A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Again with the no one, us, we... I have said plenty about the degrading witch-hunt on this board. You are right to bring attention to it. I just started a thread to further UR point. It's as misplaced as groundless PED finger-pointing. No difference.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    There is a difference between REPORTING that SPORTSWRITERS might not vote for Bautista due to THEIR SUSPICIONS regarding PED use and "groundless PED finger pointing". I cited 10 pages of Google search results which clearly showed he was under suspicion by many sports writers. He was already under suspicion. I just noted their suspicions in the context  that it might affect the MVP vote and then I get page after page of criticism. It was misplaced, agenda based criticism rather than comment on the merit. You guys just don't like it when someone disagrees with you and you search high and low to nit pick something to make you feel better. Even if it takes you months to do it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : There is a difference between REPORTING that SPORTSWRITERS might not vote for Bautista due to THEIR SUSPICIONS regarding PED use and "groundless PED finger pointing". I cited 10 pages of Google search results which clearly showed he was under suspicion by many sports writers. He was already under suspicion. I just noted their suspicions in the context  that it might affect the MVP vote and then I get page after page of criticism. It was misplaced, agenda based criticism rather than comment on the merit. You guys just don't like it when someone disagrees with you and you search high and low to nit pick something to make you feel better. Even if it takes you months to do it.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Stale fish. No one is buying it.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Wouldn't you say that if we had a Montero or McCann that Salty would be nearly non-factor. It would not matter if he stayed or went. Perhaps we need to get back to the days of one horse,and Salty may or may not be that guy. Anyhow like McCann the Diamondbacks would be crazy to get rid of him.  I learned one thing from fantasy ball this year, catchers are far and few in between.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    That's precisely why I say a replacement had better be in hand before cutting ties.
    I advocated a tandem last winter because we didn't have that "horse".
    It lessens the work load and I think lessens the risk of injury.

    A stud catcher is rare as hell.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : There is a difference between REPORTING that SPORTSWRITERS might not vote for Bautista due to THEIR SUSPICIONS regarding PED use and "groundless PED finger pointing". I cited 10 pages of Google search results which clearly showed he was under suspicion by many sports writers. He was already under suspicion. I just noted their suspicions in the context  that it might affect the MVP vote and then I get page after page of criticism. It was misplaced, agenda based criticism rather than comment on the merit. You guys just don't like it when someone disagrees with you and you search high and low to nit pick something to make you feel better. Even if it takes you months to do it.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    The same can be said in return.
    Plenty of disagreements cover this board on a daily basis.
    It's not about disagreements. It's about content.

    You said yourself the writing today lacks compared to many years back. I agree with that, which is why I don't buy into the controversial garbage they print today.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Stale fish. No one is buying it.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    It may be stale at this point but it is absolutely true and valid. Your argument was groundless, as I showed over and over. You are just too stubborn to admit it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I complement Moon Harness, and then you criticize that. You and Softy just competed in the worst poster of the year contest and he barely beat you. And that was not an easy feat this year. Then again, your "career" is apparently a guy playing the horses. WOW. I'm impressed.

