Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Offseason injury thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
17 replies to this topic

#1 Carmen Fanzone


  • Monbo's BFF


  • 5,813 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 11:46 AM

Might as well have a place to discuss issues like this.

Boston Red Sox relief pitcher Bobby Jenks, who had surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital in December to remove bone fragments from his lower back, underwent a second spinal decompression recently and is unlikely to be ready for the start of spring training, a major league source told The Boston Globe.



#2 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,039 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 11:49 AM

Might as well have a place to discuss issues like this.

I wouldn't count on Jenks for anything in 2012.

#3 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 10,096 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:16 PM

Add another notch in both Theo's and the former medical staff's respective belts.

#4 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,490 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:28 PM

Add another notch in both Theo's and the former medical staff's respective belts.


And the major league scouting staff, who seemingly signed off on two years for Jenks, two years for Cameron, Crawford being a good fit, Lackey, etc. etc. Epstein signed the deals, but I highly doubt he was going against the word of the major league scouts.

Anyway, Epstein is gone, but wasn't the newly promoted Allard Baird in charge of major league scouting for the past few years?

#5 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,011 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 01:08 PM

And the major league scouting staff, who seemingly signed off on two years for Jenks, two years for Cameron, Crawford being a good fit, Lackey, etc. etc. Epstein signed the deals, but I highly doubt he was going against the word of the major league scouts.


This intangible 'fit' nonsense is really tedious.

The major league scouts would have seen the same things we all saw in Crawford in 2009 and 2010: All-Star seasons for a contending team, with good offense and great defense. Short of psychic insight, I'm not sure how they were supposed to predict that he would play badly his first year in Boston while watching him kick ass with Tampa.

This wasn't a Julio Lugo signing where there was an intervening period of suck in LA that might have set off alarm bells, or a Lackey signing where there were declining peripherals and increasingly-frequent DL trips, or even a Cameron signing where the player was so old that injury-related decline was really, really likely.

edit: sorry about the thread hijack. I shouldn't feed the trolls.

Edited by nvalvo, 05 January 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#6 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,490 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 01:52 PM

Okay, so I'm a "troll" when I suggest that Crawford might not be a good fit for this team and this ballpark. So that means that everyone who made excuses for his horrible first season by saying it was just because he was having a tough time adjusting to his new team and new surroundings was a "troll" too. :rolling:

The Red Sox clearly cared about this "intangible fit nonsense" when they had Baird watching his every move for months on and off the field before signing him.

And the whole point was about Baird anyway, before the Carl Crawford Defense League had to jump all over the choice of one word-- why was Baird given the promotion when there have been several big signings in recent years that haven't worked out? Leave out Crawford if the CCDL insists, you still have Jenks, Cameron and Lackey getting many years and a combined $90+ million under Baird's scouting watch, but not only is he still here, he just got promoted.

#7 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:07 PM

I don't know if you are a troll but you are kind of a dick to bring up Lackey, Crawford, and whatever else at every turn. What about Adrian Gonzalez, Adrian Beltre, Victor Martinez*, not trading Jon Lester, Jed Lowrie, and Jacoby Ellsbury for Johan Santana. Theo did really good here. He wasn't perfect but he did a good job.

*Although, I do wish we still had Justin Masterson. He was expendable at the time and the trade worked out great for the Sox but, yea, 200IP of 3fWAR for chump change would be awesome right about now.

#8 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,490 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:17 PM

I'm not even talking about Theo for god's sake, can't you even read or are you too busy calling me a dick? I'm talking about Baird. Wow, this message board is ridiculous. :c070:

#9 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:38 PM

Allard Baird was named vice president of player personnel. The former director of pro scouting will spend more of his time on major league matters.

Link

That blurb makes it seem like he didn't have much say in Theo's lastest blunders here. So getting on Baird is odd. He most likely did his job to the letter, reported back to Theo, who in turn made a decision. Don't really know what the hell Baird has to do with anything. Theo is to blame for those moves not his scouts.

#10 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1,214 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:49 PM

I'm not even talking about Theo for god's sake, can't you even read or are you too busy calling me a dick? I'm talking about Baird. Wow, this message board is ridiculous. :c070:


Do you think Epstein went against his scouting staff in making the good deals?

Because unless you do, I can't see what point you're making. At all.

#11 genivive

  • 822 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:54 PM

Link

That blurb makes it seem like he didn't have much say in Theo's lastest blunders here. So getting on Baird is odd. He most likely did his job to the letter, reported back to Theo, who in turn made a decision. Don't really know what the hell Baird has to do with anything. Theo is to blame for those moves not his scouts.


He was promoted in November 2011. Wouldn't that mean he was involved with signing Jenks, Crawford and Lackey?

