Does this organization have a plan or philosophy?

[nattysez]

At the start of the season, Jonah Keri wrote a glowing article about the genius of the Sox organization.  At the time, I suggested it might be a bit of hyperbole.  Where are we now?
 
The team that did such a great job of having "deep depth" last year has no competent back-up CF, gave 22 AB to Ryan Roberts at 3b, and has a bench full of guys OPS'ing in the low 600s.  Keri credited the organization for squeezing solid production out of Nava, but I guess they forgot how to do that over the winter.   
 
The team that was ready to hand over the keys to JBJ in CF, WMB at 3b and X at SS as of April 1 is, seven weeks later, seemingly done with WMB, planning to trade for a CF, and moving X to 3b.  Worse, they're letting the kids get down on themselves -- the best example being JBJ talking about "being lost" at the plate.  Wasn't Arnie Beyeler up here in part to help these guys transition smoothly into the majors?  Shouldn't the coaches be focused on trying to prevent these guys from losing confidence?
 
The team that had carefully groomed their future superstar SS has decided to hit the panic button by re-signing Drew in mid-May.  X is 21 years old and scuffling in his first two months in the majors.  So, of course, they don't tell him that they're signing Drew until shortly before the game.  The kid, rattled, commits two errors after having played pretty well of late, and then makes clear how crushed he is by the decision.  Would it really have been so hard to have warned him yesterday, during the off-day, that this was coming?  Does anyone on the staff have any people skills at all?
 
The organization that said they were going to give Bill James more of a say after a disastrous 2012 is currently 13 for 24 in stolen bases and sacrifice bunted twice in the late innings tonight despite being down 3 and having bottom-of-the-order hitters coming up.  And Farrell's explanation for bunting was breathtakingly stupid:  
 

“Knowing that our top of the lineup was coming up in the ninth inning, (we were) just trying to cut the deficit by one or possibly by two with a base hit,” Farrell said. “We’ve got to trust everyone in the lineup, and despite Brock having good at-bats tonight, I felt like that’s what the situation called for. Didn’t want to turn a three-run deficit over to (Blue Jays closer Casey) Janssen. Any way we could to try to chip away to try to cut into some runs. They’ve been a premium to come by and (we were) looking for anything we (could) to scratch out a run.”
 

They've got to trust everyone in the lineup, so they're having guys sac bunt? 
 
We've heard for years that this team had a top-of-the-line shoulder strengthening program for pitchers, so their youngest starter goes down with shoulder weakness.  And Keri extolled the virtues of the team's injury prevention plan, but they can't keep Victorino on the field.  If their medical staff is supposed to give them an advantage, there's no sign of that advantage thus far this year.
 
I know this is all quite scattershot, but I guess the bottom line is that this team doesn't seem to have any overarching strategy to what they're doing, and many of the "marks of genius" from last year are completely absent this year.  I'm beginning to wonder if last year was some cosmic confluence of luck that allowed the Sox to win in spite of their management.  And now things are regressing to the mean.
 

 

[dbn]

My knee-jerk reaction would be to criticize this thread for being reactionary, but, then again, they haven't won a World Series in almost 7 months. 

 

[Cellar-Door]

My knee-jerk reaction would be to criticize this thread for being reactionary, but, then again, they haven't won a World Series in almost 7 months. 

Was it the part where we need depth on the left side of the infield, but signing the best infielder on the market is giving up on WMB who is on the DL.

 

[alwyn96]

The roster is almost exactly the same as last year's. It's just that they aren't playing as well. Their "plan" or whatever couldn't be more obvious. It's not like we're talking about the Phillies or the Mets here. 
 
The whole "deep depth" thing is way overblown. The 2013 Red Sox were pretty healthy and got above average (and lucky) performances from pretty much all their regulars and subs. Those same regulars and subs just haven't been as good this year. The depth didn't go away, it's just fallen back to earth. It happens. Step back from the ledge. 

 

[KingPK]

They won the World Series last year.....

 

[TheoShmeo]

There's a tendency to look at the Drew signing as reactionary or a panic move.  After all, it wasn't long ago that we heard Farrell emphasize that SS was Xander's job and they weren't thinking about last year's line-up.
 
I think, however, that the bigger takeaway is that Ben, and the orgnaiztion collectively, has the emotional maturity to admit that when something isn't working or there has been a change in circumstances, it's OK to double back, admit it and cut your losses.  Yeah, Drrew was out of the picture...until it made sense to reinsert him into the picture.  
 
Too many organizations, in sports and otherwise, stubbornly stay the course, damn the consequences.  A course is a course, of course.  That the Sox are willing to audible when they deem necessary is a huge plus in my book.

 

[InsideTheParker]

The roster is almost exactly the same as last year's.  

Doesn't everyone underestimate the effect on opposing pitchers of batting a decent-hitting base-stealer at the top of the line-up?

 

[IdiotKicker]

There's a tendency to look at the Drew signing as reactionary or a panic move.  After all, it wasn't long ago that we heard Farrell emphasize that SS was Xander's job and they weren't thinking about last year's line-up.
 
I think, however, that the bigger takeaway is that Ben, and the orgnaiztion collectively, has the emotional maturity to admit that when something isn't working or there has been a change in circumstances, it's OK to double back, admit it and cut your losses.  Yeah, Drrew was out of the picture...until it made sense to reinsert him into the picture.  
 
Too many organizations, in sports and otherwise, stubbornly stay the course, damn the consequences.  A course is a course, of course.  That the Sox are willing to audible when they deem necessary is a huge plus in my book.

I think this is spot-on. I also am of the opinion that this is less about Xander and more about WMB and the lack of external or internal options to play 3B.

 

[Toe Nash]

It is kind of an appeal to authority (or I dunno, appeal to past record?) to say "well they won the WS seven months ago." Maybe the highest kind of authority, but in Sep 2011, you could say that they had won 95 games 3 of the last 4 years. More importantly, it's just kind of a cop-out and doesn't exactly answer the question of whether the team has a plan or philosophy. You can win with different philosophies, of course.
 
I think the most concerning thing about yesterday is Chad Finn's coy insinuation that his 2-hr meeting at NESN had something to do with the Drew signing. As others have said, if the signing was made for other than baseball reasons, that's probably not a good thing. But, it's not like they traded away Betts for a "name" or signed someone to a 7-year deal, so I can't really freak out if "answering to the unwashed masses" just means spending some extra money they unexpectedly had.
 
