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

    Jesseyeric, the Yanks do have some young pitching talent coming up in Nova, Betances...etc. They certainly have a terrific pen. They will be searching for a top starter and Wilson may well be in their plans. They will always be in the hunt of course and had a great year in 2011. 

    They may not get past Detroit though. That's still an open question. Without more dominant starting pitching I don't project them to win it all this year but they have everything else.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The posts on this thread have been stimulating. Now it's wait and see time as the Sox sort through the issues posed here about position players and Palpebon.  The FO and the new manager will no doubt have twists on the issues that have not been foreseen or proposed by armchair GM's and managers. That statement is not intended as a put down
    Pitching, pitching, pitching. No matter what kind of lineup Boston puts on the field, pitching will again be decisive. If we assume that at the start the rotation will be Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and ?, questions can be raised about all of them. For whatever reason ( or reasons ), Beckett was not at his best this year at the end. ( He took full responsibility. ) Save for 2007, he has not been a particularly strong finisher. Boston needs him to stay the course if the club is to be right there in the division and into the playoffs if the Sox make them. Beckett will have something to say about that. True,  questions can be raised about all pitchers, or most, including the possibility of injury and the almost inevitability of a rough patch here and there; but in Beckett's case, given his history, staying the course is a legitimate concern, no matter how glossy his work earlier in the season even up to close to the end. If any sport is a finisher's sport, it's baseball.  Lester had problems with command most of the year, but his stuff ( most of the time ) and his determination carried him pretty well until the end, when, as he said himself, he stank. ( He denies that there was a physical problem. ) Some people said that he should have tried to do more with one pitch and less with another one. Maybe so. But he didn't seem able to command any of his pitches consistently. He is a very good pitcher. The Sox will benefit greatly if he can take it up a notch ( or two ) higher. ( Chad Finn keeps predicting a Cy Young for him. A Cy Young type performance, award or no award , would be very nice. ) I suspect that if he and Beckett are not a formidable one two-punch regularly and for the full season, if not without blemish,  2012 will be much more of a struggle than any of us want to see. Buchholz has great stuff. If his cranky back doesn't nag him ( or worse ), he should be a winner.  It is imperative that this trio have very good to outstanding full seasons, yes, all three, if the Sox are going to do better than the club has the last few seasons -- by Boston's standards, and by that I mean standards that the players should have for themselves and that are set and enforced by the manager. Lackey. What to say about Lackey? Better not. OK. The last spot in the rotation ( not defined necessarily by status ) seems up for grabs at this point. Maybe Bedard if the Sox sign him. Any help from this slot will be appreciated but not likely decisive.
    Bard wiil be back. He was humming until he too crashed at the end. ( Man, the pitching was miserable down the strech, with the exception of Papelbon, until that bitter end ( why weren't his pitches mixed up better? ) and Aceves. If both Papelbon and Aceves move on, their roles, as, respectively, closer and long man, will be very hard to fill. Bard may or may not be up to the job. Papelpon is. The remainder of the pen figures to be patchwork as it now stands. Maybe Theo ( or his successor ) tries to get lucky with a newcomer, either from within the system or from elsewhere.
    Pitching. Pitching. Pitching, especially in the rotation. As a starter, it would be a boon if those men go deeper into games.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Two things on Wakefield. It's funny because in a way they both apply to some of the things that harness rails about concerning Lackey. Ok, three things:
    1. Maybe I'm watching with rose-colored glasses (and a pink hat), moon and a few others have commented that he's not been the "same since 2009." Yet his BB/K ration I believe is far better and his WHIP went down. There were far more runs scored against him than in other years, more runs in each start, rather than stretches of brilliance (1 run or 2 runs type outings). Let's examine that for a second: the guy catching him all year was Salty, probably the worst catcher he's ever had other than Josh Bard in his Sox history. He gave up a good amount of homers this year (not a big deal, always gave up homers), but more so this year they came at times that basically were key homers, ones that might have erased the Sox lead, or broke a tie...he gave up clutch homers. He gave up more unearned runs I think than any other season at least from an average standpoint.
    2. What if he pitched with this type of control in years prior to 2009? To me, his endurance may be what has been his achilles heel. It appears he labors or labored after the 85th pitch more so than in previous years (understandable...45 years old). If you criticize him from this point, you can make that case (oh god, softy's case? lol). Anyway, if he had a catcher who wasn't lazy (you're missing the point, 5katz, on caught stealings...follow the money katz, follow the money...or in this case follow the lower number of baserunners on hits/walks)...they scored. Wakefield's runners scored. In the past, they often were stranded left on base. But he had passed balls with runners on 3rd, errors by outfielders at just horrendous times in his starts, even thrown away 5-3s that would end innings would become E-5 and runs scored. I would lay a bet that he led MLB in most runners scored per runners allowed. I bet I win that bet.
    3. You go to the NL, you face lesser hitters overall (AAA analogy). You face pitchers. My guess is with a better catcher and non-AL East/Central type competition, he will get in his groove as a SP.
    4. No question the pressure of winning No. 200 and the pressure there-after of having to be a stopper (something he was very good at before) got to him a little. But again, he had stretches in his starts this year that showed he can mow down a team at least once around. He can easily be a 6-inning starter in the NL. I can't predict wins-losses with him as one, he has less control of it than ever, and two, we don't know if he goes to a team that doesn't even generate runs.
    ....I want him to come back, but frankly, I was disturbed by his own lack of leadership in the clubhouse. He too had an opportunity to tell the rest of the staff to cut out the shenanigans and he too could have helped call a Players Only Meeting--I lay that on Ortiz, Wake and Varitek...They were the veterans of the 2 WS title teams, and they should have stepped up in the clubhouse. I felt his "comment" was mis-timed about coming back. It was against what he has preached---individual not being higher than team..He has always been team first, but he really wants that Sox record of wins. Well, guess what, the team won't offer him a short-term goal and he knows it. Maybe he proved this year that he really does need a personal catcher..let's face it, Salty didn't cut it.
     
  4. 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 : Well put, and with Lava looking more like a DH than a catcher for 2012 anyways, and Youk looking for a breather, I think the Paps over Papi choice is looking better and better.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    My counter-argument would be if you are willing to sacrifice 35 runs / year (which I agree is not the end of the world), why not get something beyond Salary in return (i.e. trade Ellsbury).  Maybe he could go to the Angels for Walden & Trout, or the Braves for Kimbrel & Teheran.  You get a cost-effective replacement for Papelbon today, and a top prospect, either close to ready to take the field, or to be used in another trade to fill another hole.

