A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    no further comment from me on that team until winter, I trumped them up enough since last December considering I am a Sox fan.
     
  2. 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]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. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. Both teams tanked big-time.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    moon,katz, you're right that I'm basically "fishing" for answers just like a lot of us. It's hard to get around that fishbowl from the media without certain things happening. For instance, we would have heard about a "players only meeting." It would have been reported. Now, if the idea is that Wake,Ortiz,Beckett,Tek, the old guard, couldn't "fix" the spiral descent of the team's morale, and maybe they had no control, I still believe that when you have a massive slump, one way to deal with it is get the players in a room, get out your gripes, maybe some players call out other players for drinking beer or playing cards or not caring, or whatever, but bottom line I'm pretty positive that never happened. I find it mind-boggling that it didn't, but it seems it was a sign of the team's dysfunction. Not even getting together to discuss inside their own clubhouse their problems. Tito more or less hinted to the fact he could do nothing, and I agree with that, and that's why Players Only Meetings should take place, and in several instances, it has happened in the past for "airing" out purposes. The tight lip of the clubhouse only can stay tight for so long.
     
  4. 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,katz, you're right that I'm basically "fishing" for answers just like a lot of us. It's hard to get around that fishbowl from the media without certain things happening. For instance, we would have heard about a "players only meeting." It would have been reported. Now, if the idea is that Wake,Ortiz,Beckett,Tek, the old guard, couldn't "fix" the spiral descent of the team's morale, and maybe they had no control, I still believe that when you have a massive slump, one way to deal with it is get the players in a room, get out your gripes, maybe some players call out other players for drinking beer or playing cards or not caring, or whatever, but bottom line I'm pretty positive that never happened. I find it mind-boggling that it didn't, but it seems it was a sign of the team's dysfunction. Not even getting together to discuss inside their own clubhouse their problems. Tito more or less hinted to the fact he could do nothing, and I agree with that, and that's why Players Only Meetings should take place, and in several instances, it has happened in the past for "airing" out purposes. The tight lip of the clubhouse only can stay tight for so long.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    If they had a team meeting that involved discussing drinking in the clubhouse, I could see it being hush-hushed. One thing the Sox did do well this year was keeping the goings on inside the CH quiet.

    Calling a team meeting is also not the only or necessarily the best way to "lead" either. Do we know if Vtek, Wake, Papi or other "leaders" went one-on-one with some of the players having "issues"? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we will never know. That's why I refrain from calling individual players out for "not doing anything" to stem the tide of defeatism, when we don't know for a fact if they did or not.

    Plus, how much weight would a VTek or Wake have coming up to a struggling player and saying "You need to light a fire" or something, when they we struggling at the same time as well?

    I really don't think we lost because nobody tried to inspire the team. We lost for the same reason we lost in April. Poor pitching and poor fundamentals and no timely hitting. April was not a fluke. We had that part in us while we were winning from May to August, it just came out at the worst time. We were pressing too hard in April. Players were trying to do it all by themselves, going away from the philosophy of this team...get on base. We did the same in September. The pressure rose and we pressed too hard. Injuries did not help, but we still had a better team on the field than Baltimore and others and we lost. Look at the records of some of the starters we lost to in April and September. They aren't any better than Wake, Miller, Bedard, or Weiland. Even with Youk out, our offense should have been better.

    We lost. We played like losers and we lost.

    Tb had a couple bad streaks earlier in the year, but TB won when they had to: we didn't.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jrh1194. Show jrh1194's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]But... Tampa was not a contender .
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Tampa really wasn't a contender, but neither were the Sox. I can't really say anything bad about the Rays when they finished ahead of us.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch'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 : If they had a team meeting that involved discussing drinking in the clubhouse, I could see it being hush-hushed. One thing the Sox did do well this year was keeping the goings on inside the CH quiet. Calling a team meeting is also not the only or necesarrily the best way to "lead" either. Do we know if Vtek, Wake, Papi or other "leaders" went one-on-one with some of the players having "issues"? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we will never know. That's why I refrain from calling individual players out for "not doing anything" to stem the tide of defeatism, when we don't know for a fact if they did or not. Plus, how much weight would a VTek or Wake have coming up to a struggling player and saying "You need to light a fire" or something, when they we struggling at the same time as well? I really don't think we lost because nobody tried to inspire the team. We lost for the saem reason we lost in April. Poor pitching and poor fundementals and no timely hitting. April was not a fluke. We had that part in us while we were winning from May to August, it just came out at the worst time. We were pressing too hard in April. Players were trying to do it all by themwselves, going away from the philosophy of this team...get on base. We did the same in September. The pressure rose and we pressed too hard. Injuries did not help, but we still had a better team on the field than Baltimore and others and we lost. Look at the records of some of the starters we lost to in April and September. They aren't any better than Wake, Miller, Bedard, or Weiland. Even with Youk out, our offense should have been better. We lost. We played like losers and we lost. Tb had a couple bad streaks earlier in the year, but TB won when they had to: we didn't.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    Well said and right to the point.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Sometimes in our neverending search for who or what to blame, we miss the "forest for the trees".

