, terrible major league level evaluation, etc. It's mindboggling. Frankly, I think I'm ready for a rebuild. Toronto, New York and Baltimore are likely to beat us up for a while. Sell off what you can, be patient, play the kids, build for 2017-2018.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 31, 2015 12:34:05 GMT -5
I'd rather see Ben think like Preller. Shake things up. If it doesn't work out, shake it up again. Keep shaking this thing up like an Etch-A-Sketch until something sticks. You may consider that irresponsible or foolish, but what's the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario is exactly where we are at now. The worst case scenario is turning on NESN at 7:30 to see that visiting team is already up 7 runs. Yet I see so many who just want to maintain this status quo. I think the front office should be very concerned about what happens with another year or two of this crap. This is hilarious. Makes it easier to understand your username though. And yeah, I think it would be worse to have no payroll and no talent in the farm system because you've traded all of it out. At least the Red Sox can take some comfort in the farm system. Ben C. has had a terrible year, but believe it or not, Preller's has arguably been worse.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 31, 2015 6:25:41 GMT -5
How much farther ahead would the sox be if we made no offseason moves last winter? ? And while we are at it cancel the lackey and Lester deals. The question is in having taken on so many questionable contracts, how badly has Cherington compromised the Red Sox ability to field a winning team next year and beyond. The Red Sox appear to have the needed core of young players already in the system, but will they now have the financial capacity to surround those players with the additional pieces to round out a championship caliber team? To me, this is by far and away the core question. Reading that Speier piece mentioned above is awfully depressing. I thought they'd have more money than $15-$20m...They'll not have a lot of money to spend, and it looks like the big money makers are getting older and more terrible - and if this trade deadline is any indication, nobody wants them unless the Sox cover all the salary. What can be done to fix the Sox? I have no idea; I don't think there's a quick fix here, unless the FO gets awfully creative. Otherwise it's going to be ride the next year or two as unproductive veterans get off the books and more youngsters get to the majors. Part of me is starting to get scared that they'll start trading prospects not for talent, but to get some of the bad contracts off the books. That'd be something. I see two major steps: -Do something with Major League evaluation - it's been awful. Not sure if it's Allard Baird or whomever, but they have to make changes there. -I think Farrell has to go, frankly. His track record just isn't good, but more importantly, this team is going to transition to younger players. He doesn't seem to like, trust them much or able to put them in an environment that facilitates adjustment to the majors. He's just not the right manager for this team any more. Outside of that, if the owners like Cherington so much, he gets another year to get creative and see what he can do within the limits that he created for himself. If I'm Henry, I tell him - "you made the mess, get us out of it. And stay under the luxury tax. Oh, and for God's sake, let Allard Baird go".
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jul 23, 2015 8:54:13 GMT -5
Yeah, BC didn't sound too assured. I put it on the account of "what else is he going to say?" About Farrell, if he even says something like "we'll evaluate at the end of the year", you know everybody will run with "Farrell is gone", they'll go to Farrell and you have another cycle of distraction that this team doesn't need. Same thing on Hanley, etc. At this stage, what they say is quite meaningless. We're going to have to watch what they do.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 25, 2015 10:59:23 GMT -5
Masterson should be in the pen. Wright should get the spot start (and I say this hating knuckleballers in general). This front office continues to mystify. They haven't had my full confidence since Theo left and completely lost it with the Lester and Lackey trades last year. I love people who think they're the smartest guys in the room, no matter who else is in the room because they always reveal they're not pretty quickly. That's this Front Office, despite 2013, which is an anomalous outlier in the Cherrington Administration. It's not the Dave Stewart Administration, that's for sure, but it's not very good, either. Not to derail the thread, but I totally empathize with this. I think this FO lost a people this year. It's not just coming up last - in 2012 and I'd say, even 2014, you still had some faith that they knew what they were doing despite the hiccups. Even last year, when they brought AJP, you think, "ok, I don't like it, but this is the Sox FO, they know what they're doing". I used to love reading those "Best FOs/GMs in Baseball" articles, because I knew the Sox would be in there. I didn't have a problem not signing Lester to that contract; the logic of the Lackey trade made sense to me. This year is totally different. I don't understand the moves; or rather, I understand the supposed logic behind them (other than Breslow, ughh..), but for the most part, I find that logic faulty, behind trends, or not in the interest of winning games. I think they're behind the trends. I mean, it's obviously not all bad, but I just don't trust what they're doing any more; and with every other move, they kind of remind me why. This is like finding out that your mail order bride who looked so good on the pictures is actually not that pretty. It's a bit deflating. So you hold back to the memory you had of her being supposedly pretty. Since Cherington looks like a good, "smart" guy, I'll blame Allard Baird, lol. I think he has a lot to do with this.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 25, 2015 10:40:17 GMT -5
Man, the two guys acquired for Lackey are ending up in AAA. Unbelievable how terrible that trade is turning out to be. I liked it at the time, so I can't really complain..