    Stuff it. I've had it up to here with both of you guys ( you and expitch, assuming you are 2 different people ). The facts are the facts. You just won't open your eyes to see them, if it blemishes your impecable worldview of your self. No one admits when they are wrong more than I do here. You should try it once in a while, because you have been a frequent visitor to the land of wrong all year long.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : The same can be said in return. Plenty of disagreements cover this board on a daily basis. It's not about disagreements. It's about content. You said yourself the writing today lacks compared to many years back. I agree with that, which is why I don't buy into the controversial garbage they print today.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    You think "Baltimore" is nit picking? You think your 1.5 runs a game TEK impact is nit picking? HELLO!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    To pick up on Danny's point, a visit to the mound would certainly have been in order after those two doubles by batters at the bottom of the lineup. First, it would have put the other club on hold when the rhythm was shifting in its favor.
    Pitching coaches have been known to come to the mound and say something like, "Nothing specific. Just to give you guys a breather and breaks things up." Umpires understand this tactic and will allow it to go on a little bit. 
    In this instance, however, there really was a question about several consecutive FB's. Even though guys earlier in the order had been striking out on FB's, guys coming up were trying to time them in the on-deck circle -- and would have been more prepared in those circumstances to sit on the FB, if it had become clear that Papelbon was relying totally on it.  He might even have lost a little off it by the time the fifth hitter of the inning stepped into the box. Maybe fatigue had begun to set in. He looked like he was overthrowing, one symptom of fatigue.
    Pitching coaches sometimes carry messages to position players. To Scutaro and Pedroia: "Let Carl and Jake know that Tito wants them playing a lot shallower."
    Save in this case, if Young had gone to the mound, I doubt that he would have been given that message.
    Moon and Harness like stories. Here's one on me, rigged up by my loving catcher.
    In an intrasquad game, the reserves gave me a pretty good going over in the first inning. ( The coach used to say that our reserves were the second best team in the league. ) I went to the mound for the second inning. The catcher was already behind the plate. His equipment consisted entirely of a pair of workman's gloves. Everyone was laughing. I turned to see that Bobby Lillis, our great short stop, was fully attired in the tools of ignorance. A line drive in the first inning had nearly driven him into the outfield. 
    Rod was in on it too. The rascal. He was the most ingenious practical joker I've ever known.  No one was immune. Not even senior starting pitchers. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    For the record, I'm pretty sure that neither Montero or McCann are walking through the door any time soon. And Lavarnway is one of the top catching prospects in the game and absolutely worthy of consideration for next year ( over Tek ). He was just named "minor league all star" by baseball america over any other catcher in the minors this year, all divisions. Maybe you've heard of them harness? BASEBALL AMERICA ALL STAR, ALL LEVELS. THE ONLY CATCHER CITED. 

    No one is saying Lavarnway is a definite HOF level catcher but I'm pretty sure he is being considered for next year on the mlb club. He might start the year in AAA but there is every reason to think he will be given a shot at the mlb level next year, and even next spring. And I for one would take him over Tek going forward. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : It may be stale at this point but it is absolutely true and valid. Your argument was groundless, as I showed over and over. You are just too stubborn to admit it.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    This from you, a classic bull-headed egotist. And the champion accidental ironist on the board. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Boom
    I hope Lavarnway has a future behind the plate but I worry he won't.  As said many times, no GM was willing to buck up for VMart or Napoli to start at catcher.  If those two can't do it with their hitting, I think the bar is pretty high for the ability behind the plate.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Should I stay or should I go :       Back Up: Line Up:                                 Kalish, Iglesias, Aviles, Lavarnway Elsbury    CF Pedroia    2B Gonzales  1B Ortiz       DH Crawford  LF Scutaro   SS Lowrie     3B Redick/McDonald  RF Stalalamachhio  C Trade: Papelbon Youk Beckett for prospects or bullpen help Pitching: Starters: Lester Lackey Bucholtz Bedard ( trade beckett youk papelbon for a consistent starting pitcher or bull pen help/or hitting prospects) Bull Pen: Aceves Wakefield(set up) Jenks(closer) Weiland Wheeler A. Miller T. Miller Bard (closer)Matsuzaka  (set up)
    Posted by orr4neely8[/QUOTE]

    hey orr

    I don't think DiceK will be healthy and Wake might not be suited to a set up role.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Boom I hope Lavarnway has a future behind the plate but I worry he won't.  As said many times, no GM was willing to buck up for VMart or Napoli to start at catcher.  If those two can't do it with their hitting, I think the bar is pretty high for the ability behind the plate.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Teams had both VMart and Napoli catching for a lot of years though. Every player is flawed but the aggregate is what counts the most. With VMArt a strong case could be made that Detroit paid for his bat since they already had a solid catcher. They didn't need him at catcher. They wanted him in the lineup and it proved to be a good decision. Mathis had a great bat this year as well. They needed him in the lineup regularly as well. Maybe they both were not good catchers defensively but having the ability to catch was a plus and both spent many years catching in mlb.

    Who knows where Lavarnway ends up but his bat has been phenominal every year he has been with us and even in college. He has been like clockwork. Consistent as heck.

    With a Yale level mind and work ethic I think it's pretty likely he will call a good game and manage a game well. My concern is again, about his blocking skills. If he is limiting what pitchers can throw with men on base, that is a problem. 

    Overall though, he is worth a shot, especially now. We need something, frankly, to compete with the Yanks and Rays now. The Rays and Yanks are both very strong teams. We need an edge and Lavarnway might just be a big leg up on the competition if he pans out, and a low cost option at that.

