Wakefield's Shoulder and Potential Retirement Options

[lurker42]

While this may definitely be true, it would serve the team well to keep Wakefield's possible retirement under wraps w/r/t their pursuit of pitchers, both via trade and on the free agent market.

I know you're one of the people who'd like to see Wakefield retire, but I think you might be trying a little too hard to keep that dream alive here. This rumor was started by an anonymous internet poster who wouldn't reveal his source nor anything else his source has told him in the past. It's since been refuted by a WEEI reporter, a report which was passed on by a Herald writer. Speier and Bradford aren't infallible, and it is possible the Sox have successfully kept the truth under wraps...but I think Speier and Bradford are much more credible than the original source in this case (no offense to bd11 - he was just passing on what he heard).

I think we can put this one to rest.

This post has been edited by lurker42: Nov 16 2008, 03:12 PM

[Pearl Wilson]

Well, the reports are not mutually exclusive. The main point made buy the rumor is that Wakefield's shoulder is bothering him. The rumor did not address the medical exam.

The Speier report did not mention how Wakefield is feeling. Rather, it focused on the medical exam being unchanged from an earlier exam. This isn't news; it was reported when the announcement was made that Wake would be back in '09.

Just because his exam did not change does not mean he has a normal shoulder. It does not mean he is pain-free or symptom-free now. He has a history, after all.

[Jack Sox]

I'm inclined to believe that there's validity in the initial posters rumor. As much as it would royally suck if it ends up being true.

I'm sorry, I get that some people here may not like what Wakefield brings to the table. But the best news of the offseason? REALLY? If you truly believe that, then I'd argue you're out of your mind. It's been well documented that Wake - when healthy - brings 185-200 innings a season of above average pitching. That's at 4 million a year. Probably a top 5 bargainin baseball. Inconsistencies be damned.

So, okay, let's just say Wakefield retires, who fills his innings? Do you really want the Sox to go out and pay AJ Burnett 18 million a pop for and be no more consistent than Wake? And that doesn't even account for his miserable injury history. Or is Derek Lowe on a 5 year deal more up your alley?

Needless to say, this in no, way, shape, or form can be spun as a good thing. Let alone "the best news of the offseason". Holy shit...

[bd11]

I know you're one of the people who'd like to see Wakefield retire, but I think you might be trying a little too hard to keep that dream alive here. This rumor was started by an anonymous internet poster who wouldn't reveal his source nor anything else his source has told him in the past. It's since been refuted by a WEEI reporter, a report which was passed on by a Herald writer. Speier and Bradford aren't infallible, and it is possible the Sox have successfully kept the truth under wraps...but I think Speier and Bradford are much more credible than the original source in this case (no offense to bd11 - he was just passing on what he heard).

I think we can put this one to rest.

We all hear rumors from people and usually choose not to post them. I simply thought that due to the timing of when I was told this information and our various threads regarding potential Red Sox transactions, as well as what I feel is the outstanding credibility and track record of my source, that this story was post worthy. I also wanted to know if anyone else had received similar information. My post made it clear that this was not take it to the bank info, but simply information from a source who has proven to be very credible in the past. Contrary to the quote above, I did not start the rumor. We will likely never know for sure whether this story was 100% true or false. If Wake retires, he may have done so for another reason. If Wake comes back, he may very well have been suffering from a shoulder injury and strongly contemplated retirement, but ended up coming back. If Wake retires, which I hope he does not given his salary and performance levels, you will not see me taking a bow for this story. Nor will I apologize if he comes back.

Of course I respect Bradford and Speier. However, I will agree with a poster above that their respective comments are not dispositive of this matter. Their sources may have reasons to deceive them. Mine does not. Plus the info Speier shared may not be relevant. Wake had his end of the season tests done a while ago. The reports of the shoulder discomfort are much more recent.

Carry on.

