I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]You claimed they should not place Wake on waivers in the process of DFA'ing him.  I'm saying that they should and that there is no reason not to.  Perhaps circumvent was a poor choice of words, but the fact remains, if any team is going to release any player, they should first be waived. Even in the example above, if no team was willing to trade anything for Wake, maybe a team would be willing to take Wake (and his contract) for nothing through the waiver system.  No reason not to send him through it No, I never claimed they should "not place Wake on waivers". I said there was no need to do it. You then falsely claimed it had to be done, and are now foolishly running for cover. Since you divert to a red herring, let's shoot that down, too. Waivers loses control over a process that can completely be controlled. There is no time constraint, so there is no need to use it. They can shop Wakefield and controll the process. Any team that might take his contract doesn't need to be discovered through waivers where it theoretically could result in a team that the Red Sox don't like for public relations reasons. But it matters not, as the process is utterly uneccessary and not required as you claimed it was. You claimed that waivers had to be used, and did so arrogantly with the flippant "you do realize". I realize one thing. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. How exactly do you propose the Sox circumvent the waiver system ?  You do realize that once a player is DFA's, they have to go through waivers prior to their release right and that there is no downside to this process?
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]


    While that speaks to DFA as a state of being, there is this nice quote:

    "- How does a player get into the DFA area?

    Mostly in one of three ways:

    (1) If you attempt to demote (move from majors to minors) a player who has no option years remaining and has not previously cleared waivers, he will be placed in DFA (and on irrevocable waivers).

    (2) If you attempt to remove a player from the 40-man roster who has not previously cleared waivers, he will be placed in DFA (and on revocable waivers).

    (3) All newly acquired players with major league contracts are placed in DFA. (Acquired players with minor league contracts are now placed on the AAA roster directly.)"
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Since you divert to a red herring, let's shoot that down, too. Waivers loses control over a process that can completely be controlled. There is no time constraint, so there is no need to use it.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    As soon as a player is DFA'd the team has 10 days to trade, release (in which case he first goes on revocable waivers), or waive (in which case he goes on irrevocable waivers) him.  The only way to completely control the process is to keep him on the 25 man roster, which is what you are advocating against.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    moon, how about Masterson? he successfully started a few games when the sox needed him and rather than replace wake in the rotation, they demoted him back to middle relief and then, traded him...i was irate at the time and thats where the "wakefield is francona's crack" tag line came from...he was expendable because wakefield was reserved a spot in that rotation...that was wrong then and it is wrong now that he is in the pen...his time is done and sad to say, he wont catch clemens now...retire him and bring in another lefty so that we have options when things heat up...
    Posted by georom4
    The problem was that Wakefield wouldn't have brought the RS VMart. Masterson was traded for VMart, not to make roster room for Wakefield. At the time the RS issues with Lowell not being able to play every day and what they were getting from VTek playing every day.

    Now three starts into 2011 Masterson has looked solid but the RS did get 1.3 seasons of service, a playoff appearance and two draft picks in return.

    At any rate it Epstein who makes the trades not Tito. And Theo showed just how comfortable he was with his "crack" by going out and signing Lackey. So it wasn't that the RS had a blind loyalty to Wakefield that drove them to dump Justin Masterson, it was immediate needs on the 25 man roster, that Masterson had trade value and they forecast Masterson as a middle of the rotation guy that struggled against LH at the time.

    Theo also extended Wake for two seasons rather than simply exercising his annual "for life" club option to what turned out to be marginally more advantageous terms for the RS as it turns out. And if not for injuries to Beckett and Dice K the difference would have been $2M more to the RS advantage in 2011.

    Epstein is hanging on to the guy because he is very inexpensive insurance for the rotation. It certainly isn't Francona who frankly appears to have little use for Wake so long as he has 5 healthy starters. 

    Whether that insurance is worth anything is cloudier as time passes as the calendar keeps moving further and further away from Wake's strong start to the 2009 campaign before he injured his back. His limited appearances in 2010 and this spring certainly don't indicate the 2009 All-Star is back but that is another kettle of fish I suppose.