    To me, he is potentially the best bat we have produced in the minors since Ellsbury. I have no problem slotting him in as a part time catcher / part time DH next year. He may very well start slow or even wash out but indications are that he will hit and hit with substantial pop and OBP.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    As I believe Moon has aluded, this young kid Moore is a force to be reckoned with, on top of all the other young talent they have plus a lot of young kids still on the farm. They are going to be a force for years to come. We need to come to grips with that reality. It will take quite a bit of bad luck to knock them out of contention anytime soon.

    Can we find a Matt Moore to supplement our rotation? We don't have that option probably. We are going to have to hit better. Probably much better. Of course we try to do everything we can to improve the pitching but that is probably going to be an edge for TB for a while.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobconk. Show bobconk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

     I can't  believe thatTito was let go!!! Who in his right mind could make a decision like this? Who paid a ton of money for Crawford, Lackey? Who didn't pick up Tito's option for 2012? Who didn't see what was going on in the clubhouse, Teo and the other Suits? There should have been aleast one smart guy somewhere in the organization that could analize how a team could play outstanding for four months and then totally collapse in September. I suspect that not only the drinking in the club house during games, and some poison personalities played a major role.  Where was Tito's HELP?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_4412333. Show user_4412333's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Stale fish. No one is buying it.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Worse than stale.  I'd say rotting.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Matt Moore was not a top draft pick. I think he was an eight rounder.

    We have no Matt Moores. We don't even have any Alex Cobbs. I like a lot of our prospects, boom, and I know you do too, but none of our young pitchers look to be ready for next year. Softy made me laugh when he said there were several pitchers available in the minors that would have done better than Wake. I asked him to name names...crickets.

    Our team is in trouble. If we have to pin our hopes on us staying 100% healthy again, I'm gonna be upset. Eeven if our staff stays 90% healthy and bring back Paps, Wheeler, Miller and Wake, we will still have serious issues going into next year.

    My guess is that one of Beckett, Buch or Lester will be hurt or have an off year. I'd say the odds are over 50% of that happening, but even if I am wrong, how do our #4-8 guys match up with TB. The Yanks have holes to fill too, but they've had a better recent track record at finding bottom of the roation gems than us.

    Lackey: zero confidence for 2012.
    Miller: zero confidence.
    Weiland: Zero.
    Doubrint: slight.
    Wake: as a 7th starter, OK, but he's not going to lead us anywhere.

    I'm tired of the cheap Bedard, Penny, and Smoltz types. We need real talent on the mound and we need it quick, otherwise we might as well blow the whole thing up and get a dozen plus prospects for our aging stars. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Matt Moore was not a top draft pick. I think he was an eight rounder. We have no Matt Moores. We don't even have any Alex Cobbs. I like a lot of our prospects, boom, and I know you do too, but none of our young pitchers look to be ready for next year. Softy made me laugh when he said there were several pitchers available in the minors that would have done better than Wake. I asked him to name names...crickets. Our team is in trouble. If we have to pin our hopes on us staying 100% healthy again, I'm gonna be upset. Eeven if our staff stays 90% healthy and bring back Paps, Wheeler, Miller and Wake, we will still have serious issues going into next year. My guess is that one of Beckett, Buch or Lester will be hurt or have an off year. I'd say the odds are over 50% of that happening, but even if I am wrong, how do our #4-8 guys match up with TB. The Yanks have holes to fill too, but they've had a better recent track record at finding bottom of the roation gems than us. Lackey: zero confidence for 2012. Miller: zero confidence. Weiland: Zero. Doubrint: slight. Wake: as a 7th starter, OK, but he's not going to lead us anywhere. I'm tired of the cheap Bedard, Penny, and Smoltz types. We need real talent on the mound and we need it quick, otherwise we might as well blow the whole thing up and get a dozen plus prospects for our aging stars. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon, they are stacked at starting pitcher going forward for a long while. The Rays have a strong shot at winning everything this year even. That level of pitching is big and they have several shut down guys. 

    Doubront is the only guy I think has a shot at being a good # 5 for us. We are going to have to pick up a good starter this winter and we know Wilson is going to be expensive, but he might also be the best fit.

