Does this organization have a plan or philosophy?

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
Toe Nash said:
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.
 
That makes sense.  I just think it's pretty obvious to everyone at this point that winning generates ratings and revenue.  Crawford didn't work out and Lackey was a failure until last year, but I find it hard to believe that the Red Sox signed those guys thinking they'd be good for ratings but there might be better ways to win. 
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
Reverend said:
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.
 
This quote and TheoShmeo's post above encapsulate the organization's "plan" or "philosophy" - maximize current and future outcomes heartlessly & pridelessly. IOW, the management - the one that traded a top 1B and a few good-but-expensive players (Punto trade) and signed a bunch of above-average-but-questionable players (Victorino, Napoli, etc) - should be expected to also see winds changing on the left side of the infield and appropriately adjust tack. What they chose is irrelevant if it wasn't working or circumstances have changed.
 
Considering that the Drew talks reopened after WMB went down means 2 things: 1) WMB's performance alone was already inviting questions of long-term viability. 2) WMB's injury affirmed the need for an immediate major-league-ready solution. If the injury had NOT happened, it's quite possible the team hoped he could return to mean and stretched Drew talks out.
 
It's odd to me that signing one of the top shortstops in 2013 (on both sides of the ball) leads to head-on-fire desperation posts and threads.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
nattysez said:
 
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.
 
One could make an argument that the Rays deviated from their set organizational philosophy this past winter by deciding not to deal David Price for premium young talent and trying to win now. 
 

lambolt

http://b.globe.com/13BHr47
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 28, 2011
164
HomeRunBaker said:
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.
 
sure it could, since you only mentioned a handful of guys rather than the entire roster
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,429
JimD said:
 
One could make an argument that the Rays deviated from their set organizational philosophy this past winter by deciding not to deal David Price for premium young talent and trying to win now. 
 
Unless they didn't make the deal because they thought they could get more for him at the trade deadline.
 
Coincidentally, Joe Maddon just tweeted this:
 
https://twitter.com/RaysJoeMaddon/status/469213516030029824
 
https://twitter.com/RaysJoeMaddon/status/469213920751022081
 

Chad Finn

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Toe Nash said:
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).
 
I was completely joking. Just happened to be over there when the news happened. If I had that kind of clout, you'd have seen the Chico Walker RedSoxography years ago.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
WenZink said:
 
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.  
 
So, you admit that if turns out they had to sign Drew for 100 or so games because WMB is hurt and they don't know how he'll respond when he's back then that's not a big deal why are you so upset about it?
 
You are depressed over something that hasn't happened yet and we aren't sure if it's going to happen.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
A change in philosophy that indicated they were giving up on Bogaerts would have been them dealing him plus other prospects for Tulowitzki. Signing Drew this year is exactly the same move as signing Drew last year - a stopgap to ensure that the young players they are committed to can develop on a workable timeline. This time it's for WMB stalling than for Xander not quite being ready, and I'm sure Xander will see that when he continues to play every day.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Chad Finn said:
 
I was completely joking. Just happened to be over there when the news happened. If I had that kind of clout, you'd have seen the Chico Walker RedSoxography years ago.
 
So you''re not a reptilian?
 
Guys, ignore my post from before. Way off.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
This line of questioning is fine, but the analysis is nuts. When you evaluate an organization, you evaluate the process and not the results.

As others have pointed out, the organizational process appears to be pretty consistent from last year to this year; bring up a couple of young guys, pair them with average/above-average veterans on short-term deals (i.e. ~3 years), and try not to make any decisions that will hamper future flexibility (e.g. trading for Tulowitzki).

They did just that this year, they brought up JBJ and Xander, both of whom have made more contributions than a number of other players from last year (e.g. WMB, Nava, Carp, Victorino), or veterans picked up this year (herrera, sizemore). In fact, our offensive woes have just as much to do with no output from RF/LF/3B, all of which are traditionally strong offensive positions; at least JBJ has been an excellent defender.

In other words, the failures encountered by the red sox this year stemmed from the very same successes as last year.

What really gets my goat is the fact that people still refer to WMB as in-development, and that signing drew is an indictment of the process for WMB. WMB is almost 26 years old. He's had every opportunity to play this season and the last, and has been ineffective in both. Whatever development WMB may have had in 2012 has stalled for the past two years, and apart from hope, there's no reason to be optimistic about his progression.


 
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
EricFeczko said:
This line of questioning is fine, but the analysis is nuts. When you evaluate an organization, you evaluate the process and not the results.

As others have pointed out, the organizational process appears to be pretty consistent from last year to this year; bring up a couple of young guys, pair them with average/above-average veterans on short-term deals (i.e. ~3 years), and try not to make any decisions that will hamper future flexibility (e.g. trading for Tulowitzki).

They did just that this year, they brought up JBJ and Xander, both of whom have made more contributions than a number of other players from last year (e.g. WMB, Nava, Carp, Victorino), or veterans picked up this year (herrera, sizemore). In fact, our offensive woes have just as much to do with no output from RF/LF/3B, all of which are traditionally strong offensive positions; at least JBJ has been an excellent defender.

In other words, the failures encountered by the red sox this year stemmed from the very same successes as last year.

What really gets my goat is the fact that people still refer to WMB as in-development, and that signing drew is an indictment of the process for WMB. WMB is almost 26 years old. He's had every opportunity to play this season and the last, and has been ineffective in both. Whatever development WMB may have had in 2012 has stalled for the past two years, and apart from hope, there's no reason to be optimistic about his progression.


 
This last point is worth noting.  It's reasonable to believe that a 21 y/o Bogaerts will improve both offensively and defensively going forward.  He'll still have plenty of opportunity to see MLB pitching this year (as in every day).  And he'll still get starts at SS.  
 
At 24, there's a good chance Bradley can still improve offensively; he's only had 800 at bats at the minor league level prior to this season.  
 
Middlebrooks has had twice as many minor league at bats, and it was reasonable to expect production from him this season.  Maybe if the other young 'uns were tearing up the ball, the organization could have afforded more patience.  That hasn't happened, and the injury forced the team's hand to some extent.  
 
