83 replies to this topic

[mabrowndog]

Official now


Jenny Dell @JennyDellNESN
Reply Retweet Favorite ·More
Kevin Youkilis to DL. #RedSox


Mike Petraglia @Trags
Reply Retweet Favorite ·More
It's official #Youk on DL with back strain. #RedSox

Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam
4m
Youkilis to DL, retro to Sunday #RedSoxTalk

[Corsi]

Iglesias still with the team.

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

With Middlebrooks up, I assume Iglesias will be sent down and Tazawa will be recalled?

[Rudy Pemberton]

Red Sox now have $78M in '12 contracts on the DL. If Beckett goes to the DL, that # will increase to $95M. That has to be a record.

[E5 Yaz]

With Middlebrooks up, I assume Iglesias will be sent down and Tazawa will be recalled?

Tazawa cannot be recalled for 10 days past being optioned ... unless a pitcher is placed on the DL

[mabrowndog]

With Middlebrooks up, I assume Iglesias will be sent down and Tazawa will be recalled?

Well, Iglesias is with the club and on the bench for tonight's game. That's in stone.

Who knows what tomorrow brings. But I believe the only way Tazawa can be brought back up before the usual 10-day post-option waiting period is if there's a corresponding DL move involving a player at a similar position (i.e. a pitcher).

Edited by mabrowndog, 02 May 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

Tazawa cannot be recalled for 10 days past being optioned ... unless a pitcher is placed on the DL

Forgot that little fact.

[E5 Yaz]

Forgot that little fact.

It's still early. Anything's possible

[trekfan55]

Tazawa cannot be recalled for 10 days past being optioned ... unless a pitcher is placed on the DL

Wait, so the rule is a pitcher for a pitcher and a position player for a position player?

[mauidano]

So really, who didn't see this coming? Youk and the DL are synonymous with each other. Everyone jumped on Bobby the Fifth of talking about this last month. How you like me now?

Kevin Youkilis, meet Wally Pipp. Will Middlebrooks, meet Lou Gehrig.

[Dogman2]

So really, who didn't see this coming? Youk and the DL are synonymous with each other. Everyone jumped on Bobby the Fifth of talking about this last month. How you like me now?

Kevin Youkilis, meet Wally Pipp. Will Middlebrooks, meet Lou Gehrig.

People jumped on Bobby about this? Did you read this board during the entire offseason and the whole "100 win talent" stuff? Everyone was assuming Youk was spending time on the DL just not in late April/early May.

Personally, I figured sometime in August to rest up for a potential stretch run if he wasn't traded.

[SumnerH]

Wait, so the rule is a pitcher for a pitcher and a position player for a position player?

I'm pretty sure that position's irrelevant for early recall from a minor league optional assignment. http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+11 and http://www.bizofbase...d=655&Itemid=75 and other sources make no positional distinction.

It used to matter in some other cases (e.g. the K-Rod rule for postseason eligibility) but I think the last CBA got rid of the distinction even there--I'm not 100% sure about that, though.

[Pumpsie]

I think mauidano was referring to Bobby V's concern that Youks didn't look "as into it" as he had previously. Turns out that was probably because Youks was already battling with back and hip problems which were inhibiting his actions. But at least Valentine was seeing "something" wrong with Youks right from the start.

Edited by Pumpsie, 02 May 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[trekfan55]

I'm pretty sure that position's irrelevant for early recall from a minor league optional assignment. http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+11 and http://www.bizofbase...d=655&Itemid=75 and other sources make no positional distinction.

It used to matter in some other cases (e.g. the K-Rod rule for postseason eligibility) but I think the last CBA got rid of the distinction even there--I'm not 100% sure about that, though.

In the postseason, I think the rule only applies to replace someone in the middle of a series (and that someone is out of the nest series as well)

[mauidano]

I think mauidano was referring to Bobby V's concern that Youks didn't look "as into it" as he had previously. Turns out that was probably because Youks was already battling with back and hip problems which were inhibiting his actions. But at least Valentine was seeing "something" wrong with Youks right from the start.

This.

[Eric Van]

Right now WMB is your starting 3B and the bench is Shoppach, Punto, the incredibly redundant Iglesias, and McDonald. Obviously you'd rather have Anderson than Iglesias, and in fact they should use the DL-replacement clause to recall him even though he's been optioned for less than 24 hours, let alone 10 days.

Which raises a bigger question: why did they option Anderson last night if they knew they might DL Youk today? Is Cherington incapable of thinking a day in advance?