    When we pressed or were pressed, we played like losers and lost.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Most here seem to be saying the same thing: our emphasis going forward must be on pitching, conditioning, and attitude.  Even if the latter two are not major problems,  a new manager, coaches, will "firm them up" hopefully.  Even to the casual fan, players did not seem to be up on the rail rooting for their peers, yet when you changed channels to watch other teams at year's end, that's exactly what you saw.  Tito alluded to this saying he wasn't seeing what he wanted with players supporting players.  I agree with others here and Tito who said maybe this end is a blessing as it forces the RS to deal with these issues rather than sweeping them under a rug.  Any feelings about a manager who has been a pitching coach vs. a manager who will hire a strong pitching coach?  I love Orel Hersheiser's (sp?) analysis of pitching during the games, but I don't know if he has the skills to run a team in general.  He was called the "Bulldog."  I like that.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Who is Bud Black coaching for and how long is he tied up?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]( Don't ask me who or how he might be acquired. )   Is that because a team would be crazy to let a quality SP under 30 make it to FA or only trade them for a king's ransom? Good thing joshOtherwise,  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]
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUO
    To answer your question: No. Because, unlike you, I don't claim to have the topic wired. 
    Beckett is not CC or Babe Ruth or Mickey Lolich.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]It saddens me to be staring this thread so early. I had hoped and expected better. With Tito gone, one question is answered, but who takes his place is another. I'm all for Jim Leyland, but we'll see. Next year seems so faraway, but there is a lot to be done. Big decisions need to be made: 1) Re-sign Papi? 2) Re-sign Paps? 3) Options for Scutaro, Wheeler and Miller? 4) Arb raises? 5) Wake and Vtek? 6) Trades? 7) Free Agents? 8) Injuries and conditioning? 9) Coaching? 10) Young kids stepping up? Again, let's try to keep this thread about Sox-related issues. Keep away from politics and personal attacks and baiting. There's a lot to discuss, so let the talks begin. I'd like to provide a summary of what I believe our payroll and player choices will come down to. I'm not sure if our budget will be set at about what it is now. If it is, we may have to be very creative as well as rely on our kids to take greater roles in 2012. Here is how I look at the budget next year and what choices we may have... The arbs: Ellsbury $2.4M /> ? (Arb year 2 of 3) Albers    $875K > ? (Arb 3 of 4) Salty      $750K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Aceves  $650K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Bard       $505K > ? (Arb 1 of 4) DMac      $470K > ? (Arb 1 of 4)  Maybe Theo lets him walk or trades him. Lowrie    $450K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Morales $424K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Maybe he walks, but his replacement will not save much money. My guess is we keep all and  we add about $10M to the 2011  budget  here. There are option players: Scutaro  $6M club option/$3M player option ($1.5M buy out) Wheeler $3M club option (guaranteed if 65 games pitched reached) A. Miller  $3m club option ? (some gray area here) Assume we let all of them go for now, just to see what is leftover, and we can revisit bringing them back later. (Remember, Scutaro has a $1.5M buyout, so brining him back would cost just $4.5M more after the buyouy is counted. However, I have heard that the $1.5 buyout is if Scutaro wants his $3M player option.) We save about $12.5M minus the $1.5M buyout for a  savings of about $11M . Then, there are FreeAgents: JD Drew    $14M   Ortiz          $12.5M Papelbon  $10.33M Varitek      $2M Wakefield $2M Bedard      $1M Let's wipe the slate clean just for argument's sake. We  save a total of $42M. Add the losses of Cameron and Reyes:  save about $8M. I am not sure about the Adrian Gonzalez deal. I think because it was signed after day one, his salary did not count on this year's budget, but his average yearly salary from 2012 to 2018 will be counted starting next year.  The Sox also extended Buch at about $8.5M per year. That's about $8M more than this year. That's an  added cost of $23.5M  from the 2011 budget. The pre-decision breakdown comes to    about $28M   to spend on filling all the holes from all the players  who had  options or are FAs. Here are some possible in house solutions, if we decide not to bring some guys back: If Paps walks: Closer: (Bard? Jenks? Then, we'll need more set up men.)  If Papi walks: DH: Lavarnway and or Youk (Lowrie/Aviles/Middlebrooks at 3B) Drew  will  walk: RF: (Reddick, Kalish, DMac) If we lose Wakefield/Bedard: SP (Doubront, Weiland, and "Wally") If VTek walks: C (Lavarnway) If Wheeler walks: RP:  (Doubront, Bowden ) That leaves this as the framework to work with... C: Salty (Lavarnway from DH) 1B: AGon 2B: Pedey 3B: Youk SS: Aviles/Lowrie/Iglesias LF: Craw/DMac CF: Ells RF: Reddick/Kalish DH: Lavarnway or (Youk from 3B) SP1 Beckett SP2 Lester SP3 Buch SP4 Lack SP5 Dice (Injured until maybe August.) SP6 Doubront SP7 Weiland RP1 Bard RP2 Jenks RP3 Aceves RP4 Albers RP5 Morales RP6 Bowden To me, our 7 top priorities are: 1) A solid #2/3 type starter or two starters of slot 3/4 quality. 2) Closer  3) SS (Great fielder prefered) 4) RF (RH'd and can field RF well) 5) RP (at least 2) 6) C (Hits LHPs well and can handle the staff) 7) Bench Your civil, focused, and insightful Red Sox thoughts are welcome.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]


