A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    even though they have been putting up worse number recently than the players you continually bash 18 times a day. That's not racism and bigotry? 

    No, they haven't been putting up "worse numbers recently". Both DiceK and Oki have been putting up better numbers recently.

    There were people who hated DiceK because he bumped Wakefield out of the 2010 rotation. It didn't matter that he pitched better.

    Again, Wakefield is too old to have the same length of recovery time leash as DiceK and/or Oki. I like Wakefield as a citizen, but the double standard is ugly. He needs to go. Finishing his career on an NL team would be good for both parties. That last pen spot needs to be filled by Aceves. And don't bring up Oki. If he puts up another few ineffective outings, he needs to be swapped out for a more capable AAA profile. There are several options in AAA, doing a decent job and waiting for work. Atchison, Miller, even Bowden. They can all come in and throw the ball without it going to the backstop. Wakefield has no business in the pen. If an NL team wants him to start, that's where he needs to go.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Slav is a huge basher of DiceK's. Nice to see him pitch so well, with all the hatred from most Red Sox fans. Imagine if the same standard were applied to Wakefield, Wakefield would have been run out of town trying to flee the torches.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Happy Easter to all my close friends here at Boston.Com.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Happy Easter/Passover to you, grumpy.
    At least you admit appreciation for Wake's devotion to charities.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Correct, moon. I misspoke. Ellsbury is arb eligible for the next two years. Thanks for picking it up.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    They would take up too many roster spots. That, or you play musical chairs like last year's Pawtucket/Boston transit bus. The offensive production from our outfield last year had to be improved.

    The main reason our offensive production in th eOF was down last year were the injuries to Ells, Cam and the low numbers by many of the replacements (By OF position PA/OPS):

    LF: Nava 176/.723, Hermy 155/.590, BHall 144/.737, DMac 51/.723, Kalish 42/.678

    CF: DMac 201/.668, Kalish 127/.668, Patterson 35/.743

    Jacoby had a .770 OPS in 2009. I have to think he wouldhave been a big improvement over the list above (plus his speed and better LF defense than most of them).

    Cam had an OPS over .795 for 5 of his previous 6 years before last year's injury-plagued year. I have to think he'dhve been a big improvement over these guys as well.

    Yes, Ells and Cam were not expected to be great OPS guys in 2010 or 2011, but they bring more to the table on offense than just OPS. They also made for an equal defensive tandem (LF: Ells & CF: Cam) than now (LF: Craw & CF: Ells).

     I think we could have picked up a decent OF'er who hits lefties well to play some for Cam and Ells and had these improvements in 2010:
    LF OPS from .698 to .798
    CF OPS from .682 to .782
    This at basically no cost.

    Cam's bat looks suspect, even against southpaws.

    harness, please. I hope you are not basing this on 16 PAs vs LHPs this year. Cameron has been one of the best OBP and OPS guys vs LHPs for 3+ straight seasons up to this year. I wouldn't call these numbers "suspect" (they blow Crawford's numbers out of the water):
    PA/OBP/OPS
    2010:   48/.438/.1.128
    2009: 150/.420/.954
    2008: 132/.397/.951
    2007: 188/.404/.914

    Hitting vs LHP was one of this team's biggest weaknesses. Signing Crawford made it even worse. Crawford has a sub .700 OPS vs lefties career and in 2010. He's a big boost vs RHPs, but not a $20M boost for about only 105 games vs RH's starters.

    Kalish isn't ready. The choice was to risk 2011 on mediocre outfield production or overspend. I don't like the length the CC deal either, but the alternatives were poor.

    There were more choices than just Crawford and Werth. $20+M a year for 7 years can buy a lot of help at several positions of need.
    We need a catcher. We needed a 3Bman (filled with AGon). We needed Bullpen replacements (filled some, but gambled on others). We needed bench boosting (Lowrie has done well, but DMac has not so far.) We could hae upgraded the OF as well for far less money. Perhaps, we could have even upgraded our starting pitching.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    No, they haven't been putting up "worse numbers recently". Both DiceK and Oki have been putting up better numbers recently.

    When I posted my statement, both Oki and Dice-K had about the same WHIP since july 1st 2009 as Wake.

    There were people who hated DiceK because he bumped Wakefield out of the 2010 rotation. It didn't matter that he pitched better.