Beyond that, I don't think things are much different than last year, really...just the players aren't playing as well. Farrell made goofy tactical decisions for the whole year including the playoffs, they just didn't burn him too badly, largely because the players played better. Their shoulder program gets a lot of hype, but it seems anecdotally they have fewer major arm injuries than most teams (while perhaps having more short DL stints). Yeah, the kids might be getting down, but I'm not sure how else the team could have handled it when they're hitting so poorly.
 
Someone should tell X that while shortstop is cool, there are also few good 3b either and he can have just as much positional impact there if he hits like he can. Xander's .341 wOBA would be 5th among qualified 3bmen (and sure, Wright and Longoria are uncharacteristically struggling, but).

 

[yecul]

The team had bottomed out and finished last with an awful record. They turned around, signed some steady/solid players with good character with (IMO) an eye toward 2-3 years later when the youth movement would hit in earnest and... holy shit magic happened and they won the Series.
 
As mentioned above the team's great depth was more a function of luck/coincidence and health. It's easy to have depth if you don't have to dig multiple layers deep. It's easy to look good when a bunch of guys have good years at the same time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mean this to take anything away from 2013's roster or the organization's philosophy or plan. They clearly had a direction and focus and executed it incredibly well. I say the above because expectations should not have been World Series or bust in 2013 nor in 2014. 
 
All that said... bringing in Drew for a prorated 14m, moving XB, etc. That strikes me as off script. They needed depth and he is a quality player and all that, but we are talking about a one year stop gap and we are talking about disrupting your young star. This may be a matter of convenience since he's such a good defensive SS and 3B has been a problem, but it may also be an indication that XB will not be sticking at SS.
 
I will be interested to see how this works going forward. The rest of the year and the impact this can have -- improving defense can help pitching and all that -- but it's hard to see this being a hugely significant move given this isn't the team's only issue. But also for next year. Do they keep Drew as a bridge to Marrero or whoever and permanently move XB off SS? 
 
Anyway, back to the original question. Yes, they do have a plan and philosophy. Let's assume that this move is a major departure from that plan... should we discourage adjustments and making changes when things are going as planned? Especially when the only cost is money? I think the biggest problem here is the meaning of this mean as it relates to XB.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The roster is almost exactly the same as last year's. It's just that they aren't playing as well. Their "plan" or whatever couldn't be more obvious. It's not like we're talking about the Phillies or the Mets here. 
 
The whole "deep depth" thing is way overblown. The 2013 Red Sox were pretty healthy and got above average (and lucky) performances from pretty much all their regulars and subs. Those same regulars and subs just haven't been as good this year. The depth didn't go away, it's just fallen back to earth. It happens. Step back from the ledge. 

Bogaerts wasn't our SS, Bradley wasn't our CF, Sizemore wasn't in LF and 3B wasn't occupied by Holt/Herrera/Roberts.

To say this is the same team without Ellsbury leading off and Drew's defensive stability couldn't be any more inaccurate.

 

[Joshv02]

They should have had more depth at SS/3b and CF - they lost their starting SS and starting CF, and basically replaced them with the backups, allowing no depth below that. Why is that an indictment of an organizational philosophy and not just poor execution?

The rest of the original post I don't understand. All teams suffer pitching injuries, why would one pitcher having shoulder weakness be indicative of a larger concern - did I miss the article claiming the Red Sox were impervious to injury? That seems like fairly obvious reaching (or trolling) in order to make a larger point.

They had the same base running philosophy last year but better base runners. Some random connection to Bill James is also clearly a reach for an argumentative point. It's a bad philosophy or not, but it's consistent with Ferrell.

They certainly should have planned SS/3b and CF better. Beyond that, I don't see your point.

 

[Dead Balls]

It has been said elsewhere, but if Xander cannot handle playing third base for four months because of the extenuating circumstances with WMB, then he isn't our superstar short stop of the future.  Nothing can easily be done about center-field / lead off production, so the move to third was the best option that could be given the circumstances.  Hopefully it makes the defense better and the offense better at the same time.
 
Farrell's goofy tactical decisions this year were last year's aggressive calls.  The only difference is last year they had players with better instincts, experience and... luck.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

1. Bogaerts' reaction is understandable, and in fact I would be worried if he weren't a little dejected about the move. He's just been reassigned from arguably the most prestigious job in baseball--starting shortstop for the world champions--to a lesser (though still challenging) role. What ambitious and passionate 21-year-old wouldn't be bummed about that? He'll be fine, and if he won't, he probably wasn't going to be. You're not going to have a long and distinguished major league career if you can be seriously thrown off stride by a rookie-year shift to a position you've already played a bunch of games at.
 
2. Agree wholeheartedly with TheoShemo's "audible" point. This is not an aimless organization tearing up plans, it's a nimble organization responding to changing circumstances intelligently. It's legitimate to debate the pros and cons of the move, but suggesting that it's a panic move is really missing the point, I think.
 
3. While Keri's article is well written and researched and a fun read, it goes without saying that it was written in the context of a year in which nearly everything had gone right. The Sox are not quite as brilliant as 2013 made them look. And they're not nearly as inept as 2014 is (so far) making them look.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

We discussed in the WMB thread that the leash for him was getting shorter and shorter.  His injury apparently moved that timetable up.  Besides, admittedly I don't have time to follow all the players that are available but if the Sox passed on Drew and he signed somewhere else, what other options did the Sox have if WMB never got it going?
 
Like people said in the Drew thread - I would think that this is more about WMB than XB.  If this is true, I certainly hope that the RS brass can convey that message to XB,

 

[DJnVa]

Why do people think that if a team/organization/company has a plan that it must never deviate from that plan if things do not progress as expected? That strikes me as very bad planning.

 

[21st Century Sox]

There's a tendency to look at the Drew signing as reactionary or a panic move.  After all, it wasn't long ago that we heard Farrell emphasize that SS was Xander's job and they weren't thinking about last year's line-up.
 
