A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Same article:

    "

    Hohler's series has also won the John Curly Center for Sports 

    Journalism Award

    and the print category in the Sport Society’s True Heroes

     of Sport Award".

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    That's 2 more awards. 

    Nothing but crickets Harness.
     
  3. 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 : IMO, the Boston organization has earned the healthy dose of skepticism that I expressed. Nothing you say about what went wrong or how it might be -- even certainly will be -- fixed alters my skepticism one bit. ( Fixing X has been known to cause a problem with Y. The Law of Intended Consequences appears to be one of the constants in life. ) This club put itself in the dumps. Myriad analyses, explanations, and projections are possible, including yours. IMO, the onus is not on skeptics but on the club itself and also on people who are confident that the club knows how to fix the problems. As always, the answers come with results. You say this and that happen on other teams too. But this and that never happen in exactly the same way and for the same reasons. No two mixes of players and circumstances are ever exactly alike. One could make the same kind of general remarks about life itself -- but  generalizations rarely apply the same way to disparate specific situations.  How do you know -- I mean know -- that this group of players will get it together and win because winning is more fun than losing? Right, that's what players should do, but neither players nor the rest of us always do what we should do.  The Sox for the moment are in an unprecedented status. Unique, in fact. Exactly why that happened is grist for the analytic mill. Whether it can be remedied fairly soon remains to be seen.  I'm waiting to see.   
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]
    In a seminar, I once heard someone say, "Skepticism is easy." It certainly is when there is good reason for it. 

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Put me down on the skeptical side about future success for this team. The press is always looking for something negative to say because bad gets more readers than good news. But it's not what the press wrote that made me think something deeper was wrong with the Sox. It was what Francona said in various interviews about why he was leaving the team. In general, he alluded to a lack of teamwork not only from the players but the entire organization. He also admitted his failure, but was frustrated by it. He didn't name names but he pretty much said he couldn't get the results he wanted from some players. I don't believe the failure is all on him. but I also don't believe the team that took the field in September was simply playing bad ball, as some of the players attribute it to. There was still enough talent to be a .500 team, so I think other factors were possibly at play. And Tito's words are what made me think this. Tito did not say that it was simply bad playing, pitching injuries, or the breaks of the game. He never stated that we gave it our all but that's just the breaks. His statements, and not those of the press, are the evidence I am using to conclude that the problems on the field may have to some extent been caused by underlying problem attitudes of some players and failure of management to correct the situation.


    I always tend to come down on the pessimistic side. I tend to think that injuries have longer lasting negative negative impact than most believe. I think the same thing here. Some players may have no problem turning the page. Others may continue to have an attitude problem, depending on who his hired as the new manager. Even though the new season is far off, I still think there will be a hangover from the way the 2011 season crashed to an embarrassing halt.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The writers spend all freaking year fawning over these guys and then one or 2 critical pieces come out and "Oh My God, What Hacks!".



     
  6. 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]That's 2 more awards.  Nothing but crickets Harness.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Given his background, I can understand why the Boston Globe chose Bob Hohler as the lead reporter on the story. I suspect that beat reporter Peter Abraham and national baseball writer Nick Cafardo, who both contributed to the piece, had heard reports and made observations during the season. Hohler brought in a fresh set of eyes to substantiate the reports. I don't doubt that the trio had other information that was withheld because the information could not be substantiated to their satisfaction and to the satisfaction of their editors and attorneys.

    Do I believe the report was 100 percent accurate? Probably not because truth is not easily ascertained. However, I doubt the Globe was reckless in compiling the story.
     
  7. 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 : Given his background, I can understand why the Boston Globe chose Bob Hohler as the lead reporter on the story. I suspect that beat reporter Peter Abraham and national baseball writer Nick Cafardo, who both contributed to the piece, had heard reports and made observations during the season. Hohler brought in a fresh set of eyes to substantiate the reports. I don't doubt that the trio had other information that was withheld because the information could not be substantiated to their satisfaction and to the satisfaction of their editors and attorneys. Do I believe the report was 100 percent accurate? Probably not because truth is not easily ascertained. However, I doubt the Globe was reckless in compiling the story.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]For the most part the bulk of the article was just an echo chamber of previously reported alleged issues. It was perhaps beating a dead horse but so what?

