Is 2013 the True "Bridge Year"?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Good luck with the chronic losers in Seattle.

    Thank you ... Mariner fans are hoping for the best, but prepared for more of the same.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Hill, what do you think of Ellsbury, Cecchini and Pimental for Tommy Hanson?

    Moon, I've written elsewhere that this proposal has merit (even without Stolmy Pimental).

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    I never said the Tigers were a "surprise."  The Sox need to add a starter and they will, but to say their rotation "isn't even close" is glass half half empty at it's best.  Buchholz can be as good as anyone not named Verlander, and he was for a good portion of last season. 

     

    I really like Buch a lot, and think he is a fine #2 starter. I even think Lester can be a fine #3, but has downside potential. However, there are plenty of pitchers who pitched great for part of last season, and I am quite frankly tired of waiting for that magical moment when everything gels at once. For 3 years we've heard about Beckett, Lester and Buch being such a powerful top of rotation 3-some. For 3 years I heard, "if they all pitch like they can, we are going to win..." It never happened all at once. Now with Beckett gone, Lester looking more shaky than ever, and Buch losing his season long consistency projection a bit, I see no reason why adding a guy like Peavy is going to make us better than opening day 2009, 2010, or 2011 in terms of a starting rotation outlook.

    If healthy, there is no reason why he can't be a top of the rotation guy. 

     

    To many "ifs" for me to think anything short of a miracle or near miracle can make us serious competitors next year, unless we open the bank and go all out, which to me is reckless, foolish, and harmful to our longterm outlook.

    Farrell has already said he saw what was wrong with Lester in the beginning of the season, and Lester pitched to a sub 4.00 e.r.a. in the second half. 

     

    Lester was 4-8 with a 5.23 ERA his last 15 starts.

     

    Lackey will finally be pitching fully healthy and he could certainly surprise.  Doubront has terrific stuff, and even Morales looked better than most 5's out there.  If they add one more guy who can give them what Kuroda gave the Yankees this year, then they will certainly have a staff strong enough to be "serious" contenders. Even if they suffer a serious injury, they have all the resources to go get someone. 

     

    Again, to many "ifs" for me to objectively rate us as "serious".

     

    I would be shocked if the O's or A's finished ahead of the Sox next year. 

     

    I was shocked this year, but we are far from last year's opening day team, and they are both improved.

     

    I also don't think either team will be close to Boston talent wise, once this off-season is over.  My whole point with you is that you continually post that 2013 is a "bridge year" as if it's a certainty, when the offseason hasn't even unfolded yet.  Why not see what the Front Office does before you pass judgement on this team's chances?

     

    I have never meant to sound like my opinion that this is a bridge year is etched in stone. I have, at times, laid out plans that could make us serious 2013 contenders, but I disagree with those tracks, so I am following my instincts and philosophy of building for the longer term, so this team can seriously compete at a higher level from 2014 and beyong, than an overall lower level from 2013 and beyond.

    By the way, how would Dan Uggla "DH?"  Are you putting Ortiz in right field?

    If we never played Uggla on game, getting hanson would be worth that trade, in my opinion. Anything Uggla brings us would be a plus. I have mentioned Uggla could play 1B. Uggla could DH when Papi sits, is injured, or plays 1B at NL parks (more this year than last). Uggla could also play back-up 2B and 3B, or be traded as we eat part of his deal. I wasn't trading for Uggla. I was taking on his contract to lessen the amount of value we'd need to give ATL to get a promising young starting pitcher. kinda like taking on Lowell to get Beckett.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    2013 is going to be a viaduct year. 

    Why a duck?  What not a chicken?  Nah, that was 2011.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Groucho jokes always get maximum points.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Hill, what do you think of Ellsbury, Cecchini and Pimental for Tommy Hanson?


    Moon, I've written elsewhere that this proposal has merit (even without Stolmy Pimental).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Does Atlanta have a prospect at 3b that equals Cecchini's value?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    "Lester was 4-8 with a 5.23 ERA his last 15 starts." 

    OK, I can manipulate "stats" too, to make my point.   After Valentine left Lester in the game where he gave up 11 runs in 4 innings on July 22nd, he pitched to a sub 4 e.r.a. the rest of the season, or his final "13" starts.  Would you agree that that would be an encouraging sign, especially when you consider he'll be reunited with Farrel, and hopefully work with Peterson? 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Lester was 4-8 with a 5.23 ERA his last 15 starts." 

