http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-this-isnt-going-to-end-well/
He touches on other teams, but the second half of the column is dedicated to the vast issues facing the Red Sox.
Gammons: "This isn't going to end well"
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
He touches on other teams, but the second half of the column is dedicated to the vast issues facing the Red Sox.
this year has been an abomination, but I think there's a way to sort things out for the future. Biggest question I have right now is what to do with Hanley. I might start by giving him a DL stretch and calling up JBJ
Rudy Pemberton said:
It's way more than that. It's a fluid flow with a fluid mix.
This article was 95% nonsensical. I agree that they look dazed and confused, however.
Hee Sox Choi said:
glennhoffmania said:
It's not enough to say bullshit like this. Point to the parts of what RedOctober posted that are nonsensical to you.
Is it the part where Gammons says they need to determine whether Masterson, Wright and Kelly are better off in the bullpen? Was it the part where he suggests that none of the other players in the dugout told Miley to cut the shit? Was it the part where he says that most days they start three DHs -- clearly meaning Ortiz, Hanley and Sandoval? That Hanley has to clean up his act? The Marrero thing was a reach (Gammons himself says "maybe even"), but the concept of using those interchangeable parts in a "fluid" lineup makes some sense.
So, guys, point to the 95% of that piece that's nonsense ... or don't bother fucking responding at all
RedOctober3829 said:
So several paragraphs about how poorly the team is constructed, too many DHs, key acquisition not performing, starting pitching worse than expected. No leadership.
And then the guy who constructed the team is twice lumped with the owner as a decision maker, not the subject of a decision?
mauidano said:
Max Power said:
I'm not familiar with cheap lobster rolls that are any good, and these aren't bad
E5 Yaz said:
I don't know about 95%, but I can document some nonsense in the article for you:
1. "Their top three averages belong to Dustin Pedroia, Brock Holt and Xander Bogaerts."
Why is it surprising that average hitters (which Pedey and Holt, at least, clearly are) lead the team in BA?
2. "They need him to be an elite performer, not a $22M supporting actor, a Manny Ramirez, not a Carl Crawford."
Except that $22M doesn't buy an elite player any more. Gammons has no excuse for writing as if he doesn't realize that.
3. "If Shane Victorino gets healthy, one direction may be to drop the set lineup and go with a fluid flow with Pedroia and Bogaerts in every day with a fluid mix of Mookie Betts, Rusney Castillo, Jackie Bradley, Holt and maybe even Deven Marrero..."
So, the response to Victorino getting healthy is a "fluid flow" (greetings from the Department of Redundancy Department) featuring five players competing for time--none of whom is Victorino, but one of whom plays the same position as a guy who is supposedly "in every day"?
4. "They have stuck with their original rotation, but only Clay Buchholz has an ERA under 5.00.Eduardo Rodriguez, who Sunday pitched as if he were Eddie Feigner—who pitched softball games with only a catcher, infielder and outfielder on his defense—is likely to stay. They could bring in Brian Johnson, keep the Rick Porcello transition working, then see if Joe Kelly,Justin Masterson and Steven Wright make them a better staff as starters or relievers. Wade Miley’s June 11 meltdown in view of the television cameras has made him the ultra villain, but in his seven previous starts he had a 3.41 ERA."
So....Buchholz, Rodriguez, Johnson and Porcello make four starters....at least one of Kelly, Masterson and Wright makes your fifth....and then, oh yeah, Miley, whatever. So apparently he's proposing a six-man rotation with three guys rotating through the sixth spot, leaving four bullpen spots for actual relievers.
5. "Unfortunately for him, for John Farrell and the team, there was no Adam Jones or Torii Hunter to shove him down into the runway and put an end to the scene. Not even a Jonny Gomes."
What does the "even" mean there? Are Jones or Hunter better qualified to shove players down runways than Gomes?
6. "They have to get Betts, Blake Swihart, Castillo and Bogaerts going".
With the exception of Betts, they've all been trending upward lately, so this just sounds like Gammons isn't paying attention.
7. "and there is some urgency to make The Fens more than gardens and Frisbee-chasing puppies and development sites until the Patriots open their season. Right now, the sense around the Red Sox is, more than any team in either league, this is not going to end well. The $15 lobster rolls are great, but the lobster rolls at The Chart Room are a whole lot better, and the sunsets are over Buzzard’s Bay, not players’ careers. The Red Sox customer services are among the best in their business."
No comment necessary.
