137 replies to this topic

[Todd Benzinger]

Atlanta would have to the best at this; Florida is certainly great at identifying talent too.

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 22 September 2005 - 06:06 PM.

[SoxsFans]

Minnesota? Anaheim? I am asking. what do they do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well one thing they do is either finish near the bottom, or loose players to FA and get alot of draft pics.

Keeping things in perspective the sox do have quite a few high ceiling ml pitchers right now.

[TheYellowDart5]

Has Tito not noticed Timlins numbers with guys on base?

Timlin with the bases empty: 276/307/372/679
Timlin with runners on: 279/327/412/739
Timlin with RISP: 256/309/378/687

What was that about his numbers with runners on? Because there seems to be no real difference to me.

[soxfan121]

I respectfully disagree with just about every word you wrote, Cleaver.

After reading this thread, it confirms that this front office really has no clue how to build a pitching staff or acquire cheap effective pitchers.

Bronson Arroyo and....? That's the list of three years worth of pitchers who have been acquired via free agency or trade who have consistently pitched above their cost to the team. That sucks. The staff that won in 2003 and 2004 was largely a product of the Duquette administration. The 2005 staff is largely the result of the Epstein administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. The 2004 pitching staff featured Pedro, Wakefield and Lowe from "the previous regime". Schilling & Arroyo were current FO acquistions. Foulke, Timlin, Embree, Williamson, Leskanic & Myers were acquired by the current FO. 7 of the 10 pitchers who were on the playof rosters were acquired by the current FO.

2. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people are having trouble understanding WHY Schilling, Foulke & (to a lesser extent) Embree were "toast" this year. Look, I watched those playoff games. They burned themselves at both ends to bring a World Series title to Boston. That there would be lasting consequences should not have been a surprise.

That said, to fault the FO for not being able to find enough "cheap effective pitchers" to fill in for Schilling, Foulke & Embree is just lunacy. The cheap effective pitchers are supposed to replace OTHER cheap, effective pitchers - like Leskanic. When you ask Wade Miller to replace Curt Schilling, of course you are going to lose a ton in the translation. Ditto for Mike Timlin and Keith Foulke - and then all the guys who tried to replace Timlin (in his 2004 role) and Embree.

3. I guarantee that when some of the prospects now knocking on the door and in Boston begin to produce, there won't be as much questionning of the FO's ability to find "cheap, effective ptichers". That some of them won't pan out is a certainty. But this year has been awful...they have had to replace 325 innings of Schilling, Foulke & Embree with Wade Miller and flotsam & jetsam. Of course that has sucked. That's why injuries are a killer. That they've made it this far with negative contributions from those 3 guys is amazing.

4. There's a substantial difference between blind homerism and blind pessimism. In the middle ground is reality, and the Sox have been snakebit on the pitching staff this year. It happens. But claiming they've found NO effective pitchers is just crazy. As is claiming that the 2004 staff was built by the previous FO. It's just not true.

[Rough Carrigan]

Well one thing they do is either finish near the bottom, or loose players to FA and get alot of draft pics.

Keeping things in perspective the sox do have quite a few high ceiling ml pitchers right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another thing Anaheim did was bring in Donnelly and Weber who were both playing in leagues where there was no drug testing, Donnelly in an independent league and Weber in Taiwan, IIRC. Probably just a coincidence that Weber can't break a pane of glass now and Donnelly's lost 4 or 5 mph. Could've happened naturally, too.

[Clears Cleaver]

1. The 2004 pitching staff featured Pedro, Wakefield and Lowe from "the previous regime". Schilling & Arroyo were current FO acquistions. Foulke, Timlin, Embree, Williamson, Leskanic & Myers were acquired by the current FO. 7 of the 10 pitchers who were on the playof rosters were acquired by the current FO.

