Jump to content


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

Photo

Trading Beckett


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:37 AM

This probably deserves its own thread.


The Red Sox have called at least the Rangers and Braves to gauge interest in Josh Beckett.


While a trade for Beckett has seemed unlikely for a variety of reasons, the presumption is that he's willing to consider waiving his no-trade clause for at least those two contending teams. Beckett is also from Texas.

A trade still probably isn't very likely as there are a number of factors to weigh, foremost among them the $38 million left on Beckett's contract through 2014. His reputation and attitude will also be considered by any interested team.


The big money left means Beckett could probably pass through waivers and be traded after Tuesday's deadline. But Boston likely doesn't want Beckett trade talks lingering.

Beckett has 10-and-5 veto rights, but the situation with him in Boston is souring and he suggested to WEEI.com he might consider waiving the veto rights. It was first reported on CBSSports.com and ESPNBoston.com that Boston was around. Yahoo Sports suggested Texas and Atlanta as possibilities.

http://www.cbssports...weighing-it-now

#2 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:00 AM

Rosenthal:

Point of procedure: Under new CBA, no longer is there a required 24-hour waiting period for 10-and-5 players to approve a trade. So, deals with 10-and-5 players can go right to deadline, as long as they give consent. Applies to #Cubs' Dempster, #RedSox's Beckett, etc.

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal

#3 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,290 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:00 AM

Therer are two things about this situation that I don't get. First, I don't see a scenario where Beckett wouldn't demand something in return for waiving his 10-5 rights. It's bad business to not use whatever leverage you have. Second, while in the media he may be viewed as having an attitude problem, at least Tito didn't seem to agree. During last night's game he talked about how he'd tell younger pitchers to watch Beckett in ST if they wanted to learn how to be successful. So maybe he's an asshole like half of the guys in the league, but the guy who managed him for 6 years seems to think he's a good guy to have on a staff.

#4 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,551 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:05 AM

How does trading Beckett improve the team's chances to win a world series in 2012, 2013, or 2014?

First, will they get a starting pitching prospect back who figures to slot into the rotation ahead of Doubront or Morales? Do they get RF prospect significantly better than Kalish/Linares or a SS prospect who will be at the top of the depth chart for 2013?

Second, does freeing up $17 million in "cap space" allow the team to make a run at Felix Hernandez or break the bank for Greinke? And is breaking the bank for Grienke. Or emptying the farm system for Hernandez smart?

Or, are they trading Beckett solely to get under the de facto cap and planning to hope they can replace Beckett with Lackey for 2013 and have their fourth "bridge year" and counting?

Seems like a salary dump to manage the "cap" and return about as much non-value as the Sox got for Youkilis or the Twins got for Liriano is the most likely scenario.

That would be unfortunate. If you look at each game log individually, Beckett really has been a perfectly good #3 starter this year. He's given them a chance to win all but 3 starts and pitched 6 innings in most of them. If the Red Sox don't get real value plus salary relief, they're going to get hosed on this one too.

#5 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:06 AM

Source: Braves not a viable landing spot for Beckett right now

https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/229955718176993281
link to tweet

#6 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:07 AM


The Red Sox have made it known they are willing to trade right-handed pitcher Josh Beckett. The Rangers are at least listening to what they have to say.

Said one industry source on the Rangers potential interest: “It hasn’t been ruled out.”

http://trsullivan.ml...t-running-away/

#7 Carroll Hardy


  • pinky higgins


  • 2,293 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:11 AM

Beckett has not given up a HR in his last 11 starts, averaging about 6 2/3 IP, 3 ERs, with a K/BB of 56/18, .637 OPS against. BABIP over that time is .319. Not sure we have anyone else who would put up those numbers right now.

#8 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,166 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:11 AM

How does trading Beckett improve the team's chances to win a world series in 2012, 2013, or 2014?


Getting rid of a known clubhouse cancer, King of the Chicken and Beer Crew probably goes a long way. The guy has took Lester under his wing and the results has been an awesome death spiral with both of their careers.

