A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I asked Moon this on the Lackey thread, but perhaps he missed it. So I'll ask you: What in your opinion is Josh Beckett worth on the open market?
    And yes, I'm all about winning. That's what it all comes down to. R U any different?

    Sorry, I missed it.

    I think Beckett was worth $100M if he had gone FA after his poor (injury-related) year last year. He has been hurt more than we wish, but he is better than Lackey and until recently was on pace for becomming one of the best postseason starters of all time.

    I was happy Theo locked him up early. I totally disagrreed with softy, when he called him "fatman" and blamed him and lackey for our 2010 non playoff season. softy thought Theo should have waited (God forbid he had a great 2010 season) and then sign him for cheaper. I feel we got him "cheaper" when we did.

    I know he has had some 5.00+ ERA seasons, but his career WHIP is 1.218, and with Boston 1.208, his ERA with Boston is 4.02, and I am sure you love his .645 winning % with Boston... we all do.
     
  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]I asked  Moon  this on the Lackey thread, but perhaps he missed it. So I'll ask you: What in your opinion is Josh Beckett worth on the open market? And yes, I'm all about winning. That's what it all comes down to. R U any different? Sorry, I missed it. I think Beckett was worth $100M if he had gone FA after his poor (injury-related) year last year. He has been hurt more than we wish, but he is better than Lackey and until recently was on pace for becomming one of the best postseason starters of all time. I was happy Theo locked him up early. I totally disagrreed with softy, when he called him "fatman" and blamed him and lackey for our 2010 non playoff season. softy thought Theo should have waited (God forbid he had a great 2010 season) and then sign him for cheaper. I feel we got him "cheaper" when we did. I know he has had some 5.00+ ERA seasons, but his career WHIP is 1.218, and with Boston 1.208, his ERA with Boston is 4.02, and I am sure you love his .645 winning % with Boston... we all do.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    When you consider Theo locked Beckett up at Lackey FA money, it was a smart move. I think Josh commands CC $$$ now. Lester is not far off. In this context,
    Lackey salary jives with what he was signed for, which is pitching depth behind them.
     
  3. 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 :
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    You said that people had Navarro "penciled in" at SS for 2012.
    Right, people said that they'd like to see Navarro have a shot. Maybe they still feel that way -- even more so after the trade. You and the Red Sox disagreed. The real point is that it's too early to judge Navarro as a ML player -- if he gets a chance in that capacity. What the Red Sox think about any player is not necessarily the final word. As long as SS is the topic, see Theo's record on that position. 
    It does make a difference who went first, because you nicked people for too much attention to a SP and RFer while you were out in front about SS. Many people were all over the SS issue long before you more or less claimed to be first. You were not the only one, by far, who mentioned an external solution, Reyes prominently.  Don't try to rewrite history. It's too easy to check.
    Yikes, now you drag in PED's, as though there is a possibility that Navarro might resort to them. Where's your "evidence" for that? And don't say "just sayin'."  Or that there is always a possibility. Suppose Navarro buffs up legitimately and starts to hit lots of homers. ( One scout already thinks he has the capacity to hit 15-20. )  Someone could say -- most likely you -- that he's obviously juiced. Why even bring up such a charged subject at all? IMO, that's not a responsible comment.


     
  4. 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]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : When you consider Theo locked Beckett up at Lackey FA money, it was a smart move. I think Josh commands CC $$$ now. Lester is not far off. In this context, Lackey salary jives with what he was signed for, which is pitching depth behind them.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    What is he worth now? (Assuming he continues as is and becomes a FA this winter?) Well, he'd be one year older, but I think he could get $90/4 or $110/5
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yeah, that's about what I see. Perhaps more in a sparse market.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    BTW, boom, the player you appear to prefer to Navarro is named Aviles, not Avila. You might want to keep that in mind when checking box scores. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    One this back and forth on Navarro, I wouldn't read too much into the trade or too little. The RS did not make the trade to get a utility IF because they had faith that Navarro was their best bet in 2011 in that role, let alone being given regular starts at SS. That doesn't mean that he does not have a future in MLB but his present based on their needs and aspirations did not fit.