That said, to fault the FO for not being able to find enough "cheap effective pitchers" to fill in for Schilling, Foulke & Embree is just lunacy. The cheap effective pitchers are supposed to replace OTHER cheap, effective pitchers - like Leskanic. When you ask Wade Miller to replace Curt Schilling, of course you are going to lose a ton in the translation. Ditto for Mike Timlin and Keith Foulke - and then all the guys who tried to replace Timlin (in his 2004 role) and Embree.

3. I guarantee that when some of the prospects now knocking on the door and in Boston begin to produce, there won't be as much questionning of the FO's ability to find "cheap, effective ptichers". That some of them won't pan out is a certainty. But this year has been awful...they have had to replace 325 innings of Schilling, Foulke & Embree with Wade Miller and flotsam & jetsam. Of course that has sucked. That's why injuries are a killer. That they've made it this far with negative contributions from those 3 guys is amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I said was that they have not found any pitchers besides Arroyo who have been cost efficient (what I am saying is did they get their money's worth on the pitchers they acquired). I was wrong on Timlin, he did come over in 2003 and has been a great signing. reat signing. Embree came in the middle of 2002 - doesn't count. Buying Foulke and Schilling do not count as they paid more than full price for each and neither will help the team other than in 2004. So if you think paying Foulke $20+M and Schilling almost $40M for one good year are good signings, then fine (yes, I know they won). And my point is the FO's ability to find good pitching on the cheap, or at least getting what you paid for. Basically, those are Yankee signings (most money wins!) Williamson worked for one playoff series. He wasn't bad, either, good point. So the front office brought in Arroyo, timlin, Williamson and Myers as relatively cheap signings.

Your point about flotsam and jetsam...well, a good FO may have been able to do better than that, no? This is my point in a nutshell. There was no one out there? Kevin millwood would have been nice. They wanted Pavano. They got Wells by paying him a lot more than anyone else would have. Clement...mantai...does any of this make sense? Foulke was replaced by...Bradford? Where was Farnsworth? we all mocked the Yankees signing every live body they could find when they suffered injuries to every starter in their rotation. Well, that was at least an effort. Getting Chad Bradford doesn't really do it for me. I'd rather have Small and Chacon for the price they paid...I am really not saying Theo and Co. didn't try, but they were just wrong. Over and over again. And that is why I asked for a new approach at finding pitchers going forward and what works for other teams.

At the end of the day, what really bothers me is that the window for this team is closing, and closing fast. It will great to see the development of Papelbon and Lester and Hansen and Sanchez and Delcarmen. But the chances of those guys being part of a team in 2006-7 as good as the ones the Sox had in 2003 - 2005 is slim given the expected decline of almost every regular player on the roster (except Youks?). This team had a chance to win this year and the FO did not bring in one pitcher that has earned his money to replace the losses of Schilling, Pedro and Lowe. And they knew Schilling was hurt before the season.

[jtn46]

I agree in general CC. At some point the FO either needs to overhaul the way they evaluate relievers, or they need to just admit that they don't have any idea how to evaluate relievers and throw money at guys who have been consistently successful . The "see what sticks" approach only makes sense if now and then, something actually sticks. The worse part is, using that approach actually does result in good relievers though, they just aren't any good until they're wearing a different uniform. If they're going to acquire guys coming off injury, they can't anticipate them filling prominent roles, and they should sign 3 or 4 of these guys just in case they get hurt again.

Obviously the solution to all of this is to develop relievers. Hansen is a good start, but they haven't really developed Hansen, they drafted him and gave him a Red Sox uniform out of college. Hopefully now that the system is producing pitchers, relievers will come.

[mr guido]

Timlin with the bases empty: 276/307/372/679
Timlin with runners on: 279/327/412/739
Timlin with RISP: 256/309/378/687

What was that about his numbers with runners on? Because there seems to be no real difference to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's allowed 18 of 32 inherited baserunners to score. If Tim Wakefield, for instance, allowed 56% of his baserunners to score he'd have allowed 156 runs this year (a 6.6 RA). Schilling would have a 7.9 RA, and Wells a 6.98.

So yeah, that's pretty hideously bad. That only fulltime american league RPs worse this year.