I think the team's overall goal is to put together a competitive team each season without locking themselves into a payroll hell.  One way to do this will be to commit to a prospect development pipeline that produces MLB quality players in as many positions as possible.  That approach will not work every year, and will sometimes result in decisions that look curious.  But I see no evidence that the team has abandoned that plan; signing Drew to a short term deal is not evidence.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
HomeRunBaker said:
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.
And you changed catchers seemingly largely to avoid having a 3 year commitment to a 28 year old, because it might be the case that 2 players without a AAA at bat between them before this year might be ready in 2015. I just continue to not get that one. And I think changing catchers matters more in way than SABRmetricians can't quantify.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
Plympton91 said:
And you changed catchers seemingly largely to avoid having a 3 year commitment to a 28 year old, because it might be the case that 2 players without a AAA at bat between them before this year might be ready in 2015. I just continue to not get that one. And I think changing catchers matters more in way than SABRmetricians can't quantify.
 
Salty had a career year in 2013 and a big part of that was a .372 BABIP.  Paying guys coming off career years like they will continue to be that good is a bad policy.  Lots of other teams agreed because Salty got far less than most of the predictions around here.   On top of that his defense is a concern.  It's probably more of a concern as he ages. 
 
Of course, all that being said, Salty has been even better so far this year than he was last year. 
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Plympton91 said:
And you changed catchers seemingly largely to avoid having a 3 year commitment to a 28 year old, because it might be the case that 2 players without a AAA at bat between them before this year might be ready in 2015. I just continue to not get that one. And I think changing catchers matters more in way than SABRmetricians can't quantify.
I will agree with you that this decision was the one that I thought was most likely to bite them in the rear this season (and possibly next as well).  Catchers do often seem to take time to develop at the major league level (at least that's my anecdotal observation).  Varitek didn't become a full time starter until he was 27.  The worst case scenario had they resigned Salty was that the minor league catchers were ready to play significant innings next year, and as a result the team is paying a lot of money for a part time catcher for the 2nd half of the contract.  That doesn't seem such a bad scenario had it come to fruition.  
 
But I'm not at all convinced that the team's deciding to replace Salty with AJP is evidence that the team has no plan, or that their planning process is seriously flawed.  Sometimes the results don't pan out no matter what process is followed.  Also, no process guarantees that mistakes are never made. 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,429
RedOctober3829 said:
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.
 
I think your defense of the FO is overstated.
 
First, Theo said repeatedly after he left that after 2007, the team had gotten away from what had made them winners in 2004 and 2007.  This belies your implication that this team has been a bastion of consistent thought throughout JH's ownership.  
 
Second, this team was on fire throughout 2011, one of the worst teams in baseball from September 2011 through the end of 2012, was extremely strong in 2013, and now looks terrible again.  While the team undeniably had a long period of consistency through most of the Theo years, ignoring the roller coaster the team has been on for the past three years seems foolhardy.  The idea that winning the World Series last year means you can't criticize them for their planning this year ignores that this is the same FO that oversaw the largest choke job in history (regular season division) and presided over the Bobby V fiasco. 
 
All of that said, the thread title is admittedly wrong.  The team's philosophy is build the farm, sign their stars long-term, and fill in gaps with reasonable FA contracts.  The team got away from that in the late Theo years, but course-corrected with the Punto deal.  If I could amend my thread title, I'd change it to: did this team have a rational plan for this year, and did last year's success mislead them into thinking their plan was good?  I think that remains a fair question.  
 
I'll use CF as an example.  
 
They went into last year with contract-year Ellsbury as their CF and a healthy Victorino as the back-up.  This was pretty risky -- they needed Ellsbury to stay healthy (not a super-safe bet), they needed Victorino to play a competent CF and stay healthy (pretty risky), and had to pray JBJ would be available if there was an emergency.  They not only got away with this risk, but got the best result they could've hoped for.  So this year, rather than realizing that they should probably plan better this year, they rolled the dice again.  They went into the season with JBJ, a rookie, Sizemore, a question mark in every way, and an injured Victorino as their CF group.  And this year they're not getting away with it.  JBJ isn't hitting, Sizemore is both not hitting and not playing a particularly good CF when needed, and Victorino is probably too hurt to play CF.  The fact that they managed to get away with a risky plan last year led them to try another one this year.  That's bad planning, and that's what bothers me. 
 
The 3B-SS situation was similarly mishandled, as they had no competent replacement at 3b while knowing that (i) WMB may not be good and is injury-prone, (ii) they didn't have a Drew sitting on the bench, and (iii) it would be good to give X a full year at SS.    
 
It's entirely possible that things turn around: JBJ could start hitting, X could flourish at 3b while Drew saves some runs with his glove and hits competently, Nava could get properly platooned again and start raking, etc.  But I don't think the team had a good plan this year.  I think they took unnecessary risks because they got away with them last year and won, and this is the result.  
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
3B-SS course-corrected after a short time and is now back to the tandem that won the championship so I'm not sure how that was mishandled.
 
I don't have a great response on CF, except that handing the job to one of the top 30 or so prospects in all of baseball is not a crazy risk to take.
 
Putting aside that all of this criticism is based on SSS...I don't really expect them to contend for the WS every single year and have good-great players + competent backups (most of whom aren't injury risks) at every single position.  That's not taking crazy risks, that's called having finite resources.  I'm not sure you could point to a single team in baseball who fits all those criteria.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
You think last year's plan for CF was risky?

How many quality CFers who can hit do you think other teams have?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Well, there certainly is a bit of regression going on here,  As Savin Hillbilly said, a lot of things went right last year. Many players performed well above expectations and an extraordinary BABIP.    I also think players may have been a bit hungrier in the aftermath of 2012 or disapointing seasons.  Many were in contract years, option years, looking for extensions or had incentives built into their contracts.  Its very common to have a bit of a let down after a championship year and an abbreviated of season which is why its so hard to repeat.
 
The team was also weaker at the 3 most important defensive positions, C, CF and SS.  This was largely a strategic decision to pave the way for the future.  I think it was a wise decision except for letting Salty go.  He could have been given a 3 year deal without blocking any propsect as his contract would have been very tradeable. I have no problem with them going with JBJ and XB  at CF and SS.  Its not surprising they have struggled a bit, Dustin Pedroia also struggled his first 6 weeks or so in 2007.  If you believe in the prospect you let them work it out, its all part of the development.
 
I give Ben credit for signing Drew.  Team needed help with WMB back on the DL, struggling against RHP'ers, etc.  I would rather XB play a less challenging defensive position and concentrate on hitting which is his real strength.  He can always play SS next year but I do think he is a better fit at 3B.  Its like they are never satisfied with what they have at SS, Drew is as good as they have had in over 10 years.  Keep him around for awhile if he plays well the rest of the year.
 
