Tyrone Biggums said:
What moves did they make that deviate from the plan to be younger and cheaper by 2016? And how does holding onto veterans not conflict with promoting prospects in this context? You aren't making much sense.
Does this organization have a plan or philosophy?
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
What moves did they make that deviate from the plan to be younger and cheaper by 2016? And how does holding onto veterans not conflict with promoting prospects in this context? You aren't making much sense.
Additionally, he is using his opinion as the benchmark for the entire fan base. That's nonsensical at best.
Not necessarily. Would you agree that the casual fan expected more from the Sox this year? I'm not necessarily talking about people on these boards I'm talking about the part of the fan base NESN and the PR/Marketing department caters to. The fans that buy the pink jerseys and the fans who buy goofy stuff like the bricks at Fenway or the RSN package.Dogman2 said:
I would also argue Bradley was rushed up way too early last year. I think it screwed with him. He got on a hot streak in spring training and everyone clamored for him.
While they haven't made moves that blocked players for 2016 they did sign Napoli which is something I think the front office wouldn't have done if they had failed to make the playoffs in 2013. They gave Ortiz the extension which was clearly for ratings purposes. I understand that Napoli was originally signed to a 3/39 deal however if this team was not ready to contend do you really think it made much sense to bring him back for 3 more years? They did a great job last year, my argument is that they overachieved and the casual fan I believe wanted and expected more from 2014 as a result. Honestly look at the 2013 roster, the fact this team won is the miracle beyond miracles.
Tyrone Biggums said:
Who cares what the fans think? That has nothing to do with your statement that last year's success set the organizational plan back. What moves have been made that lead you to believe that the title run last year had any impact on the plan set in place in the winter of 2012-2013?
Tyrone Biggums said:
So something the team did in April of 2013 is evidence that the title they won in October of 2013 had a negative impact on the implementation of their plan in 2014? Do I have that right?
Bradley was one of the main reasons Ellsbury was allowed to leave. Are you denying that?Snodgrass said:
If the Sox had not competed last year what do you think would have happened? Would they have kept Ortiz? Lester? Lackey? Ellsbury? The point of the rebuild and the bridge year was to bring in cost controlled prospects and build from within. Correct? The Sox I would have to assume also hopes to trade Ellsbury if they were out of it, this bringing in more prospects. So logic would dictate that they never would have traded for Peavy, never would have kept Drew Napoli and Probably Lester. They would have restocked the farm. It made everything go in an alternate route which was to show the casual fan (since of course this message board probably encompasses maybe 10% of the actual fan base) that they wanted to repeat.
Back to Bradley for a second. If he had panned out as the lead off hitter and the heir to Ellsbury that everyone thought he was going to be I highly doubt this team is suffering their 10th straight loss. I'm not advocating matching the Yankees offer since that will look bad in 2-3 years but they did nothing to address the absolute garbage outfield. Nava had a career year which everyone bought into. Victorino for the most part was healthy which most of us assumed he would be again. Gomes was okay...so essentially by staying status quo in the outfield this is the result. So my question to you is did the front office buy into the career year of Nava and the potential of JBJ when deciding not to go after any outfielders?
There are no "valid" analogies.Lawyers and judges notwithstanding...
Apropos of nothing,two years ago I didn't understand the F O...
Last year I didn't understand the nature of most of the players...
This year the same damn thing...
They can't be this bad can they? Oh wait...you are your record...
Apropos of nothing,two years ago I didn't understand the F O...
Last year I didn't understand the nature of most of the players...
This year the same damn thing...
They can't be this bad can they? Oh wait...you are your record...
Tyrone Biggums said:
How does that fit with your apparent desire to get younger? Or do you want them to fill the roster with older vets? I can't keep up. It's like you have a split personality. Here you are advocating the team signing a guy who is going to play his entire next contract in his thirties
Tyrone Biggums said:
Then here you want them to bring in cost controlled players who are younger (the opposite of Ellsbury). And why should they need to restock the farm? They were rated in the 2-5 range by most major publications this year. The farm is as strong and deep as it's been in a long time.
Tyrone Biggums said:
It's nice to know Bradley's career is over. As for Nava, I saw plenty of posters here suggesting he was likely to regress and can't recall anyone claiming Victorino was no longer an injury risk. But the real take away here is that you are now arguing they should have gone after more outfielders. And you're now leaning back toward veterans again. This time you're suggesting expending trade chips (young cost controlled players) for better veterans in trades or going after older vets in free agency, which means you've flip flopped your opinion again. Veterans -> Young Cost Controlled Players -> Veterans in the span of three paragraphs. Impressive.
Also, how would this have worked? None of Gomes, Nava or Victorino had expiring contracts. In addition to expending trade chips, they'd have had to find teams to take one or more of those players off of their hands. Care to toss out some realistic scenarios where they'd have gone from the "garbage" you are complaining about to an outfield you'd have been happy with?