[gcapalbo]

Put me in the camp that says that if Wakefield is done, it's a loss of a bargain for the team going into next season (and we're looking at a less valuable replacement in someone like Byrd, or spending more to get some other talent).
<br><br>
It felt to me like Wake was throwing a lot more fastballs this season and less knucklers. Could changing his pitch selection to throw more 'wearing' pitches at his advanced age bring on some shoulder issues? Actually looking at the numbers shows a slightly different story:
<br><br>

<table align="center" border=1>
<tr>
<td>Season</td>

<td>FB</td>
<td>CB</td>
<td>KN</td>
<td>Pitches</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2005</td>

<td>12.1% (76.1)</td>
<td>4.3% (60.2)</td>
<td>83.6% (67.9)</td>
<td>3393</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2006</td>

<td>11.0% (75.3)</td>
<td>2.8% (61.9)</td>
<td>86.2% (67.6)</td>
<td>2252</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
2007
</td>
<td>13.6% (74.2)</td>
<td>3.7% (61.8)</td>
<td>82.6% (66.8)</td>
<td>2881</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
2008
</td>
<td>13.3% (72.9)</td>
<td>5.5% (59.5)</td>
<td>81.2% (65.1)</td>
<td>2788</td>
<tr>
</table>
<br><br>
In 2008 it wasn't more fastballs-- it was more <i>curveballs</i> this season, and a slight decrease in knucklers.
<br><br>
Perhaps the greater percentage of strikes for the FB made it seem like fastballs were more common-- they were just more effective.
<br><br>
Could just throwing a few more curveballs over the course of the season lead to shoulder issues?
<br>
<br>
Perhaps so.

[The Allented Mr ...]

This really is the best news of the offseason. Sucks that the Sox are on the hook for the $4M though.

*assuming this is all true.

I'm still shaking my head at this. Although it's now obvious that your obsessive linking to Rotoworld lo these many years has been a thinly-veiled ruse to mask your stunning lack of baseball knowledge. The jig is up!

[absintheofmalais...]

Put me in the camp that says that if Wakefield is done, it's a loss of a bargain for the team going into next season (and we're looking at a less valuable replacement in someone like Byrd, or spending more to get some other talent).

It felt to me like Wake was throwing a lot more fastballs this season and less knucklers. Could changing his pitch selection to throw more 'wearing' pitches at his advanced age bring on some shoulder issues? Actually looking at the numbers shows a slightly different story:

In 2008 it wasn't more fastballs-- it was more <i>curveballs</i> this season, and a slight decrease in knucklers.

Perhaps the greater percentage of strikes for the FB made it seem like fastballs were more common-- they were just more effective.

Could just throwing a few more curveballs over the course of the season lead to shoulder issues?

Perhaps so.

As a general rule, a fastball is more stressful on the arm than a curveball. If it's an overhand CB, you are using more of your wrist to put the spin on the ball that causes it to break down. So, it shouldn't be causing anymore strain on his shoulder than his FB. At his age, it's likely to just be overall wear and tear that's causing his alleged shoulder injury.

This post has been edited by absintheofmalaise: Nov 17 2008, 10:22 AM

[Corsi Combover]

I'm still shaking my head at this. Although it's now obvious that your obsessive linking to Rotoworld lo these many years has been a thinly-veiled ruse to mask your stunning lack of baseball knowledge. The jig is up!

I'll address this. Wakefield, at $4M, is an incredible bargain. I understand this and appreciate this. What I don't appreciate is that with Wakefield penciled into the rotation we are forced to rely on a 42-year-old pitcher (43 in August) with recurring shoulder woes. With the rest of the offseason yet to be seen, it's quite possible that the Sox enter the season with Wakefield as their #4 and Buchholz their #5. If Wakefield gets injured, it means Buchholz/Bowden are the 4/5. I am not crazy about that idea at all.

If Wakefield were to retire tomorrow, we'd approach a pitcher like Derek Lowe, or perhaps a trade for Javier Vazquez with a lot more purpose, and the team would ultimately be better for it. I mean we were all soooooo confident in Wakefield this October, right?

This does not even begin to discuss the fact that retaining Wakefield means you have to carry his no-hit caddy, as well. This eliminates the option of acquiring a young, raw catcher and grooming him under a veteran, such as Varitek.

Essentially, I don't like the idea of relying on old, injured players. I feel the same way about Mike Lowell. If that means I have a "stunning lack of baseball knowledge," so be it.

[Rudy Pemberton]

If Wakefield were to retire tomorrow, we'd approach a pitcher like Derek Lowe, or perhaps a trade for Javier Vazquez with a lot more purpose, and the team would ultimately be better for it. I mean we were all soooooo confident in Wakefield this October, right?