Trever Miller
John Halama
Felix Rodriguez
Matt Mantei
Tom Gordon
Chris Ray
JC Romero

BP says his RA is 2.62 but his "fair" RA is 3.35, making him the only relief pitcher in the top 30 with a fair RA significantly worse than his true one.


His averages presumably look better because he performs fine with his own runners on base. It's only when he comes into a game that he has problems. Think of it as anti-clutch.

Edited by mr guido, 23 September 2005 - 06:56 AM.

[jtn46]

If Craig Hansen has a problem with inherited runners, we can investigate it and give it credence. When a 15 year veteran like Mike Timlin does it and the investigation tells you that it's a fluke, it's a fluke, drop it.

Timlin is a decent reliever, but he's not the kind of guy you want closing games for a reason, he's just too hittable, guys this season, a season where his ERA was under 2 until Wednesday's game, were hitting .277/.320/.390/.710 off of him. That isn't out of whack with his career. For a comparison, last season hitters hit .206/.253/.333/.586 off Foulke. It's funny because last year when Timlin's ERA was 4.13 people called it a "down" year, this year when Timlin's ERA has been under 2 people want him on the All-Star team. He's the same guy this year that he was last year, he's just inflating someone else's ERA when he gives up runs this year. (And this is why ERA is a bad statistic to measure relievers by...Timlin is the same guy that had a 4.13 ERA last season)

[mr guido]

Agreed on all other points jtn but I'm not prepared to say the inherited runners scoring is a fluke. Timlin's 39, it's not preposterous to think that he doesn't warm up as quickly as he used to and thus is having a hard time immediately after entering a game when warming up mid-inning.

[yecul]

His averages presumably look better because he performs fine with his own runners on base. It's only when he comes into a game that he has problems.

Any way to split it out?

[smastroyin]

What these numbers are adding up to is the distinct thought that Timlin should *not* be retained next year. At his age there seems to be a bit of a risk that he will implode, especially given his usage and the already thin thin line between effectiveness and uselessness that he is walking.

[Todd Benzinger]

Good theory, Guido.

I checked the ESPN splts, thinking they had one for "1st batter faced," but they don't.

Instead, I found some evidence that Timlin's inherited runner problems are flukey.

Timlin's OPSA by situation with RISP:

RISP: 90 AB; .687
On Second: 30AB; .437
1st & 2nd: 25 AB; .641
On Third: 11 AB; 1.112
1st & 3rd: 15 AB; .902

He's also had touble with 2outs and RISP: 54 AB, .805

Looks like a classic case of bad timing. He's been quite effective when the closest runner to scoring is on 2nd, but in a smaller number of instances in which there's been a runner on 3rd, and therefore he's had less margin for error, he's been terrible. It weould be "anti-clutch," or it could be flukey bad luck. Or it could be, as Guido's theory would suggest, that he is rushed in when a runner unexpectedly makes it to 3rd off the preceding pitcher, but not when the runner is on 2nd?

[Todd Benzinger]

I dunno. Timlin's been amazingly consistent, which is very rare in RP. Maybe the better plan is to retain him, but not having him #1 on the BP depth chart?

[Eddie Jurak]

I dunno. Timlin's been amazingly consistent, which is very rare in RP. Maybe the better plan is to retain him, but not having him #1 on the BP depth chart?

To be honest, I think Mike Timlin is the perfect closer for a modern bullpen.

Typical modern bullpen closer:

1. Mostly pitches in "save" situations.
2. Rarely pitches more than one inning.
3. Rarely enters a game with runners on base.
4. Rarely enters a game with the typing run at the plate.

If Foulke ends up gone or injured next year, I would re-sign Timlin and hand him the closer's job. But I would restrict his usage to the typical modern day closer usage.