    Can I say that with 100% assurance? Well of course not, I am not in the inner circle on Yawkey Way. But connecting the dots it is hard to come to any other conclusion than they did not feel that Navarro was their best bet to back-up the IF positions in the case that Lowrie did not make it back. And they did not deel his future was so bright that they wouldn't trade him.

    RH OF bat just wasn't there at a price the RS were willing to pay. Whether Darnell will make that irrelevant is yet to be seen but the bigger thing here is the RS like what they see from Reddick, certainly in the context of the total offense they already have.

    On the subject of Beckett if he went FA last year, the contract would have ended up about where it is any way, as tough a year as it was for him. He would have been the best RH pitcher on the market, an absolute plan B for those losing in the Lee sweepstakes. As a Texas kid, who has a lort of what the managing partner (Ryan) likes, they likely would have been aggressive with Josh.

    If he was an FA this year he would be the same thing with a much better stat sheet, assuming CC tests the market to max his contract with NY (no way he doesn't resign there IMO).

    We all forget now but John Lackey was the best FA pitcher in the open market after the 2009 season. Value to some extent drives on supply and demand and Lackey is an example of this. Different position but the contracts that Crawford and Werth got last winter are examples of this. It is hard to accept this now in hindsight but Lackey may well have gotten more if he worked the market hard. But his wife's family is in New England, the Red Sox a winning organization and the combination inspired him to have his agent reach out to Epstein and cut a quick deal.

    Marvin Miller was quoted as saying he smiled ear-to-ear when owners wanted arbitration and years of control. He knew that limiting the supply of players available via FA every year would drive salaries much faster than if the market was flooded.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    So, is this the new depth chart:

    C: Salty/Vtek - Lavarnway- Exposito
    1B: AGon (Youk/Papi/Lowrie) - Anderson-Head-Rodriguez
    2B: Pedey -Sutton- (Aviles/Lowrie)- Tejada- Coyle
    3B: Youk (Aviles/Lowrie/Sutton)- Middlebrooks-Vitek
    SS: Scutaro- Aviles-(Lowrie/Sutton)- Iglesias- Bogaerts
    LF: Crawford (DMac)- Lin- Hassan
    CF: Ellsbury (DMac)- Kalish-Ramos
    RF: Reddick- DMac- Jacobs
    DH: Papi (Lowrie/Lavarnway)

    S1: Beckett
    S2: Lester
    S3: Lackey (assuming Buch is out)
    S4: Bedard
    S5: Wakefield
    S6: Miller- Weiland- Doubront- Millwood-Duckworth-Renaudo- Wilson-Britton-Tazawa- Workman- Pimentel

    R1: Paps
    R2: Bard
    R3: Aceves
    R4: Albers
    R5: Wheeler
    R6: Jenks- Atchison- Morales- Williams- Bowden- Oki 
     
  9. 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]BTW, boom, the player you appear to prefer to Navarro is named Aviles, not Avila. You might want to keep that in mind when checking box scores. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    They unloaded Navarro for a more expensive NOBODY, and they had to throw in another player to boot. THAT is how good the Redsox thought he was. They made that deal FIRST. They played him a total of 9 INNINGS at SS because they already knew he wasn't the solution. That's my GUESS. My PROJECTION. And I'm quite sure I haven't misrepresented anything you've said even remotely as much as you've misrepresented my position. If I misstated anything about your position I'd like to see it. It can't be that bad. Refer to my "response" post for all the misrepresentations you threw out there about me.
     
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Notice how virtually everyone else is avoiding this expitch. It's a cesspool at this point.
     
