Sox Get Carp

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    there are some good pitchers in next years FA class... certainly much much much better pitchers than in this years

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.



    We dont need great SP to win a ring.  Its all about the pitching is a dated clieche.  The Phillies had average pitching (at best) when they won a WS in 2008 (they did not have either Halladay or Lee), the Cardinals did not have great pitching when they won in 2011 (Wainwright missed the entire year, and Carpenter missed a portion of it).

    Teams slug their ways to championships all the time.  You can absolutely win a ring with a great offense and an okay pitching staff.  Has happened twice in the last five years.  

    And you are right.  We are not focusing on 2015.  Big market teams dont have to.  We are focusing on 2013.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to mef429's comment:

    there are some good pitchers in next years FA class... certainly much much much better pitchers than in this years



    If they are not extended before next winter, yes.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.

     



    You contradict yourself you want to trade the players that are going to perform this year in order to improve pitching this season. They only way the Sox do anything this year is if the pitchers pitch like their baseball cards. By mid season reevaluate, I wouldnt want to build a team that win 3-2 yet.

     

     



    Not at all! I am suggesting we trade useful chips (ie players that are likely to perform this year) for pitching prospects that are likely to perform at a high level in 2015, not this year. If this year is a rebuilding year, lets rebuild. Playing it half way is a poor strategy.

     



    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    I like the deal. Forget about last year when he was hurt, he batted .276 with 12 HR, 46 RBIs and a .791 OPS in 79 games in 2011.

    I could easily see him playing 100 to 125 games between first base (40 to 50) and LF (70 to 80) and be a .280 hitter at Fenway with around 15 HRs.

    This could very well be one of those quiet, late pickups that allow the Gomes and Napoli deals to work out. I like Carp better than Nava and better than Sweeney.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.



    But it's true-we might make the playoffs if enough guys stay healthy and have good years. 

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.




    i would much rather "pretend" to compete than sell off all our assets and write the next 2 years off.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.



    That's about as good as you're going to do most years.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.

     



    But it's true-we might make the playoffs if enough guys stay healthy and have good years. 

     



    That's a huge if, and there are several teams in recent history that went on to win a ring with some of their best players downed by injuries. I don't see us doing that anytime soon.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.

     




    i would much rather "pretend" to compete than sell off all our assets and write the next 2 years off.

     




    We could have been pretty close to as good as we are now, AND made at least a couple moves to make us better in 2015 and beyond.

    It didn't have to be all or nothing, but we did virtually nothing to help ourselves for 2015, and don't tell me not making some deals (prospects) made us better. It didn't. It kept the future the same: bright, but not brighter.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.

     



    That's about as good as you're going to do most years.

    It doesn't have to be this way. We could have had an entertaining team on the field this year, and also made moves to improve our chances on being better in 2014 and 2015 and beyond.

    We put off improving the future for maybe a full year. When you are a 69 team win, wasting a year, in my opinion,  is not a good plan.

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    I can't say whether I like this move or not until I find out who the player they gave up is. One thing I will say with confidence is that it will not be Manuel Margot or Frank Montas. You could make a case they are top 10 guys and letting the Mariners "decide" if they want them out of 4 players would be crazy. I think I would prefer to give up Brentz or Iglesias then give upside guys like that away.

    The one possibilty I would hate to lose is Alixon Suarez. My guess is he isn't on the list either. Maybe something in the Moanaroa, McGrath, Meyers, or Moore league. Something in the 50-80 area that they get to watch and pick the best one.

    Would love to know if Carp is famous for going the other way or is a pull hitter. That could be extremely important.

    As I have said, don't really like Carp and didn't want him unless it didn't cost us a top 30 player.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.

     



    We dont need great SP to win a ring.  Its all about the pitching is a dated clieche.  The Phillies had average pitching (at best) when they won a WS in 2008 (they did not have either Halladay or Lee), the Cardinals did not have great pitching when they won in 2011 (Wainwright missed the entire year, and Carpenter missed a portion of it).

     

    Teams slug their ways to championships all the time.  You can absolutely win a ring with a great offense and an okay pitching staff.  Has happened twice in the last five years.  

    And you are right.  We are not focusing on 2015.  Big market teams dont have to.  We are focusing on 2013.