(Unless the plan is to select Nate Spears as the 4th bench guy anyway. But that just hearkens back to a previous roster management puzzlement, when they made room for Byrd by DFA'ing Spears rather than Repko (whom Byrd renders redundant), then disabled Repko two days later and called up Lars.)

[Savin Hillbilly]

There does seem to be a mild aura of confusion about this flurry of moves. Maybe it'll all make sense in retrospect.

[SumnerH]

In the postseason, I think the rule only applies to replace someone in the middle of a series (and that someone is out of the nest series as well)

Yeah, if you get injured in the postseason you still have to be replaced by a same-type (position vs. pitcher) player.

The rule I was thinking of is the K-Rod loophole to get late callups onto the postseason roster. It used to only allow same-position substitutions but that's changed.

http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+40 covers both of these rules.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Is Iglesias really redundant? He's the backup SS, Punto backs up 3b and 2b. Does Spears over Iglesias really matter? I'd love to see a bat replace Iglesias, but Anderson isn't that guy, he's appeared thoroughly overmatched.

[trekfan55]

The only weakness I see is 1B. Can Punto really play 1B?

Otherwise to replace Pedroia you can move Aviles to 2B and Iglesias to SS
To replace Aviles you insert Iglesias
To replace WMB Punto plays 3B.

I don't really see a redundancy with Iglesias except that he (like Punto) cannot hit.

But none of the IF guys really need to be PH for, except maybe for handedness (and that may only apply to Aviles and WMB)

I'm pretty sure Anderson's last AB was a huge factor in him being sent down. He was completely vulnerable to LHP.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Is Iglesias really redundant? He's the backup SS, Punto backs up 3b and 2b. Does Spears over Iglesias really matter? I'd love to see a bat replace Iglesias, but Anderson isn't that guy, he's appeared thoroughly overmatched.

Iglesias is really redundant, so long as Punto doesn't have to start -- he can back up any of the four infield positions.

Yes even 1B, which Ortiz and Salty can also do. I'd actually really like to see the Sox take a flyer on Abreu to be the LHH off the bench.

[Dogman2]

This.

That's fair.

Edited by Dogman2, 02 May 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[bosockboy]

Iglesias is really redundant, so long as Punto doesn't have to start -- he can back up any of the four infield positions.

Yes even 1B, which Ortiz and Salty can also do. I'd actually really like to see the Sox take a flyer on Abreu to be the LHH off the bench.

Yep Abreu fits pretty well right now. Shoppach/Abreu/Punto/McDonald isn't a bad bench.....get Ellsbury back and McDonald goes for Byrd to join the bench.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I think Lavarnway would help a lot more than Abreu; and allow Valentine the flexibility to mix and match the three catchers.

[AZBlue]

Eleven Red Sox players on the DL. Explains quite a few of the early season issues.

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

Eleven Red Sox players on the DL. Explains quite a few of the early season issues.

It's the medical staff's fault!!1!1

[phrenile]

I'm pretty sure that position's irrelevant for early recall from a minor league optional assignment. http://wiki.soxprospects.com/Rule+11 and http://www.bizofbase...d=655&Itemid=75 and other sources make no positional distinction.

Position is irrelevant under Major League Rule 11(b)(1)(A):

(b) LIMITATIONS ON RECALL.
(1) Ten-Day Rule. A Major League Club may not recall a player who is on optional assignment until 10 days of the championship season have elapsed from the date the player had physically reported to the optionee Club after the optional assignment, unless the Club obtains prior approval from the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee and one of the following conditions applies:
(A) the optional player's contract is being recalled for the purpose of replacing on a Club's Active List a player placed on a Major League Disabled List, the Major League Bereavement List or the Restricted List pursuant to the Major or Minor League Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs subsequent to the date the optional player's contract had been assigned to the optionee Club;

Edited by phrenile, 03 May 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[trekfan55]

Phrenile,

Since Youks DL is retroactive to Sunday, I think Lars was not eligible to come up (or Tazawa) since both were on the active roster then.

[Toe Nash]

So really, who didn't see this coming? Youk and the DL are synonymous with each other. Everyone jumped on Bobby the Fifth of talking about this last month. How you like me now?

Uh, no one was saying Youk didn't look bad. We were jumping on Bobby for criticizing his own player to the media. It was stupid, caused a mini-shitstorm and he ended up apologizing for it.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So really, who didn't see this coming? Youk and the DL are synonymous with each other. Everyone jumped on Bobby the Fifth of talking about this last month. How you like me now?

