280 replies to this topic

[Plympton91]

I agree that relief pitchers are notoriously unreliable, so shouldn't you then be even more willing to pay a premium for one that has been kick-ass awesome for 6 of the past 7, and healthy for 6.833 of the past 7? Shouldn't you prioritize a that production over that of a leftfielder who shouldn't hit in top half of your batting order? Shouldn't you prioritize that over a 4(h starter? Shouldn't you plan to sign the picture of health and productivity, rather spend almost as much this season on the combination of a fat slob and a guy who's never survived a full pro season?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

And we have Bingo! Managers can call for this pitcher or that pitcher, this pinch hitter or that pinch hitter, or this play or that play, but, in the final analysis, it's up to the players to get it done or not. When they do, the manager looks like a genius. When they don't, he looks like an idiot. That has never changed since baseball was invented.

This is all 100% true.

At the same time a manager has to put his players in the best position to succeed. Is putting Aceves, given his rate stats and recent track record in a different role, really being put in a position to succeed by being named the closer?

I think your argument here Pumpsie is well applied to Melancon, at the very least. He's closed before and making him the closer now makes a lot of sense. He's the one who screwed up today by pitching badly. He was put in a position to succeed but didn't get the job done.

[czar]

I agree that relief pitchers are notoriously unreliable, so shouldn't you then be even more willing to pay a premium for one that has been kick-ass awesome for 6 of the past 7, and healthy for 6.833 of the past 7? Shouldn't you prioritize a that production over that of a leftfielder who shouldn't hit in top half of your batting order? Shouldn't you prioritize that over a 4(h starter? Shouldn't you plan to sign the picture of health and productivity, rather spend almost as much this season on the combination of a fat slob and a guy who's never survived a full pro season?

Money and year-to-year variability (RP > SP > LF) aside, you sign proven LFs and SPs before proven RPs because Gabby Sanchez, Jeff Francoer, Phillip Humber and Bartolo Colon provided equal or more value (fWAR) to their respective teams than Jonathan Papelbon did last year.

You can use other metrics until your heart's content, but unless you have CLOSER_IS_AWESOME_WAR = saves * 1,000,000 you are going to find the same outcomes.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I agree that relief pitchers are notoriously unreliable, so shouldn't you then be even more willing to pay a premium for one that has been kick-ass awesome for 6 of the past 7, and healthy for 6.833 of the past 7? Shouldn't you prioritize a that production over that of a leftfielder who shouldn't hit in top half of your batting order? Shouldn't you prioritize that over a 4(h starter? Shouldn't you plan to sign the picture of health and productivity, rather spend almost as much this season on the combination of a fat slob and a guy who's never survived a full pro season?

Of course past results are no guarantee of future results.

Look, Papelbon got the most money EVER for a closer. If he's healthy he's worth it. If he's not it's an enormous waste of money. Papelbon made it clear he was going to test the FA waters, he got a monster offer and apprently just took it without letting the Sox try to match, which they likely wouldn't have anyway.

The Sox reacted well by trading for Bailey. He got hurt, shit happens. It's what to do now that's the question. Every manager faces injuries. In 2005 Tito lost his #1 starter, his closer, his lefty setup guy, and his second baseball to either injury or ineffectiveness. He and Theo figured out solutions and they won 95 and made the playoffs. Valentine and Ben have to figure this out and they have to do it today. Not tomorrow, not next week, today. That's their jobs.

[Plympton91]

Not to discount his value as a swingman/middle reliever, but (what you cover aside above) I can't believe people keep glossing over the fact that the Sox picked a guy who had a 2011 4.77 xFIP, 6.32 K/9, and 3.32 BB/9 (and the league leader in HBP/9 to boot!) to be their closer and somehow feel his peripherals will magically turn around and match his 2011 ERA instead of the other way around.

Here's the dirty little secret on Alfredo Aceves: he's never going to be a good closer for the Boston Red Sox. The sooner the Sox realize it and move on, the better for everyone involved.

Forget closing, if Aceves pitches to his xFIP, the Red Sox are in serious trouble using him as anything but a mop up man. And, given that they planned on having him either be the a starter or a key set up man, they must either believe that he's going to consistently outpitch his xFIP by at least a run or they must be incompetent. Which do you suggest is more likely?

[Eddie Jurak]

Why the assumption that Bard would be an automatic success in the closer role? First of all, he's never done it before. Second, he had a great run in the setup role for a few years, but when the team really needed him to step up during the September meltdown, he flamed out as badly as anyone else on the staff. He was 0-4 in September, with an ERA of 10.64. The team finished only one game out... so if Bard does his job - even badly - the team reaches the playoffs in spite of everything else. Shortly after this awful season for the team, even knowing that Papelbon might be headed out of town, Bard let it be known that he'd like to start. Does that really sound like someone who would be a good fit for the closer role?

Frankly, in some ways Bard reminds me of Derek Lowe. Lowe was a terrific multi-inning capable reliever in 1998 and 1999 (53 relief appearances and 75 innings out of the bullpen in 1998, 74 and 109 in 1999). He then became closer in 2000 and saved 42 games. Then in 2001 it all fell apart on him. His last three appearances of the year were starts and he has been a starter ever since.

I think a knee jerk move of Bard back to the bullpen could be exactly the wrong thing to do at this point.