Smart orginazations have plans that evolve and change with new information.  Red Sox made a slight change signing Drew and based on the issues in the OF I would not be surprised to see them make another change and part with some prospects for a young cost controlled OF'er,  if one happens to be available.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
nattysez said:
All of that said, the thread title is admittedly wrong.  The team's philosophy is build the farm, sign their stars long-term, and fill in gaps with reasonable FA contracts.  The team got away from that in the late Theo years, but course-corrected with the Punto deal.  If I could amend my thread title, I'd change it to: did this team have a rational plan for this year, and did last year's success mislead them into thinking their plan was good?  I think that remains a fair question.    
 
This is an oversimplified and unrefined description of the team's philosophy.  It captures part of the long term strategy with no acknowledgement that they do have short term goals which are evolving based on the league around them from year to year.  The biggest piece of the broader philosophy that you chose not to include is the way they have consistently used the first two or three months of the season to see what they have by letting players play through slumps, testing injury reclamation projects and giving young players a chance to get settled in and work through any early career adjustments.  After that, they always make an attempt to adjust in some way.  That's what's we're starting to see happen now.
 
Then there is the year to year adjusting to how the league and the division are shaping up around them.  This is where they look for those market inefficiencies and try to gain an advantage on their competition.  Last year it was the relentless average or better at every spot in the lineup wOBA, mostly through the use of platoons.  They also focused on roster flexibility.  That same plan was in place this year, but isn't working as well, which is where the "let's see what we have" in the first few months bit comes in.  Now they will adjust.  Drew was the first step.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
nattysez said:
 
I think your defense of the FO is overstated.
And I'd argue that your understanding of what is and isn't available for ML talent is pretty wildly off base.
 
Ellsbury + Victorino with Bradley as mL depth is about the best CF depth chart any team in all of baseball ran out last year.  The Sox inherently took a step down this year because they where going with the young guy rather than give Ells $23M over 7 (which I think we can all agree is an insane ass contract for him).  So what else could they have done to shore up CF?  Sign Chris Young?  Well the Mets gave him $7M to start, how much extra do you think the Sox would have had to pay in order to get him in-house on a 4th/5th OF job?  Yeah, not real likely.  This is why they added Sizemore, since no proven veteran was going to take a bubble roster spot like Sizemore did.  It's also why they picked up AAAA Corey Brown for CF in Pawtucket, because he might not be an abject failure if they need him due to injury.  Ultimately they knew that short of Bradley getting hurt they where going to commit about a full season's worth of ABs to let him figure out how to hit ML pitching.  The risk isn't that they don't have a good 2014 CF, it's that Bradley never figures it out and they wasted 2014 learning that.
 
Same with 3B.  They went into the season with WMB and Cecchini as viable candidates.  Over the first 1/3rd of the year it's looking like WMB can't stay healthy or make consistent enough contact with ML pitching.  Meanwhile Cecchini has no power and doesn't look that good playing defense at 3B.  So they had two young high quality prospects who are both under performing from what was expected of them.  It happens.  Blocking them with someone else doesn't help that, it just makes the organization put off the determination of these players future another season.
 
And lastly, the same goes for shortstop.  Bogaerts is actually doing an adequate job all total at SS (above average offense for the position but below average defense), but the Sox effectively had an exclusive window on one of the better 2013 SS and took it to fix some holes.  You wanted them to have a contingency, well here it is.  Signing Drew before the draft when no one else will is that contingency in action.
 
2014 is the bridge year they had intended it to be since back in late 2012 when they made the Punto trade.  Instead of having a middling 2013 like they had probably internally projected they won the Series.  The team could have strayed from it's plan and blew their wad to re-sign Ellsbury, Drew, and moved Bogaerts to 3B permanently to "bring the band back" for a repeat attempt.  Instead of taking on those bad FA contracts the team stuck to it's philosophy of letting young guys have a chance to prove themselves in the majors.  Unfortunately so far they haven't, but it's still early.
 
Does the team need to re-evaluate the inclusion of Grady Sizemore and Mike Carp on the 2014 Red Sox roster?  Probably.  Should they start exploring some other positions for Cecchini to play if they're dubious enough about his defense at 3B to call up Holt/sign Drew instead of letting him have a shot?  Definitely.  Do they need to advance Betts soon to see if he's a worthwhile CF option in his own right?  Absolutely.  But they didn't unwittingly walk into a ton of additional risk this season.  They knew it was coming.  This is the risk you always face when transitioning from established veterans to young players.  The quality depth prospect from the year before just became the starter and the farm typically isn't so stocked as to have two or more guys per position trying to make the ML roster at the same time.  The Sox were going through that process with three important positions (CF, SS, and 3B).  It hasn't been working out well so they've taken one of the three off the table for now.  They knew the risks, knew they still had to take it to develop their internal talent, and now that the risks are giving strong negative returns they have made a move to minimize future risk.  Pretty much the best you could ask for under the circumstances.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
ALiveH said:
3B-SS course-corrected after a short time and is now back to the tandem that won the championship so I'm not sure how that was mishandled.
 
I don't have a great response on CF, except that handing the job to one of the top 30 or so prospects in all of baseball is not a crazy risk to take.
 
Putting aside that all of this criticism is based on SSS...I don't really expect them to contend for the WS every single year and have good-great players + competent backups (most of whom aren't injury risks) at every single position.  That's not taking crazy risks, that's called having finite resources.  I'm not sure you could point to a single team in baseball who fits all those criteria.
 
And to take this a little further, WMB was given some time to show signs that the no-Drew initial course wasn't mistaken, and he failed to do so for now.  He isn't out of a job, but he is now rehabbing his way back to a more limited role in a triangle platoon.  I still like his 26-32 year old upside, and hope he puts it together, but his trend line over 742 MLB PAs hasn't been great, and a championship level team can't play weeks and weeks with Holt/Herrera to keep a spot open for him.
 
As for XB, before the season I repeatedly stated my position that giving him 162 at SS would be the best thing for his development, however he did get a larger sample to show his ability (and I still think as a result he will develop into a solid if not great defensive shortstop), and he will continue to get work there assuming he starts at SS against all LHP.  So I don't worry about him entering 2015 with a big setback.
 
The reality however is that coming off a WS championship this is not an All In season, and while the expectation is winning, we can use the champaign glow to stay close to our organizational philosophy.  I don't love the Drew move, but it is a lot better than a prospect heavy trade for Headley, etc.
 