There are legitimate points in there, but they're half-buried in the sloppy thinking and non sequiturs. I mean, Gammons is a giant and all, but if this crap were posted on SoSH it would get ripped to shreds.
It's just lazy or trolling to say things that are wrong. Ramirez has more than 1 homer since April. Marrero does not have an OPS near 700 over 2 seasons at Pawtucket and its not even 700 over one.
I'm not checking every fact, but he should have someone for that task.
I'm not checking every fact, but he should have someone for that task.
He rambles and Hillbilly points out some "observations" that go right over my head too, but when you destill the piece, he hits many of the main (pathetic) points. Number one to me is the Ramirez, Oriz, Sandoval, Napoli (aka - the petty criminals row debacle). The joys of second guessing beg the question - why did professional evaluators of talent believe this quartet would very likely be terrific? It seems that old age, attitude, and past lengthy dry spell issues, when it comes to one or more of these players, made it just as or more likely that this combination was risky business.
Next is the deplorable defense on the left side of the field - now that should not be surprising to anybody in the FO - especially when it comes to left field. (Of course, the three DHs comment and the crummy left side defense points are one and the same.) Does a competent FO look at those two position players and think - we are good to go? Of course not.
I am somewhat disappointed that he did not mention Allard Baird.
Next is the deplorable defense on the left side of the field - now that should not be surprising to anybody in the FO - especially when it comes to left field. (Of course, the three DHs comment and the crummy left side defense points are one and the same.) Does a competent FO look at those two position players and think - we are good to go? Of course not.
I am somewhat disappointed that he did not mention Allard Baird.
Savin Hillbilly said:
It isn't super-clear, but I think he's suggesting all three of Masterson, Kelly, and Wright going to the bullpen. And people here have suggested that without controversy.
Steve Dillard said:
This is probably the only nugget worth considering in the article.
Gammons doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear that Gammons thinks Farrell is on the hot seat, but Cherington isn't. He might be in the twilight of his career, but Gammons's access is presumably still robust enough to make his opinion on such matters worth hearing.
Because I think it's very clear that the Ben & Baseball Ops worked hand in hand with ownership to map out the offseason plan. Just as teams like the *ahem* Cubs have someone above the GM working on the big picture of the overall roster, why does everyone think Ben dreamed up this plan completely on his own and JWH just signed the check? I would argue that it is more likely that analytical teams like the Red Sox have been operating like this for a long time (in the Sox's case likely from the beginning once they handed he reins to Theo) without making a big deal about it.Steve Dillard said:
Frankly, I think this is why Farrell's job is safe; he probably has a seat at that table and everyone at that table now just has to weather the fact that the season has played out to the worst possible projection, despite the fan base's desire to see someone sacrificed.
Edited to remove horrible phone typing mistakes.
Depends on where you are sitting I guess.Max Power said:
In the Pavillion Club I believe they were $17.50 when I was there for opening day. Along with $17 for the veggie burger.
Also, this seems backwards. I don't remember Carl Crawford getting skewered because he didn't to the little things right, but because he couldn't hit or take the negative attention. Conversely, Manny very often did all of the little things wrong, and was famous for his mental lapses, but he was great at mashing the baseball, so we forgave the other things (except knocking down an old man). I don't see how the above makes sense in that context. He is basically being Manny Ramirez in terms of his approach, just not putting up a 1.000 OPS or getting a bunch of outfield assists.
But how much is the sushi I've heard about (they don't have any of these things under the bleachers in section 37, so it's all rumors to me)?Papelbon's Poutine said:
pokey_reese said:
Right, exactly. All the lapses are quintessential Manny, and they aren't the problem. The problem is that since the shoulder injury, he's been a downright mediocre hitter (.269/.314/.377). That offense, plus the crappy defense and baserunning, adds up to a pretty awful player. But it's not the crappy defense and baserunning that's the problem--we should have expected that going in. It's the offense.
Has there been any actual chatter about Hanley and his shoulder possibly affecting his play outside of this board though? Seems like when Cherington was calling him courageous and building him up could have been an opportunity to say he still wasn't 100%. He hasn't missed any additional time because of it either.
I know it has been a tale of two seasons, but really the pace he was at was unsustainable, and he's at close to an .800 ops now. Maybe these are just his numbers stabilizing and should be in the ballpark of what he is. His career ISO is .200, and this season it is at .198 and remember how long it took him to double. His slugging of .473 has been higher than all but one out of the past 5 years.