    This year's debate about Wakefield reminds me of last year's debate about Mike Lowell, it just less payroll dollars involved.  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Five, spin it anyway you want it but 40 something Wake was kept in the rotation and a young hurler w/promise like Justin M was dealt...i find it hard to believe that JM was the key to the VMART deal...they wouldve taken any number of young pitchers/players because they saw the writing on the wall...the fact that wake was given a 2 yr contract is proof that the sox didnt have a spot reserved for him on the roster????? the guy is still on the team.....if that doesnt convince you nothing will - no matter what it is time to let him retire-
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    JB, you are working overtime to disguise your foolish comment about having to Wakefield on waivers. Even your own link shows that he can be released or traded, which is a message board link.

    Give it up JB. There is no trade deadline approaching, the 10 days isn't material because they can freely explore a prayer of trading Wakefield before the DFA, not that the 10 days isn't plenty of time to find out bad Wakefield's market value is.

    You claimed expressly that he had to be put on waivers. You were wrong. You don't know what you are talking about, obfuscation attempts not withstanding.

    Stick to fantasy baseball.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]JB, you are working overtime to disguise your foolish comment about having to Wakefield on waivers. Even your own link shows that he can be released or traded, which is a message board link. Give it up JB. There is no trade deadline approaching, the 10 days isn't material because they can freely explore a prayer of trading Wakefield before the DFA, not that the 10 days isn't plenty of time to find out bad Wakefield's market value is. You claimed expressly that he had to be put on waivers. You were wrong. You don't know what you are talking about, obfuscation attempts not withstanding. Stick to fantasy baseball.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]


    Apparently you don't understand that there are multiple types of waivers.  As part of being released a player is placed on waivers.  Here's more details on that:


    Specifically the one which applies to my statement is this:

    "Unconditional Release Waivers

    This is the most basic of the waiver rules, in which clubs place players on waivers that they intend to release from the organization completely. The player then may be claimed for as little as $1 by any team, but the player may choose to refuse the claim and become a free agent. An example of this is the Astros' release of Shawn Chacon after his shoving match with GM Ed Wade. Houston didn't want the Colorado native in their organization anymore, so they flat out released him."

     

    And the 10 day limit is very material to this discussion as you proposed DFA'ing Wake first, and then taking further actions.  Any time spent gauging trade interest in Wake prior to the DFA is still "wasting" that roster spot, which is what you were against in the first place.

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

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Five, spin it anyway you want it but 40 something Wake was kept in the rotation and a young hurler w/promise like Justin M was dealt...i find it hard to believe that JM was the key to the VMART deal...they wouldve taken any number of young pitchers/players because they saw the writing on the wall...the fact that wake was given a 2 yr contract is proof that the sox didnt have a spot reserved for him on the roster????? the guy is still on the team.....if that doesnt convince you nothing will - no matter what it is time to let him retire-
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]Masterson was a compromise position. Back in 2009 the opening request to the RS in almost every trade was Clay Buchholz. While the Indians certainly wanted to save $$$, Victor's salary was not going to bankrupt them and he wasn't a walk away until then end of 2010.

    The package had to have some attraction and I would think for the same reason you were upset that Masterson was traded is the same reasons he made the package attractive. But it was some what speculative at that point. Masterson as a starter in 2009 was 3-9 with a 1.550 WHIP. LH ate him alive posting a .877 OPS against him. If his 2011 results continue, hats off to you and the Indians projecting this player so high because there was lot's indicate that he was a RH vs. RH reliever.

    As far as Wake still  being on the roster, if we look back, the first order of business for the RS had to be dealing with the club options they held when the 2009 season ended. Epstein had no idea at that point if he was going to be able to land Lackey and no reason to expect with 100% confidence that Buchholz would emerge in 2010 to have the year he did and Dice K had a injury shortened season.

    Now read into what we like, Epstein on the other hand, renegotiated his deal with Wakefield to a two year deal where Wake made more money if he pitched 160 IP in 2010, but the RS saved money if he pitched less. And then signed Lackey assuring that if Buccholz wasn't a bust that Wakefield would be the odd man out and at bargain prices for a pitcher who made the all star team that season before he injured his back.

    There isn't any blind loyalty there IMO, simply a matter of Epstein hedging his bets and doing it for what in MLB terms is chump change.