  11. 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]One this back and forth on Navarro, I wouldn't read too much into the trade or too little. The RS did not make the trade to get a utility IF because they had faith that Navarro was their best bet in 2011 in that role, let alone being given regular starts at SS. That doesn't mean that he does not have a future in MLB but his present based on their needs and aspirations did not fit. Can I say that with 100% assurance? Well of course not, I am not in the inner circle on Yawkey Way. But connecting the dots it is hard to come to any other conclusion than they did not feel that Navarro was their best bet to back-up the IF positions in the case that Lowrie did not make it back. And they did not deel his future was so bright that they wouldn't trade him. RH OF bat just wasn't there at a price the RS were willing to pay. Whether Darnell will make that irrelevant is yet to be seen but the bigger thing here is the RS like what they see from Reddick, certainly in the context of the total offense they already have. On the subject of Beckett if he went FA last year, the contract would have ended up about where it is any way, as tough a year as it was for him. He would have been the best RH pitcher on the market, an absolute plan B for those losing in the Lee sweepstakes. As a Texas kid, who has a lort of what the managing partner (Ryan) likes, they likely would have been aggressive with Josh. If he was an FA this year he would be the same thing with a much better stat sheet, assuming CC tests the market to max his contract with NY (no way he doesn't resign there IMO). We all forget now but John Lackey was the best FA pitcher in the open market after the 2009 season. Value to some extent drives on supply and demand and Lackey is an example of this. Different position but the contracts that Crawford and Werth got last winter are examples of this. It is hard to accept this now in hindsight but Lackey may well have gotten more if he worked the market hard. But his wife's family is in New England, the Red Sox a winning organization and the combination inspired him to have his agent reach out to Epstein and cut a quick deal. Marvin Miller was quoted as saying he smiled ear-to-ear when owners wanted arbitration and years of control. He knew that limiting the supply of players available via FA every year would drive salaries much faster than if the market was flooded.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
    Your comments on the the Sox and Navarro say it all.  No one should take credit for seeing this, since it was pretty obvious. Your comment about Navarro's future is also to the point. Neither he nor other teams are constrained by Boston's evaluation of his potential. That is why I've been saying to another poster that consignment of Navarro to a future as sub/minor leaguer is at the very least premature. He has been rated above average by more than one observer. Navarro supporters on this board didn't argue for him to be handed the SS job, either now or in ST. They wanted to see him get a shot. That argument is not entirely without merit, considering the progress Navarro made in the system. Theo disagreed. That is where matters stand.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Boom, would you make any changes to my impromptu depth chart?
     
  13. 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 : They unloaded Navarro for a more expensive NOBODY, and they had to throw in another player to boot. THAT is how good the Redsox thought he was. They made that deal FIRST. They played him a total of 9 INNINGS at SS because they already knew he wasn't the solution. That's my GUESS. My PROJECTION. And I'm quite sure I haven't misrepresented anything you've said even remotely as much as you've misrepresented my position. If I misstated anything about your position I'd like to see it. It can't be that bad. Refer to my "response" post for all the misrepresentations you threw out there about me.  
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    They didn't "know" he wasn't the solution. They "thought" he wasn't the solution. See, you've missed yet another distinction.
    I will let stand my posts on my position and your position.
    Again, remember that it's AVILES.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Holy smokes, boom, an argument on a sports board is a "cesspool." You do have a way with words. At the extreme end. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, it's wicked gross.
     
  16. 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]Moon :  Winning   is  the  bottom line . This goes for pitching, hitting, defense, managing, FO, etc. How you get there is the building block. But  it all comes down  to  winning . That's why I say, I'll take 4 wins over two. Or 15 over 5, given rather similar parimeters. If we're talking  projections , that's a different issue. I'm simply isolating it to  the bottom line Nobody wants 2 wins instead of 4, but if the pitcher has little or nothing to do with

