I know it's impossible and won't happen, but I'd love to see them somehow ditch the fat panda, put Hanley back at third, put Rusney in left, and give JBJ the rest of the season in right.
Fix This Team: A Speculative Alternative to the Roster Shakeup Thread
- Thread starter koufax32
- Start date
johnnywayback said:
There's still the possibility of a Xander Bogaerts breakout, too. He keeps tantalizing and slipping back. The one thing that could revive this season and make it exciting is for either him or Betts to get really, really hot for a while, and I think he's just as good a candidate as Mookie.
soxhop411 said:
A player with 5/10 rights to reject any trade? Yes, that would shock plenty of us.
Maybe I'm Charlie Brown but I'm still optimistic. Other than catcher, the lineup they ran out there yesterday is the one most posters were advocating for prior to the season starting.
RF - Rusney
CF - Betts
LF - Hanley
1B - Napoli
2B - Pedroia
SS - Xander
3B - Sandoval
DH - Ortiz
C - Swihart
If I'm Ferrell, I'm telling these guys that I'll be running this lineup out there (with a dose of Holt) for the foreseeable future. That lineup has to hit at some point and while the thought of maximizing David Ortiz' trade value makes for an awesome discussion, he's not going anywhere.
RF - Rusney
CF - Betts
LF - Hanley
1B - Napoli
2B - Pedroia
SS - Xander
3B - Sandoval
DH - Ortiz
C - Swihart
If I'm Ferrell, I'm telling these guys that I'll be running this lineup out there (with a dose of Holt) for the foreseeable future. That lineup has to hit at some point and while the thought of maximizing David Ortiz' trade value makes for an awesome discussion, he's not going anywhere.
Montana Fan said:
I can't disagree with anything here. I'm less optimistic about a playoff berth than I was a couple weeks ago, but I'm still optimistic that the team is better than what they showed this past week and can finish the season respectably (and maybe make a run at a wildcard spot). That lineup, on paper, doesn't have a lot of holes. Question marks with the rookies, sure, but the vets should be producing more than they are and you have to think they will at some point.
Perhaps the way to get through this isn't shaking things up or drastic measures, it's going all Hackman and saying "my team is on the field" even if it seems flawed and letting these guys play their way out of it. They've got two months to the trade deadline. Shape up or it's deadline massacre time again and they bring up the kids like they did last year.
Montana Fan said:
Agreed. Either time will fix this team (they'll start scoring) or it won't.
This team has had something of the 2014 "Don't worry - it's early and we'll put it together" vibe about them. Even if they do start scoring, and improve to a .500 club, it's possible they've buried themselves. While they're only 4 games out, the fact is that they need to play better than every other AL East team going forward - no cushion, no future slumps, no bad road trips.
On the other hand, in terms of how they've played relative to the division, they've really only had a bad month. And even that month hasn't put them completely out of contention. It's possible for the Sox to hang in there, make the playoffs, and be dangerous in the post season. (There's a long time to go and a few key players could raise their game by then.)
I think the upcoming two weeks will be crucial. MIN and OAK at home. BAL away. TOR at home. If the Sox squander their chance to raise themselves in the standings against these (relatively) weak teams, they're probably going to be in a hole they're not going to dig themselves out of, no matter how much they gel in late summer. (FWIW, I think MIN is playing over their heads - the Sox should be able to at least split those games.
Farrell can't bat for these guys, but there needs to be a team sit-down/closed door meeting. Something has to change.
P'tucket said:
That's true. There's no chance David Ortiz would clear waivers. Some contending team absolutely would take a shot at him. Does that mean the Sox could get something useful for him? Uh….I don't know. Signing a guy on waivers is different than giving up something of value for him. Of course, the latter assures you get him while waivers means it's quite possible you don't.
Rovin Romine said:
I know we keep saying it, but one excellent two-week stretch (say, 11-2) puts this team right near the top of the division. They have plenty enough talent for that. Of course that doesn't mean it will happen, and I suspect pretty strongly that it won't. I think we'll just keep waiting for them to turn it on, without it ever happening.
ivanvamp said:
It boggles the mind how little this board cares for the history and traditions and legacy of the Red Sox and its great players. Y'all would have traded Williams or Yastrzemski or Rice at the end of their careers. I still regret having Dewey spending his last year in Baltimore.
