96 replies to this topic

[YouLookAdopted]

Ortiz: can only be traded to an AL Central or West team that needs a DH. Very unlikely to happen.

I can see Ortiz plus a reliever bringing back something of real value if the Tigers find themselves within a few games of first place at the deadline.

[Adrian's Dome]

I can see Ortiz plus a reliever bringing back something of real value if the Tigers find themselves within a few games of first place at the deadline.

Do the Tigers really need another fringe 1B/DH type? I think they'd be more in the market for a 1B or 3B who can play D so they can move Fielder or Cabrera to DH.

[YouLookAdopted]

Do the Tigers really need another fringe 1B/DH type? I think they'd be more in the market for a 1B or 3B who can play D so they can move Fielder or Cabrera to DH.

Ortiz would be a rental for them.

[The Gray Eagle]

None of the players we could trade would bring back enough to make it worth it. So there's no point in making any big moves this season.

The team is a mixture of older, underperforming big money guys and decent role players. No one wants the first group, and the second group won't bring much in return. And the other hitters don't walk much, and all the pitchers walk too many.

The roster structure of the team is abysmal, but that isn't something that can be fixed at the deadline this year. There's way too much money and years tied up in players in their 30's who play the wrong positions. Instead of up the middle of the diamond, most of this team's money and years are invested in LF/1B/DH (the 3 positions that are easiest to fill for cheap) along with starting pitchers who aren't pitching like aces.

The only way to fix that (other than the big money guys to play better, and/or having several young, cheap good players break in) is to hope you can swap one of your bad contracts for someone else's bad contract that at least fits better with your team. But even that won't happen if most of the people who handed out the bad contracts are still in charge and still believe in the Crawfords and Lackeys. Without actually trying to move the bad contracts, there just isn't much you can do to fix the structural problems with trades, and definitely not with free agent signings.

All they can really do this year is hope the current and injured players start playing better, while also working in as many younger, cheaper guys as is reasonable. Middlebrooks and Nava have been huge for this team so far, maybe there are couple other guys on the farm who can help out too.

The only trades that would make much sense would be if they could somehow package several of the decent part-time vets we have and get back one solid player in return. That might be doable around the deadline as there will be teams looking for 7th-inning reliever types and platoon outfielders, etc. which is all the Red Sox really have to offer anyone. Find a team that needs a few useful role players and if we could somehow make a 3-for-1 deal for someone decent and under 30 (either a hitter who gets on base or a pitcher who doesn't walk people) then that would open a couple more roster spots for young players as well.

Not easy to trade four pennies for a nickel, but that's about all we can try to do at this point, other than wait and hope.

[Manramsclan]

They can get better in 2013 just by getting healthy. Lackey should provide innings and probably improve on what Dice-K / Bard have given them so far.

Not to pick on you Toe, but wasn't the reverse argument made going into the 2012 season?

There were many many posts saying that Bard/Dice-k would improve upon Lackey's historic turd of a season. I am pretty sure I posted many of them. It has so far turned out to be wrong.

Either way, both of these assumptions are wishcasting IMO. We have two SP's locked into long-term, high dollar contracts, who aren't really worth their value in Beckett and Lackey. Starting pitching costs a lot, but paying Ace money to a guy who isn't really an Ace is killing this team.

There are probably only 6-8 of those guys in the whole league. (Verlander, Lee, Weaver, CC, Kershaw, maybe Hamels, and Felix and Doc Halladay before this year, maybe Sale & Strasburg moving up into that group). We are paying two guys who are not that ace money. That hurts.

I know a Pedro comes along once in a lifetime, but when you have him and then you add Schilling, then the party starts. We've got three pitchers that show a lot of promise in Lester, Buchholz and Doobie. I would look to trade Beckett to free up salary and go after Hamels in the offseason.

[mfried]

Do the Tigers really need another fringe 1B/DH type? I think they'd be more in the market for a 1B or 3B who can play D so they can move Fielder or Cabrera to DH.

Last time I checked we had one of these, even one often mentioned as a trade possibility.

[Manramsclan]

Last time I checked we had one of these, even one often mentioned as a trade possibility.

Who would be a suitable return for Youk in that case?

[Rudy Pemberton]

So the Red Sox are going to rebuild by trading Youkilis, who has been awful, to the Tigers, who are even worse than the Sox? Giddy up.

[Rasputin]

None of the players we could trade would bring back enough to make it worth it. So there's no point in making any big moves this season.

I don't know what you necessarily call big moves but if you can get anything marginal for Youks, and you feel Middlebrooks can do the job just as well, why wouldn't you do it?

Not to pick on you Toe, but wasn't the reverse argument made going into the 2012 season?

There were many many posts saying that Bard/Dice-k would improve upon Lackey's historic turd of a season. I am pretty sure I posted many of them. It has so far turned out to be wrong.

That's actually not true. 2011 John Lackey, 6.41 ERA and an ERA+ of 66.

Bard, 5.24 and 81 and Buchholz 5.38 and 78.

Yeah, Buchholz was terrible for the first six starts of the season. Starting with his seventh start, his ERA has been 2.83 with a WHIP of about 1.2

Edited by Rasputin, 13 June 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[Rasputin]

So the Red Sox are going to rebuild by trading Youkilis, who has been awful, to the Tigers, who are even worse than the Sox? Giddy up.