    To me the stuff about Francona's medication and divorce was gutter material. There is such a thing as journalistic discretion. The Globe chose to put on non-beat writer on that story because IMO they knew the author was going to have trouble with access afterwards but the editors want another sensational piece while the market was still hungry for more.

    The stuff about Francona is disgusting IMO. Even if it was true, it served little purpose to publish after than man has left as gracefully as he did. That is my real objection here BTW, it is National Inquirer quality trash!

    The rest of it I happen to believe at some point becomes white noise. Airing it in the public isn't going to change it, or make it any easier to deal with. What people can't seem to get their arms around is the best plans sometimes go wrong and the badly flawed teams sometimes get hot and go far (see the Cards this year or in 2006 for details.)

    Now many are going to disagree but the market has embarrassed itself as much in October as the team did in September.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Perhaps this quote would instructive for all right now...

    Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that's why they call it the present.

    -Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  9. 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]Put me down on the skeptical side about future success for this team. The press is always looking for something negative to say because bad gets more readers than good news. But it's not what the press wrote that made me think something deeper was wrong with the Sox. It was what Francona said in various interviews about why he was leaving the team. In general, he alluded to a lack of teamwork not only from the players but the entire organization. He also admitted his failure, but was frustrated by it. He didn't name names but he pretty much said he couldn't get the results he wanted from some players. I don't believe the failure is all on him. but I also don't believe the team that took the field in September was simply playing bad ball, as some of the players attribute it to. There was still enough talent to be a .500 team, so I think other factors were possibly at play. And Tito's words are what made me think this. Tito did not say that it was simply bad playing, pitching injuries, or the breaks of the game. He never stated that we gave it our all but that's just the breaks. His statements, and not those of the press, are the evidence I am using to conclude that the problems on the field may have to some extent been caused by underlying problem attitudes of some players and failure of management to correct the situation. I always tend to come down on the pessimistic side. I tend to think that injuries have longer lasting negative negative impact than most believe. I think the same thing here. Some players may have no problem turning the page. Others may continue to have an attitude problem, depending on who his hired as the new manager. Even though the new season is far off, I still think there will be a hangover from the way the 2011 season crashed to an embarrassing halt.
    Posted by devildavid[/QUOTE]
    Even in the Golden Days of Summer, when the Sox were being called "the best team in baseball," flaws and fissures were plain to see. ( The Sox had the best record in baseball. That does not equate to the best team in baseball. That is decided by results at the end. At that point, the Sox were not even one of the top two teams in the AL East.) What explains that stretch then? A bunch of raw talent on a roll. Players having scorching runs. Other clubs, like the Rays, still getting it together. But a mistake-prone or unfocused or divided team
     can be rescued by talent only for so long. ( Please do not bring up those old A's teams as examples of divided ones who were successful. They were not mistake-prone or unfocused on the field. Their manager would not have allowed it. ) In fact, the odds are against it over the course of 162 games. See history. The Sox petered out and collapsed, and finished where they deserved to finish. In ignominy. The errors of their ways caught up with them. Justice was served.
    This record seems to me a major justification for skepticism. It can be removed or modified only if the Boston Red Sox on the field provide good reasons for removal.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The sceptics are sceptical,

    the conspiracists  are conspiratorial,

    and the pragmatic are right (as usual).



    The voice of reason, 5Katz is spot on because he is pragmatic (dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences).

    "The Sox petered out and collapsed, and finished where they deserved to finish. In ignominy. The errors of their ways caught up with them. Justice was served."

    What does this even mean? 

    The infamous Globe article is full of gossip that frankly I hoped to leave in High School.  Beckett's 2003 manager went on record that he had the same problems with him then, and look what he did in the WS that year.

    Pitcher fitness?  Look at Sabathia, Tiant, ....................

    As someone who has worked with pro athletes for 13 years, winning cures all.  Beckett, Penny, Lackey,...... are all just big kids as I would say 75% of the hundreds of pros I have met are. Spoiled to the core, especially if the talent was evident from an early age.