    Can't DH Lavarnway unless a 3rd catcher is carried. An injured Salty and we lose DH for the game.
    I would rather we trade Salty and let Lavarnway catch and possibly get I-Rod to back up in place of V-tek.
    As far as the SP, I would rather see it this way:

    Beckett
    Lester
    Buch
    Lackey
    Bedard
    Wake (fill-in/BP)

    I don't think Dice comes back to Boston and we need another LHP in the rotation. If we could get CJ, then Bedard is expendable. Can't go wrong with a B-L-B-L-B rotation.

    Scutaro is servicable but should not be the starting SS. We need to get younger and if Iglesias has a good winter season, he may be ready to hit big-league pitching, we know he can play the position.


    BP is a tough one. It showed signs of greatness and also of horror.
    Keepers are:

    Bard
    Aceves
    Wheeler
    Morales
    Wake
    Miller (long man)
    Bowden (long)

    Jenks and Albers need to go. I would like to see Oki come back.

    Bench was weak this year. Reddick should replace Drew in RF or should be traded for a power RH bat in RF. I was hoping for Kemp mid-season, but with the year he had there is no way LA let's him go now.
    Francouer is an option.

    3B: I think Youk's time in Boston is done. Never thought he was that good at the positon anyway. I bet we could coax Texas into trading us Young, who could also DH. He'd be expensive but worth it.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If Scutaro and Youlikis are the starting shortstop and third baseman on opening day in 2012, the pitchers will not throw a party to celebrate. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Can't DH Lavarnway unless a 3rd catcher is carried. An injured Salty and we lose DH for the game.

    While true, losing the DH may be a better choice when we need to PH for the catcher. It does provide an extra choice. Plus, Lavarnway will not play 162 full games, so when he is on the bench, we have great catcher flexibility. 

    If we are on our second catcher in the game, I'd feel safer with Lavarnway on the 25 man roster, even if he was playing at DH for that game. We had our second catcher playing a few times this year with no capable back-up in case of emergency.

    I would rather we trade Salty and let Lavarnway catch 


    I'm leaning that way too.

    and possibly get I-Rod to back up in place of V-tek.

    He's 39. He batted .218 in 2011, and has had an OPS below .664 for 3 straight years. You guys have to get off the CS% horse. (My bet is, his CS% would fall greatly if he came here anyways.

    As far as the SP, I would rather see it this way:

    Beckett
    Lester
    Buch
    Lackey
    Bedard
    Wake (fill-in/BP)

    I don't think Dice comes back to Boston and we need another LHP in the rotation. If we could get CJ, then Bedard is expendable. Can't go wrong with a B-L-B-L-B rotation.

    Bedard is a FA. 

    Scutaro is servicable but should not be the starting SS. We need to get younger and if Iglesias has a good winter season, he may be ready to hit big-league pitching, we know he can play the position.

    OK, then we pay $1.5M for Scutty to walk.


    BP is a tough one. It showed signs of greatness and also of horror.
    Keepers are:

    Bard
    Aceves
    Wheeler
    Morales
    Wake
    Miller (long man)
    Bowden (long)

    Jenks and Albers need to go. I would like to see Oki come back.

    Nobody will take Jenks at $6M next year. We are stuck with him and must hope he does something positive.