If you think in terms of rebuilding, nothing is going to make sense.

The team needs to incorporate younger, cheaper players.

The team has some younger, cheaper players that look like they can contribute.

[BoSox Rule]

What a horrible article. I love Felix but everybody should be or would be fired if Pedroia and Lester went to Seattle for him.

[Sprowl]

Some posters have complained that this thread is premature, or that it should be locked, or moved to the media forum. I disagree. If this team is worth blowing up -- which strikes me as an entirely legitimate question to ask, and not one worth suppressing -- then it is worth blowing up carefully and systematically with a long-term vision in mind. I assume that the front office is doing this kind of exercise as part of due diligence, and see no reason why SoSH should not game it out as well.

The old saw has it that the season has three parts: the first two months tell you what you've got, so you can spend the next two months getting what you need, and the last two months using what you acquired to get where you want to go. We are now two weeks into the middle two months. If this team can perform to its best players' healthy expected career projections, it could be formidable. If it can't, then blowing it up right requires scenario-based planning of the kind that is probably taking place right now.

Blowing it up would require many trades over many months. I think proper demolition would require a 2014 time horizon, aiming for a team built around existing young talent, combined with whatever prospects and talent might be available from trading existing veteran assets. What would this team look like?

Keepers for the Red Sox 2014: Middlebrooks-Iglesias-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Lavarnway-Kalish-Bradley-Bogaerts; Doubront, Barnes, and possibly Bard, Ranaudo and Owens.

What does that mean for everybody else currently on the team?

High-value assets of use to a contender:

Lester (team-friendly contract, strong track record, but declining peripherals)
Beckett (10-5 trade protection, but Beckett would probably like to give Boston the finger at this point)

High-value assets if their injuries heal and their performance returns to past norms. Realistically, each one of the following can only be traded for good value if they show that they are performing at something close to past peak production:

Ellsbury (not healthy yet)
Youkilis (he's moving better in the field, but not producing at the bat yet)
Buchholz (he's looking good right now, and is signed for the long term at a team-friendly contract)
Lackey (not healthy yet -- as much as we'd love to get rid of him, who would want him before a 2013 comeback shows that he's not cooked?)
Matsuzaka (promising, but there's the no-trade clause)
Crawford (not healthy yet)

Medium-value bullpen assets that are cheap and useful for the Red Sox, but nevertheless of potential use to another contender:

Aceves
Atchison
Miller
Morales
Padilla

along with Aviles and lots of outfielders...

[The Gray Eagle]

I don't know what you necessarily call big moves but if you can get anything marginal for Youks, and you feel Middlebrooks can do the job just as well, why wouldn't you do it?

Youkilis wouldn't bring back more than a decent middle reliever and/or some middling minor leaguer that isn't likely to ever be better than what we already have. We're already stacked with decent middle relievers and fringe players.

There's no upside to that move, other than saving $6 million, which wouldn't be enough to get anyone good and wouldn't be enough to get us under the luxury tax. And to even move him at all, you'd probably have to pay some of that money anyway.

There's far more upside (for this season) in hoping that Youkils could bat like he always has for one more half season. He's one of the few guys left who actually takes walks, so it'd be hard to dump him and then replace him with Middlebrooks, who never walks.

For this season, you're likely to be stronger with both Middlebrooks and Youkilis than you would be with just Middlebrooks and whatever you'd get for Youks-- some reliever replacing Albers, or yet another part-time OF or whatever. The money saved would be nice, but it's not difference-making money.

Youkilis might well continue to suck, that's a real chance. But that gamble at least has some upside, because if he bounces back for a couple months, then you've got a RHH corner IF cleanup hitter who adds much-needed OBP to this team.

I haven't heard of any realistic trade scenario that gives us anywhere near enough to make it worth dumping the chance that Youk might have one more half season in him. You're not going to get anyone for him that would realistically improve you in the future or this season, and you'd probably have to pay a lot of his remaining salary anyway.

[Pumpsie]

Why do people keep wanting to replace Matt Albers? He's been a steady rock in a sea of unpredictability so far this season. Let's hope that both Ben and Bobby V suffer from no such lack of clarity. Even tonight in a blowout he has to take the ball from Padilla and Miller and put things to rest. Leave Matt Albers alone. He's doing more than fine.

[TomRicardo]

Sprowl I am not sure if you are playing devil's advocate but that is an uncharacteristically off target post.

First off the Red Sox for better or worse would NEVER go into a 2014 horizon. They can't start next year as another gap year financially. They have to be competitive. The ownership would not allow this team to purposely punt another year. That right there destroys the whole premise of your post.

While I agree with the skeleton of your values, I think this team will only trade away assets it thinks it can replace. I think that means the candidates are limited to Aviles, Youkilis, Ross, Punto, Sweeney, Stoppach, Matsuzaka, and a couple of the bullpen arms. I think if the team is blown away by an offer for Beckett or Lester, it does it but I can't see Beckett leaving the Sox.

So then you look at what teams would be buying: Yankees, Rays, Orioles, White Sox, Indians, Angels, Rangers, Mets, Braves, Nationals, Reds, Pirates, Dodgers, Giants

You aren't going to trade with the Rays, Orioles, and Yankees so can eliminate them.

