Recent Posts

I can make a physical argument that makes good sense, I believe. You're used to locating the bat for a certain effect, say trying to get lift. The metal bat is wider, that means the change in curvature is slower from the middle of the bat to the top. There's less of an angle off the bat with that wider width at the place where you typically make contact.

So, you start using wooden bats. You're still locating the bat for what you think will be the proper lift, but the angle is more pronounced where it makes contact. The result is a pop-up instead of a drive. I can draw you a picture if you'd like.

My concern about Hanley at 1B - although I'm game to try him there - is that he will get hurt, repeatedly. I think he has the same fear. He said something early in the season about not wanting to play in the infield again because of all the bending.

The guy who probably would be a really good defensive 1B is Swihart, but it's too early to tell whether he will hit enough.

Also, he has never gone less than 5 innings in his two GCL starts....Espinoza has never gone past 4. Raudes > Espinoza

Forgot about the game... Did E-Rod suck as much as his numbers indicate?

Still can't get out of the fourth. I don't see the big deal here.

I was listening to the baseball reporters (first mistake) the other day and they mentioned Andrew Benintendi saying that he was hurt and that he was a tough guy to get along with in the clubhouse. Not that I buy any stock into "team chemistry" in baseball, but I am interested to hear if hear if anyone knew if he was a malcontent or if there was any status on his health.

How did you feel about Lackey and re-signing Becket?  Those two were disasters.  Lackey salvaged his contract, but it's hard to expect what he did.  That might happen 1 out of 100 times.

I questioned - and will continue to question - this whole "philosophy" of not giving free agent starters over 30 long term deals. I am not sure a team can consistently win being that rigid unless they have demonstrated superior ability to develop pitching internally (Oak, StL, TB). This team has a huge deficit in pitcher development. Until they fix it they it almost seems they may have to pay for 6/7 years of salary for 3/4 years of of high level performance if they want to win. What is the cost of that versus losing ticket sales, TV revenue, concession revenue etc. which all decline when this team loses? Also, as shown with the Scherzer deal, there are creative ways to spend that money. As I understand it, deferred payments have his salary against the luxury tax calculation down significantly over seven years to something like $15M a year. So what if they are paying him 5 years after he's no longer on their roster, gone, especially given inflation and the revenue generated when he was there? There are other ways to get creative, too, as has been discussed here.

Sure these contracts are a gamble and always lose money at the back end, but that may be the cost of doing business in this era for a team that consistently fail to draft and develop or trade for above average starters - at least, if they want to win. I'm not sure this organization as currently constructed CAN win being this inflexible. And as much as a couple guys in A Ball look like they might - might - be better than a #3 down the road, the road to the bigs is littered with such guys, and you can get away with a whole lot on the lower levels with just velocity. That doesn't mean it translates to the command and control you need to succeed in MLB. You can all sit there and say "complete rebuild" and "patience" but as Cherington said himself, that is not an option in Boston. The ownership's business model is not built that way, and I don't think their ownership would willing sit (or stand) for that.