    In another forum last year I looked at how many teams won a ring since records began being kept with pitching that was not top notch (I think it was top four in their league in ERA) and how many teams won a ring with hitting that was NOT top notch. It may have been an article I read somewhere. I forget the exact numbers, but the bottom line is that many more teams have won rings with great pitching and mediocre hitting than the reverse. Sure, its possible to win a ring by bashing your way to it, but if history is any guide, its unlikely. I will try to find the article.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.

     



    You contradict yourself you want to trade the players that are going to perform this year in order to improve pitching this season. They only way the Sox do anything this year is if the pitchers pitch like their baseball cards. By mid season reevaluate, I wouldnt want to build a team that win 3-2 yet.

     

     



    Not at all! I am suggesting we trade useful chips (ie players that are likely to perform this year) for pitching prospects that are likely to perform at a high level in 2015, not this year. If this year is a rebuilding year, lets rebuild. Playing it half way is a poor strategy.

     

     



    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     



    That is the point of disagreement. I do not think we can compete for a ring in 2013. If I did, then I would agree with you that we should play to win THIS year.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

    We are pretending to seriously compete, and it will be exposed by the trade deadline.

    We played it halfway. We kept our future in propsects intact, and we signed enough bridge players to make it look like we might make the playoffs is we stay healthy and have some luck.

     




    i would much rather "pretend" to compete than sell off all our assets and write the next 2 years off.

     

     




     

    We could have been pretty close to as good as we are now, AND made at least a couple moves to make us better in 2015 and beyond.

    It didn't have to be all or nothing, but we did virtually nothing to help ourselves for 2015, and don't tell me not making some deals (prospects) made us better. It didn't. It kept the future the same: bright, but not brighter.



    Getting Delarosa and Webster should (hopefully) make us better in 2015.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to BMav's comment:

    I can't say whether I like this move or not until I find out who the player they gave up is. One thing I will say with confidence is that it will not be Manuel Margot or Frank Montas. You could make a case they are top 10 guys and letting the Mariners "decide" if they want them out of 4 players would be crazy. I think I would prefer to give up Brentz or Iglesias then give upside guys like that away.

    The one possibilty I would hate to lose is Alixon Suarez. My guess is he isn't on the list either. Maybe something in the Moanaroa, McGrath, Meyers, or Moore league. Something in the 50-80 area that they get to watch and pick the best one.

    Would love to know if Carp is famous for going the other way or is a pull hitter. That could be extremely important.

    As I have said, don't really like Carp and didn't want him unless it didn't cost us a top 30 player.



    Seattle won't want a player such as Jose Iglesias who would require a spot on the 40-man roster or a player such as Bryce Brentz who would need to be on the 40-man roster next offseason or exposed to the Rule 5 draft.

    I suspect the Mariners are looking for a low-level player with upside.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    I saw him play a lot with the Ms. I did not like him even on his good year. I don't like him now. I thought he's decent enough to start for a bad team. At the time, I had thought that the guy had no chance of being on a team like the Sox, or at least would not be starting for the Sox. And here we are now. 

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    this is the kind of move that ben is great at - a lateral non-move of consequernce that makes no impact on the team's bottom line but gives the impression he is doing something, or on to something...think about it -the mariners let this guy go...

     

    lillibridge anyone?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Did you have a TOTR starter in mind? There don't seem to be any available. Reiterating a need that we likely won't be able to fill from outside the organization in every post is kind of beating a dead horse don't you think?

    Exaggerate much? The fact of the matter IS that we need great SP to win a ring, and we don't have it. I also have written that there were really no options THIS year to fill that role, so I am happy we did not surrender any prospects of significance, especially no pitching prospects. That said, I agree with Moon that Cherington seems to be playing this half way and is not going all out to get pitching prospects in exchange for some of our deadwood on the team like Ellsbury, who is likely gone after this year anyway, and possibly Salty or Lavarnway. If we are really planning for 2015 then the proper tact is to do whatever is necessary to get great SP by then. I don't see that happening.

     



    You contradict yourself you want to trade the players that are going to perform this year in order to improve pitching this season. They only way the Sox do anything this year is if the pitchers pitch like their baseball cards. By mid season reevaluate, I wouldnt want to build a team that win 3-2 yet.

     

     



    Not at all! I am suggesting we trade useful chips (ie players that are likely to perform this year) for pitching prospects that are likely to perform at a high level in 2015, not this year. If this year is a rebuilding year, lets rebuild. Playing it half way is a poor strategy.