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 25, 2015 10:14:34 GMT -5
One step forward, two steps back. Only two? I thought you said earlier you respected math. Yeah, this is like five steps back. This is all "veteran respect", "good guy" stuff. So what will happen is Masterson will be up there until he stinks up the joint, so they can tell him, "see, you can't do it" and replace him with the better alternatives. In the meantime, we lose another game or two at the time we have to go for all the games. Just terrible.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 25, 2015 10:10:21 GMT -5
If Jackie Bradley doesn't start against every RHP they face then send him back down. Farrell buried him last time. And I agree with mgoetze - he should be starting in CF. If Farrell is afraid to put Mookie in RF then put him in left. I agree with this too. He's your best defensive CF, CF is a critical position, start him in CF rather than going for the suboptimal alignment because you don't want to disrupt Mookie. And he probably will not be playing every day anyway, so Mookie would get back his spot. The marginal defensive loss from having Mookie in RF/LF is more than made up by JBJ's defense in CF. Enough messing around, just play guys where they give you their best performance.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Jun 25, 2015 9:42:15 GMT -5
Not for nothing but Ross Jr and Breslow take up space. Farrell forgets about them and once in a while he throws them in for work. Why keep these guys up here. None gonna claim Breslow anyway. Ross can go down. I am trying to keep calm but even the respected reporters and columnists are wondering about these moves and why don't don't give certain people a chance and why are others left alone. I mean it is not just us anymore. They keep complaining about Kelly more than we do. I can give five moves they can make and it does not involve trades. Hamels got blasted last night. Our Lowell team and Gcl team might be on to something. I don't want to jinx them. But Lowell always struggles and it's nice to see them storm out of the gate. To me, this is one of the big reasons why this team is in last place. They've been keeping a bunch of guys who are not really contributing anything, or playing them for too long, out of veteran respect, deep depth or whatever other reason - (unless of course they're rookies or Cubans, then Farrell really has no patience for under-performance). Hopefully these moves (along with Napoli sitting, etc.) mean that it's really now going to be performance first. Let's hope it's not too late.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 15:49:53 GMT -5
I'm certainly not advocating for knee-jerk management. But I do believe that initial "see what we have" period is no longer 3 months, I think it's more like the first two months of the season, if that. I also realize players are not machines and this isn't fantasy baseball. But for the life of me, I don't understand how that can justify continuing to hit Sandoval up in the upper part of the line-up as a righty against lefties when he has had abysmal results time and time again. Or going with your weakest defensive alignment for a game or two when JBJ is in the line-up. Or the terrible management of JBJ. To me, that's not giving yourself the best chance to win night in and night out in the name of patience and the game not being fantasy baseball. Maybe it works out in the long run, but we're talking about a team that has been out of the playoffs by end July three out of the last four years, so I'm going to submit that something in the approach must be off. I saw the manager of the Rangers bring out his closer in the seventh the other night to snuff out a situation, so some other teams certainly seem to have a sense of urgency. I can't begin to imagine Farrell doing that in May to win a game. This is the attitude that would have suggested that, two weeks ago, they needed to DFA four-fifths of their rotation because it wasn't "giving you the best chance to win." Two weeks later, the freak out over the rotation certainly seems like an overreaction. It looks like I did a terrible job of conveying my point, because you don't appear to have grasped the crux of it..But you'll admit, I'm sure, that there's a difference between showing some urgency with a few tactical decisions and "DFA-ing four-fifths of the rotation". In fairness, I probably would have gone two-fifths; they put Masterson on the DL, so they kind of met me half-way..