You seem to have bridge mixed up with blowing up the roster. They never said they were going to blow up the roster. They said they were going to bridge to a younger core. They also said they aimed to be competitive while doing that. Why would they have moved Ortiz, Lester and Lackey? They had no in house players ready to replace them last year. Hell, they don't really have the in house pieces ready this year.
You can't even keep your position straight from one paragraph to the next. Maybe you should put down the laptop, go have a beer and chill out for a bit. You are ranting like an EEI caller here.
My position in this thing is constant. If the Sox had been a losing team in 2013 then they would have traded veterans thus giving the Sox a completely different look. I believe the front office hoped that Bradley would get off to a hot start in 2013 so it would make it easier to trade Ellsbury at the deadline. But the Sox ended up winning and Ellsbury was a huge part of that.Snodgrass said:
Why I keep bringing up Bradley is that his development was supposed to be a huge part of all this. His career isn't over by any means but I think it's seriously time to consider him as someone who you can look at as a possible contributor but not someone who you can realistically build around. The FO I believe signed these guys as filler to make the club house a better place and then cash them in for prospects last year.
As for realistic OF options I'm sure the Sox could have grabbed a few outfield prospects in trades that would have been ready in a year or two. I'm sure they could have traded one of their starters to get a guy like Joc Peterson and then move Ellsbury to a place like Texas. But that's just something off the cuff. I'm very happy that the Sox won but this is the result that was supposed to happen last year and it didn't.
So your entire premise is based on the idea that the Red Sox expected to lose badly enough last year to justify selling off some of their most popular players for prospects, despite the fact that all they talked about in the winter and spring was expecting to compete for the division.
Go find me one example of one person high up in the front office saying they expected 2013 to be a lost year where they could cash in their vets for prospects. Just one. I'll wait.
Go find me one example of one person high up in the front office saying they expected 2013 to be a lost year where they could cash in their vets for prospects. Just one. I'll wait.
Never said they went on record with this stuff. But this isn't that far fetched that an organization would sign transitional players to one year deals and flip them at the deadline. Is it? Is it far fetched that Ellsbury was supposed to be dealt for prospects since the Sox knew they wouldn't be able to resign him the following offseason?Snodgrass said:
I don't think there is any team with their own cable network that would send out a press release saying "Hey we plan on sucking this year, but please watch us." I mean hell the Mets said last year they were planning on competing too. Doesn't mean realistically they had a shot though.
The funny part of all this is that the Sox are still very much a part of the race. It's only the end of May and despite how bad they've been, the fact they are only 8 games out of first is an absolute shocker. Shows how bad the AL East is this year.
If by "constant", you are referring to the Lost episode, then I agree with you.Tyrone Biggums said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
So far, the veterans you have proposed to trade are Lester, Lackey, Ortiz, Ellsbury. Napoli, Drew, and Victorino.
Tyrone Biggums said:
Umm...what? If you are referring to guys signed in 2013, Ellsbury, Lester, and Lackey aren't them. Ortiz can hardly be called filler.
Tyrone Biggums said:
Only Napoli and Drew were signed to one year deals. Drew because it was a pillow contract, and Napoli because of avascular necrosis. You've advocated trading for players that were signed for multiyear deals.
Your position seems to be: If the red sox sucked in 2013, the FO would have blown-up the roster and traded any veterans for young guys that would be amazing in 2014. That isn't a "constant" position, its a bizarre fantasy.
Eric, I think if you look back at threads from spring training last year one of the sentiments was that the Sox would trade Ellsbury at the deadline or at least try since they were not realistically expected to contend. Why is it so crazy to think that the Red Sox would have traded veterans for prospects if they had not contended? Hell the year before that they blew up a big part of the roster so this is a front office that isn't afraid to do that. It's also one that would love to keep asses in the seats and keep ratings up. So I can't fault them for giving Napoli 3 years. I can't fault them for bringing essentially the same cast of characters back besides Ellsbury but this was a flawed team in 2013 that everything clicked with at the right time.
Teams that are out of the playoff race trade vets for prospects it has happened before and it will again. That's not a bizarre fantasy that is reality.
Teams that are out of the playoff race trade vets for prospects it has happened before and it will again. That's not a bizarre fantasy that is reality.
It's hard to see what future teams may look like for several reasons: solid prospects, potential free agents, and the opportunity for a trade (e.g. Stanton) can easily remake the roster. While some may refer to this as "uncertainty", such uncertainty also reflects a large degree of roster flexibility. The team can be remade because it is unburdened by albatrosses.Rudy Pemberton said:
I think this is what fans are misunderstanding with regards to "the plan". The organizational philosophy has been to have a flexible roster, because a flexible roster can adjust from year to year. One accomplishes a flexible roster through two types of players: a) veterans who are under team control for a limited duration and, b) kids that have minor league options and are controlled by the organization for years. This doesn't mean that you load the team with as many kids as possible, and it doesn't mean that you sign as many low-cost veterans as possible. It means that you maximize roster flexibility while trying to maintain a competitive team.