    RE Salty, I think 'letting him go' is ridiculous - for the number of PAs he had, the guy had the 4th highest OPS of any catcher in the AL.  If he doesn't fit, we should be able to get a fat return for him.  He's way too valuable to just cut ties with.  Personally, I think he's a great fit to start against righties most of the time - a 50/50 split with Lavarnway would keep both fresh and available for DH / pinch hit duty.  They're not going to be all-stars with that split-time approach, but I think it's best for the team.




     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:

    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    moon, you know I'm not one to get caught up in, or have time to develop the Stats you do but in short this is what I feel we should do in 2012. 

    Players let go
    :
    McDon, Wake, Tek, Drew, Jackson, Wheeler, Albers, maybe Scuter and/or Pap etc.

    Coaching Staff
    - replace Curt Young, not sure of best option

    Lineup:

    Ellsbury CF
    Pedroia 2B
    Reyes SS depending on his demands, or keep Scuter
    Adrian 1B
    Papi DH still the best option if he agrees to a contract
    Crawford LF
    Cuddyer RF, If the money is there
    Aviles 3B, sign Chavez or keep Lowrie to help.  Trade Youk to replace Fielder in return for for Marcum.  3B is going to kill Youks career and hes a better 1B.
    Salty and Lavarnway C

    Starters:
    #1 Beckett
    #2 Buchholz
    #3 Lester
    #4 Marcum, in a trade for Weiland, Youk and cash
    #5 Zambrano for Lackey if the Cubs go for it.  Both pitchers need a change
    #6 Aceves

    Bullpen:
    Pap or Heath Bell
    Bard
    Morales
    Aceves
    Jenks,
    trade if we can
    Jose Valverde or Rafael Betencourt

    Doubront or Hill?
    Atchison?






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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Danny I think some of it is a fine line with Tim. His WHIP actually is abut his career average. His ERA is up by about a 1/2 a run from his nice run before the injury.

    Now you point to the passed balls, but the WP are up too and some of that is Wake is just all over the place more. He also gave up a lot of HR this year. The catcher may be getting a bad rap here. It wasn't just PB. He had 4 HBP in just 4 starts in September. Just maybe that ball was all over the place.

    Tim has been looked at very hard by BDC, probably because of the silly attack threads all summer. But here are a few things I notice:

    His stats from July on were tough, that was 9 starts into the season. No surprise but in his losses his SO-BB ratio was just a shade over 1 to 1, he was walking a lot of guys and that isn't good for nay pitcher but a bigger problem for him with WP-PB-SB all in play and a year where he was giving up more HRs than normal.

    Not unusal for a bottom of the rotation guy, Wake won when he got strong run support. In his 7 wins his ERA was still over 5 but just over. It was a half a run higher. And that was all WHIP. In his 8 losses his WHIP was 1.676. But in his wins he was a bit unlucky I think based on his 1.122 WHIP which should compute to a better ERA than 5.05. Looking at the stats between when he won or lost the difference was not surprisingly walks.  Lot more walks fewer Ks in losses.

    At any rate I think scape goating Salty is unfair. It was an uneven year for Tim. But if your logic did pan out, this year made a case that the catching requirements for knuckleball are a big factor.

    I am not as big on the NL being as big a advantage for guys who cross over leagues. The difference between the two leagues at this point is narrowing, with the biggest difference being no DH. The gap was much wider 6 years ago than it is now. But Wake will get signed somewhere and would benefit from so many batters never having faced him before.

    BTW I don't blame Wake for answering a question about his future, it wasn't like he held a presser. And I can't blame him or Tek for not "stepping in." We are getting bits of info and don't what every guy did do, didn't do or said to who about what.
     
  7. 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]The posts on this thread have been stimulating. Now it's wait and see time as the Sox sort through the issues posed here about position players and Palpebon.  The FO and the new manager will no doubt have twists on the issues that have not been foreseen or proposed by armchair GM's and managers. That statement is not intended as a put down Pitching, pitching, pitching. No matter what kind of lineup Boston puts on the field, pitching will again be decisive. If we assume that at the start the rotation will be Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and ?, questions can be raised about all of them. For whatever reason ( or reasons ), Beckett was not at his best this year at the end. ( He took full responsibility. ) Save for 2007, he has not been a particularly strong finisher. Boston needs him to stay the course if the club is to be right there in the division and into the playoffs if the Sox make them. Beckett will have something to say about that. True,  questions can be raised about all pitchers, or most, including the possibility of injury and the almost inevitability of a rough patch here and there; but in Beckett's case, given his history, staying the course is a legitimate concern, no matter how glossy his work earlier in the season even up to close to the end. If any sport is a finisher's sport, it's baseball.  Lester had problems with command most of the year, but his stuff ( most of the time ) and his determination carried him pretty well until the end, when, as he said himself, he stank. ( He denies that there was a physical problem. ) Some people said that he should have tried to do more with one pitch and less with another one. Maybe so. But he didn't seem able to command any of his pitches consistently. He is a very good pitcher. The Sox will benefit greatly if he can take it up a notch ( or two ) higher. ( Chad Finn keeps predicting a Cy Young for him. A Cy Young type performance, award or no award , would be very nice. ) I suspect that if he and Beckett are not a formidable one two-punch regularly and for the full season, if not without blemish,  2012 will be much more of a struggle than any of us want to see. Buchholz has great stuff. If his cranky back doesn't nag him ( or worse ), he should be a winner.  It is imperative that this trio have very good to outstanding full seasons, yes, all three, if the Sox are going to do better than the club has the last few seasons -- by Boston's standards, and by that I mean standards that the players should have for themselves and that are set and enforced by the manager. Lackey. What to say about Lackey? Better not. OK. The last spot in the rotation ( not defined necessarily by status ) seems up for grabs at this point. Maybe Bedard if the Sox sign him. Any help from this slot will be appreciated but not likely decisive. Bard wiil be back. He was humming until he too crashed at the end. ( Man, the pitching was miserable down the strech, with the exception of Papelbon, until that bitter end ( why weren't his pitches mixed up better? ) and Aceves. If both Papelbon and Aceves move on, their roles, as, respectively, closer and long man, will be very hard to fill. Bard may or may not be up to the job. Papelpon is. The remainder of the pen figures to be patchwork as it now stands. Maybe Theo ( or his successor ) tries to get lucky with a newcomer, either from within the system or from elsewhere. Pitching. Pitching. Pitching, especially in the rotation. As a starter, it would be a boon if those men go deeper into games.  
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Great post, ex.
    I'd like to add my 2 cents.

    Aceves is an arb player this year. I am 100% certain he will be back next year.

    You are right about us needing the big 3 (Beckett, Lester, and Buch) to be strong from start to finish next year. My probelm with that is that I have counted on that before and I feel like counting on that again is not proper planning for 2012 and beyond. If I had to be, I'd bet one of the big 3 struggles or is hurt in 2012. 