Then, if Hansen is able to step up as the best reliever in the pen, he would be pitching in the situations where the best reliever is needed: tie games, runners on, etc., while Timlin has the easier job that is more suited to what Timlin can do.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

If Foulke ends up gone or injured next year, I would re-sign Timlin and hand him the closer's job.  But I would restrict his usage to the typical modern day closer usage. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I have touted this idea before, perhaps on this board. It is centered on the premise that the classic closer role (9th inning leads only) is often the easiest job in the bullpen.

There are a few problems with it. First, there are times when the closer actually does have a tough job, and you do want your best pitcher in the game protecting the ninth inning lead. Second, you'd have to convince the players involved why your giving the big salary to the guy with 7 saves and not the guy with 41.

At this point I am skeptical that any real change will happen until some statistic comes along that properly values relief pitchers who play vital roles in a game. If that happens, managers would manage their bullpen to get their best relievers to accumulate whatever this new statistic is. In an ideal world, we would just value innings pitched, and runs prevented.

[Eddie Jurak]

There are a few problems with it.  First, there are times when the closer actually does have a tough job, and you do want your best pitcher in the game protecting the ninth inning lead.  Second, you'd have to convince the players involved why your giving the big salary to the guy with 7 saves and not the guy with 41.

When it happens, it's usually because the best reliever is a young guy breaking into the league (Mariano Rivera in 1996, K-Rod in the 2002 playoffs and 2003 season, etc.). Hansen could be the guy for us next year.

[yecul]

If they build the staff/pen up with FA signings and the like then I think it'll just be more of the same. If they hand key jobs to the kids... well it'll just depend on them. I have little confidence in their dealings with pitchers.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If they build the staff/pen up with FA signings and the like then I think it'll just be more of the same.  If they hand key jobs to the kids... well it'll just depend on them.  I have little confidence in their dealings with pitchers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What would you like them to do then? If you don't trust them to sign FAs for the pen then we need the kids to develop.

[yecul]

I just get the feeling that they're trying to be too cute and/or clever. How about White or even Stern on the other side of the ball? They make these stretches with a minimal (IMO) chance of success. Heck, even that aside, they stock the team with a ROOGY/LOOGY combo but don't really see them leveraged as much as they could be (again, IMO).

There seems to be a disconnect when it comes to "value" and "risk". They seek out value and seek to avoid risk. However, those two often collide. Mantei was a good value/low risk sign because his contract was cheap/short, he had high upside, etc. However, with a strong chance of him not staying healthy (given his track record) the risk of having him go down with nothing to back him up has, unfortunately, been displayed this year. And his value (not in terms of dollars, but on field effect) has also been detrimental.

Value and risk shouldn't only be applied to dollars. In the end it should all be about winning ball games. Mantei and Miller are fine risks to make. Petagenie was a good pickup. However, a lot of it strikes me as them ending up as being overdependent on certain types while underutilizing others at the same time.

I think that some of these things have really led to trouble with the team. Look at philly's list. You can label tons of those guys as projects or reaches. Obviously lack of success will lead to questioning things...

Edit --

Oh, and yes, I do think they should give the kids a shot. MDC and Hansen (I'd rather have Papes stick with starting at AAA as he transitions to the majors). Maybe use Alvarez or someone else as the long man.

I would consider Timlin's return to be a bad sign.

Edited by yecul, 23 September 2005 - 11:18 AM.

[OCD SS]

I think we should at least stick with Timlin if a reasonable deal can be worked out. Given that most relievers turn into a crap shoot, I think we should at least go with a player with a proven track record with the team. If he'll take the ever elusive "hometown discount," then so much the better (although that never seems to happen, excepting Wake).

Count me in the "Get Wagner" camp. I'd like to see Foulke as the relief ace with Wagner as the traditional closer.

[yecul]

Should be mentioned that Wagner certainly doesn't have a clean track record in terms of health.

Timlin is not a spring chicken. At which point do you look at trends and track records and weight one over the other (in this case trends) and just consider him to be a guy with a career that's winding down?

Move on, find pitchers who don't give up HRs and strike people out. Build from within.