Well, if your position was: the Red Sox should have traded Ellsbury at the deadline for prospects (again, I have no clue what prospects you might be referring to), then it would be constant. However, many of the recent posts have argued trading Lester, Lackey, Ortiz, Napoli, Drew, etc., for sure-fire prospects, which is a bizarre fantasy.Tyrone Biggums said:
In any case, comparing the Punto trade with sentiments about trading Ellsbury is the very definition of lunacy. The Punto trade involved dumping three players with multiple expensive years on their contracts, and we somehow got prospects in return. Ellsbury would have been an expensive FA in 2014, for whom we would have (and did) receive a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds. You really think another FO is going to give up a prospect that is 2-3 years from being MLB ready for half a season of Ellsbury? Perhaps, if that team knew they could sign Ellsbury to an extension. Unfortunately, none of the teams that were projected to be competitive by the trading deadline AND could afford to extend Ellsbury either needed a CF (the dodgers), or were a team that we would deal with (the MFY).
Tyrone Biggums said:
You keep pointing to what the fans think (both posters here and the one's who buy pink jerseys) when referring to the plans of the front office. What we as fans think has nothing to do with what the front office does or would do. What we thought here in 2013's spring is 100% irrelevant here. You have yet to provide one bit of evidence to support your position. You just keep ranting about... well, I'm not really sure what. Something to do with winning. Or not winning. Or maybe it's veterans... no, wait, cost controlled prospects...? I give up. You win. Winning the title in 2013 worked against the long term plan. Nice job, Ben. Way to derail your train to title town with a title.
Rudy Pemberton said:
I don't think they are reluctant to give out long term contracts. They have shown they are reluctant to sign players in their 30's to long term contracts, and I think that's a wise baseline to work from. How they handle Lester will tell us a lot. They need him if they are going to compete in the short term. They'll probably have to go more years than they want to get him back. If they are going to give a long term contract to a guy in his thirties, it should probably be Lester.
We'll have to see how they handle replacing Papi, Napoli, Victorino and Lackey. I think it's too early to jump to the conclusion that they won't go long term on a free agent or three to do it, though.
Sure. I sort of oversimplified in my rant on Tyrone. To me, young cost-controlled talent represents the strong core because you aren't going to find a strong core on the FA market anymore.Rudy Pemberton said:
That being said, I do see in-house replacements for Peavy, Uehara next year (I'm hopeful that they extend Lester, actually) in our plethora of AAA prospects. Ortiz can be replaced through use of a supersub like Mookie Betts. Victorino may be replaced by Jason Heyward, who appears to be the odd-man out in Atlanta right now. Napoli's a good question, though, because we don't have a good 1B and I don't see one on the free market in the next couple of years. Cecchini, if he continues to hit, would fit in well in LF, or we bite the bullet at 3B defense and he'll play there.
What I'm saying is that this team given the circumstances was not afraid to make a blow it up move. Trading Ellsbury would have worked if they were not in contention. The team winning derailed things because they couldn't trade some of these veterans that they probably planned on trading. I don't have any inside info or any articles that mentioned the plan was to trade Ellsbury and put Bradley in CF by July 2013 but I'm glad it all worked out. If sucking in 2014 and 2015 is the result of a World Series title then I'm very happy with the result. I'm not mad at all they won last year. Lester Ellsbury and others could have been traded for returns if they didn't contend. Guys such as Drew Napoli had one year contracts and Koji had an option. The FO caught lightning in the bottle and it was worth it.EricFeczko said:
I'm just pointing out that the win allowed them to keep certain players during the season that I'm sure the Sox thought about trading multiple times during the 2013 offseason.
Completely agree. Lester has pitched 200+ innings for 6 straight years, so his risk of injury is only marginally higher than signing a 25 year old for 5 years. He has demonstrated that he can adjusted to reduced velocity, so I'm not concerned about reduced effectiveness. There's little reason to be concerned with a 5 year deal for Lester.Snodgrass'Muff said:
EDIT: 6 years, not 8.
How is Jason Heyward the odd man out in Atlanta when they have an outfield of both Upton Bros? One of which left his bat in Tampa Bay? I really don't think they would sell low on him at all. Atlanta is pretty much set up for the next few years so I don't know what Boston could possibly send them.EricFeczko said:
Jason Heyward was signed to a two-year extension this past year that takes him beyond arbitration years, despite wanting a long-term contract. Atlanta is stuck behind a crappy TV deal that prevents them from expanding their payroll. Of their young players, they have already locked up Simmons, Freeman, and Kimbrel. Evan Gattis will either be signed or have an expensive arbitration deal by the time Heyward's contract is up.Tyrone Biggums said:
Unless they find a way to deal BJ, I don't see how they will be able to afford Heyward.