Edit - We know Lackey is another key elelment but there is literally nothing you can do with Lackey.

Edited by TomRicardo, 30 July 2012 - 10:11 AM.


#9 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,353 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

Trading Beckett is about living on the now and future rather than he past. Is he a #1 or 2? Can they replace a bottom tier starter cheaper? OS his attitude and presence an issue?

I don't know and certainly can't get all the answers but I am not convinced that losing Beckett is much of a loss.

That said, they can dump him this offseason same as they coild now. There is a better chance the price foes up rather than down. If he were still good then now might make sense.... But he's not.

The problem with the team is that they went all in on the core and might as well ride it out. Theres no trading fore for youth. They eirher ride it or dump it.

#10 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:18 AM

A chance at this point. No more//RT @RyanBriggs19: @GordonEdeshow likely is a Beckett trade to Texas?

https://twitter.com/GordonEdes/status/229958816605806592
link to tweet

#11 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:23 AM

Rangers people I've talked to aren't too excited about the Beckett speculation.

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/229960085449895936
link to tweet

#12 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,496 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:23 AM

And in case anyone was getting any ideas:

Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN
Teams are asking about Jon Lester and the Red Sox are saying no, flatly.



#13 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,530 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:24 AM

Getting rid of a known clubhouse cancer, King of the Chicken and Beer Crew probably goes a long way. The guy has took Lester under his wing and the results has been an awesome death spiral with both of their careers.

Edit - We know Lackey is another key elelment but there is literally nothing you can do with Lackey.


So Beckett took Lester under his wing this Spring? But not between 08-11'? Ok.

#14 joe dokes

  • 3,101 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:29 AM

Getting rid of a known clubhouse cancer,



So sayeth those famous clubhouse oncologists, Dr. Toughness Cafardo and Dr. Abraham Accountability.

#15 Laser Show

  • 3,374 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:29 AM

Beckett's still better than most of what we've got in the rotation. I can't say I'm too fond of this idea unless there's a way to land a #1/#2 at a reasonable cost.

#16 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,353 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:35 AM

So Beckett took Lester under his wing this Spring? But not between 08-11'? Ok.


LACKEY

#17 Saints Rest

  • 3,777 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:47 AM

I see this as something more akin to trading Nomar or Manny. The person replacing him, either directly or indirectly, is unlikely to be as good as what we are trading away, but the real reason for the trade will be intangible. You can argue that the Nomar trade was not what caused the 2004 championship but you could just as easily argue that it did just that. OTOH, the Manny trade could be seen as the reason 2008 ended short. But there is no way that you could argue that what came back was better than what we sent away.

#18 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,530 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:53 AM

Wait a minute. Beckett has not requested a trade, he hasn't pushed down an elderly man in a fit, and he hasn't been seen pouting on the bench or whatever it was that Nomar did. This would be making a move for the sake of making a move. It is dumb.

#19 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13,811 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:09 AM

Tito said on the broadcast that Beckett was the guy he told the young guys to follow. I find it hard to believe Tito was so out of touch he put his trust in a complete loser.

#20 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,496 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:12 AM

Wait a minute. Beckett has not requested a trade, he hasn't pushed down an elderly man in a fit, and he hasn't been seen pouting on the bench or whatever it was that Nomar did. This would be making a move for the sake of making a move. It is dumb.

Yes and no. If I had to guess, there were probably discussions about moving him last offseason but they figured he was too valuable to part with given that they had what they thought was a contending team. Now, the problem is that it's too late -- the team is struggling but so is he. So yes, moving him fetches you a lot less -- but it's another addition by subtraction. For my part, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up the way the Youk deal did (which would definitely suck) -- eating a lot of money and not getting much in return. That will probably tell us whether Drs. Cafardo and Abraham are correct in their oncological diagnoses.

#21 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 5,509 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:16 AM

Olney tweet: It's unlikely the Red Sox will trade Josh Beckett, after talking with a small handful of teams about him.