    the 4 wins
    , I don't give him credit. If we win a game 15-14 and the pitcher lets up 14 runs, sorry, I won't praise him for "the win". Conversley, if a pitcher wins 2 games 2-1 and loses 2 games 3-2, I will praise the pitcher for a job well done and would want that pitcher starting the first playoff game over the guy who wils games 15-14  That is my point. Winning is the bottom line for thne team, but many times winning is beyond the control of the pitcher . A 14 win evaluation is based on his years in CA. How is that misleading? Numbers like ERA/WHIP/BABIP/etc. are what is misleading in his case, because of the inaccurate numerical adjustments to a different climate (not referring to just weather), division, venue, etc. Fenway is a notorious hitter's park. ( Watch for an upcoming thread on this subject). Lacky's limited road work over 10 months isn't enough to say Fenway isn't compromising Lackey. Fenway compromises the staff as a whole You 14 win comment is not misleading because it is wrong, but it is misleading if he wins 14 games with a 6.20 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. He won't get much praise from me, beyond looking at his percent of games he allows 3 or ERs and keeps us in it-which I have praised him for. Salary is a factor, but it not by biggest beef with Lackey. I don't like his showing up teammates, even if he had a 1.50 ERA, but  when he has a 6.00+ ERA, it sickens me. I wish the next time he lets up an HR, all 8 fielders throw their glove to the ground, curse and kick the dirt, then glare at Lackey and cuss him out. This isn't about his wife having cancer-that is a gterrible thing. This guy has been like this long before she was diagnosed, but noe his performance level has slipped. . This gets into a  gray  area of home advantage vs. park dimensions, which interests me enough to do some work on this (to be addressed on the upcoming thread). Saying a 14 win season is "successful" depends on your perception. If you judge him on salary, you are limiting your vision. This has to be seen in a larger context. If you feel Theo didn't spend the money wisely, then look at UR alternative names of choice AT THE TIME OF HIS SIGNING and try and project how many more wins that might equate to I am judging him on WHIP, ERA, QS%(and near QS%), W-L% and much much more before I get to wins (I even put team record in that pitcher's games in front of individual record) .  As for team wins vs. individual ones, I wasn't comparing Lackey to Carlton. I was using an extreme example of how one pitcher can be completely dominant over all other factors to illustrate the point. In Lackey's case,  his  talent level has to be adjusted accordingly His talent level is worse than when we signed him, that's our point.He has not given us what we expected, except for maybe wins. No matter how you cut it, he has averaged 14 wins a year for a franchise whose success rate is similar to ours. He really isn't much different now in terms of velocity or depth as he was in CA. His stuff has a slight regression if you really break it down, but not anything truly steep Break this down:     Before Bos/  with Bos WHIP 1.306 / 1.466 ERA+   116 / 86 ERA     3.81 / 4.96 Win%  .590 / .548 K/BB    2.72 / 2.18FIP in Boston: 100 and 116 (never above 100 with LAA, never above 91 in 5 years previous to signing here) xFIP in the 3.80's for 3 years before coming here: 4.15 and 4.57 after. GB%, LD%, etc... all worse this year. He is not the same pitcher, even with park and opponent adjustments. . If Miller wins 14 games, I'd easily consider that a good first year  for him , given his AAA time. If he ends up with a 5+ ERA/high WHIP, he'd project lower for next year, depending on his level of growth Miller has pitched in the majors for 5 years and has about 65 games started. That doesn't mean he can't get his act together, but I fear he is what he is. If he pitches the same way and goes 14-3, it does not mean he pitched well.  Lackey's WHIP/ERA in Boston jive with his CA numbers when adjustments are realistic , not simply  site skewed .  This is the area of misconception . And it's not easily conveyed. On one hand, I'm saying Lackey isn't what you or others thought he'd be based on salary of his CA stats. However, I'm also defending him in that his 2011 numbers aren't what he's capable of in the context of his 2010 numbers, which are truer in regards to further evaluation I think you are the one with the "misconception" on this issue. I looked at Lackey's opponents, venue, etc... and compared LAA numbers to here. He has done worse or much worse(in most cases) in the same venues with Boston than with LAA. . He has a very good fielding team behind him this year, and excfellent run support. I said he'll pitch better coming off the DL. He was hurt in May and had a rough April, as did many. And he has. Has he been a world beater? Of course not. Lackey is not a world beater type of pitcher. But his velocity coming off the DL was a solid barometer of better things to come. But you aren't selecting his post DL numbers,you only went back 4 games to try and make a definitive point. I am not disagreeing that Lackey has or may have "turned things around", I am arguing that Lackey has not given us what we expected since coming here, and you say he has: based on wins only. That is the issue I am debating. . On Wake: He wins 13.75 games in a full season. You are right, he pitched better in 2008 with little run support. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that run support tends to even out over the years. As do lucky breaks No you are not saying that. You are saying Lackey has won 14 game/yr with Boston and that is all that counts. I am saying he isn't pitching like a 14 game winner and if things "evened out", he'd be 10-15 at year's end with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. I don't see many consistent 14 game winners with a 6.00 ERA and a 1.55 WHIP. That is my point. . In another era, Wake averages 16 wins a season simply because he would have had more starts in a 4-man rotation. Now, he has won 16-17 games 4 times in  this  era, but I'm willing to bet his RS those years was better than the career norm for him. It all averages out. If Wake had been traded to the Angels at mid career, I'm willing to bet his win total would be similar, his wins per start similar, but his ERA/WHIP/etc. quite different.   As for his first year in Boston, I think he was simply on a terrific run, coupled with being an unknown in the A.L. That can and will defy venue or team talent level in that, again, pitching is the predominat factor I dont think Wake ever pitched in a 4 man rotation, and his first 4 years with Boston saw many many wins. That goes against what you said about his early years here. It really has nothing to do with Lackey and 14 wins. I just added the numbers as a sidenote to the debate.  harness, I respect your opinions. I agree with you on a high percent of them. I undertsand your position here. It is not without merit. I am not taking your position out of context, because you have restated your position several times in this debate. You made some good points. I strongly disagree. I hope Lackey keeps up his 4 game pace. I have confidence he will. This season is not over, and it is not a lost season for him. His contract is not over. I do not think 2010 was that bad. I had hoped he would have adjusted, being a veteran and all, but I saw regression, distraction, tantums, injury, and poor numbers. This has not been a good year so far, despite the 9 wins. I liken this to softy's Lugo was our "wire to wire SS" in a WS year, so he can never have been labelled a bust.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Little or nothing to do with 4 wins? You can't be serious.
    He pitched shut out ball vs. O's - 6.6 IP 3 hits
    He went 7 frames vs. Seattle (1 run). How does this constitute "little or nothing to do with the wins"?