The second piece of the puzzle is with Clay and Peavy and Doubront disappointing, and our championship offense struggling at the moment, this is the tough time for us, and the storm to weather.  The division remains up for grabs, but if the team doesn't start playing better soon it will not be.
 
Making a cash only move right now that improves our team immediately seems to fit with our overall philosophy, and WMB gets to heal up, and then get favorable matchups for a while to show that he deserves to steal more playing time from Drew.  Plus moving forward we have options over the rest of the season for any WMB/XB/SD injury.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about our apparent aversion to singing big ticket contracts anymore. Granted we had a bad experience with Crawford and AGon, but has the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction and have we become too cheap? We are letting really good players walk in their prime (Ellsbury and Lester), and not even in the conversation anymore for big name free agents like Tanaka and McCann. I know there are extenuating circumstances for each of the players cited but in aggregate it looks and feels like we've become a mid market team.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,720
One position where they seemed to go away from the usual approach this offseason was at catcher-- and not because they didn't give Salty a three-year deal. 
 
But with catchers like Ryan Hanigan, Kurt Suzuki and Dioner Navarro available for relatively little and an in-house guy with good OBP in Lavarnway, they instead went for a 37-year-old who does not walk, never had walked, and never will walk. He is a bad OBP guy period, and that is a key area where the team was going to be at risk with Middlebrooks already in the lineup and rookies starting at 2 other spots. The relentless on-base approach of last year was already likely to be reduced before adding another guy who has a different approach.
 
You could say they don't like Lavarnway's defense and didn't want to have another rookie in the lineup, even though he has always had a solid OBP. And in 82 PAs last year in the majors, he hit 299/329/429. But apparently they just don't believe in him. Fair enough.
 
But there were several other catchers available for little who wouldn't have required any long term commitment, but they chose the oldest one who had the least OBP skills. And whose defense hasn't impressed anyone. And who is making significantly more than Navarro, Suzuki or Hanigan too. 
 
Pierzynski took a one-year deal but it was for $8 million. He is hitting 258/293/363 so far but has only walked 4 times all year while grounding into 5 DPs. (No surprise at all: he's averaged 16 GIDPs and 20 walks a year in the 10 seasons before this one.) He's also a veteran who won't be pinch-hit for, and if he falls off a cliff he is unlikely to be released due to his $8 million salary. So the flexibility he offers is only in the long term-- they basically are going to give him this whole season no matter what, and he is going to be playing a lot of games and hitting in the middle of the order while he does it.
 
Signing a catcher with a lesser reputation for less money would have offered more in-season flexibility-- you can bench him without griping if he's slumping, bat him 8th or 9th if you want, or pinch hit for him without it being a big deal and generating complaints. (Yes, the manager should do those things anyway, but in the real world, a veteran with a rep as a regular who makes $8 million a year and who hasn't shied away from being a dick in the past gets treated differently.)
 
And if he falls off the cliff (way more of a risk with a 37-year-old catcher than one 6 or 7 years younger) you can cut him at midseason while only sinking maybe a quarter of what it would cost to dump Pierzynski in midseason.
 
Hanigan isn't hitting particularly well: 229/319/362, and somehow got a 3-year deal from the Rays (which they did not have to give him, as they traded for him-- they wanted him under their control for those 3 years) but he still has a .319 OBP and a reputation as an excellent defender. He's walked 13 times and has one GIDP.
 
Navarro got a 2-year deal, but for the same money that Pierzynski got for one, and is at 276/321/339. He's got 10 walks and 3 GIDPs.
 
Suzuki is hitting .303/371/424 and got a one-year deal at about a third of what we gave AJ. He's walked 14 times and has 4 GIDPs.
 
Switching out Pierzynski for one of these other guys might not have made much difference in the team's record, we'll never really know, but it would have been a lot more consistent with the high-OBP, selective approach at the plate strategy that the Red Sox have had for the last decade, and would have offered the same long-term flexibility but more in-season flexibility than AJ does.
 

metaprosthesis

Member
SoSH Member
May 22, 2008
199
Central NJ via Western Mass
lexrageorge said:
I will agree with you that this decision was the one that I thought was most likely to bite them in the rear this season (and possibly next as well).  Catchers do often seem to take time to develop at the major league level (at least that's my anecdotal observation).  Varitek didn't become a full time starter until he was 27.  The worst case scenario had they resigned Salty was that the minor league catchers were ready to play significant innings next year, and as a result the team is paying a lot of money for a part time catcher for the 2nd half of the contract.  That doesn't seem such a bad scenario had it come to fruition.  
 
But I'm not at all convinced that the team's deciding to replace Salty with AJP is evidence that the team has no plan, or that their planning process is seriously flawed.  Sometimes the results don't pan out no matter what process is followed.  Also, no process guarantees that mistakes are never made. 
 
I see this said often here.  I investigated a bit, and it doesn't really seem to be the case.  The list below is the top 12 catchers this year, in terms of playing time, plus a few others i could think of off the top of my head, with the age they first came up for more than a handful of games (number of games in parentheses), and the age they became the "starter" (which I chose based on the first year they played in more than half of the games).
 
Player, First year age (games played), Full-time age
Yadier Molina, 21 (51G), 22
Salvador Perez, 21 (39G) -- had some injury issues, but was basically given the job as soon as he was called up
Brian McCann, 21 (59G), 22
Jarrod Saltalamacchia, 22 -- he was instantly the starter for Texas (93G), but his travails are well-chronicled
Kurt Suzuki, 23 (68G), 24
Buster Posey, 23, immediately the starter
Miguel Montero, 23, immediately the starter
Jason Castro, 23 (67G), missed a season, then played 87G at age 25
AJ Pierzynski, 23 (33G), 24
Matt Wieters, 23, immediately the starter
Derek Norris, 23, has always split time, but also gets ABs at DH
Jonathan Lucroy, 24 (75G), 25
Yan Gomes, 24 (43G), 25
Jose Molina, 24, always a backup or splitting time
David Ross, 26, has only had two seasons where he played more than 81G
John Jaso, 26, immediately the starter
Ryan Hanigan, 27 (31G), 28
Carlos Ruiz, 27 (78G), 28
 
There's a pretty regular curve there that points to the average age for breaking in a catcher being at 23, with no more than a year before they take over (or flame out, I  guess).  Also, among the older rookies, there is more likelihood of remaining a backup.
 
