A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well, if you compare at Paps to Jenks, then I say Paps is sure as hell worth the difference. I'd hate to think we saved a few mil and had to rely on Jenks to close.

    Bard is the real issue. Financially, it makes sense to go with Bard. But if Bard can't cut it, and the team blows 8 games as a result, knocking us out of the PO's, then I doubt 10 mil spent elsewhere would compensate.

    It's a matter of money allocation vs. skill-set.

    IMO, Bard needs to be much more consistent with his secondary pitches. Papelbon basically threw his heat last year. Little else. And he still saved 37 games. Now, he's got all his pitches working with good command.

    Bard could never get by on just his heat. He throws harder than Paps on the radar gun, but hitters don't pick up Papelbon's gas as quickly due to his delivery.
    The hope is that Bard will grow into the role by year's end.
    If the FO feels he hasn't, I think they will reconsider letting the best closer in Boston history go for the draft picks.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The other thing about letting Paps go is that, even supposing that Bard can do the job as closer, the way the game is now, having a shutdown 8th-inning guy has also become a crucial factor.  So you would have to find somebody who can replace Bard in that role.  Right now Jenks doesn't look like it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Bard is the real issue. Financially, it makes sense to go with Bard. But if Bard can't cut it, and the team blows 8 games as a result, knocking us out of the PO's, then I doubt 10 mil spent elsewhere would compensate.

    I assume you meant to say "if Bard blows 8 more games than Paps would have blown..."

    Paps is going to blow some games. If Bard closes, so will he. Yes, if it ends up being 8 more, then the $10M most probably could not have been spent better elsewhere. I do not think Bard is 8 blown saves worse than Paps, and I do not think Jenks is as bad as he has looked in the tiny sample size thus far. 

     There are a lot of very good closers in MLB making way less than $10M/yr.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]The other thing about letting Paps go is that, even supposing that Bard can do the job as closer, the way the game is now, having a shutdown 8th-inning guy has also become a crucial factor.  So you would have to find somebody who can replace Bard in that role.  Right now Jenks doesn't look like it.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    I think this is a crucial point. Honestly I'd rather Bard stay in the role he is in now, I think that having a "stopper" who comes into really tough situations where the game is on the line (like Bard did the other night with the bases loaded) is more important than having a great closer. I think the best reliever belongs in this role, spots where the game is on the line, if no such high leverage situation occurs, he can come in and close. Even if pap goes, I'd rather replace him with someone else and leave Bard where he is, as the guy who is frequently the one who "saves" the game - in the 7th or 8th.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'd like to have Bard as the t8h inning guy too. I like to have papelbon as the close too.

    My point is, it's not all about those 2 slots in isolation. I think paying ovr $10M for a closer is not being wise ith the budg, esecially when you have a guy like Bard in the wings.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The issue with Papelbon will not the $$$ it will be the years and how the RS feel about the likelihood of his being able to deliver value for the life of the contract. So while Moon metaphorically says the $10M+, I am sure he means $36M-$40M. K-Rod was allowed to leave Anaheim not because of the annual salary, it was because of the total contract value. And the contract didn't bite the Mets the 1st year. GMs like to say there are no bad one year deals...because even if the player does not perform, the pain of it subsides quite quickly.

    As far as keeping Bard where he is regardless of whether Papelbon stays or goes, in terms of pure baseball, that might have merit. After all, the most critical outs aren't always in the 9th inning (though most every pitcher who has ever closed and set-up will tell you they are the 3 toughest outs).

    But if Papelbon goes and Bard has an excellent year not giving him the ball does have its issues. The player will be very unhappy and any chance to extend him for life of arbitration years plus 1 or 2 will be reduced a lot. After all, in Bard's line of work closing is where the money is and if the RS don't give him that shot even if he is the best reliever on the roster, the relationship between the player and the organization goes down the toilet.