I think, however, that the bigger takeaway is that Ben, and the orgnaiztion collectively, has the emotional maturity to admit that when something isn't working or there has been a change in circumstances, it's OK to double back, admit it and cut your losses.  Yeah, Drrew was out of the picture...until it made sense to reinsert him into the picture.  
 
Too many organizations, in sports and otherwise, stubbornly stay the course, damn the consequences.  A course is a course, of course.  That the Sox are willing to audible when they deem necessary is a huge plus in my book.

 
I think it might even be simpler. The Sox wanted Drew back all along, just at their terms. When they could not get him, they went with X at SS, WMB at 3B. Of course Farrell is going to spin to media that is the plan.
 
Now, they were finally able to secure Drew on their terms, so they signed him. I think it is as simple as that.
 
(Not even related to WMB injury)
 
It would have been much nicer if they could have gotten Drew earlier, and not have to pull X from the SS position. That said, I agree with an earlier poster....If X cannot make this adjustment, and start as SS next season, then...he was never going to make it at the position anyhow.
 
Drew makes this team better, and it only cost money. All good.....

 

[rembrat]

Why do people think that if a team/organization/company has a plan that it must never deviate from that plan if things do not progress as expected? That strikes me as very bad planning.

 
It seems like somewhere along the line, being smart at Baseball, implied you had to sit on your hands and do close to nothing.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Owner JH is on record as preferring to address needs via spending money rather than spending prospects. Kudos for following through with that here.

 

[tims4wins]

 
 
I think the most concerning thing about yesterday is Chad Finn's coy insinuation that his 2-hr meeting at NESN had something to do with the Drew signing. As others have said, if the signing was made for other than baseball reasons, that's probably not a good thing. But, it's not like they traded away Betts for a "name" or signed someone to a 7-year deal, so I can't really freak out if "answering to the unwashed masses" just means spending some extra money they unexpectedly had.
 

 
I can't believe that anything Finn said is actually true. The masses hate the Drew brothers.

 

[gammoseditor]

Why would telling Xander a day earlier show more "people skills"?  Would he have been happier?  What if the deal fell through? 
 
I agree with the base stealing and bunting comments, but those aren't organizational decisions.  They are the manager's decisions.  With Farrell we are taking the bad with the good. I'd love to know what goes on between Ben and John but we usually don't get that type of inside look.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
I can't believe that anything Finn said is actually true. The masses hate the Drew brothers.

Sure, but do they hate being 4+ games below .500 more?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Keri credited the organization for squeezing solid production out of Nava, but I guess they forgot how to do that over the winter.   

 
Yeah, the team was 100% responsible for Nava's production.  They forgot how to activate his baseball powers and it's their fault he wasn't hitting this year.  Poor Daniel Nava.  He'd be an all star if only the Red Sox would get out of his way.
 

The team that was ready to hand over the keys to JBJ in CF, WMB at 3b and X at SS as of April 1 is, seven weeks later, seemingly done with WMB, planning to trade for a CF, and moving X to 3b.  Worse, they're letting the kids get down on themselves -- the best example being JBJ talking about "being lost" at the plate.  Wasn't Arnie Beyeler up here in part to help these guys transition smoothly into the majors?  Shouldn't the coaches be focused on trying to prevent these guys from losing confidence?

 
At the expense of winning games?  Sure, we need some of the kids to pan out if the team is going to compete long term, but if they can field a winning team this year, shouldn't that also be a priority?  Also, moving Xander to third is not giving up on him, it's using him in the way that best benefits the team right now.  There's a huge difference there.  And if the kids can't handle early career struggles leading to smart baseball moves that alter or minimize their playing time at the major league level, they aren't going to have lasting major league careers in the first place.  Again, like with Nava, this isn't a case of the team getting in their way.  It's a reaction to their lack of performance and a need to try and win games in a division that is still very much up for grabs.
 
Either they learn to deal with adversity and the reality that winning is more important than their feelings, or their careers are already over.
 

The team that had carefully groomed their future superstar SS has decided to hit the panic button by re-signing Drew in mid-May.  X is 21 years old and scuffling in his first two months in the majors.  So, of course, they don't tell him that they're signing Drew until shortly before the game.  The kid, rattled, commits two errors after having played pretty well of late, and then makes clear how crushed he is by the decision.  Would it really have been so hard to have warned him yesterday, during the off-day, that this was coming?  Does anyone on the staff have any people skills at all?

 
So before the deal was done they should have said to him "You might be moving off of short if we can come to terms with another player at some point in the near future, but maybe not, so try not to think about it yet?"  What benefit is there to having that conversation?  They told him as soon as they had Drew signed.  This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen on this site.  It make zero sense.
 

We've heard for years that this team had a top-of-the-line shoulder strengthening program for pitchers, so their youngest starter goes down with shoulder weakness.  And Keri extolled the virtues of the team's injury prevention plan, but they can't keep Victorino on the field.  If their medical staff is supposed to give them an advantage, there's no sign of that advantage thus far this year.

 
I guess having a great shoulder strengthening program means they've claimed to have eliminated all potential for shoulder injuries to their pitchers?  As if they aren't still repeating a motion that actively causes damage to the shoulder?  And again we're back to the team shouldering 100% of the responsibility and the poor player being at their mercy.  We have no idea how well Doubront has taken to that program and whether he keeps up with the things he's supposed to be doing to keep his shoulder strong.  And even if he is, that doesn't make him immune from injuring it.
 
As for Victorino, he's been injury prone for years.  A good medical staff wasn't going to magically remove the wear and tear he's put on his body over the course of his career.  Injuries happen.  During World Series runs, teams typically have good injury luck.  The Red Sox had good injury luck last year.  This year, their luck has normalized a bit and it seems like some kind of reversal in our fortune.  It's not.  This is what happens to people who use their bodies to make their living, whether it's baseball, MMA, construction, military or any other physical career.  Your body can only take so much before it breaks down.  Players will get hurt, which is why depth is so important.  Drew adds to the depth, which is why I came down on the side of supporting that signing.  It forces them to juggle pieces a bit, but it improves the 25 man roster.  That is indisputable.
 

 
It seems like somewhere along the line, being smart at Baseball, implied you had to sit on your hands and do close to nothing.

 
If you don't foresee every possible variable before the season starts, you are bad at your job.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I can't believe that anything Finn said is actually true. The masses hate the Drew brothers.