Would you be more confident in Vazquez? Everyone is all warm and fuzzy about Lowe, but he's going to cost you $9-$10M more than Wakefield and did have an ERA of 5 and a half the last time he was in the AL. Spending that much money has ramifications on the rest of the roster. Wakefield sucks in October (or at least he has) but his performance during the regular season at the price the Sox have paid is a big factor that the Sox have made it that far. I think it's often taken for granted.

This does not even begin to discuss the fact that retaining Wakefield means you have to carry his no-hit caddy, as well. This eliminates the option of acquiring a young, raw catcher and grooming him under a veteran, such as Varitek.

I know it gets repeated ad nauseum, but Wakefield's presence does not mean that the Sox have to carry a no-hit caddy at all. The Red Sox do appear to favor defense in a backup; I wouldn't expect them to suddenly have a stud backup simply because Wakefield is off the team. Although it may happen, I'm skeptical that the Sox have been unwilling to acquire such a player solely because of Wakefield.

[Corsi Combover]

Well, uhh... When healthy, he's produced similarly for the last 8 seasons running. Am I wrong about that?

And it's not nearly as crazy as expecting a rookie with one big league start to duplicate what Wake did. Tim's regular season production, right up through the year he turned 42 years old, has been rock-solid throughout the current millennium. That's what I call a strong track record, and a harbinger of future production if healthy.

So yes, if Wake had remained healthy, save for his annual second-half DL stint, I definitely expected similar production from him.

This is my point. It should be a rule of thumb that if you have to say "if he's healthy" prior to assessing the future production of a player, he's probably not a guy you want to have to rely on.

[Corsi Combover]

Would you be more confident in Vazquez?

I'd be a hell of a lot more confident in Vazquez making it through the season without breaking down. Plus, there's the possibility of trading Lugo in such a deal.

I know it gets repeated ad nauseum, but Wakefield's presence does not mean that the Sox have to carry a no-hit caddy at all. The Red Sox do appear to favor defense in a backup; I wouldn't expect them to suddenly have a stud backup simply because Wakefield is off the team. Although it may happen, I'm skeptical that the Sox have been unwilling to acquire such a player solely because of Wakefield.

I didn't say they'd be in a position to acquire a stud backup; I said it eliminates the possibility of acquiring a young catcher and having him groomed under someone like Varitek. There's just no way they allow a youngster to catch Wakefield. Talk about stunting someones development. Also, Wakefield wouldn't want to go for it, either.

This post has been edited by Corsi Combover: Nov 17 2008, 11:07 AM

[Smiling Joe Hesk...]

This is my point. It should be a rule of thumb that if you have to say "if he's healthy" prior to assessing the future production of a player, he's probably not a guy you want to have to rely on.

That caveat could probably apply to every single pitcher currently in the majors, from Wakefield to Halladay.

[The Allented Mr ...]

I'll address this. Wakefield, at $4M, is an incredible bargain. I understand this and appreciate this. What I don't appreciate is that with Wakefield penciled into the rotation we are forced to rely on a 42-year-old pitcher (43 in August) with recurring shoulder woes. With the rest of the offseason yet to be seen, it's quite possible that the Sox enter the season with Wakefield as their #4 and Buchholz their #5. If Wakefield gets injured, it means Buchholz/Bowden are the 4/5. I am not crazy about that idea at all.

This from our man Alex Speier, who made some phone calls last night ...

http://blogs.weei.com/alexspeier/2008/11/1...ly-exaggerated/

Though a rumor has circulated in major-league circles that Tim Wakefield is dealing with shoulder problems that may lead him to contemplate retirement, it appears that the notion is unfounded. The 42-year-old’s shoulder shows normal wear, but otherwise, his end of year medical examination–performed before the Red Sox decided to pick up his option for next season–was virtually identical to the one at the end of the previous season, and from a medical standpoint, there is no known reason to expect that he cannot match his 2008 contributions next season. Wakefield went 10-11 with a 4.13 ERA in 181 innings during the regular season, before going 0-1 with a 16.88 ERA in his lone postseason appearance.