Foulke, Hansen, MDC, Alvarez type

It's not like you have nothing. And it's not like the kids have to go gangbusters. If some of the kids can be average and durable it'd basically represent an upgrade over what they have now, etc... Clearly a lot still hinges on Foulke.

[smastroyin]

Isn't Wagner pretty much on record as saying that he is going to either retire or come back to the Phillies?

I guess anything's possible.

As for Papelbon, at this point I think he learns more getting major league hitters out than AAA hitters. There are a lot of AAA hitters that he will be able to get out with his good fastball even poorly located and without using his secondary pitches that much.

However unless you put him in a traditional set-up role, it is unlikely that he will get much chance to pitch. I'd like to see him used in the swingman role a la Santana two (three?) years ago.

[OCD SS]

Should be mentioned that Wagner certainly doesn't have a clean track record in terms of health.

Timlin is not a spring chicken.  At which point do you look at trends and track records and weight one over the other (in this case trends) and just consider him to be a guy with a career that's winding down? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Timlin's case this is clearly an issue. It might be a matter of squeezing the last bit out him at a reasonable cost. You'd have to balance the chance that he'd 'Embree' on us, but for the most part, I like our chances with a cost controlled Timlin more than I do with a lot of the FA RPs who are going to be on the market. I can't speak as much to Wagner's health concerns; and given this season's track record it might be wrong to just go ahead and trust the pitching staff and their evaluations.

It's not like you have nothing.  And it's not like the kids have to go gangbusters.  If some of the kids can be average and durable it'd basically represent an upgrade over what they have now, etc...  Clearly a lot still hinges on Foulke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We also have to consider that we might not be fronting the same offense next year (consider Damon and Manny leaving), so we can't just assume that the offense will be just as good and we just need to tweak the pen back to around average/ replacement level.

[yecul]

Well one of the potential problems with Timlin is... Terry Francona.

I'm not terribly convinced that if you brought him back that he wouldn't simply be slotted right back into the high leverage spots.

Anyway, will he be good or at least good enough? Sure, I bet he would be. Same can be said for a lot of guys, even someone like Mueller. But at one point or another you have to make a choice to move on or not. Relievers who hit the late 30s don't have the best track record.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Timlin's being slotted into the highest leverage innings becuase he's the Sox best reliever; this isn't really rocket science.

I'd bring Timlin back on a one year deal with an option. I can't imagine guaranteeing 2 years $7M to a guy his age.

[yecul]

If he's resigned he'd be #2 or 3 out of the pen in 2006 I bet. I don't see that as a favorable situation. Obviously this is huge speculation at this point...

[PedroSpecialK]

I am against bringing back Timlin even on a one year deal, simply because of his age and the fact that his workload the past three years have been 3 out of the 4 most trying years for Timlin as a reliever. I just don't see much reward in re-signing him, especially with his risk of breakdown.

[DieHard3]

Great data collection effort Philly.

I agree with yecul here on the definition of "risk" and "value." The team and many people here, think that high value means taking a small financial risk for some nonzero possibility of good performance. That's fine if you're talking about bringing in the 6th guy in the bullpen or the 10th guy on the bench. It's not the way you want to go about filling your rotation (Miller) or finding your top setup guy (Mantei). Mantei would have been a "low risk" signing for the Angels in 2003, for Boston in 2005, he was about as risky as you could possibly get.

And this attitude has been the reason for all the failures to stock the bullpen from 2002 through this season.

Edited by DieHard3, 23 September 2005 - 01:47 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

Though I sort of share Yecul's fear of what Tito might do, I think that one of the biggest problems with his use of Timlin this year has been overusing him by using him in low leverage situations. Sox up 7-1 going to the 9th, what feels comfortable? Old reliable security blanket Timlin!

That happened too often this season, IMO.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I disagree; Miller was slotted as the 6th starter, and Mantei was not counted on to be any better than the #4 reliever (behind Foulke, Timlin, and Embree).

Essentially; the problem wasn't that Mantei got hurt- it was that Foulke, Embree, and Mantie were all ineffective. And to a lesser extent, guys like Halama were lousy too.

