478 replies to this topic

[untilthebombs]

A lot of that is probably because he's a groundball pitcher. Almost all groundball pitchers have a higher FIP than ERA because the formula for FIP is so dependent on strikeout rates.

EDIT: I should clarify, almost all groundball pitchers with low strikeout rates have lower ERA's than FIP's.

And ground ball pitchers with low K rates tend to post lower ERAs than DIPs because balls put in play against them are more likely to be scored errors, resulting in a high percentage of unearned runs. For his career, 9.5% of the runs Saunders has allowed have been unearned. That ERA treats the runs as unearned allows for the overvaluation of such pitchers. Whether the errors are legit or questionable, defenders are more likely to be put in stressful positions by guys like Saunders.

[SpruceTrap]

And ground ball pitchers with low K rates tend to post lower ERAs than DIPs because balls put in play against them are more likely to be scored errors, resulting in a high percentage of unearned runs. For his career, 9.5% of the runs Saunders has allowed have been unearned. That ERA treats the runs as unearned allows for the overvaluation of such pitchers. Whether the errors are legit or questionable, defenders are more likely to be put in stressful positions by guys like Saunders.

I'm not sure how significant a factor that is. Here's how the percentage of his runs given up as earned runs compare to fly ball pitchers.

Saunders - 92.55%
Cain - 93.88%
Johan Santana - 92.94%
Justin Verlander - 93.15%

That suggests that if it is a factor, it's by a matter of 2% at most or 2 runs over a full season for a typical Saunders year.

[SpruceTrap]

I'm even more worried by this from Dave Cameron: http://www.fangraphs...uational-babip/
Saunders last year had a .280 BABIP with the bases empty, .258 with men on and .211 with RISP. That worries me a great deal, I can see how it is possible he could sustain a slightly lower BABIP with runners on than bases empty, as a groundball pitcher since the availability of a force at another base shortens throws and perhaps leads to a few more outs, however I can't see why the big gap with RISP would be sustainable. So along with a correction in BABIP overall he seems like he is likely to have an even bigger correction in BABIP with RISP which would lead to more runs.

Interesting, I would be interested to see how it compares to his career averages though. Cameron also shows that statistically BABIP goes down with runners in scoring position, although he league average is not that dramatic.

I think anyone expecting Saunders to repeat his ERA below 4 will be disappointed. But if Saunders can pitch 200 innings with an ERA of 4.20 that would be valuable considering the other starters we have.

[keyalyn]

I wouldn't be all that concerned with the higher FIP and xFIP, since those figures aren't really that bad. He has a career 4.65FIP and 4.52xFIP. If Saunders can put up an ERA like that over 200IP, he will be fine. No one expects him to be an ace, they expect him to be a competent innings eater at the back of the rotation.

[untilthebombs]

I'm not sure how significant a factor that is. Here's how the percentage of his runs given up as earned runs compare to fly ball pitchers.

Saunders - 92.55%
Cain - 93.88%
Johan Santana - 92.94%
Justin Verlander - 93.15%

That suggests that if it is a factor, it's by a matter of 2% at most or 2 runs over a full season for a typical Saunders year.

It's enough to suggest that we shouldn't be carrying his career 103 ERA+ around like a touch (where this started). Then consider that the guy spent his first 4 and half years in a pitcher friendly park with strong defenses backing him, and all six years in comparatively (weak) divisions.




It's really besides the point though. No sense in using ERA plus to make a case for what a pitcher will do. He's a "pitch to contact" guy who's fastball has fallen below 90 mph. What little ability he's had at fooling hitters into weak contact is about to dry up. A move to the AL East would be disastrous. For the right price, anyone is worth considering, but I don't see his price falling far enough to justify a guy that I see with a high 4, if not 5 ERA in Boston.

[wine111]

It's enough to suggest that we shouldn't be carrying his career 103 ERA+ around like a touch (where this started). Then consider that the guy spent his first 4 and half years in a pitcher friendly park with strong defenses backing him, and all six years in comparatively (weak) divisions.




It's really besides the point though. No sense in using ERA plus to make a case for what a pitcher will do. He's a "pitch to contact" guy who's fastball has fallen below 90 mph. What little ability he's had at fooling hitters into weak contact is about to dry up. A move to the AL East would be disastrous. For the right price, anyone is worth considering, but I don't see his price falling far enough to justify a guy that I see with a high 4, if not 5 ERA in Boston.

Saunders would be a batting practice pitcher waiting to happen in Boston. He is not exceptional in any pitching category except innings. He is not Derek Lowe as he does not have an exceptional sinker or
the exceptional control of other Red Sox pitchers of the past like Pedro. And our 3B, SS and potentially RF defense are not exactly Gold Glove level. So with all that contact and the good lineups and friendly
hitters parks in the A.L. East, that will mean plenty of runs given up. I don't want to see an over 5 ERA pitcher in the rotation and Saunders would have an excellent chance of being exactly that.

Edited by wine111, 15 December 2011 - 07:51 AM.

[SpruceTrap]

"#Athletics would love to get a future third baseman for Gio Gonzalez. #Rangersprospect Mike Olt (1.197 OPS in AFL) is one possibility."

-Jon Morosi

http://twitter.com/#!/jonmorosi/status/147754626916163584

That would make us a prime trade partner as well. I would be more than fine with Gonzalez as a fourth starter depending on the package.

[ivanvamp]

Interesting, I would be interested to see how it compares to his career averages though. Cameron also shows that statistically BABIP goes down with runners in scoring position, although he league average is not that dramatic.

I think anyone expecting Saunders to repeat his ERA below 4 will be disappointed. But if Saunders can pitch 200 innings with an ERA of 4.20 that would be valuable considering the other starters we have.