    With Lackey as our #4/5 depending on who we pick up, to me, we have a serious issue with our starting pitchers. I like Bedard, when he is healthy, but I think we need to go out and get a quality innings eater starter. I know that is not an easy task. Signing CJ Wilson will be very costly, but will only be financial and a draft pick. We run the risk that he becomes less than what we expected, but no matter who we get, there will be elements of a gamble. We are not getting guys like Halliday or Felix, unless we create several new holes in our roster, so I think that is unlikey. Our best bet is to try and find a solid #2/3 type pitcher via trade. This helps us in case one of the big 3 faulters or not, but more importantly, it moves Lackey to #5. 

    We then need to try and load up on 2-3 cheap #4/5 type starters in hopes that we can find a Garcia or Colon of 2012. I still like Wake as one of those options, since he will be cheap and messes up the opponent's timing. (The Sox had a great record in games following a Wake start vs the same opponent.) I'd be happy if we found someone better than Wake and healthier than Bedard, but those two would be a nice 6/7 slots.

    We need our starters to go a little deeper, or we need at least one more solid pen arm as well. I think Wheeler will not be given his $3M option, so we must fins omeone else or go into 2012 hoping that 2 of these guys can help out in the pen:
    (Wake or Bedard or whoever is our 6/7 starter)
    Jenks
    Albers
    Atchison
    Morales
    Doubront

    I think Bard needs to be used less, until he prove he can be strong a full season.

    I think we need to try and bring Papelbon back, even though I hate spending big on a closer. Knowing Theo, he will set a price and not budge. The fact that we would get two draft picks if we lose Paps, means that Theo may bring down the offer accordingly, and we may lose him to a desperate team who feels they are a closer away from competing for a ring.

    I'm with you 100%: pitching, pitching, pitching.

    I'm OK with sacrificing some of our offense to make it a reality.
     
  8. 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 : My counter-argument would be if you are willing to sacrifice 35 runs / year (which I agree is not the end of the world), why not get something beyond Salary in return (i.e. trade Ellsbury).  Maybe he could go to the Angels for Walden & Trout, or the Braves for Kimbrel & Teheran.  You get a cost-effective replacement for Papelbon today, and a top prospect, either close to ready to take the field, or to be used in another trade to fill another hole. RE Salty, I think 'letting him go' is ridiculous - for the number of PAs he had, the guy had the 4th highest OPS of any catcher in the AL.  If he doesn't fit, we should be able to get a fat return for him.  He's way too valuable to just cut ties with.  Personally, I think he's a great fit to start against righties most of the time - a 50/50 split with Lavarnway would keep both fresh and available for DH / pinch hit duty.  They're not going to be all-stars with that split-time approach, but I think it's best for the team.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]Slomag, no to be a smarty pants, pretend I am the GM of the Angels and tell me exactly whiy I'd make that trade? Ditto with the Braves. Ellsbury has two years of control left and Scott Boras for an agent...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom'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 : Slomag, no to be a smarty pants, pretend I am the GM of the Angels and tell me exactly whiy I'd make that trade? Ditto with the Braves. Ellsbury has two years of control left and Scott Boras for an agent...
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    OK, maybe you'd have to leave Trout out of the deal! No biggie!
     
  10. 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 : OK, maybe you'd have to leave Trout out of the deal! No biggie!
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]Fair enough Boom. That might perk the Angels interest. The Angels like Walden and hope they final have found an answer to fill K-Rod's slot but question just how mentally tough Walden was. And his WHIP is high for a closer and has been in his 78 MLB appearances. He had a classic meltdown to cost the Angels any shot at the WC and that still might sting, Two years of Ellsbury and the potential to get him to fall in love with So Cal might appeal to him. He fits everything Scocia likes and then some.

    I am sort of lost on why you give up control for two years of a player who is frankly way more valuable than Ortiz to sign Ortiz for a twilight run for more money but getting a good hold/closer with years of control isn't without merit.

    Ellsbury IMHO leaves a bigger hole than Ortiz. He scored 119 runs and drove in 105 from the lead-off spot. 105 RBI with te lower third of the order behind him is special. Ortiz scored 84 and drove in 96.  It is a 44 run difference and Ellsbury plays CF and had a good year out there. If an average replacement cost you 40 runs for Ortiz, wouldn't an average replacement for Ellsbury cost us as many as 84?

    It isn't without merit but two years of Ellsbury in arbitration is cheaper and a better value than David and I don't know getting a reliever in return is enough.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Two things on Wakefield. It's funny because in a way they both apply to some of the things that harness rails about concerning Lackey. Ok, three things:
    1. Maybe I'm watching with rose-colored glasses (and a pink hat), moon and a few others have commented that he's not been the "same since 2009." Yet his BB/K ration I believe is far better and his WHIP went down. There were far more runs scored against him than in other years, more runs in each start, rather than stretches of brilliance (1 run or 2 runs type outings). Let's examine that for a second: the guy catching him all year was Salty, probably the worst catcher he's ever had other than Josh Bard in his Sox history. He gave up a good amount of homers this year (not a big deal, always gave up homers), but more so this year they came at times that basically were key homers, ones that might have erased the Sox lead, or broke a tie...he gave up clutch homers. He gave up more unearned runs I think than any other season at least from an average standpoint.

    There were also an enormous amount of bunt hits and IF hits this year, which is not common for Wake. I know many feel it is because Wake can no longer move and field well, but I watched every game, and feel he moved much better than last year, and is still an average fielding pitcher at worst.

    His WHIP has been right about at his career norm, but slightly worse than from 2005- 2008:
    2002: 1.053
    2003: 1.305
    2004: 1.381
    2005: 1.234
    2006: 1.329
    2007: 1.349
    2008: 1.182 (5th in AL)
    2009: 1.442
    2010: 1.350
    2011: 1.358

    Wake had the best BB/9 rate of any Sox starter in 2010-2011 combined.
    (almost a full BB below his career average (2.5 to 3.4).

    His HR/9 was 1.5 (not far from his career norm of 1.2).

    2. What if he pitched with this type of control in years prior to 2009? To me, his endurance may be what has been his achilles heel. It appears he labors or labored after the 85th pitch more so than in previous years (understandable...45 years old). If you criticize him from this point, you can make that case (oh god, softy's case? lol). Anyway, if he had a catcher who wasn't lazy (you're missing the point, 5katz, on caught stealings...follow the money katz, follow the money...or in this case follow the lower number of baserunners on hits/walks)...they scored. Wakefield's runners scored. In the past, they often were stranded left on base. But he had passed balls with runners on 3rd, errors by outfielders at just horrendous times in his starts, even thrown away 5-3s that would end innings would become E-5 and runs scored. I would lay a bet that he led MLB in most runners scored per runners allowed. I bet I win that bet.