Wakefield has pitched over 180 IP the past two years, even after missing time. Coming from the back end of the rotation, that's about as much as you can hope for. Usually you worry about losing a 4th or 5th starter because you have to bench them due to suckage, it's more of a problem than the likelihood of injury.

This does not even begin to discuss the fact that retaining Wakefield means you have to carry his no-hit caddy, as well. This eliminates the option of acquiring a young, raw catcher and grooming him under a veteran, such as Varitek.

If you think the Red Sox would pass up the chance to acquire a catcher for the future because of Tim Wakefield, well... I think you've backed yourself into a corner with a reactionary statement that you're unwilling to withdraw.

Essentially, I don't like the idea of relying on old, injured players. I feel the same way about Mike Lowell. If that means I have a "stunning lack of baseball knowledge," so be it.

Even with injuries, Wakefield has been durable. I don't want him starting a game in the playoffs, but being able to put 180+ innings in the bank from your 4th or 5th starter for $4 million, that's a decision a child could make. So yes, I stand firm on my assessment.

This post has been edited by The Allented Mr Ripley: Nov 17 2008, 11:14 AM

[Corsi Combover]

That caveat could probably apply to every single pitcher currently in the majors, from Wakefield to Halladay.

Oh, definitely. Pitchers, by nature, are brittle, with a few exceptions (two of which I named -- Lowe and Vazquez). Wakefield is on the extreme of that list though. He's going to be 43 and he's been getting hurt at an increasing rate lately.

Aug 12, 2008: Right shoulder injury, 15-day DL.
Oct, 2007: Left off World Series roster with shoulder injury that had been bothering him for two months.
Sep 13, 2006: Missed 49 games (ribcage injury).
Jul 22, 2006: Ribcage injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to July 18).

[absintheofmalais...]

I'd be a hell of a lot more confident in Vazquez making it through the season without breaking down. Plus, there's the possibility of trading Lugo in such a deal.
I didn't say they'd be in a position to acquire a stud backup; I said it eliminates the possibility of acquiring a young catcher and having him groomed under someone like Varitek. There's just no way they allow a youngster to catch Wakefield. Talk about stunting someones development. Also, Wakefield wouldn't want to go for it, either.

Why would it preclude a young catcher from catching Wake and grooming him to take over for Tek? He could catch Wake one day and another pitcher on another day. Maybe even two more pitchers. I don't see any reason why it would stunt his development to catch Wake. Is it because he wouldn't be able to take advantage of the much vaunted Opposing Batters Preparation course that Tek would teach because you don't really need to set up a hitter with Wake? I've mentioned it before, but Wake is really the only knuckleball pitcher to have a personal catcher. Hough and Neikro only had a personal catcher for three years combined.
How do you know that Wakefield wouldn't go for it? I don't remember reading that he said that anywhere.

[Joshv02]

Vazquez and Lowe are better bets than Wakefield for 2009. Both are very good pitchers who average over 200 innings per season over the last 6 years. They are rarities in that they usually perform better than average and are durable. I don't think anyone really disputes that.

But:

Lowe will cost draft picks + $10mm (>than Wakefield) + a long term contract.
Vazquez will cost $23mm over two years (about $19mm > Wakefield + 1 extra committed year) + whatever prospects it takes to get him.

On the other hand, since 2003 (when he was made a starter), Wake has averaged over 180 innings per year and has never had an ERA+ below 100 (in fact, he has been consistently better than Vazquez on a per inning basis during that time). Additionally, only once has Wake had fewer than 180 innings during that time.

So, the analysis isn't "is Lowe/Vazquez going to be better than Wakefield in 2009", but rather "is Lowe/Vazquez going to be significantly better than Wakefield in 2009 so as to justify the lost prospects, increased salary, and increased annual commitment (which is small with Vazquez, but not zero)."

I think the answer to that is decidedly less obvious.

[Corsi Combover]

Wakefield has pitched over 180 IP the past two years, even after missing time. Coming from the back end of the rotation, that's about as much as you can hope for. Usually you worry about losing a 4th or 5th starter because you have to bench them due to suckage, it's more of a problem than the likelihood of injury.

I never once said Wakefield sucked or wasn't a bargain. He is. This team has the monetary advantage of being able to acquire better pitchers to fill his role. I'd prefer a guy I could rely on for 220 innings, but I digress.