Christian Vazquez will be 24 in August.  Blake Swihart is currently 22.  This is not to say they are ready, just providing the information for comparison.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The Gray Eagle said:
One position where they seemed to go away from the usual approach this offseason was at catcher-- and not because they didn't give Salty a three-year deal. 
 
But with catchers like Ryan Hanigan, Kurt Suzuki and Dioner Navarro available for relatively little and an in-house guy with good OBP in Lavarnway, they instead went for a 37-year-old who does not walk, never had walked, and never will walk. He is a bad OBP guy period, and that is a key area where the team was going to be at risk with Middlebrooks already in the lineup and rookies starting at 2 other spots. The relentless on-base approach of last year was already likely to be reduced before adding another guy who has a different approach.
 
You could say they don't like Lavarnway's defense and didn't want to have another rookie in the lineup, even though he has always had a solid OBP. And in 82 PAs last year in the majors, he hit 299/329/429. But apparently they just don't believe in him. Fair enough.
 
But there were several other catchers available for little who wouldn't have required any long term commitment, but they chose the oldest one who had the least OBP skills. And whose defense hasn't impressed anyone. And who is making significantly more than Navarro, Suzuki or Hanigan too. 
 
Pierzynski took a one-year deal but it was for $8 million. He is hitting 258/293/363 so far but has only walked 4 times all year while grounding into 5 DPs. (No surprise at all: he's averaged 16 GIDPs and 20 walks a year in the 10 seasons before this one.) He's also a veteran who won't be pinch-hit for, and if he falls off a cliff he is unlikely to be released due to his $8 million salary. So the flexibility he offers is only in the long term-- they basically are going to give him this whole season no matter what, and he is going to be playing a lot of games and hitting in the middle of the order while he does it.
 
Signing a catcher with a lesser reputation for less money would have offered more in-season flexibility-- you can bench him without griping if he's slumping, bat him 8th or 9th if you want, or pinch hit for him without it being a big deal and generating complaints. (Yes, the manager should do those things anyway, but in the real world, a veteran with a rep as a regular who makes $8 million a year and who hasn't shied away from being a dick in the past gets treated differently.)
 
And if he falls off the cliff (way more of a risk with a 37-year-old catcher than one 6 or 7 years younger) you can cut him at midseason while only sinking maybe a quarter of what it would cost to dump Pierzynski in midseason.
 
Hanigan isn't hitting particularly well: 229/319/362, and somehow got a 3-year deal from the Rays (which they did not have to give him, as they traded for him-- they wanted him under their control for those 3 years) but he still has a .319 OBP and a reputation as an excellent defender. He's walked 13 times and has one GIDP.
 
Navarro got a 2-year deal, but for the same money that Pierzynski got for one, and is at 276/321/339. He's got 10 walks and 3 GIDPs.
 
Suzuki is hitting .303/371/424 and got a one-year deal at about a third of what we gave AJ. He's walked 14 times and has 4 GIDPs.
 
Switching out Pierzynski for one of these other guys might not have made much difference in the team's record, we'll never really know, but it would have been a lot more consistent with the high-OBP, selective approach at the plate strategy that the Red Sox have had for the last decade, and would have offered the same long-term flexibility but more in-season flexibility than AJ does.
 
Great breakdown of the catcher's market this offseason.  That's what I mean when I say that I cannot understand the Pierzyski signing.  What made him such a better value in their mind, not only relative to Saltalamacchia at 3/$25 but also to paying the relatively low prospect price for Hannigan?  I can see not going after Suzuki who has had some pretty terrible offensive seasons, or giving 2 years to Navarro who in the past has been a head case and perhaps couldn't be counted on to get with their game preparation program.  Another option that better fit the team's offensive philosophy without Navarro's baggage would have been to just get Kottaras (The Cubs got him for just cash from the Royals in the offseason) to be a straight platoon with Ross.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,183
Central Florida
I note several throwaway comments suggesting Sizemore's defense is wanting. I must be watching different games. I see a guy who runs excellent routes and gets to all the balls his speed allows. He's not Ellsbury fast but he's not visibly slow either. In the past few days alone he has made some nice grabs after long runs on balls hit deep into the triangle. I have also seen him take great routes to the 379 for catches where the wall meets the CF fence.

Is this really the consensus, Sizemore is a poor defender?
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
Not to keep defending the front office, but I think the answer to the "Why AJ and not one of these other catchers" is that they really needed a left handed bat.  They could have solved this other ways, but given the makeup of the team it would have been really hard to bring in a right handed catcher.  With AJ one of our big problems has been hitting RHP.  Navarro is a switch hitter but better from the right side. 
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
I sort of agree with your sentiments, however, I think you're evaluating the approach to catcher based on results and not on process.
The Gray Eagle said:
But with catchers like Ryan Hanigan, Kurt Suzuki and Dioner Navarro available for relatively little and an in-house guy with good OBP in Lavarnway, they instead went for a 37-year-old who does not walk, never had walked, and never will walk. He is a bad OBP guy period, and that is a key area where the team was going to be at risk with Middlebrooks already in the lineup and rookies starting at 2 other spots. The relentless on-base approach of last year was already likely to be reduced before adding another guy who has a different approach.
 
You could say they don't like Lavarnway's defense and didn't want to have another rookie in the lineup, even though he has always had a solid OBP. And in 82 PAs last year in the majors, he hit 299/329/429. But apparently they just don't believe in him. Fair enough.
 
But there were several other catchers available for little who wouldn't have required any long term commitment, but they chose the oldest one who had the least OBP skills. And whose defense hasn't impressed anyone. And who is making significantly more than Navarro, Suzuki or Hanigan too. 
 At the time of the signing, only Ryan Hanigan was really a good OBP guy. Kurt Suzuki had a 276 OBP in 2012, and a 290 OBP in 2013. Navarro had a 365 OBP in 2013, but was also part of a favorable platoon; his second-best OBP since 2009 was 306 in 2012, and it basically drops off from there.

Pierzynski may not walk much, but his OBP skills (295 in 2013, 326 in 2012, career 321 OBP) are a bit more favorable than Suzuki or Navarro, and in-line with what Lavarnway has done. Plus, he's started in 125+ games/season pretty much his entire career, which isn't true for the others you've mentioned. At the time, he was a safer risk for 100+ games than Hanigan, Suzuki, or Navarro.
 
