A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    We all know that the Sox only need win 1-2 more games in September to go to the show, and Fister was brilliant that month. You can not make a claim he would have been butchered in a Sox uniform, no way no how.

    I am not using hindsight and stating I wanted Fister over Bedard. I liked Bedard, but unlike Fister, Bedard did fail.
     
  2. 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]We all know that the Sox only need win 1-2 more games in September to go to the show, and Fister was brilliant that month. You can not make a claim he would have been butchered in a Sox uniform, no way no how. I am not using hindsight and stating I wanted Fister over Bedard. I liked Bedard, but unlike Fister, Bedard did fail.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Bedard was just starting to pitch well when he got hurt.
    No way am I saying Fister would have been butchered with Boston. I'm saying he would not have had the same numbers pitching in spacious Detroit, against Central line-ups.

    Bedard started 8 games for Boston. He gave up 3 or less earned runs in 7 of them. 4 in the other.
    I'd hardly call that failing. And I'll also say his 4.03 ERA would have been close or better than Fister's under the same circumstances.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Bedard failed for his purpose. I am not saying he as a person is a failure. His aquisition FAILED. Simple as that. Heck if I caould get rid of Lackey I would be all for bringing Bedard back as a 4 or 5. 


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The discussion originally was not Bedard over Fister. It was that Fister had a stretch of around 6 games at the end there where he was putting up ERA numbers of a little over 2. He was strong in the end and it wasn't all against bad competition. Even against bad competition those are good numbers. Anyway, No one said he would be a stud. The point was that he helped Detroit have a shot. They had a chance to win more than Verlander's games. All Fister had to do was win 1 game, and that is exactly what he did. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I doubt if they bring Bedard back but considering all the options, I would add him as pitching depth if at all possible. If at a reasonable price up to $5-6 mil a year. The guy can still get batters out and his arm is fine.

    The Yanks will be looking for starter arms and just about every team in baseball will be looking for starters. Wilson is going to have a seller's market waiting for him.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    On a normal year you take a chance on Bedard, but we already have 3 question marks that are signed through 2012 or longer. We need to ad a pitcher who at least as of now is not a question mark.
     
  7. 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]On a normal year you take a chance on Bedard, but we already have 3 question marks that are signed through 2012 or longer. We need to ad a pitcher who at least as of now is not a question mark.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    I agree. I didn't until I saw Bedard go down when the team needed him most. Not blaming him, but the fact is, he's got a fragile history. And what makes matters worse, he takes too long to regain form, much like Lowrie does.

    So, practically speaking, if you look at his realistic mound time in good form, it's not worth the risk or the roster spot if it can be filled with a more durable pitcher.
    Bedard is a damn good pitcher when he has it going on. He has faced A. L. East competition on a regular basis and had a winning record overall with a lousy team.

    But I'd rather have Guthrie, and I think the O's are at a point where this might become a possibility.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    We can just sign Bedard with no compensation at about the same salary i think. His arm is ok. His knee should heal well enough. No doubt that he has had a series of injuries though.

    We would have to trade players to get Guthrie. With an AL East rival. For their best pitcher. They will lose him soon though so he is a potential trade target. it's just not likely and who wants to trade their best pitcher going into the season?

    The Sox need starting pitching. Both guys for the immediate rotation and for depth. The thing I like about Bedard is that he is LH and he can still pitch. His problem is that he has had injuries but we would be looking at him as depth more than as a regular guy and we can afford to pay him as depth probably.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The most likely starting pitching sign to me is probably Buehrle. And even he will not be cheap. Not cheap at all. Quality starting pitching will be particularly in demand this year. Wilson will cost a lot and will we fork out that kind of money again? Buehrle might cost a little less and we know they've tried to get him in the past. He's been durable and consistent. I think he costs a little less than Wilson but maybe not a lot less.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Yeah u2 are right again, I'd rather have Wakefield anyday.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Glad you finally came around, eben if just fasiciously.