 
Is there a reason to believe he wasn't just trying to be funny?

 

[tims4wins]

Sure, but do they hate being 4+ games below .500 more?

 
Obviously yes, but do you think the masses saw the news yesterday and said "woohoo, winning record here we come"? No chance.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Is there a reason to believe he wasn't just trying to be funny?

 
He should have just shut up. It was neither opinion nor journalistic, and therefore in a way it seems a bit unethical to me.

 

[LoweTek]

This year, just as last, a lot of things have to go right. I don't expect a World Series championship this year any more than I did last year. So far, fewer things are going right. This could change of course and someone said, "Step back from the ledge." I have to agree.

In this division, this hole is not that deep.

I like the move, actually. WMB was not looking like a steady or reliable option. Flashes of a power bat do not make a viable MLB player. He's had a lot of rope.

I think it's a good test of XB's character too, not to mention he's probably a better 3B than WMB. He bucks up and becomes notable defensively at the position, he makes a strong case for his own long term viability. He needs to see this as opportunity.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
He should have just shut up. It was neither opinion nor journalistic, and therefore in a way it seems a bit unethical to me.

 
I think it was a tweet in which he was trying to be funny.  There was no attempt at being journalistic there.  He was interacting with his followers.  It's a social media site, after all.
 
It's not really worth getting worked up over (not saying you are, but plenty of people are), and it's certainly not worth more time to argue about, so we can agree to disagree.

 

[tims4wins]

Yeah I'm not worked up about it. His NESN meeting clearly had nothing to do with the Drew signing. Hard for me to believe that some people thought it had a grain of truth.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Yeah I'm not worked up about it. His NESN meeting clearly had nothing to do with the Drew signing. Hard for me to believe that some people thought it had a grain of truth.

 
This.  People are really focusing on Chad Finn's innocuous and playful tweet?  Really?

 

[RedOctober3829]

I simply can't believe there is a thread on the main board like this.  This is still the same organization who has won 3 World Series titles since 2004, correct?  Same ownership, correct?  The head of baseball operations has been here for the whole time, correct?  They are having a couple of bad months and there is no arguing that.  But to have a knee-jerk reaction such as questioning their plan or philosophy is ridiculous.  They are as set up for success in the minor leagues as any team in the sport. 
 
Since 2003, the Boston Red Sox have the most World Championships and have averaged 91 wins per season which is 2nd in MLB only to the Yankees.  Their plan and philosophy has garnered tremendous success both in the regular season and in the playoffs over a long period of time.  Why are people questioning them?  2012 was as bad as it gets and they ended up winning the World Series a year later.  Not every season is going to be sunshine and roses.  Adversity hits every organization and this organization has handled it as well as anyone.  They've turned over the roster twice since 2003 and it has produce WS winners two more times.  Their track record speaks for itself.

 

[Drek717]

I think the plan is incredibly clear actually.
 
1. Field a competitive team year to year without sacrificing farm depth.
 
2. When young cost controlled talent, existing veteran contracts, and the FA market allow load up and make a title run or two.
 
3. Repeat.
 
The club was busy trying to accomplish #1 while waiting for #2 in a couple seasons when Bradley, Bogaerts, etc. had established themselves.  Instead they caught lightning in a bottle and won the Series.  The most impressive thing this organization has done since then is not getting too high on their own success and deviating from the plan.
 
They went into the season with the same plan for 2014 they had at the start of 2013: to break in some young guys and live with the growing pains.  Those pains have been very apparent to all of us.  Now they're doing what any good team would do - reassessing how much of that pain they're willing to live with and looking for solutions to existing problems.  The lowest of the low hanging fruit here is signing Drew.  Not only does he improve SS defense, not only does the move of Bogaerts to 3B improve defense and offense from the 3B position, but all of this also reduces the stress on Bogaerts.  Someone should sit him down and explain that he's still the long term SS but that Drew was readily available for just money, helps the team win now, and also helps Bogaerts personally by taking the pressures associated with improving at SS off his plate and letting him focus on his offense.  The team needs him at SS long term to be sure, but for 2014 they need his ~.800 OPS potential bat with some nice pop far more.
 
Same with Middlebrooks.  I doubt they've given up on him, but he hasn't been able to stay on the field or produce when on the field.  He needs to get truly healthy, get his plate approach refined a bit more, and then give it another shot in a lower stress situation as the infield super-sub for the year while he gets his legs back under him.  The full time 3B job will still be there for him to start 2015 as nothing Cecchini has done to date inspires confidence that he can stick at 3B defensively.  If he could he'd be up and Drew wouldn't have been signed.
 
What I'd like to see going forward is the following:
1. Cecchini taking time in LF and RF in AAA, preparing him to replace Sizemore on the roster if the later doesn't start hitting within the next few weeks.
2. Continue to develop Betts in CF, with a promotion to AAA in the near future after some initial AA acclimation to playing the position.  End goal here is Betts pushing Bradley at CF on the ML roster by the second half, with the potential of a Betts/Bradley CF/RF tandem if Victorino can't stay healthy.
3. When WMB is healthy he focused entirely on hitting in an extended rehab stint in AAA.  The goal being to get him back locked in there before letting him see ML pitching again.  He's transitioned hot streaks from AAA to ML well in the past and he's a guy who needs a confidence boost.
4. Take a very strict eye towards the bullpen and be ready to move Workman back up as soon as there is a clear weakness in the 'pen.

 

[nattysez]

 
Yeah, the team was 100% responsible for Nava's production.  They forgot how to activate his baseball powers and it's their fault he wasn't hitting this year.  Poor Daniel Nava.  He'd be an all star if only the Red Sox would get out of his way.
 

 
My point was that one of these two things can be true:  (1) Keri and others were being hyperbolic when they credited an organizational philosophy for Nava's success or (2) the organization somehow abandoned its philosophy.  You can't say "the org had a great plan and it led to Nava being awesome" one year and "Nava sucks -- totally the player's fault" the next year.  And I'd argue that they did not put Nava in a position to succeed this year by having him play every day, then sending him down when it turned out that a platoon player wasn't good at playing every day.
 