Lessee, Valentine insinuated, to the press, without talking to the player first, that said player had checked out emotionally on the season. Bit of a difference there.

[phrenile]

Phrenile,

Since Youks DL is retroactive to Sunday, I think Lars was not eligible to come up (or Tazawa) since both were on the active roster then.

Pretty sure "retroactive" only means the player's period of inactivity under MLR 2(g)(1) already started sometime in the past, so he can complete his 15 days of inactivity sooner. It shouldn't matter for MLR 11.

[Pumpsie]

Lessee, Valentine insinuated, to the press, without talking to the player first, that said player had checked out emotionally on the season. Bit of a difference there.

First, players do not announce that they are hurt...hardly ever...well, unless they are J.D. Drew. This leaves managers guessing almost all the time as to why a certain player is struggling or how they are feeling physically. Secondly, Valentine said that Youkilis didn't appear to be as "into it" as he was in the past. He also said in the very next breath that Youkilis was starting to get walks and swing better and that it looked as if he was returning to form and predicted he would get out of it. At no time did Valentine say or insinuate that Youkilis had "checked out emotionally on the season." Big difference, indeed.

But it's clear, at this time, that Valentine was seeing something amiss with Youkilis in ST. Now we can put two and two together and figure out that Youks is battling back and hip issues and that they've probably been going on for quite a while. And, from Occam's point of view, this makes the most sense.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

First, players do not announce that they are hurt...hardly ever...well, unless they are J.D. Drew. This leaves managers guessing almost all the time as to why a certain player is struggling or how they are feeling physically. Secondly, Valentine said that Youkilis didn't appear to be as "into it" as he was in the past. He also said in the very next breath that Youkilis was starting to get walks and swing better and that it looked as if he was returning to form and predicted he would get out of it. At no time did Valentine say or insinuate that Youkilis had "checked out emotionally on the season." Big difference, indeed.

But it's clear, at this time, that Valentine was seeing something amiss with Youkilis in ST. Now we can put two and two together and figure out that Youks is battling back and hip issues and that they've probably been going on for quite a while. And, from Occam's point of view, this makes the most sense.

I don't think he's as physically or emotionally into the game as he has been in the past for some reason. But [on Saturday] it seemed, you know, he's seeing the ball well, got those two walks, got his on-base percentage up higher than his batting average, which is always a good thing, and he'll move on from there.

There's the exact quote. Not as emotionally into the game as he's been in the past. Right there. Let's not pretend Bobby saw Youks limping and made a guess that it was merely a physical ailment.

[Cuzittt]

There does seem to be a mild aura of confusion about this flurry of moves. Maybe it'll all make sense in retrospect.

It all makes perfect sense in real time too when you realize Pawtucket is playing in Ohio... so players are being flown into Boston for the mere possibility of going onto the roster.

Red Sox bring Iglesias to Boston. Once they determine that Youks is unable to play, they option down Tazawa who was not going to pitch that night anyway. And they play Iglesias at SS, giving Aviles a rest.

After the game, they option down Anderson in order to bring up another reliever (Mortensen) to bring the BP back to 7 men strong. They also bring Middlebrooks to Boston. Once it is determined that Youkilis can't go, the Red Sox can make one of 3 decisions:

1) Do nothing. Punto starts at 3rd again.
2) Option down Iglesias.
3) DL Youkilis.

Sox did option #3. While Iglesias was likely not going to be used in last nights game, it wasn't as if the Sox could get another player in for him.

[Plympton91]

(Unless the plan is to select Nate Spears as the 4th bench guy anyway. But that just hearkens back to a previous roster management puzzlement, when they made room for Byrd by DFA'ing Spears rather than Repko (whom Byrd renders redundant), then disabled Repko two days later and called up Lars.)

I am almost positive that you cannot waive somebody who is injured. That Repko went on the DL is precisely the reason he couldn't be DFA'ed. I'd expect that to happen as soon as his 15 days are up, however.

[mabrowndog]

Not that it's relevant to the recent Sox moves, but do teams have to make roster moves by some predetermined time prior to a game in order for them to take effect for that game?

[Pumpsie]

There's the exact quote. Not as emotionally into the game as he's been in the past. Right there. Let's not pretend Bobby saw Youks limping and made a guess that it was merely a physical ailment.

You're doing that thing you do and that's put words in people's mouths and then argue against THOSE words. What I said was that Bobby thought that Youks was not into it as much but we know now that Youks may have been favoring some injuries and that's what might have led to that observation. I'm not saying that Valentine was guessing that Youks was injured but only that he was seeing "something" and not "nothing."