    Yes, Lackey can be a real azz on the field. In fact, I'm defending him the same way you defend Wake: He not one of my personal favorites (by any means). Wake is. But I think it's time to put the public perception of him into context.

    His numbers last year when adjusted are similar to his CA averages.
    3.88 ERA easily transfers to 4.40 in Boston, especially in a transition year.
    Same with WHIP when you consider the effect Fenway has on this staff.
    Example:
    RedSox pitchers in Fenway this year: 4.23 ERA  1.362 WHIP .724 OPS
    RedSox pitchers away from Fenway:  3.54 ERA  1.166 WHIP .663 OPS
    (More on this in an upcoming thread).

    I don't put much stalk in FIP/XFIPor SO/IP ratio. This criteria was heavily exposed on the CATCHER'S RELEVANCE thread. His BB/IP ratio improved immensely after the first two months of last year, which I owe to the transition period. 

    Now let's talk this year. He went down in  May with elbow inflammation, admitting he was pitching in discomfort/pain in April. Took two cortisone shots. I don't believe in taking anything out of the equation, but I do believe in segregating under-performance due to injury or a player trying to play through it. Beckett got a pass last year for the same reasons. Shouldn't Lackey? Once he was healthy, just off the DL: He has pitched 57 Ip  32 ER  70 H  14 BB  5.08 ERA 1.473 WHIP  7-3 over 10 starts.
    One outing vs. Toronto does skew the numbers. He had a good FB that day but had no command of his breaking stuff. It happens. He was lit up.
    His numbers otherwise: 54.6 IP  25 ER  61 H  14 BB  4.13 ERA 1.373 WHIP.

    Again, they are close to to his CA numbers when adjusted.
    Beckett is a 14.6 win a year pitcher in Boston, but we know he's capable of 17+ when healthy. Lackey's numbers can't be accurately depicted until we see him over a similar stretch of time. I see no indication of a "bust"or a pitcher in steep decline. His velocity is what it was when he was signed.