Guess it didn't hurt to see if Texas would overpay after the Greinke-to-LA splash. But now just keep him.

#22 dylanmarsh

  • 4,791 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:20 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Beckett clear waivers after July and gets traded or moved then. There are just too many teams vying for the wild cards and all it will take is one fringe team getting hot and the looking for help.

#23 TeddysBonefish

  • 358 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:25 AM

For my part, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up the way the Youk deal did (which would definitely suck) -- eating a lot of money and not getting much in return. That will probably tell us whether Drs. Cafardo and Abraham are correct in their oncological diagnoses.


But in the case of Youk, there was a replacement for him who was playing better, he was going to be gone in the offseason and he was not going to accept a backup role. Who do you get who can exceed Beckett's performance? There's no replacement for him in the organization, the options available before the deadline (Johnson, Garza) are damaged goods, overpaying for a free agent in the offseason is just what this team needs to stay away from (Lackey, Crawford). As Rembrat said, the stuff about Beckett being a cancer is a media narrative. I know everyone wants to root out the mysterious cancer cursing this team but trading Beckett without someone to replace him hurts this team in the long and short term.

#24 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:26 AM

Source:Cliff Lee is in play in trade talks today. Rangers obviously the most logical landing spot, with 3B Mike Olt as possible centerpiece.

https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/229976198049050624
link to tweet

#25 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,068 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:27 AM

Yes and no. If I had to guess, there were probably discussions about moving him last offseason but they figured he was too valuable to part with given that they had what they thought was a contending team. Now, the problem is that it's too late -- the team is struggling but so is he. So yes, moving him fetches you a lot less -- but it's another addition by subtraction. For my part, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up the way the Youk deal did (which would definitely suck) -- eating a lot of money and not getting much in return. That will probably tell us whether Drs. Cafardo and Abraham are correct in their oncological diagnoses.

This would involve eating far far far more money than the Youk deal did, or even the Manny deal. Youk and Manny (and Nomar for that matter) were on the last year of their respective deals. Beckett has two years and about $38M left on his. Makes doing the "addition by subtraction" thing a much tougher sell...to ownership, to the team, to the fans. With Nomar and Manny and Youk, either the trade brought back a suitable temporary replacement (Cabrera, Bay) or the replacement was already in house (WMB). There's no replacement for Beckett sitting in the bullpen or at Pawtucket...not for the remaining 60 games of the season, and not for 2013 or 2014 either. And they're very unlikely to bring such a piece back in the trade either.

There is no way to win a Josh Beckett trade right now. And the team gets markedly worse without him, now and later.

#26 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:29 AM

Source about Lee trade talks: "It's not going to be cheap." Meaning that the Phillies want a significant package of prospects.

https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/229976411534946304
link to tweet

Spoke to exec who said Lee traded by 4pm tomorrow or in offseason because #Phillies need youth back plus dollars saved. #Rangersfrontrunner

https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/229976441952034816
link to tweet

#27 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,373 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

This would involve eating far far far more money than the Youk deal did, or even the Manny deal. Youk and Manny (and Nomar for that matter) were on the last year of their respective deals. Beckett has two years and about $38M left on his. Makes doing the "addition by subtraction" thing a much tougher sell...to ownership, to the team, to the fans. With Nomar and Manny and Youk, either the trade brought back a suitable temporary replacement (Cabrera, Bay) or the replacement was already in house (WMB). There's no replacement for Beckett sitting in the bullpen or at Pawtucket...not for the remaining 60 games of the season, and not for 2013 or 2014 either. And they're very unlikely to bring such a piece back in the trade either.

There is no way to win a Josh Beckett trade right now. And the team gets markedly worse without him, now and later.


It's not that difficult to replace the version of Josh Beckett that the Sox have right now. You dangle him out there to see what you can get; if someone is willing to take on his entire salary and provide a prospect, you do it; and reallocate that money in the off-season. If the offers are crappy, you don't trade him because as mentioned, you don't have to. It's not a terrible idea, especially if you think he's not going to be the pitcher he was here and / or you can take advantage of some other team's desperation (think of the Rays-Angels Kazmir deal, for example).

