Why fix anything?

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    Nah, nothing to fix.

    Bullpen with Wilson, DeLaTorre, Aceves, etc.

    Off injured $39M signee Shane Victorino

    No 3rd baseman

    5th batter/1st baseman on pace to K 200 times.

    Supposed #2 starter Jon Lester with a 4.60 ERA

    This team is rolling

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

     

    A GM should always be looking for ways to improve the team while balancing the future as well.

    Sox4ever

     

     




    and that's why in 04 Theo made the nomar deal, albeit not really doing it for the future but for the then now. You don't stand pat, and the Sox can't afford to stand pat.

     

     

     



    Well, the Nomar move may not have been for the future, but the deal ended up helping our future immensely.

     

    1) We gave up no prospects of note to get Cabrera or Mientkiewicz, so the move did nothing to hurt the future.

    2) When Cabrera walked, we got 2 comp draft picks: Ellsbury and Lowrie. Both helped our future.



    3) It broke the culture of superstar invincibility.

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    3) It broke the culture of superstar invincibility.



    What culture?  It was only a few years previous that they said bon voyage to Clemens.

    The relationship with Nomar had become poisoned starting with his contract negotiations.  His mystery injury and crappy attitude forced them to trade him.  It worked out brilliantly for us, but it was a move born of desperation, nothing that was planned out. 

     

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    3) It broke the culture of superstar invincibility.

     



    What culture?  It was only a few years previous that they said bon voyage to Clemens.

     

    The relationship with Nomar had become poisoned starting with his contract negotiations.  His mystery injury and crappy attitude forced them to trade him.  It worked out brilliantly for us, but it was a move born of desperation, nothing that was planned out. 

     



    Yes, letting Clemens walk after 4 mediocre seasons was a bit of a culture breaker, but that was Dan D, and our team has always been known for have two sets of players' rules: one for the plebians and one for the princes and kings.

    I understand the reasoning behind the trade went beyond breaking any "culture of invincibility", but in some ways it was still a shocker. I'm sure some Sox stars took notice. I also think the "plebians" also got an emotional boost.

     

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    In response to ADG's comment:

    Nah, nothing to fix.

    Bullpen with Wilson, DeLaTorre, Aceves, etc.

    Off injured $39M signee Shane Victorino

    No 3rd baseman

    5th batter/1st baseman on pace to K 200 times.

    Supposed #2 starter Jon Lester with a 4.60 ERA

    This team is rolling



    If you reread the OP, it says the Sox have their own assets to repair most or all the damage.  Bradley for Victorino, for example, or even Bradley for Ellsbury if the wrist stays bad.  The Sox are knee deep in thirdbasemen--Snyder, Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts.  Napoli does look like a problem these days, but Middlebrooks or Bogaerts to take over that position easily.  Lester is what he is, but Buchholz looks to be headed back to the team after the all-star break, and that will help.  The team still leads the AL East by 3 games and the Majors in scoring.  They had a great homestand and are now 1-3 on the road, but two of those losses were against bona fide aces.  Weaver looked tough, Hernandez not so tough, but Ellsbury and Victorino were both missing last night. 

    The bullpen is struggling, granted, especially with Miller out for the season just when he was becoming very effective.  As I said in the OP, the Sox might look elsewhere for one or more relievers, but with no guarantees they will be effective.  There just aren't many MLB general managers who say to themselves, "just this one time and just because I really like Ben Cherington, I'm going to trade the one guy in my bullpen who really is good."  Nosiree.  Almost without exception, teams let relievers go because they have lost confidence in them.  I would even put Papelbon in that category, that is, that the Sox wouldn't match that five year contract because they were not sure he would stay good for that long, especially given the 2011 season.  Cherington was actually pretty aggressive about the bullpen last offseason, and got three closers, Hanrahan, Bailey, and Uehara, and so far only Uehara has worked out. 

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

    Re: Why fix anything?


    I'm going to bump this one time because I still think my OP is on target.  So far Cherington and Farrell have relied on players within the Sox system, and that has paid dividends. Middlebrooks busted, but that only gave Iglesias an opportunity, and he is now in Boston to stay.   Last night was another terrific example when Bradley, who had to fly to Seattle from the east coast, filled in for Ellsbury and hit a key dinger late in the game, and that ignores his terrific fielding and arm. 