    Bench was weak this year. Reddick should replace Drew in RF or should be traded for a power RH bat in RF. I was hoping for Kemp mid-season, but with the year he had there is no way LA let's him go now.
    Francouer is an option.

    There are several platoon options. Someone said Cody Ross.

    3B: I think Youk's time in Boston is done. Never thought he was that good at the positon anyway. I bet we could coax Texas into trading us Young, who could also DH. He'd be expensive but worth it.

    Youk will probably have his highest value used as a 1Bman ...somewhere else

     
  14. 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]Sometimes in our neverending search for who or what to blame, we miss the "forest for the trees". When we pressed or were pressed, we played like losers and lost.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]


    This is a rather bold statement, and one I won't accept in a capsule.
    You can break it down to how often (frequency ratio) any team can come back from early game-to-game deficits. The team was behind the 8-ball most of Sept. due to an injury-compromised pitching staff.

    Now, Lester was among the few not hurt and tanked.
    And it's not because he's a loser. It's because he became a 2-pitch Monte with leaky velocity. That is a direct reflection on his pitching style/erratic mechanics/pitching coach.

    Bard had mechanical issues that again mirror a poor sounding board.
    Paps imploded that one big game, and he was calling his own game of fastball roulette, as Tito again benched the team's best catcher with the pitchers because he played 2-dinger Lavernway.

    My point is, if you go game to game in Sept., I'm willing to bet you can break it down without the loser analogy.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I love this team. Saying we played like losers is not calling them losers. We played like winners for 4 months too.

    After losing 4 out of 6 vs NYY and Tex starting August 30th, our schedule was not that bad. Even with Youk out for most of the games, our offense was way better than most of our opponent's offesnes. We had a good fielding team this year, so it came down to our pitching. Yes, we had injuries up the yazoo, but I refuse to blame it all on that. Yes, TB had fewer injuries, but I wouldn't call that luck. It's part of who they are and who we are.

    Here's how we did starting Spet 5th:

    Lost 3 of 4 to Toronto
    L 1-0 -Beckett vs Henderson Alvarez? Please!
    W 14-0- Blowout with Lester > Luis Perez
    L 11-10- Wake vs Morrow (Wake had a better ERA before and after the game)  Villanueva, Litsch and Camp shut us down for almost 4- Bard let up 5.
    L 7-4 - Miller vs Romero (Toronto has the better starter)
    (We had the better starter in 3 of 4 games and lost 3 or 4)

    Swept by Rays 3-0
    L 7-2 - Lackey vs WDavis (TB had better starter.)
    L 6-5 - Weiland vs Hellickson (TB had the better starter) However, Aceves let up 2 and  Bard got the Loss.
    L 9-1 - Lester vs Shields (Close, but Tb had better starter.)
    (TB had better starters in all 3 games, but we blew game 2)

    Split 2 with Toronto
    W 18-6 Wake (just like the old days: win by 12 then lose by 1)
    L  5-4  Lackey vs Romero (Tor had the better starter)

    Lost 3 of 4 vs TB at Boston
    L 9-2 - Weiland vs Hellickson (TB better)
    W 4-3- Beckett vs Shields (About even starters)
    L  4-3 - Lester vs Niemann (Lester better)
    L 8-5 - Wake vs Price (TB Better)

    I'm sorry, harness, but we should have won a couple of these games so far, but we "played like losers". What came next was worse.

    Lost 3 out of 4 vs Balt at home.
    L 6-5  Weiland vs Guthrie (Guthrie is better, but Balt had a .164 leadoff guy, one guy  in their line-up with a BA at .292- the rest under .277. They had nobody with an OPS over .796: we had 5 in our line-up!
    W 18-9 Lackey vs Matusz (In a rare case, Lackey was better than the opposing pitcher, but we scored all our runs in one game...again. just like the "old days")
    L 7-5 Bedard (3.50) vs Vanden Hurk (8.00) Vanden Hurk??? Please! Our top 4 line-up guys were all over .850/Balt's top 4 were all under .785 OPS. Are you saying we played like winner this game or in this series?
    L 6-4 Beckett (2.70) vs Hunter (4.86) Josh got rocked.

    Lost 2 of 3 vs NYY
    L 9-1 Lester (3.49) vs Garcia (3.62) Lester is better: we played like losers.
    L 6-2 Wake (5.12) vs Burnett (5.16)
    W 7-4 Lackey vs Nova (We finally won with a worse pitcher on paper.)

    Lost 2 of 3 vs Balt.
    L 6-1 @ Bal Beckett (2.89) vs Hunter (4.68) Better pitcher/way better line-up: we played "like losers" this night.
    W 8-7 @ Bal after trying our best to lose it. Bedard vs Britton (better P)
    L 4-3 @ Bal: we all know this game all-too-well, Lester vs Simon (4.90) Better pitcher, better line-up, better pen. We "played like losers and lost". 