    OK, I can manipulate "stats" too, to make my point.   After Valentine left Lester in the game where he gave up 11 runs in 4 innings on July 22nd, he pitched to a sub 4 e.r.a. the rest of the season, or his final "13" starts.  Would you agree that that would be an encouraging sign, especially when you consider he'll be reunited with Farrel, and hopefully work with Peterson? 

    [/QUOTE]


    I was at that game...It was tough watching him go through that. His FB was still between 94-96 but wasnt executing his secondary stuff or location.

    he did look better the last couple months though.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Lester was 4-8 with a 5.23 ERA his last 15 starts." 

    OK, I can manipulate "stats" too, to make my point.   After Valentine left Lester in the game where he gave up 11 runs in 4 innings on July 22nd, he pitched to a sub 4 e.r.a. the rest of the season, or his final "13" starts.  Would you agree that that would be an encouraging sign, especially when you consider he'll be reunited with Farrel, and hopefully work with Peterson? 

    [/QUOTE]

    ihe did look better the last couple months though.find 

    I didn't intentionally "manipulate any stats": I just looked at baseball reference's 2nd half numbers.

    I have been a big defender of Lester this season and last September, but I find it hard to feel too confident about his 2013 season.

    Now, as the devil's advocate, I will cherrypick:

    His 1.46 WHIP his last 6 starts is worrisome.

    His last 8 starts:

    51.1 IP

    53 H

    22 BB

    1.46 WHIP  (4.21 ERA)

    Only one of his last 8 starts saw less than 3 ERs allowed.

     

    I think Lester will be a fine #3 starter, but his loss of velocity is scary:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=4930&position=P&pitch=FA

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    Something is odd with his velocity. Its better now than it was in '08 but slightly lower tha it was in 2010. maybe it was more about pitch selection this year since he was having issues locating this year. Could it be he was using more offspeed stuff this year?

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Something is odd with his velocity. Its better now than it was in '08 but slightly lower tha it was in 2010. maybe it was more about pitch selection this year since he was having issues locating this year. Could it be he was using more offspeed stuff this year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Masybe I'm reading the chart wrong, but to me, it looks like his 2012 velocity is lower than 2009, 2010, and 2011. He was a bit lower at the start of a couple seasons, but overall, he has barely been over 95 recently.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Something is odd with his velocity. Its better now than it was in '08 but slightly lower tha it was in 2010. maybe it was more about pitch selection this year since he was having issues locating this year. Could it be he was using more offspeed stuff this year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Masybe I'm reading the chart wrong, but to me, it looks like his 2012 velocity is lower than 2009, 2010, and 2011. He was a bit lower at the start of a couple seasons, but overall, he has barely been over 95 recently.

    [/QUOTE]


    Looks like 2008, 2011 and 2012 were all around the same with 2009 and 2010 being slightly higher...Not sure I would be too concerned with it right now. maybe in another 2-3 years.

    He seemed to be right around 94MPH most of the season and hitting 96-97 a couple times when he dialed it up. Like I suggested, maybe he was relying on his offspeed stuff more this year due to his FB control which would result the slight loss in velocity on the  chart. Just a guess...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Something is odd with his velocity. Its better now than it was in '08 but slightly lower tha it was in 2010. maybe it was more about pitch selection this year since he was having issues locating this year. Could it be he was using more offspeed stuff this year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Masybe I'm reading the chart wrong, but to me, it looks like his 2012 velocity is lower than 2009, 2010, and 2011. He was a bit lower at the start of a couple seasons, but overall, he has barely been over 95 recently.

    [/QUOTE]


    Looks like 2008, 2011 and 2012 were all around the same with 2009 and 2010 being slightly higher...Not sure I would be too concerned with it right now. maybe in another 2-3 years.

    He seemed to be right around 94MPH most of the season and hitting 96-97 a couple times when he dialed it up. Like I suggested, maybe he was relying on his offspeed stuff more this year due to his FB control which would result the slight loss in velocity on the  chart. Just a guess...

    [/QUOTE]


    heres to hoping he figures it out!

    hopefully farrell will have the effect we expect he will

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Something is odd with his velocity. Its better now than it was in '08 but slightly lower tha it was in 2010. maybe it was more about pitch selection this year since he was having issues locating this year. Could it be he was using more offspeed stuff this year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Masybe I'm reading the chart wrong, but to me, it looks like his 2012 velocity is lower than 2009, 2010, and 2011. He was a bit lower at the start of a couple seasons, but overall, he has barely been over 95 recently.

