A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    1st Base coach Johnson has been relieved of his duties as per ESPN.

    http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7063697/boston-red-sox-let-go-first-base-coach-ron-johnson-source-says
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : The three way trade is a viable option. In broad brush strokes Team A wants to add an impact CF and is willing to flip top prospects. Team B does not think they will contend in 2012 and wants to flip a pitcher with two or less years of control for prospects. Team gets Ellsbury, the RS flip the prospects from Team B for the pitcher. I happen to think that Atlanta and Giants think they can contend next year and won't be looking to dump pitching for futures and trying to also add salary dumps like Lackey or Jenks does makes it all the harder to pull off. Cot's doesn't have a 2013 potential FA list up yet so it is hard to forecast who is the next Grienke to the Brewers, Bedard to the Mariners.   
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
    Here is a 2013 free agent list from MLB Trade Rumors:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/04/2013-mlb-free-agents.html
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]1st Base coach Johnson has been relieved of his duties as per ESPN. http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7063697/boston-red-sox-let-go-first-base-coach-ron-johnson-source-says
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]Looks like it is going to be very piece meal. I wonder why unless Johnson pushed the renewal because he wants to get into the market quick?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The three way trade is a viable option. 

    In broad brush strokes Team A wants to add an impact CF and is willing to flip top prospects. Team B does not think they will contend in 2012 and wants to flip a pitcher with two or less years of control for prospects. Team gets Ellsbury, the RS flip the prospects from Team B for the pitcher.

    I happen to think that Atlanta and Giants think they can contend next year and won't be looking to dump pitching for futures and trying to also add salary dumps like Lackey or Jenks does makes it all the harder to pull off. 

    I had Sf dumping Zito ($46M/2) for Lackey ($46M/3). As bad as Lackey is, he's better than Zito and saves them money per year the next 2 years. I doubt SF can win without offense, so they may swap pitching to get Ells. (Maybe Jenks can be taken out).

    Cot's doesn't have a 2013 potential FA list up yet so it is hard to forecast who is the next Grienke to the Brewers, Bedard to the Mariners.    
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    five, it's interesting, you blame Tito for a lot of the ills, but won't call out the players. It seems like when I make mention that the team's veterans just let the ball drop as it seems in terms of letting the negativity and isolation in the clubhouse continue, you pretty much defend them. Or that's how it seems. Don't you think the veteran players are part of the "cancer" that the team suffered in its September nosedive? I do. If you don't replace the players at this point, nothing will change in that clubhouse. A new manager isn't going to whip them into shape so to speak. What do you think, katz?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Yes I called out Tek, Ortiz and Wakefield for that reason, even though in general none of the three really have to answer to anything as they come to work and have been coming to work for years in Boston. 2 WS titles.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : The three way trade is a viable option. In broad brush strokes Team A wants to add an impact CF and is willing to flip top prospects. Team B does not think they will contend in 2012 and wants to flip a pitcher with two or less years of control for prospects. Team gets Ellsbury, the RS flip the prospects from Team B for the pitcher. I happen to think that Atlanta and Giants think they can contend next year and won't be looking to dump pitching for futures and trying to also add salary dumps like Lackey or Jenks does makes it all the harder to pull off. Cot's doesn't have a 2013 potential FA list up yet so it is hard to forecast who is the next Grienke to the Brewers, Bedard to the Mariners.   
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    How do you fix your team in 2012 if you're the Atlanta Braves, and you're not willing to trade your young arms?  They have no offensive prospects to speak of - is it Free Agency or bust?  

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Yes I called out Tek, Ortiz and Wakefield for that reason, even though in general none of the three really have to answer to anything as they come to work and have been coming to work for years in Boston. 2 WS titles.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    danny, I get where you are coming from, but how do we know it or if not these vets tried to lead, but it failed. The clubhouse-media balck-out was pretty tight this year, and we may never know what happened...good or bad.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sindarin-erebor. Show sindarin-erebor's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Given Shaefer's marijuana felony arrest, it sure looks like the Braves did well getting rid of him for Bourne.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Maybe they knew something...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    moon I did not even know this but can you imagine Josh Hamilton/Longoria with the Rays - Hamilton was the Rays #1 pick in 1999.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : How do you fix your team in 2012 if you're the Atlanta Braves, and you're not willing to trade your young arms?  They have no offensive prospects to speak of - is it Free Agency or bust?  
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]use your bullpen better, let guys like Freeman mature another year.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]five, it's interesting, you blame Tito for a lot of the ills, but won't call out the players. It seems like when I make mention that the team's veterans just let the ball drop as it seems in terms of letting the negativity and isolation in the clubhouse continue, you pretty much defend them. Or that's how it seems. Don't you think the veteran players are part of the "cancer" that the team suffered in its September nosedive? I do. If you don't replace the players at this point, nothing will change in that clubhouse. A new manager isn't going to whip them into shape so to speak. What do you think, katz?
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]You have me confused with somebody else I think Danny. I think Tito went because that's the way it works, you don't fire players. And I think Tito was ready. Gammons wisely said today that being the manager in Boston should be counted in dog years and that meant Francona had been here for almost 60 years.