[glennhoffmania]

and his second baseball

I don't know how they won so many games without that second baseball. I kid.

I think there are two problems. One is that I have zero faith in Bobby to make the right decisions. Tito made questionable choices every once in a while but for the most part he used logic and reasoning. I just have this feeling that Bobby will constantly be out to prove that he's smarter than everyone. This has nothing to do with today's game in particular. But between naming Aceves closer, talking about how Punto has to lead off because he provides a spark, not letting Youkilis hit for him, the bunt, and whatever else you want to throw in there, he's really made it tough to trust him so far.

Secondly, I don't give a shit who the closer is. Take away the meaningless saves stat and no one would care. The problem is there is no candidate for relief ace in this pen. Tito could bring Bard into a game in the 7th, 8th or 9th in a tough spot and for the most part he could be relied upon. Who could fill that role now? Even if Bailey was healthy, he'd only be allowed to pitch the 9th because he's "the closer" so who should Bobby call on with 2 on, 2 out in the 7th, up one run, when the starter has run out of gas? Albers? Melancon? Please.

[jtn46]

Money and year-to-year variability (RP > SP > LF) aside, you sign proven LFs and SPs before proven RPs because Gabby Sanchez, Jeff Francoer, Phillip Humber and Bartolo Colon provided equal or more value (fWAR) to their respective teams than Jonathan Papelbon did last year.

You can use other metrics until your heart's content, but unless you have CLOSER_IS_AWESOME_WAR = saves * 1,000,000 you are going to find the same outcomes.

Sure but there aren't many places to buy more wins on this roster. RF, SS, bullpen, bench.

I don't think the problem is that the Red Sox undervalued or overvalued Papelbon, it's that they lacked the payroll flexibility to spend money on the bullpen period.

[czar]

Forget closing, if Aceves pitches to his xFIP, the Red Sox are in serious trouble using him as anything but a mop up man. And, given that they planned on having him either be the a starter or a key set up man, they must either believe that he's going to consistently outpitch his xFIP by at least a run or they must be incompetent. Which do you suggest is more likely?

Not to be drawn into this strawman, here are two points that clarify my position.

1.) Existing statistical proof strongly hints that there is an extremely slim chance he outpitches his FIP/xFIP/SIERA/whatever by the amounts he did last year. As such, if his rate stats remain the same I expect significant regression (> 1.00 ERA point) from his 2011 ERA.

2.) A guy with a low-mid 4's FIP/xFIP who can throw multiple innings on reasonably short rest would still be (extremely) valuable to this team as (much) more than a mop up man. However, using him as a single-inning pitcher in the highest leverage innings is a misappropriation of this value when there are multiple available pitchers (in the Sox pen) more suited to the role.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Are you really killing Bobby for Aceves (who was the better choice) or Punto, who went 3-6? I get not liking Valentine but I think he's had very little to do with these losses. This is a flawed roster, and he's got a lot of relievers but none are very good. I guess he could have just not named a closer, but acknowledge he would have been killed for that too.

As you note, it's all about the talent. I fully expect Padilla to get the next big opportunity, and blow it.

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 08 April 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Bongorific]

I don't know how they won so many games without that second baseball. I kid.

I thought he was talking about Lowell.

Edited by Bongorific, 08 April 2012 - 08:35 PM.

[glennhoffmania]

Are you really killing Bobby for Aceves (who was the better choice) or Punto, who went 3-6? I get not liking Valentine but I think he's had very little to do with these losses. This is a flawed roster, and he's got a lot of relievers but none are very good. I guess he could have just not named a closer, but acknowledge he would have been killed for that too.

As you note, it's all about the talent. I fully expect Padilla to get the next big opportunity, and blow it.

I don't know if you were responding to me, but I'll respond.

I specifically said it had nothing to do with today's game in particular. Choosing Aceves as the closer is a dumb decision, regardless of how he pitched in the series. There is nothing sensible about it. Talking about how Punto is "a spark" is stupid. That's Joe Morgan reasoning for batting someone leadoff. I don't care if he hit 5 homers today. It's his reasoning that's concerning, not the results or lack thereof.

[Sprowl]

Why the assumption that Bard would be an automatic success in the closer role? First of all, he's never done it before. Second, he had a great run in the setup role for a few years, but when the team really needed him to step up during the September meltdown, he flamed out as badly as anyone else on the staff. He was 0-4 in September, with an ERA of 10.64. The team finished only one game out... so if Bard does his job - even badly - the team reaches the playoffs in spite of everything else. Shortly after this awful season for the team, even knowing that Papelbon might be headed out of town, Bard let it be known that he'd like to start. Does that really sound like someone who would be a good fit for the closer role?

Frankly, in some ways Bard reminds me of Derek Lowe. Lowe was a terrific multi-inning capable reliever in 1998 and 1999 (53 relief appearances and 75 innings out of the bullpen in 1998, 74 and 109 in 1999). He then became closer in 2000 and saved 42 games. Then in 2001 it all fell apart on him. His last three appearances of the year were starts and he has been a starter ever since.

I think a knee jerk move of Bard back to the bullpen could be exactly the wrong thing to do at this point.

I agree that Bard's stuff is closer-worthy, but his preference, ceiling, repertoire and mental makeup all scream STARTER.