I'm becoming biased in my dislike for the guy though.
I know it has been a tale of two seasons, but really the pace he was at was unsustainable, and he's at close to an .800 ops now. Maybe these are just his numbers stabilizing and should be in the ballpark of what he is. His career ISO is .200, and this season it is at .198 and remember how long it took him to double. His slugging of .473 has been higher than all but one out of the past 5 years.
I'm becoming biased in my dislike for the guy though.
Agree that his logic and analysis are flawed, but we have to respect his reporting when he writes something like, "Right now, the sense around the Red Sox is, more than any team in either league, this is not going to end well."
It's vague, but it's ominous. Sounds like Farrell will get fired, or Ramirez will get benched, or some other drastic thing.
It's vague, but it's ominous. Sounds like Farrell will get fired, or Ramirez will get benched, or some other drastic thing.
The issue with Ramirez that has been alluded to by Olney is ,apart from his fielding and running gaffes, is he has not been Mr.Accessible or Mr.Accountable to writers after the games he's done poorly in.LostinNJ said:
I think that has indirectly or directly fueled much of the anger against a guy that carried the offense for a month and despite being "mediocre" has still carried the offense along with ( Pedroia Holt and X) after the injury. That's more of an indictment of the rest of the offense ,but it is still relevant.Also the 22 mill figure naturally makes him a target for the press regardless of whether he stuck around to give them Accountability quotes.
However, as far as ending well,I seriously doubt Cherington and Farrell survive if they finish last again. Rather then benching Ramirez the Sox would be better served DL'ing him for 15 days to see if he could rediscover that powerstroke from April.
Agree there was a certain direness to the writing, but as I wrote earlier in one thread that may be in regards to Ortiz. Red Sox legend and I love him so hope his recent hitting streak continues, but I think its naive to think that avoiding that option vesting doesn't become a massive issue/hasn't been discussed.
2013 BOS
137
PA
518
84 160 38 2 30 103 76 88 4 0 .309 .395 .564 .959 4.4 2014
BOS 2014
PA
142 518 59 136 27 0 35 104 75 95 0 0 .263 .355 .517 .872 2.9 2015
BOS 2015
56 PA
210
Here's the breakdown via NESN
Below is a breakdown of how Ortiz’s 2016 option is structured based on his number of plate appearances in 2015.
425 plate appearances: $11 million
475 plate appearances: $12 million
525 plate appearances: $13 million
550 plate appearances: $14 million
Read more at: http://nesn.com/2014/03/david-ortiz-contract-details-2016-2017-options-explained/
Again I like Ortiz. However, no way the Boston media treats the 11 mill vesting as anything other then an anvil looming over an icon. How that goes down could fall into the ugly category based on a variety of factors.
I really don't think the Sox will bench Ortiz- they know that is terrible for morale.
That clause mainly protects the Sox against injury. If Ortiz is healthy, he's not going to get nickel and dimed over at bats. If the front office really really wants the money they will trade or cut him so it's someone else's decision. And I don't think they'll trade or cut him.
That clause mainly protects the Sox against injury. If Ortiz is healthy, he's not going to get nickel and dimed over at bats. If the front office really really wants the money they will trade or cut him so it's someone else's decision. And I don't think they'll trade or cut him.
Eric Yu said:
I'd take it a bit farther and point out that for all the whining about the team's performance (which is certainly valid) I'm not really seeing anyone suggest realistic alternatives to management's approach. The complaint that strikes me as the most ludicrious are the numerous variations on "it's unacceptable that a team spending this much money on its payroll has finished last 3 out of 4 years." It's even more ridiculous when posters then turn around and complain that the rotation doesn't have "an ace" because the only real way to get one would be to throw a ton of money at the problem; it is exactly that sort of approach that makes the payroll this high as the team pays off the unproductive back end of deals (Vic, Napoli, etc) that also made 2013 possible.
I don't think that folks are upset about the back ends of those deals. They are (or at least I am) upset about the freshly minted commitments of serious money (Hanley, Pedro and Castillo) that seem likely to be soaking up big swatches of the payroll for years to come for little or no value.
Koufax said:
And declaring that Hanley, Sandoval, and Castillo will be of little or no value 3 months into those commitments seems a bit premature.
Sandoval had a bad May at the plate but a good April and good June so far. Overall his OPS+ and wRC+ are both 100. And there's no reason to think his fielding won't return to normal, it's nit like his issues are weight related. I'm not super worried about him.Koufax said:
Castillo, a little less certain, but he's had 68 PA.