    I travelled and worked for a guy who was the second fastest human in the world, at the time.  He ate pizza and drank beer quite a bit when I was around him.

    I have cited Tito's discipline problem long ago, but on the flip side his player first approach probably helped in other ways. The poor baserunning by Ellsbury and Pedroia, DMac missing cut-offs, Scutaro having a little league moment, and Ortiz failing to go hard out of the box were nothing new. The pitching disappearing was!


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I have unfairly linked you with others about the press because you agreed with them on some other points.  You did say you would wait until hearing all the information (Looks like we're getting more and more of that.).  I'm sorry.  I have been a little keyed up the last couple of days.

    Just want to say that as a fan I want to identify the true problems and I think it's a little more than just pitching.  But I'm not looking for scapegoats.  I will be forever grateful for what Tito and Theo have done for the RS.  I never dreamed I would see a WS in my lifetime, let alone two.  I am very thankful for what they did and have never bashed either of them.

    Look, why the end of the year upsets me so much was I wanted to see some guys with the appearance of "Look, we're injured, we don't have our front line pitchers, but we're going out there and battle and scrap and fight and go down with some pride."  I didn't see anything that looked like that; it actually looked like guys going through the motions to get the season over.  That's what bothered me the most.  I think that's what other people saw too.  I think that's what Tito saw.  If they had seemed to claw and scratch, I don't most fans and the media would be doing so much crowing now.

    Katz, I don't agree with you on the article so that won't change.  But as usual I agree with 98% of the last couple of pieces you've written.  A new manager, a new year, trimming up the ship, getting the pitching straightened out, a few wins will make the other stuff go away.  Tito has not been in good health since he's been here; every off season he's had some serious stuff to deal with.  Not looking for a scapegoat here, just saying I think he's been beat down, and maybe this year it was just harder for him to deal with those issues that every team has.  He said himself he wasn't getting the response he wanted.

    As Harness has been trying to tell us, I think the next pitching coach is going to be just as key as the next manager. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The meaning of my "petered out" statement is perfectly clear in context. The Sox gave hints of petering out all season long. If you didn't see that, you may know about baseball, but baseball itself you know not, and you don't know that you don't know. Because you are a know-it-all. 
    When the talent began to sag and other issues heated up ( the two are related ), the petering out got going in earnest and ended in catastrophe.
    Nice picture you show, Tom. It prompts me to think that you are one of those yourself, though not as comely as the one you display.
     
  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]Moon, I have unfairly linked you with others about the press because you agreed with them on some other points.  You did say you would wait until hearing all the information (Looks like we're getting more and more of that.).  I'm sorry.  I have been a little keyed up the last couple of days. Just want to say that as a fan I want to identify the true problems and I think it's a little more than just pitching.  But I'm not looking for scapegoats.  I will be forever grateful for what Tito and Theo have done for the RS.  I never dreamed I would see a WS in my lifetime, let alone two.  I am very thankful for what they did and have never bashed either of them. Look, why the end of the year upsets me so much was I wanted to see some guys with the appearance of "Look, we're injured, we don't have our front line pitchers, but we're going out there and battle and scrap and fight and go down with some pride."  I didn't see anything that looked like that; it actually looked like guys going through the motions to get the season over.  That's what bothered me the most.  I think that's what other people saw too.  I think that's what Tito saw.  If they had seemed to claw and scratch, I don't most fans and the media would be doing so much crowing now. Katz, I don't agree with you on the article so that won't change.  But as usual I agree with 98% of the last couple of pieces you've written.  A new manager, a new year, trimming up the ship, getting the pitching straightened out, a few wins will make the other stuff go away.  Tito has not been in good health since he's been here; every off season he's had some serious stuff to deal with.  Not looking for a scapegoat here, just saying I think he's been beat down, and maybe this year it was just harder for him to deal with those issues that every team has.  He said himself he wasn't getting the response he wanted. As Harness has been trying to tell us, I think the next pitching coach is going to be just as key as the next manager. 
    Posted by Critter23[/QUOTE]I agree, Francona said as much. He closed the door on an extension at least in the public spotlight with incredible dignity and a level of self aware candor and accountability that is rare and admirable.