 

 
As for Victorino, he's been injury prone for years.  A good medical staff wasn't going to magically remove the wear and tear he's put on his body over the course of his career.  Injuries happen.  During World Series runs, teams typically have good injury luck.  The Red Sox had good injury luck last year.  This year, their luck has normalized a bit and it seems like some kind of reversal in our fortune.  It's not.  This is what happens to people who use their bodies to make their living, whether it's baseball, MMA, construction, military or any other physical career.  Your body can only take so much before it breaks down.  Players will get hurt, which is why depth is so important.  Drew adds to the depth, which is why I came down on the side of supporting that signing.  It forces them to juggle pieces a bit, but it improves the 25 man roster.  That is indisputable.
 

 
Keri's article goes on at length about how Sizemore would be able to stay healthy in Boston because they had figured out how to handle soft-tissue injuries.  If this were true, then it should equally apply to Victorino.  Yet he can't stay healthy.  Again, either Keri was being hyperbolic or something has changed.
 
I don't want to get too caught up in using Keri's article as a strawman -- it's unfair to the team and overemphasizes one writer's opinion -- but I'm concerned that the idea that the team "had a plan and executed it perfectly" last year is belied by what's happening this year.
 
I don't watch enough Rays baseball to know this for sure, but my distinct impression is that they have a very set organizational philosophy.  It's not working out this year because their starting pitchers got hurt, but you don't hear about them trying to make a lot of out-of-character changes or in-game moves because the results have been bad so far (as far as I know).  They're going to let the philosophy play out and hope the strategy they believe in eventually gives them good results.

 

[rembrat]

The Rays do not operate with the same resources as the Red Sox do. That is a poor example.

 

[Why Not Grebeck?]

First of all, the Red Sox DID try to sign Drew during the off season. That was what the QO was for. If Drew had taken it, which was a reasonable possibility, they would have worked out the left side of the infield somehow and we would have all been okay with it.
 
I don't think him showing up now has much to do with Bogaerts at all. He's here because Middlebrooks is both hurt and bad. If he was just hurt, they'd make due until he came back. If he was just bad, they'd probably stick with him for the rest of the year or at least until it got embarrassing. But hurt AND bad? Yeah, I don't blame them for wanting to find a short term stopgap.
 
The Sox are in a very interesting place this year. They've played poorly, but they're healthy and the AL East is still wide open. Nearly any other year, they'd already be like 12 games down to someone, but this year there's an opportunity still. When you see a shot like that, you take it. This year, the Sox are very likely to be better both offensively and defensively with Drew/Bogaerts on the left side. It might be worth a couple of games in the standings, which might be enough. And the cost is...what? Having Bogaerts play at a different position for a few months? Not relying on Middlebrooks? That seems fine to me.
 
As for the JBJ/Sizemore situation, I think that all played out about as well as it could have given their respective ST numbers and Nava's suck to start the year. I think we'll see Nava back up soon and Sizemore gone. JBJ will patrol CF for the next five years at least.
 
Farrell...well, he's never been a sabermetric or even really a stats guy. His philosophy here has been the same as it was in Toronto - very flawed. He's a great personality fit, but I've never liked his nuts-and-bolts baseball decisions.  

 

[Toe Nash]

 
This.  People are really focusing on Chad Finn's innocuous and playful tweet?  Really?

I guess my sarcasm detection was broken, but sorry for considering the possibility that a trusted reporter would report something that wasn't particularly unbelievable, since we know similar thinking happened a couple years ago.

 

[amh03]

I simply can't believe there is a thread on the main board like this.  This is still the same organization who has won 3 World Series titles since 2004, correct?  Same ownership, correct?  The head of baseball operations has been here for the whole time, correct?  They are having a couple of bad months and there is no arguing that.  But to have a knee-jerk reaction such as questioning their plan or philosophy is ridiculous.  They are as set up for success in the minor leagues as any team in the sport. 
 
Since 2003, the Boston Red Sox have the most World Championships and have averaged 91 wins per season which is 2nd in MLB only to the Yankees.  Their plan and philosophy has garnered tremendous success both in the regular season and in the playoffs over a long period of time.  Why are people questioning them?  2012 was as bad as it gets and they ended up winning the World Series a year later.  Not every season is going to be sunshine and roses.  Adversity hits every organization and this organization has handled it as well as anyone.  They've turned over the roster twice since 2003 and it has produce WS winners two more times.  Their track record speaks for itself.

 
This!
 
If the thread title were more along the lines of "Examining this organization's plan or philosophy it would be a more reasonable discussion.  But posing the question "Does this organization have a plan or philosophy" is actually a tad insulting, given the successes that they've enjoyed in the last 10 years.  Three World Series Championships in 10 Years...
 
I guess the question I'd have is why can't we, as fans, trust this ownership and managerial group a little more?

 

[WenZink]

 
This!
 
If the thread title were more along the lines of "Examining this organization's plan or philosophy it would be a more reasonable discussion.  But posing the question "Does this organization have a plan or philosophy" is actually a tad insulting, given the successes that they've enjoyed in the last 10 years.  Three World Series Championships in 10 Years...
 
I guess the question I'd have is why can't we, as fans, trust this ownership and managerial group a little more?

 
While I admit the OP is a little over the top, the Drew signing is depressing.  You can't make a commitment to "develop from within," and then undermine the young talent after 45 games.  Starting young players can be painful, at times, but you have to endure it if you want to earn the reward from system development.  Signing Drew for what will be just 100 games isn't too big of a deal, especially if they fear that WMB will miss significant time.  But if Middlebrooks is ready to come back at the same time as Drew is ready to play for the Sox, then I have a problem with it.  They've got to figure out what WMB is, before they can figure out what Cecchini might be, before they can figure out where to place Bogaerts long-term, before they can figure out what to do with Betts/Marrero/Rijo down the line.
 
Worst case scenario is the return of Drew has little overall impact on the 2014 Sox.
 
And if Drew appears to be the missing piece that brings stability to the Sox defense and lineup and they become a viable contender, then how do the Sox not pursue bringing him back for the next 3 years?  Do they let him walk and go back to Bogaerts at SS and WMB or Cecchini at 3rd in 2015?
 

 
...
I guess the question I'd have is why can't we, as fans, trust this ownership and managerial group a little more?

 
Because, in spite of all their success, we've seen some very bad decisions made that were very predictably bad.  We don't know if Drew was brought back to placate Farrell's wishes, or if Larry and the Dentist were worried about ticket sales and NESN ratings, or if Ben and baseball OPS have decided that WMB is crap.