Hanley, he'd be fine if we could figure out a way to DH him. I think he might be tradable at the end of the year, maybe taking on a modest amount, to a team that needs a DH.
I didn't know the Sox brought Pedro out of retirement.Koufax said:
To the point at hand, there was similar hand wringing during the first season of JD Drew and John Lackey. The former turned out OK, and Lackey surprisingly brought a lot more value at the end of his deal than at the beginning.
The analogies are, of course, imperfect. But both Sandoval and Ramirez appear to be playing through injuries that are limiting their effectiveness at the plate, and possibly on the field in Sandoval's case.
Koufax said:
SSS
And there are possibly injury issues to boot. Why don't we wait until at least the end of the year before we declare anything one way or the other on what those signings will yield?
Koufax said:
While this is certainly possible, I don't think we're in "likely" territory yet.
You don't find a Hanley quality bat every day on the FA market. Even if he was just an occasional OF/DH at some point in the future, he's a valuable bat to have. He's never going to be a Pedroia-like head in the game player. But we knew that going in.
Sandoval fills a position of need for the next couple of years (with no strong internal options), so maybe that's just the position that you overpay for and resign yourself to league average production, while not swapping your prospects for 3B prospects/players.
Castillo is an OF that seems to have at least decent defensive value. It's his first year in MLB and he's shown he has the physical tools to do well. It's too early to write him off as well.
BUConvict said:
This is a specific situation where a guy that will get in a team mate's face was required. PG listed guys he thinks would do that. Ortiz and Pedroia didn't. That is all it is.
Anyway the way many on this board jump on any criticism of the Sox, and nit pick is silly. No matter how hard you argue, this team still sucks.
How does Gammons or anybody else know whether or if so how Pedroia, Ortiz or anybody else dealt with Mikey's naughty business? Just because it wasn't flashed across the TV screen doesn't mean that nothing was said.reggiecleveland said:
Philip Jeff Frye said:
Right. My point (pretty clearly) isn't to say the Red Sox are playing well and that I'm pushing back against all criticism of the team, my point is to say that Gammons' column where he implies that the reason Miley yelled at Farrell (and, by broader extension of the article, part of why the Red Sox are having a terrible season), is because they don't have Adam Jones or someone like him. That's the sort of nonsense I'd expect from a Felger & Mazz caller, not from Hall of Fame journalist Peter Gammons.
Peter Gammons @pgammo
Brock Holt, Mookie Betts, Zander Bogaerts 9-for-14. Is this the beginning of moving on from the 3-4-5-6 past to using 14 positional players?
Gammo just tweeted that. I have been staring at it since it popped up on my feed and I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say. Either it's further evidence he's losing it or Twitter just isn't the medium for his thoughts.
Brock Holt, Mookie Betts, Zander Bogaerts 9-for-14. Is this the beginning of moving on from the 3-4-5-6 past to using 14 positional players?
Gammo just tweeted that. I have been staring at it since it popped up on my feed and I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say. Either it's further evidence he's losing it or Twitter just isn't the medium for his thoughts.
So your position is Pg is just making things up? You think he randomly picks a list of people, not that he has more information than you.Philip Jeff Frye said:
I went back and looked at the video of the Miley/Farrell blow-up. The only players I can spot are Swihart and I think Betts...Sandoval might also appear but it's hard to say. I also looked at the box score and figured out that inn the top of the 5th, Betts led off with a double, Swihart K'ed, Pedey grounded out as did Holt. The exchange was pretty brief--Miley walks down the tunnel and disappears rather quickly. I think it's disingenuous of Gammons to suggest that the Sox lack leaders like Jones. Pedey was in the hole and would have been focused on his upcoming at bat, not Miley whining. If Ortiz was nearby, he's not visible on the screen and I am not sure he or anyone could have interceded. Finally, I recall Pedroia standing up to Ortiz-literally, though only to his chest, lol---when Ortiz hung up the telephone in the dugout in Baltimore a couple of seasons ago.
After looking at the clip again, my feeling is that the reason why players weren't reacting is that it wasn't that big a deal. Miley's demeanor isn't terribly aggressive. He's not even exactly in Farrell's face; he's ranting, but ranting kind of passively. The minute Farrell locks eyes with him, he peels off for the runway, with Farrell following as if to say, no, you're not going to pull that shit and walk away, we're going to deal with this right now. Nobody intervened because it was pretty weak sauce and Farrell was handling it.