Same goes for Miller; it wasn't even unexpected that he got hurt. It just became a problem because Schilling was already hurt and others were ineffective.

How much proven veteran depth can you really build into a pitching staff?

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 23 September 2005 - 01:57 PM.

[Todd Benzinger]

  Relievers who hit the late 30s don't have the best track record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People have been saying this every year about Timlin. He has been very solid every year. Bring him back, just not in his current role. If you want to do a K-rod/Percival, or Rivera/Wetteland type thing with Timlin being the 9th inning, one inning guy and Hansen being the "Jamesian relief ace," fine. Just don't make Timlin your relief ace. He's a great 2nd/3rd option out of the pen.

As to his "decline," he was very good in 03, good in 04, very good in 05. I don't see decline there.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

And this attitude has been the reason for all the failures to stock the bullpen from 2002 through this season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The largest problems with their bullpens have been that they haven't had enough good pitchers, and the good pitchers have broken down. As much I criticize their bullpen management, I don't think its reasonable to expect a team to go into the season with a fail-safe solution for Keith Foulke pitching like Matt Young. If that happens, you are basically f*cked. In 2003, I think you are right that they mistook "undervalued" for "good", and then Epstein provided a flexible bullpen to a manager that didn't want it, and didn't know how to deal with it. In 2004, they went into the season with Foulke, Williamson, Timlin, Embree, and Arroyo, likely one of the best bullpens in baseball. Williamson got hurt, and Kim's injury took Arroyo out, but the team's bullpen depth was able to partially deal with the injuries. The back of the bullpen was a continual audition. In 2005, they were at least one pitcher short even before Foulke's injury, and things spiraled from there.

It is impossible to underestimate how important the loss of Foulke was. If he can come back next year, its better than signing Burnett or Dunn would be.

[yecul]

I disagree; Miller was slotted as the 6th starter, and Mantei was not counted on to be any better than the #4 reliever (behind Foulke, Timlin, and Embree).

Excellent, so they're simply terrible at talent evaluation. Any way you spin this, they haven't handled the staff well. Either they take calculated risks on key spots or they expect too much out of some guys.

Essentially; the problem wasn't that Mantei got hurt- it was that Foulke, Embree, and Mantie were all ineffective. And to a lesser extent, guys like Halama were lousy too.

I think the underlying point is that if you try to get those lightning in a bottle pitchers on short/cheap money too often then you'll just keep shuffling the deck chairs over and over.

Same goes for Miller; it wasn't even unexpected that he got hurt. It just became a problem because Schilling was already hurt and others were ineffective.

Oh, I think they hoped/expected more from Miller than what they got.

How much proven veteran depth can you really build into a pitching staff?

Not as much as they have. You need to work in youth as they give you the upside and, perhaps just as important, flexibility. Granted, the options have been limited.

Edit --

As to his "decline," he was very good in 03, good in 04, very good in 05.

WHIP: 1.03 > 1.23 > 1.32

His HR rate has improved, however.

Edited by yecul, 23 September 2005 - 02:09 PM.

[smastroyin]

Great data collection effort Philly.

I agree with yecul here on the definition of "risk" and "value."  The team and many people here, think that high value means taking a small financial risk for some nonzero possibility of good performance.  That's fine if you're talking about bringing in the 6th guy in the bullpen or the 10th guy on the bench.  It's not the way you want to go about filling your rotation (Miller) or finding your top setup guy (Mantei).  Mantei would have been a "low risk" signing for the Angels in 2003, for Boston in 2005, he was about as risky as you could possibly get.

And this attitude has been the reason for all the failures to stock the bullpen from 2002 through this season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that we are talking about the 6th starter (they didn't expect him until after the AS break when they signed him, IIRC).