Seeing as this is the organizational philosophy thread I want to get some peoples thoughts on a particular area.
The Outfield.
Victorino RF 2 years left 13 per
Gomes 1 year left 5 mill RF/LF
JBJ team controlled
Sizemore 1 year incentive laden
Nava two years team controlled i think ?
Carp not really an outfielder
Victorino has heavily regressed this year probably largely due to his injured hand and hamstring. JBJ can only be relied on for his glove right now and that takes us to the following
The Gomes, Sizemore, Nava triumvirate.
Nava's production has collapsed I'm in the camp where I'm done with that experiment but Gomes outside of his chemistry intangibles and the fact he's a fan and team favorite has been thoroughly below average this year. Sizemore in the same boat .
I get being flexible in the OF with platoons and such but especially now with vic on the DL again the lack of depth is striking. A whole lot a quantity not quality. Additionally they apparently have no interest in rushing Mookie which I understand but If they're not going to punt the season OF needs to be upgraded.
The Outfield.
Victorino RF 2 years left 13 per
Gomes 1 year left 5 mill RF/LF
JBJ team controlled
Sizemore 1 year incentive laden
Nava two years team controlled i think ?
Carp not really an outfielder
Victorino has heavily regressed this year probably largely due to his injured hand and hamstring. JBJ can only be relied on for his glove right now and that takes us to the following
The Gomes, Sizemore, Nava triumvirate.
Nava's production has collapsed I'm in the camp where I'm done with that experiment but Gomes outside of his chemistry intangibles and the fact he's a fan and team favorite has been thoroughly below average this year. Sizemore in the same boat .
I get being flexible in the OF with platoons and such but especially now with vic on the DL again the lack of depth is striking. A whole lot a quantity not quality. Additionally they apparently have no interest in rushing Mookie which I understand but If they're not going to punt the season OF needs to be upgraded.
jimbobim said:
Not sure where you're getting that; his performance has been remarkably similar to what we got from him last year, which is actually impressive considering that we are so far asking him to hit slightly more, proportionally, vs. RHP than we did last year. There's nothing wrong with Gomes that wouldn't be cured by providing him with a LHH platoon partner who actually hits righties and plays better defense. Nava was that guy last year, and his collapse created a hole that Sizemore just hasn't been able to fill. That's the problem. Gomes is fine as a complementary piece--thoroughly average is what he has been and continues to be.
https://twitter.com/TimBritton/status/470953978537455616
https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/470954656009814017
https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/470954656009814017
Tyrone Biggums said:
Bradley's current WAR:
fWAR: -0.2
bWAR: 0.0
So let's say he's -0.1 true WAR. Ok, obviously he's not been a *good* player. But he's been essentially replacement level. Which, again, isn't good. But a replacement level player on a defending world series championship club shouldn't submarine the season. We all thought he'd struggle this year with the bat. I don't think any of us envisioned the depth of the struggle, but it was fine to have one guy having a hard time at the plate. His glove has been outstanding, which is why his WAR isn't worse.
The problem isn't so much Bradley's struggles (though that's obviously been a part of it). After all, Ellsbury right now is at 0.4 WAR for both fangraphs and b-ref. So he's been about a half of a win better than Bradley thus far. Clearly, a half of a win is not the difference between this Sox team being a playoff contender right now.
The real problem is that the rest of the veteran OF has sucked donkey behind, Buchholz has been terrible, and they're just not getting many good years out of anyone. It's been a collective team effort of suck.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Therein lies the (occasional?) flaw in the "deep-depth" philosophy: if one part of the platoon fails, the other half is liable to be exposed. Too many moving parts to keep synchronized. It's like the old vaudeville act where a guy tries to get 6 plates spinning atop six spindles before the end of his act. A lot of broken dishes this year.
WenZink said:
but you're also expecting each player to be capable of doing less. if nava loses his ability to hit righties, a nava replacement only needs to be able to do that, so the talent requirement for depth is lower. there are flaws in the nava backup: sizemore isn't very good, carp can't really play LF anywhere but fenway, but those guys would be even further exposed if they didn't have a platoon partner in gomes who protects them from facing lefties
WenZink said:
How would this be any different than if your 155-game a year stud hitter has a shitty, injury-filled year, forcing your backup to play more games than should reasonably be expected?
It seems like you're really saying that, to succeed, a team needs quite a few of its players to stay on the field and perform as expected.