#12 nothumb

  • 2,709 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:09 PM

I think the Jenks signing is probably fairest game for some 20/20 hindsight crapping on Baird. When he hit the market, Jenks was a fat, hard-throwing RHP entering his age 30 season after losing his job in Chicago and heading in the wrong direction in just about every way. Aside from his K/9 jumping around like crazy, his H/9, BB/9, WHIP, WAR, and innings were all on a three-year downward trend. In terms of the 'intangibles' that people debate with Crawford, you don't have to look too far to find them on Jenks... this is a guy who couldn't make his high school baseball team because of grades. He has a history of stupidity, poor work ethic and injuries that have followed him since his time in the minors.

Invoking the Lackey - Crawford refrain may get tiresome for some folks but I was ready to see Baird walk the plank even before this team fell apart in September. They have made some good trades for MLB veterans (Gonzo, Victor) but the FA signings have been atrocious.

EDIT: and "Theo is to blame not his scouts" makes no sense to me. Why have the scouts then? If Theo is just going to glance at the numbers and make a decision, what was Baird getting paid for? Pro scouting operations do research on players. They consider work habits, temperament, health, mechanics... they evaluate how players adjust, how they handle adversity, how they relate to others, what kind of coaching they benefit from... the Moneyball era has tempered the emphasis on scouting to the extent that it ignores statistical evidence, but scouting in combination with stats is still essential for any MLB front office to succeed.

If you're a GM of a grocery store and the manager of the produce section recommends you start buying Chernobyl Giant Bananas, you are both to blame when all your customers start sprouting extra limbs. Since Theo was successful in many areas as a GM, but seemed to do really poorly with FA signings, it's not insane to wonder if Baird played a big role in that.

Edited by nothumb, 05 January 2012 - 03:18 PM.


#13 Toe Nash

  • 3,174 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:13 PM

Invoking the Lackey - Crawford refrain may get tiresome for some folks but I was ready to see Baird walk the plank even before this team fell apart in September. They have made some good trades for MLB veterans (Gonzo, Victor) but the FA signings have been atrocious.

Why would you separate the trades out from the FA signings? They both involve identifying a player the team wants and deciding if the asking price is fair.

#14 nothumb

  • 2,709 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:32 PM

Why would you separate the trades out from the FA signings? They both involve identifying a player the team wants and deciding if the asking price is fair.


That phrase was intended more as a caveat that not everything Baird has done was demonstrably awful, not really to draw a sharp distinction between trades for veterans vs. FA signings. I mean there are some differences but my object is not to quibble over them, the main point is that when you look at all the ML-level transactions that you would expect pro scouting to have a hand in, especially those with lasting impact on payroll flexibility and roster construction issues, the record is pretty poor.

#15 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,715 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:32 PM

This intangible 'fit' nonsense is really tedious.

The major league scouts would have seen the same things we all saw in Crawford in 2009 and 2010: All-Star seasons for a contending team, with good offense and great defense. Short of psychic insight, I'm not sure how they were supposed to predict that he would play badly his first year in Boston while watching him kick ass with Tampa.


I don't think the lack of fit about Crawford has much to do with intangibles or with a lack of psychic insight. He's a lefthanded hitter with good but not great power who largely duplicated skills that Ellsbury possessed, with a large part of his value coming from leftfield defense. He was a bad fit for a lineup already heavily lefthanded, and both offensively and defensively he was likely to be of less value in Fenway than he had been in Tampa.

That he was not even able to play up to the diminished expectations many people who thought they paid too much for too long was just bad luck. That the Red Sox would have been better off with a different leftfielder and different allocation of payroll was poor foresight.

#16 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,177 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:41 PM

Link

That blurb makes it seem like he didn't have much say in Theo's lastest blunders here. So getting on Baird is odd. He most likely did his job to the letter, reported back to Theo, who in turn made a decision. Don't really know what the hell Baird has to do with anything. Theo is to blame for those moves not his scouts.



Baird was brought into the organization to address an acknowledged weakness (ML talent evaluation) after Lajoie's departure. Sure, Theo is ultimately responsible (for both the final decision and also hiring Baird), but it is entirely fair to suspect the quality of the advice Baird has generated.

#17 twothousandone

  • 2,986 posts

Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:44 PM

Might as well have a place to discuss issues like this.


I agree that's a great idea, Carmen. Do you plan to open a thread where we can have that discussion?

#18 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,011 posts

Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

I don't think the lack of fit about Crawford has much to do with intangibles or with a lack of psychic insight. He's a lefthanded hitter with good but not great power who largely duplicated skills that Ellsbury possessed, with a large part of his value coming from leftfield defense. He was a bad fit for a lineup already heavily lefthanded, and both offensively and defensively he was likely to be of less value in Fenway than he had been in Tampa.


I'm not so sure about offensively. Tampa is a difficult hitters park for LHH, too.