    I see that you can use the word "hate" but we all know you are the biggest "hater" on this board. You bash 1/3 of our team. Your ad hom attacks on posters is legendary. I think i heard more "hate" towards Tito for using Dice-K over Wake anyways.

    I am a big fan of Dice-K, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of him at times. Some of us wanted Wake to stay in the rotation a few more starts in 2010, since Die-K was recovering from an injury and Wake had had good early season starts for several seasons up to 2010. As it turned out, Dice-K got rocked in his first 4 starts on his return (7.89 ERA in his1st 4 starts), then settled down and pitched very well for about 12 starts before relapsing somewhat in mid August with 7 staright starts with 4 or more ERs allowed.

    You always use injury to expalin away Dice-K's and Oki's troubles. But back surgery can no be used to explain some bad numbers for Wake. It's all about his age, evn though he has defied the norm time andtime again by putting up very good numbers from ages 40-42.

    Again, Wakefield is too old to have the same length of recovery time leash as DiceK and/or Oki. I like Wakefield as a citizen, but the double standard is ugly.

    Yes, your double standard is "ugly".

    He needs to go. Finishing his career on an NL team would be good for both parties. That last pen spot needs to be filled by Aceves. And don't bring up Oki. If he puts up another few ineffective outings, he needs to be swapped out for a more capable AAA profile.

    Who is this "more capable AAA profile" you keep emntioning. Put a name to it, so we can see how that player does when he gets called up and hold you to it. So far the choices that many have said were better than Wake have not faired well, except for Aceves. It's not just a choice between Aceves and Wake. There is room for both on this roster. We have several righties who do very very well vs LHBs, so bringing up a AAA lefty, just because he is a lefty is foolish if he is not good.

    There are several options in AAA, doing a decent job and waiting for work. Atchison, Miller, even Bowden.

    They all have histories of ineffectiveness. They all will get a chnace this year as I am sure there will be injuries or failings by others.

    They can all come in and throw the ball without it going to the backstop. Wakefield has no business in the pen. If an NL team wants him to start, that's where he needs to go.

    I haven't head any offers, but I'm fine with trading Wake (or anyone) if we get better in return. What's the offer you have heard about?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Slav is a huge basher of DiceK's. Nice to see him pitch so well, with all the hatred from most Red Sox fans. Imagine if the same standard were applied to Wakefield, Wakefield would have been run out of town trying to flee the torches.

    More lies.

    I have compared Dice-K to Wake and others without changing my criteria. You should try that sometime.

    I wanted Dice-K as our starter this year, not Wake. I wanted Dice-K as our starter last year, not Wake, but he was injured in the Spring. I thouht they rushed him back too soon. I did not and do not blame him for his poor performance in his first 4 starts of 2010. I heldthe position that Wake would have been better as a starter last May than Dice-K. That is not bashing Dice-K or hating Dice-K.

    Yes, I have seen racist statements against Dice-K and Oki. It saddens me. Yes, I do think some of the criticism of Dice-K is racially motivated. Yes, I do think your hatred and bashing of Wake and other "good ole boys" is hatred as well.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm with Moon on Crawford. Of course the OF should benefit with Crawford but $142 mil is a lot of moolah guys. We could have used that money better.

    Bill James was projecting Kalish for a .270 year with 20 HR. I might take that and be happy from Crawford's slot, especially if it were a Cameron/Kalish platoon maybe making it even better, if I were saving $142 mil! And we had plenty of back up players available in Cameron and on the farm. $20 mil per year could have bought us Russell Martin for $5 mil of that, Soriano for 10 mil more and we'd have $5 mil left over. Soriano could have been the closer heir apparent, saving us over $10 mil next year. Over time we would have developed another stud OF. One who fit better in Fenway.

    It might end up being one of Theo's worse deals even if he performs well. The only way I can explain it is that Henry had lots of change burning a hole in his pocket. Maybe he was in a good mood from the new wife situation. Maybe they cared a lot about the NESN ratings situation. Maybe they were seeing not much available for FA OF in 2012. Put it all together and I still don't like the deal...even if he produces as projected. Fenway isn't going to help him. I don't see him playing wall ball much. He's going to keep getting older. He doesn't appear to be digging the pressure. I think we could have projected that as overpaying on day one of that deal.