    It's not the same to say we "played like losers and lost" than calling us losers. We won 90 games. That's not being a loser, but we certainly played like one at the end.

    Our starting rotation of Beckett, Lester, Weiland then Bedard, Wake and Lackey was still better (on paper) than Baltimore's and Toronto's. Our line-up sans Youk was still better than balt's, Tor's, and TB's offenses.

    I stick by my perhaps oversimplified statement:

    "We played like losers and lost."


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Notin's thoughts...

    Free agent spending needs to be limited to short term, smaller deals. 

    A few free agents to consider.

    1) Aaron Hill.  Solid defender who came up as a SS and has played 2B and 3B in his MLB career.  Has hit .308 /.350 / .497 at Fenway in his career, all of which has been against decent Sox staffs.  A lot of hitters ruin themselves trying to pull everything off the Monster.  Hill has a natural swing built for it.  Plus, he would anable Youkilis to move to DH.

    2) Ramon Santiago - Hidden gem among thr SS crowd.  He probably returns to Detroit, and the Soxprobably pick up Scutaro's option.  But if the goal this off-season is to find a SS who can play but won't block Iglesias, the right names are avaiable.  Non-hitter Clint Barmes and non-tender candidate Paul Janish are also good options.

    3) Roy Oswalt.  Philly is not picking up that option.  He might be available on a one-year deal.

    4) Cody Ross - .921 OPS vs LHP, and would be an excellent platoon partner for either Reddick or Kalish.

    Two trades:

    1) Swap Bobby Jenks to the Phillies for Joe Blanton.  Philly has been trying to unload Blanton for almost a year now.  By taking Jenks, they save $2.5mill on the deal, and potentially more if they think the oft-injured Jenks can replace the oft-injured Lidge on the Disabled List for far less than the $12.5mill option they have on Lidge.  The Red Sox most defintely need the SP depth Blanton brings, and they need it more than they need Jenks.

    2) Jed Lowrie to Colorado for Chris Iannetta.  Iannetta gets further removed from his one good hitting season every year.  The Rockeis could move him and save $3mill.  Lowrie allows them flexibility, since this team cannot find anyone capable of playing 2B or 3B.  The Red Sox could use another catcher with defensive skills to replace Varitek, and possibly start over Saltalamacchia.


    I'd also consider moving Lackey to the Mets for Johan Santana. Given Santana's health and contract, the Mets might not be so reluctant...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Nice ideas notin. I'd even throw in Lowrie or prospects for Santana.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I think I've heard you say you'd like Jim Leyland, or is that someone else here?  Is this the last year of his contract and would Detroit want to give him up?  I respect him a lot but I don't see him mixing with Theo and FO.  If you have said this (maybe it's Boom) can you give your rationale?
     
  19. 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]I love this team. Saying we played like losers is not calling them losers. We played like winners for 4 months too. After losing 4 out of 6 vs NYY and Tex starting August 30th, our schedule was not that bad. Even with Youk out for most of the games, our offense was way better than most of our opponent's offesnes. We had a good fielding team this year, so it came down to our pitching. Yes, we had injuries up the yazoo, but I refuse to blame it all on that. Yes, TB had fewer injuries, but I wouldn't call that luck. It's part of who they are and who we are.
     
    Excellent breakdown Moon. From you I expect no less.
    One thing to keep in mind: the "better starter"isn't always gonna win. Most any M.L. starter can have it going on and pull an upset and stop good hitting - ours or anyone else's.



    Here's how we did starting Sept 5th: Lost 3 of 4 to Toronto L 1-0-Beckett vs Henderson Alvarez? Please! W 14-0- Blowout with Lester > Luis Perez L 11-10- Wake vs Morrow (Wake had a better ERA before and after the game)   Villanueva, Litsch and Camp shut us down for almost 4- Bardlet up 5. L 7-4 - Miller vs Romero (Toronto has the better starter) (We had the better starter in 3 of 4 games and lost 3 or 4)

    Two one-run losses that could have gone either way. Bard's issues as I mentioned before were mechanical and never should have taken that long to depict. That's on Young, who I believe was a loser.


    Swept by Rays 3-0 L 7-2 - Lackey vs WDavis (TB had better starter.) L 6-5 - Weilandvs Hellickson (TB had the better starter) However, Aceves let up 2 and Bard got the Loss. L 9-1 - Lestervs Shields (Close, but Tb had better starter.) (TB had better starters in all 3 games, but we blew game 2)

    Weiland never should have been on the mound. Team effort behind AAA arm was hardly that of a loser. Lester, as I said, became predictable in that he cut his repertoire in half. Why wasn't he encouraged to put more into the hitter's mind? Who's responsibility was that?