    He also led the team in amount of his inherited runners allowed to score, and there were a couple cases where he left with a man on first and 2 outs. There were also several "hits" that should have been outs. I know this happenes to every pitcher, but I saw it more with Wake.

    The CS% vs Wake this year was amazingly at 43%! (One of the best rates on the staff.)

    Let's face it, the passed balls and WPs killed him (along with the Sac flies that followed many of them). It's easy to blame Wake's pitch type for all of them, but if we look at how well VMart did last year with only 4 PBs all year, we can see that the issue is not squarely on Wake's shoulders.

    The issue of "in game duability" is one I brought up earlier this season. While i also believe Wake should be limited in the amount of starts and innings he pitches over a season, I can not back that up with stats. However, in game stats show a clear issue with Wake getting worse the 3rd time batters face him. 
    Oppnonet's OPS
    1st PA .767
    2nd PA .700
    3rd PA .945
    4th PA .966
    This usually occured in the 5th inning (.962 OPS). So basically, Wake looks like  4 IP starter... A very good one! (.739 OPS and 4.68 ERA for innings 1-4). I know my tandem starter idea creates roster issues, but I find it hard to beleive that having a guy that can give you 4 solid IP every 5 days can not be an asset. 

    3. You go to the NL, you face lesser hitters overall (AAA analogy). You face pitchers. My guess is with a better catcher and non-AL East/Central type competition, he will get in his groove as a SP. 

    He could also do well in some big AL parks with teams that have speedy OF'ers and an IF that fields bunts and slow grounders well. (Many of Wake's IF hits were to SS) 

    The thing that gets me about Wake is that I don't just look at ERA, WHIP, and other stats to judge who is a good pitcher. To me a good pitcher does not walk a lot of batters and gets hitters to hit weak balls to the fielders. In other words, he does not get hit hard. In 677 PAs against Wake this year, he let up 25 dingers: that is high. He also let up 47 2Bs+3Bs, which is also not low. Howwever, he held the opps to a .267 BA and .324 OBP (.794 OPS). If you factor in all the misplayed balls that were ruled hits and all the IF hits, his numbers would be staggeringly good. He had 19 IF+bunt hits this year. His tERA & SIERA were both 4.57 (very respectable for a 6/7 starter). His WAR value was $3.7M.

    I broke down every Wake start this year on an earlier thread, here it is:

    Wake's 21 starts:

     

                      IP  H  ER BB (comments)

    1) vs Sea  5.2  3  1  1  

    (left with 2 outs and man on 1st: Jenks allowed his runner to score plus 1 more and Wake gets no decision: Sox win anyways)

     

    2) vs Min  4.1  9  6  4 (started 5 days earlier/pitched relief 2 days before)

    (scored 2 runs on BB, IF hit, GB single and Balk, later 2 inherited Wake runs are allowed by Aceves.)

     

    3) vs Cubs  6  7  4  1

     (shut out through 6.2, then two dbls = 1 run)

     

    4) @ Det   7  5  2  2

     (1 run scores on seeing eye GB single, SB and another seeing eye GB single.)

     

    5) vs CWS  6  7  4  1

     (shut out through 4.2, then BB, bloop single, SB, Groundout to SS, Gb double down 3B line that could have been fielded by Youk-2 runs)

     

    6) @ NYY   5.1  5  5  3

     (Shutout through 4 IP, then 3 runs on BB, PB, 1B, 2B, GB -man to 3rd-Sac Fly, then in 6th 2 outs and BB, and Aceves comes in and allows his run to score.)

     

    7) @ TB     7   4  1  5

     (Shut out for 4.1 IP then HR, in 6th BB, PB, BB, GB runners advance and Passed Ball allows run to score.)

     

    8) vs Mil   8   3 2  1

     (2-runo HR in 2nd + solo HR in 7th: no bad luck)

     

    9) @ Pitt   6   7  5  4

     (shut out for 4.1 IP, and 1B, SB, BB, HR- 2 runs, 2B, GB single for 1 runs, 4th 1 run scores on cheap single to 3B -Youk muffs it, and a 2B to CF that Ellsbury misjudged-could have been caught, then a GB to 2B.)

     

    10) @ Hou  5.1  11  5  0

     (1st inning: 1B, SB, GB runner to 3B, Sac Fly,  2nd: 2 runs scored on 2B, 1B, bunt 1B to 3B, and 2B, in the 5th: GB single, WP, 2B)

     

    11) vs Tor    7    9  3  1

     (3rd inning: swinging bunt single, 1B, GB runners advance, Sac Fly, long 1B)

     

    12) @ Bal    4.2  9  3  2

     (1st: 2 outs then weak 1B to 3B, hard 1B, then 3B for 2 runs. 5th: 2 Ks, HR, HR, 1B, bloop 1B-could have been caught, BB, 2B clears bases)

     

    13) vs Sea  6.1  10  7  1

     (1st: HBP & HR, 5th: K, BB, seeing eye GB 1B, 2B scores 1, Wake enters the 7th ahead 11-3. ***He could have been relieved***, but he stays in and allows: 4 runs on 3 singles and HR)

     

    14) @ CWS  7.0  3  3  2

     (Shutout through 5.1 innings, then bunt single to 3B, Bunt runner to 2B, WP, Sac Fly. 7th inning: BB and HR for 2 runs).

     

    15) vs Cleve  6.2  5  3  2

     (Shutout through 3IP, then HR, ground ball single, Ground ball 2B, ...2 runs, then in the 7th: 2B, Ground out, WP, K, 2B for 1 run)

     

    16) @ MN  7 IP  8H  3 ER  0BB

     (2nd inning: 2B, single, 2 groundouts-runner to 3B, PB run scores- 2 ERs. HR in 4th, 6th inning: hard single and deep 2B for 1 run). Wake leaves with a run run lead-Aceves lets up a run and Wake does not get the win.)

     

    17)  @ Sea  8  9   4  2

      (Shutout for 2 IP, then BB on fullcount (squeezed), SB, Salty error, IF hit to SS (run), single, FC & error by Lowrie SS, then Sac Fly (run), BB, single (run) . 5th inning: IF single to SS, single, single (run). 7th: Solo HR.)

     

    18) @KC  5.1  9  4  0

    (Shutout for 2 2/3, then GB single up the middle and 2b down the RF line, then to the 6th  a (1ER in 5 1/3, a K then IF hit to SS and 2 deep DBLs, Wake is pulled and Albers let’s up Wake’s run and several more and the Sox go from leading 4-1 to losing 9-4 in that one inning!

     

    19) vs Oak  4 IP  8H  4 ER  2 BB

    (2nd inning: 2B then GB hit between 1B-2B, WP, GO moves runner to 3rd and line drive single scores runner from 3rd. In the 4th, Wake gets rocked for 6 runs, but 4 of them are after a 2 out K/PB allows the inning to continue.)