#28 dynomite

  • 4,689 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

How does trading Beckett improve the team's chances to win a world series in 2012, 2013, or 2014?


It could be a mistake, sure, but you don't see any scenario where we could be a better team without a 32-year-old with a 4.57 ERA as our #1 starter?

Beckett's entering his mid-30s (always a danger zone for starters) and is steadily losing life on his fastball (average velocity from FanGraphs):

2009: 94.0 mph
2010: 93.6 mph
2011: 93.0 mph
2012: 91.5 mph

How confident are you that he's going to return to form?

First, will they get a starting pitching prospect back who figures to slot into the rotation ahead of Doubront or Morales? Do they get RF prospect significantly better than Kalish/Linares or a SS prospect who will be at the top of the depth chart for 2013?


Well, ideally, yes.

The Rangers farm system is bursting at the seams with young pitching talent. Those young pitchers can't help them win a World Series in 2012, but Beckett can.


It's not a terrible idea, especially if you think he's not going to be the pitcher he was here and / or you can take advantage of some other team's desperation (think of the Rays-Angels Kazmir deal, for example).


Exactly.

#29 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,068 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:38 AM

It's not that difficult to replace the version of Josh Beckett that the Sox have right now. You dangle him out there to see what you can get; if someone is willing to take on his entire salary and provide a prospect, you do it; and reallocate that money in the off-season. If the offers are crappy, you don't trade him because as mentioned, you don't have to. It's not a terrible idea, especially if you think he's not going to be the pitcher he was here and / or you can take advantage of some other team's desperation (think of the Rays-Angels Kazmir deal, for example).

Oh, no doubt if some team is willing to take the full salary and give a worthwhile prospect, you strongly consider doing it. I was more answering the "addition by subtraction" notion...to me that implies that he has to be dumped immediately, cost be damned. Beckett is not asking out. He's not forcing their hand. There's no rush or need whatsoever to move him unless it can be of benefit to the team. Paying the freight and taking crap like they did in the Youk deal is not going to help anything.

#30 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,293 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:41 AM

But in the case of Youk, there was a replacement for him who was playing better, he was going to be gone in the offseason and he was not going to accept a backup role. Who do you get who can exceed Beckett's performance? There's no replacement for him in the organization, the options available before the deadline (Johnson, Garza) are damaged goods, overpaying for a free agent in the offseason is just what this team needs to stay away from (Lackey, Crawford). As Rembrat said, the stuff about Beckett being a cancer is a media narrative. I know everyone wants to root out the mysterious cancer cursing this team but trading Beckett without someone to replace him hurts this team in the long and short term.

I'll admit to be of two minds about trading Beckett. He's arguably a negative leader. Ron Borges' article of last week which noted that Beckett was laughing it up after his Texas start is believable. Critically, his record since last September sucks. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will perform well the rest of the way.

On the other hand, he's a great talent and many of the guys on the staff do seem to feed off him. Guys like Cook and Morales have performed well at times, but Josh F. Beckett still has ace potential within him, and I don't think that the other guys do.

But if you overlook the "ace potential" aspect and just focus on performance, I'm not so sure that the Sox don't have a potential replacement. Is it so clear that Morales would not out perform Beckett the rest of the way? The bar is awfully low. My point is that IF Beckett really is a problem in the clubhouse, and if that's not an overblown characterization of the media and others with agendas, then I think that for 2012, the Sox very well might get better production from Morales than Beckett.

#31 JimD

  • 4,688 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:54 AM

Maybe the Phillies dangling Cliff Lee might be to Cherington's benefit. They will be looking for a haul of top propsects in return, while Beckett would come much cheaper.

#32 Hokie Sox

  • 83 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:23 PM

I'll admit to be of two minds about trading Beckett. He's arguably a negative leader. Ron Borges' article of last week which noted that Beckett was laughing it up after his Texas start is believable. Critically, his record since last September sucks. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will perform well the rest of the way.