WenZink said:
But deep depth isn't rooted in having a lot of platoons in the lineup. Deep depth is having multiple options at a given position should the starter falter for whatever reason (injury, poor play, etc). If half of a platoon gets hurt or fails to perform, the idea is to have a back-up plan for him that isn't doesn't involve his platoon partner getting more playing time. Gomes hasn't been exposed because Nava has struggled, but because Nava, Carp, and Sizemore are all struggling to produce AND Victorino has been on the DL twice. That's a lot of pieces of the puzzle going wrong before the deep depth truly fails.
ivanvamp said:
This. Here are wRC+ figures for returning players. First number is through 5/25/2013, second is 2014:
Ortiz (181, 128)
Napoli (123, 127)
Pedroia (139, 100)
Victorino (94, 67)
Gomes (74, 109)
Carp (176, 77)
Ross (103, 43)
Of the holdovers, only Gomes and Napoli are not doing significantly worse this year.
And here are the similar numbers for players who have been replaced or where there have been multiple players covering a role either this year or last. Numbers w/superscript are composites (pro-rated roughly by PA) for two or more players filling that role. They're not precise but should be close enough to make the point:
3B (67, 801)
SS (1002, 122)
CF (77, 58)
#1 C (119, 89)
LHH LF platoon (142, 603)
12014: Middlebrooks, Holt, Roberts
22013: Drew, Iglesias
32014: Sizemore, Nava
So we've actually gotten better production from both left-side infield positions (offensively, at least) than we had at this time last year, but at CF, starting C, and LH LF it's been worse. (Not all that much worse in CF, though, because Ellsbury started off ice-cold last year.)
Anyway, it's been nearly across-the-board suck. Any one player, including Bradley, has been only a minor contributor to it.
O Captain! My Captain! said:
Mystic Merlin said:
Injuries to a stud hitter can cripple a season -- we saw it in 2010, when Martinez and Pedroia went down in the same week. But good/great players are good/great because they are more consistent, year to year. Major injuries aside, there's less risk and more certainty -- that's why they cost so much more in terms of $$/WAR. But it shouldn't be that big a surprise that Nava slumps or Sizemore has trouble regaining his ability or that JB Jr had an OPS below .600.
The deep-depth strategy works only if you have a decent backup supply to replace more marginal talents that are going to be less consistent year to year. And that's hard to do given the fact that few players on a 25 man roster are going to have options and that it's pretty difficult to have mlb-ready talent on your 40 man roster. If the Sox want to take a chance on Mookie in CF and/or Cecchini in LF, it takes time and they'll first have to DFA a player like Sizemore or Nava and then hope that their minor league replacements can adapt quickly. There's a lot of risk and uncertainty.
WenZink said:
So what you're saying is the deep depth strategy only works if you have deep depth.
WenZink said:
Except, you're wrong. You are also wrong that they cost more in terms of $/WAR, $/WAR has consistently been shown to scale linearly, but you are definitely wrong about more consistent performance. I lack the statistical chops to run a full scale study to prove you are wrong, so I will resort to demonstrating it with a little SSS data that should make is abundantly clear anyway.
[tablegrid= Top 10 Hitters By Fangraphs Off From 2012 ]
[tablegrid= Hitters 101-110 By Fangraphs Off From 2012 ]
It should be immediately obvious that the great hitters are fare less consistent season to season than the group of average players are. Now, a lot of this has to do with selection bias. The best hitters in a given season are likely having great seasons and are therefore more likely to play worse the following season. Also, injuries will have a greater impact on expected production, since I'm comparing a counting stat and guys who aren't contributing neutral value aren't really impacted by not playing. But, the conclusion that I am trying to illustrate is not that good/great players are less consistent (which very well may be true) but simply that they are not more consistent.
In short, no matter how you construct your roster, if players do not perform up to expectations, you will not be good. I'd posit that a team constructed to be above average, across the board, rather than excellent at a few positions and average at the rest, is more likely to perform to expectations, because diversification is generally a good thing in most areas where one is attempting to project future outcomes, but that's just conjecture. I am virtually certain that great players are no more consistent than average players or bad players. It's just that, a great player, in a down year, is still a good player, so you don't the change quite as much.
kieckeredinthehead said:
I'm saying that it's nearly impossible to have enough depth deep enough to deal with the inconsistencies of role players. If Nava or Carp had started off 2013, the way they started this year, how long (and how many losses) would the Sox have given them to turn it around? And if/when they did trade for a better LH alternative, how long would they give the replacement to evaluate his performance? The difference with a good, established hitter (that costs $$) is that, barring injury, it's a rational and reasonable assumption that he'll turn it around.
And even if you have exceptional organizational depth, the fact that very few players have options left, prohibits you from making a lot of internal-org substitutions.... not to mention that you don't want to bring up a top prospect, risk interrupting his development and have him sit on the bench. If they bring up Mookie, for instance (if Victorino stays on the DL for a month or longer), and he scuffles for a week or two, do you a) bench him b) keep playing him and expect he'll turn it around c) send him back. How long do you take to decide, if you're falling farther out of contention.