    No how much of that had do with his health? Frankly who cares and why? The man had moved on and did so with class before that gossipy gutless tid bit about over medication and personal marriage issues was printed.

    I happen to be more willing to listen to a guy who was so willing to own the problem, take ownership for it.  When he says he methods in the past had failed with this group and that he did not feel changing who he was as leader was the best answer but a new voice would create a fresher start for the RS and that his health in 2011 wasn't that different than it had been it past years I accept that. And while he glossed over it 8 years of the toughest market in baseball takes a toll. I forget which writer said it, it may have been Gammons but being the manager of the Boston Red Sox should be measured in dog years. And by that measure Francona had put in 56 years. 

    Long before publication Francona came to the public stage, said this happened on my watch and it is best that the RS don't exercise my contract option and get a new voice. So what purpose did either the leaker who hid behind "unnamed source" or the editors serve in suggesting Francona was an over medicated guy with medical problems?

    That portion of the article was so egregious I can't get past that for the rest of the rehash of the public record. That one thing alone makes the entire piece and everyone who contributed or published it detestable to me. 

    It was a low blow and Francona deserved better from a media that he had been more cooperative with than any Boston manager before him and probably quite a few to follow.

    As for Young, his future (probably elsewhere) will define how much this was a case of a greater culture issue and skill deficiency meeting a perfect storm and/or how much of it reflects on him directly. At any rate it happened on his watch and I would be shocked to see him, Bogar or sadly Hale survive.

    That is because that is how you turn the page in professional sports as opposed to going through a roster of guaranteed contracts with a machete because this one thought it was God's will and the schedule, that one bugged other and spoiled pitchers were allowed to be too spoiled too long. 

     
  14. 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]The meaning of my "petered out" statement is perfectly clear in context. The Sox gave hints of petering out all season long. If you didn't see that, you may know  about baseball , but baseball itself you know not, and you don't know that you don't know. Because you are a know-it-all.  When the talent began to sag and other issues heated up ( the two are related ), the petering out got going in earnest and ended in catastrophe. Nice picture you show, Tom. It prompts me to think that you are one of those yourself, though not as comely as the one you display.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]Expitch, I will give you this. The starting pitching hung over this team's head like a dark cloud from June forward and it was always in the background as the dark lining on the silver cloud.

    Nobody really ever stepped into Dice-K's role, Lackey never got on any kind of run of positive consistency and you just had your fingers crossed before the deadline that Buch would be back soon.

    When it became clear that Buch wasn't coming back, one could only hope that Bedard would get into form coming off of a knee injury quickly. It did not happen and the pitching staff became such an obvious problem that an death spiral commenced.

    So from a stand point that a precarious starting pitching staff "flamed out" or if you prefer "petered out" and magnified a multitude of the rather typical cracks almost any team's roster and interactions has into a giant fissure, I am on board.

    It is all what ifs now but in my heart I believe that if Buch had been back and health by July 20th and Bedard was added and his knee held up the RS win at least 95-98 games and nobody talks about KFC , biscuits and beer, Youk being caustic, Ortiz being a Diva, A-Gon blaming the almighty, Tek failings as a captain or Wake's chase for 200.

    If some of the side issues weren't there could this team have backed into the post season with that rotation? Speculation of course but yes I think so. From that standpoint there have been and will be adjustments to be made. And I trust in the RS to do that pretty well and that gives them the best chance of being a 90 plus win team next year.      

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Here is my thought I say we make a run after matt kemp of the Los angles dodgers for Josh reddick, youk, and some prospect and I also think we should try to get king flex and give away Josh becket, and some other players.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I have unfairly linked you with others about the press because you agreed with them on some other points.  You did say you would wait until hearing all the information (Looks like we're getting more and more of that.).  I'm sorry.  I have been a little keyed up the last couple of days.