If he gave the Sox that last year instead of Lackey/Wake/Weiland/Miller, the Sox would have likely made the playoffs comfortably.

[ivanvamp]

"#Athletics would love to get a future third baseman for Gio Gonzalez. #Rangersprospect Mike Olt (1.197 OPS in AFL) is one possibility."

-Jon Morosi

http://twitter.com/#!/jonmorosi/status/147754626916163584

That would make us a prime trade partner as well. I would be more than fine with Gonzalez as a fourth starter depending on the package.

I don't know if I would do this, but Middlebrooks for Gonzalez is obviously what you're thinking of. Some folks here in SoSH are high on WMB, and others think now is the time to trade him. I don't know where I stand.

[Towney007]

Until Gio gets his walks down, I wouldn't comfortable with that price for him.


As for Saunders, if he puts up anything under a 5 ERA in this divison, i'll eat my shorts.

Edited by Towney007, 17 December 2011 - 09:43 PM.

[trotshelmet]

Until Gio gets his walks down, I wouldn't comfortable with that price for him.


As for Saunders, if he puts up anything under a 5 ERA in this divison, i'll eat my shorts.

Not saying that I want Saunders, but having a 5ish era pitcher that can be counted on for 200 innings is pretty valuable - particularly with an offense like Boston's. After seeing what seems like far too many 5-6 inning outings, someone what has some real durability would be nice, particularly for a BP that was overworked last year. If he is going for 8M, no chance. But if that drops, his durability might make the contract worth it.

[SpruceTrap]

What kind of package do you think it would take to acquire Michael Pineda from the Seattle Mariners? I'm not quite sure what their organizational needs are.

[SpruceTrap]

I don't know if I would do this, but Middlebrooks for Gonzalez is obviously what you're thinking of. Some folks here in SoSH are high on WMB, and others think now is the time to trade him. I don't know where I stand.

I would have no problem trading him. His strikeout rates are concerning.

[Cellar-Door]

What kind of package do you think it would take to acquire Michael Pineda from the Seattle Mariners? I'm not quite sure what their organizational needs are.

I'd say there is basically no chance he gets moved. There is no reason any team would move a player of his caliber who isn't even arbitration eligible until 2014. If he was made available we don't have anywhere near the kind of talent in the system it would take to get him.

[Back Bay]

MLBTR reporting Oswalt is seeking 1 year deal. Oswalt would be a fine pick up and hopefully if he stays healthy to throw 175 innings. Might need to overpay a bit to get him sign. If they give him a player option like Beltre it should lower the luxury tax hit.

[ivanvamp]

MLBTR reporting Oswalt is seeking 1 year deal. Oswalt would be a fine pick up and hopefully if he stays healthy to throw 175 innings. Might need to overpay a bit to get him sign. If they give him a player option like Beltre it should lower the luxury tax hit.

I'd be fine with adding Oswalt. I would predict a stat line of something like this for next year (and no, I don't have any fancy metrics to project these things):

170 ip, 4.25 era, 1.30 whip, 5.9 k/9

Not an all-star, but a heck of a lot better than the chum the Sox were throwing out there in September and (in the case of Lackey) most of the year.

[TOleary25]

MLBTR reporting Oswalt is seeking 1 year deal. Oswalt would be a fine pick up and hopefully if he stays healthy to throw 175 innings. Might need to overpay a bit to get him sign. If they give him a player option like Beltre it should lower the luxury tax hit.

Seems like a perfect fit, although a one year contract for the potential return Oswalt can bring seems like a no-brainer to almost any team. If they are able to sign one of Oswalt or Kuroda I will be very happy.

Edited by TOleary25, 20 December 2011 - 02:48 PM.

[MikeM]

Seems like a perfect fit, although a one year contract for the potential return Oswalt can bring seems like a no-brainer to almost any team. If they are able to sign one of Oswalt or Kuroda I will be very happy.

Outside everything we've seen thus far suggesting we can't afford what's likely to be the requirement contract there? Yeah, perfect fit

That he's coming down off his insistence on 3 guaranteed years is only half the issue there btw, as now he needs to come to terms with the reality of taking a pay cut from the $15-16m/per his last contract left off at. Once he does that, and competetive interest starts building, there will be a 2 year deal out there for him imo.

[Towney007]

A one year deal on Oswalt is a complete and total no brainer to me:

A look at Oswalt month-to-month indicates that the back injury was almost 100% to blame for his drop off. His April and Septembers were fantastic, with him hanging around his normal 7.0 K/9 ratio. During the middle of the season however,

nearly all of his pitches had higher contact rates

. If only one or two of his pitches had dropped off a cliff, I’d be worried, but it was all of them. Combined with his walk rate – which even in spite of the injury was fairly consistent- would lead me to conclude that his control wasn’t an issue and it was more an issue of stuff. Oswalt has always been an aggressive pitcher, not known for pitching around hitters. That’s an issue when your stuff isn’t good – and probably explains the spikes. I think it’s fairly safe to say that the back played an enormous role in his mid-season struggles. I'd expect a near-full bounce back next year. I'd do my homework on his back injury big-time, but this guy's a potential top of the rotation arm on the cheap. Even if he stays at last year's numbers, he's a solid #4 even if he's an overpay. I'd say with a guy with his upside, he's a worthwhile risk relative to the rest of what's on the market.

[Towney007]

Outside everything we've seen thus far suggesting we can't afford what's likely to be the requirement contract there? Yeah, perfect fit

That's the word, but they've also said if the right player is out there at the right price, they'd take the plunge. Risk/reward for Oswalt is very high.