We're also talking about a team that invested big money in Alan Embree, Mike Timlin, Ramiro Mendoza, BK Kim, and Keith Foulke. It's not like all they have ever done is go cheap. This reputation is built on two things, I guess. One is not retaining Urbina, who has proven that he was risky by not being all that good. The second I guess is signing Matt Mantei. Beyond that, sure there are a flood of the lesser guys but other than the teams that develop their premium bullpens (the Angels, Twins, A's of the world) every team does this. I mean, if the basis of your complaint is that there are too many Brandon Lyons and Mark Malaskas, then I think you need to go follow a small market team.

I would think that the problem Theo, et al have had is not in trying to get value out of zeroes, but just in simply making bad evaluations of some guys. the guys that they have paid for have not come through enough, and that's exposed the guys they didn't pay much for...which in turn leads to hyperbole about the way they addressed the situation.

[PedroKsBambino]

My understanding is they thought there was a less than 50% chance Miller would really give them anything. But it's still worth taking the shot, because there's a fair chance that he's a tremendous bargain, too.

The problem with Yecul's spin on this is that no team signs as many "proven" relievers as he seems to think should have been signed. It'd be nice to have more than four, as were there in 2004, but no one ever does.

I agree with smastroyin that, really, the issue is that they haven't been able to get lucky/show skill in finding backend guys who surprise by being pretty good.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Here's the problem.

Schilling, Embree, and Foulke:

2004: 362 IP, 3.13 ERA
2005: 164.3 IP, 6.30 ERA

I don't see how you could have build in enough depth to reasonably deal with this occurring. Expecting a reaonsable drop-off and some injury certainly should have been expected; and I think that having Mantei, Halama, and Miller around gave some depth, but it's hard to deal with three of your better pitchers being almost totally ineffective.

It was always going to be tough for the pitching to be better than last year, esp. once you let Pedro go. That's primarily a function of the great health the Sox had last year. I'm not sure you can give the Sox credit for that great health or the poor health this year, though. It happens.

[yecul]

I would think that the problem Theo, et al have had is not in trying to get value out of zeroes, but just in simply making bad evaluations of some guys.

Well, in the end, it all gets back to this. I don't think they've shown themselves to be all that good with talent evaluation on the pitching side. Fortunately now they have some prospects who can step in, so they can afford to take a flier on someone and just jettison them if they fail -- replacing them with someone like MDC or whatever.

Though... that also brings up the point of their desperation to never let anything go. Matt White, Stern... It's just very odd. For being so smart they do a lot of odd/dumb things, IMO.

[yecul]

The problem with Yecul's spin on this is that no team signs as many "proven" relievers as he seems to think should have been signed. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not my point at all.

I don't see how you could have build in enough depth to reasonably deal with this occurring.

Chicken and the egg. If you want to buy that they brought this partly on themselves (eg, by rushing Schilling) then can you simply negate any ownership?

[Todd Benzinger]

Oh, I think they hoped/expected more from Miller than what they got.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? I think they were pretty clear all along that they were looking to year 2.

If they are so bad at talent evaluation, why did they pick up so many guys who put up strong seasons soon after leaving the Sox?

It's not just that they aren't getting the right guys; it's that when they get guys with actual ability, they don't get the best out of that ability. Is that an FO problem, a manager's problem, the result of impatience, park defense/factors, or plain bad luck?

You could put together one of the best BPs in baseball based on the 05 performance of guys the Sox had in the last few years and dumped.

Todd Jones
Rudy Seanez
Bobby Howry
Bruce Chen
BK Kim

Add in Mike Myers and Mike Timlin, and you have a smoking pen.

Why did those guys wash out here? It clearly wasn't a failure of talent evaluation.

[PedroKsBambino]

That's not my point at all.

That's what you said, though, when you referred to "too many attempts to catch lightning in a bottle" I don't see any other conclusion from that.

The point that they haven't been good at the back end is, I think, something most here agree on for sure.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 23 September 2005 - 02:19 PM.

[yecul]

If they are so bad at talent evaluation, why did they pick up so many guys who put up strong seasons soon after leaving the Sox?

So either they're picking up good players and can't develop/harness them or they're picking up bad players or it's all just luck...