    I think we've all gotten a little "keyed up" of late. Yes, I have agreed with several posts and sometimes will say "good post" without agreeing with everything or mentioning my differences. I can see both sides of the issue having their reasons for believing as they do. Personally, I am going to doubt the veracity of the story until I get more information (if ever). If I had to guess, I'd say things weren't as bad as they are being portrayed, but that there were some issues. The point is, every team has issues, but it was "the collapse" that brought out the magnifying glass by fans and the media. My other issue of contention is that we can not be sure that if there were "problems", they had anything to do wih the collapse or a significant portion of it. Sometimes losing creates the issues, sometimes the issues create the losing atmosphere and then losing follows. Maybe sometimes it's a little of both or neither. 

    This team had high expectations this spring. Fans, managers, players, media, everyone. We had a bad April and bounced back to the point we had the best record in MLB. Most everyone thought we'd easily make the playoffs, even with injuries to 2/5ths of our rotation (Buch/Dice). Most knew we still had serious weaknesses. Look at the trade deadline posts. Not many said stand pat. When Beckett went down, Lester, Bard and Papelbon stumbled, and no other pitcher picked up the slack, we lost. Little things piled up. Baserunning. Fielding. More injuries (Youk & Bedard). Since expectations were so high, missing the playoffs was sure to unleash a "blaming frenzy", but I never expected it to get this bad. I guess I should have.

    Just want to say that as a fan I want to identify the true problems and I think it's a little more than just pitching.  But I'm not looking for scapegoats.  I will be forever grateful for what Tito and Theo have done for the RS.  I never dreamed I would see a WS in my lifetime, let alone two.  I am very thankful for what they did and have never bashed either of them. 

    I have had issues with both, but overall liked both of them and thought they were positive for the team. It's not abnormal for ownership to let middle management go after a "failure". It's easier than changing most of the roster (not that that might not happen anyways).

    Look, why the end of the year upsets me so much was I wanted to see some guys with the appearance of "Look, we're injured, we don't have our front line pitchers, but we're going out there and battle and scrap and fight and go down with some pride."  I didn't see anything that looked like that; it actually looked like guys going through the motions to get the season over.  That's what bothered me the most.  I think that's what other people saw too.  I think that's what Tito saw.  If they had seemed to claw and scratch, I don't most fans and the media would be doing so much crowing now.

    I actually disagree. I saw players trying too hard to do it all by themselves. Going away from trying to get on base and going towards trying to win it with a dinger. I saw pitchers meltdown at the wrong times, but I could never say that I thought it was because they were not trying their hardest. 

    Katz, I don't agree with you on the article so that won't change.  But as usual I agree with 98% of the last couple of pieces you've written.  A new manager, a new year, trimming up the ship, getting the pitching straightened out, a few wins will make the other stuff go away.  Tito has not been in good health since he's been here; every off season he's had some serious stuff to deal with.  Not looking for a scapegoat here, just saying I think he's been beat down, and maybe this year it was just harder for him to deal with those issues that every team has.  He said himself he wasn't getting the response he wanted.

    As Harness has been trying to tell us, I think the next pitching coach is going to be just as key as the next manager. 

    I agree, and a good 3rd base coach could bring us 4-5 more wins as well.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    A must listen to the realists, logical, astute, and reasonable of the forum.Bookmark It.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/thebuzz/2011/10/audio_john_henr.html
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I actually disagree. I saw players trying too hard to do it all by themselves. Going away from trying to get on base and going towards trying to win it with a dinger. I saw pitchers meltdown at the wrong times, but I could never say that I thought it was because they were not trying their hardest.

    I agree Moon. In fact a whole lot of folks started to try to make unassisted triple plays, hit 5 run HRs and tried to over reach on the bases.

    My other issue of contention is that we can not be sure that if there were "problems", they had anything to do wih the collapse or a significant portion of it.

    My personal opinion is that "problems" probably did cause the ultimate result of the collapse which was failing to back into a Wild Card spot. But the fundamental weakness of the depleted rotation and depth past Beckett and Lester doomed this team from ever bplaying this weekend!

    This will be no sollace for any of us that follow this team closely but magnitude of the collapse has a silver lining of bring some of this issues to the fore front and could be a cataylst towards long term betterment.

    The downside sadly is the market is getting insanely toxic and if it goes on very much longer the after shocks will be far more deadly than original earthquake ever was.