    The opposition he faced in CA did not play out 81 times in Fenway. Nor was it balanced to an A.L. East unbalanced schedule.

    If those fans are unhappy with his signing or feel the money should have been spent elsewhere, let them go back to that time frame, not use hindsight, choose the other player options, and adjust the data accordingly.
    The wanna-be GM's miss an important fact: THEO is paid to make the same assessments we make. But I'm betting his research is far more comprehensive.
    If he felt he had better options, or better options were available, don't ya think he's have gone there?

    Nice debate Moon.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    FWIW the window was pretty small for Navarro in terms of getting PT on this team, this year. His age, his stage of development and minor league accomplishments were such that he was going to have to dazzle the RS in his cameos to stick with the club. This is not a team where young players get OJT. Navarro's fate was probably seasled by a few pretty ragged plays in the field in the OF and at 3B. When you are that young still and the team you play for has the best record in the AL, it is a thin line.

    He had enough value on the flip side to be key component in the trade for a more seasoned utlity player. Had Lowrie been back already, my guess is they may well have sent him back to Pawtucket. The trade they made was all about getting a more seasoned glove IMO and if I understand the details right, they got that and a player with options so they can do that later when Lowrie does return.

    I happened to disagree with folks about sitting Scoot to give Navarro a "shot" because I feel if the RS weren't doing it that they know what they are doing. But at his age it is early to say just what his future is. Though I am not sure that SS is going to be where he'll end up, which may be why the RS were using him in so many other positions.

    I don't if anyone else mentioned this Ex but it is unusual for Boom to "negative" about prospects. In the time I have posted here I have noted Boom to be a pretty bouyant fellow when it comes to the farm hands and a perfson who follows them with more depth than I have.

    I think at this point you all just locked horns on this one.
     
  18. 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]FWIW the window was pretty small for Navarro in terms of getting PT on this team, this year. His age, his stage of development and minor league accomplishments were such that he was going to have to dazzle the RS in his cameos to stick with the club. This is not a team where young players get OJT. Navarro's fate was probably seasled by a few pretty ragged plays in the field in the OF and at 3B. When you are that young still and the team you play for has the best record in the AL, it is a thin line. He had enough value on the flip side to be key component in the trade for a more seasoned utlity player. Had Lowrie been back already, my guess is they may well have sent him back to Pawtucket. The trade they made was all about getting a more seasoned glove IMO and if I understand the details right, they got that and a player with options so they can do that later when Lowrie does return. I happened to disagree with folks about sitting Scoot to give Navarro a "shot" because I feel if the RS weren't doing it that they know what they are doing. But at his age it is early to say just what his future is. Though I am not sure that SS is going to be where he'll end up, which may be why the RS were using him in so many other positions. I don't if anyone else mentioned this Ex but it is unusual for Boom to "negative" about prospects. In the time I have posted here I have noted Boom to be a pretty bouyant fellow when it comes to the farm hands and a perfson who follows them with more depth than I have. I think at this point you all just locked horns on this one.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
    I, among others, said that Navarro would probably be sent back to Pawtucket when Lowrie returned.  For the record, I didn't recommend giving Navarro "a shot," as in an abbreviated audition, which is in fact what he got at third and in the outfield, perhaps inescapably on a team like the Sox. I don't know whether his performance in those brief appearances tipped the balance against him finally. More likely, as you said in an earlier post, the team had already decided that his ceiling wasn't high enough for its requirements. I mentioned a "real shot" in ST or an extended look now. I thought the latter unlikely but the former probable if he were still with the club.
    I have no idea what set boom off on this particular player. He says it was that he caught flack for his projections. I'm not familiar with that history. I entered because I thought, yes, that in tone boom was being unusually hard on Navarro.
    Why take it out on Navarro because people questioned boom's projections? To drive the point home? That was unnecessary. Boom's position was already clear.
    Boom's "bouyancy," as you call it, includes a tendency to go over the top. Some of the time, no harm done, but this was not one of them, IMO. ( PED's, for goodness sake, even simply mentioned. ) I didn't respond to his challenge about misrepresentation of positions.  I'll let others decide, but I can't see why anyone would be want to go back over this dispute. 
    Maybe the Sox are right about Navarro that he wasn't the solution. But I did remind boom that Theo thought first that Renteria and then Lugo was the solution. That position is still very much a work in progress.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I admit that boom's tendency to toot his own horn rubs me the wrong way, especially when, but not only when, he makes the easily refutable claim that he was alert ahead of others to a problem at SS.  I could name names but they are all there on the record.
    I also admit that how one reacts to horn-tooting is a matter of taste.  
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'd like to see Wake go 4-5 IP and have Miller of Aceves go 2-3 afterwards