    I wouldn't rule out Bedard. He can't stay healthy but he will be cheap and he looks like he can still get guys out. His arm looks to be ok. A lot of other guys who have near equal prospects of actually becoming a stud will cost a lot more. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Sorry Boom, but if we pin our hopes on just Doubront and Bedard, we might as well blow up the whole team and start over.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Sorry Boom, but if we pin our hopes on just Doubront and Bedard, we might as well blow up the whole team and start over.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I agree Moon, and that is why I said:

    "We are going to have to pick up a good starter this winter and we know Wilson is going to be expensive, but he might also be the best fit."

    Bedard should be projected as our #5 at best, with deep depth behind him IMO. Such as Doubront, Wieland and hopefully several others.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Sorry Boom, but if we pin our hopes on just Doubront and Bedard, we might as well blow up the whole team and start over.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]A pessimistic but not total baseless take.

    It sure as heck does not feel that way but the pitching may be easier to fix than not. Now there is that old fashioned element of "luck" in that.

    The starting rotation has three pretty solid guys in Beckett, Lester and Buchholz. Let's go out on a limb here for a minute and say that Lackey is going to come back with his divorce settled, his body in order and something to prove. Let's say that equals a 2010 Lackey. If the other three are solid, we are Ok so far.

    The rest of that rotation will of course be what most teams aside from the Rays have to do and it will be creative and require an element of luck, more like what the NYY or Cardinals do than Tampa's stunning depth. And one option is to make Aceves the 5. Guys will have to step up at points from the 6-8 slots but they don't have to be big names or big seasons if we don't suffer 3-5 month DL stands next year.

    If the RS retain Papelbon the bullpen may snap together just fine. The RS have the inside scoop but Albers may be a bring back. But the one thing I believe is you never see a bullpen coming as a fan, the big name FAs aren't the way, it is volume and frankly luck.

    No doubt about it, Tampa's pitching is in an enviable position. All Boston can do is build the most balanced team they can and continue to have a very powerful offense.

    While we should not dismiss April or September, let's not forget the way the team played from May-August. Blowing it up is always a possibility but that is going to take 3-5 years to get back, if we do it that fast. It is a long road back once down.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Here's a breakdown of what we are against:

    James Shields: (29) under team control for 3 more years (12:$7M club option ($2M buyout), 13:$9M club option ($1.5M buyout),14:$12M club option ($1M buyout))
    Home: 2.36/1.047
    Away: 3.35/1.037

    David Price: (25) under team control for 4 years (12: $2.43M then 3 arb years)
    Home: 3.71/1.178
    Away: 3.25/1.093

    Hellickson: (24) under team conrol for 5 years (including 4 arb years)
    Home: 2.54/1.007
    Away: 3.41/1.316

    Jeff Niemann: (28) under team control for 3 years (first 3 arb years)
    Home: 4.95/1.414
    Away: 3.27/1.088

    Wade Davis: (25) under team control for 5 years (12:$1.5M, 13:$2.8M, 14:$4.8M, 15:$7M club option, 16:$8M club option, 17:$10M club option ($2.5M buyout))
    Home: 3.48/1.198
    Away: 5.64/1.590

    Alex Cobb: (23) under team control for 5 years.
    Home: 4.94/1.463
    Away: 1.78/1.184

    Matt Moore: (22) under team control for 5 years.
    Home: n/a
    Away: 2.89/1.286 (not counting playoffs)

    Andy Sonnanstine: (28) under team control for 2 years (arb years 2 and 3)
    Home: 4.85/1.385
    Away: 5.96/1.500

    The amazing thins is that at these ages, most of these guys have a ton of pressure experience already. They have been in 3 tight  playoff hunts in the last 4 years, and in the playoffs 3 times.

    Shields has 5 playoff starts: 3.68/0.923 (29 IP)
    D. Price has 2 playoff starts: 4.97/1.324 (13 IP)
    Niemann has 3 IP in the playoffs: 0.00/0.667
    W. Davis has 2 playoff starts: 3.00/1.667
    Sonnanstine has 3 playoff starts (17 IP): 4.24/1.176
    Matt Moore got off to a great start yesterday.
    Hellickson will get some experience this year as well. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Moon, they are stacked at starting pitcher going forward for a long while. The Rays have a strong shot at winning everything this year even. That level of pitching is big and they have several shut down guys.  Doubront is the only guy I think has a shot at being a good # 5 for us. We are going to have to pick up a good starter this winter and we know Wilson is going to be expensive, but he might also be the best fit. I wouldn't rule out Bedard. He can't stay healthy but he will be cheap and he looks like he can still get guys out. His arm looks to be ok. A lot of other guys who have near equal prospects of actually becoming a stud will cost a lot more. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    How can someone "who can't stay healthy" "get a lot of guys out"?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Lackey: zero confidence for 2012.
    Miller: zero confidence.
    Weiland: Zero.
    Doubrint: slight.
    Wake: as a 7th starter, OK, but he's not going to lead us anywhere.