If you think the Red Sox would pass up the chance to acquire a catcher for the future because of Tim Wakefield, well... I think you've backed yourself into a corner with a reactionary statement that you're unwilling to withdraw.

Really? I mean, the Sox had a veteran catcher under control (Varitek) for a number of years and never acquired a true youngster to fill a role on the Major League team because it would mean he'd have to catch Wakefield. We had a 28-year-old in Josh Bard and they aborted that idea pretty damn quickly. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I don't want him starting a game in the playoffs, but being able to put 180+ innings in the bank from your 4th or 5th starter for $4 million, that's a decision a child could make. So yes, I stand firm on my assessment.

Well, as of right now, he's starting a game in the playoffs. Wouldn't you rather someone like Derek Lowe in that role? The extra 40 innings of superior baseball, plus not being a total nightmare in the playoffs, is worth the $8M premium, IMO.

This post has been edited by Corsi Combover: Nov 17 2008, 11:32 AM

[Corsi Combover]

Why would it preclude a young catcher from catching Wake and grooming him to take over for Tek? He could catch Wake one day and another pitcher on another day. Maybe even two more pitchers. I don't see any reason why it would stunt his development to catch Wake. Is it because he wouldn't be able to take advantage of the much vaunted Opposing Batters Preparation course that Tek would teach because you don't really need to set up a hitter with Wake? I've mentioned it before, but Wake is really the only knuckleball pitcher to have a personal catcher. Hough and Neikro only had a personal catcher for three years combined.
How do you know that Wakefield wouldn't go for it? I don't remember reading that he said that anywhere.

First off, Wakefield was quoted as saying he'd retire when Mirabelli retired. Obviously, this didn't come to fruition, but he's not going to want a youngster catching him. He was not happy with Bard here.

And it would stunt a young catcher's growth because they'd be behind the plate freaking out constantly about catching the knuckleball. I just don't think that's fair to a youngster. Your point about pre-game preparation is a good one, as well.

[TomRicardo]

Oh, definitely. Pitchers, by nature, are brittle, with a few exceptions (two of which I named -- Lowe and Vazquez). Wakefield is on the extreme of that list though. He's going to be 43 and he's been getting hurt at an increasing rate lately.

Yet still pitching 370 better than league average IP in the last two years. Do you actually follow baseball? You seem to think that there are backup catchers can hit (or a starting catcher that goes everyday) and that 4/5 starters that pitch 185 IP of better than league average for 4 million are bad thing. Also you think it is a sure think that both Buchholz and Bowden can do better.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are getting at and looks like you are wagging your rotoworld tail because there might be more articles to link. Wakefield retiring is not a good thing.

[The Allented Mr ...]

I never once said Wakefield sucked or wasn't a bargain. He is. This team has the monetary advantage of being able to acquire better pitchers to fill his role. I'd prefer a guy I could rely on for 220 innings, but I digress.

List the 4th or 5th starters in MLB who pitched 220 innings this year. Come on. It'll be a short list.

Really? I mean, the Sox had a veteran catcher under control (Varitek) for a number of years and never acquired a true youngster to fill a role on the Major League team because it would mean he'd have to catch Wakefield. We had a 28-year-old in Josh Bard and they aborted that idea pretty damn quickly. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

How is the burden of proof on me, given your bolded statement? Are you a psychic? This FO has traded Nomar, let Pedro and Damon walk, and almost suspended Manny before dealing him, all in the name of making the team better. And you have the idiocy to claim they wouldn't upgrade at catcher because of Wakefield? And Josh Bard doesn't represent an upgrade anyway (one fluke year in SD does not an upgrade make), so your point is moot.

Well, as of right now, he's starting a game in the playoffs. Wouldn't you rather someone like Derek Lowe in that role? The extra 40 innings of superior baseball, plus not being a total nightmare in the playoffs, is worth the $8M premium, IMO.

Why not both? Half of my argument is that Wakefield can be your fifth starter, not your fourth. Keep Masterson in the pen. Bowden and Buchholz weren't making the Sox out of Spring Training anyway. Wake doesn't start in the playoffs.

This post has been edited by The Allented Mr Ripley: Nov 17 2008, 11:42 AM