The Gray Eagle said:
Pierzynski took a one-year deal but it was for $8 million. He is hitting 258/293/363 so far but has only walked 4 times all year while grounding into 5 DPs. (No surprise at all: he's averaged 16 GIDPs and 20 walks a year in the 10 seasons before this one.) He's also a veteran who won't be pinch-hit for, and if he falls off a cliff he is unlikely to be released due to his $8 million salary. So the flexibility he offers is only in the long term-- they basically are going to give him this whole season no matter what, and he is going to be playing a lot of games and hitting in the middle of the order while he does it.
 
Signing a catcher with a lesser reputation for less money would have offered more in-season flexibility-- you can bench him without griping if he's slumping, bat him 8th or 9th if you want, or pinch hit for him without it being a big deal and generating complaints. (Yes, the manager should do those things anyway, but in the real world, a veteran with a rep as a regular who makes $8 million a year and who hasn't shied away from being a dick in the past gets treated differently.)
 
I'm not sure I follow this. Farrell sets the lineup, not AJP. So far, the reason AJP is hitting 5/6/7, is because our 8/9 guys are even worse(JBJ, 3B-black hole).  If WMB was effective this year, I would suspect that AJP would have been hitting 8th.
 
The Gray Eagle said:
And if he [low-priced catcher] falls off the cliff (way more of a risk with a 37-year-old catcher than one 6 or 7 years younger) you can cut him at midseason while only sinking maybe a quarter of what it would cost to dump Pierzynski in midseason.
 
I don't think you've thought this through. What would you do at catcher from an organizational perspective if you cut the only viable starter on the team? I guess you could promote Vasquez/swihart, but they still need a bit of seasoning in the lower minors. You could make a trade for a starting catcher, but even a mediocre starting catcher may be a valuable commodity for sellers at the trade deadline; you risk having to sacrifice prospects for a mid-season stopgap. You could sign a third backup as a safety net with the extra money, however, that requires an extra position on the 40 man roster, and you hope that the third backup would be willing to sit at AAA. You could use Lavarnway, but if the team was willing to do so, they wouldn't be signing a starting catcher in the first place!

Therefore, if you were to sign a starting catcher, you would need someone who is less likely to fall off a cliff. Pierzynski, despite his age, has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and represents less of a risk (albeit with weaker upside) than Navarro/Suzuki/Hanigan.
 
That being said, I think seeing what they had in Lavarnway (assuming the Salty/Mcann options were no longer available) would've been the preferred approach. It would be consistent with the process for the organization, and it would avoid having to spend money at the catcher position. 
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
LoweTek said:
I note several throwaway comments suggesting Sizemore's defense is wanting. I must be watching different games. I see a guy who runs excellent routes and gets to all the balls his speed allows. He's not Ellsbury fast but he's not visibly slow either. In the past few days alone he has made some nice grabs after long runs on balls hit deep into the triangle. I have also seen him take great routes to the 379 for catches where the wall meets the CF fence.

Is this really the consensus, Sizemore is a poor defender?
 
People formed opinions about Sizemore during the stretch when he was struggling in CF before he was moved to LF and then played LF for the first time in his life and had a few ugly plays on bad reads as he adjusted to the position. Since then he has developed into a well above average defender in LF as you'd expect from a guy who's got CF skills but just no longer has the speed anymore to be a CFer. The narrative started when he was adjusting to LF and people haven't bothered adjusting their opinions since then, especially since he's had some cold stretches at the plate as the team has faltered as a whole. He's become an easy target for people's frustrations.
 

derekson

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2010
6,224
EricFeczko said:
 
 
I don't think you've thought this through. What would you do at catcher from an organizational perspective if you cut the only viable starter on the team? I guess you could promote Vasquez/swihart, but they still need a bit of seasoning in the lower minors. You could make a trade for a starting catcher, but even a mediocre starting catcher may be a valuable commodity for sellers at the trade deadline; you risk having to sacrifice prospects for a mid-season stopgap. You could sign a third backup as a safety net with the extra money, however, that requires an extra position on the 40 man roster, and you hope that the third backup would be willing to sit at AAA. You could use Lavarnway, but if the team was willing to do so, they wouldn't be signing a starting catcher in the first place!

Therefore, if you were to sign a starting catcher, you would need someone who is less likely to fall off a cliff. Pierzynski, despite his age, has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and represents less of a risk (albeit with weaker upside) than Navarro/Suzuki/Hanigan.
 
That being said, I think seeing what they had in Lavarnway (assuming the Salty/Mcann options were no longer available) would've been the preferred approach. It would be consistent with the process for the organization, and it would avoid having to spend money at the catcher position. 
 
Just call up Vazquez like the Cardinals did with Yadier Molina. Bring him up because of his glove, play him for the defensive gain, and just live with whatever offense you get from him. You aren't sacrificing a very good bat in Pierzynski, and you're massively upgrading the defense at an important position. He'll probably never have the kind of breakout that Yadier did, but Molina was valuable even before he started hitting like an MVP candidate.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Let's hop into our imaginary time-machine and go back to April 2013... 
 
The Red Sox were coming off of a last-place season with a record of 69-93, with a new GM. They had just executed the biggest salary-dump in sports history, universally hailed as a triumph of FO gamesmanship, entering a new re-building phase...They had Ellsbury coming off of yet another injury-year with 74 games played and a 682 OPS, Ortiz coming off a 90-game contract-year, and a pitching staff full of question marks, featuring John Lackey, etc, and a 38-year-old reliever with an 0-0 record in the National League vying for closer. Their off-season acquisitions were a handful of short-term, $10~$13MM/year second-tier placeholders. They had just fired their celebrity manager and replaced him with a former pitching-coach, coming off of a couple years as a losing manager of the Blue Jays. 
 
Did the Red Sox have a plan or philosophy, way back in those misty mists of time before the 2013 season? Of course they did. It was known and obvious to the whole world of baseball. Hell, my sister's fiancee from England had heard about it. The Red Sox were ditching the Beckett-Crawford-Gonzales model of top-heavy long-term superstar contracts, and focusing on flexible "value" contracts with potential upside, and player-development. Their farm-system was stocked. In April of 2013, of course the Red Sox weren't going to win a world series this year, or next, but they were building a new kind of big-budget organization, one that could be competitive year after year. 
 