    Anyon who lists Miller as zero, solid on road in 2011, Lackey, poor but a worthy bottom rotation guy in 2010 and who did beat Yankees a couple of times this year, Weiland who had a solid start but so few innings and circle jerk use, and then has the audacity to plug Wakefield has zero crediblity!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    A pessimistic but not total baseless take.

    It sure as heck does not feel that way but the pitching may be easier to fix than not. Now there is that old fashioned element of "luck" in that.

    The starting rotation has three pretty solid guys in Beckett, Lester and Buchholz. Let's go out on a limb here for a minute and say that Lackey is going to come back with his divorce settled, his body in order and something to prove. Let's say that equals a 2010 Lackey. If the other three are solid, we are Ok so far. 

    1) I think we are "going out on a limb" to assume beckett, Lester and Buch will be healthy and in form all year, particularly at the end.
    2) If Lackey had just a 5.25 ERA this year, we are in the playoffs, so I see your point. I actually do think Lackey can get back to 2010 form or even a little better, but my point is, I would not count on it as a GM.


    The rest of that rotation will of course be what most teams aside from the Rays have to do and it will be creative and require an element of luck, more like what the NYY or Cardinals do than Tampa's stunning depth. And one option is to make Aceves the 5. Guys will have to step up at points from the 6-8 slots but they don't have to be big names or big seasons if we don't suffer 3-5 month DL stands next year.

    That's the big "if", I'm tired of saying. For years and years now, we have been saying, "if we can stay healthy...". Well, I'm done hoping and praying. I want to see some planning on there being injuries. If there isn't and we have too much, we can deal a guy in July, when everyone will overpay for a starter. Look at what Bedard got from us! Why not stockpile starter depth? Bedard cost just $1M.

    If the RS retain Papelbon the bullpen may snap together just fine. The RS have the inside scoop but Albers may be a bring back. But the one thing I believe is you never see a bullpen coming as a fan, the big name FAs aren't the way, it is volume and frankly luck.

    I agree here. I'm fine with quantity and hope 1-2 work out. Starters are different. We need a solid #2-3 type and a few Bedard types in the wings.

    No doubt about it, Tampa's pitching is in an enviable position. All Boston can do is build the most balanced team they can and continue to have a very powerful offense.

    I'd say we can let our offense can slip a little, if we refocus the resources on building the staff. I think our offense will still be fine without Papi or Youk. Not as good, but still top 3.

    While we should not dismiss April or September, let's not forget the way the team played from May-August. Blowing it up is always a possibility but that is going to take 3-5 years to get back, if we do it that fast. It is a long road back once down. 

    This team still has a lot of talent. They can compete next year and for years to come. To improve our odds, we need some solid innings eating starters. That should be our #1 priority.

    I know a lot of posters get upset when we say we should "go out and get" so and so, like it's that easy, but everyone has a price. I'd look at the top 20-30 starters in MLB, preferably young and able to pitch 220 IP, and make some good offers to pry them loose.

    Halladay, Verlander, and a few others may be as close to "untouchable" as there can be, but here are a few possibilities:

    Sabathia: He may opt out and begin a biding war.

    Felix: Seattle is not going anywhere soon. We may need to involve other teams, but he's worth a try.

    CJ Wilson: Free Agent (31), but without many innings under his belt until 2 years ago.

    Clayton Kershaw: The LAD are in flux, maybe a multi-player deal could be designed, if we take on some of their salary along with Clayton.

    Dan Haren, Jeff Weaver, or Erwin Santana: maybe they'd take Carl C and others.

    Lincecum, Cain or Bumgamer: Hard to get one of these.

    Carpenter: (team option $15M for 2012 then a FA)

    Gio Gonzalez, Ian Kennedy, 

    Maybe try to get 2 of these:
    Masterson, Edwin Jackson, Garza, T hudson, A Sanchez, Buehrle, Guthrie, Dempster, and I'm sure there are more. 

    These are just off the top of my head.
    By the time you know what to do, you're too old to do it. 
    Ted Williams
     

Share