On the other hand, he's a great talent and many of the guys on the staff do seem to feed off him. Guys like Cook and Morales have performed well at times, but Josh F. Beckett still has ace potential within him, and I don't think that the other guys do.

But if you overlook the "ace potential" aspect and just focus on performance, I'm not so sure that the Sox don't have a potential replacement. Is it so clear that Morales would not out perform Beckett the rest of the way? The bar is awfully low. My point is that IF Beckett really is a problem in the clubhouse, and if that's not an overblown characterization of the media and others with agendas, then I think that for 2012, the Sox very well might get better production from Morales than Beckett.


You are talking about two events that are mutually exclusive. The statement "IF Beckett really is a problem in the clubhouse, then the Sox very well might get better production from Morales than Beckett" really makes zero sense. If you want to talk about clubhouse chemistry and say that the 2012 Red Sox may perform better post-Beckett trade, I'll listen.

However; the above statement you just tried to make implies that Beckett hasn't been poor clubhouse presence throughout his career, when everything I've ever seen or read about suggests otherwise.

More succinctly: It's not like he was ace-Josh Beckett and Mr. Social until last fall, when he apparently forgot to start taking his happy pills and now sucks on the mound while also being a poor clubhouse presence.

#33 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

Josh Beckett's name is out there, but Nick Cafardo spoke to Ben Cherington and he shot down the idea that the Sox were trying to trade the righthander.

http://www.boston.co...isc:on:twit:sox

#34 MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

  • 4,171 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:35 PM

Is it so clear that Morales would not out perform Beckett the rest of the way? The bar is awfully low.


Beckett hasn't been THAT bad. His ERA+ for the season is still 95 and his HR/9 and BB/9 are both better than career averages. He was much worse in both 2006 and 2010 and it really hasn't been that long, folks, since he put up an ERA+ of 150 just last season.

And for people harping on his September last year, you're talking about four starts, the first of which is where he sprained his ankle in Toronto and had to be removed after only 3.2 innings.

He then, it could be argued, battled his way back on the field and in his first start back, gave up three runs over six innings in a WIN over Tampa.

Last up are the two crucial losses against Baltimore. They were brutally disappointing, yes, but in the first game, Beckett held them to two runs through the first six innings. Then, in the seventh, he gave up a two-run bomb to Reynolds, but he got out of the inning, ending it at 100 pitches, tied 4-4. Tito, trying to ride his horse, leaves him in. Then he gets a pop-out on a 3-2 count, pushing him to 105 pitches. Tito leaves him in to give up a single and then a double to Markakis.

Then Aceves comes in, gives up a single to Guerrero, and all the runs are charged to Beckett. Hard to argue that Beckett pitched terribly there. He could have easily been pulled after 7, giving the bully a cleaning inning for the 8th, but at this point, Tito was somewhat terrified of everyone in the bullpen except Ace, who failed.

Finally, the last game. Beckett pitches the first five, laboring, but only giving up 2 runs. He enters the sixth giving up a cheapie single on a grounder up the middle to Guerrero, then gets Wieters on a liner and strikes out Jones. Then he goes to 3-2 with Reynolds, giving up the walk.

So, you've got first and second, need the win, it's two down in the sixth inning, and Beckett is at 103 pitches. What do you do?

Well, Tito left him in to face Davis, who ropes a double, leaving it at second and third, Beckett at 106 pitches. What do you do?

Well, Tito left him in to face the great Andino, who inexplicably hits an inside the park home run, scoring the fourth, fifth and sixth runs. Beckett gets the last out on a bunt attempt (which seems insane to me), and he's through.