    Split 2 with Toronto W 18-6 Wake (just like the old days: win by 12 then lose by 1) L  5-4  Lackey vs Romero (Tor had the better starter)

    Another one-run loss.


    Lost 3 of 4 vs TB at Boston L 9-2 - Weilandvs Hellickson (TB better) W 4-3- Beckett vs Shields (About even starters) L  4-3 - Lestervs Niemann (Lester better) L 8-5 - Wake vs Price (TB Better) I'm sorry, harness, but we should have won a couple of these games so far, but we "played like losers".


    So far, I see 4 one-run losses and two starts for Weiland. One-run losses don't earmark "playing like losers". Between that and Weiland, that's half the losses right there. 3-10 could have been 7-6 with better SP depth on the farm and a little better fortune.



    What came next was worse. Lost 3 out of 4 vs Balt at home. L 6-5  Weilandvs Guthrie (Guthrie is better, but Balt had a .164 leadoff guy, one guy  in their line-up with a BA at .292- the rest under .277. They had nobody with an OPS over .796: we had 5 in our line-up! W 18-9 Lackey vs Matusz (In a rare case, Lackey was better than the opposing pitcher, but we scored all our runs in one game...again. just like the "old days") L 7-5 Bedard(3.50) vs Vanden Hurk (8.00) Vanden Hurk??? Please! Our top 4 line-up guys were all over .850/Balt's top 4 were all under .785 OPS. Are you saying we played like winner this game or in this series? L 6-4 Beckett (2.70) vs Hunter (4.86) Josh got rocked.

    Again with Weiland. And Josh was coming off a sprained ankle. Sorry, but I have to opt for his long track record over pitching hurt, which could easily have affected his endurance.  A healthy Beckett and Bedard in that series, plus not having to pitch Weiland, and it's a whole  different story.

    Lost 2 of 3 vs NYY L 9-1 Lester (3.49) vs Garcia (3.62) Lesteris better: we played like losers. L 6-2 Wake (5.12) vs Burnett (5.16) W 7-4 Lackey vs Nova (We finally won with a worse pitcher on paper.)

    Nothing out of the ordinary to lose 2 of 3 to NY. Doesn't justify "loser" label. Lester is one pitcher that should have come across better in that he wasn't hurt. But I don't put that all on him. The league caught up to his two-pitch act a bit late.


    Lost 2 of 3 vs Balt. L 6-1 @ Bal Beckett(2.89) vs Hunter (4.68) Better pitcher/way better line-up: we played "like losers" this night. W 8-7 @ Bal after trying our best to lose it. Bedardvs Britton (better P) L 4-3@ Bal: we all know this game all-too-well, Lester vs Simon (4.90) Better pitcher, better line-up, better pen. We "played like losers and lost". 

    Again, a healthy Beckett/Bedard and a likely split of their games...and the team takes 2 of 3. Keep in mind, these lowly O's also beat the Rays in a key series.


    It's not the same to say we "played like losers and lost" than calling us losers. We won 90 games. That's not being a loser, but we certainly played like one at the end. Our starting rotation of Beckett, Lester, Weiland then Bedard, Wake and Lackey was still better (on paper) than Baltimore's and Toronto's. Our line-up sans Youk was still better than balt's, Tor's, and TB's offenses. I stick by my perhaps oversimplified statement: "We played like losers and lost."

    That's a perception. Not a fact. Weiland and a hurt pitching staff kept the hitters in come-from-behind mode in most of these games. I don't care what UR line-up is, that's gonna get old fast.


     
  20. 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 think I've heard you say you'd like Jim Leyland, or is that someone else here?  Is this the last year of his contract and would Detroit want to give him up?  I respect him a lot but I don't see him mixing with Theo and FO.  If you have said this (maybe it's Boom) can you give your rationale?
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]

    His contract runs out this year. I always liked him as a manager. I think he'd be fair but tough.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    QUOTE]I love this team. Saying we played like losers is not calling them losers. We played like winners for 4 months too. After losing 4 out of 6 vs NYY and Tex starting August 30th, our schedule was not that bad. Even with Youk out for most of the games, our offense was way better than most of our opponent's offesnes. We had a good fielding team this year, so it came down to our pitching. Yes, we had injuries up the yazoo, but I refuse to blame it all on that. Yes, TB had fewer injuries, but I wouldn't call that luck. It's part of who they are and who we are.
     