    Just my takes
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wherescreamingcomesfrom. Show wherescreamingcomesfrom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE] keeping Bard where he is regardless of whether Papelbon stays or goes, in terms of pure baseball, that might have merit. After all, the most critical outs aren't always in the 9th inning (though most every pitcher who has ever closed and set-up will tell you they are the 3 toughest outs). But if Papelbon goes and Bard has an excellent year not giving him the ball does have its issues. The player will be very unhappy and any chance to extend him for life of arbitration years plus 1 or 2 will be reduced a lot. After all, in Bard's line of work closing is where the money is and if the RS don't give him that shot even if he is the best reliever on the roster, the relationship between the player and the organization goes down the toilet. Just my takes
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I think you might be right about the importance of "being the closer". Maybe the issue is more the way that closers are used. If Pap leaves, and frankly I wouldn't give him $10 million over 3 years either, I would like to see them make Bard the closer but be willing to use him in critical situations earlier in games also. I just think that only using the best relief pitcher in the ninth, regardless of situation doesn't make sense. Maybe we could have a set-up man that can come in and close when we have to use our closer in an earlier critical moment.

    Then again, maybe this is just semantics and wouldn't fly at all. In the end I guess I'm just for less defined roles in the bullpen.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II



    Watching Papelbon last night, a bizarre thought came to me. 

    Last night was the 3rd game in a row in which he pitched.  If I'm not mistaken, I think Remy + Orsillo said the last time he pitched this many games in a row was somewhere around 2006(?).  My point is that perhaps the FO intends on using him all year long with little rest without fear of burning him out because they don't think he'll be with us any length of time anyway.  I know this sounds cruel, but business is business....baseball or not.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II


    Please forgive me for bringing up catching just one last time.

    Varitek looked exhaused toward the end of his second game.  It's just not like him to take his time going after a passed ball.  The poor guy really looked tired.

    Salty?  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt defensively before last nights games.  Watching him, I was almost embarassed.  Jid, if you're out there, you've got to admit his technique on blocking stoppable balls just didn't exist.  Both of those passed balls really should have been caught.  He really had that deer eyes in the headlights look.

    God, I hope he proves me wrong.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : I think you might be right about the importance of "being the closer". Maybe the issue is more the way that closers are used. If Pap leaves, and frankly I wouldn't give him $10 million over 3 years either, I would like to see them make Bard the closer but be willing to use him in critical situations earlier in games also. I just think that only using the best relief pitcher in the ninth, regardless of situation doesn't make sense. Maybe we could have a set-up man that can come in and close when we have to use our closer in an earlier critical moment. Then again, maybe this is just semantics and wouldn't fly at all. In the end I guess I'm just for less defined roles in the bullpen.
    Posted by wherescreamingcomesfrom[/QUOTE]Your point is embraced by a lot of SABRmetricians about using your best reliever in the most critical situation regardless of the inning, so you aren't alone in the thinking. The RS in 2003 pointed at this line of thought to explain their bullpen by committee but that was really a case of trying to dress up a pigpen, since the bullpen they collected lacked a "best reliever/closer". So while the bullpen by committee experiment was in fact nobody is good enough to put a claim on the 9th inning as the man, in the minds of SABRmetricians like Bill James it is about using the best reliever in the most leveraged moments in the later innings.

    The players themselves disagree, not so much that the best pitcher issn't a good fit in 7th or 8th, but rather that the last 3 outs in a close game aren't different to get regardless of the hitters coming up.

    And then of course you have the economic factors, saves are the home runs of relievers world, the ultimate factor in future earning power. How that would ever be transformed in a way that is transparent enough up front to keep the best pitcher happy with his role is a big question as I alluded to when responding about Bard.

    Because of these factors what is more common is the 4-5 appearances closers make at times.

    One of the the things I think is invaluable is having a guy who is capable of giving you what Bard does because it provides a lot of flexibility. It allows the manager to keep his closer in reserve to get those pesky last three outs and when the situation permits it allows the manager to use the super-hold pitcher as an alternate closer on the days where his reliever is unavailable because of consecutive appearances in the prior days. Tonight is that situation for Tito with Bard because I would assume in April that Papelbon will not available tonight.

    At any rate your thinking is actually very cutting edge, it just hasn't ever worked out well yet because the pitchers do tend to like defined roles, the 9th inning has a different dynamic to it than those who don't do it think and it has economic implications for the pitchers as the market is currently structured.

    Somebody may make it work at some point with the right mix of pitchers, much like LaRussa transformed the closer in to a three-out 9th inning specialist. 


