|
Post by p23w on Jan 7, 2018 20:30:09 GMT -5
I keep laughing at the thought of Brentz being the next JDM late bloomer. Think of Bryce as the next Aaron Judge then. Or C(K)hris Davis, or the next coming of David Ortiz. Myself, I can't remember the last time a member of this organization hit 38 home runs in one year, at any level. Point being NOT signing JDM is NOT the end of the world (or the 2018 season) as some would have you believe.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 7, 2018 16:51:01 GMT -5
If Boston cannot come to terms with JD Martinez, I hope they try to make a trade happen.
I really don't like any other free agent, except Hosmer, who doesn't fit anymore, so I would rather not commit any money past this year. I like McCutchin as an option if JD is gone. I really hope Bruce is not considered. I don't think he is an upgrade over Hanley... Me, if Martinez is not obtained, I'd really prefer to see Brenz given a fair shot before a trade.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 5, 2018 20:45:57 GMT -5
Given the weather over the past 72 hours methinks this thread should be renamed the Cabin Fever Forum.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 5, 2018 20:41:06 GMT -5
I think this forum overrates JBJ. What I like best about him are his routes and his arm. What I am not enamored with is his pitch selection. Personally I believe there are 4-5 CFers in the league every bit as good defensively as JBJ. I believe there are about ten CFers that are better offensively. That said, I'd be loathe to upset the chemistry of the clubhouse for a new manager to exchange Bradley for Puig, or to make room for a future DH. My .02.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 2, 2018 22:45:48 GMT -5
I believe having Addison Reed on the 2018 RS team accomplishes two things (possibly three). First it makes for a better bullpen, not much argument on this issue. Secondly it provides an insurance policy for Kimbrel. IMO there are precious few bullpens that can substitute a former 40 save relief pitcher with play off experience should their closer be unavailable. How much that insurance policy is worth is up to debate. Given the current available options on the 2018 roster I'm inclined to bite the bullet for this particular insurance policy. I'll include my third contingency that is soley based on personal observation. Reed reminds me of Mike Timlin. Not so much with his stuff (IMO Reed's stuff is slightly better), but in his demeanor and in his ability to be abused. I wouldn't go so far as to say Reed (or Timlin) is "rubber armed", but that, given their demeanors, they can still get the job done under duress. Obviously this attribute has limitations (see Robert's use of Jansen and Hinch's use of Giles). This ability, or skill is not common. Whether it be the decline in "stuff" as exhibited by a taxed Kelly or a loss of "demeanor" as seen by an extended Hembree or Barnes, my perception of Reed's ability to get the job done sans his stuff was unique among the cast of characters in the 2017 RS bullpen. Whilst I think this aptitude is not necessary to explore during the regular season (except Yankee games). I do think it comes into play during the post season. This applies in particular to the last two playoff appearances by this team.
Buy a bat. Fine by me. Somehow I think building a beast with pitching (and defense) will take this team further into the post season.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jan 2, 2018 21:26:43 GMT -5
Should the RS re-sign Addison Reed? I don't want this to become a debate about salary. Would rather focus on whether a full year of Reed makes the 2018 RS a better team based on his skill set and experience.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 26, 2017 22:34:56 GMT -5
Ryan & Price - mutants moving the human species forward, at least those who like to launch baseballs at 95+ mph. Honorary X-Men, maybe? Justin Verlander is a charter member of the X-men.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 26, 2017 22:30:11 GMT -5
I was one of those who strongly supported Hill being re-signed, and yeah I thought it was pretty stupid to not bring him back for $6 million based on how strong he looked and who we had as candidates (Kelly, Buchholz). I saw it more as DD wanted a bigger fish and didn't want to bargain shop more than it being the logical choice at the time. Not to mention, Boston should have known why he caught fire (training with Mike Boyle, working off his curveball not FB, etc) and in hindsight they look ridiculous for not taking a $6 million risk and instead giving over $200 million to Price. Yeah money doesn't grow on trees but passing up calculated risks is something I really don't like about DD's roster construction. So please don't get me going on this, because then I'll start bitching about how I adamantly opposed not re-signing Andrew Miller (was told here he'll never be worth the contract), Jon Lester and Adrian Beltre. It annoys me to no end that players can have an excellent seasons in Boston, and seemingly want to play here, but we decide they aren't worth what in all 4 cases turned out to be very fair prices. Amen, amen and amen. What curls my fries are the evangenlical sabermetricians who justified these moves (or lack thereof) with zero insight into the character of each player. Stats have their place. Zealots makes for revenue generating fans. Character makes for teams worthy to root for.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 26, 2017 17:02:24 GMT -5