    Excellent breakdown Moon. From you I expect no less.
    One thing to keep in mind: the "better starter"isn't always gonna win.

    I know that, but when people are using our pitching injuries as the sole excuse for our losing in September, i cinge. (Not saying you are one) If you look at some of the starters we lost to, I do not think they are better or much better than Wake, bedar, Weiland or even Lackey. Couple that with our much better offense and I still think we had the better team on paper, but lost because we played lousy or "played like losers."

    Most any M.L. starter can have it going on and pull an upset and stop good hitting - ours or anyone else's.

    Yes, but they need help to do it 13 out of 20 games. Our hitters bunched all their offense in a few games, our pitchers pitched poorly, almost top to bottom. Our fielding and baserunning did worse, and out decision-making was not good.

    It's time our players took some ownership for playing poorly when we needed it most.


    Here's how we did starting Sept 5th: Lost 3 of 4 to Toronto L 1-0-Beckett vs Henderson Alvarez? Please! W 14-0- Blowout with Lester > Luis Perez L 11-10- Wake vs Morrow (Wake had a better ERA before and after the game)   Villanueva, Litsch and Camp shut us down for almost 4- Bardlet up 5. L 7-4 - Miller vs Romero (Toronto has the better starter) (We had the better starter in 3 of 4 games and lost 3 or 4)

    Two one-run losses that could have gone either way. Bard's issues as I mentioned before were mechanical and never should have taken that long to depict. That's on Young, who I believe was a loser.

    That's an easy scapegoat, but winning teams find a way to win those games. They step up, not down.

    Swept by Rays 3-0 L 7-2 - Lackey vs WDavis (TB had better starter.) L 6-5 - Weilandvs Hellickson (TB had the better starter) However, Aceves let up 2 and Bard got the Loss. L 9-1 - Lestervs Shields (Close, but Tb had better starter.) (TB had better starters in all 3 games, but we blew game 2)

    Weiland never should have been on the mound. Team effort behind AAA arm was hardly that of a loser. Lester, as I said, became predictable in that he cut his repertoire in half. Why wasn't he encouraged to put more into the hitter's mind? Who's responsibility was that?

    The team, which includes Theo, Tito, and Young.

    Split 2 with Toronto W 18-6 Wake (just like the old days: win by 12 then lose by 1) L  5-4  Lackey vs Romero (Tor had the better starter)

    Another one-run loss.

    Just like we used to lose whaen we were considered "losers". How many times did the pre-2004 Sox win by huge margins, then go on to lose several games by 1-2 runs. We became that team aagin in September. Teams that are playing like winners, win those close games, somehow, some way.


    Lost 3 of 4 vs TB at Boston L 9-2 - Weilandvs Hellickson (TB better) W 4-3- Beckett vs Shields (About even starters) L  4-3 - Lestervs Niemann (Lester better) L 8-5 - Wake vs Price (TB Better) I'm sorry, harness, but we should have won a couple of these games so far, but we "played like losers".


    So far, I see 4 one-run losses and two starts for Weiland. One-run losses don't earmark "playing like losers". Between that and Weiland, that's half the losses right there. 3-10 could have been 7-6 with better SP depth on the farm and a little better fortune.

    I agree, and have put some blame on Theo. I wanted a better starter or 2 Bedard types at the deadline. Not many posters agreed with me. 4- 1 run loses is not an excuse. It actually strengthens my position. Toronto & Baltimore are usually the teams finding ways to lose close games, not us. We played poorly and made mistakes in most of those close games. Yes, blame can be passed to Young and Thoe and tito, but the fact is, we still had a better team on the field than some of the opponents we faced, and we lost.


    What came next was worse. Lost 3 out of 4 vs Balt at home. L 6-5  Weilandvs Guthrie (Guthrie is better, but Balt had a .164 leadoff guy, one guy  in their line-up with a BA at .292- the rest under .277. They had nobody with an OPS over .796: we had 5 in our line-up! W 18-9 Lackey vs Matusz (In a rare case, Lackey was better than the opposing pitcher, but we scored all our runs in one game...again. just like the "old days") L 7-5 Bedard(3.50) vs Vanden Hurk (8.00) Vanden Hurk??? Please! Our top 4 line-up guys were all over .850/Balt's top 4 were all under .785 OPS. Are you saying we played like winner this game or in this series? L 6-4 Beckett (2.70) vs Hunter (4.86) Josh got rocked.

    Again with Weiland. And Josh was coming off a sprained ankle. Sorry, but I have to opt for his long track record over pitching hurt, which could easily have affected his endurance.  A healthy Beckett and Bedard in that series, plus not having to pitch Weiland, and it's a whole  different story.