Deep-depth works when all of the many parts are working.
JakeRae said:
Providing a table of the "exceptions" to my premise is hardly proof that good/great players are more consistent. And while Mike Trout is off to a poor start, by his standards, it's far more likely that he returns to a 1.5+ WAR a month player than Daniel Nava returns to his 2013 form. Other players, like Hamilton, have lower value due to injuries, Braun due to PEDs and absence of such, and that is part of the risk. It would be an exception and surprise if Trout loses his Mojo for an entire year. It's no surprise if Nava falls to earth.
WenZink said:
Nava's 2013 form is unlikely to be returned to because he was playing above his talent level, not because averagish MLB players are less consistent than great players. It's the same reason why Ellsbury is unlikely to return to his 2011 form and Adrian Beltre is unlikely to return to his 2004 form. Mike Trout's true ability might really be at his 2012/2013 performance level, so he has a real chance at continuing to perform that well, a bit better, or a bit worse.
I also didn't provide a table of "exceptions." I provided a table of really good offensive players and average offensive players from 2 seasons ago and how they did the following season. I chose the relevant groupings before looking at the data. The point, once again, is not that great players are likely to decline significantly. But, the over 20 run deltas for half of those players should show you that they are not terribly consistent year-to-year. However, considering the poor quality of my evidentiary support, feel free to provide data, of any nature, that is supportive of your general position. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong.
WenZink said:
They knew Victorino was an injury risk, that JBJ was a performance risk, and that Nava shouldn't play against lefties. With that information in hand, there was no way they should've brought in Sizemore. They should've acquired a league average CF/RF who could play RF while Victorino was hurt and spell JBJ as needed. The most obvious name was Rajai Davis, who many on the board were pining for. Chris Young and Craig Gentry (via trade) were two other options. The Sizemore signing was too risky, and it undermined the "deep depth" plan.
nattysez said:
The other side of the coin is could they have signed a Rajai Davis or Chris Young to a reasonable contract just to be the "deep depth" option? By that I mean, would the player sign up for what in a best case scenario (from the team's perspective) is a back-up role rather than sign a similar deal elsewhere with a better opportunity for regular playing time (being option A rather than option B or C or even D)?
Young signed with the Mets for $7.5M and a much more solid expectation of regular playing time. Davis got a Gomes-ian deal (2/10) and he also did so with the strong expectation of regular playing time. Gentry was acquired by trade, but the A's gave up Michael Choice to get him. Choice has been a top-100 prospect on a number of lists since being drafted so it's not like Gentry was given away for nothing.
My point being it isn't simply a matter of the Red Sox choosing to pursue Sizemore over other alternatives. It could very well be that their preference was to sign a Young/Davis type of player but no such player was willing to come. It seems to me that if the team was going to better Chris Young's offer from the Mets, then he'd have to be the default starter in CF heading into the season. $8M+ and/or multiple years isn't what you pay for an "if our $13M RF gets hurt and/or our rookie CF flops" plan B.
nattysez said:
I think it's now clear that Sizemore was a mistake. Young, Gentry, Davis, or Fowler (who was dealt to Houston for pennies on the dollar) all would have been better moves.
Between Sizemore, Gomes, Nava and Carp, there are too many one dimensional players in the outfield part of the roster. I understand how it happened, and every move made some sense when made, but now Ben really needs to make some decisions and clean house.
Stitch01 said:
I had a whole bunch I was going to say but then deleted all the quoted points because I think Tyrone Biggum's overarching point is that the Red Sox would have been more likely to trade for prospects last year if they weren't too busy winning the World Series, which is true, but utterly pointless.
I suppose that can be seen as derailing the plan for winning in 2016, but I like to think the plan isn't "Win in year X" but "Win as often as we can." As such, the plan should have little caveats like, "...unless you have an opportunity to win now, in which case, do not trade all your awesome players."
The stuff about the Ortiz and Napoli signings aren't even worth addressing--they were literally the two best hitters on the team last year. And Bradley hit fine when he went back to Pawtucket last year, so really, a lot of this doesn't even stand up.
One thing that has only come up in passing and is worth mentioning is the stuff about the team "core." The FO unequivocally believes in team chemistry and leadership and it's a core principle of the plan, so the idea that they would ship off all the veteran leadership is in direction contravention to the plan.
This season is over. Before cleaning house, I would pick either Nava or Carp, and make them the consistent platoon LFer with Gomes until the All-star break. If whoever that is doesn't get back to being an 825+ OPS player against righthanders, then dump him and try the other one from the All-Star break until August 31st. If that one also flops, make Mookie Betts the everyday LFer for September.
nvalvo said:
You need to add JBJ to that description (all defense - no speed, no hit, no power, no OBP) and depending on Victorino's health he too might join that club. I'm not sure Gomes is one dimensional given his limited ab's - he does have power and OBP (kinda).