    Crawford is one of my favorite players in baseball. I love the guy and am a fan. He's known as possibly the hardest working player in baseball. He appears to be pleasant and just a great guy. I hope to God he plays great and I am rooting for him. 

    I'll try to move on and not bring up my regrets about last winter's trade deals again.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Few thoughts after the win:

    Avoiding new lows?
    I say this with a certain amount of sick humor, it was nice to see two of our scuffling RS avoid redefining the Mendoza line. Last CC was in danger of hitting below his contract (.147) and Tek his age (.039).

    Dice K
    While DiceK's biggest detractors probably are stunned today, this is the progression the RS always thought he'd make as he pitched more MLB games. Just maybe this progression has been delayed by two seasons that were marked by injury? He won't always have that much command of every pitch but when he does, he is quite a puzzle for hitters.

    For all every one will point at Tek, perhaps Young is a good thing for DiceK and a contributor to his improvements. After all DiceK threw a lot of stinker outings to Tek over his career. It did not take a genius to figure out that Farrell and Matsuzaka weren't best friends.

    His job to lose
    He may not have great range or a rifle arm but it is Jed Lowrie's job at SS to lose now. He and Scutaro are largely interchangable pieces. After all Scutaro was a career utility guy before he got his shot at every day play in Toronto and had a career year. I am not under the impression that Lowrie is a .400 hitter but it is getting pretty obvious he can hit. While the sample sets for 2011 are small, the contention that his struggles with RH pitching were a by-product of the wrist injury are supported by his 2011 splits so far.

    Speed may be "over rated" but...

    Ellsbury and to an extent Crawford demonstrated last night that speed is disruptive and that disruption wil create runs. Speedsters can turn BB and singles into doubles and force the pitcher into less comfortable patterns including more fastballs for a hitter while they are on base. Nice steals for Ells to, one he guessed just right and stole on the breaking pitch and the second he stole the base in spite of a pitch out. This team will benefit greatly from Ells and Crawford's speed if those guys get their OBP up to their career norms.

    The Crawford discussion
    It is hard to say the RS had to improve the OF for 2011 but it was and should have been a priority and that priority expanded when the determination was made that VMart wasn't coming back.

    The RS won 89 games in spite of having the worst OF production in 2010. Coming into 2011 without changes the RS had Drew a year older and possibly in decline, Ellsbury who is a proto-typical lead-off guy (or bottom of the order, not middle) and Cameron who had missed almost a year of action and is 37. Two OFers in their twilight and a water bug is not a great situation. And it compounds next year as Cam and Drew are in walk years. The Pawtucket OF options were rush Kalish and after that it fell off of a cliff. Nava is probably a AAAA player, Reddick's KZone is huge and until that changes over a AAA 500 PA sample set one can assume he will be meat at the MLB level.

    Now the Crawford signing is another matter and it is above my "pay grade" I suppose. Right now skeptics of the signing are being validated. Bad splits versus RH, moderate power with a spray chart that suggests his new home park (Fenway) will mute that, he appeared to be Jacoby Ellsbury with an addition 5-10 HRs and a slightly lower percentage of success when stealing.

    But the desire to go get an OF was understandable, the system has a shortage of great OF prospects tracking to be MLB ready in 2012 or ready in 2011.

    The only thing I did walk away thinking from the Crawford and A-Gon contracts is that Epstein is far more comfortable signing contracts that will take a player into his 36th year if he can get the player signed at 29 or 30 as opposed to 32 going on 33.

    It may well be that Epstein is seeing the game evolving in a post steroid era that also has been marked by pitcher development and therefore more quality arms than there have been in the game at the same time in a couple of decades.

    OTOH the RS often wrap every questionable decision or decision forced by their circumstance as an 'evolution of thought', as was the case with "bullpen by committee" or "run prevention".

    At any rate some portion of the RS FO was very uncomfortable betting 2011 on Mike Cameron's rebound from injury at his age in the AL East and/or that Drew would have a career year.

    Makes sense. But so would have not trusting the catcher position to a tandem that features one guy too old to catch the majority of the games and a starter who had to make a major leap to catch every day.