 

[gammoseditor]

I guess my sarcasm detection was broken, but sorry for considering the possibility that a trusted reporter would report something that wasn't particularly unbelievable, since we know similar thinking happened a couple years ago.

 
Just want to make sure I have this right.  Do some people actually believe the Sox would bring a globe reporter into a NESN meeting to discuss making a move for the purpose of better ratings? 

 

[alwyn96]

Bogaerts wasn't our SS, Bradley wasn't our CF, Sizemore wasn't in LF and 3B wasn't occupied by Holt/Herrera/Roberts.

To say this is the same team without Ellsbury leading off and Drew's defensive stability couldn't be any more inaccurate.

 
Middlebrooks is on the team. Nava is on the team. Bradley started in CF last year. Get ahold of yourself. Yes, Sizemore is on the team, and Bogaerts started at 3B rather than SS. Those are some slight differences, you're right. Congratulations. 
 
If I said this were a team populated by 4-legged minotaurs named Steve who enjoyed Time magazine even though they worried that their tastes were becoming too middle-brow, you might have something. To say it couldn't be more inaccurate and that the teams aren't literally EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY POSSIBLE FASHION couldn't be any more pedantic. 

 

[alwyn96]

Doesn't everyone underestimate the effect on opposing pitchers of batting a decent-hitting base-stealer at the top of the line-up?

 
Do they? Is there an estimate for that effect somewhere? That might be an interesting board post, if you have anything to back it up. 

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

 

 
If the thread title were more along the lines of "Examining this organization's plan or philosophy it would be a more reasonable discussion.  But posing the question "Does this organization have a plan or philosophy" is actually a tad insulting, given the successes that they've enjoyed in the last 10 years.  

 
 In defense of the OP: this thread was started at two in the morning following a Sox loss. He was rolling.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

My point was that one of these two things can be true:  (1) Keri and others were being hyperbolic when they credited an organizational philosophy for Nava's success or (2) the organization somehow abandoned its philosophy.  You can't say "the org had a great plan and it led to Nava being awesome" one year and "Nava sucks -- totally the player's fault" the next year.  And I'd argue that they did not put Nava in a position to succeed this year by having him play every day, then sending him down when it turned out that a platoon player wasn't good at playing every day.

I think you need to read the Keri article again. 
 
I'm not sure about the others you are talking about, but Keri only mentioned Nava once in the article. Here is the quote:
 

The Red Sox built a team around healthy superstars, but they also built a team capable of squeezing the most out of a talented but flawed player like Daniel Nava, who hit .322/.411/.484 against right-handed pitchers in 2013, but just .252/.311/.336 against lefties, making him an ideal candidate for a platoon with Gomes.

 
You might read that differently, but I don't see that as saying the Sox are taking credit for his success. Platoons have been around for decades. It's not like the Sox are taking credit for making him a success. Any team would have platooned Nava. It's the only way he is useful. Nava had 46 ABs against RH pitching this season and only hit .174. with a .283 OBP. Yes, they had him playing every day, but that was because Victorino was out. It's not like they had a lot of choices at the time.
 

Keri's article goes on at length about how Sizemore would be able to stay healthy in Boston because they had figured out how to handle soft-tissue injuries.  If this were true, then it should equally apply to Victorino.  Yet he can't stay healthy.  Again, either Keri was being hyperbolic or something has changed.

 
Here is the quote about Sizemore and his health.
 

This helped Ortiz last year, and the Sox hope it will help players like the oft-injured Grady Sizemore this year. In fact, if the Red Sox weren’t this confident in their health regimen, they probably wouldn’t have gone after a beleaguered player like Sizemore at all.

 
Again, I might read this differently than you do, but it doesn't look like he is saying that he will stay healthy. As for the oft-injured Victorino. No one in the organization has come close to saying that their program will keep players healthy, just that they believe that their program offers the players a better chance to stay healthy. People are different. Injuries happen.
 

I don't want to get too caught up in using Keri's article as a strawman -- it's unfair to the team and overemphasizes one writer's opinion -- but I'm concerned that the idea that the team "had a plan and executed it perfectly" last year is belied by what's happening this year.

Where are you getting the "they had a plan and executed it perfectly" thing from? Yes they had a plan and yes it happened to work out, but that was more about the players performing at and above what their projections were. And luck. There is always a degree of luck involved.
Again, from the article:

There’s no guarantee this will all work, of course. If almost everything went wrong for Boston in 2012, then almost everything went right in 2013. The Red Sox can hope physical therapy turns this team into baseball’s version of the Steve Nash–Grant Hill Phoenix Suns, who enjoyed extraordinary team health despite carrying multiple injury-prone players. They can hope the bench keeps producing, the next generation of young power pitchers clicks, and the position prospects fulfill their potential. But it’s no sure thing.

I don't watch enough Rays baseball to know this for sure, but my distinct impression is that they have a very set organizational philosophy.  It's not working out this year because their starting pitchers got hurt, but you don't hear about them trying to make a lot of out-of-character changes or in-game moves because the results have been bad so far (as far as I know).  They're going to let the philosophy play out and hope the strategy they believe in eventually gives them good results.

 
Someone said it up thread, but Tampa's organizational philosophy is dictated by their lack of revenue.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
Just want to make sure I have this right.  Do some people actually believe the Sox would bring a globe reporter into a NESN meeting to discuss making a move for the purpose of better ratings? 

I was clearly not thinking and admitted that, so chill. However, Finn does a lot of reporting on the media, particularly WEEI, so that is why I didn't get the joke. Obviously I get it now, ha ha.

 

[alwyn96]

It is kind of an appeal to authority (or I dunno, appeal to past record?) to say "well they won the WS seven months ago." Maybe the highest kind of authority, but in Sep 2011, you could say that they had won 95 games 3 of the last 4 years. More importantly, it's just kind of a cop-out and doesn't exactly answer the question of whether the team has a plan or philosophy. You can win with different philosophies, of course.
 