Needs:

White Sox - SS, SP
Indians - 1B, RHH CI, RHH OF
Angels - Catcher, 5th SP, LHH Bullpen
Rangers - Backup MI
Mets - 1B, C, 5th SP?, LHH Bullpen
Nationals - Catcher, RHH 4th OF
Braves - RHH Backup Catcher, RHH Corner Infielder, Bullpen Help, 5th SP
Reds - Utility IF, LHH 4th OF, Back of the Rotation SP
Pirates - SS, 1B, Anyone who can hit
Dodgers - 1B, 3B, Util IF (SS), LHH Bullpen, RHH Bullpen
Giants - CI, Util IF, RHH OF

Of course what makes this endeavor so pointless is half the teams I listed have worse pygs than the Sox.

Looking at all this there should be a market for Stoppach. You could trade Aviles as well. Punto would get less interest mostly because he sucks but there is bound to be an NL or the Angels drooling for a scrappy player. Matsuzaka would have to waive his no trade. No team desperate for starting pitching has the budget to bring on Beckett. See what you can get on a flyer for Albers (anything with a pulse would be nice). Plenty of spots for Ross.

I was going to guess if the Red Sox were to give, they should trade Stoppach, Aviles, and Ross. Maybe Matsuzaka wouldn't mind the NL (Dodgers or Mets). If Youkilis shows any signs of life at all, he would be well sought after.

That is it really. One thing you could do is sell Ellsbury this offseason if he comes back and kills it.

Edit - You could trade Youkilis and money to the Pirates or Indians for their competitive balance pick in the draft

Edited by TomRicardo, 13 June 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[TomRicardo]

Why do people keep wanting to replace Matt Albers? He's been a steady rock in a sea of unpredictability so far this season. Let's hope that both Ben and Bobby V suffer from no such lack of clarity. Even tonight in a blowout he has to take the ball from Padilla and Miller and put things to rest. Leave Matt Albers alone. He's doing more than fine.

Because he is in the last year of his contract and very replaceable

[Pumpsie]

Because he is in the last year of his contract and very replaceable

Doesn't seem very replaceable to me. If it weren't for Albers tonight, for example, we might still be playing. It seems that you can say that everyone in our bullpen right now is "very replaceable." Also, the fact that he's only under contract for this season doesn't increase his trade value. Trade someone else.

[TomRicardo]

Doesn't seem very replaceable to me. If it weren't for Albers tonight, for example, we might still be playing. It seems that you can say that everyone in our bullpen right now is "very replaceable." Also, the fact that he's only under contract for this season doesn't increase his trade value. Trade someone else.

Slow down, you wouldn't want to trade a 29 YO wildly outperforming his career numbers on the last year of his contract on a team going no where? All because he held down a 8 run lead in 8th by getting one batter out? A guy who has been in such low leverage situations he only has two holds in 24 appearances. Even if this team were to make the playoffs the way he is used there is no guarantee he would make the playoff roster.

Are you mental?

[JakeRae]

Doesn't seem very replaceable to me. If it weren't for Albers tonight, for example, we might still be playing. It seems that you can say that everyone in our bullpen right now is "very replaceable." Also, the fact that he's only under contract for this season doesn't increase his trade value. Trade someone else.

Matt Albers 2012: 2.10 ERA, 4.11 FIP, 3.87xFIP, 3.46 SIERRA, 4.84 tERA. One of these things is very much not like the others.

He's been markedly better over the last 2 years to what he was previously but that's a move from replacement level to useful back of the bullpen type, not to something more. I believe in selling high and there is never going to be a better time to sell Matt Albers than now.

I'm not ready to give up on this season, but we have superior relievers wasting time in AAA because Albers is on the active roster. (There is a case for this being true of Morales as well but he is useful as a long man and potential spot starter as well as being a lefty.) Trading Albers would likely only return a lottery ticket prospect. But, that's essentially a free prospect for upgrading our roster.

Why is it that people insist on judging Albers based on his ERA over his last 25.2 IP?

[Freddy Linn]

Medium-value bullpen assets that are cheap and useful for the Red Sox, but nevertheless of potential use to another contender:

Atchison

It is interesting that, if you squint only a little, Atchison's tenure with the Sox (now in his age 36 season) looks a lot like Larry Andersen's last few years with the Astros (age 36/37).

Edited by Freddy Linn, 14 June 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Trading Pedroia is ridiculous. He's one of the best 2B in the league, he's only turning 29, and he's signed for 10 mill a year in 2013 and 2014. Not to mention the PR disaster. Not going to happen.

It better not. My -SOX15- vanity plates just came in last week. I'm gonna be fucking pissed.

[joe dokes]

Sprowl I am not sure if you are playing devil's advocate but that is an uncharacteristically off target post.

First off the Red Sox for better or worse would NEVER go into a 2014 horizon. They can't start next year as another gap year financially. They have to be competitive. The ownership would not allow this team to purposely punt another year. That right there destroys the whole premise of your post.
[snip]

I thought it was clearly a hypothetical discussion. Maybe its semantics, but "blowing it up" necessarily implies starting over. And it is likely impossible to "blow it up" AND be a top-flight team 6 months later. While I do not personally think the Sox will blow it up -- nor do I think they should -- I have no doubt that they have a "blow it up" scenario already drawn up should the need arise. So why not bounce it around here.