    Meanwhile, there are at least two good infielders, both potentially very good righty bats, at Pawtucket who think they are ready for the bigs--Middlebrooks, who has been there before, and Bogaerts. 

    The rotation, I continue to argue, is doing OK, especially given the absence of Buchholz and his likely return.  Webster hasn't worked out, but the Sox still have other options within the system, like Aceves.  Before going on the DL, Buchholz only had the best starting ERA in the AL and averaged 7 innings per start.  Lester, I agree, is a concern, but he is healthy and could bounce back.  Doubront and Lackey have been pretty good and Dempster OK.   

    What's left is the bullpen, and, as I said in the OP, maybe Cherington needs to look outside for help.  The problem, as always, is going to be getting a really capable reliever some other team is willing to part with for a reasonable price.  Meanwhile, Bailey now looks to be getting back to where he was earlier in the season, and the Sox have other options within the system.  Last night the bullpen went 6.2 innings and gave up 1 run, which is outstanding.   

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    Napoli does look like a problem these days, but Middlebrooks or Bogaerts to take over that position easily. 

    There's also Carp.

    Nava in a pinch.

    Papi in NL parks.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Why fix anything?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    I'm going to bump this one time because I still think my OP is on target.  So far Cherington and Farrell have relied on players within the Sox system, and that has paid dividends. Middlebrooks busted, but that only gave Iglesias an opportunity, and he is now in Boston to stay.   Last night was another terrific example when Bradley, who had to fly to Seattle from the east coast, filled in for Ellsbury and hit a key dinger late in the game, and that ignores his terrific fielding and arm. 

    Meanwhile, there are at least two good infielders, both potentially very good righty bats, at Pawtucket who think they are ready for the bigs--Middlebrooks, who has been there before, and Bogaerts. 

    The rotation, I continue to argue, is doing OK, especially given the absence of Buchholz and his likely return.  Webster hasn't worked out, but the Sox still have other options within the system, like Aceves.  Before going on the DL, Buchholz only had the best starting ERA in the AL and averaged 7 innings per start.  Lester, I agree, is a concern, but he is healthy and could bounce back.  Doubront and Lackey have been pretty good and Dempster OK.   

    What's left is the bullpen, and, as I said in the OP, maybe Cherington needs to look outside for help.  The problem, as always, is going to be getting a really capable reliever some other team is willing to part with for a reasonable price.  Meanwhile, Bailey now looks to be getting back to where he was earlier in the season, and the Sox have other options within the system.  Last night the bullpen went 6.2 innings and gave up 1 run, which is outstanding.   



    I don't think relying on Middlebrooks/Bogaerts/Snyder at 3B is a net plus in terms of trying to win a ring in 2013.

    Using Drew at SS and Iggy at 3B vs RHPs is not optimal, but the situation vs LHPs certainly needs addressing. 

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

    Re: Why fix anything?


    moonslav,

    The Sox continue to win at around a .600 clip and to outscore all other MLB teams despite using what you believe are inadequate hitters at 3B and, more specifically, inadequate righty bats at 3B.  

    I do agree the righty bats against opposing lefty starters have not been all that great this year.  But I don't think "fixing" 3B is the answer, that is, getting a righty bat like Michael Young of the Phillies as sort of a summer rental.   

    Interestingly enough, Young's OPS vs. lefties this year is just .715, and Middlebrooks--you remember, the disaster--OPS against lefties this year is .675.  Young's rental price would not be insignificant because his salary is over $18M, so that's a lot of money for not much more capability.  Plus let's not forget that Middlebrooks was pretty good last year and maybe can get back to that level.  Bogaerts, meanwhile, is hitting better in his first year in AAA, and he can no doubt play 3B, which might be a better position for him than SS. 

    You are right that Drew ain't very good against lefties--a paltry .593 OPS--but he is after all the SS and is decent (OPS .779)  against righties, plus he plays consistent defense at SS.   

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share