     

    20) After a 4 IP relief game vs TX (3H 0 ER) Wake starts again

          @ Tor  5  3  4  3

    (1st Inn: BB, WP, BB, PB then Sac fly. 3rd Inn: HBP, WP, 2B, BB, SB (3rd), then SB of home!

     

    21) vs Tor  6  6  5  2

    (2nd: DBL, then IF weak hit to SS/3B & 3-run HR. 3rd Inn: GB base hit, PB, HR. Wake gets the win.

     

    22) vs TB  5  6  2  1

    (2nd: K/PB runner to 1B, PB, 2B, GB single, SB, HBP, K (should be last out) single scores a run. 5th Inn: GB single (up middle), SB, WP, PB scores runner. Later, GB single up middle, BB then weak GB error to 3B allows run.

     

    23) @ NYY 4  5  3  5

    (1st: Bunt hit 4 feet in front of home, SB, bunt single to 3B, SB and E allows run, PB (runner to 3B) WP run scores! 5th Inn: hard single goes to 2B E7, Gb single to RF runs scores.

     

    Totals:

    5 ERs on bullpen allowing inherited runners to score.

    4 ERs allowed after Tito left him in (too long) in an 11-3 game (7th inn)-3 singles and HR.

    31 out of 81 total ERs allowed as a starter scored on

      IF hits,  bloop hits, or misjudged fly balls that fell for “hits”

      Muffed balls counted as hits

      Runners advancing on GBs then Sac flies

    40/81 ERs allowed were a bit shaky or “cheap”. I know all pitcher have some bad luck, but I doubt any pitcher has this percent of cheap runs allowed this year.

    It’s pretty easy to figure Wake’s ER as a starter could be closer to 3.00 or 3.50 instead of about over 5.00.

     Wake was not rocked hard for most of his runs. I understand that the knuckleball lends itself to more PBs and WPs and Sac flies, but I do not think Wake was wilder this year than last (less BBs and HBPs than his career norms), yet he had way way more PBs and 15 WPs (about double his career average).

    He had 23 PBs this year vs 6 in 2010, 7 in 2009, 12 in 2008, and 6 in 2007. I do not think they can all be blamed on Wake, and many of the PBs led to runs being scored this year.

    That's 38 WP + PBs in 2011 compared to 17 last year and 11 in 2009 and 16 in 2007.

    That's why I see good potential (yes I know, potential to improve for a 45 year old pitcher who had back surgery 2 years ago) for Wake to have better results in 2012. At about $1-1.5M, I think he'd make a good 6/7th starter and long relief man.


     


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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    My counter-argument would be if you are willing to sacrifice 35 runs / year (which I agree is not the end of the world), why not get something beyond Salary in return (i.e. trade Ellsbury).  Maybe he could go to the Angels for Walden & Trout, or the Braves for Kimbrel & Teheran.  You get a cost-effective replacement for Papelbon today, and a top prospect, either close to ready to take the field, or to be used in another trade to fill another hole.

    I can see the value in trading Ellsbury now. 2 years before the Bora$$ payday should get a lot in return. I'd want a lot in return. I do not think Ellsbury is here in 2014, and it makes sense to get more than 2 draft picks for him.

    RE Salty, I think 'letting him go' is ridiculous - for the number of PAs he had, the guy had the 4th highest OPS of any catcher in the AL.  If he doesn't fit, we should be able to get a fat return for him.  He's way too valuable to just cut ties with.  Personally, I think he's a great fit to start against righties most of the time - a 50/50 split with Lavarnway would keep both fresh and available for DH / pinch hit duty.  They're not going to be all-stars with that split-time approach, but I think it's best for the team.

    I didn't mean cut him. I think several teams would like him now. I think he has serious issues fielding and throwing the ball. His hitting was fine, but so is Ramon Hernandez or Lava/VTek.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'd never trade Ells for a closer. I'd want a young solid starter with 3+ years of control. I'd be willing to give prospects (or Youk) in the deal to maybe get 2 impact players in return.
     
  14. 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 : Fair enough Boom. That might perk the Angels interest. The Angels like Walden and hope they final have found an answer to fill K-Rod's slot but question just how mentally tough Walden was. And his WHIP is high for a closer and has been in his 78 MLB appearances. He had a classic meltdown to cost the Angels any shot at the WC and that still might sting, Two years of Ellsbury and the potential to get him to fall in love with So Cal might appeal to him. He fits everything Scocia likes and then some. I am sort of lost on why you give up control for two years of a player who is frankly way more valuable than Ortiz to sign Ortiz for a twilight run for more money but getting a good hold/closer with years of control isn't without merit. Ellsbury IMHO leaves a bigger hole than Ortiz. He scored 119 runs and drove in 105 from the lead-off spot. 105 RBI with te lower third of the order behind him is special. Ortiz scored 84 and drove in 96.  It is a 44 run difference and Ellsbury plays CF and had a good year out there. If an average replacement cost you 40 runs for Ortiz, wouldn't an average replacement for Ellsbury cost us as many as 84? It isn't without merit but two years of Ellsbury in arbitration is cheaper and a better value than David and I don't know getting a reliever in return is enough.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I don't see it as an either / or situation, but if we're going to improve the team, we can't do it through free agency alone, and if we're dealing from strength, that means offense, and the most likely candidate is a guy whose relationship with the FO is strained, whose position is replaceable, and who is coming off a career year.

    I don't buy the 96-run differential argument - Ellsbury had 124 more plate appearances than Papi, and the runs were often a result of Ortiz driving him in.  Ortiz only scores when he or the 6,7,8 hitters bring him in.  

    I think you're trying to argue both sides of the equation - he's too valuable for us to trade, but we won't get better than a rookie reliever in return?  That doesn't make sense - we gave up our best pitching prospect and our best hitting prospect for one year of Gonzalez.  The Giants gave up their best pitching prospect for 2 months of Carlos Beltran.  Why wouldn't the Angels give up a rookie reliever and their #1 overall prospect for 2 years of an MVP-caliber player?

    That said, I think the Braves and Giants are better fits - if I put myself in their shoes, I'm going to do whatever I can to improve the offense in 2012.  Yes, I'll look to free agency, but if I have to make a deal for offense, I'm willing to part with young pitching talent - sacrificing from my strengths to address my weaknesses.  Ellsbury for Venters or Kimbrel, plus Teheran or Vizcaino.