Would it have been awesome if Beckett was a true ACE and pitched shutouts in both of those final games? Absolutely. But to act like he was worthless and totally shit the bed in September is a massive overstatement. He failed. Definitely. But this is not a guy who got knocked out in the fourth inning and then went and sucked his thumb. He battled, lost, and maybe was asked to do a little too much coming off that ankle injury. If Tito had more confidence in his bullpen - hell, if Tito had this year's bullpen - would we be praising Beckett's gutty starts that paved the way to the playoffs?

#35 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,293 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:36 PM

You are talking about two events that are mutually exclusive. The statement "IF Beckett really is a problem in the clubhouse, then the Sox very well might get better production from Morales than Beckett" really makes zero sense. If you want to talk about clubhouse chemistry and say that the 2012 Red Sox may perform better post-Beckett trade, I'll listen.

However; the above statement you just tried to make implies that Beckett hasn't been poor clubhouse presence throughout his career, when everything I've ever seen or read about suggests otherwise.

More succinctly: It's not like he was ace-Josh Beckett and Mr. Social until last fall, when he apparently forgot to start taking his happy pills and now sucks on the mound while also being a poor clubhouse presence.

Perhaps I didn't express myself well. Or perhaps you just don't get it. I don't know. But I'll try again.

One of the reasons not to trade Beckett is that he's a potential ace and, more pointedly, the Sox may not have a sufficient internal option to replace his production.

One of the reasons to trade him is he's a clubhouse cancer and that moving him out will make them better.

Independent of whether the latter is true (and I really don't know), I think that the Sox do have a viable option to replace, if not improve upon, Beckett's anticipated performance for the rest of 2012: Franklin Morales.

As a result, it stands to reason that if the Sox truly believe that getting rid of Beckett's personality will be addition by subtraction, then they should not refrain from making a deal because they can't replace Beckett in the rotation.

To be clear, there may be plenty of other good reasons not to deal him. Those resaons could include getting an inadequate return, being forced to absorb too much salary or just not being all that worried about Josh's personality.

Last, while I was not saying that Josh is suddently a bad guy (you're tilting at windmills there), the fact of the matter is that sometimes people do change. It's possible that Beckett's work ethic has reduced and personality has soured over time. Compare the rookie Nomar to the guy we saw in 2004.

#36 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,130 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:55 PM

Beckett's entering his mid-30s (always a danger zone for starters) and is steadily losing life on his fastball (average velocity from FanGraphs):

2009: 94.0 mph
2010: 93.6 mph
2011: 93.0 mph
2012: 91.5 mph

How confident are you that he's going to return to form?


Do you see Beckett turning into a crafty pitcher that relies on pitching smarts to make up for lost velocity? I don't either.

#37 BosRedSox5


  • Stuart Smalley devotee


  • 1,258 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:06 PM

I know that this ignores a potential attitude/culture problem in the clubhouse, but I don't understand when people say that Lester and Beckett caused the team to fail in 2011. Sure, Lester is having a crappy season, but in 2011 he was fine. 1.257 WHIP, 4.1 WAR (baseballreference)... it wasn't his greatest season, but he certainly wasn't bad.

Beckett had a good 2011 too (numbers wise.) In fact, 2011 was arguably his best season as a professional. Like I said, I'm ignoring the possibility of one of both poisoning the clubhouse, but their performance didn't seem to be an issue last season.

#38 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:11 PM

but their performance didn't seem to be an issue last season.


Except for the combined 5.43 ERA, 1.50 WHIP in 54.7 IP in September.

#39 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,011 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:25 PM


The Rangers view deals for both Cliff Lee and Josh Beckett as "long shots'' at the moment, sources suggest.


Lee's issue is the dollars, which amount to about $96 million through 2015. Beckett has a few different obstancles, including the money ($38 million to go through 2014), and his reputation for moodiness.

http://www.cbssports...hots-by-rangers

#40 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 26,175 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:37 PM

"Reputation for moodiness" = Pay more of the contract, Boston

#41 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,290 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:38 PM

While no deal is imminent, Boston has indicated it is willing to eat money on the remaining two-plus years and approximately $37.3 million of Beckett's contract to facilitate a trade, the sources said.