    We went 12-11 in Wake starts. Wake was technically our 7th starter after we got Bedard, and our 6th beforehand.

    Fister's teams went 13-18 in his starts this year.

    Fister's last 11 games of 2011 were amazing and somewhat hard to project:
    10 games with 2 or less ERS!

    I liked the pick-up of Bedard, but at the time, I said we should have done better in either of two ways:
    1) Get one pitcher who was better than Bedard and did not have a history of injury.
    2) Get Bedard and someone else who maybe was not great, but was reliable. (I never mentioned Fister. Those who did should be applauded. My hat's off to you...)
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Don't you mean "Wastefield"? 
    The one who had a better ERA in Sept. than Lester or Beckett of Bedard or Lackey or Weiland or Miller
    ...(harness)

    That is saying a lot, a lot about the rest of the staff.  (Burrito)

    But, this is one of the points we have been trying (to no avail) to make all year long. Everyone wanted to dump Wake, when all we had to replace him with were worse! Yes, replace Weiland!  Yes! Replace Lackey!  Yes! Replace Miller!  Yes! Yes! Yes! And, until we found a better pitcher than Wake, he needed to stay where he was. Blame Theo for not picking up 3 starters in July, but unless he did, Wake was still a top 5 starter on this staff. I don't recall you, Burrito, or anyone else saying we needed 3 starters in July. If we got 2, Wake would still be our 5th best option.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Bedard failed for his purpose. I am not saying he as a person is a failure. His aquisition FAILED. Simple as that. Heck if I caould get rid of Lackey I would be all for bringing Bedard back as a 4 or 5. 
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    If we had 4 Bedards to fill the 3-5 slots (we'd need 4 since they'd all miss some games due to injury), and they all went 4-4 like we did in Bedard's 8 starts, we're in the post season.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I doubt if they bring Bedard back but considering all the options, I would add him as pitching depth if at all possible. If at a reasonable price up to $5-6 mil a year. The guy can still get batters out and his arm is fine. The Yanks will be looking for starter arms and just about every team in baseball will be looking for starters. Wilson is going to have a seller's market waiting for him.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I'd give him no more than $2M.

    We need horses, not creampuffs.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    moon I could be wrong - you continue to make it seem that we should carry a 6 and 7 starter on the 25 man roster; sorry but last I checked most teams got emergency starters and such from the minors - as in we don't carry a 45 year old #6 .... what we want to do if need be is to call up our #6 from Triple AAA.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    To Ad: God as my witness I never once saw u speak of a #7 until about a month ago - bad enough you started talking about #6 this year, did you just disregard what 99% of the rest of the league does because it fit your criteria for keeping Wake?

    I follow the Yankees and Reds forums and NOBODY there ever talks about just getting the WILD CARD or having a 6 or 7 STARTER.
     
  16. 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 : I'd give him no more than $2M. We need horses, not creampuffs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    See any horses available for under $80 mil? The FA market is not optimal. Maybe a Freddy Garcia?

    I think Bedard is going to get more than $2 mil and his kind of starter depth would be worth $5 mil to me. Maybe an incentive laden deal starting at $3-4 mil.

    What would Beurhrle cost? Any guesses. I'm thinking at least $70-80 mil. Probably Lackey money even.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Sorry fellas!  These never ending posts in defense of having Wake around are simply ridiculous!  All through this year & other years, I have been a huge Wake fan!  So, I take no backseat on this subject.  Having said that, the continuation of this defense is absolutely ridiculous!!!!  SURE!  Did Wake end up with a better pathetic ERA than other RS pitchers with pathetic ERA's???  OK!  Yep!  Still.....  When trying to assess future starting pitcher needs for the RS, the perfunctory defense of Wake as a future starting pitcher is nonsense!  I have LOVED the guy for the past almost decade, BUT IT IS CLEARLY TIME TO MOVE ON! 