And let's not also put words in Valentine's mouth either that "Youks had quit on the season." Because Valentine never said that and there was no intimation of that at all.

[glennhoffmania]

He shouldn't have said anything at all. That's the point. The fact that Youkilis is hurt doesn't now justify his public comments from a few weeks ago.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You're doing that thing you do and that's put words in people's mouths and then argue against THOSE words. What I said was that Bobby thought that Youks was not into it as much but we know now that Youks may have been favoring some injuries and that's what might have led to that observation. I'm not saying that Valentine was guessing that Youks was injured but only that he was seeing "something" and not "nothing."

And let's not also put words in Valentine's mouth either that "Youks had quit on the season." Because Valentine never said that and there was no intimation of that at all.

No, I'm not putting words into his mouth. Completely the opposite: I'm using Valentine's words. It's an exact quote. 'NOT AS PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY INTO THE GAME'.

We can intimate plenty from that phrase. If Valentine thought Youkilis was merely injured he probably should not have said that he appeared to be not as emotionally into the game as in past years.

I'm sure Valentine has since learned his lesson to keep his mouth shut when he's tempted to publicly speculate on the mindset of his players. But I think most of us expected him to have enough intelligence not to do it in the first place.

[Myt1]

That's fair.

Why is it fair? It doesn't bear even a passing resemblance to reality. Bragging about being right about something should, at the very least, require one to have actually been right about something.

Everyone didn't jump on Valentine for suggesting that Youkilis might be injured and maudino's counter factual history is merely his latest inane attempt to defend Valentine for doing something stupid.

Edited by Myt1, 03 May 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Dogman2]

Why is it fair? It doesn't bear even a passing resemblance to reality. Bragging about being right about something should, at the very least, require one to have actually been right about something.

Everyone didn't jump on Valentine for suggesting that Youkilis might be injured and maudino's counter factual history is merely his latest inane attempt to defend Valentine for doing something stupid.

Right. I thought Maudino was suggesting people were jumping on him for talking only (HI ERIC VAN) about an injury a month ago. He was talking about both the emotional and physical comments. It was my misunderstanding about his post. People should have been jumping all over Bobby for the 'emotional' comment as it was a really, really dumb thing to say. Why Maudino and Pumpsie continue to defend Booby V is a mystery.

[Pumpsie]

Why Maudino and Pumpsie continue to defend Booby V is a mystery.

Speaking strictly for myself, this is a fairness thing. Sometimes this board exhibits a kind of group thinking that results from making a quick opinion about something or someone and then being totally intractable concerning changing it one bit despite further evidence to the contrary. This results in a kind of blindness or tunnel vision...always looking for just one thing and finding it. Someone has to argue the opposite side sometimes just to bring up the points being overlooked. Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

[mabrowndog]

Speaking strictly for myself, this is a fairness thing. Sometimes this board exhibits a kind of group thinking that results from making a quick opinion about something or someone and then being totally intractable concerning changing it one bit despite further evidence to the contrary. This results in a kind of blindness or tunnel vision...always looking for just one thing and finding it. Someone has to argue the opposite side sometimes just to bring up the points being overlooked. Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

I've called EV the Mount Everest of bullshit. You might well be Kilimanjaro.

[glennhoffmania]

Speaking strictly for myself, this is a fairness thing. Sometimes this board exhibits a kind of group thinking that results from making a quick opinion about something or someone and then being totally intractable concerning changing it one bit despite further evidence to the contrary. This results in a kind of blindness or tunnel vision...always looking for just one thing and finding it. Someone has to argue the opposite side sometimes just to bring up the points being overlooked. Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

I don't understand. Why would you argue positions with which you don't agree?

[twothousandone]

Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

But Rasputin would have beaten you to it, and this thread would have been turned into one about religion and moved to V&N.

No, I'm not putting words into his mouth. Completely the opposite: I'm using Valentine's words. It's an exact quote. 'NOT AS PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY INTO THE GAME'.

We can intimate plenty from that phrase.

Intimating (or, more correctly, deciding that Bobby V was intimating) often comes across as putting words into someone else's mouth. I notice you didn't type 'NOT AS PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY INTO THE GAME.' Is it inconceivable that one who is injured, and struggling because of the injury, has a different emotional reaction? Perhaps, not reacting as strongly to athletic failure, because of the belief that the main cause is a physical ailment, as opposed to bad preparation, or a mental error following proper preparation?

You've already declared Bobby V is to blame, no matter the issue.