I think the most concerning thing about yesterday is Chad Finn's coy insinuation that his 2-hr meeting at NESN had something to do with the Drew signing. As others have said, if the signing was made for other than baseball reasons, that's probably not a good thing. But, it's not like they traded away Betts for a "name" or signed someone to a 7-year deal, so I can't really freak out if "answering to the unwashed masses" just means spending some extra money they unexpectedly had.
 
Beyond that, I don't think things are much different than last year, really...just the players aren't playing as well. Farrell made goofy tactical decisions for the whole year including the playoffs, they just didn't burn him too badly, largely because the players played better. Their shoulder program gets a lot of hype, but it seems anecdotally they have fewer major arm injuries than most teams (while perhaps having more short DL stints). Yeah, the kids might be getting down, but I'm not sure how else the team could have handled it when they're hitting so poorly.
 
Someone should tell X that while shortstop is cool, there are also few good 3b either and he can have just as much positional impact there if he hits like he can. Xander's .341 wOBA would be 5th among qualified 3bmen (and sure, Wright and Longoria are uncharacteristically struggling, but).

 
Citing their WS win isn't an appeal to authority, it's citing of actual data. An appeal to authority would be something like, "Dave Cameron says the Red Sox have a PhD in baseball philosophy, their plan is totally sweet, and they are also incredibly handsome." It's not a cop out any more than citing a player's OBP or something when evaluating whether they're a good hitter or not. I'm not sure what other metric you would use. If it's possible to win a bunch of WS without a philosophy, than I would wonder about the importance of having a "philosophy" in the first place. 

 

[gammoseditor]

I was clearly not thinking and admitted that, so chill. However, Finn does a lot of reporting on the media, particularly WEEI, so that is why I didn't get the joke. Obviously I get it now, ha ha.

 
I wasn't trying to single you out.  It's a thought that has been repeated the last few days and I honestly thought I might be missing something.  Even in your last post you said we know they did something similar a couple years ago. We do?

 

[strek1]

 
While I admit the OP is a little over the top, the Drew signing is depressing.  You can't make a commitment to "develop from within," and then undermine the young talent after 45 games.  Starting young players can be painful, at times, but you have to endure it if you want to earn the reward from system development.  Signing Drew for what will be just 100 games isn't too big of a deal, especially if they fear that WMB will miss significant time.  But if Middlebrooks is ready to come back at the same time as Drew is ready to play for the Sox, then I have a problem with it.  They've got to figure out what WMB is, before they can figure out what Cecchini might be, before they can figure out where to place Bogaerts long-term, before they can figure out what to do with Betts/Marrero/Rijo down the line.
 
Worst case scenario is the return of Drew has little overall impact on the 2014 Sox.
 
And if Drew appears to be the missing piece that brings stability to the Sox defense and lineup and they become a viable contender, then how do the Sox not pursue bringing him back for the next 3 years?  Do they let him walk and go back to Bogaerts at SS and WMB or Cecchini at 3rd in 2015?
 
 
Because, in spite of all their success, we've seen some very bad decisions made that were very predictably bad.  We don't know if Drew was brought back to placate Farrell's wishes, or if Larry and the Dentist were worried about ticket sales and NESN ratings, or if Ben and baseball OPS have decided that WMB is crap.

 
 So apparently your beef is with the Drew signing.   Perhaps just focusing on that would be more appropriate than selecting a thread title that trashes the entire organizational philosophy.  
 BTW according to what was said on NESN the players wanted Drew to come back.

 

[Reverend]

I think that we know that the Red Sox has a stated organizational philosophy, not just from the Keri piece but from pieces by Speier and... one of the guys at ProJo with a "B" in their name (I should learn to keep them straight, I want to say Bradford but it may have been Britton). The question is: Do occurrences from this season represent a deviation from that philosophy and plans constructed based upon it.
 
I'm not seeing it. Any philosophy can only be followed and its plans implemented within the constraints the team faces, so of which the team has no control over; I think this is obvious to everyone. But they can't necessarily control Nava suddenly looking lost at the plate with a philosophy. Nor can a good medical staff prevent Victorino from jamming his leg while sliding into third--therefore I don't see the comparison to Sizemore as being apt [although we don't have full info on why Vic's core was weak when he showed up this year]).
 
While the "deep depth" element has gotten a lot of run in this thread, the issue of maintaining financial and personnel flexibility in the long term has not. These are two, in the minds of many, excellent planks in the Red Sox approach and worked tremendously well in concert last year. They will, however, at times work at cross purposes. Signing Ellsbury would have preserved greater quality depth but with a sacrifice to future flexibility, for example.
 
Throw in the "develop from within," plank, and you have further possible complications. I think it's clear that the refusal to sign Drew and Salty were a matter of choosing "develop from within," for which "future flexibility" is oftentimes a precondition" over the quality depth each player would bring. They had to make a call, and I believe they make these calls with a simultaneous view of a one year plan, a two year plan, a three year plan and so forth--it's not exactly a choice between now and the future but how to balance all of the above.
 
As best as we know, they signed Drew when 1) WMB went down (and he wasn't hitting anyway, so a AAA stint may well be in his future even after he heals), which alters the depth part of the equation; 2) it became clear that they could get Drew for a single year, which alters the future flexibility part of the equation; 3) Chad Finn had a meeting with NESN, the TriLateral Committee, and the Learned Elders of Zion to find a diabolical way to raise viewership without winning more games, which alters the Dentistry part of the equation heretofore kept secret.
 
I don't see any of the above as a deviation from the philosophy. They have Cecchini and Moreno on the way on the left side, and Vazquez and Swihart at Catcher, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they didn't want to sign the vets at those positions for long term deals. It may not be a "bridge year" but they are setting things up so that there are bridges to those prospects. Then they can see who sticks, who doesn't and hurl the massive amount of cash they'll have through maintaining future flexibility at what they discern to be needs. And that doesn't even include Betts who they don't even know where he's going to play yet, but know that Mookie is coming--better hide your heart.
 
So Drew increases depth now but not at the expense of future flexibility and apparently without even displacing Bogaerts from the lineup. Perhaps playing him at 3B will slow his possible development at SS--although Farrell has commented that he might platoon the SS position between him and Drew so there would still be reps there--but that developmental cost (which I consider to be minor) comes at preserving the future flexibility to develop other in-house players.
 