This isn't the first time Boston has shopped Beckett. The Red Sox are believed to have made similar inquiries over the winter, sources said, despite the club and Beckett's public contention that he was going to stay in Boston.


Link

#42 joe dokes

  • 3,101 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:01 PM

Ron Borges' article of last week which noted that Beckett was laughing it up after his Texas start is believable.


Figures. The last time Ron Borges laughed was when Al Davis showed him the different tunes the doorbell on his crypt could play.

Maybe someone said, "Beckett, you stunk worse than my dead granny's farts" to try and get him past it. Writers, philosophers and even scientists and doctors have said that laughter and humor can ease the suffering from disease. But NOT IF YOU GIVE UP 10 RUNS. THAT'S WORSE THAN CANCER. YOU MAY NOT LAUGH.

It isn't very widely reported, but "real" leaders like Nick Punto actually kill themselves after each out. Think about that next time you shout, "Geez, we could do better wth a dead guy up there."

#43 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,166 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:35 PM

I am a little shocked people still think Beckett on his downward trend of his career is worth 37.5 for the next three years.

I do think Beckett could help a team looking for another starter this year. But the Red Sox aren't going anywhere and Beckett certainly isn't the man that is going to take this team on his back and help make a run. Last year proved he is now quite the opposite.

Beckett helped us win a World Series and was a top of the rotation pitcher for a couple of years. But his time has come. Better to get rid of him now while he has some value than have another Lackey in our rotation.

Edited by TomRicardo, 30 July 2012 - 02:39 PM.


#44 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8,293 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:37 PM

Figures. The last time Ron Borges laughed was when Al Davis showed him the different tunes the doorbell on his crypt could play.

Maybe someone said, "Beckett, you stunk worse than my dead granny's farts" to try and get him past it. Writers, philosophers and even scientists and doctors have said that laughter and humor can ease the suffering from disease. But NOT IF YOU GIVE UP 10 RUNS. THAT'S WORSE THAN CANCER. YOU MAY NOT LAUGH.

It isn't very widely reported, but "real" leaders like Nick Punto actually kill themselves after each out. Think about that next time you shout, "Geez, we could do better wth a dead guy up there."

It's so easy to belittle off the field stuff. Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, especially since data is inherently more reliable and useful in the context of a discusion about sports.

But yeah, I do think it sucks that a guy who was so identified with last year's collapse, and who this Spring seemed more focused on the juvenile hunt to find the "snitch" rather than accept some blame for what happened, can be seen yucking it up right after the Sox have lost yet another game to the Rangers. I do think that it would bode better for his future success if losses bothered him more.

Now do I really know jack about what makes Beckett tick? No. In fact, its believable that Beckett was putting on a happy face in front of friends and family and saving his introspection and whatever else that might be constructive with respect to his future games for later.

But sorry, even with a healthy respect for how much I don't really know about this, I'll continue to admit that Borges' account resonated with me. That's pretty unusual given my disdain for Borges, but my perception is that part of the problem with Beckett may be attitude. There's no stat for that, and I can't prove it. But there it is.

#45 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,626 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:51 PM

Nick Cafardo

Rangers have backed off Cook, but Shoppach alive. Some of their scouts don't want Beckett but its up to Jon Daniels/Nolan Ryan.


https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/230027284290080768
link to tweet
link to tweet

#46 SeanBerry


  • poopdragon


  • 3,226 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:01 PM

I am a little shocked people still think Beckett on his downward trend of his career is worth 37.5 for the next three years.

I do think Beckett could help a team looking for another starter this year. But the Red Sox aren't going anywhere and Beckett certainly isn't the man that is going to take this team on his back and help make a run. Last year proved he is now quite the opposite.

Beckett helped us win a World Series and was a top of the rotation pitcher for a couple of years. But his time has come. Better to get rid of him now while he has some value than have another Lackey in our rotation.


I really don't see how anyone can disagree with this. If you don't move Beckett now, you may never be able too.