    Perspective changes fast
    After running into the perfect storm of a collective slump, pitchers taking turns with the gasoline can and running into teams that were red hot the RS are putting up the results we expected. And with the exception of Pedey and Lowrie the hitters aren't in a groove yet. It is a good team and promises IMO to be better as Youk, AGon, Crawford and Ellsbury play to their potential and Drew and Ortiz go on hot streaks.

    Just my takes
     
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The Crawford discussion
    It is hard to say the RS had to improve the OF for 2011 but it was and should have been a priority and that priority expanded when the determination was made that VMart wasn't coming back.

    A) Theo made anoffer o VMart that was pretty close to what he ended up getting.

    B) Once VMart walked, I wouldn't say OF became our top option. Re-signing Betre or getting AGon was of course the most imprtant choice to make. After that, I would have rated the priorities as such:
      1)  Bullpen (needed 2 really good arms or 3 good ones)
      2)  Big bat that hits LHPs well (C, OF, SS best positions to upgrade)
      3)  Catcher
      4)  OF/SS (Scutty's injury unknown & Lowrie's ability unknown)

    C) I'm not ssayin OF was not a piority; I'm just saying it wasn't #1.

    The RS won 89 games in spite of having the worst OF production in 2010. Coming into 2011 without changes the RS had Drew a year older and possibly in decline, Ellsbury who is a proto-typical lead-off guy (or bottom of the order, not middle) and Cameron who had missed almost a year of action and is 37. Two OFers in their twilight and a water bug is not a great situation. And it compounds next year as Cam and Drew are in walk years. The Pawtucket OF options were rush Kalish and after that it fell off of a cliff. Nava is probably a AAAA player, Reddick's KZone is huge and until that changes over a AAA 500 PA sample set one can assume he will be meat at the MLB level.

    I don't buy the "no good OF'ers will be avalable in 2012" argument. There will be, and we will know more about our kids by next winter.

    Now the Crawford signing is another matter and it is above my "pay grade" I suppose. Right now skeptics of the signing are being validated. Bad splits versus RH, moderate power with a spray chart that suggests his new home park (Fenway) will mute that, he appeared to be Jacoby Ellsbury with an addition 5-10 HRs and a slightly lower percentage of success when stealing.

    I am not usng the small sample size thusfar to validate my opinion. I actually think Crawford will give us 2010 numbers for 2-3 years, then decline slightly until his final 1-2 years, might be sub .800 OPS. He is a very good all-around player, but not worth even $14M x 5, let alone $20M x 7. Just my opinion.

    But the desire to go get an OF was understandable, the system has a shortage of great OF prospects tracking to be MLB ready in 2012 or ready in 2011.

    Trades are an option, as is the chance that one of our prospects will be ready in 2012. We also will have Drew's $14M to spend to replace him.

    The only thing I did walk away thinking from the Crawford and A-Gon contracts is that Epstein is far more comfortable signing contracts that will take a player into his 36th year if he can get the player signed at 29 or 30 as opposed to 32 going on 33.

    I agree with this philosophy for the most part. I am happy with the AGon deal even thoug 1st basemen are plentiful and there isn't much difference between the 3rd best and the 12th best.

    It may well be that Epstein is seeing the game evolving in a post steroid era that also has been marked by pitcher development and therefore more quality arms than there have been in the game at the same time in a couple of decades.

    OTOH the RS often wrap every questionable decision or decision forced by their circumstance as an 'evolution of thought', as was the case with "bullpen by committee" or "run prevention".

    At any rate some portion of the RS FO was very uncomfortable betting 2011 on Mike Cameron's rebound from injury at his age in the AL East and/or that Drew would have a career year.

    What do you preject the difference between Crawford and a platoon of Kalish/Cam would have been?

    What defense do you prefer?
    LF: Crawford CF: Ells/Cam -or- LF: Ells/Cam  CF: Cam/Kalish
     (I'd say the Defense is about equal which negates one big aspect of Crawford's package.)

    Makes sense. But so would have not trusting the catcher position to a tandem that features one guy too old to catch the majority of the games and a starter who had to make a major leap to catch every day.

    For $20M, we could have gotten a reliable catcher (1-3 year deal) who handles the staff well, a capable OF'er who hits lefties well (1 year deal), and another pen arm (2-3 year deal)-all for shorter term deals.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon I am not trying to defend what Crawford was signed for. The RS had their reasons and we will have to watch it play out. I personally have never gotten the idea that Crawford was a top 5 in MLB OFer.