[MikeM]

That's the word, but they've also said if the right player is out there at the right price, they'd take the plunge. Risk/reward for Oswalt is very high.

Heh, as opposed to what, an otherwise willingness to come out, take the non-spin route, and state "After royally fucking up the roster's financial flexibility, we are all but maxed out and simply can't afford to do any significant shit right now?" if that indeed was the case?

In the best of best case scenarios, Oswalt isn't going to be "cheap". We are already buckling from the projected weight now, enough so that another $10m+ in one shot/player seems highly, highly unlikely atm.

Edited by MikeM, 20 December 2011 - 03:44 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Heh, as opposed to what, an otherwise willingness to come out, take the non-spin route, and state "After royally fucking up the roster's financial flexibility, we are all but maxed out and simply can't afford to do any significant shit right now?" if that indeed was the case?

In the best of best case scenarios, Oswalt isn't going to be "cheap". We are already buckling from the projected weight now, enough so that another $10m+ in one shot/player seems highly, highly unlikely atm.

You get the opportunity to add Oswalt on a short deal you have to take it..it's not like he's asking for 2 to 3 years or anything...

[Tyrone Biggums]

Heh, as opposed to what, an otherwise willingness to come out, take the non-spin route, and state "After royally fucking up the roster's financial flexibility, we are all but maxed out and simply can't afford to do any significant shit right now?" if that indeed was the case?

In the best of best case scenarios, Oswalt isn't going to be "cheap". We are already buckling from the projected weight now, enough so that another $10m+ in one shot/player seems highly, highly unlikely atm.

You get the opportunity to add Oswalt on a short deal you have to take it..it's not like he's asking for 2 to 3 years or anything...

[Towney007]

If the team were financially 'buckling' (nice dramatic wording, btw), then you'd see them actively selling off pieces, but they're clearly not so yeah... I really can't comprehend what's so difficult for people to understand about 'We're not pursuing big names, but if the right deal comes around, we'll jump". I think the situation is very much what they're saying it is, and people are driving the speculation train off a cliff from there. Of course, they're saying the same thing in NY right now.. so it's not like big market paranoia hasn't fully set in.. The market blows. It's not really any more complicated than that and the fact that the two biggest bank-rolled and best staffed teams in the majors aren't playing in the muck with other desperate teams (see Philly) is probably a pretty clear indication of it. I just think you've got two fan bases who are used to big deals and in their absence, are questioning their belief in god. And yes, relative to top of the rotation arms - Oswalt at $10-$12 million would likely be considered 'cheap'.

[MikeM]

In days long past, when we didn't spend away that extra flexibility on speedy 30 yr old LF'ers, i'd be right behind you in agreement. Sadly,we aren't that franchise anymore though, and those days are behind us. Right now, just filling out the roster is pushing our payroll to it's arguable limits, which serves to complicate that otherwise core desire to jump on an oppertunity.

Maybe i need to go over my math again, but last i checked speculating Oswalt is essentially talking about a $190m payroll this year. I just don't see that happening atm.

[wine111]

Heh, as opposed to what, an otherwise willingness to come out, take the non-spin route, and state "After royally fucking up the roster's financial flexibility, we are all but maxed out and simply can't afford to do any significant shit right now?" if that indeed was the case?

In the best of best case scenarios, Oswalt isn't going to be "cheap". We are already buckling from the projected weight now, enough so that another $10m+ in one shot/player seems highly, highly unlikely atm.

If they back down on Oswalt because they don't want to spend $10-12 million, that just emphasizes the strategic error of signing Ortiz. I would have been fine with a DH platoon
of Josh Reddick against right handers and Ryan Lavarnway against lefties. We needed the additional starting pitcher far more than we needed the aging DH.

[Towney007]

And you may be right, but if the price is right, I think the Sox will play.

Still though, Oswalt coming here I think is more unlikely than it is likely. The AL East isn't exactly the place to go if you're looking to rebuild value as a pitcher. Great place if you're a hitter with hitters parks and lineups with plenty of protection, but for a pitcher, not so much. I think the Red Sox and Yankees both play, but I see him honestly ending up in a place like St. Louis.

[MikeM]

If the team were financially 'buckling' (nice dramatic wording, btw), then you'd see them actively selling off pieces, but they're clearly not so yeah... I really can't comprehend what's so difficult for people to understand about 'We're not pursuing big names, but if the right deal comes around, we'll jump". I think the situation is very much what they're saying it is, and people are driving the speculation train off a cliff from there

Thanks, i was shooting for the most appropriate description . I wouldn't expect the Sox to be seliing off what's left of their window. What i would expect is for them to hire a Bobby V, and not spend any more significant amounts of money on anybody, which thus far is what they have done. On that note.....

Ya know, not too long ago the concept that we could not spend like the MFY was pretty much accepted as gospel here. Nowadays, that most simple core aspect of any such speculation has all but been forgotten, commonly and by and large replaced by the seemingly never-ending "yeah, but...but if this time we just spend that much more......." rationalizations.

Maybe that's been warranted, maybe not. But at what point does the line get drawn there, and do we go back to re-learning the basics?

[TOleary25]

Thanks, i was shooting for the most appropriate description . I wouldn't expect the Sox to be seliing off what's left of their window. What i would expect is for them to hire a Bobby V, and not spend any more significant amounts of money on anybody, which thus far is what they have done. On that note.....

So if your theory is right the Red Sox will go into the season with Bard and Aceves as your back end starters and Jenks and Melancon as your closer options? Various articles have put the Sox somewhere around 175 including arbitration estimates. There have also been reports that they expect to go over the luxury tax. In 2013, money is coming off the books in the form of Ortiz, Daisuke, Scutaro, and Jenks. If the Sox aren't willing to spend the money on a one year contract for Oswalt then that's a shame.