If he gets any worse, or even stays the same and provides consistent 90ish ERA+ for another year, you won't get nearly as much for him as you would right now...a year removed from a good stats-wise 2011.

Edited by SeanBerry, 30 July 2012 - 03:01 PM.


#47 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,812 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:04 PM

I really don't see how anyone can disagree with this. If you don't move Beckett now, you may never be able too.

If he gets any worse, or even stays the same and provides consistent 90ish ERA+ for another year, you won't get nearly as much for him as you would right now...a year removed from a good stats-wise 2011.


Yeah, the only caveat being you might not be able to move him right now either. The quotes from Texas are that the scouts are saying stay away and Nolan Ryan and Jon Daniels haven't made a decision yet if they're interested. If you can move him to a team desperate for starting piching you have to do it.

#48 mauidano


  • Mai Tais for everyone!


  • 13,678 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:08 PM

This would involve eating far far far more money than the Youk deal did, or even the Manny deal. Youk and Manny (and Nomar for that matter) were on the last year of their respective deals. Beckett has two years and about $38M left on his. Makes doing the "addition by subtraction" thing a much tougher sell...to ownership, to the team, to the fans. With Nomar and Manny and Youk, either the trade brought back a suitable temporary replacement (Cabrera, Bay) or the replacement was already in house (WMB). There's no replacement for Beckett sitting in the bullpen or at Pawtucket...not for the remaining 60 games of the season, and not for 2013 or 2014 either. And they're very unlikely to bring such a piece back in the trade either.

There is no way to win a Josh Beckett trade right now. And the team gets markedly worse without him, now and later.

Well made points. This would end be a very costly trade if done. You think the Youk deal was ridiculous on a financial level? We will eat a substantial amount of JB's salary and STILL have to get a front line starter somewhere and pay him! For better or worse, richer or poor, we are married to Josh for two more years.

#49 joe dokes

  • 3,101 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

It's so easy to belittle off the field stuff. Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, especially since data is inherently more reliable and useful in the context of a discusion about sports.

But yeah, I do think it sucks that a guy who was so identified with last year's collapse, and who this Spring seemed more focused on the juvenile hunt to find the "snitch" rather than accept some blame for what happened, can be seen yucking it up right after the Sox have lost yet another game to the Rangers. I do think that it would bode better for his future success if losses bothered him more.

Now do I really know jack about what makes Beckett tick? No. In fact, its believable that Beckett was putting on a happy face in front of friends and family and saving his introspection and whatever else that might be constructive with respect to his future games for later.

But sorry, even with a healthy respect for how much I don't really know about this, I'll continue to admit that Borges' account resonated with me. That's pretty unusual given my disdain for Borges, but my perception is that part of the problem with Beckett may be attitude. There's no stat for that, and I can't prove it. But there it is.


Flippancy aside, whether there's an "attitude" problem (whatever that is) or not, this is making something out of nothing:

Truth be told, Josh Beckett hadn’t gone far, although with a ball in his hands these days he often seems far gone. He was just outside the clubhouse door shaking hands and kissing babies with a small group of friends. . . . .Beckett appeared to be without a care in the world, standing tall while surrounded by friends as the troubles of the world and the Red Sox slipped away, just as the wild pitch that beat his team had.


He's from Texas & was in Texas. As you say, maybe those were relatives; or close friends he hasn't seen since winter. I guess it remains OK for Lester to *say* his family comes first. But if Beckett *acts* like it, we get this crap. The criticism of Lester is that he's sucked. The criticism of Beckett is that he worse than sucks.

Anyone who thinks is is about ANYTHING other than his refusal to talk after games is delusional. This is whiny stenographers at their finest.

#50 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,642 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:17 PM

There is no way to win a Josh Beckett trade right now. And the team gets markedly worse without him, now and later.


Now, certainly, assuming we trade him for prospects. But how can we possibly say "later"? Even if we knew the identity of the prospect package we couldn't say this with any certainty, and with that package still hypothetical, we can't even guess at the answer.