Is 2013 going to be a wash, for this new, leaner, meaner, younger, more-flexible Red Sox roster? Sure, but keep your eye on those call-ups. The Sox have some deep young talent, and some payroll flexibility. They may or may not not make the playoffs in 2013, but this is a team with a plan, and a philosophy. Will they make it back to the world series? Certainly not in 2013, probably not in 2014, but MLB better watch out, in years going forward.
 
Prediction for 2013: the Red Sox start the season out slow. Coming off of a disastrous .426 win-percentage in 2012, minus a $150MM salary-dump, with a new manager, they'll struggle to stay at .500 until about June. Then you'll see their roster and lineup stabilize, and they'll finish stronger, poised for a better run in 2014. 
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
derekson said:
 
People formed opinions about Sizemore during the stretch when he was struggling in CF before he was moved to LF and then played LF for the first time in his life and had a few ugly plays on bad reads as he adjusted to the position. Since then he has developed into a well above average defender in LF as you'd expect from a guy who's got CF skills but just no longer has the speed anymore to be a CFer. The narrative started when he was adjusting to LF and people haven't bothered adjusting their opinions since then, especially since he's had some cold stretches at the plate as the team has faltered as a whole. He's become an easy target for people's frustrations.
 
Now this is a pretty big understatement. He's been mostly one big cold stretch.
 

Paradigm

juju all over his tits
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
5,954
Touche?
Re: this stupid Chad Finn tweet -- do you really think someone with authority in the Red Sox organization thought, "sign Stephen Drew to turn the ratings around!"
 
Stephen Drew? Perhaps the most boring player in all of major league baseball? 
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
derekson said:
 
Just call up Vazquez like the Cardinals did with Yadier Molina. Bring him up because of his glove, play him for the defensive gain, and just live with whatever offense you get from him. You aren't sacrificing a very good bat in Pierzynski, and you're massively upgrading the defense at an important position. He'll probably never have the kind of breakout that Yadier did, but Molina was valuable even before he started hitting like an MVP candidate.
You could do that, but Vasquez getting playing time at AAA is more important than riding the shuttle. Molina was basically mediocre until 26 (which is very valuable for a catcher). Pierzynski is also mediocre (90 wRC+ in 2013, and pretty consistently around 90 wRC+ except for 2009), and I'm not sure the defensive gain is worth the potential downside to the offense. Vasquez didn't play in AAA yet at the time of the signing, and winter ball was just starting.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Paradigm said:
Re: this stupid Chad Finn tweet -- do you really think someone with authority in the Red Sox organization thought, "sign Stephen Drew to turn the ratings around!"
 
Stephen Drew? Perhaps the most boring player in all of major league baseball? 
 
To be fair - Drew = better team = more wins = better ratings, 
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
the criticism of the AJP signing is right on IMHO.  Great breakdown of why it was a bad move.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
alwyn96 said:
 
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. 
 
I'd be interested, too.  There have been numerous studies showing that the best place for base stealers is toward the bottom of the order, and the worst place is leadoff (any outs before your big hitters are magnified dramatically, and the big hitters are more likely to score a runner from 1st than the 8-9 hitters are).  The Book says that, all else being equal, you should put your speed around the 6th hitter.  Here's another study with similar results, though there are a number of enormous caveats to it (unfortunately the Book isn't available online): 
 
http://www.pankin.com/markov/btn1191.pdf
 
And the idea that fast runners somehow rattle the pitcher/aid the batter is at best overblown and possibly backwards (at least some studies show that the batter is disrupted more than the pitcher), though there is some evidence that things might be different for the very best stealers--unfortunately you're dealing with pretty small sample sizes by the time you lock only them in.
 
http://cyrilmorong.com/Havoc.htm
http://www.hardballtimes.com/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
derekson said:
 
People formed opinions about Sizemore during the stretch when he was struggling in CF before he was moved to LF and then played LF for the first time in his life and had a few ugly plays on bad reads as he adjusted to the position. Since then he has developed into a well above average defender in LF as you'd expect from a guy who's got CF skills but just no longer has the speed anymore to be a CFer. The narrative started when he was adjusting to LF and people haven't bothered adjusting their opinions since then, especially since he's had some cold stretches at the plate as the team has faltered as a whole. He's become an easy target for people's frustrations.
His defense certainly looks better, but Sizemore has been terrible at the plate: .218/.293/.336. He's striking out less and walking more in May, but he's also hitting fewer line drives and more groundballs, so his power is down. 
 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
EricFeczko said:
You could do that, but Vasquez getting playing time at AAA is more important than riding the shuttle. Molina was basically mediocre until 26 (which is very valuable for a catcher). Pierzynski is also mediocre (90 wRC+ in 2013, and pretty consistently around 90 wRC+ except for 2009), and I'm not sure the defensive gain is worth the potential downside to the offense. Vasquez didn't play in AAA yet at the time of the signing, and winter ball was just starting.
 
 
The other problem is that Vazquez isn't hitting at all after his first third of a season AAA, with his batting average around .250 and his OPS hovering in the low-600s. 
 
yep said:
Let's hop into our imaginary time-machine and go back to April 2013... 
 
The Red Sox were coming off of a last-place season with a record of 69-93, with a new GM. They had just executed the biggest salary-dump in sports history, universally hailed as a triumph of FO gamesmanship, entering a new re-building phase...They had Ellsbury coming off of yet another injury-year with 74 games played and a 682 OPS, Ortiz coming off a 90-game contract-year, and a pitching staff full of question marks, featuring John Lackey, etc, and a 38-year-old reliever with an 0-0 record in the National League vying for closer. Their off-season acquisitions were a handful of short-term, $10~$13MM/year second-tier placeholders. They had just fired their celebrity manager and replaced him with a former pitching-coach, coming off of a couple years as a losing manager of the Blue Jays.... 
 
 
Prediction for 2013: the Red Sox start the season out slow. Coming off of a disastrous .426 win-percentage in 2012, minus a $150MM salary-dump, with a new manager, they'll struggle to stay at .500 until about June. Then you'll see their roster and lineup stabilize, and they'll finish stronger, poised for a better run in 2014. 
 
I'm not sure who that closer is that you're talking about in the first paragraph.  Going into the 2013 season, the Red Sox had two established closers in Hanrahan and Bailey, along with the best setup man in the AL in Uehara and Tazawa coming off a great second half of 2012.  The strength of the bullpen, and the recognition that they had assembled the proverbial "no position that was below average" group of regulars, was a reason why I was optimistic all last spring while nearly the entire rest of the SOSH main board was trying to trade Jon Lester for prospects.
 