    With Crawford going so bad right now it is a loaded question about a Cam/Kalish platoon. Kalish was/is raw. He had a .323 OBP versus RH. The player seems to have a polish about it him in the way he plays the game but he is raw. But I am not and never have been all that fired up that Cameron was going to be as productive in the AL East as he was in the NL Central or that he was going to be the rare exception in the post steroid era to age related decline in his late 30's.

    Now trusting the season on a catching tandem of Tek and Salty was just as risky if not more so to having a Cam/Kalish platoon but that is a different conversation.

    And trades aren't all that easy, the RS certainly unloaded much of their most attractive prospects in the AGon trade after all. And as for the FA market? I am not sure that while the desire could have been there to take the $20M a year and get a catcher, reliever and OFer that the players were there. Certainly the catcher and OFer are question marks.

    This BTW is the 2012 potential FA class that the RS were looking at this winter, each person can determine on their own whether 2012 is a good OFer FA class:

    Outfielders
    Bobby Abreu LAA *
    Carlos Beltran NYM
    Milton Bradley SEA
    Mike Cameron BOS
    Ronny Cedeno PIT
    Michael Cuddyer MIN
    Jack Cust SEA
    David DeJesus OAK
    J.D. Drew BOS
    Jeff Francoeur KC *
    Jonny Gomes CIN
    Gabe Gross OAK
    Carlos Guillen DET
    Raul Ibanez PHI
    Conor Jackson OAK
    Jason Kubel MIN
    Ryan Ludwick SD
    Nate McLouth ATL *
    Juan Pierre CWS
    Juan Rivera TOR
    Cody Ross SF
    Grady Sizemore CLE *
    Nick Swisher NYY *

    * contract has options

    A yes Boom, I am sure that NESN ratings were a concern. They are what pays for the RS payroll being $170M instead of $120M or $110M. Just the same Crawford  seems a bizzare choice because unless they see something most of us didn't he just isn't a $20M a year player.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think Theo has been thinking about the post steroid era since Tampa Bay first emerged. Of course speed and defense are more of a factor in the post steroid era. Especially in parks like Oakland, Seattle and Anaheim. Crawford helps us win in those types of parks. Having a speedy outfield is huge in those types of parks. That is a given and a factor in signing a guy like Crawford. We win a few more games from outfield defense that we have in the past. Right now, we re seeing the benefits from the Crawford signing, even as he still is not hitting. This team is designed to beat the Angels.

    But what are we going to do against Texas? We need to be well rounded enough to beat both teams. Our pitching is going to get hammered by Texas in either park but we are optimized to beat the Angels in Anaheim. We need to do better.

    I just wouldn't write off the benefit of that 30-35 HR guy in Fenway's LF either.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Katz, I didn't mean to imply that you wanted Crawford signed. I know Theo had his reasons and Henry must have agreed.

    As for Of'er available in 2012: There may be mor than what's on his list. Trades could be an option.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Katz, thanks.  I enjoy your ideas.  So great to see how good pitching can make most problems go away.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Yes, and good game-calling catching.

    Tongue out
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Is it just me or is Ortiz looking better at the plate than he has for several years. A lot of his outs have been line drives. I think this could be a big year for him also.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from titletownfan. Show titletownfan's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crawford homers for the first time as a member of the Red Sox.  Not saying he's worth his big deal, but it looks like he's starting to come out of this slump.  And, wow has our Starting Pitching been impressive as of late.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Compared to recent season starts, Papi is doing very well. I hope he finishes lke he has the last 2 years.

    He's also looked a little better vs LHPs, wich is very encouraging.

    Nice to see Scutty get 2 hits and stay sharp while feeling like he is still part of this team.

    Lackey's outing was the highlight of today. Big game for him and his ego.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    What will softy...I mean GM do if Beckett & Lackey have great years, Jake and Jed bust loose, and Wake pitches decently?

    Change identities again?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    My posting time is different from many here. I tend to miss the meat of a discussion. Here are a few thoughts:

    I advocated a push for CC. The reason wasn't just for an outfield upgrade. I agree with Moon and most others that the catcher situation should have been  addressed in better fashion. Did signing CC prevent Theo from spending on a catcher? I have my doubts. But we'll never know.
    I believe his doesn't prioritize the catching position as well as he should. Feeding Salty to the wolves exemplifies this. Even w/o the CC signing, I still feel Theo would have gambled on Salty.

