I feel like there are two parts to this post that share almost no coherence.radsoxfan said:People need to stop assuming he was healthy. He didn't go on the DL, that doesn't mean he was healthy. If his defense is any indication, Grady had reached some "new normal" in which he is just chronically diminished. I'm not sure that counts as healthy, at least in any useful sense of the word.
Dwyane Wade played every game in the NBA playoffs this year. His knees are still falling apart.
What other options? I recall last spring, and the only other option I recall was Mauro Gomez. That's hardly "other options". And it all worked out anyway; Bradley got most of his at bats last year in AAA, and acquitted himself reasonably well. And while I thought he could have used some more at bats at Pawtucket this year, it didn't work out that way for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with last season's "hot spring". Both the decision process and the results in 2013 were sound when it came to JBJ.Super Nomario said:It's true that JBJ wouldn't have been on the roster without Ortiz' injury, but that wasn't the only reason Bradley made the team. They had other options. They elected to go with a guy who had 61 games above A-ball because he had a hot spring.
Maybe it's selective/faulty memory on my part, but it seems like we haven't had great success with oft-injured player reclamation projects since... Bill Mueller? Guys like Wade Miller, Andrew Bailey, and Grady Sizemore have been high profile busts. I know they don't cost a ton in terms of money or prospects (although Josh Reddick turned out decent), but the return value here seems to have been pretty poor. Maybe the Sox need to recalibrate their thinking towards these players, given the additional opportunity cost of not playing say, promising minor leaguers because their spots are blocked by these declining vets. Which is interesting as the Red Sox seem to be one of the more risk averse teams now relative to their budget.
Can people think of a team that has had a good run with these reclamation projects?
Reverend said:I feel like there are two parts to this post that share almost no coherence.
Unless your point is that joint health in the long term view has no correlation with performance. Which I suppose could be true, but then I'd still be unsure as to what you were getting at.
radsoxfan said:
People need to stop assuming he was healthy. He didn't go on the DL, that doesn't mean he was healthy. If his defense is any indication, Grady had reached some "new normal" in which he is just chronically diminished. I'm not sure that counts as healthy, at least in any useful sense of the word.
Dwyane Wade played every game in the NBA playoffs this year. His knees are still falling apart.
Ha, well I agree with you there. I have no problem describing Sizemore as healthy in that sense.joe dokes said:
That's a fair point. My use of "healthy" was meant to mean "uninjured" in the traumatic sense. Like I would describe a relative as being a "healthy" 80-year old (or maybe describe sizemore the same way .
Quintanariffic said:So let me get this straight. People are upset we didn't DFA Sizemore and his .216/.288/.324 line in favor of Daniel Nava and his .204/.301/.296 line? Was the difference between those lines supposed to cubically transform the rest of the offense into not sucking? Good grief. The amount of ex-post facto dick-waving in this thread is ludicrous.
Hey - look at me! Look at how smart I am by pointing to a move that didn't work out for Cherrington! Sure wish I didn't have this economics job holding me back, otherwise I'd be a shoo-in for the next important position to open up on Yawkey Way!
Get over yourselves people. There's no evidence this move cost the Sox anything other than a million bucks. Any attempt to prove otherwise is futile hindsight in an attempt to see one's screen name appear on the internet.
lexrageorge said:What other options? I recall last spring, and the only other option I recall was Mauro Gomez. That's hardly "other options". And it all worked out anyway; Bradley got most of his at bats last year in AAA, and acquitted himself reasonably well. And while I thought he could have used some more at bats at Pawtucket this year, it didn't work out that way for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with last season's "hot spring". Both the decision process and the results in 2013 were sound when it came to JBJ.
This strikes me as a borderline hysterical reponse to some rather gentle criticism of the GM.Quintanariffic said:So let me get this straight. People are upset we didn't DFA Sizemore and his .216/.288/.324 line in favor of Daniel Nava and his .204/.301/.296 line? Was the difference between those lines supposed to cubically transform the rest of the offense into not sucking? Good grief. The amount of ex-post facto dick-waving in this thread is ludicrous.