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Please forgive me for bringing up catching just one last time. Varitek looked exhaused toward the end of his second game.  It's just not like him to take his time going after a passed ball.  The poor guy really looked tired. Salty?  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt defensively before last nights games.  Watching him, I was almost embarassed.  Jid, if you're out there, you've got to admit his technique on blocking stoppable balls just didn't exist.  Both of those passed balls really should have been caught.  He really had that deer eyes in the headlights look. God, I hope he proves me wrong.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]IMHO he (Salty) has a bad habit of trying to do too much with his hands. All three of the Molina brothers do that too, they just have much better hands. How much of that type of technique can change is hard to say, the kid has been in organized baseball a long time now and the change of a person's first instincts isn't easy.

    As for Tek, yes he looked gassed. And it might be he isn't seeing the ball but he looks soooo over matched at the plate when he is hitting too. He actually looked old to me Thursday, some of that may have been the day old beard and still adjusting to the time change. He is being asked to do a lot right now and I do respect the fact that he isn't bring his issues at the plate with him when he goes behind it. (.047 is remarkably cold after all and can't be any fun).

    Salty's biggest issues IMO are going to be the ability to not throw the ball away but he won't have to be a gunner and the perception of his game calling by the RS and his pitchers. As long as he isn't throwing the ball into the OF, his not getting runners is not good but the RS don't have any improvement in Tek when it comes to throwing out runners. The issue is going to be quieting the game management discussion, because I am sure over 400 plus PAs he will hit at or above league average for catchers and the passed balls won't happen every game.

    On the subject of game calling while it is just a side note, did anyone else notice that on Thursday night Tek and Paplebon could not get on the same page and that the discussion about it continued after the final out. It was a bit of a contrast to how Papelbon greeted Salty after the final out, it almost looked like Papelbon was happier for Salty that the game was won than he was for himself getting the save.

    I didn't make any more of that than the fact it seemed to me Salty's teammates (well at least Paps) are rooting for the kid. And maybe that even the most respected catcher will find pitchers disagreeing with him from time-to-time.

    Just my takes
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'd like to second the motion that it's great to see guys like 5katz and Harness back. The forum misses you guys when your gone for sure and we missed you guys all freaking winter!

    I have a few comments on different subjects:

    1) I think Papelbon is probably gone after this year but it is reassuring that we have him now and we really could use him next year as well, when I think this team might be even better. Nonetheless he is not signing a short term deal and he is going to want a big payday. I think we take the 2 picks and hope he has a fantastic year.

    2) I don't think Bard has a closer mentality. I'm not confident that he ever will be a good closer, especially in the playoffs. A little loss in confidence and his stuff will miss the plate IMO. I think we nurture him and go with the roll he is in right now. I think Jenks might be an average closer though and worth that role for us, next year.

    3) I think we really blew it going with Salty this year. I don't think Salty will be our starting catcher even a month from now. I think they were not worried about his offense as the rest of the team was so good offensively. It's just that he is not bringing anything else to the table either. Calling the game is not smooth. Teams are running rampant on him. He does not block balls all that well. He just does not appear to have "it", that "it" being what it takes to be a mlb catcher even, let alone a starter. The numbers keep adding up to failure. I hope I'm wrong and I even like the guy. What a great find it would be if he did live up to average defense / .250 average / 20 HR projections but I don't think that is maybe ever going to happen at this point. He looks like Hermida round 2 to me only maybe even worse. Unfortunately.

    Which means we are SOL now at catcher. I would be shelling out a $5 mil, one year deal if necessary for Bengie Molina about now. The guy threw out runners well and could hit around .250 for us. I'd take that deal right now. RH bat. No compensation to another team at all as he is sitting at home. Make him take a physical but if he's under 270lb, I'd take him at this point, as crazy as that sounds. We have a problem.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    One other passing thought:

    The best trades sometimes are the ones you don't make and I thought of this after watching Lester's workman like appearance minus his best stuff.

    After all the reports had it that the RS had offered Lester, Lowrie, Masterson and Crisp for Santana and the Twins turned it down because they wanted Ellsbury instead of Crisp.

    From the RS point of view trading Lester for Santana straight up would be a bad deal in hindsight. From the Twins standpoint based on the start of 2011 and the sample sets available the missed out on Lester, Lowrie and Masterson because they held out for Ellsbury.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Another thing I'd like to note is just an overview opinion. Every large market team seems to go out and sign big free agents only to see them tank quite often. Do we think LAckey is really going to be worth the cash he signed for ( around $90 mil wasn't it ), when he's struggling to hit 90 mph on his fast ball already? Do we really think Crawford is going to be worth $142 for us? Sometimes big signings work but it seems like a 50/50 chance of disaster to me with a lot of these big signings. I just don't see myself making those sorts of decisions when the numbers so often add up to failure. Even when these deals do fail, we end up playing the guy anyway because the FO has so much invested in them that we don't want to cut the cord. 

    A guy like Agon is probably worth that money, as he is in his prime and a premium bat which can change entire lineups but $154 is a lot of moolah also. If that call ends up wrong the franchise is almost shot for 5 years.

    I really prefer the approach that the Angels are using currently. Take the picks. Draft and sign every top prospect you can, with overslot signings when necessary. Look at the Angels. Conger is a great sign. That new first baseman was their minor league player of the year over Mike Trout ( regarded by some as the top prospect in all of baseball )? Their new CF looks pretty decent. That pitcher from their 2008 draft they trotted out there the other day was decent. What would their team look like now if Adenhart was still alive? The Angels have had some great drafts recently, in large part because they had a lot of top picks. The best is yet to be for the Angels as they have a lot more guys coming up the turnpike. 

    I also see great things for Texas and the Angels this year. Don't be surprised if the wild card comes from one of those 2 teams in 2011. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II



    Katz, I DID notice the reaction between Salty and Paps after the last out.

    I just would really like to be a fly on the wall in the clubhouse to really know what's going on behind the public scene.

    Out of curiosity, what's your(and others) opinion on Paps going three games in a row and my previous message?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Out of curiosity, what's your(and others) opinion on Paps going three games in a row and my previous message?
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    That's an interesting thought.  Papelbon did pitch 3 games in a row once in 2010, but one of the appearances was only for one out.

    I would like to think the Sox 'don't do business that way' and that it was a case of Francona feeling forced to do it because of the situation and the W-L record.  But it does bear a little watching. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think they really wanted that win bad. That's why they put paps in more than anything. It also is in their interest to have Paps put up great numbers this year to make sure he is a type A free agent. I don't think they were trying to use him like a rental car though but they knew they were pushing it. I saw the Yanks appear to do that with one of their guys a few years ago and it seemed to ruin him. It's not pretty when it occurs.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Another thing I'd like to note is just an overview opinion. Every large market team seems to go out and sign big free agents only to see them tank quite often. Do we think LAckey is really going to be worth the cash he signed for ( around $90 mil wasn't it ), when he's struggling to hit 90 mph on his fast ball already? Do we really think Crawford is going to be worth $142 for us? Sometimes big signings work but it seems like a 50/50 chance of disaster to me with a lot of these big signings. I just don't see myself making those sorts of decisions when the numbers so often add up to failure. Even when these deals do fail, we end up playing the guy anyway because the FO has so much invested in them that we don't want to cut the cord.  A guy like Agon is probably worth that money, as he is in his prime and a premium bat which can change entire lineups but $154 is a lot of moolah also. If that call ends up wrong the franchise is almost shot for 5 years. I really prefer the approach that the Angels are using currently. Take the picks. Draft and sign every top prospect you can, with overslot signings when necessary. Look at the Angels. Conger is a great sign. That new first baseman was their minor league player of the year over Mike Trout ( regarded by some as the top prospect in all of baseball )? Their new CF looks pretty decent. That pitcher from their 2008 draft they trotted out there the other day was decent. What would their team look like now if Adenhart was still alive? The Angels have had some great drafts recently, in large part because they had a lot of top picks. The best is yet to be for the Angels as they have a lot more guys coming up the turnpike.  I also see great things for Texas and the Angels this year. Don't be surprised if the wild card comes from one of those 2 teams in 2011. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]In fairness if they had the chance they would have signed Crawford and Beltre this winter and they traded to get Vernon Wells, an ugly contract with virtually no relief. They also did the Matthews Jr. signing. But overall the Angels have been lucky to have McCourt up the road, if the Dodgers got an aggressive owner looking to make money and spend that money on the team rather than his and hers mansions in Malibu, Artie will be pressed to be more aggressive or get dwarfed in a market where they are already the red headed step child from Orange County. But make no mistake about it, they wanted to drop $200M on players this winter, one went elsewhere for more (Crawford) and one just liked Texas' chances and the ballpark's carry better (Beltre).

    Teams know what they get with FA and the risks and opt to do it because they can't maintain their level of play with organic growth only and can afford not to take the Indians route of having to get dreadful to get good again.

    The case of Gonzalez's signing is one where the RS did not have an immediate or even short term answer for what he brings, which is plus power with strong OBP.

    And while I understood the desire to add one OF in the market rather than organically because the RS were loaded with LH guys with good speed and gap power in the minors, I still don't understand the Crawford signing who is a guy with gap power and good speed. In both cases I think the RS showed that they have a willingness to risk possible decline from 34-36 if they get 3-4 years before that potential decline (29 to 30 year old players) versus 1-2 years (32-33 year old players).

    The Lackey signing really speaks to the fact that the RS could not count on Buchholz after the 2009 season to a rotation staple and Wake was 41 coming off of back surgery. It potentially is an ugly premium to have paid for a middle of the rotation pitcher and the terms are such that it could be dead money on the back end but the RS weren't and aren't going to risk a season because of the impact it might have in some season in the future.

    It is the blessing and the curse of having a business model that generates so much money and the money being dependent on sell out crowds and high NESN ratings. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    At the time, almost everyone thought someone would pay $100+M for Lackey. I barely even thought of him as a signing option until it happened. I'm always for upgrading the pitching and I thought it would turn out to be a nice upgrade, even if at a heavy price. The jury is still out, but so far it hasn't worked as planned.

    In hindsight, I'd still rather have paid for Lackey's deal than Crawford's.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    When the Lackey deal happened I was for it. My point being though that we can't tell what we are going to get when a pitcher ages. Are they Schilling who could still pitch even after he lost his stuff or are they a guy without a lot of deception or that sort of pinpoint control that Schilling had, who is going to drop to a 91 mph fastball without an out pitch? Big question when your spending $90 mil. I'm not willing to make that deal very often.

    I'm going to be completely honest here. It's a freaking baseball forum so who really cares. I certainly don't. People can find fault all they want or bring this stuff back and throw it in my face later. So be it.

    I didn't like the Crawford deal AT ALL. Now we have another LH hitting OF when we had like 5 of them coming up the farm system. Crawford put up great numbers the last couple years but a $142 million dollar deal? For a guy who really doesn't fit our park all that well? I think he is a game changer and an absolute great player and person but the fit has to be perfect with a ton of value added for a guy we pay $142 mil for. Could we have had Cliff Lee for that? Or about 10 years of overslot draft signings with every available player in the draft? Or about 20 of the absolute top young prospects from the DR or Venezuella for the next 10 years. We could have spent our money better.

    Most of you know I wanted to sign Beltre instead of losing 3 great prospects and spending 40% more for Adrian Gonzalez. And I completely respect Adrian Gonzalez. I completely think he will do well. I just thought Beltre, out of Seattle, was going to keep putting up big numbers for years, with better defense and cost us less. Now we are a lot worse defensively on the all important infield left side. 

    We do not really know what the long term effects will be from Gonzalez's shoulder surgery and the guy has been incentive driven for a long time with his contracts. Will it affect his power numbers a little? Maybe. Will he have anywhere near the same incentive to get in as good a shape going forward? He goes from $6.5 mil a year tops to $23 or so mil a year and 7 years or so. He suddenly doesn't have a care in the world financially. I don't think that is going to be a problem, but subtly it almost always is to a degree. Rare is the guy who is financially set for life who is going to try as hard in his job after having 3-4 kids and spending 6-8 months away from his family in his 30s. Not when he has $154 mil in the bank. He's going to start enjoying the fruit of his labor a little more.

    Mind you that I think Gonzalez is a great guy. I'm very confident that he will do well but the guy may never see another outside fastball again in his life in Fenway. Maybe he will, as expected, have better years going forward than he has in the past, with all the park factor data indicating that he will. Considering all the risks and benefits though, I would have signed Beltre at $55 mil less, for less years, better defense and kept the 3 top prospects. 

    I would have resigned Martinez also. Now we have a disaster in the making at catcher. Now the catcher position is a complete offensive black hole which Victor handled quite well and didn't require mega cash to sign. Victor was also a complete class act as a person.