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 14:37:24 GMT -5
You realize than managing an actual baseball team, with actual people, is different than managing a fantasy baseball team, right? When you pull an underperforming player from your fantasy lineup, it doesn't matter. When you move around the lineup pieces on an actual team like a game of chess, it does matter to those players. And you're going to blame the manager for Rusney still being in the minors? Really? There's an old baseball maxim that the first third of the season is to figure out where you are and the second third of the season is to fix the problems. There are many people on this forum who interpret "first third of the season" as five games or less.I see a team that's actively working to solve the issues. Everyday Eddie Mujica is gone and Matt Barnes has been added to the bullpen. The team patiently allowed Uehara to get into rhythm and he looks like Koji again. The starting rotation has been given some patience, Masterson excluded, and they have responded. The team is patiently allowing its two young hitting stars to develop at their own pace, understanding that development is a process not an on-off switch. These moves are paying off. It's hard to solve every problem at the same time, especially with an impatient fanbase. The team is muddling through a terrible catching situation and is slowly trying to figure out RF. The team has cut bait (at the major league level) with Allen Craig. I've been around this site for a long time and I'm guessing by your (sub-10) number of posts that you are new. But when you question the front office for the development speed of a 20-year old Class A pitcher from a northern climate that was drafted as a high-ceiling project less than two years ago, you'll forgive me if I am not swayed by your opinions. I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you're saying; and I've traditionally subscribed to a season as a three-third model as well. I read Moneyball too. I've come to question that axiom though, as I believe it often leads to making decisions that tolerate mediocrity in the name of patience, and/or "we've got to see what we have". That and the fact that with more teams being in it in July because of the second wild card, it's a lot more difficult to wait around to plug holes. What was, for a long time, understandable patience in waiting for guys to turn it around, to me has become a weakness - an excuse for not making difficult decisions - and frankly, for making the wrong calls. By the time they make moves, it's certainly possible that they could be in a position where they must decide whether they're buyers or sellers at the deadline - with greater chances that they'll be sellers. I'm certainly not advocating for knee-jerk management. But I do believe that initial "see what we have" period is no longer 3 months, I think it's more like the first two months of the season, if that. I also realize players are not machines and this isn't fantasy baseball. But for the life of me, I don't understand how that can justify continuing to hit Sandoval up in the upper part of the line-up as a righty against lefties when he has had abysmal results time and time again. Or going with your weakest defensive alignment for a game or two when JBJ is in the line-up. Or the terrible management of JBJ. To me, that's not giving yourself the best chance to win night in and night out in the name of patience and the game not being fantasy baseball. Maybe it works out in the long run, but we're talking about a team that has been out of the playoffs by end July three out of the last four years, so I'm going to submit that something in the approach must be off. I saw the manager of the Rangers bring out his closer in the seventh the other night to snuff out a situation, so some other teams certainly seem to have a sense of urgency. I can't begin to imagine Farrell doing that in May to win a game. Now, this is not a good analogy, but it's like the Red Sox always taking the first pitch in the at-bat, being patient, trying to get the starting pitcher out so they can get to the bullpen. For a long time, that was the axiom - and it made sense. Today,that approach just isn't as effective, and they have to adjust. The best models evolve with context; they don't stay stuck in their ways because that's the way it's always been. The moves you point to, that they've made are fair ones. And the firing of the pitching coach was certainly an aggressive move towards fixing things - not that I'm advocating firing people. I'm blaming Cherington first and Farrell second for Rusney not being up. I shouldn't have mentioned Trey Ball, couldn't help it, lol. As for being new, that shouldn't really be all that relevant, should it? I've actually been lurking for a long time - never really got around registering, and once I registered, not really getting around to posting. Jeez, I thought you'd actually encourage posting more... On the flip side, I must say that I pretty much gave up on the team in early summer 2004, only for them to go crazy later that summer, and we all know how that one ended - so what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 22, 2015 13:00:03 GMT -5
This year has been difficult. I must say that for the first time since Valentine was here, I really have no trust in what the Manager/Farrell is doing. I mean, in the past, you could disagree with this move or that move, but still think he was ok overall. Now, he just strikes me as making the wrong tactical decisions, pretty much all the time, and I don't mean in the game. What looks like welcome patience at times really just looks like failure to act while the ship is sinking. Why isn't the line-up just changing even a little bit against lefties? Is it the end of the world if Napoli doesn't hit in the fifth spot? How long do you carry Mookie lead-off with that OBP? And Rusney in the minors? That and the mismanagement (whether it's through lack of trust or apparent dislike) of young players while veterans are coddled? Why is JBJ up there sitting on the bench? And why on earth is he playing RF, your weakest defensive alignment, when he's playing? Farrell really lost me this year.