[Dogman2]

Speaking strictly for myself, this is a fairness thing. Sometimes this board exhibits a kind of group thinking that results from making a quick opinion about something or someone and then being totally intractable concerning changing it one bit despite further evidence to the contrary. This results in a kind of blindness or tunnel vision...always looking for just one thing and finding it. Someone has to argue the opposite side sometimes just to bring up the points being overlooked. Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

One could easily argue that the tunnel vision or one thing is how you are looking at Bobby V. That one thing is to simply buck the overwhelming majority of thought. The only intractable thing concerning Bobby is the words that come out of his mouth. At this point, his slander of Youks is more than enough evidence to support the groupthink. The other baseball decisions that he has been questioned about are exactly the same thing we do with all Sox managers, not just Bobby.

At any rate, initially, I thought it was possible that Bobby V's comments were a ploy between the team and him. On the surface, it was to draw the attention of the media off the players and put it squarely on himself to allow the team as much distance from last season and to relax them without the media pressure after their slow start. In this way, I was not looking for anything negative to say about him simply for the sake of being negative. What I was looking for was how he harnessed the talent on this team and how Bobby handled the ego's and media regarding the team prior to making any sort of judgement of him. Once Youks and Dustin responded to Bobby's comments about Youks, I realized that perhaps his reputation for being an outspoken egomaniac was playing out with this team before our eyes. The worst part is, this started in April after the worst collapse in team history as well as going after a guy who has a reputation for caring to much and gives everything he has every single game.

I'm sure people had bias regarding BobbyV. I just never thought that bias would be confirmed, in April no less, by something as idiotic as his Youks comments. In essence, Bobby supplied all the necessary unfairness (your word) required as well as all the necessary evidence that his style would not be contrary to his past managerial posts.

Perhaps there is one thing other people were looking for. Disliking the manager because he does very dislikeable things, like Gump and Jimy, is a pretty huge 'one thing' for a team with WS aspirations.

[Myt1]

Speaking strictly for myself, this is a fairness thing. Sometimes this board exhibits a kind of group thinking that results from making a quick opinion about something or someone and then being totally intractable concerning changing it one bit despite further evidence to the contrary. This results in a kind of blindness or tunnel vision...always looking for just one thing and finding it. Someone has to argue the opposite side sometimes just to bring up the points being overlooked. Believe me, if the consensus on this board was that Bobby Valentine was God and that everything he did was perfect and divine, I would be arguing the opposite just as strongly.

This is asinine. Contrarian viewpoints aren't made worthy because a majority holds another opinion, or out of some silly postmodernist concept that fairness means that all narratives are equally deserving of discussion.

And believe me, nobody here needs you to bring up counterfactual, contrarian viewpoints lest they be overlooked. We can, and do consider alternatives and either adopt or discard them after an internal review (or after discussion with others). That we don't all post foolishness is not evidence that we simply neglected to think of something. We don't all post musings that Valentine was excoriated strictly for talking about a Youk injury for the same reason we don't post musings that Valentine might be an alien spy from Neptune; because neither has any basis in reality.

[Myt1]

But Rasputin would have beaten you to it, and this thread would have been turned into one about religion and moved to V&N.
Intimating (or, more correctly, deciding that Bobby V was intimating) often comes across as putting words into someone else's mouth. I notice you didn't type 'NOT AS PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY INTO THE GAME.'

There's no intimating. This isn't an issue of implication vs. inference. It was a frigging quote and people are pretending that Valentine actually said something other than what he actually said.

SJH bolded "emotionally" because that's the specific language most people were annoyed by and its the specific language maudino and Pumpsie are pretending doesn't exist.

You've already declared Bobby V is to blame, no matter the issue.

The issue is what Valentine said. Is he not to blame for what he said? Is this one of those fairness things again?

Edited by Myt1, 04 May 2012 - 01:31 AM.

[Rasputin]

There's no intimating. This isn't an issue of implication vs. inference. It was a frigging quote and people are pretending that Valentine actually said something other than what he actually said.

SJH bolded "emotionally" because that's the specific language most people were annoyed by and its the specific language maudino and Ras are pretending doesn't exist.

Please pardon me for a moment here, but what? How am I pretending Valentine didn't say something douchey that he said and probably regrets.

[Myt1]

Please pardon me for a moment here, but what? How am I pretending Valentine didn't say something douchey that he said and probably regrets.

Totally screwed that one up, buddy. Meant to write "Pumpsie." Sorry for that; I'll edit.

Edited by Myt1, 04 May 2012 - 01:32 AM.