And I would bet that any blow it up scenario includes trading within the division, etc. It also includes 29 other teams as possible trade partners, not just 12. ("Hey Duquette, who do you want for Dylan Bundy"? "Hey Cashman, you dont have a catcher....what would you give up for Salt--?" "Hey Friedman, Greg Vaughn batting cleanup again?")) The term "gap year" is a content-free post-hoc rationalization of when/why things go bad. ("they didn't do all the things I like/they didn't sign any free agents, it must be a gap year.")

Its pretty simple. If this team continues to flail and drifts out of a playoff picture, why couldn't management say something like, "folks, as you can see, we sucked with these guys, so we're getting rid of alot them." And 95% of fans would get it. There would be pissing and moaning from the very same people that have been calling the people that the Sox would be shedding "losers, malcontents for the last year. (Day 1:Beckett, Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Crawford, Lackey, Lester are a bunch of overpaid underachieving chicken eating losers; Day 2: OH MY GOD, the Sox have insulted the memory of your dead great grandfather by getting rid of all their good players.)

Like I said, I dont think it will happen, primarily because I dont think its necessary. But NOT because the Sox would "never" do it. John Henry is weird, but he isn't insane. (A wiseguy definition of insanity being doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over...)


As to Sprowl's list....I'd put Buchholz on the keeper list. I think Lester would fetch more in return.

[TomRicardo]

Four reasons:
1) No one will buy tickets at their ridiculous prices next year, this is essential to funding the team
2) Teams will low ball the Sox because they know they are dumping assets
3) Also there is no way you get a competitor in 2014 in a massive sell out.
4) You are wasting two years of Gonzalez and Crawford's megacontracts which will cripple the team towards the end of them.

Edited by TomRicardo, 14 June 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[C4CRVT]

I doubt that the FO would "blow it up." On the other hand, there is no harm in finding out what the trade value of virtually every player on the team is. Surely none of the major/ valuable pieces will be dealt for at least another month but the role player types who have a replacement coming up (Albers, McDonald) should be moved for anything that can be gotten for them (which obviously won't be much).

If we're still hovering at/below .500 and the injury/ performance luck that's been following the team persists, there's no reason to not execute a trade of any player if the price is right.

I still think that the ceiling of the team (assuming that all of the major players start performing up to their potential and/or get healthy) is really high. I don't know what the odds of that happening are (maybe 1 in 6 of reaching 90% of the ceiling) but it could still happen.

[Toe Nash]

Not to pick on you Toe, but wasn't the reverse argument made going into the 2012 season?

There were many many posts saying that Bard/Dice-k would improve upon Lackey's historic turd of a season. I am pretty sure I posted many of them. It has so far turned out to be wrong.

Yes, the same argument was made and turned out to be kinda true, but we're only two and a half months into the season. That doesn't make it an incorrect argument. And if Bard / Dice-K / whoever else is in the 5th spot combines to give us a 66 ERA+ over 160 IP by the end of the year, then OK. But that's the 4th-worst ERA+ since 1947, minimum 150 IP.

There's also good reason to believe that Lackey was pitching much of last year with an effed-up elbow and that's why he was so terrible.

Either way, both of these assumptions are wishcasting IMO. We have two SP's locked into long-term, high dollar contracts, who aren't really worth their value in Beckett and Lackey. Starting pitching costs a lot, but paying Ace money to a guy who isn't really an Ace is killing this team.

There are probably only 6-8 of those guys in the whole league. (Verlander, Lee, Weaver, CC, Kershaw, maybe Hamels, and Felix and Doc Halladay before this year, maybe Sale & Strasburg moving up into that group). We are paying two guys who are not that ace money. That hurts.

I know a Pedro comes along once in a lifetime, but when you have him and then you add Schilling, then the party starts. We've got three pitchers that show a lot of promise in Lester, Buchholz and Doobie. I would look to trade Beckett to free up salary and go after Hamels in the offseason.

1. I get annoyed with Beckett as much as anyone because he's inconsistent and it seems like he should be better. But he has basically one bad year (2010) in the last 6. In most of the others he's put up around a 3.5 FIP which is perfectly acceptable in the tough division they're in. For the last year and a half only Price and CC are ahead of him in FIP in the AL East. His current contract pays him $15.75m a year, which is actually behind all these guys:


1. CC Sabathia, $24,400,000 (2012-16) (new deal)
2. Cliff Lee, $24,000,000 (2011-15)
3. CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15) (old deal he opted out of)
4. Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13)
5. Matt Cain, $21,250,000 (2014-23)
6. Tim Lincecum, $20,250,000 (2012-13)
6. Roy Halladay, $20,000,000 (2011-13)
7. Carlos Zambrano, $18,300,000 (2008-12)
8. Barry Zito, $18,000,000 (2007-13)
9. Jake Peavy, $17,333,333 (2010-12)
10. Jered Weaver, $17,000,000 (2012-16)
11. A.J. Burnett, $16,500,000 (2009-13)
. . . John Lackey, $16,500,000 (2010-14)
13. Justin Verlander, $16,000,000 (2010-14)

Plus it's a nice 4-year deal while some of the others are extremely long. If Sabathia breaks down the Yankees are out $24m until 2016. Plus, some of these guys gave up arb years in the deals, which means they didn't have as much leverage and probably took less than they could have made on the open market (Verlander, Weaver, Lincecum).