     
  15. 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]My counter-argument would be if you are willing to sacrifice 35 runs / year (which I agree is not the end of the world), why not get something beyond Salary in return (i.e. trade Ellsbury).  Maybe he could go to the Angels for Walden & Trout, or the Braves for Kimbrel & Teheran.  You get a cost-effective replacement for Papelbon today, and a top prospect, either close to ready to take the field, or to be used in another trade to fill another hole. I can see the value in trading Ellsbury now. 2 years before the Bora$$ payday should get a lot in return. I'd want a lot in return. I do not think Ellsbury is here in 2014, and it makes sense to get more than 2 draft picks for him. RE Salty, I think 'letting him go' is ridiculous - for the number of PAs he had, the guy had the 4th highest OPS of any catcher in the AL.  If he doesn't fit, we should be able to get a fat return for him.  He's way too valuable to just cut ties with.  Personally, I think he's a great fit to start against righties most of the time - a 50/50 split with Lavarnway would keep both fresh and available for DH / pinch hit duty.  They're not going to be all-stars with that split-time approach, but I think it's best for the team. I didn't mean cut him. I think several teams would like him now. I think he has serious issues fielding and throwing the ball. His hitting was fine, but so is Ramon Hernandez or Lava/VTek.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I would consider trading Salty, but a year without catching Wakefield would probably raise his stock.  He seems to be a hard worker, and says and does all the right things - I think in another year or two he could be what Varitek was to this team at age 28.  While his arm isn't always accurate, it is strong - his 31% CS rate is better than Tek's at any point in his career.

    One thing that I don't understand is how he is a better left-handed hitter, when he's a natural righty.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom'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 : Fair enough Boom. That might perk the Angels interest. The Angels like Walden and hope they final have found an answer to fill K-Rod's slot but question just how mentally tough Walden was. And his WHIP is high for a closer and has been in his 78 MLB appearances. He had a classic meltdown to cost the Angels any shot at the WC and that still might sting, Two years of Ellsbury and the potential to get him to fall in love with So Cal might appeal to him. He fits everything Scocia likes and then some. I am sort of lost on why you give up control for two years of a player who is frankly way more valuable than Ortiz to sign Ortiz for a twilight run for more money but getting a good hold/closer with years of control isn't without merit. Ellsbury IMHO leaves a bigger hole than Ortiz. He scored 119 runs and drove in 105 from the lead-off spot. 105 RBI with te lower third of the order behind him is special. Ortiz scored 84 and drove in 96.  It is a 44 run difference and Ellsbury plays CF and had a good year out there. If an average replacement cost you 40 runs for Ortiz, wouldn't an average replacement for Ellsbury cost us as many as 84? It isn't without merit but two years of Ellsbury in arbitration is cheaper and a better value than David and I don't know getting a reliever in return is enough.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I was just kidding Katz. I'm not recommending that we trade Ellsbury at all.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I never thought of that, but Salty clearly does better batting left-handed. That does match up well with Lava, but Lava needs to play everyday, so if we make him the platoon catcher (playing 40% of the games all vs LHPs), then he needs to DH vs RHPs...hmm...

    That means we impede Lava's growth or we don't bring Papi back so Lava can DH vs RHPs and Youk or Jed DH vs LHPs.
     
  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]I never thought of that, but Salty clearly does better batting left-handed. That does match up well with Lava, but Lava needs to play everyday, so if we make him the platoon catcher (playing 40% of the games all vs LHPs), then he needs to DH vs RHPs...hmm... That means we impede Lava's growth or we don't bring Papi back so Lava can DH vs RHPs and Youk or Jed DH vs LHPs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    In my mind, that's the biggest argument against bringing back Papi, but I don't want to have unrealistic expectations of Lavarnway - He's not going to be Ortiz against righties in his first full year at the majors.  Catching is so demanding, I don't think it's necessarily impeding his progress to have him sit much of his first couple of seasons.

     
  19. 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 : I don't see it as an either / or situation, but if we're going to improve the team, we can't do it through free agency alone, and if we're dealing from strength, that means offense, and the most likely candidate is a guy whose relationship with the FO is strained, whose position is replaceable, and who is coming off a career year. I don't buy the 96-run differential argument - Ellsbury had 124 more plate appearances than Papi, and the runs were often a result of Ortiz driving him in.  Ortiz only scores when he or the 6,7,8 hitters bring him in.   I think you're trying to argue both sides of the equation - he's too valuable for us to trade, but we won't get better than a rookie reliever in return?  That doesn't make sense - we gave up our best pitching prospect and our best hitting prospect for one year of Gonzalez.  The Giants gave up their best pitching prospect for 2 months of Carlos Beltran.  Why wouldn't the Angels give up a rookie reliever and their #1 overall prospect for 2 years of an MVP-caliber player? That said, I think the Braves and Giants are better fits - if I put myself in their shoes, I'm going to do whatever I can to improve the offense in 2012.  Yes, I'll look to free agency, but if I have to make a deal for offense, I'm willing to part with young pitching talent - sacrificing from my strengths to address my weaknesses.  Ellsbury for Venters or Kimbrel, plus Teheran or Vizcaino.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]Not really trying to have it both ways Slomag. In the current landscape of MLB most teams that will take on Ellsbury with only two years of control are going to be wanting to win now. They won't be looking to trade MLB impact for MLB impact. Ellsburry would yield AA and AAA blue chips and maybe as many as two plus a longer shot third prospect.

    That is a very valuable player. But If you think about it the scenario I just outlined that is what 90% of the deals have been in recent years for guys in Ellsbury's contract and impact profile. It is rare to see teams swap impact players any more. And as far as starting pitching, it is even rarer to see it traded unless it is flawed or they believe they can't resign it. When impact pithers are moved it has been that the seller will get more back in prospects than they could get with a 1st round pick and sandwich pick.

    Trading Ellsbury is a great idea if the team wants to step back and rebuild because he will net great value towards that goal. But we haven't seen impact player for impact player trades terribly often, we haven't seen proven top of the rotation guys going for proven position players in recent years.

    BTW the argument that Ortiz counted on the lower third to score runs and a lot of Ellsbury's runs were the result of Papi driving them in is fair but cuts both ways. That same lower third is who Ellsbury had to drive in and Ellsbury is part of Ortiz RBI count.

    Heck Ellsbury played more games because he could pay in National League parks because he plays a position. And it isn't just any position, it is CF. It is a way bigger hole to fill than the DH and while I see Ellsbury have great value in trade as defined by the current baseball operations patterns, that value will not make them a better team in 2012 or 2013 but could be a big boast in the longer future, if the RS picked right out of somebody elses organization.

    Last thought, that isn't always a slam dunk, picking out of the other guys organization. The Marlins did well enough in the Beckett trade, but as we saw with Andrew Miller, they did n't hit the mother lode when they trade Miguel Cabrera. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I think whenever were discussing the roster in the offseason, we always have to keep in mind the contract status and age of the nucleaus and our histroy of allowing FA to walk and net us better draft slots....

    If we break the team into two categories "pitchers and position players" and then both in sub catergories...