    There may be lot's of blame to go around but the funny thing is, it isn't because the team stunk in September, it is because they did not win the 2 or 3 more games in September that would have allowed them to get their butts drilled by Texas.

    Now, if you believe my belief that new leadership will correct some of the ills in the room is laying it all on Tito, not that is not my intent. Those guys own it, just like Epstein owns it and Tito owned it. Win as a team, lose as a team.

    My point is that the room will change. New leader and I am sure that a lot of players feel bad about Tito being gone. There will be reflection, there will be change. Guys are embarrassed.

    Of all the veterans frankly the most open on rowing his own way was Ortiz. I don't think that should stop the RS from having him back. That decision should be based on budget and valuation.

    This organization should not over react. It is a very talented group. IMO address weaknesses like they would any year, change the tone from day one and forget about retribution and a radical overhaul. Otherwise blow it up and start building for 2015. i don't see a lot of options in the middle with the payroll and farm system where it is.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I agree with Moon that Boston should be on the lookout for another starter of two-ish or three-ish quality, justified by performance not by expectations.
    ( Don't ask me who or how he might be acquired. ) Otherwise,  most hope must be invested in good health and in very good to outstanding seasons for the Big Three. That could happen, but it would be risky to count on it.
    First, the three of them must emerge from ST in good shape and maintain it for the long haul. Obviously conditioning affects health. For Buchholz, that means, not losing weight. For the other two, that means not putting on as much weight as they appeared to in 2011. Additional poundage in the wrong places could have ( could have ) played a role in Beckett's ankle injury. Weight, especially the kind that the body is not used to carrying, can affect balance, whether the man is in slippery stuff off the mound or on the mound in a game. Unmuscled weight across the ches or, especially, under the arms can throw the delivery out of sync or slow it down, or cause the pitcher to work harder, which leaves him liable to overthrowing.  Late in the season, Beckett looked as though he started laboring much too early in games. That brings the double whammy: reduced effectiveness and reduced innings on the mound. The pen then gets stressed. All these variables and their consequences are tightly linked. In my opinion, Beckett and the team can benefit from close monitoring. I'm not accusing him of sudsing it up in the clubhouse but just reporting my observations, for that they are worth. As the season progressed, Lester too began to look rounder, even puffy in the face. Whether added weight affected his stride or how briskly he squared himself to the plate for delivery I can't say, but it can have that effect. He looked a tad sluggish. In pitching, a tad anything can amount to the difference between lightning and the lightning bug, as Twain would have it. 
    Little things don't just mean a lot. They mean everything. 
    Bad things can happen to pitchers through no fault of their own, but every effort should be taken that can be taken to prevent bad things from happening. In Beckett's case, that bad thing has been somewhat of a slackening ( not the same as calling him a slacker ) in the late going. OTOH, if he has a year like 2007, maybe the Sox could get away with importing the Soup Nazi from "Seinfeld." 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]moon I did not even know this but can you imagine Josh Hamilton/Longoria with the Rays - Hamilton was the Rays #1 pick in 1999.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Yes, it is true, and that further proves that these guys know talent. It's one thing to get several #1 picks, it's another to make almost everyone work out. The Rays have also made several great picks down in the draft.

    I'm also sure the Rays have had to pass on some players they could not afford to sign. For all the talk about the advantages the Rays had by finishing worst so many years, the Sox get a lot of good picks late in the draft that are passed over by poorer teams and fall into our laps.

    There are a few posters here who just refuse to give the rays current ownership and management team any credit at all. We will be seeing the fruits of their trades and deep drafts due to lost FA comp picks over the next few years. Young, Kazmir, Garza, and Bartlett deals all brought lots of kids that are just now maturing. Look at the Jesse Chavez for Rafael Soriano deal. They get a great season out of Soriano for next to nothing, then they get 2 draft picks for losing him. All for a guy with a 10.00 + ERA this year!