    More injuries (Youk & Bedard). Since expectations were so high, missing the playoffs was sure to unleash a "blaming frenzy", but I never expected it to get this bad. I guess I should have.

    I still think the key injury in addition to those was Beckett's ankle the day after it was announced Bedard needed to be skipped. Beckett came back quicker than many expected but just did not have his same command over a 100 pitch appearance. I hoped fr the best but when he walked off the mound that day my gut told me, "Lester, Lackey, Wake, Miller and Weiland, oh darn, we are toast!" 

    I too am surprised how long the "frenzy" has gone on and perhaps the depth of it. The first warning flag in hindsight was the incredible uproar over A-Gon's post game comments the last night of the season. Looking back the desire for a quart of blood after the embarrassing September from the "best team evah" has turned out to be pretty overwhelming.

    The only thing that bugs me is that if everybody that says it is bleeping bad that guys have to jettisoned wholesale, won't just say it is so bad I am prepared for 3-5 years of .500 to sub-.500 baseball! 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Thanks for the insightful reply, katz. I'm sure ownership and the new GM will probably know more than us about what truly went on and if some "bad apples" need to be removed from the "barrel".

    Since we have so many FAs to be and option players, it might be hard to ever know if management let them walk because of their attitude or just because they are doing what Sox GMs have done recently, assign a value to our own player, minus the value of the comp picks we'll get by letting them walk, and then offer the "lowball" offer and watch them walk.

    There will be rampant second guessing if Papi walks for example. Befor any of this latest much came out, many were talking about letting Papi walk. Now, if he walks, many will blame his role in the "collapse" as the main reason he was "run out of town". It's going to get worse here on this site, not better. Every player will be srutinized, torn down and apart. My God, even Pedey is being called a "liar". This is like McCarthyism.

    I do think we could see a Sox team with no Papi, no Youk, no Wake/VTek, and a few others and still be highly competitive next year and beyond with some creative work by the new GM (like 3-way deals).

    I can see the baseball merit for moving several of our players that have nothing to do with clubhouse antics. We are an old team, an unconditioned team, an unbalanced team (too many LHBs), and a poor fielding team in crucial areas (SS, 3B and C). There's lots of work to do, even if we brought everyone back.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I've waited a while to comment myself, but I have read all the comments to date on this new thread. I see two intertwined issues, the collapse of the team in September, and the media frenzy regarding said collapse. I'll address the media issue first, because it is the most top of mind, and the simpler of the two issues.

     I read the Hohler piece after having heard of it on the radio. There were really only two pieces of "news" in the story, the club's dissatisfaction with playing the double-header and ownership's attempt to sugarcoat it, and the Francona personal issues. Bringing Tito's personal issues up is, in my opinion, the lowest and sleaziest form of "journalism" and reeks of everything that's difficult about playing in Boston where the Globe and Herald now compete with two talk-radio stations to be more cutting edge and controversial, usually at the players' and management's peril. It sure makes selling this market to a potential free agent more difficult. Everything else in the Hohler piece was sensationalized rehashing of rumors and stories that, while making the players far less likable, had less to do with the collapse than the writer tries to imply.

     So why the collapse? The seeds for this were planted while the team was flourishing, and maybe even years earlier during Tito's watch. In my opinion, the lack of focus on winning each and every game created an atmosphere in which fundamentals played a smaller role than talent, and when the pitching injuries mounted and the starting rotation completely blew up, the switch to committing to win every night could not be easily turned on. The team could score in bunches, but could not manufacture one run when needed, because they were not fundamentally sound. They could make dramatic defensive plays, but did not execute fundamentally sound cut-offs, relays, pitch-outs, etc. when stopping one run could have meant a win. 

    But most importantly, they did not pitch well! I do not buy that conditioning was the only reason. They did not pitch smartly; many stubbornly stuck with secondary pitches instead of relying on the pitches that got them here. The pitching coach has to take the hit on that count. They rolled out a rookie catcher who wore out as the season wore on and they never fully prepared him for managing the staff through thick and thin. Yes there was a lot of bad luck, Dice, Buch, many bull pen injuries, but there were also too many terrible performances from almost everybody. Again, Curt Young was not able to spot mechanical flaws and make corrections that needed to be made.