Hey - look at me! Look at how smart I am by pointing to a move that didn't work out for Cherrington! Sure wish I didn't have this economics job holding me back, otherwise I'd be a shoo-in for the next important position to open up on Yawkey Way!
Get over yourselves people. There's no evidence this move cost the Sox anything other than a million bucks. Any attempt to prove otherwise is futile hindsight in an attempt to see one's screen name appear on the internet.
Quintanariffic said:So let me get this straight. People are upset we didn't DFA Sizemore and his .216/.288/.324 line in favor of Daniel Nava and his .204/.301/.296 line? Was the difference between those lines supposed to cubically transform the rest of the offense into not sucking? Good grief. The amount of ex-post facto dick-waving in this thread is ludicrous.
Hey - look at me! Look at how smart I am by pointing to a move that didn't work out for Cherrington! Sure wish I didn't have this economics job holding me back, otherwise I'd be a shoo-in for the next important position to open up on Yawkey Way!
Get over yourselves people. There's no evidence this move cost the Sox anything other than a million bucks. Any attempt to prove otherwise is futile hindsight in an attempt to see one's screen name appear on the internet.
This, and other posts like it, would carry more credibility if they didn't say, "poor Danny Nava got sent down ONLY because of those 67 PAs." Nava also had an option and he caught the short end. He isn't the first guy and won't be the last.4. only to realise by April 10 he could not really play CF.
5. then give him the LF job over, and send to the minors, one of the better LFers in baseball last year, based on Nava's poor initial 2014 67 PAs
Thanks, I did forget about Ryan Sweeney. Duly noted.Red(s)HawksFan said:
They had another option that they DFAd to make room for JBJ on the 40-man roster, and his name was Ryan Sweeney. Granted, he's not going to wow anyone, but Sweeney was and always has been a competent defensive outfielder who could have handled LF part time in those three weeks while Gomes and Nava were rotated through the DH spot in Ortiz's place. And given JBJ's struggles, it's not like Sweeney's bat would have likely been any worse...arguably he might have been better. At the very least, keeping him and leaving JBJ off the 40-man at the start of the year would have fit their general philosophy of maintaining control of as many assets as possible. But JBJ put up a 1.120 OPS in spring while Sweeney had a robust .547. How can it be argued that JBJ didn't win the job based on his spring performance?
Actually, my main criticism is not with sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April, but with the signing of Sizemore, which led to a scenario where sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April became plausible on the off chance that Grady! was reborn.joe dokes said:This, and other posts like it, would carry more credibility if they didn't say, "poor Danny Nava got sent down ONLY because of those 67 PAs." Nava also had an option and he caught the short end. He isn't the first guy and won't be the last.
They also wanted to see what Sizemore could bring to the bat. As of April 10, it seemed like more than zero. And one of the only ways to do that was to take advantage of the fact that Nava had options, which they did on 4/23, which was also done with Victorino's return in sight.
KillerBs said:Actually, my main criticism is not with sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April, but with the signing of Sizemore, which led to a scenario where sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April became plausible on the off chance that Grady! was reborn.
I think most of the people pointing to this as an avoidable mistake said it was a mistake ex ante, are confused by the Pro-Sizemore group's insistence on using a 3 week slump by Nava as their justification for putting up with the mistake, are concerned about how the choice of Sizemore over Nava fits into what is seemingly becoming a pattern of John Farrell's use of small sample sizes and streaks as key decision factors rather than the more SABR approach that has been the hallmark of the front office's biggest successes, and for that matter don't see how giving at bats to a guy who was unlikely to succeed and unlikely to be here in 2015 if he did fits with the "bridge year" philosophy.Quintanariffic said:So let me get this straight. People are upset we didn't DFA Sizemore and his .216/.288/.324 line in favor of Daniel Nava and his .204/.301/.296 line? Was the difference between those lines supposed to cubically transform the rest of the offense into not sucking? Good grief. The amount of ex-post facto dick-waving in this thread is ludicrous.
Hey - look at me! Look at how smart I am by pointing to a move that didn't work out for Cherrington! Sure wish I didn't have this economics job holding me back, otherwise I'd be a shoo-in for the next important position to open up on Yawkey Way!
Get over yourselves people. There's no evidence this move cost the Sox anything other than a million bucks. Any attempt to prove otherwise is futile hindsight in an attempt to see one's screen name appear on the internet.
KillerBs said:Actually, my main criticism is not with sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April, but with the signing of Sizemore, which led to a scenario where sending Nava down in the 3rd week of April became plausible on the off chance that Grady! was reborn.
But you raise a good point. I am struggling to think of other instances ever of a player coming off a 126 OPS+ type year in more or less full time duty getting sent to AAA that early in the following year. More or less unprecedented to my recall, but I could be wrong.
Gomez (or Ryan Sweeney, mentioned above) were more major league ready and almost certainly would have bested Bradley's .392 OPS. And Bradley was a guy who had to play every day for development reasons. A guy like Gomez or Sweeney could have just filled in and would have let them start Carp (who got only 7 PA through 4/20) at DH.lexrageorge said:What other options? I recall last spring, and the only other option I recall was Mauro Gomez. That's hardly "other options".
It was almost immediately obvious starting Bradley was a mistake (he was relegated to the bench after just 10 starts), but of course they won the World Series anyway. It was a rare mis-step in a year full of good FO moves. What's concerning is it seems like they made an almost identical mistake with Sizemore this spring.lexrageorge said:And it all worked out anyway; Bradley got most of his at bats last year in AAA, and acquitted himself reasonably well. And while I thought he could have used some more at bats at Pawtucket this year, it didn't work out that way for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with last season's "hot spring". Both the decision process and the results in 2013 were sound when it came to JBJ.
That's simply not true. Sizemore had shown he had the ability to hit ML pitching, it was his health that was the major concern going into spring training. He ended ST "healthy" (hat tip to radsox) and that's what won him the job.Super Nomario said:It was almost immediately obvious starting Bradley was a mistake (he was relegated to the bench after just 10 starts), but of course they won the World Series anyway. It was a rare mis-step in a year full of good FO moves. What's concerning is it seems like they made an almost identical mistake with Sizemore this spring.
Plympton91 said:I think most of the people pointing to this as an avoidable mistake said it was a mistake ex ante, are confused by the Pro-Sizemore group's insistence on using a 3 week slump by Nava as their justification for putting up with the mistake, are concerned about how the choice of Sizemore over Nava fits into what is seemingly becoming a pattern of John Farrell's use of small sample sizes and streaks as key decision factors rather than the more SABR approach that has been the hallmark of the front office's biggest successes, and for that matter don't see how giving at bats to a guy who was unlikely to succeed and unlikely to be here in 2015 if he did fits with the "bridge year" philosophy.
I don't understand how an intelligent person can speak in absolutes like "that's simply not true." Are you 100% convinced that if Sizemore had given the same indications of "health" but had hit .220/.280/.379 (as he did in his last 435 MLB PAs across 2010-2011) or .216/.288/.324 (as he did this year once the games started counting) instead of .310/.356/.429, that he still would have made the squad? I'm dubious.MakMan44 said:That's simply not true. Sizemore had shown he had the ability to hit ML pitching, it was his health that was the major concern going into spring training. He ended ST "healthy" (hat tip to radsox) and that's what won him the job.
Super Nomario said:I don't understand how an intelligent person can speak in absolutes like "that's simply not true." Are you 100% convinced that if Sizemore had given the same indications of "health" but had hit .220/.280/.379 (as he did in his last 435 MLB PAs across 2010-2011) or .216/.288/.324 (as he did this year once the games started counting) instead of .310/.356/.429, that he still would have made the squad? I'm dubious.
Plympton91 said:I think most of the people pointing to this as an avoidable mistake said it was a mistake ex ante, are confused by the Pro-Sizemore group's insistence on using a 3 week slump by Nava as their justification for putting up with the mistake, are concerned about how the choice of Sizemore over Nava fits into what is seemingly becoming a pattern of John Farrell's use of small sample sizes and streaks as key decision factors rather than the more SABR approach that has been the hallmark of the front office's biggest successes, and for that matter don't see how giving at bats to a guy who was unlikely to succeed and unlikely to be here in 2015 if he did fits with the "bridge year" philosophy.
Probably, maybe as a back up instead of the opening day CF, since Victorino opened the season on the DL and JBJ had a .476 OPS in ST.Super Nomario said:I don't understand how an intelligent person can speak in absolutes like "that's simply not true." Are you 100% convinced that if Sizemore had given the same indications of "health" but had hit .220/.280/.379 (as he did in his last 435 MLB PAs across 2010-2011) or .216/.288/.324 (as he did this year once the games started counting) instead of .310/.356/.429, that he still would have made the squad? I'm dubious.
I don't consider Nava's option as relevant both because Sizemore never should have been given the LF job in the first place, and because at the end of spring training the Red Sox demoted Bradley to make room for the gimp. Then after Nava had a 3 week slump and gimp predictably couldn't play CF, they changed their mind and send down Nava to make room for the gimp in LF.joe dokes said:
I think your use of the terms "SABR approach", and "bridge year philosophy" are your own, and probably do little more than occasionally overlap at a few points with what the actual FO and management actually do on a day-to-day or long-term basis in the real world. It sounds like the mirror image of Harold Reynolds braying that "they fired all the scouts." The Sox dont run the team like its Strat-o-matic. Nor should they. Maybe Nava wasn't even hitting line drives in batting practice.
Perhaps you would be less confused if you stopped saying "using a 3 week slump by Nava as their justification for putting up with the mistake." Your continued use of "small sample size" with respect to the Nava demotion is just comical at this point.
Plympton91 said:I don't consider Nava's option as relevant both because Sizemore never should have been given the LF job in the first place, and because at the end of spring training the Red Sox demoted Bradley to make room for the gimp. Then after Nava had a 3 week slump and gimp predictably couldn't play CF, they changed their mind and send down Nava to make room for the gimp in LF.
yecul said:There are two separate questions here.
1. Should they have signed Sizemore or a different player?
2. Should Nava have been demoted in favor of Sizemore?
For 1 I am fine with their decision. I am not overly convinced that slam dunk options were necessarily available. Davis was pointed to, but he said he wanted playing time. Could the Sox have gotten him? Other options have not shown to be superior.
As for 2, retaining assets was the primary focus, not 3 weeks of performance. Said performance, if better, may have overridden the asset concerns so Nava only has himself to blame there. But here we are several weeks later in the spot we would have been back then -- Sizemore gone, Nava up.
The larger point though is that if you never get anything wrong it means you are not taking any chances. Back end roster spots to cheap players is a good way to take chances.
And the Red Sox chose to ignore the sample size that is the entire history of baseball wherein nobody has ever returned to be a productive player after missing most of three seasons while being on the wrong side of 30. That's my problem with this decision.Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Are you really this obtuse?
Sizemore has a much larger career sample of being a .880 OPS hitter vs RHP (2566 PAs)
Nava has a smaller sample of being a .818 OPS hitter vs RHP (866 PAs)
Nava had an option to go to AAA after starting the year with a .509 OPS and a WPA of -1.24.
Sizemore was given the opportunity due to his long track record and the fact that at the time he was better in the field and hitting better than Nava. (WPA of -.024)
People get promoted and demoted due to small samples all the time. Sometimes that means moving down the order or to the bench and sometimes that means getting sent down. Nava was only helped by going to AAA. He found his swing and is playing like Narver again.
I don't see this as a pro-Sizemore/anti-Nava debate although that's what you're trying to advocate.
Philip Jeff Frye said:And the Red Sox chose to ignore the sample size that is the entire history of baseball wherein nobody has ever returned to be a productive player after missing most of three seasons while being on the wrong side of 30. That's my problem with this decision.
Otis Foster said:
Shouldn't the FO be willing to take a shot at something that could be very productive even though the odds are long? After all, there's always a first time.
I do think that anger at the current mess is leading us to pull apart every personnel decision with 20-20 hindsight. Some of them didn't work out,but it's harder to establish a causal relationship with the current record because we have no way to determine how much better the alternative not pursued would have been.
That analogy would work if Sizemore had started the year in Greenville.Rudy Pemberton said:It's funny to read how the sox were dumb to ignore history when giving Sizemore a chance, while those same people champion Nava. If they were really looking percentages and odds of success, would they have ever taken a chance on Nava?
Rudy Pemberton said:It's funny to read how the sox were dumb to ignore history when giving Sizemore a chance, while those same people champion Nava. If they were really looking percentages and odds of success, would they have ever taken a chance on Nava?
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:It's so hard to know what would have happened had Victorino not had the hamstring issues.
If, from day 1, the starting lineup could have been Nava/Gomes in left, JBJ/Sizemore in center, and Victorino in right, with Carp primarily backing up first and DH, I think it would have been more more apparent that Grady and JBJ were insurance for each other. If they both suck, then the 9 hole is where suck goes. If one of them grabs the position and runs with it, or if it turns into a real competition, that's great!
Unfortunately, Vic's been out the whole time, the Nava/Gomes dynamic never had time to set up, because Grady was in the mix in left and right, and the outfield just never settled the way anyone wanted it to. All of a sudden Nava is hitting against lefties, sucking and getting sent down, then Gomes is the "starter," etc. Of the 15 games Nava started at the beginning of the season, five were against lefties, and he put up a .334 OPS against them. Nava should NEVER start against a lefty, unless your roster is broken (which it obviously was).
Obviously, the front office has to have contingencies in place for injuries, and Vic's was somewhat foreseeable, but I think things would have worked out far differently if he had been able to stay on the field at any point.
I'm not understanding this point. Nava had a relatively low chance of success, but they signed Nava for literally one dollar, and then he was then proving himself in the minors for 3.5 years before getting a shot on the MLB team, and then he was sent down for a year before getting a shot at major playing time. Sizemore had pretty much unknown odds of success but they gave him a MLB contract (even if a low one).Rudy Pemberton said:It's funny to read how the sox were dumb to ignore history when giving Sizemore a chance, while those same people champion Nava. If they were really looking percentages and odds of success, would they have ever taken a chance on Nava?
Toe Nash said:I'm not understanding this point. Nava had a relatively low chance of success, but they signed Nava for literally one dollar, and then he was then proving himself in the minors for 3.5 years before getting a shot on the MLB team, and then he was sent down for a year before getting a shot at major playing time. Sizemore had pretty much unknown odds of success but they gave him a MLB contract (even if a low one).
Put another way: teams take fliers on guys like Nava pretty frequently -- who a scout likes and whose acquisition cost (and opportunity cost) is minimal. If he sucked, you lose basically nothing. According to Alex Speier, Sizemore had one or two other MLB offers, so the Sox had to give him a pretty solid contract and a shot at playing time. That's orders of magnitude more cost than Nava.
Toe Nash said:I'm not understanding this point. Nava had a relatively low chance of success, but they signed Nava for literally one dollar, and then he was then proving himself in the minors for 3.5 years before getting a shot on the MLB team, and then he was sent down for a year before getting a shot at major playing time. Sizemore had pretty much unknown odds of success but they gave him a MLB contract (even if a low one).
Put another way: teams take fliers on guys like Nava pretty frequently -- who a scout likes and whose acquisition cost (and opportunity cost) is minimal. If he sucked, you lose basically nothing. According to Alex Speier, Sizemore had one or two other MLB offers, so the Sox had to give him a pretty solid contract and a shot at playing time. That's orders of magnitude more cost than Nava.
This post makes so much sense, I find it amazing anyone can argue with it.Toe Nash said:I'm not understanding this point. Nava had a relatively low chance of success, but they signed Nava for literally one dollar, and then he was then proving himself in the minors for 3.5 years before getting a shot on the MLB team, and then he was sent down for a year before getting a shot at major playing time. Sizemore had pretty much unknown odds of success but they gave him a MLB contract (even if a low one).
Put another way: teams take fliers on guys like Nava pretty frequently -- who a scout likes and whose acquisition cost (and opportunity cost) is minimal. If he sucked, you lose basically nothing. According to Alex Speier, Sizemore had one or two other MLB offers, so the Sox had to give him a pretty solid contract and a shot at playing time. That's orders of magnitude more cost than Nava.
benhogan said:This post makes so much sense, I find it amazing anyone can argue with it.