Having gone this far, they need to give Bard a good, long chance to start, and it shouldn't end unless Bard a) winds up on the DL, or b) asks to return to the bullpen, like Papelbon. Jerking him out of the starting rotation before he's had a chance to start would be full-fledged idiotic panic.

I would much prefer that Bobby the Fifth and his Privy Council settle on a lesser form of panic by rotating the current relievers through the closer slot until one of them gets lucky. I think the lucky one will be Morales. He throws 94, has mastered three decent pitches, and keeps the ball down.

[Plympton91]

Valentine and Ben have to figure this out and they have to do it today. Not tomorrow, not next week, today. That's their jobs.

I think this point is spot on, and I think the biggest criticism so far is the extended auditions for starter during spring training left too little time for the bullpen to get into place. There are three things to expand on that.

First, Valentine mentioned around the middle of March that he hadn't started slotting relievers into their roles yet, and his uneasiness about that. The reason is that they were messing around with Padilla and Aceves as starters. They should have committed to Bard as a starter over the winter and gone into spring training looking for one starter, not 2.
Second, and this is also a response to Czar, is that the Red Sox organization made the decision to give Valentine this hand of relievers. The Red Sox believe, apparently, as Czar does, that saves aren't worth paying for and relievers are fungible. They haven't developed any relief pitchers save Bard and Paps, they haven't traded for any, and their forays into the free agent market for pitching have been disasters. The Red Sox prioritized the 6th place hitter and 4th starter. They also decided that Bobby Jenks was worth 2 year at $12 million, but neither Scott Downs nor Joquin Benoit were worth $20 million for 4 years. None of that is Valentine's fault. This is the legacy that Theo and Tito left him. Valentine's job is to see if he can make chicken salad out of chicken shit. And, unfortunately, his main competition has a different philosophy, and Girardi is enjoying ready-made seafood salad

Third, that Bailey is hurt should surprise no one. If they didn't plan on Bailey missing at least 6 weeks they were grossly incompetent. They decided to use their money and their trade chips to get Bailey and replace Reddick. They had other options. This is the one they chose.

[glennhoffmania]

The Red Sox prioritized the 6th place hitter and 4th starter.

You should really stop saying this. They didn't sign Crawford to be the 6th place hitter. They thought he was the OF to target and they made the deal. Do you really that during the negotiations Theo though, geez, this guy is only going to bat 6th so I'm going to lower my offer?

They didn't sign Lackey to be the 4th starter. They signed him because they thought he was an above-average pitcher that could strengthen the rotation for 5 years. The fact that 3 years later it turns out that the 3 guys they already had are better than him means shit. Lackey could still be worth his contract and be "the 4th starter" if the other guys were simply better.

Both deals have turned out to be awful so far but that isn't the point. The labels you're using are wrong and pointless, and they're adding nothing to your argument.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Actually, wasn't Crawford signed to be the #3 hitter? That's probably a different argument. I guess it's funny that the offseasons two biggest themes were bitching about the mess Theo left this team in and wondering why the Sox weren't getting more compensation for letting him go.

But, yeah, crappy talent evaluation and poor free agent signings have put the Sox in a hole, paying a lot of money for players on the DL. Ultimately, what they did with the little cash they had this offseason may be a mistake too.

On the bright side, there are 159 games left and I'm pretty sure at least a few of the winless clubs will make the playoffs.

[JakeRae]

You should really stop saying this. They didn't sign Crawford to be the 6th place hitter. They thought he was the OF to target and they made the deal. Do you really that during the negotiations Theo though, geez, this guy is only going to bat 6th so I'm going to lower my offer?

They didn't sign Lackey to be the 4th starter. They signed him because they thought he was an above-average pitcher that could strengthen the rotation for 5 years. The fact that 3 years later it turns out that the 3 guys they already had are better than him means shit. Lackey could still be worth his contract and be "the 4th starter" if the other guys were simply better.

Both deals have turned out to be awful so far but that isn't the point. The labels you're using are wrong and pointless, and they're adding nothing to your argument.

You're being too generous to his argument. The 4th starter and 6th hitter are both easily more valuable and more important than any single relief pitcher. In the case of the 4th starter, he's of roughly equal importance to the first 3 starters. In the case of the 6th hitter, he's only marginally less important than the guys who hit ahead of him in the lineup. Relievers are vastly less significant than guys who start games or who play everyday. Suggesting that the team should prioritize relief pitching ahead of starting pitching or starting position players is asinine.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I always hear that closers aren't that important, but it sure as heck seems a lot easier when you've got a good one.

[glennhoffmania]

You're being too generous to his argument. The 4th starter and 6th hitter are both easily more valuable and more important than any single relief pitcher. In the case of the 4th starter, he's of roughly equal importance to the first 3 starters. In the case of the 6th hitter, he's only marginally less important than the guys who hit ahead of him in the lineup. Relievers are vastly less significant than guys who start games or who play everyday. Suggesting that the team should prioritize relief pitching ahead of starting pitching or starting position players is asinine.

Right, I totally agree in general regardless of whether we're talking about the 4th starter or the 6th hitter. But to use these labels on either side of the argument makes zero sense.

[bosockboy]

For one reason or another, it seems the Sox just don't hit on lottery ticket relievers like many teams do. Okajima was an exception for sure, but we never have a journeyman land here and really succeed. Aardsma, Piniero....there's many others....all seem to do well for everyone but the Sox. And outside of Paps, they don't seem to develop young power relief arms well...they never got the ceiling out of Delcarmen, etc....

I'm not sure why all this is....poor luck or poor coaching...but it's interesting.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I think the point, though, is that the Lackey and Crawford signings both seemed to be luxury purchase that did not address real areas of need, and strayed from organizational philosophy in terms of risk assumed, position, fit with team, contract length, etc. Most were shocked and baffled by these moves, which so far have to be considered disasters.

[aron7awol]

Forget closing, if Aceves pitches to his xFIP, the Red Sox are in serious trouble using him as anything but a mop up man. And, given that they planned on having him either be the a starter or a key set up man, they must either believe that he's going to consistently outpitch his xFIP by at least a run or they must be incompetent. Which do you suggest is more likely?

It is not necessarily one or the other. It could be that they didn't expect him to continue to outperform his peripherals, and Valentine wasn't confident in Melancon, and they decided to throw Valentine/Aceves a bone to make them happy. Was it the bestt decision? No. Does that mean they are incompetent? Well, the jury's still out, I guess.

[glennhoffmania]

I think the point, though, is that the Lackey and Crawford signings both seemed to be luxury purchase that did not address real areas of need, and strayed from organizational philosophy in terms of risk assumed, position, fit with team, contract length, etc. Most were shocked and baffled by these moves, which so far have to be considered disasters.

They needed a LF and another starter. Signing guys to fill those roles is hardly a luxury. The organizational philosophy seems to have been not to grossly overpay for guys who may pitch 60-70 innings per year. That means you lose out on Papelbon but you avoid Ryan, Soriano, Madson, Lidge, etc.

[Rudy Pemberton]

They needed a LF and another starter. Signing guys to fill those roles is hardly a luxury.

They spent 200 million on those guys. If you need a car, you don't need to buy a Jaguar. Hell, this years team needed a RF and a SP, and they got Cody Ross and.....well, no one.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm puzzled that so much attention is being focused on the bullpen and so little on the rotation. The bullpen has lost us one game so far; the starters have lost two. If we had gotten even mediocre work from Buchholz today, there would have been nothing important for the bullpen to do.

So if Bard can give us a decent start on Tuesday, that might do more to help right the ship than anything he could do in the 9th inning.

[glennhoffmania]

They spent 200 million on those guys. If you need a car, you don't need to buy a Jaguar. Hell, this years team needed a RF and a SP, and they got Cody Ross and.....well, no one.

You said they were purchases that didn't address areas of need. When you don't have a LF and more than 3 reliable starters, those are areas of need. You can say that they overpaid to fill those areas of need, but that's a different point. I hated the Crawford signing, but I also would've been pissed if they started the season with Reddick as the starting LF.

My point is, they didn't fail to sign a high-priced reliever because they wasted money on Crawford and Lackey. They wouldn't sign a high-priced reliever either way. The fact that Lackey and Crawford have both sucked is good ammo for the debate but it wouldn't have changed the roster decisions with respect to relievers.

[Plympton91]

You're being too generous to his argument. The 4th starter and 6th hitter are both easily more valuable and more important than any single relief pitcher. In the case of the 4th starter, he's of roughly equal importance to the first 3 starters. In the case of the 6th hitter, he's only marginally less important than the guys who hit ahead of him in the lineup. Relievers are vastly less significant than guys who start games or who play everyday. Suggesting that the team should prioritize relief pitching ahead of starting pitching or starting position players is asinine.

If you're going to take that view then you must also believe that Daniel Bard must be given every opportunity to succeed as a starter no matter how bad the bullpen situation gets, right? Dan Bard as a starter is worth more than any reliever could possibly be worth, right? Moving Bard to the pen would repudiate that view.

Basically, if you're going to tell me the Red Sox made the right choice in blowing their 2012 budget on Crawford and Lackey, assuming they were heathy and productive, then you have no right to complain about the bullpen they put together for this season. This bullpen is what they can afford because they signed Crawford and Lackey. The decisions are one and the same.

But, doesn't context matter at all? If you've got 5 all-stars in your lineup already, and you've got 3 all-star caliber starting pitchers, but your best two relievers are Mark Melancon and Alfredo Aceves, does it really make sense to spend all of your available money upgrading left-field? I mean, maybe its easy to find multiple quality bullpen arms on the scrap heap every year (the past 20 years of Red Sox experience not withstanding), but isn't left-field at Fenway Park similarly easy to find average production at low cost?

Put another way, if John Henry told Ben he could buy a Yankee for $11 million tomorrow, would you want them to spend it on Nick Swisher, Hiroki Kuroda, or Rafael Soriano?

Or,let's just cut to the chase. Neither Alfredo Aceves nor Mark Melancon should be more than your 3rd option to close a game; their advanced metrics to date say each at best a 6th or 7th inning guy on a serious world series contender. That means the Red Sox are 2 quality relievers short even with Bailey, and one short even with Bailey and Bard.

If it is so easy to find pitchers as good as Rivera, Soriano, and Robertson on the scrap heap, then why haven't the Red Sox already done so? Fire up those spreadsheets, SOSH denizens, I'm sure Ben would be all ears. Go find Papelbon's replacement.

That's not Bobby valentine's fault and it's not a problem he can fix. I thought he managed flawlessly today.

Edited by Plympton91, 08 April 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[deconstruction]

Or,let's just cut to the chase. Neither Alfredo Aceves nor Mark Melancon should be more than your 3rd option to close a game; their advanced metrics to date say each at best a 6th or 7th inning guy on a serious world series contender. That means the Red Sox are 2 quality relievers short even with Bailey, and one short even with Bailey and Bard.

Melancon is certainly a fine second option to close. He's not a top tier closer, but he's also a fine 8th inning choice. This is what they traded him for. Today he got beat by the best right-handed hitter in the game and hung a curve to Avila. It's magnified, but not in and of itself a cause for concern.

[aron7awol]

Or,let's just cut to the chase. Neither Alfredo Aceves nor Mark Melancon should be more than your 3rd option to close a game; their advanced metrics to date say each at best a 6th or 7th inning guy on a serious world series contender. That means the Red Sox are 2 quality relievers short even with Bailey, and one short even with Bailey and Bard.

I definitely agree with that judgement of Aceves, but I'm not understanding the Melancon hate. He has a park and league adjusted career ERA- of 82 (his career ERA of 3.28 matches his career SIERA of 3.27 almost perfectly), and after adding the cutter to his repertoire last season to give him a better weapon against lefties, he lowered his ERA to 2.78, slightly below his SIERA of 2.93. That gave him an ERA- of 74 last season. If his ERA matched his SIERA, that ERA- would be around 77. Daniel Bard's 3.33 ERA in the AL East? Good for a 78 ERA-. He is perfectly fine for a late inning role on a playoff contender, especially a playoff contender with a good starting rotation and excellent offense.

I thought he managed flawlessly today.

We must have a different understanding of the meaning of the word "flawlessly". You really cannot find a single flaw in how Valentine managed today? Not even batting Punto leadoff when the first 4 batters of the normal order were all playing?

[JakeRae]

If you're going to take that view then you must also believe that Daniel Bard must be given every opportunity to succeed as a starter no matter how bad the bullpen situation gets, right? Dan Bard as a starter is worth more than any reliever could possibly be worth, right? Moving Bard to the pen would repudiate that view.

I've believed Bard should be a starter for awhile now and am not planning on backing down off of that belief unless he is given a real shot and struggles. 100 IP of average or less quality pitching and I'll get on board with shifting him back to the pen. If he's really bad, the sample size necessary for me to admit I was wrong will drop. If they move him back to the pen as a reactionary move to the bullpen struggling, I will bitch about it all season and likely longer.

Basically, if you're going to tell me the Red Sox made the right choice in blowing their 2012 budget on Crawford and Lackey, assuming they were heathy and productive, then you have no right to complain about the bullpen they put together for this season. This bullpen is what they can afford because they signed Crawford and Lackey. The decisions are one and the same.

They signed Crawford and Lackey this past offseason? Given their recent track records, that seems like a terrible blunder...

But, doesn't context matter at all? If you've got 5 all-stars in your lineup already, and you've got 3 all-star caliber starting pitchers, but your best two relievers are Mark Melancon and Alfredo Aceves, does it really make sense to spend all of your available money upgrading left-field? I mean, maybe its easy to find multiple quality bullpen arms on the scrap heap every year (the past 20 years of Red Sox experience not withstanding), but isn't left-field at Fenway Park similarly easy to find average production at low cost?

Once again, I think you are getting your time-lines a bit muddled. When they signed Crawford, they had a vacancy in left field, a stacked rotation, and a bullpen that contained Papelbon and Bard as well as several other respectable relievers. Crawford under-performing is also a complete red-herring in terms of discussing their bullpen moves this offseason. You may not have ever liked the Crawford signing. I was never sold on it either. But, before you castrate them for signing him, you have to ask yourself if he had given them a 5 WAR (or whatever metric you prefer) season last year would you be bringing him up here? When you answer that no, you'll begin to realize why continuing to bring him up doesn't make any sense.

Put another way, if John Henry told Ben he could buy a Yankee for $11 million tomorrow, would you want them to spend it on Nick Swisher, Hiroki Kuroda, or Rafael Soriano?

Am I taking into account the current Sox roster? Is this just a 1-year deal? In a vacuum, Swisher is the easy choice. If you gave me that choice before Sweeney and Ross were acquired, Swisher is the easy choice. With Sweeney and Ross, I'm not sure that Swisher is enough of an upgrade to be worth spending that type of money on, so this gets a bit harder. Kuroda is also a clearly superior player to Soriano, but, once again, I'm not sure how much of an upgrade he really is over the Doubront/Cook/Matsuzaka three-headed rotation slot. If we go back to the beginning of the offseason, it still depends either on the trade market for Doubront or what he projects like as a reliever. With Soriano, there is no way I offer him $11 million dollars this offseason. But, if I have to pay one of those three guys $11 million for this coming season and just this coming season and I already know that Bailey is out for at least 2/3 of the season and I've already got my rotation filled and RF adequately manned, I'd probably bite the bullet and give that money to Soriano as he's a more significant upgrade over Thomas, Bowden, and Albers than Kuroda are over our current options at their positions.

Or,let's just cut to the chase. Neither Alfredo Aceves nor Mark Melancon should be more than your 3rd option to close a game; their advanced metrics to date say each at best a 6th or 7th inning guy on a serious world series contender. That means the Red Sox are 2 quality relievers short even with Bailey, and one short even with Bailey and Bard.

I think both Morales and Hill are quality bullpen arms. I like Aceves as a Ramiro Mendoza type arm but not as a high leverage reliever. I always hated trading for Melancon and still think Weiland would be a greater asset in the pen this year and the future than Melancon will be. Ben overpaid for saves in that transaction and it was a poor move. I'm not convinced the bullpen needs 3 elite relief pitchers, which it seems like you want, but I do think the current pen is much weaker than I would like it to be. A lot of that has to do with the Bailey injury and a lot of it has to do with my having a much lower opinion of Melancon than our GM seems to. But, I think the team can survive a weak bullpen as it's just not that important in the overall scheme of things. I also think that we could have a very good pen by the end of the season with Bailey back, a lot of the current chaff out of the organization, and guys like Morales, Hill, Wilson, Padilla, Tazawa, and Doubront (not all of them) taking on significant roles while Aceves gets moved back into his proper role as a long man/spot starter. I don't think that's going to be an elite bullpen, but I think the talent is their once they commit to cutting bait on guys like Thomas, Bowden, Albers, etc. to field a perfectly acceptable bullpen.

That's not Bobby valentine's fault and it's not a problem he can fix. I thought he managed flawlessly today.

When Nick Punto leads off, you aren't managing flawlessly. I have no problems with anything he did from a pitching standpoint.

[czar]

If it is so easy to find pitchers as good as Rivera, Soriano, and Robertson on the scrap heap, then why haven't the Red Sox already done so? Fire up those spreadsheets, SOSH denizens, I'm sure Ben would be all ears. Go find Papelbon's replacement.

See, this is an interesting topic for another thread. I'd argue that Rivera, Soriano, Robertson are a special case (and FTR, Rafael Soriano had a comparable FIP/xFIP to Franklin Morales and Matt Albers last year while being bested by Scott Atchinson and Dan Wheeler-- so let's not pretend he is some sort of amazing RP the Sox wish they had).

The answer you are begging people to say is "the Red Sox haven't done so because they need to spend cash to get stud RP for a good bullpen." Or possibly, "the Sox do a terrible job at evaluating good FA RP talent." But those both aren't the answers.

However, I think a VALID question, is why have (aside from Papelbon, Bard, and Masterson (although he's a damn fine SP right now) over the last 6-8 years the Red Sox failed to produce multi-season, high WAR young RP from the farm system like the Jason Mottes or Jordan Waldens or Sergio Santos (three random pitchers of top of my head) of the world? But that's probably better left for another thread.

Edited by czar, 08 April 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[Pumpsie]

I definitely agree with that judgement of Aceves, but I'm not understanding the Melancon hate. He has a park and league adjusted career ERA- of 82 (his career ERA of 3.28 matches his career SIERA of 3.27 almost perfectly), and after adding the cutter to his repertoire last season to give him a better weapon against lefties, he lowered his ERA to 2.78, slightly below his SIERA of 2.93. That gave him an ERA- of 74 last season. If his ERA matched his SIERA, that ERA- would be around 77. Daniel Bard's 3.33 ERA in the AL East? Good for a 78 ERA-. He is perfectly fine for a late inning role on a playoff contender, especially a playoff contender with a good starting rotation and excellent offense.


We must have a different understanding of the meaning of the word "flawlessly". You really cannot find a single flaw in how Valentine managed today? Not even batting Punto leadoff when the first 4 batters of the normal order were all playing?

That lineup knocked in 12 runs on 18 hits with Punto going 3 for 6 with 3 runs batted in. Ellsbury did better in the #2 spot than he did batting #1 in the two previous games. The lineup was a shocking success. So, you have to give Valentine a mulligan, at least, for that. He stayed with Buchholz until the game was tied. He stayed with Padilla for four innings (at least an inning or two longer than Tito would have.) He stayed with Morales for two (certainly the absolute max Tito would have stayed with him as well...and there's a 50/50 chance Tito would have pulled him after one.) He gave his closer a clean inning to get three outs before the Tigers got three runs and he couldn't do it. He pinch-hit Ross who got a hit and scored the go-ahead run in extra innings. He gave his set-up man, Melancon, a clean inning to get three outs before the Tigers got two runs and HE couldn't get it done either. Bobby Valentine managed a great game today, survived an awful start by his #3 pitcher, and had it won twice and Aceves and Melancon blew it up both times. This is ALL on Alfredo Aceves and Mark Melancon, ...and, maybe Buchholz, but nobody else. Certainly not Valentine who was coming up aces all along today. I mean, come on, even Nick Punto batting leadoff got three hits and drove in three. Valentine has to feel as if he came up with a Full House today and lost.

[aron7awol]

That lineup knocked in 12 runs on 18 hits with Punto going 3 for 6 with 3 runs batted in. Ellsbury did better in the #2 spot than he did batting #1 in the two previous games. The lineup was a shocking success. So, you have to give Valentine a mulligan, at least, for that.

Does Punto's 3-6 day today make you think he is a better player than Youkilis going forward? I'm going to assume your answer to that question is a resounding no. That was a big flaw in his managing today, results notwithstanding. I didn't have any huge issues with his bullpen management today, but there's no way I would ever call his day today flawless.