Edited by TOleary25, 20 December 2011 - 05:14 PM.

[wine111]

And you may be right, but if the price is right, I think the Sox will play.

Still though, Oswalt coming here I think is more unlikely than it is likely. The AL East isn't exactly the place to go if you're looking to rebuild value as a pitcher. Great place if you're a hitter with hitters parks and lineups with plenty of protection, but for a pitcher, not so much. I think the Red Sox and Yankees both play, but I see him honestly ending up in a place like St. Louis.

I think the Yankees are going to take the King Felix plunge. They may wait until mid season, but I think Hernandez is the Yankees priority instead of Oswalt. I wish we would take the trading
plunge for King Felix first. He could be the final piece in a potential (I said potential) five or six year dynasty, if prospects are the only cost (of course it will cost $ to pay his salary). We
just need that ace at the top of the rotation. Hernandez, Lester, Beckett and C.B. I would be confident going into the post season with that rotation.

I would even be willing to include Ellsbury in the deal to offset the $ impact on our payroll. I'd take the hit on offense to make our pitching staff elite. It is possible that we just saw Ellsbury's
career year. Hernandez is only 26 years old.

Edited by wine111, 20 December 2011 - 06:18 PM.

[Towney007]

I don't think Hernandez is going anywhere anytime soon, especially if the Mariners sign Fielder. If they still look far away from contending heading into next year, then the Mariners might be motivated to ship him off, but I just don't see it with three years left on his current deal. I'm not trying to sound too insane, but I think they could get a five/six top flight prospect package for Hernandez given the market. If Gio Gonzalez is going for as much as he is, then Hernandez's price tag is going to be earth-shattering. Considering the market, lack of motivation on the Mariners part and to be honest - a Yankees organization that has a renewed love for their farm system, I see the chances of that happening this year at anytime slim to none. That's just me though.

That being said, they match up very well for Garza and also have the pieces to get THAT deal done... Gonzalez could be a possibility too, but I have a feeling Beane may have overplayed his hand a bit in the asking price. To be honest, i think the Red Sox are cleanly out of the starting pitching trade market right now. They just don't have the pieces to compete with the kinds of offers others could put together right now. Their best shot is with Gonzalez because of the matchup with the A's being in a holding pattern until a new stadium deal and the Sox bulk of their top prospects in A-AA, but even then - I feel like other teams could out-do them. Their best shot is Wandy Rodriguez, but with that third year team option of his becoming a player option if he gets dealt, it's an awfully tough nut to swallow. Especially when other pitchers are out there and for likely better prices...

[keyalyn]

I think the Yankees are going to take the King Felix plunge. They may wait until mid season, but I think Hernandez is the Yankees priority instead of Oswalt. I wish we would take the trading
plunge for King Felix first. He could be the final piece in a potential (I said potential) five or six year dynasty, if prospects are the only cost (of course it will cost $ to pay his salary). We
just need that ace at the top of the rotation. Hernandez, Lester, Beckett and C.B. I would be confident going into the post season with that rotation.

I would even be willing to include Ellsbury in the deal to offset the $ impact on our payroll. I'd take the hit on offense to make our pitching staff elite. It is possible that we just saw Ellsbury's
career year. Hernandez is only 26 years old.

But would the Mariners be interested in Ellsbury as a centerpiece? He is controlled for fewer years than Felix, and is about to become very expensive too. If they were to trade him they would likely prefer players cheaper who they would control for more than 2 years. Even if the Red Sox did want to trade for Felix, I don't think they could come up with a package attractive enough for Seattle to bite.

[MikeM]

So if your theory is right the Red Sox will go into the season with Bard and Aceves as your back end starters and Jenks and Melancon as your closer options? Various articles have put the Sox somewhere around 175 including arbitration estimates. There have also been reports that they expect to go over the luxury tax. In 2013, money is coming off the books in the form of Ortiz, Daisuke, Scutaro, and Jenks. If the Sox aren't willing to spend the money on a one year contract for Oswalt then that's a shame.

Actually, and outside a bunch optimistic talk atm, i personally don't see Bard realistically leaving ST as anything but Papelbon's anointed successor. Aceves makes the move, with the Miller/Wakefield/<insert cheap contract here> option battling it it out for that last spot.

The reports of the Red Sox "expecting" to go over the cap are a direct result of the current state of the payroll, which is going to be the case even with the most minor of efforts. People reading some "willingness" to spend for spending's sake on top of that are completely jumping the gun imo. Generally speaking, there's a difference between the willingness to hand out a $1.5m contract to a guy over somebody making the league min, and choosing to go the Roy Oswalt route.

Why would ultimately drawing the line here be a shame? JH has spent the last 2 winters coughing up significantly more then he had to in the past, and it essentially has gotten us nowhere. The hole Theo Epstein has dug for us is just that much deeper, and that 2nd r-enforcement round of elite/homegrown talent that fueled our rise to power isn't coming. Heck, the Visigoths have already sacked the city. This franchise's Golden Run, for all practical purposes, is over.

Which again is why Bobby V was brought in on the short term imo. We are taking what we got, and basically playing it out in hopes for that last stand type victory. Before we get overrun as an AL powerhouse completely, and while hoping a Josh Beckett injury/decline isn't going to spare the rest of the league the trouble before then.

[TOleary25]

Why would ultimately drawing the line here be a shame? JH has spent the last 2 winters coughing up significantly more then he had to in the past, and it essentially has gotten us nowhere. The hole Theo Epstein has dug for us is just that much deeper, and that 2nd r-enforcement round of elite/homegrown talent that fueled our rise to power isn't coming. Heck, the Visigoths have already sacked the city. This franchise's Golden Run, for all practical purposes, is over.