And I'm sad to say, so has Cherington. From the terrible player evaluation at major league level to Trey Ball (I haven't given up on the kid, but man..), young players brought up to quickly only for Farrell to mess them up, it's really been hard to watch this. And I really don't trust that they'll make the right decisions going forward.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 8, 2015 8:31:03 GMT -5
For whatever it's worth, I can't think of any reasons Nieves SHOULDN'T have been fired. There's no Jake Arrieta or Scott Kazmir reclamation project success stories on this team you can point to in his defense. The Red Sox haven't been particularly good at getting better-than-expected performances out of kids or vets under Nieves. I don't know how much of that you can hang on him, but it's not like they're firing a Leo Mazzone or a Dave Duncan here. Exactly. All the media clowns were criticizing this move yesterday because the Sox don't have the most talented pitching staff, but that's a completely different argument. Just because there isn't a supposed ace on the roster doesn't negate the fact that the entire staff (minus the last two Porcello starts) has underachieved all season. And, like FTHW said, Nieves doesn't have any success stories to his name either.Who knows if this move will make a difference, but it's certainly not worth criticizing at the moment.This is really unfair to Nieves, and probably wrong (I don't know for sure, and I doubts anybody here really knows). But this is the kind of thing you say after the fact to justify a move like this, but that doesn't make it true. And this is not an argument for not firing him. The pitching staff is terrible, you fire the pitching coach. Fine. But shoving him off like he's some kind of bum isn't really helpful either. First, nobody here (unless you're an insider) really knows whom he helped. And when Nieves first came here from the White Sox, I remember seeing stories about guys he helped. Second, if the standard is success stories of a Jake Arrieta-magnitude, you probably need to fire half the pitching coaches. Third, Nieves was perfectly fine when they were winning the World Series in 2013. Lester pitched well; Lackey, Taz; Buchholz was very good until he got injured. Doubront. Mortensen. Badenhop. But that was all Farrell, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 7, 2015 13:19:36 GMT -5
There's a difference between saying "this pitching staff has been the worst in the majors so far" (which even mgoetze would probably admit is true) and saying "this pitching staff is the worst in the majors so far" (suggesting that they will be the worst pitching staff in the league going forward). I'm pretty confident that, even ignoring internal promotions and external additions, the five guys in the current rotation will not, from this point forward, have the worst ERA (or B-R WAR) in the league through the rest of the season. Well, I certainly would agree with that. In fact, what I precisely said was "we're talking about one of the worst staffs in the majors". I didn't say "so far" though, but that's certainly what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 7, 2015 12:59:46 GMT -5
we're talking about one of the worst pitching staffs in the majors. You might be, but I prefer to talk about the Red Sox. You know, the team whose starters have the 14th-best SIERA in the majors. Fair enough. They're great. They have "the 14th-best SIERA in the majors". I wonder why they feel the need to fire their pitching coach one month into the season.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on May 7, 2015 12:50:11 GMT -5
That's just ridiculous. Obviously things aren't going great right now, but there was little else he could do in the offseason and little anyone can do when everyone's results are worse than their peripherals and worse than expected before the season. I mean what should he have done instead? Our offense stinks right now, but he should have dumped Papi and Napoli before the season because they aren't hitting now? This lineup is going to mash eventually. All you can judge a GM on is what the team looked like on paper before they start playing. He cannot stop a 10% outcome from happening. And the 10% outcome is not likely to stay that way even if he makes no more moves. Not sure why people blame Cherington. The pitching staff hasn't been optimal, but other than re-signing Lester or trading for a pitcher, which both would have likely had consequences, there isn't much he could have done. The Lester contract will probably look pretty bad, and we would have had to give up Mookie or Swihart to get an ace type pitcher. They can instead get guys like that next off season or at the trade deadline. What is more questionable as far as Ben's moves go, are keeping Craig and Miley on the ML roster, and DFAing Varvaro. If he fixed that, I'd argue he is doing a pretty good job keeping our team in contention while also not giving up significant prospect talent. I'll not go as far as to say Ben must go, etc. That's silly. But I similarly don't quite get the "You can't blame Ben" or "What else could Cherington have done" theme. Granted, it's only one month in, and we're talking about one of the worst pitching staffs in the majors. Masterson was terrible last year, has always had issues with lefties. They could have found somebody better. Relying on Buchholz, when there are so many other question marks (Kelly, Miley) doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do, and that's hardly second-guessing. I thought signing Breslow was asinine. You look at those games vs. the Yankees, and it was astonishing how superior their Bullpen was - or conversely, how bad the Sox's was. Unless Nieves was the one driving the bus on all those decisions, somebody has got to be responsible for them, no? I'm sorry to see Nieves go; may be there were communications issues, etc. Fine. But the issue to me, is that the talent on the pitching side just isn't good enough. And yes, SSS and all that - but we may be out of the playoffs by the time the sample is acceptable enough.
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Feb 22, 2015 15:12:49 GMT -5
Long time lurker, just felt bound to react. I'm rather surprised at the (mostly) negative impressions of Ball; given that the crowd here tends to be a bit more sophisticated when it comes to understanding prospect development, I expected a little bit more..patience I guess. And I speak as somebody who wanted Meadows. In any event, I'm a believer in Ball, though the probability that this was a busted pick is certainly there. But I think the scouts saw something there that made the upside worth the risk, and Ball hasn't quite shown that. I like Kopech too, but he's got the benefit of being the new shiny toy (that and the fact that many people didn't want Ball to begin with). I find the suggestions that Ball should start looking into hitting to be quite silly. Give the kid some time; maybe he busts, who knows, but it's a bit early to give up on him . I'm curious what % of the people voting Kopech do so because they don't think Ball will amount to much, or still have hope in Ball but just think Kopech will be better.
|
|
|