[Bongorific]

My point is, they didn't fail to sign a high-priced reliever because they wasted money on Crawford and Lackey. They wouldn't sign a high-priced reliever either way. The fact that Lackey and Crawford have both sucked is good ammo for the debate but it wouldn't have changed the roster decisions with respect to relievers.

I'm not sure we can definitively say that. We don't know what they would have budgeted for the bullpen if they had an extra 5, 10, 20, 30 million, etc., to spend. The Sox had very little money to work with this past offseason

[judyb]

They had enough flexibility to choose to spend almost $15M on a DH.

[Pumpsie]

Does Punto's 3-6 day today make you think he is a better player than Youkilis going forward? I'm going to assume your answer to that question is a resounding no. That was a big flaw in his managing today, results notwithstanding. I didn't have any huge issues with his bullpen management today, but there's no way I would ever call his day today flawless.

My point still stands. When a manager goes with a high risk gamble and it pays off, then you have to tip your cap and give him a mulligan. If he keeps doing it, and it keeps not paying off, then you can criticize him. Of all the Sox regular position players not named Carl Crawford, I have the biggest concern about Youkilis, both injury and production-wise. Which gives me a concern about Punto getting a LOT of playing time. But that's on Cherington. The manager will play the players he has. If the only alternative to Youkilis is Punto, we're going to see Punto, especially if Youk struggles, and, I think that Youk might struggle this year.

[kieckeredinthehead]

That lineup knocked in 12 runs on 18 hits with Punto going 3 for 6 with 3 runs batted in. Ellsbury did better in the #2 spot than he did batting #1 in the two previous games. The lineup was a shocking success. So, you have to give Valentine a mulligan, at least, for that.

I had no idea Valentine could pencil in the opposing team's starter. Why didn't somebody tell him that when Verlander was pitching?

[aron7awol]

My point still stands. When a manager goes with a high risk gamble and it pays off, then you have to tip your cap and give him a mulligan. If he keeps doing it, and it keeps not paying off, then you can criticize him.

I disagree completely. If the result is meaningless in the projection of both players, then the result is also meaningless in the evaluation of the decision. So I don't tip my cap and give him a mulligan. I'm just thankful that his bad managerial decision didn't manifest itself in total suckage that resulted in a loss. But for all we know, Youk might have outproduced Punto today if he had been given the chance, and turned that loss into a win.

If you're playing Texas Hold'em and you call a huge bet and when you see what your opponent has, you're a 4-1 dog, you made a bad read and call. If you suck out with a miracle card on the river, it doesn't change that.

[geoduck no quahog]

Stop exaggerating the "high-risk gamble" of Punto leading off. I agree with Pumpsie's point, but

a. Who gives a shit what a guy's career average is by placement in the order? I would think relative to the pitcher, the on-base situation, and the strength of the entire lineup (and who hits before him/after him) - the career lineup position stats of a hitter is the least important. See the ball - Hit the ball.

b. What's so (relatively) risky about a bench guy leading off? After the first (extra) at bat, he might as well be hitting ninth. If anyone thinks one extra at bat in one game of a season means the end of the world...

If you think bench players should never start, that's another (absurd) issue, but comparing Punto leading off (versus hitting ninth) to a 4-1 bet is ridiculous.

[sodenj5]

As much as these three games absolutely sucked, and they did, it's only three games. Against one of the top 2 or 3 teams in baseball.

I think Bard has to start at least until DiceK is ready to come back. No way do you yank him before that. Cabrera and Fielder don't bat back to back for every team. There will be better days ahead.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I don't care how the Sox got in this position, I don't care that the Offseason sucked and there was no payroll flexability because of the Laxckey/Crawford/Jenks deals. That is all behind this team and there is nothing that Valentine, Cherington or even the players can do about that now.

What I want to know is what do you do about a closer going forward? Who is available on the trade market? Who on this staff can get 3 outs to end a game. Obviously I'd prefer to give Bard a few starts to see what we have, but how many games does this team need to loose before Cook is called up and Bard is moved to the pen. I know it doesn't even work this week because Cook doesn't have enough rest to start Tuesday. This team has 3 first rate 3rdbase prospects and as much as I'd hate HATE to trade one of those guys I think this team might have to.

I think this team is good enough to earn a playoff spot, but as closer proves to be more and more important how long can you go without having competence at the position?

I don't want to knee jerk and I know it's only three games, but it's not like a solid choice is on the horizon and we piece meal this thing together until it gets here. This looks to be a season long dilemma. Morales might be your best choice to close right now if you're going to go with the hot hand, but can this team afford to loose a top lefthanded reliever for the 8th inning that is absolutely needed in this division.

I wanna hear ideas about what they do now, not about how they got in the situation.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 09 April 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[geoduck no quahog]

I hope I'm wrong, but this team needs a bona fide closer and Bard is the best man for that job, period.

I believe that a lights-out bullpen is absolutely critical, despite that fact that in some years some teams make it to and through the playoffs with as-constructed pens and luck.

There must be documentary justification that shows how a solid 8th and 9th pen impacts a team (never mind improving the mindset of the starters and lineup), if only by shortening the game for the opponent and forcing their manager to take risks in the earlier innings.

Assuming a quality pen (and luck, again), the Red Sox possibly get 2 out of 3 wins against Detroit. That's 2 W's that Bard already needs to be wholly responsible for above his replacement to justify him starting.