First off, your analogy is bad, but lucky for you I already understand the thing you're trying to explain to me. A poker hand would be a better example than a scratch ticket. That is, something where you can make an informed decision about how much you want to bet, even though you don't know to a certainty what the outcome is going to be. Yeah, no one knew exactly what would happen with Rich Hill, but we had plenty of data with which to make smart guesses. People looked at that data, came up with an answer that turned out to be completely right, and you still want to insist that they were wrong? I mean, if you want to be that stubborn, that's up to you I guess. Also, in what world can the Red Sox not afford to take a six million dollar flyer on a guy with Hill's upside? They gave David Price two hundred million. I mean... do I have to explain how ridiculous that argument is? Do I really have to? You don't seem to get it, it was 6 million and a starting spot in the rotation. Nevermind you act like money is nothing, you don't just overpay guys because Price makes 200 plus million. That's like saying 15 million would be ok for Moreland because Hanley makes almost 23 million and Moreland was better last year. A team has a budget and 6 million plus a roster spot is a crazy amount for Hill with his History. The Red Sox had Hill in the system for 3 different years, no team knew him better and they thought that was crazy. They made an informed choice, so did every other team in the league. Only the A's that knew they would suck took the gamble and they tried to trade him right off the bat. Knowing his risks and an injury almost didn't allow them to trade him. If I remember right he got back for like one start before the deadline. They also didn't get much and had to package him with Reddick to get something decent. Nope my analogy is right on, everyone that wanted him thought they were making informed decision, but they weren't, just like my friend. They only looked at 4 starts and not Hills whole body of work. I know because I was involved in that lively debate. Looking at 4 very good starts and overlooking history is not making an informed decision. Do I have to explain to you how crazy it is to give a guy like Hill 6 million and a spot in the rotation for a team that wants to win a championship? Every post you seem to leave out he wanted a rotation spot, which is key. Looking at only a very limited sample size is not making an informed decision. Heck Joe Kelly can rattle off 10 great starts in a row every now and then. How did he turn out? Do you really think it was smart to not start Kelly and Clay in 2016, so you could pay 6 million for Hill and give him a spot in the rotation? Momma always said stupid is as........
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 26, 2017 16:56:54 GMT -5
Not sure if this goes here but this is the roster building thread so I figured why not. Who is the biggest question mark for the Sox in this coming year? For me it is David Price and it isn't close. Yes there are many many players who need to rebound from an off year but none of them are 30mil. guys with as much potential or expectations. That is what comes with a contract like that. So it hasn't been discussed much and I wanted to hear your thoughts on the Sox highest paid player who has so many question marks. I mean he is supposed to be competing for a Cy Young right? How concerned should we be that the Sox will be saddled with a terrible contract for a guy who may never come close to living up to it based on his elbow? Way too early to ask, let alone respond to this question. The Ides of March is when this question can (and needs to be) asked/answered. Price's main contribution/hindrance to this team is not his stats (no one contends that when healthy he is a top 10 starter in the AL) but his enormous salary. If the obligation to Price prohibits the team from signing Sale, Kimbrel or even Pomeranz (and further down the road Betts) then the time is now to win (with Price), because this team has no chance without Sale/Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 25, 2017 14:21:57 GMT -5
Wow. And some people talk about revisionism. We have no history, no connection to Lincecum. We very much did with Hill. Lincecum has won two CYA's. Hill has more post season wins than any Red Sox starter since 2016. Whilst I hope that Lincecums' velocity is back because I believe it is essential to his success, this was never the case with Hill. Hill had pitched fairly well, albeit in few innings, for several years, prior to 2016. The first team to give him a "start" in 6 years was the 2015 Boston Red Sox. The rest is history. Hill did not see his future as a LOOGY, much the same vas Schilling didn't see his future as a reliever in Baltimore or Houston. I hope Lincecum hits 93 or better on the gun. I hope he makes 25 or more starts and throws 150+ innings in the Majors. I'd just as soon see this happen for the Padres so as to raise havoc in the NLW. I wish we had a connection to Lincecum. Yes, it is not just about the money, it is also about knowing who and what you are. And if you are a shrewd front office person it is about recognizing that quality in the people you choose to keep on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 24, 2017 15:53:50 GMT -5
Two of the "projected" starters that the Res Sock management chose to gaurantee spots in the starting rotation (ERod/Wright) have pitched fewer innings than Hill since 2016. Since Hill was allowed to walk only Sale has posted better stats. The decision not to come to an accommodation with Hill ranks right up there with not signing Miller after his time in Baltimore. Both decisions were errors in judgement by management (and those sports reporting pundits that cover the Red Sox). Since this response has nothing to do with Lincecum, I'll make it my last for this thread.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2017 13:05:42 GMT -5