2. The Lackey deal hurts, but what's really "killing" the team is the Crawford deal and to a lesser extent the Gonzalez deal. As bad as Lackey's deal was, we're out of it by 2015, while we owe Crawford and A-Gon more per year, nearly twice as much in total value, and we're not free of them until 2018. When you consider that left-fielders and first basemen are much easier to find than starting pitchers, there's your problem.

[maufman]

Some posters have complained that this thread is premature, or that it should be locked, or moved to the media forum. I disagree. If this team is worth blowing up -- which strikes me as an entirely legitimate question to ask, and not one worth suppressing -- then it is worth blowing up carefully and systematically with a long-term vision in mind. I assume that the front office is doing this kind of exercise as part of due diligence, and see no reason why SoSH should not game it out as well.

The old saw has it that the season has three parts: the first two months tell you what you've got, so you can spend the next two months getting what you need, and the last two months using what you acquired to get where you want to go. We are now two weeks into the middle two months. If this team can perform to its best players' healthy expected career projections, it could be formidable. If it can't, then blowing it up right requires scenario-based planning of the kind that is probably taking place right now.

Blowing it up would require many trades over many months. I think proper demolition would require a 2014 time horizon, aiming for a team built around existing young talent, combined with whatever prospects and talent might be available from trading existing veteran assets. What would this team look like?

Keepers for the Red Sox 2014: Middlebrooks-Iglesias-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Lavarnway-Kalish-Bradley-Bogaerts; Doubront, Barnes, and possibly Bard, Ranaudo and Owens.

What does that mean for everybody else currently on the team?

High-value assets of use to a contender:

Lester (team-friendly contract, strong track record, but declining peripherals)
Beckett (10-5 trade protection, but Beckett would probably like to give Boston the finger at this point)

High-value assets if their injuries heal and their performance returns to past norms. Realistically, each one of the following can only be traded for good value if they show that they are performing at something close to past peak production:

Ellsbury (not healthy yet)
Youkilis (he's moving better in the field, but not producing at the bat yet)
Buchholz (he's looking good right now, and is signed for the long term at a team-friendly contract)
Lackey (not healthy yet -- as much as we'd love to get rid of him, who would want him before a 2013 comeback shows that he's not cooked?)
Matsuzaka (promising, but there's the no-trade clause)
Crawford (not healthy yet)

Medium-value bullpen assets that are cheap and useful for the Red Sox, but nevertheless of potential use to another contender:

Aceves
Atchison
Miller
Morales
Padilla

along with Aviles and lots of outfielders...

This is a good post. Perhaps the FO is unlikely to "blow up" the club, but if it's a legitimate option, it's hardly too soon to consider it -- indeed, it may already be too late.

The bulk of the club's 2012 tickets would have been sold by the time any "blow up" operation began. After the precipitous collapse at the end of 2011 and the ugly departures of Tito and Theo, such an operation might even have been welcomed by the fan base.

As T-Ric correctly notes, any blowup operation that began now would severely damage 2013 ticket sales. Therefore, any major rebuilding operation probably needs to wait until January.

If such a "blow up" is necessary, the year of delay will cost. Consider how things have changed:

-- Before the season, Youkilis was a valuable asset with two years of club control remaining (including his 2013 club option). He will have little trade value after the season -- his option might be worth exercising, but no one's going to give up much for the right to pay Youk $13mm next year.

-- Lester's contract remains team-friendly, but 2012 is the last season he'll be downright cheap. Even if Lester pitches like Justin Verlander for the rest of the season, his trade value will be less next winter than it is was before this season. A deadline deal would mean replacing Lester with a replacement-level SP like Aaron Cook, which is precisely the sort of "white flag" deal the FO can't afford to make.

-- If the Sox truly are facing onerous payroll constraints for the foreseeable future, they could have found someone this winter to absorb Gonzo's entire 7/154 contract. That's not an option now.

-- In the same payroll-flexibility vein, if the Sox wanted to cut bait on Crawford last winter, someone probably would have absorbed somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of his remaining money. Now, no one would take Crawford on those terms.

-- A rebuilding team would not have traded Reddick for Bailey.

-- Although trading Ellsbury last winter was never likely, he would have been at the absolute apex of his value. Even if he returns to form in the second half, he'll be worth much less next winter with just one year of club control remaining.

I'm not saying the FO was wrong not to blow up the team, but the best opportunity to do so has already passed. They might as well wait a month to see if the team bounces back before they start auctioning spare parts off to the highest bidder.

[Van Everyman]

It is interesting that, if you squint only a little, Atchison's tenure with the Sox (now in his age 36 season) looks a lot like Larry Andersen's last few years with the Astros (age 36/37).

If I have to squint a little to get anything resembling Jeff Bagwell for Atch, I'm all for it.

[ShaneTrot]

If you look at the run differentials in the AL East by today's standings:
MFY +46
Baltimore +4
TB +10
Toronto +24
Boston +26
It just goes to show you how maddening and strange a season it has been for the Sox. Even with all the injuries they have been scoring runs (319). They just seem to be a team with no luck and whenever they have had a chance to blow game with lousy offense, pitching or defense they do it.

[smastroyin]

I will say that for may part I hate the idea of blowing it up due to underperformance. It implies that you are going to sell off your assets while they are at their lowest value, and in many cases this is soon after buying them while they were at high value.