    So what? Other teams didn't have hurt players playing, or 6th starters, or players struggling? They did. I'm not saying injury was not a part of our losing September; it certainly was, but my point is that even with our back-ups, hurt players, and whatever, we still had the better team on the field and lost.

    Lost 2 of 3 vs NYY L 9-1 Lester (3.49) vs Garcia (3.62) Lesteris better: we played like losers. L 6-2 Wake (5.12) vs Burnett (5.16) W 7-4 Lackey vs Nova (We finally won with a worse pitcher on paper.)

    Nothing out of the ordinary to lose 2 of 3 to NY. Doesn't justify "loser" label. Lester is one pitcher that should have come across better in that he wasn't hurt. But I don't put that all on him. The league caught up to his two-pitch act a bit late.

    Please look carefully. I never called the Sox "losers". I said they "played like losers and lost". There's really no disputing that fact. Are you saying we played like winners and lost? Did we get a lot of bad breaks and bad ump calls? Did a fan reach over and grab a sure out?
    OR....Did we let up 2-strike key hits? Did we throw the ball away and run into untold outs on the basebaths? Did the team as a collective whole, including the GM, trainers, pitching coach, 3rd base caoch, and players almost all drop the ball when it counted?


    Lost 2 of 3 vs Balt. L 6-1 @ Bal Beckett(2.89) vs Hunter (4.68) Better pitcher/way better line-up: we played "like losers" this night. W 8-7 @ Bal after trying our best to lose it. Bedardvs Britton (better P) L 4-3@ Bal: we all know this game all-too-well, Lester vs Simon (4.90) Better pitcher, better line-up, better pen. We "played like losers and lost". 

    Again, a healthy Beckett/Bedard and a likely split of their games...and the team takes 2 of 3. Keep in mind, these lowly O's also beat the Rays in a key series.

    Again, I'd still take our odds of winning in these games if we did it all over again, but we came up short as favorites. That means a winning team played like losers.

    It's not the same to say we "played like losers and lost" than calling us losers. We won 90 games. That's not being a loser, but we certainly played like one at the end. Our starting rotation of Beckett, Lester, Weiland then Bedard, Wake and Lackey was still better (on paper) than Baltimore's and Toronto's. Our line-up sans Youk was still better than balt's, Tor's, and TB's offenses. I stick by my perhaps oversimplified statement: "We played like losers and lost."

    That's a perception. Not a fact. Weiland and a hurt pitching staff kept the hitters in come-from-behind mode in most of these games. I don't care what UR line-up is, that's gonna get old fast.

    I think it is a fact. We lost.
     
    We deserved to lose the way we played, not because we put a worse team on the field in many of our losses. Weiland was part of out team. Young and the trainer as well. Out of conditioned and babied players as well. We brought some of this on ourselves. We blew several leads, so it wasn't all "come-from-behind" pressure on our hitters. That last game vs Baltimore was the epitome of lost opportunities on offense, and mental mistakes.

    Once again, I did not call my beloved team "losers". I said they played like losers and lost. To me, that is an undisputable fact. Blame Theo. Blame injuries. Blame young. Blame bogar or tito... they are all part of this team.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I have admired Leyland since he managed Pittsburg and one year in ST he got into it big time with Bobby Bonds (and later with Bobby Bonilla) and he went nose to nose like a little bantam rooster.  They were screwing off and he called 'em on it on the field.  I loved it.  He would be a no nonsense, all for the team, fundamentals type of guy.  I think he would be great.  Once again I'm just not sure how much of a statistics guy he is and how that would go with FO.  Seems like a "throwback" to me.  We could do a lot worse.  He gets the best out of not much and all he can out of everyone.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I have always liked leyland since his Pittsburgh days. He is a no nonsense manager, and portrays a different image than Tito. It might not work as I hope for, but I think he's a good field manager and will bring more discipline to this team. He did pretty well with some teams with big holes in them. That doesn't mean it will translate into success here as well, but he's my choice.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Listening to KNBR just now, Bay Area sports radio, and a sports guy was sayng this about RS and today's comment from owner that "Even Theo won't stay forever.)  "Are the RS Crazy?  Getting rid of Tito was a stretch, but probably understandable if he has lost the clubhouse.  Getting rid of Theo makes no sense in light of what the organization has accomplished.  The Giants didn't even fire their hitting instructor this year when they were last in the NL in hitting."

    Sometimes when I hear something like this, I pass it on here.  I think it's interesting and also somewhat defining to know what others are thinking and saying about our team.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    They're calling the Sox "chokes" here in Houston.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share