I wish Nava were hitting too, and I don't get why they thought Sizemore seemed like a viable CF in camp and then the wheels fell off when they came to Boston (temperature--fingers crossed) but those things happen in baseball disirregardless of your philosophy or whether or not you are sticking to it. For the most part, though, I see a team that's following their plan even to the distraction of some of the fans.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
My point was that one of these two things can be true:  (1) Keri and others were being hyperbolic when they credited an organizational philosophy for Nava's success or (2) the organization somehow abandoned its philosophy.  You can't say "the org had a great plan and it led to Nava being awesome" one year and "Nava sucks -- totally the player's fault" the next year.  And I'd argue that they did not put Nava in a position to succeed this year by having him play every day, then sending him down when it turned out that a platoon player wasn't good at playing every day.

 
They don't make the argument that he was successful last year because he was platooned just that the team would benefit from platooning him in 2014.  He wasn't platooned in 2013 by the way.  He had 139 of his 536 plate appearances against lefties, or 25.9%.  Dustin Pedroia saw 30.4% of his plate appearances against left handed pitchers.  David Ortiz saw 36% of his plate appearances against lefties.  So 25% means Nava faced most of the lefties the team saw while he was on the 25 man roster.  When they chose to sit him, it was against lefties more often than not, but that's not the same as a platoon, and platooning is not what was responsible for his success in 2013.  Nor was that claimed by Keri in the article.
 
His problem this year is not facing lefties.  It's that he hit .097 against righties.  He just flat out sucked while he was up with the big league club and there was a roster crunch, so he got the short end of the stick rather than a chance to straighten it out in the majors.  He's only OPSing .780 in Pawtucket.  Is that drop off from his 2013 major league production because of a use of or lack of platooning?  Maybe he just had a career year.  Seems like the most likely answer.
 
Regardless, the article you linked did not make the case that he Red Sox were responsible for Nava's success via platooning, so this entire point of yours is based on something that wasn't actually claimed.  Here's the relevant passage.
 
 
 

The Red Sox built a team around healthy superstars, but they also built a team capable of squeezing the most out of a talented but flawed player like Daniel Nava, who hit .322/.411/.484 against right-handed pitchers in 2013, but just .252/.311/.336 against lefties, making him an ideal candidate for a platoon with Gomes.

 
And besides, even if it was, how does something a writer said about the team in an article written shortly after they won the World Series have anything to do with whether the team has a plan in place or not?  Keri doesn't work for the team.  He doesn't make decisions for the team.  Who cares if he was using hyperbole?  You seem to acknowledge this below.
 

Keri's article goes on at length about how Sizemore would be able to stay healthy in Boston because they had figured out how to handle soft-tissue injuries.  If this were true, then it should equally apply to Victorino.  Yet he can't stay healthy.  Again, either Keri was being hyperbolic or something has changed.
 
I don't want to get too caught up in using Keri's article as a strawman -- it's unfair to the team and overemphasizes one writer's opinion -- but I'm concerned that the idea that the team "had a plan and executed it perfectly" last year is belied by what's happening this year.

 
Around here at least, the discussion about the team's plan was to have an average (or very close to it) player or better at every position, and to focus on OBP and wOBA to create a relentless lineup while focusing defensively on key positions (like center and right field, short stop , second base and third) and to create roster flexibility to make it easier to juggle pieces around when necessary.
 
Signing Sizemore played right into that philosophy of having flexible pieces and redundancies for the more difficult positions... at least until we learned that his knees weren't good enough for him to be a good defensive center fielder anymore.  He's third on the depth chart there, but it hurts a bit that he's the back up right fielder with Victorino ailing.  Even still, he was signed to provide that depth.  It's just not working out quite the way they'd hoped.  This isn't an indication that they are breaking the philosophy so much as they did a poor job of evaluating the player.
 
Drew is another example that does not break the philosophy.  He provides depth in the infield with Xander now giving them a better third baseman and a capable back up for short on the 25 man roster who isn't also a liability at the plate.  It's exactly the kind of thing they did last year.  Right down to using Xander at third to get his bat into the lineup.
 
As for claims that the Red Sox were ahead of other teams in dealing with soft tissue injuries, they didn't claim they were going to be able to prevent all soft tissue problems.  Here is what Cherington had to say.
 
 
 

“If we can find people who are at the top of their field to be hands-on with our players and create, I don’t know, a 5 percent difference in how much [the players are] out there or their level of physical fitness when they’re out there, that can translate into greater performance. So, yes, we have spent a lot of time on the medical area in the last two years, and that’s only going to continue.”

 
They are looking for incremental gains there, not immunity to soft tissue injuries.  Citing Victorino while ignoring that Sizemore has stayed on the field, or that Ortiz's achilles isn't flaring up is the same as pointing to Doubront as evidence that the shoulder training program isn't working while ignoring that Koji made it through the 2013 season without any issues.
 

I don't watch enough Rays baseball to know this for sure, but my distinct impression is that they have a very set organizational philosophy.  It's not working out this year because their starting pitchers got hurt, but you don't hear about them trying to make a lot of out-of-character changes or in-game moves because the results have been bad so far (as far as I know).  They're going to let the philosophy play out and hope the strategy they believe in eventually gives them good results.

 
Rembrat covered the main reason this isn't really a valid analogy, but I will also point out that because we are not watching the Rays like we watch the Red Sox, there is no way to know just how much they are shifting from day to day or how their short term adjustments jive with their long term goals.
 
Running a baseball team is a balance between short term and long term thinking.  Going full bore into one or the other is a good way to dig a hole that you won't be able to get out of.
 
Edit: Looks like abs was quicker on the draw.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
I wasn't trying to single you out.  It's a thought that has been repeated the last few days and I honestly thought I might be missing something.  Even in your last post you said we know they did something similar a couple years ago. We do?

I thought we got some trustworthy reports that the Crawford and to a lesser extent Lackey signings were a departure from the organizational philosophy of team-building through drafting and player development, partially due to their decline in TV ratings and attendance. That's what I erroneously figured Finn was getting at and probably what others have in mind. Theo doesn't explicitly say it but there are some good quotes towards that thinking here:
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2012/06/13/how-success-bred-monster-theo-epstein-consider
 
You'd hope that is in the rear view mirror, but it's hard to know for sure -- you'd think Theo would have gotten the benefit of the doubt too.