Up until September, this team was the best in the American League. If they had any sort of pitching depth at the end of the season it would probably be an entirely different story. If you're right that an Andrew Miller type is in the starting rotation to start the season than that is pretty disappointing imo. They have spent money on Nick Punto and Kelly Shoppach so far this offseason. If they are that close to their limitations then why are they spending money on depth moves that could have already been filled internally?

There may not be elite prospects knocking on the door but Middlebrooks, Iglesias, Wilson, and Lavarnway could all play some type of role in 2013, if not sooner. Replacing Jenks, Ortiz and Scutaro with Wilson, Lavarnway and Iglesias would reduce payroll in 2013.

I think drawing the line at Oswalt is a shame because it is a short term commitment that has the potential to put the team over the top.

Edited by TOleary25, 21 December 2011 - 08:40 AM.

[Towney007]

Why would ultimately drawing the line here be a shame? JH has spent the last 2 winters coughing up significantly more then he had to in the past, and it essentially has gotten us nowhere. The hole Theo Epstein has dug for us is just that much deeper, and that 2nd r-enforcement round of elite/homegrown talent that fueled our rise to power isn't coming. Heck, the Visigoths have already sacked the city. This franchise's Golden Run, for all practical purposes, is over.

Mike, I'm sorry but you're acting hysterical.


While this team has bad contracts and don't have the flexibility they've had in the past, the idea that there's some sort of closed window on a team with essentially five all stars below the age of 30 is just... wow. I'm not going to bother because really, I shouldn't have to. Dial it back.

[MikeM]

Mike, I'm sorry but you're acting hysterical.


While this team has bad contracts and don't have the flexibility they've had in the past, the idea that there's some sort of closed window on a team with essentially five all stars below the age of 30 is just... wow. I'm not going to bother because really, I shouldn't have to. Dial it back.

What you see as being hysterical i deem as taking off the Epstein-approved blinders , and both recognizing and accepting the reality now being presented before us.

Unfortunately for both of us man , time didn't stand still in 2007. In the time since then, the Sox have gone from among the best run franchise to among the arguable worst imo. That once promising blueprint Theo once held up and claimed as the future of this franchise? Yeah, that's long gone. Replaced by a complete and utter dependency being placed on our ability to outspend our competition, which if you haven't noticed yet, is fast evaporating.

Bottomline, we have a chance to win in the here and now, but this is ultimately a franchise on a path going backwards. Period. No doubt about it.

But hey, if the people sitting around, faithfully overrating our minor league talent while all but demanding $190m+ payrolls are the ones calling *me* hysterical, that's cool. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion/perception

[untilthebombs]

What you see as being hysterical i deem as taking off the Epstein-approved blinders , and both recognizing and accepting the reality now being presented before us.

Unfortunately for both of us man , time didn't stand still in 2007. In the time since then, the Sox have gone from among the best run franchise to among the arguable worst imo.

Explain.

That once promising blueprint Theo once held up and claimed as the future of this franchise? Yeah, that's long gone.

Explain.

Replaced by a complete and utter dependency being placed on our ability to outspend our competition,

Explain.

which if you haven't noticed yet, is fast evaporating.

Explain.

Bottomline, we have a chance to win in the here and now, but this is ultimately a franchise on a path going backwards. Period. No doubt about it.

Explain.


A difference of opinion is fine and healthy. But this reads like fear mongering rhetoric. Don't take that as disrespect, but that's the best way to put it.

[MikeM]

A difference of opinion is fine and healthy. But this reads like fear mongering rhetoric. Don't take that as disrespect, but that's the best way to put it.

Fear mongering rhetoric.....LOL. Don't worry man, as somebody who's never been one to shy away from unpopular criticism, my skin has been conditioned to be fairly thick over the years. If it wasn't, i wouldn't dare posting that here for that matter. That stated, i gotta be blunt myself there now, with no disrespect of my own intended. Now that our run has finally begun to come full circle, is the concept that we fucked up a good thing we had going really THAT hard to accept or fathom? Even with Theo now gone, and with him the "understandable" need to defend his stamp of approval/s, should we still ignore the fact we've spent the last few years doing pretty much everything we once set out NOT to do as a franchise when we initially laid the foundation of this run? I mean it's not like i'm the one here panicking about potentially being over-budget, writing off the team's universal chance to contend this season, or handing in my team loyalty hat or anything. I'm just the guy stating that the Red Sox are a franchise on the downside of a great run, and if the hard time reality that comes with that decides to peak some of it's head at us this winter, that just is what it is and shouldn't really come as that big a "like everybody else, we are not the Yankees" shocker here.

Heh, you ask for explanations there, and i guess i could sit here and go point for point rehashing everything with you now. But in essence, i wouldn't be telling you anything there that you and the other 99% of the people that post here don't already know...and were probabaly posting yourself/themselves 5 years ago for that matter. Again, back when the reason/s behind why we couldn't/shouldn't be out there trying to spend with the Yankees didn't require an explanation, when the fact we had a budget was acknowledged, and when the cause and effect aspects that bad contracts can have on that budget actually got factored in the shiny new toy speculation on a much, much more consistent basis then we see today.

I sit in this thread now, having to point out the fact to people that a Roy Oswalt signing probably puts us at a roughly $190m+ payroll. Heh. It's gotten to the point were we apparently have to field a $190m+ payroll just to "potentially* give us a semi-decent shot at contention, and a hopeful *chance* at keeping pace with the Rays, and you are asking me for a problem explanation there.

Well, all the answers you seek can all be found in that number man. That, and an "eyes open" trip down memory lane, with an honest/comparative analysis between what appealed to you then and how that's now applying to what you see in front of you today.