    Pitching:
    Starting Pitching 1-5
    Starting Pitching 6-8 (organizational depth)
    Backend of the pen
    Middle relievers
    Projectable arms in the system (Organizational depth)

    Cleary we have needs and a few projects but the nucleas of our pitching staff, dispite an ugly September is still pretty good and signed through 2014...

    To-do
    >Hire a new pitching coach...
    />Sign or aquire a proven veteran starter to bolster the rotation (Must have)
    >Make decision on Lackey is he in or out! If he's in, than job #1 for the new pitching coach is to break him down and rebuild him....
    />Down on the farm. Who's ready? Doubront? Ranaundo? Barnes? Do we have a projectable arm or arms to serve as organizational depth...if not than who serves this critical role? Miller? Wake? sorry but we've already seen that show...
    />The closer....is it Bard's job to lose? or do they sign someone else?
    />Sign or aquire another late innings reliever (see above)...Morales is a keeper
    />Jenks & Wheeler are they in or out of the plan? Aceves, Albers both keepers
    />Down on the farm...Bowden, Weiland, Britton, Fields...the list goes on
    />Do we have a projectable late innings reliever in our system...


    Position players: Who's on first? I don't know in on 3rd...
    The Lineup...
    The Defense...
    The Bench...

    />To-do hire a new hitting instructor (Magadan?) / coaching staff
    />2012 and beyond needs...DH, Catcher, SS and RF
    />2012 most critical question: Can Youkilis stay on the field (.900 ops guy) for 150 games and be an everyday thirdbaseman?
    />Where do they bat and how do they get Crawford straigtented out...
    />Do they try to resign Papi or use those resources to bolster the bench and platoon the DH spot...
    />SS Do they pick up Scutaro's option or pass and sign a FA with a better glove?
    />Is this Inglesias year />
    />Is Saltalamaccia the catcher of the future? if not him, than whom? Have we seen the last of Jason? Lavarnway?
    />RF...a premium defensive position where the ideal guy would hit RH or dispite not having the prootypical arm do they move Crawford over and take advatage of his legs to cover the expanse that is RF in Fenway?
    />Bench...Aviles is a keeper, Lowrie IMHO needs to go...can't be counted on to play a full season...
    />Down on the farm...Lavarnway, Riddick, Kalish, Anderson, Middlebrooks and Iglisias are the guys that appear to be ready to play in the big leagues...

    Here's what we have

    The top and heart of the order...
    CF Ellsbury
    LF Crawford (he needs to be at the top of the order)
    2B Pedrioa
    1B Gonzalez
    3B Youkilis

    1-5  our lineup matches up with any team both offesnively and defensively and all of the above represent the core from which our roster contrcution evloves around with Crawford, Gonzalez and Pedrioa the nucleaus around which the longer term rosters of 2014 and beyond will be built...CF and 3B are both positions that will need to be addressed in the next 3 year cycle next offseason. whether that's internal (Kalish? Middlebrooks?), or through trades ? and or FA (Kemp).

    DH OPEN...

    #6 I'll leave in the gray area for now, but what we do here does have a ton of ramifications on the above and below...but this is a critical RBI slot and a guy that will help protect the #4 and #5 guy...If we chose to go the platoon route that's about 600 at bats that can be distributed amongst a host of players and help us to keep guys fresh, but more important is help us to deepen our bench...

    Bottom of the order...
    RF Riddick/DMac/Kalish....
    C  Saltalamaccia / Varitek
    SS Lowrie/Aviles

    #7 thru #9 is where we fall short both offensively and defensively even if we re-sign Scutaro who is IMHO not a great defensive SS but is a guy that grinds and plays the game hard..

    That said if we want to lengthen the lineup we have to get better production from RF period and I would contend that we also could use an upgrade at the catchers spot too...lots of power not a ton of contact...Here's where the rubber hits the road...All three of these positions are premium defensive position and represent the best areas for us to improve over last year both with the glove and the bats...lots of moving parts and although we do have "players" that are projectable platoon guys.

    I feel that we need a dynamic middle infield presense (Iglesias?) and a big righthanded bat (Cuddayer?)...then the question remains what to do with Papi...my answer is let him walk and make a play for Willingham or Rivera...

    Any how that's my long winded take...
     
  21. 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 : In my mind, that's the biggest argument against bringing back Papi, but I don't want to have unrealistic expectations of Lavarnway - He's not going to be Ortiz against righties in his first full year at the majors.  Catching is so demanding, I don't think it's necessarily impeding his progress to have him sit much of his first couple of seasons.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]You just don't learn how as much watching MLB games as you do playing in AAA games. Neccessity may drive Lavarnway here early but at the same age there were serious questions about Jason's skill sets and in this case the offensive sample sets at AAA are very small and MLB is inconclusively microscopic.

    It will be a tough choice for the RS who I am sure wish they had the luxury of not thinking twice about Ryan spending at least another half a season in AAA. 
     
  22. 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 : Not really trying to have it both ways Slomag. In the current landscape of MLB most teams that will take on Ellsbury with only two years of control are going to be wanting to win now. They won't be looking to trade MLB impact for MLB impact. Ellsburry would yield AA and AAA blue chips and maybe as many as two plus a longer shot third prospect. That is a very valuable player. But If you think about it the scenario I just outlined that is what 90% of the deals have been in recent years for guys in Ellsbury's contract and impact profile. It is rare to see teams swap impact players any more. And as far as starting pitching, it is even rarer to see it traded unless it is flawed or they believe they can't resign it. When impact pithers are moved it has been that the seller will get more back in prospects than they could get with a 1st round pick and sandwich pick. Trading Ellsbury is a great idea if the team wants to step back and rebuild because he will net great value towards that goal. But we haven't seen impact player for impact player trades terribly often, we haven't seen proven top of the rotation guys going for proven position players in recent years. BTW the argument that Ortiz counted on the lower third to score runs and a lot of Ellsbury's runs were the result of Papi driving them in is fair but cuts both ways. That same lower third is who Ellsbury had to drive in and Ellsbury is part of Ortiz RBI count. Heck Ellsbury played more games because he could pay in National League parks because he plays a position. And it isn't just any position, it is CF. It is a way bigger hole to fill than the DH and while I see Ellsbury have great value in trade as defined by the current baseball operations patterns, that value will not make them a better team in 2012 or 2013 but could be a big boast in the longer future, if the RS picked right out of somebody elses organization. Last thought, that isn't always a slam dunk, picking out of the other guys organization. The Marlins did well enough in the Beckett trade, but as we saw with Andrew Miller, they did n't hit the mother lode when they trade Miguel Cabrera. 
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I think you're right that we don't often see impact players traded for one another, but in addition to the exception of those players one team does not expect to sign, I would add that when a team feels they have somebody else waiting in the wings, you see impact for impact players.  If the Angels were to hold on to Trout, I think there is a very good chance they deal Bourjos.  Personality issues aside, the Cards didn't deal Rasmus until John Jay established himself as a viable replacement.  Even on this page, we've thrown around the idea of dealing Salty due to the potential of Lavarnway.