[smastroyin]

Well, in the end, it all gets back to this.  I don't think they've shown themselves to be all that good with talent evaluation on the pitching side. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course that's what it gets back to. But painting the picture as if they have refused to spend money and keep trying to throw crappy guys out there and get lucky is just wrong. It would not surprise me in the very least if the Sox had the second most expensive bullpen in the league last year *and* this year. Last year the expensive guys were good. This year they weren't.

[PedroKsBambino]

The point was made earlier in the thread by a couple people that there's something to the "don't develop them well" position on that.

The Sox have had a very short leash with many of those relievers---look at the small number of innings pitched guys like Seanez and Todd Jones had. Whether that's bad evaluation of the pitcher of the effect of the pennant race or the fans, or a combination, not letting people get a longer trial period is likely a major part of the reason players have succeeded elsewhere after not sticking in Boston.

[Todd Benzinger]

So either they're picking up good players and can't develop/harness them or they're picking up bad players or it's all just luck...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find this comment a bit cryptic. I think I said the same thing--it could be one of many factors. My point was meant to be that saying that the main problem is talent evaluation seems off base. Maybe the talent evaluation could be better, but even when it is good, it doesn't pan out. That seems like a different problem.

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 23 September 2005 - 02:26 PM.

[yecul]

Whoever said it was about money?

They don't pick up and try to plug in guys like Tolar, BJ Jones, and White just for shits. They do it because they believe that they will be able to contribute. My point is mainly about these types. Look at philly's list. Have they had good success with it? Is it wrong to say that they haven't?

Don't extrapolate my point and claim that I'm saying they should sign a bunch of vets.

[Todd Benzinger]

The point was made earlier in the thread by a couple people that there's something to the "don't develop them well" position on that.

The Sox have had a very short leash with many of those relievers---look at the small number of innings pitched guys like Seanez and Todd Jones had.  Whether that's bad evaluation of the pitcher of the effect of the pennant race or the fans, or a combination, not letting people get a longer trial period is likely a major part of the reason players have succeeded elsewhere after not sticking in Boston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I entirely agree, and I think that's something we should keep in mind as we attack the manager and the FO every time a guy who isn't a "proven" RP or a vaunted I am too lazy to type the one extra letter in prospect comes out of the pen.

I was happy to see all those guys go when they went. And now I regret it.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I really think its nearly impossible to build a bullpen completely from the outside. People laud what the Angels have been able to do, but when you develop Frankie Rodriguez and Scott Shields at the same time, your job becomes a lot easier. If the Red Sox can find a couple of young power arms from within, I'll gladly take my chances on bringing in a bunch of low-risk guys to fill out the staff.

Edited by LahoudOrBillyC, 23 September 2005 - 02:31 PM.

[PedroKsBambino]

Don't extrapolate my point and claim that I'm saying they should sign a bunch of vets.

Yecul, you said this:

I think the underlying point is that if you try to get those lightning in a bottle pitchers on short/cheap money too often then you'll just keep shuffling the deck chairs over and over.

I think that is why I commented about the reality of how many proven guys can be signed and smastroyin about the money issue.

Not trying to extrapolate, I thought the replies were germane to the initial comment. If not, my mistake.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 23 September 2005 - 02:31 PM.

[smastroyin]

Whoever said it was about money?

They don't pick up and try to plug in guys like Tolar, BJ Jones, and White just for shits.  They do it because they believe that they will be able to contribute.  My point is mainly about these types.  Look at philly's list.  Have they had good success with it?  Is it wrong to say that they haven't? 

Don't extrapolate my point and claim that I'm saying they should sign a bunch of vets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, my initial response was to DH3's post. You got involved from there.

These guys are all risks but they are brought to be risks at the back of the bullpen. The fallacious argument I am seeing creeping in here is that they were brought in to have leading roles.

If Foulke and Embree were both good this year, you wouldn't give two shits about Matt Mantei. That's my point. The problems at the front have exposed weakness in the back. The Sox have tried (however poorly) to fill the front through traditional means.