    So where do we go? I agree with a few here that the team is much closer to the team that won 67% of their games for four months than the team we saw in September. The changes I would make (some have already been done.) are as follows... 1) Tito has to go. I said in paragraph one that the media story and the collapse are intertwined and I truly believe that Tito wanted out of this lunacy and the players knew he was a lame-duck and tuned him out.
     2) Curt Young has to go! I doubt it would happen, but how about picking up the Larusso/Duncan combo after the playoffs?
     3) Lackey has to go. No news here; he does not have the temperment to succeed here. I still believe in the Beckett, Lester, Buch top of the rotation and would use Lowrie/Reddick as bait to enhance rotation as well as free agency.
     4) I would bid a fond farewell to both Tek and Wake, not that either of them performed so poorly in 2011, but we need to look forward. Lavarnway may have to start 2012 in AAA to get more experience but there are a few young, defensive catchers who can back up Salty until Lavarnway is ready to make Salty the back-up.
     5) Pick up option on Scutaro and try to resign both Paps and Ortiz. I would also try to move Lowrie and keep Aviles as the back-up infielder. 
     6) Try to lock up Ellsbury and add a right-handed outfielder. (Francouer? Cudyer?)
     7) Lay down the law in Spring Training regarding conditioning and behaviors, and be consistent throughout the organization in how both are implemented.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    By the way, I also listened to John Henry on with Felger today. Is there any more pompous arrogant Red Sox hater on the planet than Felger? 
     
  22. 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]But most importantly, they did not pitch well! I do not buy that conditioning was the only reason. They did not pitch smartly; many stubbornly stuck with secondary pitches instead of relying on the pitches that got them here. The pitching coach has to take the hit on that count. They rolled out a rookie catcher who wore out as the season wore on and they never fully prepared him for managing the staff through thick and thin. Yes there was a lot of bad luck, Dice, Buch, many bull pen injuries, but there was also too many terrible performances from almost everybody. Again, Curt Young was not able to spot mechanical flaws and make corrections that needed to be made.
    Posted by jidgef[/QUOTE]
    Who was the rookie catcher?

    I guess Curt Young gets to join all the others under the bus.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    He may not technically meet the definition of "rookie", but in my mind Salty was a rookie. And yes, Curt Young belongs under that bus.
     
  24. 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]Thanks for the insightful reply, katz. I'm sure ownership and the new GM will probably know more than us about what truly went on and if some "bad apples" need to be removed from the "barrel". Since we have so many FAs to be and option players, it might be hard to ever know if management let them walk because of their attitude or just because they are doing what Sox GMs have done recently, assign a value to our own player, minus the value of the comp picks we'll get by letting them walk, and then offer the "lowball" offer and watch them walk. There will be rampant second guessing if Papi walks for example. Befor any of this latest much came out, many were talking about letting Papi walk. Now, if he walks, many will blame his role in the "collapse" as the main reason he was "run out of town". It's going to get worse here on this site, not better. Every player will be srutinized, torn down and apart. My God, even Pedey is being called a "liar". This is like McCarthyism. I do think we could see a Sox team with no Papi, no Youk, no Wake/VTek, and a few others and still be highly competitive next year and beyond with some creative work by the new GM (like 3-way deals). I can see the baseball merit for moving several of our players that have nothing to do with clubhouse antics. We are an old team, an unconditioned team, an unbalanced team (too many LHBs), and a poor fielding team in crucial areas (SS, 3B and C). There's lots of work to do, even if we brought everyone back.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]I agree on Papi being assumed as being assumed it will be because he's clubhouse poison and it probably would be more about duration of a deal and how badly it would go with him if his role if he had to be reduced over that duration plus what ever he benefits are of two picks and having a more rotational approach versus a single professional DH.

    Now if he goes I think there becomes a strong argument for Youk to stay on this very LH centric team and for Youk, A-Gon and perhaps one or two others rotated through DH. Playing A-Gon 158 games on a RS-NYY type of travel schedule took its toll. Youk is a really gritty fellow but he has never been a iron man and a rotational DH may benefit the RS in lots of ways if the best DH of his generation if not of all time moves on from Boston for a twilight contract.