     

     



    We are not playing it half way.  We are playing to compete in 2013.  And we will.

     

     



    That is the point of disagreement. I do not think we can compete for a ring in 2013. If I did, then I would agree with you that we should play to win THIS year.

     



    Im not injecting my opinion into the matter.  Im just saying that the reason why they arent looking to flip impending free agents for prospects is because they are looking to compete this year.  Whether you agree, whether I agree, is irrelevant.  They are trying to compete.  That is why they signed Dempster and that is why they signed S. Drew.  That is why they havent traded Ells.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    It's worth noting that Carp is out of options this spring, so he would have to be exposed to waivers if he doesn't make the Opening Day roster.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     



    First of all: having teams dating back to 1907 weakens the arguement.  Different game back then.  Cross generational comparisons are almost always flawed.

    Secondly: this just shows that teams have a very low chance of winning it all with less than average pitching.  "Great pitching" is ERA+ of 120.  I see more dots below that line than above it.

    Of course you are more likely to win w/ subpar offense than subpar pitching because a guy like Verlander (3 games in a seven game series) can carry you all the way to a championship.

    You make some points.  Pitching certainly helps.  But to imply that we arent going anywhere without great pitching is false.  We arent going anywhere without at least average pitching is a far more accurate statement and the one supported by your graph.  

    However, dont marginalize offense.  If you throw out the outliers (the teams that have had HOF top of the rotation pitchers), you need offense and pitching.

    Offense is half the battle.  And its the half thats easier to predict.  If you listed the top 10 offensive teams next year, you would probably get 7 right.  If you tried to list the top 10 pitching teams next year, youd be lucky to get 5.  

    Pitching is a crapshoot.  Offense is predictable.  Focus on your offense and cross your fingers on the pitching, because its a total crapshoot.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    Sox do it right.  If you are going to spend big $$ do it on offense.  A guy hitting .310 , 30 HR on another team is very likely to carry over his success (assuming he isnt washed up).

    Save for 5-10 pitchers in teh league, you just dont know what you are going to get when you sign a free agent pitcher or draft a pticher.  This is why 7 of the top 10 draft picks each year are hitters.  Easier to predict.  The reason the Sox tend to draft pitchers is because by teh time we draft (late twenties) the elite hitters are gone, but some high upside pitchers remain.  So we roll the dice.

    I believe that this is the correct approach.  Stockpile arms because you dont know which ones are going to pan out.  You can always go grab a hitter in free agency (where results are predicatable).

    You can also cheat w pitching.  Dont have a great pitcher?  Put somebody in there who the opposing team hasnt seen before and he has a shot of giving you some quality innings.  Look at Oakland last year.  Half those guys are going to regress badly this year.  Their Ks dont support their ERAs.  Usually , when you have a low K , low ERA pitcher, it is the ERA that corrects.  Not always , but usually.  

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

    Re: Sox Get Carp

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Easy to find this article. Turns out the standard was "at least league average" in ERA+. There have only been three teams during the period of 100+ years they measured that won a ring, but many more teams with great pitching but mediocre hitting won rings. Where has our pitching been since 2009 and how much has been done to improve it this year...or in 2015? If you do not want to look at the article itself, here is the sobering conclusion:

    What you should notice immediately is the plethora of dots above the red line which delineates an average pitching team (ERA+ of 100 or more) and a below average pitching team (ERA+ below 100). There have only been three teams in 106 chances who have won a World Series when their regular season ERA+ was less than 100. They are the 1987 Minnesota Twins, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the 1913 Philadelphia A’s. A team of below-average pitching has only won it all 2.83 percent of the time, which I personally find to be mind-blowing.

    More often than not, the team that wins it all is going to land in the top right portion of the graph, which means they’ll have both good pitching and good hitting. But, a team can be below average offensively and still win it all, as 33 of the 106 winners have proven (33.02% percent).

     

    Good article from Hardball Times follows:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

    And if you need more proof that good pitching is nearly essential to winning rings, one more article:

    http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/2/22/1994723/is-it-better-to-be-an-elite-run-producing-or-run-preventing-team

     

     



    According to baseball-reference.com,  San Francisco had an ERA+ of 95 last year. ..

     

     

Share