    I posted elsewhere that the problem with old stats for old guys is that they get older faster because the accelerated decline players experience as they get older.

    BUT, let's keep in mind in 2009 Tim Wakefield before he was injured in 2009 in 17 appearances went 11-3, with two complete games and an acceptable 1.380 WHIP. Signing him to that deal that leaned in the RS favor if he didn't pitch 160 or more made sense.

    Sometimes I think some people would be better served just saying "I hate to watch this guy pitch, the unpredictability of it is maddening. I hate the BB's in bunches, the stolen bases, the passed balls. I just don't like the guy as a an athlete even when he is going good. I am sure he is nice enough a person but I just wish he'd go away."



     


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    five, once again you refuse to admit the obvious - Wake is on the team and is closer to fifty than forty....you pulled out his all-star season stats for that first half of that year but make no use of other stats....why?

    no one is hating on Wake - he is a great guy in an era of jerks, and I even like watching him pitch because he throws so slow and he still retires the side more times than not...but we are talking about the red sox in 2011, not some over 40 softball team...retire this year....the sooner the better
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    five, once again you refuse to admit the obvious - Wake is on the team and is closer to fifty than forty....you pulled out his all-star season stats for that first half of that year but make no use of other stats....why? no one is hating on Wake - he is a great guy in an era of jerks, and I even like watching him pitch because he throws so slow and he still retires the side more times than not...but we are talking about the red sox in 2011, not some over 40 softball team...retire this year....the sooner the better
    Posted by georom4
    I pulled out the stats because they were a handful of appearances where Wakefield literally had pain killers injected into his back because the RS did not have any viable options in AAA even with the signing of Paul Byrd who had been throwing batting practice to his kid's high school teammates.

    BTW I personally have my doubts whether Wakefield now almost two years and a back surgery removed could be as effective as he was in the first half of 2009 if he is called upon to be a spot starter to smooth over the schedule or replace a starter going on the DL. And those stats in the context of your belief that Masterson was sacrificed because of Wakefield's presence on the roster make it valid. And no doubt those stats played into the decision to retain control of Wakefield's rights after the 2009 season. 

    FWIW I am explaining why I believe the RS, (who contrary to any of our opinions at moments) are run by astute baseball professionals; are retaining Wakefield. I have my doubts just what he has left and while my opinion amounts for little, if a starter went down tomorrow I'd give the ball to Aceves before I'd give it to Wake. But the RS do appear to be hedging their bets and maintain control of the maximum number of pitchers they can on the 40 man roster at this point and are a little less concerned about the 25th on the 25 man roster.   
    BTW watching I agree that Wake is a terrific guy but personally have found his outings maddening to watch for years. It like Dice K on a nibbling spree with the addition of passed balls, lots of stolen passes and the HRs tend to go 650 feet in 2.5 seconds.

    But I get the operations logic and holding on to the extra pitcher just the same.

    Just my take   
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    ty Five for your civilized thoughts - it's nice to read your stuff - you have it going on pretty well and I learn a lot from your posts...as far as Wake pitching, you gotta believe that it is all gravy at this point - i never expect him to pitch well and he still surprises me when he gets folks out with that 60 mph knuckler....as much as i maligned him in the past , i sincerely wanted him to break clemens record for wins but that doesnt seem realistic at this point...its a long season and i guess there will be plenty for wake to do - to bad 95% wont matter
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    I'm no so sure the problem on this team is Wakefield.  I think the problem is that Francona still has absolutely no idea how to use Wakefield, since the way one should use Wakefield is so far different than how one would use any other reliever.

    First, I don't think Wakefield should be appearing in any games where one run over one inning will durastically impact the outcome of the game.  This is because Wakefield's style of pitching is too easy to get a run off of (it's relatively easy to make contact off Wakefield, the difficulty comes with actually doing anything with the ball.  This means it's relatively easy to move runners around once they get on base, and obviously it's easy to steal on the knuckleball as well.  Plus, one can drag bunt on Wake since he's not exactly Clay Buchholz in terms of speed).