[Cellar-Door]

Fear mongering rhetoric.....LOL. Don't worry man, as somebody who's never been one to shy away from unpopular criticism, my skin has been conditioned to be fairly thick over the years. If it wasn't, i wouldn't dare posting that here for that matter. That stated, i gotta be blunt myself there now, with no disrespect of my own intended. Now that our run has finally begun to come full circle, is the concept that we fucked up a good thing we had going really THAT hard to accept or fathom? Even with Theo now gone, and with him the "understandable" need to defend his stamp of approval/s, should we still ignore the fact we've spent the last few years doing pretty much everything we once set out NOT to do as a franchise when we initially laid the foundation of this run? I mean it's not like i'm the one here panicking about potentially being over-budget, writing off the team's universal chance to contend this season, or handing in my team loyalty hat or anything. I'm just the guy stating that the Red Sox are a franchise on the downside of a great run, and if the hard time reality that comes with that decides to peak some of it's head at us this winter, that just is what it is and shouldn't really come as that big a "like everybody else, we are not the Yankees" shocker here.

Heh, you ask for explanations there, and i guess i could sit here and go point for point rehashing everything with you now. But in essence, i wouldn't be telling you anything there that you and the other 99% of the people that post here don't already know...and were probabaly posting yourself/themselves 5 years ago for that matter. Again, back when the reason/s behind why we couldn't/shouldn't be out there trying to spend with the Yankees didn't require an explanation, when the fact we had a budget was acknowledged, and when the cause and effect aspects that bad contracts can have on that budget actually got factored in the shiny new toy speculation on a much, much more consistent basis then we see today.

I sit in this thread now, having to point out the fact to people that a Roy Oswalt signing probably puts us at a roughly $190m+ payroll. Heh. It's gotten to the point were we apparently have to field a $190m+ payroll just to "potentially* give us a semi-decent shot at contention, and a hopeful *chance* at keeping pace with the Rays, and you are asking me for a problem explanation there.

Well, all the answers you seek can all be found in that number man. That, and an "eyes open" trip down memory lane, with an honest/comparative analysis between what appealed to you then and how that's now applying to what you see in front of you today.

We call this a cop out.
Don't make claims then when asked for an explanation claim it should be obvious and you are too busy to explain it.
Of course there is a budget, but to look a team that won 90 games despite crippling injuries to the pitching staff, and which returns every member of the best offense in baseball and say the window is closed is ridiculous and has no basis in fact. To do so before you have any idea what the back of the rotation and bullpen will look like is even worse.

[MikeM]

We call this a cop out.
Don't make claims then when asked for an explanation claim it should be obvious and you are too busy to explain it.

A cop out to what, having to sit here and explain in extended detail why a decision to sign Carl Crawford was terrible and flavor-of-the-moment shit at it's worst, and/or the basics behind why $190m payroll = bad? Do i really need to go over the blatantly obvious, at an elementary level at that, because i will if you need me to. I just didn't in my response to Untilthebombs because in our past discussions/debates, i came away with a pretty strong sense that what i did offer would suffice to get my point across.

Of course there is a budget, but to look a team that won 90 games despite crippling injuries to the pitching staff, and which returns every member of the best offense in baseball and say the window is closed is ridiculous and has no basis in fact. To do so before you have any idea what the back of the rotation and bullpen will look like is even worse

Again, i'm the one not closing the window on the 2012 season, with or without an "irrelevant" $190m+ payroll. I'm claiming it's nowhere near as open as it once was, and that your decision to sit there oblivious to the fact that this franchise as a whole right now isn't looking remotely as promising as it did a few years ago is what's truly ridiculous here (we call that denial btw). But like i stated earlier, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and perceptions i guess.

Not sure if you you were even following the Sox back when this run of success started, but in the event you were, a bunch of the early decade Yankee fans over on MLB.com and such offered up a wonderful representation of the the whole financial entitlement routine. So if Henry does indeed decide to cut our payroll at a measly $180m, it'll probably make a good reference point for most of your complaints

[keyalyn]

A cop out to what, having to sit here and explain in extended detail why a decision to sign Carl Crawford was terrible and flavor-of-the-moment shit at it's worst, and/or the basics behind why $190m payroll = bad? Do i really need to go over the blatantly obvious, at an elementary level at that, because i will if you need me to. I just didn't in my response to Untilthebombs because in our past discussions/debates, i came away with a pretty strong sense that what i did offer would suffice to get my point across.

Please go over it in detail. I too am curious as to how you deem them one of the worst run organizations in baseball.

Sure, Crawford is overpaid. But how was he a flavor-of-the-moment? In the 5 years before he signed with Boston, he had the 13th Highest WAR in the majors among position players. He wasn't just a one year wonder. And even if you want to dismiss his WAR due to it being largely based on his defense, his offense was ranked 33rd in that span, and his base-running 6th. This is out of 341 qualified players, so for a 5 year span his offense ranked in the top 10% in baseball, and his defense and base-running significantly higher than that. I am very curious why he is a "flavor-of-the-moment".

Edited by keyalyn, 22 December 2011 - 07:13 AM.

[Cellar-Door]

A cop out to what, having to sit here and explain in extended detail why a decision to sign Carl Crawford was terrible and flavor-of-the-moment shit at it's worst, and/or the basics behind why $190m payroll = bad? Do i really need to go over the blatantly obvious, at an elementary level at that, because i will if you need me to. I just didn't in my response to Untilthebombs because in our past discussions/debates, i came away with a pretty strong sense that what i did offer would suffice to get my point across.