    [/QUOTE]


    Looks like 2008, 2011 and 2012 were all around the same with 2009 and 2010 being slightly higher...Not sure I would be too concerned with it right now. maybe in another 2-3 years.

    He seemed to be right around 94MPH most of the season and hitting 96-97 a couple times when he dialed it up. Like I suggested, maybe he was relying on his offspeed stuff more this year due to his FB control which would result the slight loss in velocity on the  chart. Just a guess...

    [/QUOTE]


    heres to hoping he figures it out!

    hopefully farrell will have the effect we expect he will

    [/QUOTE]

    There was an interesting article at fangraphs that discusses how rare it is for a non-injury-related loss of velocity by a pitcher is ever regained. They may go on to be effective in other ways, but return of velocity is rare.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    I was reading the Reds need a lead-off hitter and one that preferably fits into the outfield. Elles to the Reds for who? 

    Though this begs the question who leads off for Boston is Elles is gone?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I was reading the Reds need a lead-off hitter and one that preferably fits into the outfield. Elles to the Reds for who? 

    Though this begs the question who leads off for Boston is Elles is gone?

    [/QUOTE]


    I would try and get Cingrani, Corcino or another one of their pitching prospects. They could probably find a 1 yr deal on the market. Not sure if Bradley would be ready and also not sure there is another guy to be a legit leadoff hitter already employed by the Sox...

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    I like Bourn as a possible replacement for Ells. He's a great fielder, has speed, and gets on base pretty well.

    When Bradley is ready, he can move to RF.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

     

    Oakland needs a catcher.  The Red Sox need a young starting pitcher.  

    The Red Sox can send a package of Lav and another prospect or two for Anderson.  

    Anderson seems healthy after having surgery.  Just ask the Tigers during the ALDS.  

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    I worded my point wrongly. I meant to say when Bradley arrives, Bourn would move to RF not Bradley.

    Bourn is an awesome fielder, but by the time Bradley breaks through, he'll have probably lost a half a step.

    I wouldn't sign Bourn unless we are sure we are moving Ellsbury AND (most importantly) we plan to build the team enough this winter to seriously compete- something I don't think will happen. So, I really don't want Bourn unless a number of things happen that I doubt will happen, so the signing of Bourn is conjecture based on a number of conjectures.

    I have provided specific numbers on an offer for Bourn (another thread) if these things all happen. Go fetch!

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    Oakland needs a catcher.  The Red Sox need a young starting pitcher.  

    The Red Sox can send a package of Lav and another prospect or two for Anderson.  

    I've been saying this for weeks.

    Forget the stats and metrics and hubaloo; Brett Anderson is a fine starter with gigantic upside.

     

    Lava, Tazawa and Cecchini for Anderson

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    Last year you wanted us to offer these guys $1M:

    Bedard (got $4.5M/1)  7-14  5.01  1.48 WHIP

    B. Chen (got $9M/2)  11-14  5.07  1.37

    F Garcia (got $4M/1)  7-6  5.20  1.36

    Oswalt (got $5M for 2/3rds of a year) 4-3  5.80  1.53

    Wang (got $4M)  2-3  6.68  2.01

     

    I think Wake did better than these guys pitching softball for the Orlando Knucklers.

     

    First, you lowball every offer you ever give specifics on (including this years' minor league offers to washed up journeymen that will still sign for double plus what you suggest, except for maybe your Guthrie offer.).

    Second, the guys you want stink and belong in "the dumpster" along with your ethics, honesty, and integrity.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Is 2013 the True

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oakland needs a catcher.  The Red Sox need a young starting pitcher.  

    The Red Sox can send a package of Lav and another prospect or two for Anderson.  

    I've been saying this for weeks.

    Forget the stats and metrics and hubaloo; Brett Anderson is a fine starter with gigantic upside.

     

    Lava, Tazawa and Cecchini for Anderson

    [/QUOTE]

    I would hate to throw in Tazawa.  But I understand that when it comes to trades, we have to give up quality to get quality.  

    Oakland's bullpen seems fine.  So instead of Tazawa, do you think the Red Sox can add a top hitting prospect?  

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share