I just don't see how a winning team can have a no-hit, all-field CF and no power in either of the corners - unless the defense and OBP makes up for it.
geoduck no quahog said:
Well, the difference I see is that JBJ has considerable upside.
His minor league track record suggests a strong OBP skill and moderate power. That guy hasn't shown up yet in the majors, obviously, but he's still had less than half a season's worth of plate appearances. Let's not act like this is a Brandon Wood situation just yet.
You might have to commit to starting a guy like that, at least initially, until the rookie proves he's a better option or injuries create an opportunity. If you're not willing to do that, you can't really hope to deploy a "deep depth" strategy - the reality of contracts means the vet always gets first crack. That's what they did last year, signing Drew when they had Iglesias, signing Dempster and Hanrahan when they had AAA arms, signing Ross instead of giving that job to Lavarnway.Red(s)HawksFan said:
A lot of this thread was prompted by the Drew signing, although I feel similarly with the outfield. Yes, the organization clearly has a plan, and also is not so rigid as to stick to it blindly. And they executed it properly, IMO, as far as the left side of the infield.
The starting options on the left side of the infield were essentially Bogaerts (unknown how effective he'll be), Middlebrooks (same), and Drew (1-year or the 3-year deal he wanted). In all options, if Drew is signed he's going to have to start. You might slightly reorder one or two, but I think there would be pretty good consensus that we should rank the options from best to worst as approximately:
- Effective Bogaerts + 2012 Middlebrooks
- Effective Bogaerts + 1-year Drew
- Effective Bogaerts + 2013 Middlebrooks (with good minor league options to replace later on in the year)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 2012 Middlebrooks (the evaluation on Bogaerts shouldn't change after 2 months any more than it did with Pedroia, so he gets a long leash)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 1-year Drew
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 3-year Drew
- Effective Bogaerts + 3-year Drew (blocks Bogaerts at SS and as a result also blocks Cecchini, so a bad mistake)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 2013 Middlebrooks
- Options without Bogaerts
[Note that because of the reasoning behind this ordered list, a long-term deal to a 3B option is just as bad as one at SS -- you have prospects pushing Middlebrooks, so you want to see whether Middlebrooks is the answer but otherwise not block the guys coming through the system. And there weren't good 3B options available on 1-year deals either, while the QO meant that Drew was strictly superior. So, I'm not considering 3B replacements in our logic tree.]
OK, so given this, how should we approach things? It depends heavily on your evaluation of Middlebrooks, of course, but the consensus on SoSH was that both 2012 Middlebrooks and 2013 Middlebrooks were plausible outcomes, as well as something in between. Given that, Drew on a 1-year deal is probably about equivalent to your expectation from Middlebrooks.
So, at the time of the offseason the clear ranking is:
1) Middlebrooks + draft pick
2a) Drew (QO)
2b) Middlebrooks (no draft pick)
3) Drew (3-year deal)
So, the first move is clearly to extend a QO to Drew, which locks in either your first or joint second choice. If he accepts, it's even an extra hedge against the possibility that what we end up with is an injured Bogaerts.
If Drew won't accept a 1-year deal (and he didn't), the next best option is to find out whether you have 2012 or 2013 Middlebrooks, because on expectation that comes out about equivalently to Drew, and we might well get the draft pick.
So, now let's forward to mid-May. Drew has not signed, and it's clear that you will no longer get a draft pick for him. Thus, Drew on a 1-year deal is about equivalent to Middlebrooks on expectation. So, your preference is:
1) 2012 Middlebrooks
2) Drew (1-year deal)
3) 2013 Middlebrooks
4) Drew (3-year deal)
And, while we have limited data on Middlebrooks, that limited data should bias your thinking towards expecting that 2013 Middlebrooks is more likely than 2012 Middlebrooks for the remainder of this season. Thus, if we simply follow the same plan and philosophy that we've been following all along, it now makes sense to see whether Drew will take a 1-year deal. And yes, he will!
The point here is that you're allowed to change a decision with new information without that meaning that you changed either plan or philosophy. The great thing about the QO was that it allowed us to find out more about Middlebrooks -- we might have gotten a draft pick, which would have been a great outcome, and instead what we got was a unique option to buy Drew on a 1-year deal in May, which also turns out to be a positive option for the club.
If you make a similar preference list for the outfield, I suspect you'll see that the organization is doing very similar things. As it turns out, our outfielders are all hitting the bottom end of their expected ranges through two months. Maybe that's bad scouting, or maybe that's bad luck. We'll know a bit more about that as we get more data, and as we find out whether Bradley really isn't ready to be a major league hitter anytime soon or whether the scouts were right and he ends up being our CF for the next 7 seasons. But, it seems to me that keeping many options and being willing to defer decisions until there is more information is entirely in keeping with the organizational philosophy, and is of the same mind as "deep depth". And that both are being executed well, despite the bad start to 2014.