JBJ_HOF said:
Your argument assumes that these deficiencies on Bogaerts' part are inherent and unfixable, rather than stages in a learning curve. What is your evidence for that assumption?
This happens in every sport for every team. Babe Ruth ended his career on the Braves. Sentimentality doesn't win games.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
That said, his contract vests each of the next two years if he gets 425 PA, and if he doesn't, he's likely to grumble rather loudly (unless he's hurt). No one is taking on that risk.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I won't speak for JBJ_HOF, but I'm not sure you need to argue Xander's deficiencies are inherent and unfixable to think Mookie has a better shot than Xander of breaking out this year.
I certainly think both could, and it wouldn't shock me if Xander did, but the numbers he posted give some weight to the idea that Mookie has a better chance.
radsoxfan said:
This kind of question depends on what kind of model of skill acquisition you think in terms of.
One way of thinking about hitters (and athletes in general) is that there are deeper and more foundational attributes (cognitive, coordinative, reflexes, etc.) as well as more conscious and teachable ones (form, balanced swing, approach, etc.)
I'm guessing JBJ_HOF sees that batch of peripheral numbers (Mookie has K'd 58 times in 438 plate appearances in the pros so far!) as suggesting Mookie has the latent ability to put a baseball bat on a baseball that transcends the realm of teachable. Whereas Xander is more of a "try-hard", who needs to master the aspects of the game within his grasp (plate approach, pitch recognition, etc.) to make the most of his swings.
ivanvamp said:
Doesn't the fact that we can say this about a last place team and currently one of the worst in baseball suggest that the leadership may be a problem? No one seems to think the issue is lack of talent. So if it's not that Farrell is a terrible manager what is it?
glennhoffmania said:
I haven't got the foggiest idea. Because I have no idea how ANY manager, no matter how bad, can suddenly turn good hitters into bad ones. And, as I posted yesterday, the Sox have a higher line drive rate and a lower strikeout rate than they've had in years and years, but are just not putting up runs. So I have no clue what the problem really is.
So I like this post a lot, but here's my main problem. As of today, the Red Sox are:Red(s)HawksFan said:
- 21st in baseball in runs scored.
- 28th in baseball in runs allowed.
Through two months of the season, the Red Sox have just been a bad team. If we're extrapolating from small samples, the game yesterday was emblematic of a team that just isn't very good at anything: batting, pitching, fielding, base running.
At what point do you question your overall assessment of them "on paper"? Or do you assume that there's not much to be done no matter what -- because of contracts and organizational depth the guys we have are the guys we have?
dynomite said:
That would require throwing out years of data that were used to come up with reasonable projections and that makes no sense. You can point to certain factors in certain cases to explain some of the under-performance, such as Ortiz' age or Betts' lack of experience. But in most cases there's no rational basis for what's going on. Napoli, Hanley, and Sandoval are not old players who should be falling off a cliff. Buchholz is the oldest starting pitcher at 30. Yet all eight of these players are having really shitty seasons. If the problem was Ortiz, Koji, Victorino and adjustments issues by Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Castillo but everyone else was performing at least decently then we aren't having this discussion.
I honestly don't know if Farrell can be blamed for the majority of the problems. But this is now two seasons in a row that the team seems to be performing well below what reasonable expectations would suggest.
Napoli, Hanley and Sandoval are all well below their career averages and recent production levels. Buchholz admittedly is a tough one considering his career fluctuations. Porcello's ERA is a run higher than his career average. Miley's even more than that, and although he came from the NL he had two years with an ERA in the mid 3's. Kelly is somewhat of a wild card but I don't think it was unreasonable to expect him to be better than this. Masterson looked done and was probably a dumb signing.
If this team has incredibly bad luck and is getting the worst from each player at the same time, ok. But I find that hard to believe.
If this team has incredibly bad luck and is getting the worst from each player at the same time, ok. But I find that hard to believe.
If these players' performances can be rationally explained and the team is one of the worst in the league, then the process of assembling a team is seriously flawed.
And, well, this will be third year in four that the team is in the bottom25% in the league yet has carried a payroll in the top 20 percent. Ben's process, particularly evaluating major league talent, appears fatally flawed.
Compounding this is the long term deals given to players who are either declining or not very good. It's remarkable. I'm guessing Farrell will be axed before Ben, but both should be sweating. What is unknown here is whether the FO pushed for signing Panda and Hanley in hopes of keeping season ticket holders happy.
How do u fix it? U have to hope Mookie, Castillo, swihart and bogaerts play better. They have most upside to baseline given we haven't established ceilings yet. Same for Eduardo and Barnes.
They need another starter who can pitch 7ipand give up 2-3 runs every start. No clue where that comes from.
And, well, this will be third year in four that the team is in the bottom25% in the league yet has carried a payroll in the top 20 percent. Ben's process, particularly evaluating major league talent, appears fatally flawed.
Compounding this is the long term deals given to players who are either declining or not very good. It's remarkable. I'm guessing Farrell will be axed before Ben, but both should be sweating. What is unknown here is whether the FO pushed for signing Panda and Hanley in hopes of keeping season ticket holders happy.
How do u fix it? U have to hope Mookie, Castillo, swihart and bogaerts play better. They have most upside to baseline given we haven't established ceilings yet. Same for Eduardo and Barnes.
They need another starter who can pitch 7ipand give up 2-3 runs every start. No clue where that comes from.
it's possible Brian Johnson can do that. certainly not a given, but I'd like to see if he can. but they'd still need to hit better.Clears Cleaver said:
I think the pitching has slowly but surely improved enough to consider that portion of the roster patched up if not really completely fixed yet. They are still undoing the incredible suck, so it will take a while before they settle in to what they actually are yet.
Baseball Prospectus used to use managing metrics in their yearly projections book.
Certain things can be measured such as successful hit and runs, SB%, strand rates after pitching changes, pinch hits, pitching performance after 90 pitches relative to the rest of the league, sends from 3rd base resulting in outs, pick offs, shifts, bunts etc. These are things where coaching has to assess if the right players can execute or if they can outguess the competition.
Baseball Prospectus used to use managing metrics in their yearly projections book.
Certain things can be measured such as successful hit and runs, SB%, strand rates after pitching changes, pinch hits, pitching performance after 90 pitches relative to the rest of the league, sends from 3rd base resulting in outs, pick offs, shifts, bunts etc. These are things where coaching has to assess if the right players can execute or if they can outguess the competition.
I heard some analysis on the radio this morning - talking about how the team was filled with #3 pitchers; didn't have any speed; played station to station baseball; was relying on the HR but not getting it; not having a true lead-off hitter; and not getting any real contributions from established stars.
Of course they were talking about the Orioles.
Of course you can explain why people don't perform to their expectations. You can also explain when people outperform their expectations. But people spend a lot of money trying to figure out a likely projection of their performance, and to have virtually every person on their team underperform is, well, unlikely.
But it's happening.
I guess the one thing that can be said of the roster construction is that the RS have a lot of similar pieces. They have pitchers who pitch the same; hitters who hit the same. They don't seem to have a lot of complimentary pieces. They also aren't getting any impact performances. Their highest position WAR as of right now is Mookie, who is tied for 38th (1.6 WAR), and the next highest is Pedroia (1.3 WAR, tied for 62nd) and then Brock Holt (at 1.0 WAR).
As for pitching WAR, the Sox don't have anyone over 1.0 (Tazawa). In fact, ERod's 0.5 WAR is tied for first (with Clay) so maybe he is the "Ace."
One other thing - BOS has 6.0 OWar and -1.6 DWar so maybe it's not the pitching and the offense, maybe it's the defense.
Of course they were talking about the Orioles.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Of course you can explain why people don't perform to their expectations. You can also explain when people outperform their expectations. But people spend a lot of money trying to figure out a likely projection of their performance, and to have virtually every person on their team underperform is, well, unlikely.
But it's happening.
I guess the one thing that can be said of the roster construction is that the RS have a lot of similar pieces. They have pitchers who pitch the same; hitters who hit the same. They don't seem to have a lot of complimentary pieces. They also aren't getting any impact performances. Their highest position WAR as of right now is Mookie, who is tied for 38th (1.6 WAR), and the next highest is Pedroia (1.3 WAR, tied for 62nd) and then Brock Holt (at 1.0 WAR).
As for pitching WAR, the Sox don't have anyone over 1.0 (Tazawa). In fact, ERod's 0.5 WAR is tied for first (with Clay) so maybe he is the "Ace."
One other thing - BOS has 6.0 OWar and -1.6 DWar so maybe it's not the pitching and the offense, maybe it's the defense.
Maybe they can dig up Rick or Wes Ferrell to manage the team.Montana Fan said:
I'm surprised that the one or two, or was it more SOSHers that predicted that getting Sandoval was a bad move haven't shown up with the told you sos.
Rudy Pemberton said:
You may be right. I'm more searching for answers than offering any at this point. Some of it seems odd to me, however. Yes, Napoli is 33. But his wRC+ the last four years are 116, 129, 124, 102. Is this due to age? Maybe. He can also certainly still end up closer to last year if he continues to improve. But I don't buy that a 33 year old all of the sudden lost the ability to hit.
Hanley at 31 should not be on a decline. And maybe he isn't, and he just went through a slump. But he's looked awful at times and it took Pedroia to fix his swing apparently. Same with Napoli. Both of these cases suggest a coaching issue, not an age issue.
Porcello's HR% is up and his GB% is way down. He's not having bad BABIP luck. When a ground ball pitcher starts giving up a bunch of homers and fewer ground balls, shouldn't someone notice and fix that?
Who the hell knows. If you have low expectations, like I did in 2012, and the team sucks, no big deal. This is easily the most frustrating season I've ever watched.
With our franchise's ability to actually field a competitive team in the next few years looking more doubtful every day, do people really think the brain trust will pass up the payday of the Jeteresque Big Papi Farewell Tour in exchange for some middling prospect?ivanvamp said:
The organization had a philosophy for putting together a winning team this year. You have to give it more than two months to work out. Players slump; line drives don't find holes on offense while bleeders get through on defense. Everyone has shown signs: Hanley started out great before nicking his shoulder; Napoli won player of the week; Ortiz is still hitting righties fine, Pedroia has been great once you adjust for the new lower offensive environment, Betts is killing the ball but not finding holes, and Swihart has shown some signs of life. Buchholz is going for his 5th consecutive quality start, Porcello had a nice run before his two clunkers, Miley has stabilized, and Kelly is inconsistent; in the bullpen, Uehara has been great.
That said, there are things that just shouldn't be happening. Farrell can't pitch or hit, but the baserunning mistakes and defensive lapses (I'm not talking about physical errors) have to fall on the coaching staff and the motivation and general preparation of the team. Farrell also presided over two disappointing years in Toronto, in which a lot of young players underperformed. The 2013 team was veteran heavy; maybe, like Nieves, Farrell is a fine baseball man who is a bad fit for this group.
In Ben C's case, to me the two biggest flaws in his 2015 team building strategy were signing Pablo Sandoval and not acquiring or signing a relief ace. Sandoval has been good on offense against righties, but seems to be aging in dog years in year 1 of a 5 year disaster. I'm sure the number crunchers will say the lack of a relief ace has only cost them 0.65987432 wins so far, and that no reliever could ever be worth more than 3.5642394 wins over an entire season. But, those numbers assume that the performance of all other pitchers on the staff is independent of the quality of player in the role of relief ace, and that the manager would make the exact same moves with replacement-level relief-ace A as he would if he had stud relief-ace B (note, I don't mean using a replacement level pitcher as the relief ace, I mean using Ogando as the relief ace instead of Wade Davis).
That said, there are things that just shouldn't be happening. Farrell can't pitch or hit, but the baserunning mistakes and defensive lapses (I'm not talking about physical errors) have to fall on the coaching staff and the motivation and general preparation of the team. Farrell also presided over two disappointing years in Toronto, in which a lot of young players underperformed. The 2013 team was veteran heavy; maybe, like Nieves, Farrell is a fine baseball man who is a bad fit for this group.
In Ben C's case, to me the two biggest flaws in his 2015 team building strategy were signing Pablo Sandoval and not acquiring or signing a relief ace. Sandoval has been good on offense against righties, but seems to be aging in dog years in year 1 of a 5 year disaster. I'm sure the number crunchers will say the lack of a relief ace has only cost them 0.65987432 wins so far, and that no reliever could ever be worth more than 3.5642394 wins over an entire season. But, those numbers assume that the performance of all other pitchers on the staff is independent of the quality of player in the role of relief ace, and that the manager would make the exact same moves with replacement-level relief-ace A as he would if he had stud relief-ace B (note, I don't mean using a replacement level pitcher as the relief ace, I mean using Ogando as the relief ace instead of Wade Davis).
glennhoffmania said:
Hanley is hurt. His shoulder injury coincided very neatly with his regression. And even then he's got a more-than-respectable 115 wRC+ on the year. Has Hanley regressed at the plate at all? Or are his contributions there getting neutralized by bumbling elsewhere?
Isn't it possible that Porcello's 2015 approach is different than before? His strikeout rate is higher than ever and he's giving up more lasers than ever. Maybe the Red Sox are trying to change Porcello into a more valuable pitcher and its blowing up in their faces? I dunno, he does seem to be elevating a lot of fastballs for a guy who was advertised to be a groundball pitcher.
Not even going to touch Napoli. I'll grant that one to the "bad luck" crowd. Him looking cooked is just weird.
Here's the thread, it was more than one or twoAl Zarilla said:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/86765-red-sox-pablo-sandoval-agree-to-5-year-100-millionish-deal/?hl=sandoval
I might be mistaken - please, feel free to correct if I am - but I seem to recall the conventional wisdom being that lumbering sluggers over thirty are the exact type of players who age poorly, particularly if they were injury-prone to begin with. I guess I am just wondering if it really is (or was, I guess, if his struggles really are behind him) all that surprising that Napoli looked so done earlier in the year?The X Man Cometh said:
1. The season is basically over after two months; only a handful of teams who started 22-29 have made the playoffs, and none with as bad a run differential have in history. They basically have to hope that they can completely turn around their run differential and that the rest of the division stays bad. They should be looking to next year right now.Plympton91 said:
2. Agree on Sandoval, but you seem to be suggesting they get a Wade Davis / Dellin Betances guy who can go multiple high-leverage innings at an extremely high level. If you can acquire these guys before they're well known without paying a lot in players or money, well, you should probably have a job with an MLB team. Is it really a mistake to not acquire a guy that only 4 or 5 teams can say they have? I mean, Tazawa has a 1.6 ERA and is on pace to throw >70 IP...and they still suck.
If you're instead suggesting that they should have had a stronger bullpen, well, I'm sure they agree with you, but that's also easier said than done.
dynomite said:
And the good news is I think we are underperforming our talent level. I think expecting this team to be 21st in runs scored or 28th in runs allowed going forward is probably unrealistically pessimistic and I will take the over. Sure things can continue this way, but I trust the reasonable projections ahead of the 50 game sample in determining what we should look like over 162.
So this team should regress to their ability and win more games as a result. Whether that will be enough or not depends on what other teams do in our division, and how much we improve, and also if we benefit from a small sample hot streak where we out perform our talents for a few weeks as much as we underperformed in May.
For the month of May we didn't really have any batter outperform their expectations, and we had Hanley, Panda, Papi, Blake, and Holt all underperform. Similarly Miley, Clay, and Wright all performed at reasonable expectations, while Kelly, Porcello, and Masterson all performed worse than could be expected, and nobody performed better. So if you were to do some reasonable projections for June, July, August, September, you would expect us to be likely to be better at preventing runs and scoring runs in each of those months, and that the depressing month of May is not indicative of who this team is. To have weathered it and only be a few games back is really pretty glass half full encouraging unless you somehow think May is who this team actually is.
Minnesota is a good team, but we are playing them at home while all four division opponents are playing tough road series. If we can shake off Texas and play some good baseball, I think there will be more optimism and a better position in the standings in one week.
Danny_Darwin said:
You're not. But -IF- Mike is who he's been minus his little Anaheim revenge tour? And he's healthy as advertised... You expect something remotely gradual. He's looked confused. And then you have to question if the premise is even true - he has a track record of alternating between being Jeff Francouer and Barry Bonds on a month-to-month basis. And before the year he was talking about getting facial surgery and being in the best spot he's been in years. The whole thing is very sudden. I guess I'm just very surprised if continues.
The X Man Cometh said:
Spot on an all three, and I was starting to write the same when I saw yours and deleted.
However I think Porcello throwing some high 4-seam fastballs will make him a better pitcher over the course of his contract, but clearly this adjustment in approach hasn't been executed well and lead to some unpleasant results. Most of the damage I have seen has been on badly executed location, so it is hard to fault the approach yet when the execution hasn't been good.
If he isn't capable of executing those pitches better then don't throw them and go with what got you here, but as a coach coming up with a game plan and as a catcher calling pitches, I think executed high 4-seam fastballs will make him a more effective pitcher and make his low 2-seam more useful at getting ground balls. He doesn't have a punishing sinker like Kevin Brown or Lowe, so he does need to mix it up more than those guys did. But like Joe Kelly, he absolutely has to be better at executing whatever pitches are called or it doesn't matter what he throws.
Toe Nash said:
If your data is correct it still is irrelevant because it doesn't account for a division as badly performing as ours (an historical rarity) and the second wildcard (a recent novelty). What this team does depends on what they can do over four months, not what they have done over two. If you think they are likely to be as bad as they have been, then by all means the season isn't going anywhere.
You also conclude that they *should* be looking to next year right now. That implies that the value added by giving up now exceeds what is lost. What is lost includes both the chances that they can be competitive over the 2015 season, and the idea that worst-first-worst-worst is not any worse for fan base / revenues / returning player confidence / ability to attract free agents than worst-first-worst-competitive.
I see little room for where giving up on 2015 and thinking instead about 2016 makes any huge difference or offers any advantage compared to playing to win June games. So in addition to questioning your data and projections for this season, I also disagree with your *should* characterization.
Even Billy Beane (8.5 out) hasn't done anything to blow up 2015 yet. There is an advantage to pulling the trigger early on an improvement and not waiting to the trade deadline, but I just don't see any advantage to pulling the trigger early on a giving up on a season.
Plympton91 said:
Good post. I don't really agree that Sandoval is a 5 year disaster, and I don't think a relief ace would make this team any better right now, but otherwise this seems like a reasonable summary of the team right now.
koufax37 said:
Some good points. There are two questions:
1. What could be done to allow the team to sneak into the second wild card spot, or, given the weak division, perhaps an outright division win?
2. What does it take to get this team back to 90+ wins on a reasonably consistent basis?
I think the second question is going to take more than one offseason. You can't buy a 95 win team with a 300 to 500 million offseason anymore. Now that they have revenue sharing, fixed slot bonuses, and PED testing, baseball has become like the other major sports. You have to build your core through the draft and use free agency judiciously. And to that end, I think the Red Sox have no choice but to give the kids a longer leash and truly find out what they have. Selling low on them would merely let them buy some free agents and get to 80-85 wins.
To expand on the trading Ortiz/Napoli point a bit.
It's way too early for a "blow it up" thread - but really, what do the Sox have to sell in a blow up scenario? Last year we had great FA-to-be pitching and no offense. This year, it's mediocre all around (so far).
I can't see any Sox that are pending FAs who might net a significant return, or anyone who, if traded, wouldn't have to be replaced with a FA. There's just Napoli and Masterson (and Vic). So unless Napoli heats up, there's no value. So unless the Sox are planning on making a huge push to sign a particular FA, they're really best off playing what they have and letting the kids develop. Unless they can package multiple players into a true long term solution at a position of need. But that does not really make sense since with Betts (CF/2B), Bogaerts (SS), Castillo (CF), Vazquez/Swihart (C) they already have their up the middle lottery tickets (so to speak). (I mean, what are you going to do - package Bogaerts with someone to get an OF and then search for a SS?) Sandoval and Hanley could end up at 1B/DH, so I don't think the Sox would trade for a premier 1B/DH bat.
The deep depth has run out quickly. I'm getting resigned to this being a "bridge year" for Betts/Bogaerts/Castillo/Vasquez/Swihart/Kelly/etc.
It's way too early for a "blow it up" thread - but really, what do the Sox have to sell in a blow up scenario? Last year we had great FA-to-be pitching and no offense. This year, it's mediocre all around (so far).
I can't see any Sox that are pending FAs who might net a significant return, or anyone who, if traded, wouldn't have to be replaced with a FA. There's just Napoli and Masterson (and Vic). So unless Napoli heats up, there's no value. So unless the Sox are planning on making a huge push to sign a particular FA, they're really best off playing what they have and letting the kids develop. Unless they can package multiple players into a true long term solution at a position of need. But that does not really make sense since with Betts (CF/2B), Bogaerts (SS), Castillo (CF), Vazquez/Swihart (C) they already have their up the middle lottery tickets (so to speak). (I mean, what are you going to do - package Bogaerts with someone to get an OF and then search for a SS?) Sandoval and Hanley could end up at 1B/DH, so I don't think the Sox would trade for a premier 1B/DH bat.
The deep depth has run out quickly. I'm getting resigned to this being a "bridge year" for Betts/Bogaerts/Castillo/Vasquez/Swihart/Kelly/etc.
The problem with trade speculation, as I see it, is the Sox only have two players consistently good enough, and cheap enough, at the MLB level for some other team to gamble away one or more impact prospect to acquire: Pedroia and Tazawa.
You could add Napoli and Ortiz if either or both get hot for a month or two...but if that happens, the team likely wouldn't want to sell, anyway, given the weak division.
Pedroia would obviously command the best return, and Mookie could shift over to 2b. But that's not remotely likely, so the next question is, what could you get for Taz?
On the flip side, the Sox must be cognizant that there's not enough talent even in a loaded farm, to buy all the needed pieces to "fix" the team as it's been playing. If it's just to make the team bail water faster, then trading away A-ball studs for a bigger bucket is foolish.
Realistically, firing Farrell and/or Chili to try to catch some Orioles '10 magic is about the best they can do in-seson before the draft. After that point, then the FO and baseball ops should be fair game, too.
You could add Napoli and Ortiz if either or both get hot for a month or two...but if that happens, the team likely wouldn't want to sell, anyway, given the weak division.
Pedroia would obviously command the best return, and Mookie could shift over to 2b. But that's not remotely likely, so the next question is, what could you get for Taz?
On the flip side, the Sox must be cognizant that there's not enough talent even in a loaded farm, to buy all the needed pieces to "fix" the team as it's been playing. If it's just to make the team bail water faster, then trading away A-ball studs for a bigger bucket is foolish.
Realistically, firing Farrell and/or Chili to try to catch some Orioles '10 magic is about the best they can do in-seson before the draft. After that point, then the FO and baseball ops should be fair game, too.
Hagios said:
1) I think playing better baseball with the guys we have is the biggest key. Getting a better starter (Hamels) would be great if it can be done without weakening our team long term and hurting your second question. I like the 25 man roster we have a lot more than 22-29 195RF 243RA.
2) Better scouting/decision making/luck. Sometimes meaning earlier in the process decisions (identifying that Lester isn't a mirage and signing 6/120 before FA, pushing harder for Andrew Miller, etc), since the big free agent signings are almost always Winner's Curse. But drafting and developing better than your opponents whether analytics, scouting, coaching, or luck really remains the key. You don't have to put away your pocketbook (but signing Hamilton instead of Greinke can kill you).
Team Stats
April
Runs: 113 (#3), 5.1 per game
OPS: .711 (#12)
ERA: 5.04 (#30)
WHIP: 1.36 (#22)
May
Runs: 82 (#30), 2.8 per game
OPS: .663 (#25)
ERA: 4.13 (#23)
WHIP: 1.36 (#26)
So from April to May, the pitching has improved nearly a full run per game in ERA, but the offense has dropped off 2.3 runs per game.
Holy crap.
April
Runs: 113 (#3), 5.1 per game
OPS: .711 (#12)
ERA: 5.04 (#30)
WHIP: 1.36 (#22)
May
Runs: 82 (#30), 2.8 per game
OPS: .663 (#25)
ERA: 4.13 (#23)
WHIP: 1.36 (#26)
So from April to May, the pitching has improved nearly a full run per game in ERA, but the offense has dropped off 2.3 runs per game.
Holy crap.
I imagine the following teams have very similar threads on their fan sites:
Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, White Sox, Angels, Mariners, Padres - 8 touted teams that are performing very poorly after 2 months.
We are not alone.
BTW:
AL East: The Yankees, Rays and Jays are about 2.5 wins under 3rd order Pythagorean predictions. Sox and Orioles are about 1/2 a game under
AL Central: The White Sox are about 4 wins over their projections (Twins are 8 wins over!)
AL West: Mariners are close to where they should be. Angels are ~2 games over.
NL West: Padres are about 2.5 games over where they should be.
(for reference, the A's are the most excruciating - at a baseball low ~9 wins below projections)
Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, White Sox, Angels, Mariners, Padres - 8 touted teams that are performing very poorly after 2 months.
We are not alone.
BTW:
AL East: The Yankees, Rays and Jays are about 2.5 wins under 3rd order Pythagorean predictions. Sox and Orioles are about 1/2 a game under
AL Central: The White Sox are about 4 wins over their projections (Twins are 8 wins over!)
AL West: Mariners are close to where they should be. Angels are ~2 games over.
NL West: Padres are about 2.5 games over where they should be.
(for reference, the A's are the most excruciating - at a baseball low ~9 wins below projections)
To those advocating canning Farrell, who is out there to take his spot?
I'm not saying it isn't worth exploring, but there isn't a Joe Maddon or Buck Showalter out there. Love em or hate em, those guys are great tactical managers who the Red Sox haven't had in a while. PLAYOFF Tito was great, but overall he was known as the ultimate players manager.
I could see maybe Varitek down the line, but indications have been he isn't ready for full time baseball yet.
It seems like they could use a red ass like Matheny.
I'm not saying it isn't worth exploring, but there isn't a Joe Maddon or Buck Showalter out there. Love em or hate em, those guys are great tactical managers who the Red Sox haven't had in a while. PLAYOFF Tito was great, but overall he was known as the ultimate players manager.
I could see maybe Varitek down the line, but indications have been he isn't ready for full time baseball yet.
It seems like they could use a red ass like Matheny.
Hagios said:
I agree with this and think it's the new normal, which is why I'm very much opposed to giving up prospects for Hamels. The Sox need to find some impact talent. They aren't going to be able to buy it on the FA market anymore, so the only way they are going to do that is to play a bunch of them and see which ones can succeed and which ones can't.
Sure I wish Betts, Bogaerts, Blake, BEdRod, BriJo, etc. etc. etc. would be immediate all-star level players. But the percentages say at least a few of them aren't going to be anything special, and at least a couple aren't even going to be major leaguers and fortunately or unfortunately, the only way to find out is to play them.
grimshaw said:
Well - first I think you have to identify what the failings of Farrell are. We all know that he's a poor in-game manager. But the issue here (presumably) seems to be a motivational problem. If the batters are pressing too much or have stopped listening to the coaches then the prime candidate would seem to be someone with good motivational skills. (or can scare the bejeebers out of them).
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
The bigger reason I am reluctant to giving up prospects for Hamels is that Blake and Mookie as the prospects in question, are more likely to exceed their contract value than Hamels over the next few years. I think Hamels is a great player and will continue to be, and I really want to get him, but his contract is likely to be somewhat even with his performance value, while Mookie can clearly exceed his as a cost controlled young player.
I still am happy to trade Mookie if the offer is one that the performance-cost of what comes back exceeds the performance-cost we expect from Mookie. But that would involve a subsidized Hamels (or a projection more optimistic than my own rosy one), or some reason to view Mookie as a mirage and not likely to be a 3-5 WAR player over the next few seasons.
One of the keys in making moves is identifying who is Betts and who is JBJ earlier than your trade partner, or who is Lars Anderson and who is Bagwell. A well run organization should always have a better grasp of these things than another organization looking in, even with the uncertainty that swirls.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
How do we "know" this? We watch him every day and see a bunch of his decisions not work out. The same criticism was made of Tito, who won two World Series' with the Sox and routinely won 90+ games. If we had Showalter or Madden here and saw them every day, we'd have tons of their failed decisions to criticize too.
I mean, it may be true that Farrell is a bad in-game manager. But how, really, can you tell?