Again, i'm the one not closing the window on the 2012 season, with or without an "irrelevant" $190m+ payroll. I'm claiming it's nowhere near as open as it once was, and that your decision to sit there oblivious to the fact that this franchise as a whole right now isn't looking remotely as promising as it did a few years ago is what's truly ridiculous here (we call that denial btw). But like i stated earlier, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and perceptions i guess.

Not sure if you you were even following the Sox back when this run of success started, but in the event you were, a bunch of the early decade Yankee fans over on MLB.com and such offered up a wonderful representation of the the whole financial entitlement routine. So if Henry does indeed decide to cut our payroll at a measly $180m, it'll probably make a good reference point for most of your complaints

That'a a great pile of bullshit, but you still haven't given a real reason to make the argument that the Red Sox window is somehow closing/closed. Crawford was probably a poor signing, but the idea that somehow overpaying a few guys closes the window is absolutely ridiculous. Calling into question whether I have been a fan long, is a snide misdirection from the fact that you have no reasoning behind your statements. So I'll say it again... What is the basis to say this team can't win 90+ games next year and compete in the playoffs? Carl Crawford's contract isn't an answer, "financial entitlement" isn't an answer. If we start the season tomorrow, without adding a single player we have almost the exact same roster that won 90 games last year, now neither of us believes this roster is fully finished, but even if it was where do you see it not being able to compete? Last two spots in the rotation perhaps? Bullpen? Give me a reason that you think this team is so deeply flawed that it is going to be significantly worse not only this year but in future years as well.

[Towney007]

The best part in all of this is the assumption that the Red Sox are somehow suddenly caught with their pants down regarding their payroll. Because I'm sure they didn't project a budget out past the years they signed these guys..

[SpruceTrap]

We'll be fine. Our offense is the best in the majors, no explanation needed. Crawford having a bounce back season would just be icing on the cake.

As far as our rotation is concerned Jon Lester in an ace. He's 10th in all MLB starter in WAR the last three years. One bad month doesn't suddenly un-make him an ace. His 191 innings with a 3.47 ERA last year really wasn't that bad. Clay Buchholz has an ERA a touch over 3.00 the last three years. He pitched 191 innings in 2009 and 177 innings in 2011. One back injury doesn't suddenly make him injury prone. Josh Beckett may be inconsistent but he looked like a different pitcher last year, actually pitching rather than throwing. He made major adjustments to the amount of secondary pitches he was throwing and pitched to the situation. I wouldn't expect a huge dropoff next year.

The rest of the rotation is a work in progress. We're going to acquire a 4th starter and whoever we use as a 5th starter is pretty much guaranteed to better than Lackey's 6+ ERA last year.

The bullpen is a work in progress as well. Not so much if Bard does not win the 5th starter spot though.

[MikeM]

The best part in all of this is the assumption that the Red Sox are somehow suddenly caught with their pants down regarding their payroll. Because I'm sure they didn't project a budget out past the years they signed these guys..

Who's claiming they got caught with their pants down? If anything, it looks to me like they are now attempting to own up to the created albatross, and kicked off the winter with an attempted fix by cutting off the it's head (Theo).

Before i rip into Cellar-Door's predictably shallow response, are you going to attempt to put any more words in my mouth here, or are you actually interested in debating my pov here?

Edited by MikeM, 22 December 2011 - 11:30 PM.

[Towney007]

Mike, four different people have asked you to explain yourself. Shit or get off the pot. Please.

[MikeM]

Sure, Crawford is overpaid. But how was he a flavor-of-the-moment? In the 5 years before he signed with Boston, he had the 13th Highest WAR in the majors among position players. He wasn't just a one year wonder. And even if you want to dismiss his WAR due to it being largely based on his defense, his offense was ranked 33rd in that span, and his base-running 6th. This is out of 341 qualified players, so for a 5 year span his offense ranked in the top 10% in baseball, and his defense and base-running significantly higher than that. I am very curious why he is a "flavor-of-the-moment".

I wouldn't say i totally dismiss his WAR, but yeah, i do/did take issues with it's value being so defensively heavy. Just as i generally do with any other similar value. As far as that success is concerned, that's all good stuff and everything, and it's not like i felt i ever was selling him short in acknowledging him as a quality player (i actually spent years watching Tampa on a daily basis for much of his time there). But at the core we are not speculating a scenario here where we went out and signed 24 year old Carl Crawford to a 5 year deal. So for starters, i'll point out that one of the most basic and fundamental principles that initially attracted me at the beginning of the Theo Epstein era was the presented concept that we were not going to be one of those teams that went out and paid players for what they did "before". Especially in the form of overly-competitive, non-cornerstone Type A free agents.

As far as him being that flavor of the moment signing for us, my reasoning there is pretty extensive. Starting with the simple/stated belief at the time that our roster didn't need Carl Crawford to be strong/legitimate players in 2011. I frequent various boards, but i'm sure a quick search here would uncover various posts confirming i was indeed proclaiming just that (probably attached to various proclamations that there was no way Theo Epstein, of all people, would actually do what he ended up doing there =p). As at the time we were coming off the acquisition of Gonzalez, who in itself was representative of a big foundation change/investment. One which presented us with accompanied realities that we were already fairly familiar with in form of the years we spent paying Manny Ramirez a sizable chunk of our available resources.