    I'd like to see Wake disabled, have Miller go 4 to 5 and Aceves go 2-3, afterwards.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    "We all forget now but John Lackey was the best FA pitcher in the open market after the 2009 season."  fivekatz

    And herein lies the problem, Lackey was signed simply for this reason. He was the best available, but not the best for the team. The Yankees repeatedly make this mistake, signing the best available. 

    You have to sign FA based on how they can best serve the team, and that does not always mean they are the best overall player.
     
  22. 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 forget now but John Lackey was the best FA pitcher in the open market after the 2009 season."   fivekatz And herein lies the problem, Lackey was signed simply for this reason. He was the best available, but not the best for the team. The Yankees repeatedly make this mistake, signing the best available.  You have to sign FA based on how they can best serve the team, and that does not always mean they are the best overall player.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    At the time, Boston needed the pitching depth with Buch a question and Dice's issues. They needed to off-set NY's advantage. There weren't many options at the time. Directly following what happened in the 2009 PO's, keeping him out of CA wasn't a bad thing, although not a prerequisite.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I am unhappy with Lackey, though he is no Matt Young.  I can only hope he proves me wrong over the long-run... I don't wish for Lackey to be bad.

    Just that he is bad, really bad.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Just catching up here and I have a few observations...

    Any GM with the means would have made the offer Theo made to Lackey. Name me a team that could not use a 14 win per season starting pitcher. Lackey has not been as good as I had hoped, but he hasn't been the bust he's been portrayed either. I'd come down closer to Harness on this one, we've gotten pretty close to what we should have expected. He wasn't going to morph into a 17-20 game winner all of a sudden, nor has he regressed into a liability either. His theatrics aside, he is a competitor, and when healthy, give his team a chance to win most of his starts.

    The Navarro discussion is simply wasted words at this point, and any argument about who was right and who was wrong is more the style of Softy than the other good posters here. The Red Sox obviously did not view him as essential to this year's goals and thus deemed him expendable. I still think that we could use a defensive upgrade over Scutaro at the most important defensive position, but I doubt that Navarro would be that upgrade. Ironically, since we started the weak defense at short discussion a week to ten days ago, Scutaro has been playing his best defense of the season, yesterday's error notwithstanding.

    I think Theo deserves some credit for bolstering the 25 man roster without losing any primary prospects. Bedard's track record indicates that he can pitch when healthy and I would much rather see him with the ball than Andrew Miller. All the Lackey/Wake bashers who think they win games because of good fortune and even better offense, and in spite of themselves, need look no further than to Andrew Miller as the luckiest pitcher on the roster. 

    Bad news on Buchholz, and the trend over the last couple of seasons with regards to our medical staff's inability to nail down diagnoses is troubling. I don't pretend to have any medical savvy whatsoever so I don't have a better solution, but this is not good news. It's remarkable that we've done as well as we have with the current rotation.

    I haven't heard or read much about this lately but I know Texas made some big additions to their bullpen yesterday while ours was virtually (maybe a weak starter sliding back there?) unchanged. But if there is a bullpen performing better that our group of Aceves, Albers, Wheeler, Bard and Paps, I'm not aware of it. The offense gets and deserves a lot of credit for our success, but that group, along with the two great starters, has been the backbone of this team.

    And finally guys, can't we all just get along? We've got a great thing going here you know!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    blow me, jidge....:-)

     

Share