The starting options on the left side of the infield were essentially Bogaerts (unknown how effective he'll be), Middlebrooks (same), and Drew (1-year or the 3-year deal he wanted). In all options, if Drew is signed he's going to have to start. You might slightly reorder one or two, but I think there would be pretty good consensus that we should rank the options from best to worst as approximately:
- Effective Bogaerts + 2012 Middlebrooks
- Effective Bogaerts + 1-year Drew
- Effective Bogaerts + 2013 Middlebrooks (with good minor league options to replace later on in the year)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 2012 Middlebrooks (the evaluation on Bogaerts shouldn't change after 2 months any more than it did with Pedroia, so he gets a long leash)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 1-year Drew
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 3-year Drew
- Effective Bogaerts + 3-year Drew (blocks Bogaerts at SS and as a result also blocks Cecchini, so a bad mistake)
- Ineffective Bogaerts + 2013 Middlebrooks
- Options without Bogaerts
[Note that because of the reasoning behind this ordered list, a long-term deal to a 3B option is just as bad as one at SS -- you have prospects pushing Middlebrooks, so you want to see whether Middlebrooks is the answer but otherwise not block the guys coming through the system. And there weren't good 3B options available on 1-year deals either, while the QO meant that Drew was strictly superior. So, I'm not considering 3B replacements in our logic tree.]
OK, so given this, how should we approach things? It depends heavily on your evaluation of Middlebrooks, of course, but the consensus on SoSH was that both 2012 Middlebrooks and 2013 Middlebrooks were plausible outcomes, as well as something in between. Given that, Drew on a 1-year deal is probably about equivalent to your expectation from Middlebrooks.
So, at the time of the offseason the clear ranking is:
1) Middlebrooks + draft pick
2a) Drew (QO)
2b) Middlebrooks (no draft pick)
3) Drew (3-year deal)
So, the first move is clearly to extend a QO to Drew, which locks in either your first or joint second choice. If he accepts, it's even an extra hedge against the possibility that what we end up with is an injured Bogaerts.
If Drew won't accept a 1-year deal (and he didn't), the next best option is to find out whether you have 2012 or 2013 Middlebrooks, because on expectation that comes out about equivalently to Drew, and we might well get the draft pick.
So, now let's forward to mid-May. Drew has not signed, and it's clear that you will no longer get a draft pick for him. Thus, Drew on a 1-year deal is about equivalent to Middlebrooks on expectation. So, your preference is:
1) 2012 Middlebrooks
2) Drew (1-year deal)
3) 2013 Middlebrooks
4) Drew (3-year deal)
And, while we have limited data on Middlebrooks, that limited data should bias your thinking towards expecting that 2013 Middlebrooks is more likely than 2012 Middlebrooks for the remainder of this season. Thus, if we simply follow the same plan and philosophy that we've been following all along, it now makes sense to see whether Drew will take a 1-year deal. And yes, he will!
The point here is that you're allowed to change a decision with new information without that meaning that you changed either plan or philosophy. The great thing about the QO was that it allowed us to find out more about Middlebrooks -- we might have gotten a draft pick, which would have been a great outcome, and instead what we got was a unique option to buy Drew on a 1-year deal in May, which also turns out to be a positive option for the club.
If you make a similar preference list for the outfield, I suspect you'll see that the organization is doing very similar things. As it turns out, our outfielders are all hitting the bottom end of their expected ranges through two months. Maybe that's bad scouting, or maybe that's bad luck. We'll know a bit more about that as we get more data, and as we find out whether Bradley really isn't ready to be a major league hitter anytime soon or whether the scouts were right and he ends up being our CF for the next 7 seasons. But, it seems to me that keeping many options and being willing to defer decisions until there is more information is entirely in keeping with the organizational philosophy, and is of the same mind as "deep depth". And that both are being executed well, despite the bad start to 2014.
I think you summarize the infield options well. But with the outfield, there was no Drew equivalent hanging around as a fallback plan. The "preference list" as you call it is quite a bit sparser. And as for gaining information, can't you do that with minor league performance as well? Do we need to be subjected to JBJ and WMB hitting .200 at the major league level or would hitting .250 at Pawtucket paint the same picture?CSteinhardt said:
Well, JBJ did just fine last year in Pawtucket .. He's hit at every level .. Other than "getting straightened out and getting his confidence back" I don't see how mashing AAA pitching is going to help him hit major league pitchers.Super Nomario said:
"Just fine" is a good description - he hit .275/.374/.469. That's a good line, and promising for a 23-year-old, but it was hardly outside the range of reasonable outcomes that he would struggle hitting for average at the major league level. I disagree he can't learn anything in the minors - he spent just 80 games at AAA, and fewer than that in AA.BCsMightyJoeYoung said: