Rusney Castillo Conundrum

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
"Jerking around" referred to him being sent up and down throughout the year, not getting playing time when he's up, etc.  This is hardly an isolated incident.  
 
Treating a 28 year-old $72mm investment like he's Randy Kutcher, shuttling him between Pawtucket and Boston constantly and giving him sporadic playing time seems like a good way to retard his development, but others obviously disagree.  

 
The "jerking him around" amounts to a week on the bench, being optioned for a week (in which he played 5 straight games going 7 for 21 with a HR and two walks), and now today's taxi squad duty.  Any other disruption in his playing time has been on account of injury, not anything the team has done with him.
 
He's only been called up once this year, so aside from today, he hasn't exactly been "up and down".

 

[KillerBs]

There seems to be a lot of support for giving playing time to Napoli, de Aza and Victorino over Bradley and Castillo on the premise that these vets give us a better chance to win now and its too early to give up on this year. Obviously the premise is far from known. It very well may be that letting Bradley and Castillo play more or less full-time would actually improve the team's performance in the short term in addition to serving longer term interests. Put another way, by sticking with the vets, we very well could be damaging our small chances of making anything out of 2015 and also hurting 2016. 
 
Similar considerations apply on the pitching side, of course re Masterson, Breslow and Ross vs. Wright, Johnson and Kelly.
 
In the end I guess it comes down to timing. If Bradley and Castillo are both performing well at AAA in a month, and we are still in last place 10 games out or so, do we still stick with the vets who are gone at year's end?  What if Napoli or Victorino show some signs of life, or de Aza is OPSing at 110, does this change the equation?
 
I am beginning to suspect that the team simply cant bring themselves to pull the plug on Napoli, Victorino, Masterson and/or Breslow for largely sentimental reasons and related because they fear the fan reaction of what would be perceived as a white flag.

 

[grimshaw]

There seems to be a lot of support for giving playing time to Napoli, de Aza and Victorino over Bradley and Castillo on the premise that these vets give us a better chance to win now and its too early to give up on this year. Obviously the premise is far from known. It very well may be that letting Bradley and Castillo play more or less full-time would actually improve the team's performance in the short term in addition to serving longer term interests. Put another way, by sticking with the vets, we very well could be damaging our small chances of making anything out of 2015 and also hurting 2016. 
 

I can't recall anyone saying they want Napoli playing right now.

 

[KillerBs]

I can't recall anyone saying they want Napoli playing right now.

Ok I may have misjudged the degree of support for Napoli's on going steady playing time. It is true there seems to more resistance to anyone else playing 1b -- Hanley is out of the question, Holt's too short, etc etc.
 
Question remains: if its too early to "give up on the season" by giving Castillo and Bradley FT gigs,  and cutting Napoli and Victorino loose, when is the right time? 2 weeks? a month? September 1? 

 

[Byrdbrain]

Though I don't think it is his best use I don't recall anyone saying Holt is too short to play 1B, he's been fine there when he has played it. Hanley won't be playing 1B this year just because he won't, there is zero chance he get's put there. Other than Holt there on occasion there just doesn't seem to be any great options to put there, calling up a guy who can't put up a 700 OPS in AAA flat out doesn't make any sense.
If there were anyone any better I'd be all for sitting Napoli.
 
I'd rather JBJ and Rusney play most every day but other than that I don't see much more they should do short term. In a few weeks you reevaluate and make a call.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Though I don't think it is his best use I don't recall anyone saying Holt is too short to play 1B, he's been fine there when he has played it. Hanley won't be playing 1B this year just because he won't, there is zero chance he get's put there. Other than Holt there on occasion there just doesn't seem to be any great options to put there, calling up a guy who can't put up a 700 OPS in AAA flat out doesn't make any sense.
If there were anyone any better I'd be all for sitting Napoli.
 
I'd rather JBJ and Rusney play most every day but other than that I don't see much more they should do short term. In a few weeks you reevaluate and make a call.

 
I've lobbied in this thread for getting Castillo a 1B mitt.

 

[soxhop411]

“@RyanHannable: On @WEEI, Buster Olney said Red Sox could look to move Rusney Castillo this offseason.”

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

“@RyanHannable: On @WEEI, Buster Olney said Red Sox could look to move Rusney Castillo this offseason.”

 
Based on a discussion with a source within the organization? Idle speculation? Interest from other teams? Some context would be helpful. If it's just something that makes sense to him, it means nothing.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

“@RyanHannable: On @WEEI, Buster Olney said Red Sox could look to move Rusney Castillo this offseason.”

They could look to move any player on the roster. Just because Olney said it doesn't mean that it belongs in a thread.

 

[radsoxfan]

Apologies if my opinion about thread worthy posts is out of place and/or completely wrong (maybe I'm still bitter about many of my apparently too tangential WAR posts deleted from a prior Mookie thread...)
 
But even if it's only idle speculation, isn't that what a huge portion of this thread is?  Obviously some further info about Olney's opinion would be nice, but regardless of what people think of Olney, he is a pretty big time MLB reporter. Maybe he's just making it up, maybe he's reading the tea leaves, maybe he has a source. I for one, don't follow Olney on twitter and didn't hear the interview, so it was at least mildly interesting.  No offense to anyone else in here, but I thought it was at least as thread worthy (if not more) than a lot of other posts in here. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Buster Olney makes his living going on local stations and throwing shit like this against the wall to see what sticks (he'll do it occasionally on twitter too).  It's how he keeps getting invited back.  As a high profile reporter with a national outlet, his opinions are often confused with actual informed insider info.  Sad thing is that that often makes him out to be a source rather than a reporter with sources.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Apologies if my opinion about thread worthy posts is out of place and/or completely wrong (maybe I'm still bitter about many of my apparently too tangential WAR posts deleted from a prior Mookie thread...)
 
But even if it's only idle speculation, isn't that what a huge portion of this thread is?  Obviously some further info about Olney's opinion would be nice, but regardless of what people think of Olney, he is a pretty big time MLB reporter. Maybe he's just making it up, maybe he's reading the tea leaves, maybe he has a source. I for one, don't follow Olney on twitter and didn't hear the interview, so it was at least mildly interesting.  No offense to anyone else in here, but I thought it was at least as thread worthy (if not more) than a lot of other posts in here. 

As far as I know, none of your posts regarding WAR were deleted from any thread, including the Mookie thread. I was the person who broke out the WAR discussion from that thread and I know I didn't delete any.

 

[JesusQuintana]

Apologies if my opinion about thread worthy posts is out of place and/or completely wrong (maybe I'm still bitter about many of my apparently too tangential WAR posts deleted from a prior Mookie thread...)
 
But even if it's only idle speculation, isn't that what a huge portion of this thread is?  Obviously some further info about Olney's opinion would be nice, but regardless of what people think of Olney, he is a pretty big time MLB reporter. Maybe he's just making it up, maybe he's reading the tea leaves, maybe he has a source. I for one, don't follow Olney on twitter and didn't hear the interview, so it was at least mildly interesting.  No offense to anyone else in here, but I thought it was at least as thread worthy (if not more) than a lot of other posts in here. 

 
There's a difference between speculation based on any sort of evidence and hearsay.  To Snod's point, if (for instance) Olney got that information from any source, then there's smoke there, and it's worth discussing.  
 
 

Yeah, agree with radsoxfan in that this kind of speculation is at least relevant. The folks who come in and immediately shoot the messenger are the same ones who did it when the rumors were that the Sox were going to trade Adrian Gonzalez, hire Bobby V, whatever. Buster Olney is a pretty connected source, if he's reporting something that he's heard, I think that qualifies as news or at least a legit rumor even if we don't like the content of it.

 
The tweet above doesn't even indicate that he's heard it.  That tweet could mean that Olney asked a Magic 8-Ball and decided to say it on the air.  There's no context whatsoever.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Before this thread gets derailed any more, please take this to PMs or to Backwash.

 

[soxhop411]

clarification
“@RyanHannable: Re: Olney & Castillo on @WEEI earlier. He said impression from other teams is Sox will look to shed $ this offseason. Rusney a way to do it.”

 

[StuckOnYouk]

If Cherrington doesn't go this offseason, it's proof that the ownership is just like the Steinbrenners and Levines now in that you don't know who the hell is responsible for every transaction.
 
Actually if he doesn't go that probably IS proof that ownership is pulling most of the strings.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

clarification
“@RyanHannable: Re: Olney & Castillo on @WEEI earlier. He said impression from other teams is Sox will look to shed $ this offseason. Rusney a way to do it.”

 
And there you have it.  The rumor isn't Castillo will be traded, it's that the Sox will try to shed payroll and Olney thinks Castillo is a guy they could move.  Context is everything.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

 
And there you have it.  The rumor isn't Castillo will be traded, it's that the Sox will try to shed payroll and Olney thinks Castillo is a guy they could move.  Context is everything.

And the Sox were the high bidders on Rusney and he hasn't exactly shown he's worth the contract yet, so sending him off would mean eating a decent chunk.  Which would most likely be a dumb move unless they think Rusney is just a bad baseball player.  I think he's shown hints of being a solid player, just wish they would play him more.  

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

This is maybe a separate thread, but they do probably need to clear payroll since - with arbitration raises and everyone's option factored in - they could already have as much as $156 million already on the books for 2016 according to bbref (side note: unsure if Craig factors into this calculation), and they need a starting pitcher and a first basemen, maybe also a right fielder if you don't believe in the Ruskie Bradstillo Jr option. Olney isn't wrong to point out that moving Castillo would probably be easier than moving Sandoval, Ramirez, Porcello, or even Pedroia.

EDIT: I will start a new payroll thread when I get access to a computer if nobody objects.

 

[nattysez]

I'll say this:  I was 100% wrong about DeAza, at least in the short-term.  Even if this turns out to have been an unsustainable hot streak, DeAza's a big part of why the Sox have been semi-respectable the past week-plus, and it's unlikely Castillo would've put up the same production.  I still think it was a mistake to have Castillo on the team when he wasn't playing regularly, but I'll give Farrell credit for seeing something in DeAza that I (and a number of other teams, in my defense) did not.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Agreed, happy to admit I was wrong about De Aza, glad they could find some lightning in a bottle there, he's been fantastic.

 

[Van Everyman]

I hate it when people rip a writer for an opinion because they don't want to believe the underlying assumptions behind it.

Just because no one told Olney that the Sox are going to dump Castillo doesn't mean they won't or don't have any desire to. He's likely basing his report off of a combination of factors, including:

1) Castillo hasn't played up to expectations

2) Some clubhouse information around his attitude and work ethic

3) The team has underperformed expectations overall

4) Castillo costs a lot of money

5) The Red Sox have a lot of OF-ers

6) De Azo has exceeded expectations

7) The Red Sox may need to shift more resources toward the pitching staff than they anticipated

None of which is to say that Castillo is a goner – it may well be that he simply needs more ABs, and it was pretty clear from Farrell's comments earlier this season that they rushed him to the majors out of desperation. But there are plenty of reasons they might want to move Castillo that don't require Olney to be "throwing shit at a wall" or saying things because he "makes his career saying stuff like that on 'EEI."

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm not ripping Olney for having his opinions, though isn't espousing opinions essentially throwing shit at a wall?  Nor do I think it's impossible that the Red Sox might consider trading Castillo.  But in this case, A + B doesn't necessarily equal C.
 
Nothing Olney said on air indicated or hinted at the idea that the team is actually exploring the possibility of trading Castillo.  Ryan Hannable made a huge leap in trying to draw that conclusion in his tweet.  Posting the tweet here like it was news is just as big a leap.  That's what people are taking issue with.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

None of which is to say that Castillo is a goner – it may well be that he simply needs more ABs, and it was pretty clear from Farrell's comments earlier this season that they rushed him to the majors out of desperation. 

 
The fact that the bolded makes sense at all seems kind of damning to the FO. 
 
I mean, we just rushed Blake Swihart to the majors out of desperation, and it looks like it will be at least another year or so before he reaches his cruising altitude, so to speak. If we were into him for 6/$70M, that wouldn't be too worrisome, because two years from now he'll be 25; full readiness and athletic peak should mesh nicely if all goes well.
 
Two years from now Rusney Castillo will be six days from his 30th birthday. Signing him to that contract only made sense if the FO had high confidence that he could hit the ground running in MLB, not necessarily in 2014 but certainly in 2015. If, instead, his readiness was more on the order of a AA or newly-minted AAA player like Swihart, then you're investing substantial money in a player who won't be ready till his athletic peak is pretty much over. Why?

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Why are people so quick to assume Olney didn't get that from a source? Regardless of how some may want to spin it, I don't think spending most of the year in Pawtucket was the plan for Castillo; it wouldn't be at all surprising to learn they'd consider cutting their losses on him. Front-office types plant stuff like this in the media all the time.

 

[Van Everyman]

Because they made a bet that Castillo would be ready. To me, that seems to be the MO of Henry's leadership since Theo left and Cherington was put in charge: big bets.

Bets like:

1) Believing that pitchers over 30 won't be worth the price to retain or sign them (Lester).

2) Believing that you can field a rotation with a bunch of #3 pitchers and no true "ace" (Porcello, Miley, Kelly).

3) Overpaying for a bunch of mid-tier talent as opposed to elite talent that would cost significantly more and for a longer period of time (the 2013 offseason plan w Vic, Gomes and Nap but also, perhaps, Hanley and Panda).

4) Paying a premium for raw international talent (Castillo but also Moncada).

5) Developing young talent at the major league level (JBJ, Bogey, Swihart to some extent).

You can argue BTW that the only bet that has actually paid off is #3.

I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be surprised that the results of these bets would be boom or bust. Or disappointed really, given that the one time it did pay off it was pretty much as good as baseball gets.

As a fan, it's a nice alternative to the Pats' model which is to be in it every year with the hope that you will get over the hump every now and then. Of course in football the bets aren't often as big given that contracts aren't generally guaranteed.

All of which is to say, the Castillo bet hasn't paid off in year 1. It still might yet in years 2 on. In which case we might be looking at his deal a lot more favorably as we do Vic's contract.

 

[WenZink]

Because they made a bet that Castillo would be ready. To me, that seems to be the MO of Henry's leadership since Theo left and Cherington was put in charge: big bets.

.....

 
I see it as the opposite.  The Era of "big-bets" was when they bundled up their prospects to get A Gonzalez, and sign Crawford and, to a lesser extent, John Lackey.  In the wake of the failure of that strategy, the Sox decided to make a bunch of smaller bets, in effect, not putting all of their eggs in one basket.  It worked extremely well in 2013, but the deep-depth has only oomplicated things the past year and a half, but I wouldn't say it's time to pull the plug.  They entered 2015 with 4 options to fill the RF spot - Craig, Castillo, Bradley and Victorino.  None of the four has proven to be the right fit, and having 4 options made it even more complicated, confusing and complicated.  But the odds of none of the 4 seizing the job seemed improbable last winter.  I can't even believe it today.
 
If Castillo eventually becomes a 4-5 WAR player, then the Sox have won their bet, but, as mentioned earlier in this thread, even if he just becomes a valued 4th OF, the Sox get back a good portion of the contract. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

Because they made a bet that Castillo would be ready. To me, that seems to be the MO of Henry's leadership since Theo left and Cherington was put in charge: big bets.

Bets like:

1) Believing that pitchers over 30 won't be worth the price to retain or sign them (Lester).

2) Believing that you can field a rotation with a bunch of #3 pitchers and no true "ace" (Porcello, Miley, Kelly).

3) Overpaying for a bunch of mid-tier talent as opposed to elite talent that would cost significantly more and for a longer period of time (the 2013 offseason plan w Vic, Gomes and Nap but also, perhaps, Hanley and Panda).

4) Paying a premium for raw international talent (Castillo but also Moncada).

5) Developing young talent at the major league level (JBJ, Bogey, Swihart to some extent).

You can argue BTW that the only bet that has actually paid off is #3.

I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be surprised that the results of these bets would be boom or bust. Or disappointed really, given that the one time it did pay off it was pretty much as good as baseball gets.

As a fan, it's a nice alternative to the Pats' model which is to be in it every year with the hope that you will get over the hump every now and then. Of course in football the bets aren't often as big given that contracts aren't generally guaranteed.

All of which is to say, the Castillo bet hasn't paid off in year 1. It still might yet in years 2 on. In which case we might be looking at his deal a lot more favorably as we do Vic's contract.

 
Well, as to your last point, this is why this thread is something of a tempest in a teacup.   
 
As to the others, Ben bet "successfully" on Betts, Xander, and Swihart as a replacement catcher.  Ben ticketed JBJ for a year's seasoning in AAA, which seems to be working.  Hanley has been as advertised with the bat - and seems to be the Ortiz replacement.  Sandoval is getting his numbers back in line with expectations, but remains a defensive disappointment.  Ben held on to Buchholz, traded for Rodriguez, and signed Miley, who is pretty much looking like a #3.
 
A lot of the team underperformance is just the individual players failing or getting injured.  I don't think the 2015 Sox model relied on everyone taking a step forward. If Porcello, Masterson, Kelly, Nava, Ortiz, Nap and Miley (to some extent) hadn't turned in career-nadir performances, we wouldn't be discussing Castillo.   I'm discounting Vic because the Sox didn't seem to be relying on him. 
 
About the only two there that seemed like true risks were Masterson and Nap - but Nap got elective surgery in the off season.  I don't think the club could have predicted that, nor should they have gotten a Nap replacement when it looked like Nap had recovered and was having his hot spring training. 

 

[Reverend]

Why are people so quick to assume Olney didn't get that from a source? Regardless of how some may want to spin it, I don't think spending most of the year in Pawtucket was the plan for Castillo; it wouldn't be at all surprising to learn they'd consider cutting their losses on him. Front-office types plant stuff like this in the media all the time.

I think the onus should be on Olney to give us some sense as to why we should take the idea seriously. If we don't know why he thinks this is a possibility, then that's a failing on his part.

This kind of ambiguity of the "authorities" behind views and information is frustrating and becoming increasingly commonplace. But it's increasing ubiquity is not a reason for us to become more accepting of it--rather, we should push back.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I think the onus should be on Olney to give us some sense as to why we should take the idea seriously. If we don't know why he thinks this is a possibility, then that's a failing on his part.

This kind of ambiguity of the "authorities" behind views and information is frustrating and becoming increasingly commonplace. But it's increasing ubiquity is not a reason for us to become more accepting of it--rather, we should push back.

 
One thing I will say for Olney is in the past (at least), when he is pulling stuff out of his ass, he usually makes a point to qualify it with a disclaimer like "this is purely speculation on my part; I have no sources that have suggested it". That's not to say he's maintaining that modest level of disclosure these days, but he usually will be forthright in disclosing if something he writes is his own mind pin wheeling or if he has reason to think it. 

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

If Olney reports this as something he heard from a source, his source gets in trouble and stops feeding him information. If Olney presents it as something he just thought of - or if he leaves it ambiguous - then no harm no foul. This goes for most of the "clubhouse insider" reporters you can think of from Spink-award winner Peter Gammons to Nick Cafardo.

 

[grimshaw]

Olney has a weekly visit on EEI.  Baseball analyst Christian Fauria is asking him questions and Olney gives his much more informed than SOSH opinions.  It's not like he's covering the trade deadline and reporting what he's hearing.  i don't know why it's Olney's fault someone thinks tweeting his EEI stuff is newsworthy or why soxhop thinks it's worth posting out of context.

 

[Plympton91]

 
I see it as the opposite.  The Era of "big-bets" was when they bundled up their prospects to get A Gonzalez, and sign Crawford and, to a lesser extent, John Lackey.  In the wake of the failure of that strategy,

If being eliminated on the last day of the season is a failure, what is finishing last in 3 of the next 4 seasons?

the Sox decided to make a bunch of smaller bets, in effect, not putting all of their eggs in one basket.  It worked extremely well in 2013,

In no small part because the "failure" part of the strategy gave them a #2 starter.

but the deep-depth has only oomplicated things the past year and a half, but I wouldn't say it's time to pull the plug.  They entered 2015 with 4 options to fill the RF spot - Craig, Castillo, Bradley and Victorino.  None of the four has proven to be the right fit, and having 4 options made it even more complicated, confusing and complicated.  But the odds of none of the 4 seizing the job seemed improbable last winter.  I can't even believe it today.

Well Bradley has done all he can to seize the job from AAA, and Castillo's injury and greater than expected rust is also contributing to the confusion. The Red Sox are making the affirmative decision to keep disrupting things for Victorino's short spurts of health, to bury Nava every time he has 40 bad at bats, and yet and to simultaneously postpone recognition of Craig's sunk cost by 100 at bats

The deep depth strategy can't be resolved statistically, and so it puts onus on unbiased and effective management and scouting based decisions. Farrell seems anything but unbiased wrt Vic, and the Red Sox seem like the only team that considers Allen Baird to be an effective talent evaluator.

 If Castillo eventually becomes a 4-5 WAR player, then the Sox have won their bet, but, as mentioned earlier in this thread, even if he just becomes a valued 4th OF, the Sox get back a good portion of the contract. 

As I said earlier, it is much easier to see Castillo earning his contract as a starting CFer. It lowers the offensive threshold for success and sees him playing his natural position. But with the emergence of Betts and rejuvenatation of JBJ, that's not what Boston needs. That's why I would not be quick to dismiss Olney's. Report as idler speculation. I bet A small market team could be enticed to give up value for Castillo, perhaps if necessary with some minimal cash kicked in.

The Royals are going to lose Gordon, and they've got a lot of relievers the Red Sox need desperately.

 

[soxhop411]

“@alexspeier: Rusney Castillo is day-to-day in Pawtucket after suffering a groin injury on Monday http://t.co/Y5oKTUFGDs via @BostonGlobe”

 

[Nite Vizhun UV]

“@alexspeier: Rusney Castillo is day-to-day in Pawtucket after suffering a groin injury on Monday http://t.co/Y5oKTUFGDs via @BostonGlobe”

 
G - G - Groin In-jur-yyyy
 

 

[Van Everyman]

Believe Wade Boggs once thought it was pronounced "GROW-in"

 

[MikeM]

So as of right now and given Castillo's fairly mediocre advanced age slash line on year thus far in AAA (.281/.341/.412), he's pretty much being buried to the point where we won't be seeing him with the big club again until September. Right?
 
Barring lots of deadline movement and/or a serious run of injuries, of course. 

 

[Rasputin]

So as of right now and given Castillo's fairly mediocre advanced age slash line on year thus far in AAA (.281/.341/.412), he's pretty much being buried to the point where we won't be seeing him with the big club again until September. Right?
 
Barring lots of deadline movement and/or a serious run of injuries, of course. 

I think two things.

One, it's not being buried if you just suck and so far at the major league level he has done nothing but suck.

Two, why on Earth would you think he's not coming back until September?

 

[MikeM]

I think two things.

One, it's not being buried if you just suck and so far at the major league level he has done nothing but suck.

Two, why on Earth would you think he's not coming back until September?

 
 
1. So it's his own suck that did (most of) the burying. Still being buried. 
 
2. At this point and until the rosters get expanded, I'm just not seeing how/where it happens under the non-extreme circumstance.

 

[Rasputin]

 
 
1. So it's his own suck that did (most of) the burying. Still being buried. 
 
2. At this point and until the rosters get expanded, I'm just not seeing how/where it happens under the non-extreme circumstance.

Someone's gonna get hurt.

 

[MikeM]

Right, at which point you have Holt/De Aza stepping in. Plus Nava still lingering around, and i'm guessing Bradley being the first option up. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Someone's gonna get hurt.

Or traded.

But seriously, what's the concern if Castillo is "buried"? If that's the case, it's for one of two reasons: he's hurt/playing poorly or the players ahead of him are playing well enough there's no justification for change. One reason is on him and I fail to see how the other is negative if the team is succeeding (or at least not failing in a way that Castillo would make a difference).

 

[joe dokes]

But seriously, what's the concern if Castillo is "buried"?
 

 
The "concern" is that, even if the Red Sox win the World Series, Castillo's burial still maintains -- for those who want it maintained -- the story line that the Sox front office sucks and that winning is a byproduct of luck and luck only.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The "concern" is that, even if the Red Sox win the World Series, Castillo's burial still maintains -- for those who want it maintained -- the story line that the Sox front office sucks and that winning is a byproduct of luck and luck only.

 
There's nothing quite like blind hatred of the team you're a fan of. 

 

[Drek717]

Right, at which point you have Holt/De Aza stepping in. Plus Nava still lingering around, and i'm guessing Bradley being the first option up. 

If the next guy hurt is Victorino (the most likely candidate mind you) I'd imagine they would lean towards Castillo to get another RH bat, since De Aza has a massive split each of the last two years and a pretty significant one for his career.  Brock Holt can't play everywhere at the same time against LHP.  As of now we're talking about him as our LF, 3B, and maybe 1B against them already.  Neither Bradley nor Nava can help with that issue.

 

[smastroyin]

Well...I mean it's fair to say that if the Red Sox go on a huge winning streak and get back in the race and especially if they come out on top and then go on to win 90+ games next year and people are still complaining about Castillo as evidence of the FO sucking, then the argument would be valid.  But as long as they are struggling and budget decisions were made that made the team on the field weaker, I think it's not entirely fair to dismiss criticism out of hand.  Also, people may note that of the three outfielders they acquired last year, the only one doing anything productive is the one they then traded away...for a pitcher they signed to a big contract and is arguably the worst regular starter in the AL to this point.
 
It's still early and many things can change course in the meantime, but I think those concerned about where the Red Sox are spending their money rightly have the floor at the moment.

 

[joe dokes]

Those are fair points. My point about Castillo reflects my sense that some people - here and in local media -- are never satisfied.  We're 85 games into the Castillo-Porcello interregnum. I'm still withholding judgment.

 

[grimshaw]

Speaking of burying - I did my fair share of that on Victorino, especially when it came down to playing time and Castillo's situation. I will have to give the front office credit on sticking with him so far.  We definitely need him now as much as we have at any point this season.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Those are fair points. My point about Castillo reflects my sense that some people - here and in local media -- are never satisfied.  We're 85 games into the Castillo-Porcello interregnum. I'm still withholding judgment.

 
How is being unsatisfied with the Sox holding down last place in the AL East for three out of the last four years a bad thing?
 
Being critical of the front office doesn't mean I still don't root for the team to win every game.
 
[edit]
 
Player A: Age 27, AAA, 216 PA .297/.321/.480
Player B: Age 27, AAA, 126 PA .281/.341/.412
 
Hint: one of these players signed out of Cuba for $750,000. The other didn't.

 

[smastroyin]

Those are fair points. My point about Castillo reflects my sense that some people - here and in local media -- are never satisfied.  We're 85 games into the Castillo-Porcello interregnum. I'm still withholding judgment.

 
I get it.  I felt this way about Theo, that the grousing about, say, the Julio Lugo signing was a forest for the trees kind of thing, given the overall success.  Even though the signing wasn't great and Lugo was terrible, it wasn't a huge indictment on the overall plan.