He’s definitely a borderline case, but I included him because he made a notable jump while in Boston’s farm system. The last true homegrown (drafted/signed, developed and had sustained major league success in Boston) pitchers they’ve developed are Lester and Buchholz, who debuted 10+ years ago. While not originally signed or brought to the Majors by the Red Sox, I would include Andrew Miller who"came of age" while a Red Sock. I would not count ERod just yet.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 22, 2017 22:05:33 GMT -5
Well, his time in Arizona is already over. Claimed by the Dodgers. I think Only two teams have the pitching instructors skilled enough to turn Owens around. The Dodgers and the rays. At the end of the day, I hope they do fix Owens and he goes on to have a productive career! Rich Hill is the perfect mentor for Owens.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 22, 2017 19:33:03 GMT -5
That's... not what luck is, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Any right-handed pitcher, even a good one, will give up homers in Yankee Stadium. That doesn't make them unlucky or bad. He's probably a park-neutral 3.50 ERA guy, and like a 3.85 in Yankee Stadium. That has a ton of value, and for a team that has the farm system to pull it off then there's a match there. Again, you don't do Torres for it, and you wince at Sheffield, but Frazier? Especially a team with that depth? Hell yes. If you're the Pirates you have Meadows.... and don't need Frazier. You stick to your original request for Torres. Cole on the NYY's scares the p*** out of me.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 22, 2017 19:22:07 GMT -5
Well that's kind of easy to answer. 2004 Boston Red Sox. 2009 New York Yankees. Did the 2004 Red Sox have a better offseason than the 2004 Yankees? The Red Sox made two clear, major upgrades in Foulke and Schilling, but also had the Garciaparra and Ramirez trade/non-trade fiascos hanging over them. The Yankees had picked up baseball's second-best player for a player they basically didn't need anymore, as well as a still-awesome Gary Sheffield. And it's hard to remember now... but the hype around Javier Vazquez, who was 27 and coming off a monster season with Montreal, was enormous. I'll try to find some articles published at the time, but it doesn't seem like the consensus was that the Red Sox won the offseason by any stretch. Trading for Schilling "won" the 2004 off season for this fan. I was relieved when they lost out on ARod.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 21, 2017 11:41:21 GMT -5
Very few on this board were upset with Hill's departure. The"Hill" poll, if one was concocted would have been different from the Lincecum poll. Just postulating that the Red Sox couldn't offer a talented pitcher that which he requested overlooks the fact that they made an error in judgement. Signing talent has as much to do with personalities as with performance. An accommodation for Hill was certainly within the realm of the Red Sox. Unfortunately that did not happen. It is doubtful that Red Sox management would sign Lincecum, largely in part to not having a personal relationship. The exhorbitant money paid for Price was partly the result of a existing personal relationship. Personally I think relocation to the ALE by a rejuvenated Lincecum would be about the most difficult road to a successful comeback. The parks and familiarity with the NLW would probably lend itself best to a successful Lincecum reemergence.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 21, 2017 10:22:26 GMT -5
Should have done this with Hill. To ignore a comeback (from hip surgery) of a two time CYA winner would be myopic.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 19, 2017 22:01:49 GMT -5
Is he worth a look?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 17, 2017 14:07:39 GMT -5
Just say no to Manny Machado.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 16, 2017 18:47:15 GMT -5
"Net neutrality". Opinions are a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 11, 2017 14:28:28 GMT -5
Yes. Your post made sense. But that does not take the Sting away from watching our best rival increase their main advantage over our team. This just plain sucks. And trying to place blame on Jeter, the commissioners office, Dombrowski, the Boston media is just fans venting. Besides, won't it be more fun for the Cora and the boys to "slay" Goliath? As a life long RS fan I am comfortable in our role as underdog. Makes beating Aaron F. Boone and his band of mercenaries all that more enjoyable. Start the Gregorian chants, bring on the whirling dervishes, we are on a mission.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 9, 2017 12:55:57 GMT -5
The Chief Justice and the recently appointed Judge. The fix is in.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 3, 2017 16:50:27 GMT -5
Speculation run amok.
|
|
|
Boras
Nov 12, 2017 11:38:44 GMT -5
Post by p23w on Nov 12, 2017 11:38:44 GMT -5
Amazing disconnect between the business of baseball and the game. I will always love the game. Baseball as a business if fraught with legal and technical issues that are of little interest. How I miss the days of hot stove discussions when men drank cocoa and talked about the game between the white lines.
|
|