    We are a big market team. One of the very biggest, so we are going to sign FA guys to big contracts. I'd rather see us sign more of the top young prospects instead though, and more overslot draftees. I'd rather see slightly ticket prices and more of a home grown talent base. Most of all, I'd rather see more great young talents emerging from our farm, like Hank Conger and Mike Trout, and I might add Anthony Rizzo and Casey Kelly. The value of a guy like Hellickson or Price, at Tampa Bay, is huge in a team's success at a cost of maybe $30-35 mil over 6 years rather than $142 mil deal of a Carl Crawford.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I know virtually everyone here would disagree with what I just said and most of you would find it uninteresting to discuss. I don't need to go over it again either. I just wanted to put it out there that FA signings should be one of 2 things IMO:

    1) An opportunity to get that premium guy who is just coming into his prime, AS LONG AS HE CAN BE OBTAINED AT A REASONABLE COST. For example if Felix were a FA next year or Buster Posey. Premium young players, as long as the deal is realistic.

    2) To fill a need where you just can't get a replacement player in any other cost effective way. To fill a need.

    In both instances we still need to shop. To me, Epstein sometimes just spends whatever it takes to get a certain guy, and often goes $20 to $30 mil more than what is required to get him. I love the guy as a GM but he's not perfect. The Matsuzaka deal showed this. The Crawford deal showed this also.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Getting back to the Papelbon thing, I have to disagree with Katz in that it's often been said in baseball circles that the final three outs are the hardest to attain.
    I concur with this.

    The points about replacing Bard's set-up role are valid. But I think it might be easier to do with the current personal than it would be to have Bard replace Paps at this point in time.
    How Bard addresses his secondary-pitch inconsistencies over the year remains to be determined. 

    I do agree that the tenure of Papelbon's next contract will be a sticking point.

    As for the issues Tek/Paps had on that final out (Kendrick), "not being on the right page"is just an assumption. As I saw it, Kendrick was putting up a great at bat. Pap couldn't put him away. That's why I think Tek went out to the mound a second time. I think it was a matter of asking Paps what he felt best about throwing. I don't think it was an issue about signs. Just my take.

    I also think Papelbon has justified a legit offer from Boston. If Bard doesn't like it, tough sh*t. Bard doesn't have his experience. Bard doesn't have his resume. In fact, before the team spends 10 mil on another closer if Bard isn't ready for the role, it should be acknowledged that Papelbon has been widely successful pitching in Boston's pressure-cooker - pitching in Fenway - pitching in the A.L. East.

    Personally, I think Bard would be the obvious choice, but that doesn't mean
    he'll be up to the role.
    Salty is going through hell with the press/fans. If Bard is the closer in 2012, and he blows his first three saves, will he have the inner grit to overcome the pressure?

    Everything must be considered when making a decision of this magnitude.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boom, VMart is not a catcher anymore. He's more like an average 1Bman/DH who can catch in a pinch. 

    Hee's a variation on your theme...

    I would rather have had VMart than Crawford. The leftover money could have gone towards upgrading the pitshing staff, bench and defensive catching (good game-calling).

    C:   FA (w/left over Crawford money)/VTek/VMart/Salty-AAA
    1B: AGon/VMart
    DH: Papi (vs RHPs)/VMart (vs LHPs) and DH in 2012 />>
    2B: Pedey/Lowrie
    3B: Youk/Lowrie
    SS: Scutaro/Lowrie
    LF: Ells/Kalish/Linares/Nava
    CF: Cam/Ells/Kalish
    RF: Drew/Cam/Linares/Reddick

    + one more nice pen arm with left over Crawford money
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Boom, Theo predicated building the farm back to where the team had the leverage to overspend where deemed necessary.
    In fact, he left the organization because he felt very strongly about this. And He was right. If the FO went the way of the Mets, we'd probably be headed down the road they on.

    The Lackey/Drew/Crawford signings reflected team need at the time. The same philosophy that created the current contracts of Lester/Buch/Youk/Pedey also applies to Lackey/Drew/CC. It's not a matter of what we think CC or Lackey are worth.
    It's a matter of sustaining the team's best chances to be a major contender.


    BTW: I appreciate that sentiment. It's good to be back, although I know some here will think otherwise.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    We did not need an OF this year.
    We did not need another hitter who is way better vs RHPs.

    Just my opinion.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share