    I see this model with the Braves - I don't know what their plans are for their young arms, but it seems to me they could slot Teheran into the rotation, and Vizcaino into the closer or setup role, and not miss a beat.  Heck, I would even take Teheran and one of Venters / Kimbrel for Ellsbury - then the bulk of the impact player loss is on the Sox side, but with the expectation that Teheran would be groomed for the rotation, if not starting there in 2012. 


     
  23. 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 : I think you're right that we don't often see impact players traded for one another, but in addition to the exception of those players one team does not expect to sign, I would add that when a team feels they have somebody else waiting in the wings, you see impact for impact players.  If the Angels were to hold on to Trout, I think there is a very good chance they deal Bourjos.  Personality issues aside, the Cards didn't deal Rasmus until John Jay established himself as a viable replacement.  Even on this page, we've thrown around the idea of dealing Salty due to the potential of Lavarnway. I see this model with the Braves - I don't know what their plans are for their young arms, but it seems to me they could slot Teheran into the rotation, and Vizcaino into the closer or setup role, and not miss a beat.  Heck, I would even take Teheran and one of Venters / Kimbrel for Ellsbury - then the bulk of the impact player loss is on the Sox side, but with the expectation that Teheran would be groomed for the rotation, if not starting there in 2012. 
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]Maybe we find somebody who thinks they have too much pitching but we better hope they don't look at our own experiences from what we had locked up long term in 2009 to the trade of Arroyo in 2006. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Trading Ellsbury is a great idea if the team wants to step back and rebuild because he will net great value towards that goal. But we haven't seen impact player for impact player trades terribly often, we haven't seen proven top of the rotation guys going for proven position players in recent years.

    There is one increasingly popular route to go: involve a third team: 

    Ellsbury goes to a contender looking to win in the next 2 years.
    They give prospects to a 3rd team.
    The third team gives us 1-2 impact players.

    The problem is, one of our biggest needs is OF production, so trading Ellsbury just makes that area a bigger weaakness than it already is.

    I love great pitching, so I'm always open to any idea that will bring us a young, healthy solid arm. I do think SF and ATL look like possible landing spots and they both have several young arms I'd like on the Sox.

    Atlanta:
    Jair Jurrjens (25) 13-6  2.96  152 IP
    Tommy Hanson (24) 11-7  3.60  142 IP
    Brandon Beachy (24) 7-3  3.68  130 IP
    Craig Kimbrel (23)  46 svs  2.10  1.039 WHIP
    Jonny Venters (26) LHP  1.84  1.091
    Eric O'Flaherty (26) LHP 0.98  1.086  (Energize the Boston Irish base?)
    Salary Dump: Derek Lowe ($15M/1)
    Pie in the sky: C  Brian McCann (27) .817 OPS

    San Francisco:
    Matt Cain (26)  12-11  2.88  1.083  222 IP
    Lincecum (27)  13-14  2.74  1.207  217 IP
    Madison Bumgarner (21) 13-13  3.21 1.212  205 IP
    Jonathan Sanchez (28)  4-7  4.26  1.441  101IP
    Sergio Romo (28)  1.50   0.708  WHIP
    Salary Dumps: Zito ($46M/2 counting 2014 buyout)/ A.Huff ($12M/1 counting buyout for '13)/ Freddie Sanchez ($6M/1)
    Pie in the sky: 3B Pablo Sandoval (24) & C  Buster Posey (24)

    I could see this:
    Trade:
     Ellsbury, Jenks ($6M/1), [Weiland or Doubront], and a mid level prospect
    For:
     [Jurrjens or Hanson], [Venters or O'Flaherty], and  M. Bourne (1 arb year left) and Derek Lowe ($15M/1) as a salary dump to sweeten the deal for ATL.

    or...

    Trade:
     Ellsbury, Lackey ($46M/3), Youkilis, Iglesias, and [Weiland or Doubront]
    For:
     Matt Cain, Pablo Sandoval, [Sanchez or Romo], and Barry Zito ($46M/2) as a salary dump. 

     
  25. 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]Trading Ellsbury is a great idea if the team wants to step back and rebuild because he will net great value towards that goal. But we haven't seen impact player for impact player trades terribly often, we haven't seen proven top of the rotation guys going for proven position players in recent years. There is one increasingly popular route to go: involve a third team:  Ellsbury goes to a contender looking to win in the next 2 years. They give prospects to a 3rd team. The third team gives us 1-2 impact players. The problem is, one of our biggest needs is OF production, so trading Ellsbury just makes that area a bigger weaakness than it already is. I love great pitching, so I'm always open to any idea that will bring us a young, healthy solid arm. I do think SF and ATL look like possible landing spots and they both have several young arms I'd like on the Sox. Atlanta: Jair Jurrjens (25) 13-6  2.96  152 IP Tommy Hanson (24) 11-7  3.60  142 IP Brandon Beachy (24) 7-3  3.68  130 IP Craig Kimbrel (23)  46 svs  2.10  1.039 WHIP Jonny Venters (26) LHP  1.84  1.091 Eric O'Flaherty (26) LHP 0.98  1.086  (Energize the Boston Irish base?) Salary Dump: Derek Lowe ($15M/1) Pie in the sky: C  Brian McCann (27) .817 OPS San Francisco: Matt Cain (26)  12-11  2.88  1.083  222 IP Lincecum (27)  13-14  2.74  1.207  217 IP Madison Bumgarner (21) 13-13  3.21 1.212  205 IP Jonathan Sanchez (28)  4-7  4.26  1.441   101IP Sergio Romo (28)  1.50   0.708  WHIP Salary Dumps: Zito ($46M/2 counting 2014 buyout)/ A.Huff ($12M/1 counting buyout for '13)/ Freddie Sanchez ($6M/1) Pie in the sky: 3B Pablo Sandoval (24) & C  Buster Posey (24) I could see this: Trade:  Ellsbury, Jenks ($6M/1), [Weiland or Doubront], and a mid level prospect For:  [Jurrjens or Hanson], [Venters or O'Flaherty], and  M. Bourne (1 arb year left) and Derek Lowe ($15M/1) as a salary dump to sweeten the deal for ATL. or... Trade:  Ellsbury, Lackey ($46M/3), Youkilis, Iglesias, and [Weiland or Doubront] For:  Matt Cain, Pablo Sandoval, [Sanchez or Romo], and Barry Zito ($46M/2) as a salary dump. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]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.   
     

Share