I agree that they need to be thinking about all of this stuff, but just shedding the team for the sake of a reboot doesn't have a long history of working for anyone. Maybe the Marlins, but they are always selling younger players with high value. I'm trying to think of other teams that have been successful with this. The Braves managed for a little while though they never did full reboots.

It would be different if the guys they have were blocking highly talented minor leaguers, but they aren't. The results on the field aren't likely to improve replacing their high priced players with the guys they have in the minors (in fact, the biggest problem they have had over the past three years is that the guys in the minors have had to sub in for the high priced players). The fact is that the main reason to blow it up is to shed salary but to do that it is going to be a lot like the Renteria deal which with all the new rules isn't going to help them with salary issues in terms of luxury tax, etc.

All of that said, there may be some value in simply breaking up this core because they will always be associated with September 2011 and a mediocre year this year. I'm just not sure you are going to get anything close to decent return.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If you look at the run differentials in the AL East by today's standings:
MFY +46
Baltimore +4
TB +10
Toronto +24
Boston +26
It just goes to show you how maddening and strange a season it has been for the Sox. Even with all the injuries they have been scoring runs (319). They just seem to be a team with no luck and whenever they have had a chance to blow game with lousy offense, pitching or defense they do it.

This would point to the previously mentioned atrocious performance by the hitters in "clutch" situations and a number of very bad outings by the pen earlier in the season.

All the goddamn bunting is no help either.

[Manramsclan]

Yes, the same argument was made and turned out to be kinda true, but we're only two and a half months into the season. That doesn't make it an incorrect argument.

I don't think I was clear in my post. What I meant was, the idea that Lackey's position was going to be improved upon seemed like a slam dunk and it hasn't been thus far.
Even the numbers Ras put up are a lot closer than most would've anticipated.

Given those factors, it seems ridiculous to posit that Lackey coming back next year will improve upon those pitchers that he replaces.

I like how you approached comparing these pitchers. It shows that Beckett is a sound investment. It also shows how many guys are being paid beyond the level that they are producing which will always be a reality, the examples of Verlander and Weaver notwithstanding which you pointed out in your post.

I am just whining that there is no guy currently on this team that I feel like saying "Give him the ball and he will dominate". This is the reverse issue of 1999 when Pedro was followed by Mark Portugal, Bret Saberhagen, Pat Rapp and Brian Rose/Wakefield. Essentially, the Sox have two or three guys who they would've have killed to have following up Pedro that year, but no clear number 1. I don't think I can offer a clear solution (Hamels may not be that guy either), and looking back the overall quality of the current Red Sox rotation absolutely kills that one, but I think it is worth pointing out that having a guy that can absolutely dominate every fifth day can really boost a team. Looking at that roster and that pitching staff, I can't believe that team won 94 games. Even their pythag had them at 92 wins.

[Rasputin]

It should be pretty clear that now that Buchholz has righted himself, the Sox aren't going to have someone be that bad unless someone gets hurt which was kind of the point. Lackey wouldn't have been that bad that long if Felix Doubront had been healthy.

Can Lackey be better next year? Well yeah, he can. He might not but if he's been hurt for two years is it all that unlikely that he'll be a little better than average and there's a decent chance Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, and Doubront will also be better than average.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't think I was clear in my post. What I meant was, the idea that Lackey's position was going to be improved upon seemed like a slam dunk and it hasn't been thus far.
Even the numbers Ras put up are a lot closer than most would've anticipated.

Given those factors, it seems ridiculous to posit that Lackey coming back next year will improve upon those pitchers that he replaces.

This seems backwards to me. If Lackey's replacements had come in and been the "slam dunk" improvement we were hoping for, then the idea that Lackey could improve on them next year might indeed seem silly. But it seems reasonable to hope that 2013 Lackey could be better than his 2012 replacements have been, because he only needs to be modestly better than 2011 Lackey, not hugely better, in order to do that. His successors have failed to Pipp him, so the door is open for him to come back and Pipp himself, as it were.

[C4CRVT]

I am just whining that there is no guy currently on this team that I feel like saying "Give him the ball and he will dominate". This is the reverse issue of 1999 when Pedro was followed by Mark Portugal, Bret Saberhagen, Pat Rapp and Brian Rose/Wakefield. Essentially, the Sox have two or three guys who they would've have killed to have following up Pedro that year, but no clear number 1. I don't think I can offer a clear solution (Hamels may not be that guy either), and looking back the overall quality of the current Red Sox rotation absolutely kills that one, but I think it is worth pointing out that having a guy that can absolutely dominate every fifth day can really boost a team. Looking at that roster and that pitching staff, I can't believe that team won 94 games. Even their pythag had them at 92 wins.

So you're saying all we need is a '99 Pedro?

This post highlights what for me is one of the difficulties that I have with the "blow it up" talk. Any one of Beckett, Lester or Buchholz (to a lesser degree Doubrount) could emerge as a "true #1 pitcher". One might have already. This is (to me) the crux of the issue. If the rotation gets hot and stays hot for a while, this team can absolutely be lights out. All it would take is to hang in there at .500 for the next 6 weeks and then get hot. If 3 of Ellsbury, Bailey, Kalish, Ross and Crawford come back and perform 90% of what they're capable of combined with the rotation pitching well, I believe they're capable of .700 ball. That seems like a (maybe not likely) but totally plausible scenario.