Your last paragraph would suggest that the plan of using 2013 to build a stronger foundation for 2014 was an abject failure though, as the 2014 team is demonstrably worse in overall base talent, even abstracting from the ebbs and flows of slow starts in 2014 vs. career years in 2013.  For instance, look at places that have switched out from the opening day 2013 roster.  A best case for Jackie Bradley is that he becomes Jacoby Ellsbury minus 40 stolen bases.  Likewise, AJP is a 38 year old shell of what Saltalamacchia was averaging over his 3 years with Boston, and as a bonus there's absolutely no upside at all.  You've replaced Bailey and Hanrahan with Badenhop and Capuano -- healthier and thus able to answer the bell with certain mediocrity, but they are 11th/12th guys on the staff and will remain so for their entire careers.  One of those young guys we were promised would lead to the much better 2014, Will Middlebrooks, has been so badly overmatched that they went back out and got Steven Drew, which is what prompted the start of this thread. 
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
absintheofmalaise said:
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:
 
 
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.
 
 
Here is the quote about Sizemore and his health.
 
 
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.
 

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:



 
Someone said it up thread, but Tampa's organizational philosophy is dictated by their lack of revenue.
A lot of posters from what I've read would prefer that the Sox operate on a Tampa/Oakland budget or close to it. You're looking at what was supposed to be year two of the bridge/rebuilding plan, last year was never supposed to happen. What happened last year was great but it set the overall organizational plan back. The good thing about all this is that the Sox now have guys such as Lackey who has great trade value now as opposed to 2 years ago. They can still compete for the 2nd wild card spot and get hot since the AL East is not that good. Drew can be traded by the July 31st deadline and I'm sure a contender would give up a prospect for him. This is better than receiving nothing for him after June 5th.

The organizations plan is building from within and keeping the major league roster competitive. The FO did what they could during the offseason to keep competitive and not put the financial flexibility or minor league depth at risk. But on the other hand remember when you look at JBJ no matter how highly regarded a prospect you have there is no reassurances that he will perform under the lights and pressure of MLB. Bradley still has a lot of time but he was far from a sure thing.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Tyrone Biggums said:
A lot of posters from what I've read would prefer that the Sox operate on a Tampa/Oakland budget or close to it. You're looking at what was supposed to be year two of the bridge/rebuilding plan, last year was never supposed to happen. What happened last year was great but it set the overall organizational plan back. The good thing about all this is that the Sox now have guys such as Lackey who has great trade value now as opposed to 2 years ago. They can still compete for the 2nd wild card spot and get hot since the AL East is not that good. Drew can be traded by the July 31st deadline and I'm sure a contender would give up a prospect for him. This is better than receiving nothing for him after June 5th.

The organizations plan is building from within and keeping the major league roster competitive. The FO did what they could during the offseason to keep competitive and not put the financial flexibility or minor league depth at risk. But on the other hand remember when you look at JBJ no matter how highly regarded a prospect you have there is no reassurances that he will perform under the lights and pressure of MLB. Bradley still has a lot of time but he was far from a sure thing.
 
I'm not sure how it set the plan back... If last year's roster was step one in getting to a younger cheaper core of players, then this is a logical step two.  They promoted Bogaerts and Bradley and have most of their major prospects a step closer to the majors as well.  Seems like the bridge is right on schedule so far.  The results being poor this year don't really factor into it.
 
The team may not go to the playoffs this year, but if they are working toward that younger cheaper core, they have taken steps forward, not backwards so far in 2014.  If the plan is still in place, then we'll see another position player or two promoted around September 1st, and we'll probably get one or two pitchers promoted as well.  Maybe 3 if the bullpen needs help.  I imagine the 2015 roster will probably have Cecchini and Betts on it, and maybe Vazquez if he can turn it around offensively.  Swihart could catapult past him, though and be the backup.  They may opt for another 1 year gap stop, though, and probably should if Vazquez falls apart.  I wouldn't mind seeing him as the back up even if his bat doesn't come around, though.  Then we're likely going to see two of Barnes, Ranaudo, Workman, Webster and De La Rosa in the rotation with another 1 or 2 in the pen.
 
I'm just not seeing a step back in the bridge plan.  If anything, the results this year might accelerate the time table for getting those kids onto the 25 man roster.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
The step back is if some of these players that are promoted turn out to have difficulty laying off low and away major league crap, hitting a major league curveball, or fielding their position.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
snowmanny said:
The step back is if some of these players that are promoted turn out to have difficulty laying off low and away major league crap, hitting a major league curveball, or fielding their position.
 
How is that a step back in the plan?  Most rookies go through struggles when promoted.  Should they have waited on promoting them?  Would that have significantly reduced the chances that these struggles happened?  Should they have traded them away?
 
I don't understand how, if the plan was to transition to a younger and cheaper core, rookies going through rookie struggles has anything to do with the progress of that plan.  Some of these kids aren't going to work out.  We knew that in 2012 when the first mentions of the "next great Red Sox team" hit the public consciousness.  The only thing that has happened since the Punto trade that should be surprising is the World Series title.  And instead of doubling down on that success and veering from the plan, the team continued with it's long term strategy and allowed some vets to walk so they could get some of those prospects onto the 25 man roster and break them in.
 
Sounds like the plan is still on course.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I don't know.  Tyronne Biggums said that last year's success set the organizational plan back.  I'm not seeing it.  How did winning in 2013 set them back?  What moves did they make over the winter that take them away from moving on to a younger and cheaper core of players?  I don't see how Bradley struggling is relevant to that claim.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I don't know.  Tyronne Biggums said that last year's success set the organizational plan back.  I'm not seeing it.  How did winning in 2013 set them back?  What moves did they make over the winter that take them away from moving on to a younger and cheaper core of players?  I don't see how Bradley struggling is relevant to that claim.
Well it set them back in terms of fan perspective. The fan base was ready to look forward to 2016 as the year the Sox would compete again. It was sped up rather surprisingly. They accomplished and overachieved more than anyone could possibly imagine. But it put the old pressure back on the team to win immediately. This includes holding onto veterans too long and even pushing prospects to the majors too soon. Just my opinion of course
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Don't see anyone pushed to the majors too soon. X was clearly ready, and getting Bradley ML at bats seemed like a sound plan. None of the pitchers are being rushed.