    P.S.   On the broader topic of what happened to all our pitching????  I have a few thoughts.  It seems to me that there may well have been a very negative sub-culture which developed with the starting pitchers????  It is particularly evident    1 - 5......   It started with Dice-K & Lackey right out of the gate.  It's hard for me to objectively assess what happened with them, as I have HATED their game from day 1 this Spring Training.  Lester????   While I have always loved the kid, SOMETHING was amiss with him from day 1 this year???   He never seemed focused, & when 1 thing went wrong his ANGER would flare causing him to completely lose it.  Buch was never right from day 1.  Completely un-focused, & he eventually went down with the injury.  However, he simply never looked like he had come to play, as far back as early Spring Training.  Wake was pretty decent in the middle of the season, but he too seemed to be in the worst shape of his life.  Beckett, who pitched like an All Star for much of the season, looked out of shape & unfocused down the stretch.  Bedard, who seems to have some real RAW TALENT, quickly lived up to his reputation, going down with another mysterious injury! As for Weiland & Miller, both of whom showed signs of real raw talent shortly after the All Star Break, went completely south over the last month & 1/2. They both looked COMPLETELY CLUELESS out there.

    HOW does an entire pitching staff go so completely UNFOCUSED, for lack of a better description for what went wrong?

    Pitching was only one example of how UNFOCUSED the entire team was.  THE MULTITUDE OF LITTLE MENTAL ERRORS on this 2011 team seemed to be a constant throughout the season.  Even during the big win streaks mid season.  Whether it was falling asleep running the bases, constant base coach mental lapses, the absolute inability to play any small ball, pervasive fielding mistakes, excessive griping about the strike zone, or any of the hundreds of little mental errors..........  THIS TEAM seemed to have zero leadership & zero discipline!!!!

    I LOVE TITO!!!!  BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   HE LOST CONTROL of this team!  I am curious as to WHY HE LOST CONTROL, but the fact that HE DID DEMANDS A CHANGE! To continue the debate as to the relative merits of Francona is simply ridiculous!!!! No matter what the clubhouse issues were, or how the FO was supporting him, Tito had a responsibility to make sure his players were READY TO PLAY!!!!!!!!!! I screamed it in Spring Training, that this team was not focused & ready to play (not that that matters). I continued to be critical of team readiness for the first month. Once the Sox hit their 2nd month soft part of the schedule, they lulled me to sleep with the mounting wins.

    September exposed the LACK OF LEADERSHIP for good!!!!!  It seems clear now that there is a CANCER IN THIS CLUB & it must be removed.  What is also CRYSTAL CLEAR is that Tito LOST CONTROL & had to be replaced!  This team must move forward with a STRONG LEADER as the manager.  I will always love Tito for what he did for the Sox, but his time had simply passed.  NO!  HE let it go!  Sorry!  but he did!

    As for our beloved WAKE????  

    If pitching is the BIG QUESTION?  Wake can no longer be the answer!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Old friend 791 steps into the PED debate!

    http://firebrandal.com/2011/10/05/pedro-gomez-and-steroids/
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    But I'd rather have Guthrie, and I think the O's are at a point where this mightbecome a possibility.

    I have mentioned Guthrie in the past as well, and think he'd be a good pick-up, but I do have a few reservations:

    1) He has zero playoff or crunch time experience.
    2) He's 1-4 with a 5.88 ERA in Fenway in 9 games and 49 IP. He has a 1.796 WHIP in Boston and a .957 OPS against.
    3) He's 4-9 with a 5.15 ERA vs NYY (1.336), 7-12  4.14 vs TB (1.413).
    4) He lets up a lot of dingers (over 23 for 5 straight years. (1.2 per 9 IP is the same as Wake's career total.)