First 100 games: 50-50
Next 62: 43-19

[Adrian's Dome]

First 100 games: 50-50
Next 62: 43-19

Not sure if serious...

Anyway, the notion that the team absolutely needs a shutdown #1 ace pitcher is wrong. I'd take a team with five #3s over one with a top-heavy rotation. Look at Detroit, Verlander's amazing, but what do you have after that? Any one of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Doubront, and Matsuzaka are capable of winning you any one game at any time. None of them are going to be Cy Young contenders this season, but is that really important? Depth and consistency are bigger factors.

The biggest problem with the team is that when the hitting was hot, the pitching was awful. Now that the pitching's getting sorted out, the lineup is decimated and two of their best hitters are in major slumps. As I said earlier in this topic, the team has to wait and see where they'll be upon the returns of Ross, Ellsbury, Crawford, and perhaps the callup of Kalish. In the meantime, if Gonzo or Pedey could get themselves sorted out it would sure be nice.

[kieckeredinthehead]

First 100 games: 50-50
Next 62: 43-19

Not sure if serious...

From May 13th - Aug 9th of last year (a 78 game stretch), the Red Sox went 55-23, exactly a .700 winning percentage. In the 38 and 47 game stretches to begin and end the season, they went 36-49, a .423 winning percentage. I don't think it's inconceivable that a healthier version of this team could go on a tear. Unfortunately, we just have to wait on Pedroia, Nava and Bailey's thumbs; Crawford, Ellsbury and Gonzalez's shoulders, and Bard and Youkilis' everything,

[bosockboy]

I think you have to ride this out because of Buchholz and Doubront. If Lester and Beckett can get their shit together for a two month stretch, this could be the type of devastating rotation that could run off a 13 out of 15 type stretch. And the bullpen has more than held its own, and will get much better with Bailey and possibly Bard.

It's not the most optimal way of looking at it, but if you remove Baltimore from the standings we are 2.5 out of the last WC spot...which is nothing. I'll believe in Baltimore if they are still hanging around at the end of July. I think their pitching will collapse before then, though.

[aron7awol]

Let me get this straight. We have a team that, for all of its problems thus far in 2012...

1. Is 2nd in MLB in runs scored
2. Is 4th in the AL and 2nd in the division in run differential
3. Has performed like a .541 ballclub according to Pythagenpat with actual runs scored and allowed, also 4th in the AL and 2nd in the division
4. PECOTA projects as a .541 ballclub going forward, with a 40% chance of making the playoffs
5. Has had its 4 starters who have thrown the most innings all underperform their SIERA, by an average of 0.72
6. Has a ton of talent coming back from injuries
7. Is still only 4 games out of a playoff spot in the middle of June

and people really want to give up on it and blow it up?

I wonder if those of you who would like to blow the team up would feel the same way if this team were 34-29 right now, but still 4 games out of a playoff spot? Sure, this team has underperformed (again), isn't necessarily all that likable (again), and has had a lot of injuries (again), but it has a real shot to make the playoffs and win a World Series. There's no reason to believe the current roster, combined with the young guys coming up, can't contend this year and for the foreseeable future without major change. I don't understand the pessimism; this roster is deep and talented. Come on guys, don't be shortsighted and have some faith!

[budcrew08]

Not sure if serious...

Anyway, the notion that the team absolutely needs a shutdown #1 ace pitcher is wrong. I'd take a team with five #3s over one with a top-heavy rotation. Look at Detroit, Verlander's amazing, but what do you have after that? Any one of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Doubront, and Matsuzaka are capable of winning you any one game at any time. None of them are going to be Cy Young contenders this season, but is that really important? Depth and consistency are bigger factors.

The biggest problem with the team is that when the hitting was hot, the pitching was awful. Now that the pitching's getting sorted out, the lineup is decimated and two of their best hitters are in major slumps. As I said earlier in this topic, the team has to wait and see where they'll be upon the returns of Ross, Ellsbury, Crawford, and perhaps the callup of Kalish. In the meantime, if Gonzo or Pedey could get themselves sorted out it would sure be nice.

Even Verlander isn't the MVP guy like last year. Today's win over Theo's Northsiders was his first in a month.

[SumnerH]

Even Verlander isn't the MVP guy like last year. Today's win over Theo's Northsiders was his first in a month.

He's putting up a 152 ERA+, a 1 WHIP, and 9.1 K/9--pretty much the 2nd best season of his career.*

The past month was a little tough by his standards, but even that only means a 4.10 ERA over a "bad month" where he had 2 games giving up only 2 runs (one of them a complete game 2R 6H gem that his team couldn't score in). The game vs. Boston was the only game he's given up more than 3 earned runs since April.

*And that's before tonight's 2 ER 5H 8 IP 8K outing.

[budcrew08]

He's putting up a 152 ERA+, a 1 WHIP, and 9.1 K/9--pretty much the 2nd best season of his career.*

The past month was a little tough by his standards, but even that only means a 4.10 ERA over a "bad month" where he had 2 games giving up only 2 runs (one of them a complete game 2R 6H gem that his team couldn't score in). The game vs. Boston was the only game he's given up more than 3 earned runs since April.

*And that's before tonight's 2 ER 5H 8 IP 8K outing.