As a big picture kinda guy, i don't tend to look/evaluate things as they appear in the moment. So for me, the fact that we spent $160m+ these past 2 years, which arguably was born out of a necessity salvage attempt (that by on-field success and overall business standards, has ultimately failed btw) isn't some "start from here" factor determining where this team wants to be financially. The previous 6 years to that, there's a pretty consistent level of spending data that i have a hard time viewing as irrelevant. So yeah, and at the time assuming the Gonzalez extension was a given, when the team went ahead and committed $20m/per to a speed heavy 30 year old LF'er, that struck me as getting pretty caught up in the shiny new toy/flavor of the moment factor. Getting back and not losing sight of the basic principles of roster building there, that's committing a whopping 1/3 of that previous 6 year average payroll for the next 6-7 years. On a 30yo'ish LF/1B combo. For a team that, and unlike when we had Manny btw, more then likely won't be seeing the same infusion of cost-efficient talent in near future (and we had a pretty historic run of good fortune there previously imo). For a player we arguably didn't even need to be a potential 95 win team in 2011 to begin with.

I could go on there, but i'm already way off topic with Cellar (which i want to get back to at some point tonight), and want to refrain from too much derailing. If you desire to debate this further, i'm all for taking it to another thread though.

[MikeM]

Mike, four different people have asked you to explain yourself. Shit or get off the pot. Please.

Ya know, you claim that as if you've actually offered a shred of counter debate to my pov here beyond "uh uhh". Oh, and the attempt to portray me as stating things i haven't.

Beyond getting all worked up over the the presented notion that the Sox are on a decline as a franchise, i'm actually not even sure at this point whether you even have an opinion here to debate. Which is actually a fairly typical scenario i've experienced in the past there, as once i get beyond the dancing, i usually just find somebody that was simply attempting to score what they had initially viewed as easy points. It is a Red Sox board after all, and it does not get much safer then taking the 'safe stance" Even if one is taking it for default reasons, while essentially letting other people do the thinking for them.

I got my girlfriend over tonight, and was responding first to those who came at me with a more civil tone to their posts. So unless you are actually going to do more then talk shit to me (pro-tip btw, if you want to call me out and not replying to you sooner, at least offer your own reasoning why this franchise *isn't* on a decline first), sit back and hold your horses. I have not forgotten you guys

[Towney007]

Is this really that complicated?

You said that the team's window to compete was over. I asked you to dial the rhetoric back because that's being hysterical. To which you responded with this (far more hysterical) gem:

In the time since then, the Sox have gone from among the best run franchise to among the arguable worst imo.

You were asked to explain that position, among others by multiple posters. We've read countless paragraphs about your daringly rebellious nature, your account of the 'good old days', dislike for Carl Crawford (you did see him, after all), the fact that you don't like to be asked questions, and heck - we even learned that you have a girlfriend. Very little - if anything in any of that - has to do with the topic of conversation, which is just people asking you for a simple explanation of what is perceived to be a pretty radical position(s) you've taken on the state of the Red Sox.

So one more time: Explain your position.If you don't this time, I'll just take it as you admitting you went overboard, which is fine. We all do sometimes.

Edited by Towney007, 23 December 2011 - 02:52 AM.

[Cellar-Door]

Ya know, you claim that as if you've actually offered a shred of counter debate to my pov here beyond "uh uhh". Oh, and the attempt to portray me as stating things i haven't.

Beyond getting all worked up over the the presented notion that the Sox are on a decline as a franchise, i'm actually not even sure at this point whether you even have an opinion here to debate. Which is actually a fairly typical scenario i've experienced in the past there, as once i get beyond the dancing, i usually just find somebody that was simply attempting to score what they had initially viewed as easy points. It is a Red Sox board after all, and it does not get much safer then taking the 'safe stance" Even if one is taking it for default reasons, while essentially letting other people do the thinking for them.

I got my girlfriend over tonight, and was responding first to those who came at me with a more civil tone to their posts. So unless you are actually going to do more then talk shit to me (pro-tip btw, if you want to call me out and not replying to you sooner, at least offer your own reasoning why this franchise *isn't* on a decline first), sit back and hold your horses. I have not forgotten you guys

Fine. If I have to oppose your argument to get you to explain it here are the reasons that I don't think the Red Sox are going to "get overrun as an AL powerhouse completely" or "this is ultimately a franchise on a path going backwards. Period. No doubt about it." Both direct quotes from you.
1. The current roster was the best offense in baseball last year, it included 6 starters under the age of 30, all of whom are under contract until at least 2014
2. That includes 3 of the top 9 WAR earners in the AL
3. They have 3 well above average starting pitchers in Lester, Buchholz and Beckett, with deals ending 2014,2015,2016.
4. They have at least 3 above average young bullpen arms in Bard, Melancon, and Aceves all under 30 with deals expiring 2015,2016,2017
5. While not as solid as it was before several trades and injuries, the farm system is not exactly barren, (I'd expect it to be top half when the BP and BA lists come out)
6. The team has one of the best revenue streams in the league meaning there is never likely to be a financial need for a complete blow up.
7. While several big money moves have not worked out: Lackey, possibly Crawford, the Red Sox only have 2 big money commitments beyond 2014 (Gonzalez and Crawford)
8. Of our best regarded prospects/young players close to major league ready most play positions where we are getting older or have holes such as Reddick, Kalish, Lavarnway and Middlebrooks.
9. We don't have any of the usual decline indicators: players in their mid 30's on long term contracts, ownership with cash flow problems, a barren farm system, multiple years of poor drafting.

Those are the reasons I think the Red Sox are in good shape to contend perennially in the AL. Now will you give us your specific reasoning, beyond vague assertions of poor management and direction shift based on one poor signing in Crawford?
The entire point is that a team with both the talent foundation and the financial advantages the Red Sox have can afford to eat a few bad signings, last year they had a disaster year from Crawford, lost Dice K for the year, Lackey continued his steep decline, they suffered injuries that cost large stretches of games to Buchholz, Jenks, Drew, Youkilis and Scutaro. Despite all of that they won 90 games and came within a game of making the playoffs.