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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Consider how poorly Soriano and Crawford played it certainly didn't hurt all that much - I think Shields would be the leader of the pitching staff? They do need one bat, and not a mediocre bat but a big bat... I wonder if they will do something about that.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I agree with Moon that Boston should be on the lookout for another starter of two-ish or three-ish quality, justified by performance not by expectations. ( Don't ask me who or how he might be acquired. ) Otherwise,  most hope must be invested in good health and in very good to outstanding seasons for the Big Three. That could happen, but it would be risky to count on it. First, the three of them must emerge from ST in good shape and maintain it for the long haul. Obviously conditioning affects health. For Buchholz, that means, not losing weight. For the other two, that means not putting on as much weight as they appeared to in 2011. Additional poundage in the wrong places could have ( could have ) played a role in Beckett's ankle injury. Weight, especially the kind that the body is not used to carrying, can affect balance, whether the man is in slippery stuff off the mound or on the mound in a game. Unmuscled weight across the ches or, especially, under the arms can throw the delivery out of sync or slow it down, or cause the pitcher to work harder, which leaves him liable to overthrowing.  Late in the season, Beckett looked as though he started laboring much too early in games. That brings the double whammy: reduced effectiveness and reduced innings on the mound. The pen then gets stressed. All these variables and their consequences are tightly linked. In my opinion, Beckett and the team can benefit from close monitoring. I'm not accusing him of sudsing it up in the clubhouse but just reporting my observations, for that they are worth. As the season progressed, Lester too began to look rounder, even puffy in the face. Whether added weight affected his stride or how briskly he squared himself to the plate for delivery I can't say, but it can have that effect. He looked a tad sluggish. In pitching, a tad anything can amount to the difference between lightning and the lightning bug, as Twain would have it.  Little things don't just mean a lot. They mean everything.  Bad things can happen to pitchers through no fault of their own, but every effort should be taken that can be taken to prevent bad things from happening. In Beckett's case, that bad thing has been somewhat of a slackening ( not the same as calling him a slacker ) in the late going. OTOH, if he has a year like 2007, maybe the Sox could get away with importing the Soup Nazi from "Seinfeld." 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Right.

    I'd like to see Beckett get in top shape this winter with some stamina building workouts.

    I'd like to see Buch gain 10 lbs.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : use your bullpen better, let guys like Freeman mature another year.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Would that answer satisfy you as a fan?  Atlanta crumbled as badly as the Sox - how many of us are content with standing pat?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Consider how poorly Soriano and Crawford played it certainly didn't hurt all that much - I think Shields would be the leader of the pitching staff? They do need one bat, and not a mediocre bat but a big bat... I wonder if they will do something about that.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Well, Longoria should be healthy. Jennings and Joyce a year older, and they should have some money after losing Damon to get some help. They may also trade Upton and Niemann for a big bat, but more likely for more prospects.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Would that answer satisfy you as a fan?  Atlanta crumbled as badly as the Sox - how many of us are content with standing pat?
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]They aren't screaming for their manager's head in Atlanta for starters. A lot less pressure on the Braves. Younger team that did better than they thought. They have and always have taken a longer view in Atlanta than either NY or Philly or Boston can or does.

    The Braves fell so hard because their first year manager burnt out his bullpen, that is what I have read is the take around baseball.

    The fans don't run the Braves and they only run the RS to the extent that they can't afford a major drop in NESN ratings and attendance. I am willing to bet 80% of what would "satisfy" fans in Boston won't happen either. Team's leadership has to do what they believe is right, build the team, hope the will win and know if they do the fans will come.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If Atlanta thinks a deal with us will helpt them win, they will make it. It's hard to make deals that help both teams, but I do think we match up well with them. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Tim Lincecum got stopped last year and cited for smoking pot.  You didn't hear boo about it from the team.  He makes 14 mil. a year and is probably the Giants best pitcher.  My point is kids today smoke pot and think about it like we all probably think about drinking a beer.  That's reality.  So personally I don't think anyone should get too crazy about a young player with ONE pot incident--unless it turns into multiple situations with obvious problems.  The Giants said they were disappointed, and Tim said he was sorry and probably hides in the depths of his basement in a closet and smokes a doobie if he has to...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Tim Lincecum got stopped last year and cited for smoking pot.  You didn't hear boo about it from the team.  He makes 14 mil. a year and is probably the Giants best pitcher.  My point is kids today smoke pot and think about it like we all probably think about drinking a beer.  That's reality.  So personally I don't think anyone should get too crazy about a young player with ONE pot incident--unless it turns into multiple situations with obvious problems.  The Giants said they were disappointed, and Tim said he was sorry and probably hides in the depths of his basement in a closet and smokes a doobie if he has to...
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    Good point Crit.
    Angels belong in heaven.

    I'll take a clubhouse of spit 'n grit anytime.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Last commnet by me on Tampa until winter - but people sit in the forum demeaning that teams effort disregarding that Tampa (like Boston) started the season 1-8, and Longoria missed about 20 games. Thye play .550+ ball in the end, not unlike Boston.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    But...Tampa was not a contender.
     

Share