    The team was geared to make a run at AGONE. And I was willing to bet VMART was history. (BTW MOON, I wasn't aware Theo offered VMART a deal similar to the one the Tigers made. Since VMART wanted to be a FT catcher, why didn't he take it?).
    The only feasible position to compensate for the lost offense of VMART was in LF. That's what I meant by upgrading in the outfield. The chances are, CC will be more productive than any alternative: Kalish in LF with MR. X catching, Cam platoon with Nava, etc.

    I agree with Katz and said at the time that the outlook for filling outfield needs shrinks after 2011. The CRAWBURY tandem is about to be born. I feel it gives the RedSox a huge advantage given the other elements in their line-up. He's not what we are used to seeing for a 20-mil a year player. But I think the financial commitment was seen long-term. It was made possible because the team has their core signed up for years.  The starting pitching is showing what they are capable of - especially when they aren't compromised.
    Their window is now.

    My point is, there's no way Henry spends 300 mil or outbids the Angels for CC if this team wasn't knocking on the door into October. Each expenditure is reliant on others. And while there are always alternatives, the team saw what happened with Penny/Smoltz, so they overpaid for Lackey.
    They were thru playing musical chairs in the outfield. After seeing where the farm hands were at the ML level last year (one of the few benefits to all the injuries), they didn't want to risk replacing lost offense on an aging Cam and a raw Kalish.
    So, they overpaid for CC. Just as they did with Drew when the farm was baron with outfielder talent five years back.

    Gotta believe all of this went into the decisions to invest in known talents CC and AGONE. And just as Drew's worth has been hotly debated - so will that of CC's.

    Boom: Nothing wrong with re-visiting your take on winter moves. That's the fun of this board: To see how our stances hold up through time. Just because the team went with AGONE/CC over Beltre/VMART - it doesn't mean one move was right and the other wouldn't haven been. The deal might look good now, but maybe not so hot a few years down the road. If Rizzo/Kelly become studs, they may in fact be eligible FA's on Boston's radar 6 years from now.

    One final thing: Moon, my statement about Cam's bat looking suspect is just that: An early season opinion. I'm not saying he won't get hot. His reaction to pitches looks to be off. It could be age related, or it could be a simple adjustment. At the same time, Tek looks like he doesn't have the plate discipline of even last year. But that too could change. Too early to make any definitive calls, one way or the other. But their ages have to be considered. Hitting is the hardest thing to do in this game. To sustain hand-eye to ball coordination over time is tricky. Players in their late 30's tend to cheat if they can't make the proper adjustments.

    I hope both still 'have it' offensively. But the team didn't bank on either to be FT players. There's are reasons why.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    My posting time is different from many here. I tend to miss the meat of a discussion. Here are a few thoughts:

    I advocated a push for CC. The reason wasn't just for an outfield upgrade. I agree with Moon and most others that the catcher situation should have been  addressed in better fashion. Did signing CC prevent Theo from spending on a catcher? I have my doubts. But we'll never know.

    Theo could have signed CC and a decent catcher for sure. To me, it's not just bout what we could have gotten with $20M, it's the 7 years, and the knowledge that our hands will be tied for that long.

    I believe his doesn't prioritize the catching position as well as he should. Feeding Salty to the wolves exemplifies this. Even w/o the CC signing, I still feel Theo would have gambled on Salty.

    Maybe, but with $20M, I think he would have at least gotten a cheep veteran that is good at game-calling and defense.

    The team was geared to make a run at AGONE. And I was willing to bet VMART was history. (BTW MOON, I wasn't aware Theo offered VMART a deal similar to the one the Tigers made. Since VMART wanted to be a FT catcher, why didn't he take it?).

    I think he wanted more money. I think Theo might have known he wouldn't take it, much like he did with Bay.

    The only feasible position to compensate for the lost offense of VMART was in LF. That's what I meant by upgrading in the outfield. The chances are, CC will be more productive than any alternative: Kalish in LF with MR. X catching, Cam platoon with Nava, etc.