Maybe this pen will come together without a star, but we've been here before and a team with this revenue base should not be reliant on catching lightning-in-a-bottle.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

As much as these three games absolutely sucked, and they did, it's only three games. Against one of the top 2 or 3 teams in baseball.

I think Bard has to start at least until DiceK is ready to come back. No way do you yank him before that. Cabrera and Fielder don't bat back to back for every team. There will be better days ahead.

Yep -- it's time to give Morales the next crack, but not to panic.

Under no circumstances should Aceves (who I thought would prosper as closer because his temperment seemed well-suited to the role and an expectation that his K-rate would rise because of a bump in velocity from working 1-inning stints) or Melancon (who pitched better than in Game 1, but still missed some spots badly) be allowed the next save opportunity.

This puzzle will be solved. I worry more about Beckett and Buchholz.

[TheoShmeo]

I hope I'm wrong, but this team needs a bona fide closer and Bard is the best man for that job, period.

You're not wrong. And not because Aceves and Melancon have sucked thus far. Sadly, Cafardo has been right on this one for the last week or so. When Bailey went down, the smart move was to make Bard the closer and see whether Cook could be an effective starter.

That's not a panic move any more than Tito making Paps the closer was a panic move. Sometimes circumstances dictate changes in plans, and the sum total of Bailey going down, Bard being a bit of a chance as a starter to begin with, Cook having a strong ST and Melancon not having a good spring and thereby calling into question whether he could assume the set-up role justified the "Bard to closer/Cook to the rotation" option in my book. So did the simple imperative of adding another strong reliever to a suddenly shallow pen.

Hopefully, Bobby wont wait too long to try this. It's not without risk as Bard may not succeed as closer. And Cook may be 4A at this point. But it's worth trying. (And so in Ryan Lavarnway on the major league roster).

Nicky Cafardo correctly calling the Valentine hiring and now this move is just intolerable. Not as bad as seeing the Sox lose games like they did on Sunday. But still pretty freaking horrendous.

[pjheff]

Frankly, in some ways Bard reminds me of Derek Lowe. Lowe was a terrific multi-inning capable reliever in 1998 and 1999 (53 relief appearances and 75 innings out of the bullpen in 1998, 74 and 109 in 1999). He then became closer in 2000 and saved 42 games. Then in 2001 it all fell apart on him. His last three appearances of the year were starts and he has been a starter ever since.

I don't really see the comparison. Lowe was a 2-seamer / curveball guy with a drinking problem and a penchant for coming up huge in the playoffs, even on short rest. Bard is primarily a 4-seamer / slider guy who has excelled as an 8th inning setup man but in no other capacity professionally. The pitcher we've developed who reminds me of Lowe is Masterson, as both are big guys who are historically versatile and feature heavy sinkers.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

As much as these three games absolutely sucked, and they did, it's only three games. Against one of the top 2 or 3 teams in baseball.

I think Bard has to start at least until DiceK is ready to come back. No way do you yank him before that. Cabrera and Fielder don't bat back to back for every team. There will be better days ahead.

Getting destroyed by one of the top teams in baseball doesn't really bode well for this club's season chances does it? From what I was led to understand, the Sox were supposed to be one of the top teams in baseball as well. Detroit made them look like they were the Rancho Cucomanga Quakes out there.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

He didn't actually say this... right?

Totally accurate. They just replayed on D&C. He ain't got it.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Stop exaggerating the "high-risk gamble" of Punto leading off. I agree with Pumpsie's point, but

a. Who gives a shit what a guy's career average is by placement in the order? I would think relative to the pitcher, the on-base situation, and the strength of the entire lineup (and who hits before him/after him) - the career lineup position stats of a hitter is the least important. See the ball - Hit the ball.

b. What's so (relatively) risky about a bench guy leading off? After the first (extra) at bat, he might as well be hitting ninth. If anyone thinks one extra at bat in one game of a season means the end of the world...

If you think bench players should never start, that's another (absurd) issue, but comparing Punto leading off (versus hitting ninth) to a 4-1 bet is ridiculous.

The problem with batting Punto leadoff is two-fold: 1) Punto's below-average career OBP and OPS argues against using him as a table-setter; and 2) batting Shoppach last means a 9-1 turnover of out-producing suck.

It's "nice" that Punto got 3 RBI out of his 3-for-6 -- but what I don't see anyone mentioning is that he got 0 R in those 11 innings.

On a day the following three hitters batted 6-for-18, 2B, HR, 2 BB, HBP.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Good closers cost money. This organization decided to spend 80 million to acquire a someone who at his best would be the team's 4th best starter and 140 million to acquire someone who at his best would be the team's 6th best non-pitcher. Then they let their closer sign somewhere else for a little more than the Yankees are paying Rafael Soriano to be a set up man.

Why does the fact that the Yankees overpaid their setup man have any relevance to the Red Sox not signing Papelbon?

[glennhoffmania]

I'm not sure we can definitively say that. We don't know what they would have budgeted for the bullpen if they had an extra 5, 10, 20, 30 million, etc., to spend. The Sox had very little money to work with this past offseason

We'll never know for sure. But I'd bet a decent amount of money that they still wouldn't have signed Papelbon or Madson. They don't seem to think that's an efficient way to allocate resources. If my memory is correct, the Jenks deal was the biggest RP deal they signed since Foulke. I didn't understand that deal but it was only for a total of $12m.