    I can see arguments either way for both Tek and Wake and they both of course have personal decisions to make too.

    Papelbon is going to be about money and years. It has been awhile since a closer contract went past 3 years so there may be more traction here than some think. But talking to almost any member of the RS about a new contract today would be a tough nut to crack. I think to a man they are shocked just how toxic the reaction has been to the collapse, how long it has lasted and how wide and deep it is cutting into everybody in the organization. Tonight if I were a RS player I'd question playing in this city honestly.

    Where it starts to get nutty to me is when people start talking about trading Ellsbury with current OF depth chart and two years of control left, trading Beckett and on and on with the stuff that dominates BDC the last two weeks. If you start tying together all the calls for changes, the clubhouse kid and Pedey appear to be the oly ones with any safety net. The more the RS try to do with this team the more likely it is best done as classic blow it up and get on a 3 to 5 year plan. The RS of course won't be able to sell it that way out the gate but there aren't a lot of complex three way deals to get done out there. We don't see one in all of MLB every single season, that is how hard it is to align them IMHO.

    Now those you that have shared posts with me over time know I was and am a huge fan of Francona's. I also think that some of the players have to look in the mirror in regards to just how much they abused Terry's trust culture. But in the end I happen to believe that vast majority of how bad it got does end with Tito. It doesn't make Terry a bad person or even a bad manager in the next gig, but he set boundaries wide boundaries and when guys crossed them he never had any guard rails up to stop them and the team from going over the edge of the cliff.

    Having managed for a lot of years I get some of challenges this presented for Tito but he could have and should have told his pitchers on the bench or in the bullpen. It was hard for him to change his style and he paid the piper and honestly did so like a man.

    Frankly almost every report while it has great shock and awe value in RS Nation tends to indicate that with a new sheriff in town it will correct itself. Even the KFC and beer club is nothing in comparison to real clubhouse cancers like Zambrano, Bradley or our own Mr Everett from our past. 

    Great exception to me at least at this point is Lackey. I don't think he is lost cause as player but he sure as heck seems to be today in this market. Not to repeat myself, he probably came under more fire than he should have for his 2010 but his 2011 plus the revelations of his participation in the KFC and beers club has IMO cemented him as a permanent target of hatred in RS Nation.

    His rabbit ears, paper thin skin, lack of just owning bad performance pretty much seal his fate here. He needs to be dumped and it will be a lot of dead money or likely and new and nearly equal dead weight. It is better than 50-50 who ever gets him will get a serviceable pitcher for their trouble but it isn't happening here, not in this new "rabid" climate.

    But while I maybe being hopeful or naive I do think the RS had a talented core that through all the imperfections, the bad "chemistry" and the misfortunate breakdown of the original starting 5 pitchers won 90 games.

    I think they can go about the business of finding new field leadership and that Cherington will bringing a combination of continuity and his own creativity to the FO. IMO they can make the vast majority of their decisions based on baseball operations priorities and not correcting the things that inflamed when the starting rotation stretched so thin that the RS needed 8 runs a night on average to be in game and had to climb up hill two to three times every night.

    There was great OP about a week bfore the collapse completed. It's title was perhaps a bit insulting but IMHO the point was spot on. It was "It's the pitching, stupid" and it still is, not to gloss over the opportunities tweak elsewhere.

    Just my takes




     
  25. 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]That's 2 more awards.  Nothing but crickets Harness.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    What crickets? Get a grip. I don't start posting till late. How many times do you have to be told the same thing?

    I simply asked you about Hohler's several prestigious awards you mentioned.
    I wasn't referring to the same piece. I'm talking about how many awards has Hohler won through out his illustrious career as a writer. Certainly he must have other accolades from all the other articles he has written. Where are they?

    You were foolish enough to support 791's writing, when he botched that interview.
    Tell me, do you think Tom Selleck rivals Paul Newman or Pacino or Hoffman as great actors?

    Exposing you is easy. Seeing you squirm is entertaining.


     

Share