    I think AGon and a full sason of Youk & Pedey would make up for the loss of Beltre and VMart. I feel the return of Ells and Cam would hav made us better offensively even without CC. However, I think Theo could have spent $4-5M on a vet short-term catcher, $4-5M on a 2-3 year deal for another reliever, and $7-8M on an OF'er who can hit lefties and play RF after this year. That still, leaves $2-5M for upgrades elsewhere.  

    I agree with Katz and said at the time that the outlook for filling outfield needs shrinks after 2011. The CRAWBURY tandem is about to be born. I feel it gives the RedSox a huge advantage given the other elements in their line-up. He's not what we are used to seeing for a 20-mil a year player. But I think the financial commitment was seen long-term. It was made possible because the team has their core signed up for years.  The starting pitching is showing what they are capable of - especially when they aren't compromised.
    Their window is now.

    They could have won now and not had the 5th to 7th year drag as well.
    We need hitters who can hit lefties. We will still need a RF'er next year, so I don't see how CC solved the 2012 issue anyway.
    My point is, there's no way Henry spends 300 mil or outbids the Angels for CC if this team wasn't knocking on the door into October. Each expenditure is reliant on others. And while there are always alternatives, the team saw what happened with Penny/Smoltz, so they overpaid for Lackey.
    They were thru playing musical chairs in the outfield. After seeing where the farm hands were at the ML level last year (one of the few benefits to all the injuries), they didn't want to risk replacing lost offense on an aging Cam and a raw Kalish.
    So, they overpaid for CC. Just as they did with Drew when the farm was baron with outfielder talent five years back.

    Gotta believe all of this went into the decisions to invest in known talents CC and AGONE. And just as Drew's worth has been hotly debated - so will that of CC's.

    Boom: Nothing wrong with re-visiting your take on winter moves. That's the fun of this board: To see how our stances hold up through time. Just because the team went with AGONE/CC over Beltre/VMART - it doesn't mean one move was right and the other wouldn't haven been. The deal might look good now, but maybe not so hot a few years down the road. If Rizzo/Kelly become studs, they may in fact be eligible FA's on Boston's radar 6 years from now.

    One final thing: Moon, my statement about Cam's bat looking suspect is just that: An early season opinion. I'm not saying he won't get hot. His reaction to pitches looks to be off. It could be age related, or it could be a simple adjustment. At the same time, Tek looks like he doesn't have the plate discipline of even last year. But that too could change. Too early to make any definitive calls, one way or the other. But their ages have to be considered. Hitting is the hardest thing to do in this game. To sustain hand-eye to ball coordination over time is tricky. Players in their late 30's tend to cheat if they can't make the proper adjustments.

    I hope both still 'have it' offensively. But the team didn't bank on either to be FT players. There's are reasons why.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II



    So, did Salty call a good game today?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think he did a fine job, and it seemed like he mixed it up well. Lackey missed some spots, but didn't get burned when he did.

    I really hope Salty works out. I know Theo has liked this kid for a while, and I trust his judgement on young talent. He's still young. He's got a great role model. Other than being in a pressure cooker, he's got a nice set up here in Boston, as long as VTek stays healthy.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Well Moon, if the team didn't commit to CC, we'd be in another bind if there were a couple of key injuries. Saying Youk/Pedey/Ells will be healthy is the hope, but it might not be a reality.

    CC should make Boston a more competitive road team.
    And I believe Theo has done everything he can to remove the RedSox from being a station-to-station ball club.

    Does CC solve the 2012 outfield issues? Well, the team only has to fill one position now - not two. And the farm could fill the 2nd. I gotta believe the mixture you advocated for this year (Kalish/Nava//Mac) and possibly Reddick will be ready to contribute in 2012.

    No team in baseball has a proven speed tandem of CRAWBURY.
    How many games it will affect is anybody's guess.

    If you look at this as money spent more wisely in other areas, I can see UR point. Mine is  - there's no guarantee that $$$ would have been spent at all. They could have bet on Kalish/Cam and played it by ear - making a big move in July.
    They could have committed to a veteran catcher - and missed on Salty, who might just be a diamond in the rough. (A gamble to say the least).

    As I see it, the FO is hedging their bets on CC and handi-capping elsewhere.
    It's like bridge-burning in horse racing. A player bets 10 grand on a horse to show and is guaranteed $500.00 at about a 95% success rate. So, now he has $500.00 to invest in more profitable but riskier exotic bets.
     

Share