    Some pluses:
    1) He's better from pitch 50 to over 100 than 0-50.
    2) He's OK in high leverage situations (.771), but better in medium (.754) and low (.741).
    3) Career away ERA of 4.01
    4) Pretty even 1st half vs 2nd half (4.15 vs 4.25)
    5) Has 4 straight seasons with 30 or more starts!
    6) Has 3 straight seasons with 200+ IP (4 straight with 191 +)

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    moon I could be wrong - you continue to make it seem that we should carry a 6 and 7 starter on the 25 man roster; sorry but last I checked most teams got emergency starters and such from the minors - as in we don't carry a 45 year old #6 .... what we want to do if need be is to call up our #6 from Triple AAA.

    No, you are not wrong. I don't think any team carries a 7th starter on their 25 man roster, unless they have 2 long relief guys that can double as starters or spot starters. They do have them on the 40 man roster somewhere, but you are right.

    o Ad: God as my witness I never once saw u speak of a #7 until about a month ago - bad enough you started talking about #6 this year, did you just disregard what 99% of the rest of the league does because it fit your criteria for keeping Wake?

    No, I started calling Wake our 6/7 starter after we got Bedard. In theory he became our 7th starter once we made the trade:
    1) Beckett
    2) Lester
    3) Buchholtz
    4) Dice-K
    5) Lackey
    6) Bedard
    7) Wakefield

    It's just a matter of semantics, but 99% of the league probably did use a 7th, 8th or more starter at some point this year. I doubt many used their 6th through 10 starters more than us, unless they were poor teams trying out young talent after being out of it in July.

    I get your point though. Wake was never the 7th starter at any given moment on our 25 man roster.

    As for "making it fit my criteris for keeping Wake", burrito, I painstakenly went through every team's baseball reference page and compiled a list of teams who had starters who placed 6th or better in games started on their teams (meaning in theory, they we that team's 6th or better starter) and found a ton of starters that had a 5.00+ ERA in the AL or a 4.75+ ERA in the NL, and who had way higher WHIP than Wake did. I can't remember the specific numbers, but I remember it averaged over 1 per MLB team. I also showed how almost every AL team to make the WS since 2003 has had a starter in their top 5 in GS'ed with an ERA over 5. I used that point to show that having a 5th starter with a 5.00+ ERA is not out of the norm. Of course I'd rather have 5-6 starters with low ERAs, but people (with your buddy softy leading the mob) were acting like even the concept of a 5.00+ ERA on a contending team was absurd.

    I follow the Yankees and Reds forums and NOBODY there ever talks about just getting the WILD CARD or having a 6 or 7 STARTER.

    Maybe because they never are in a WC hunt.

    BTW: Nobody ever discussed Nova's 27 starts? Just because they didn't call him a 6th starter, doesn't mean they didn't discuss it. (Plus, the Yanks only had 5 starts from their 7th or higher starters.) The Reds had 7 starters with over 13 starts, and 3 of them with ERAs over 5.00 (in the NL, no less!). No wonder they didn't talk about them much.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III



    Before anyone is signed, I think a COMPLETE psychological evaluation be performed to gauge whether or not the player has the proper makeup to play up to their potential in Boston.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Old friend 791 steps into the PED debate! http://firebrandal.com/2011/10/05/pedro-gomez-and-steroids/
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    A good read. I hope it doesn't ignite the boom-expitch war again.

     
  23. 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 : A good read. I hope it doesn't ignite the boom-expitch war again.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I have an opinion about it but have no comment.
     
  24. 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 : A good read. I hope it doesn't ignite the boom-expitch war again.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    How can it? Boom is on hiatus. Ho. Why should it? My quarrel with Boom stemmed directly from HIS first post, in which he said, in his own voice, that Bautista "looks so tainted that...." That's a declarative statement that can be read in the sentence, as constructed, only as the opinion of the writer. I called him on it. He went beserk. 
    Remember that harness was also a belligerent in that "war." Why not include his name too?  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, I meant to and should have.

    Better yet, I should have just stayed out of it.

    I did like 791's article though. Although I have had my differences of opinion with him, I have always respected him.
     

Share