    Therefore, Wakefield should be pitching multiple innings in games (like 2-3 innings), either in mop roles or in games where the starter is pulled after 3 or 4 innings.  This would allow for Wakefield to pitch in situations where the opposition is looking to score multiple runs in an inning, which increases his likelihood of semi-decent effectiveness (think 5.00 era, which isn't absolutely terrible).

    In reality, Wakefield should be eating up 150 innings out of the pen (sounds like a ton, but not too bad for a knuckleballer) and spot starts.  He's the perfect "abuse arm" now, since he's a below-average MLB pitcher (therefore semi-replaceable) but does enough that he's better than calling up some random bozo from AAA, especially when spot starts are needed.  Plus his limited upside is almost good in this case, since really, he can perform any role without the team having to be worried about his "development", whereas things should be kept more consistent for  guys like Miller/Hill/Doubront who still have considerable upside....
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    I believe Cleveland wanted Buch in the VMART deal. Theo held out and the Indians went for Masty. Wakefield's presence had nothing to do with player availability. Masty was marketable, and Boston felt they could deal off their strength (at the time) and secure a receiver who was an improvement over G.Kottaras, to say the least. Tek was hurting.


    Regarding Wake's ineffectiveness since back surgery, I see this as no coincidence, which is probably why he was so hesitant about the surgery, beyond team needs.

    Knuckle-ballers tend to lose control in their final years. Wake has actually improved in this area. But he's lost the depth to his dancer. It's a shame, because he is so advanced as to the intricacies of the pitch.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    His knuckler has actually looked very good. His problem has been the higher freqency of times, it floats too high and gets rocked for an HR. The reason I haven't lost faith (yet) is that he still "has it". The issue is consistency.

    The other main issue is my almost complete lack of faith in anyone else beyond our top 8-9 pitchers. Keep as many options open: you never know how many you might need to find 1 or 2 that do OK.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    The inconsistency is due to a lower margin for error.
    If you look at his dancer from a few years back, his mistakes weren't hammered as often. I don't see the devastating movement he had before the operation.

    I said last year he's sacrificing movement for location. Now I think it's because there's no longer a choice.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Apparently you don't understand that there are multiple types of waivers.  As part of being released a player is placed on waivers

    JB, you are making a bigger fool of yourself. I understand the waiver process, but you don't. Which is why you foolishly claimed that Wakefield had to go through waivers. Cutting and pasting waiver information from other message boards and sites is just a pitiful attempt to distract from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about on the issue. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place. It was a foolish attempt at "gotcha", but you simply blew yourself up.

    I'm no so sure the problem on this team is Wakefield.  I think the problem is that Francona still has absolutely no idea how to use Wakefield, since the way one should use Wakefield is so far different than how one would use any other reliever.

    Bill, come on! Wakefield is the problem. How on earth do you think he should be used? Clean the bathrooms? He waddles out and throws that goofball that just hangs like it's on a tee. His last outing the guy hit one well over 400 feet. In fairness, the wind was blwoing out, but Wakefield is an embarrassing look, performer, and a reflection of how the "good guys" are a huge impariment of management judgment. Thinking that every roster spot contributing in game balance situtations isn't a requirement, you have to be joking.

    At least Lowell went public and said "I have no rule".

    When Theo makes a valuation mistake or has "bad luck", he needs to use that lame line about "sunk cost" when he DFA's the non-fan favorites. Wakefield is sunk cost. If there is a starter long DL, they will do better getting an old NL retread who hasn't pitched in the AL so the first few starts the AL hitters will at least be unfamiliar with release point, timing, etc.

    Goodness, hitters are salavating like my St. Bernard when they see Wakfield throw that hanging launch pad ball.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Skimming over Harness and Slav going back and forth about Wakefield's "pitching" is like watching two old man talk about how great they used to be back in the 1940's.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    How many of Lackey's 33 starts last year did he give the RedSox a chance to win?  You said "not many". Then you fled the topic.

    Amazing how many questions you avoid answering.
    I guess it must be due to senior moments...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Remember softy's only tool for evaluating pitchers has always been ERA.

    Foolish, yes, but it has always been his M.O.

    So, according to softy-logic (I know it's an oxymoron) ...