Damned statistics. What I mean is that like with Pedro in 1999, that top guy changed everything. Just like Verlander last year. I'm not saying he's not the best or one of the best pitchers in baseball, I'm just saying his year so far is not as dominant as a year ago. But at 24-3 or whatever he ended up, how could it be?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Damned statistics. What I mean is that like with Pedro in 1999, that top guy changed everything. Just like Verlander last year. I'm not saying he's not the best or one of the best pitchers in baseball, I'm just saying his year so far is not as dominant as a year ago. But at 24-3 or whatever he ended up, how could it be?

It's pretty much the same year.

2011: 2.40 ERA, .920 WHIP, K rate of 9.0, K/BB rate of 4.39, HR rate of 0.9
2012: 2.66 ERA, .974 WHIP, K rate of 9.1, K/BB rate of 4.48. HR rate of 0.5

Difference?

Run support:

2011: 5.56
2012: 4.16

Pitchers only have limited control over their win totals because they are dependent on their team scoring runs for them. Verlander's run support is way down from a year ago. His actual pitching appears to be exactly the same quality in 2012 as it was in 2011. In some respects it's actually been better in 2012 than 2011.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Damned statistics. What I mean is that like with Pedro in 1999, that top guy changed everything. Just like Verlander last year. I'm not saying he's not the best or one of the best pitchers in baseball, I'm just saying his year so far is not as dominant as a year ago. But at 24-3 or whatever he ended up, how could it be?

W-L record is a terrible measure of dominance; there's way too much noise in it. By this metric, Catfish Hunter's 21-5 1971 season, with an ERA+ of 107, K/9 of 4.4, and HR/9 of 1.4, was more dominant than Pedro's 18-6 2000 (291, 11.8, 0.7).

As SJH says, the numbers that matter show that Verlander in 2012 has been the same dominant pitcher he was in 2011--a little more so, if anything.

[maufman]

Let me get this straight. We have a team that, for all of its problems thus far in 2012...

1. Is 2nd in MLB in runs scored
2. Is 4th in the AL and 2nd in the division in run differential
3. Has performed like a .541 ballclub according to Pythagenpat with actual runs scored and allowed, also 4th in the AL and 2nd in the division
4. PECOTA projects as a .541 ballclub going forward, with a 40% chance of making the playoffs
5. Has had its 4 starters who have thrown the most innings all underperform their SIERA, by an average of 0.72
6. Has a ton of talent coming back from injuries
7. Is still only 4 games out of a playoff spot in the middle of June

and people really want to give up on it and blow it up?

I wonder if those of you who would like to blow the team up would feel the same way if this team were 34-29 right now, but still 4 games out of a playoff spot? Sure, this team has underperformed (again), isn't necessarily all that likable (again), and has had a lot of injuries (again), but it has a real shot to make the playoffs and win a World Series. There's no reason to believe the current roster, combined with the young guys coming up, can't contend this year and for the foreseeable future without major change. I don't understand the pessimism; this roster is deep and talented. Come on guys, don't be shortsighted and have some faith!

A 40% chance of making the playoffs translates to something like a 25% chance of playing more than one playoff game (assuming the Sox' divisional chances are slim, and that the one-game WC playoff is a 50/50 proposition).

I don't think the time is right to blow up the team, but if it was, those odds wouldn't deter me from pulling the trigger.

[budcrew08]

It's pretty much the same year.

2011: 2.40 ERA, .920 WHIP, K rate of 9.0, K/BB rate of 4.39, HR rate of 0.9
2012: 2.66 ERA, .974 WHIP, K rate of 9.1, K/BB rate of 4.48. HR rate of 0.5

Difference?

Run support:

2011: 5.56
2012: 4.16

Pitchers only have limited control over their win totals because they are dependent on their team scoring runs for them. Verlander's run support is way down from a year ago. His actual pitching appears to be exactly the same quality in 2012 as it was in 2011. In some respects it's actually been better in 2012 than 2011.

Instead of going with the stats, I was just going by what I've seen this season with him. Obviously, the stats do say otherwise.

[Toe Nash]

Instead of going with the stats, I was just going by what I've seen this season with him.

But you did use stats. You cited his wins and losses in two different posts. You just used a crummy stat to make an ultimately incorrect point.

Had you said, "I watched his games and I don't think he's pitching as well" that would be a better argument.

Not to pick on you, but so often when people are "anti-stats" they are really just anti "new" stats. There are countless articles written decrying WAR or VORP whose authors will cite BA, RBI and so on, perhaps not in the same article, but elsewhere. It's aggravating.

[Soxfan in Fla]

It's pretty much the same year.

2011: 2.40 ERA, .920 WHIP, K rate of 9.0, K/BB rate of 4.39, HR rate of 0.9
2012: 2.66 ERA, .974 WHIP, K rate of 9.1, K/BB rate of 4.48. HR rate of 0.5

Difference?

Run support:

2011: 5.56
2012: 4.16

Pitchers only have limited control over their win totals because they are dependent on their team scoring runs for them. Verlander's run support is way down from a year ago. His actual pitching appears to be exactly the same quality in 2012 as it was in 2011. In some respects it's actually been better in 2012 than 2011.

Second difference is his pen. Valverde didn't blow a single save for him last season. I believe there were blown saves in each of his first two starts this season. Not sure how many for the season but the pen has already cost him at least two more wins than it did last season.