    Pitchers with more than 2.2 IP:

    1) Beckett  (20 IP) 1.80
    2) Papelbon (5)      1.80
    3) Aceves    (7.2)   2.35
    4) Lester     (25.1) 3.20

    5) Wake       (10.1)  6.10
    6) Dice-K     (14)     6.43
    7) Buch        (15)     6.60
    8) Bard        (6.2)     6.75
    9) Douby     (2.2)     6.75
    10) Jenks    (4.2)     7.71

    11) Wheel   (5.1)     11.81
    12) Lackey  (8.2)     15.58

    Let's cut the 6.10 guy loose so the 6.75s and 10.00+ ERAs can pitch more.
     
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    this is laughable...wakefield has always, always, always, always allowed home runs. It's part of the package with him. He is not ineffective because he lost something in the back surgery. He is ineffective because he has no idea when he is going to pitch. He is in his mid-40s and from 2003-2009, he always knew exactly when he was going to pitch in advance. In 2010 and now, I couldn't tell you what Francona would do in regards to when he is thrown. Papelbon, Bard and even Jenks have a pretty good idea when they are going to come into a game in relief. Wakefield has no idea, none. We as fans can't figure out when he will come in. He could come in the 4th or the 9th. No rhyme, no reason, and frankly I blame Tito/Theo for squeezing whatever worth Wakefield had for this team the past 2 years.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Harness, you are have a senior moment. I answered that question, but you never answered my question.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Amazing how many questions you avoid answering.
    I guess it must be due to senior moments...

    Reminds me of the Papi vs LHPs debate. softy said show me the game logs. I painstakenly provided every game log and it actually showed Papi was even worse vs the LH'd starters I had said he should sit against than his overall numbers vs all LHPs. softy first ignored it, then moved the goalpost by saying Papi's numbers after the lefty starter left made his numbers acceptable (they did not).

    On another thread he keeps posting Lowrie's career BA as a reason he shouldn't start over Scutaro. When someone pointed out that Jed's was higher than Scutaro's... crickets.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Remember softy's only tool for evaluating pitchers has always been ERA. Foolish, yes, but it has always been his M.O. So, according to softy-logic (I know it's an oxymoron) ... Pitchers with more than 2.2 IP: 1) Beckett  (20 IP) 1.80 2) Papelbon (5)      1.80 3) Aceves    (7.2)   2.35 4) Lester     (25.1) 3.20 5) Wake       (10.1)  6.10 6) Dice-K     (14)     6.43 7) Buch        (15)     6.60 8) Bard        (6.2)     6.75 9) Douby     (2.2)     6.75 10) Jenks    (4.2)     7.71 11) Wheel   (5.1)     11.81 12) Lackey  (8.2)     15.58 Let's cut the 6.10 guy loose so the 6.75s and 10.00+ ERAs can pitch more.  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon,

    In fairness, he did get on a roll at one point where he was obsessed with WHIP, although that was primarily for RP's.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Masterson was a compromise position. Back in 2009 the opening request to the RS in almost every trade was Clay Buchholz. While the Indians certainly wanted to save $$$, Victor's salary was not going to bankrupt them and he wasn't a walk away until then end of 2010.

    The package had to have some attraction and I would think for the same reason you were upset that Masterson was traded is the same reasons he made the package attractive. But it was some what speculative at that point. Masterson as a starter in 2009 was 3-9 with a 1.550 WHIP. LH ate him alive posting a .877 OPS against him. If his 2011 results continue, hats off to you and the Indians projecting this player so high because there was lot's indicate that he was a RH vs. RH reliever.

    Agreed.  Also, based on a lot of the reports I read, once the Indians agreed to take on a pitcher not named Buchholz, the Sox tried trading Michael Bowden.  The Indians had concerns about whether he could be a major league starting pitcher, and smartly said no thank you and settled on Masterson.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Moon,

    In fairness, he did get on a roll at one point where he was obsessed with WHIP, although that was primarily for RP's.

    Yeah, but that ended when I showed how Wake compared favorably to Dice-K in WHIP.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Yeah, but that ended when I showed how Wake compared favorably to Dice-K in WHIP.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Ah, I must have missed that discussion.  I wondered why he stopped using WHIP.
     

Share