Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,235
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I don't think anyone here needs a reminder that TINSTAAPP. But fine: TINSTAAPP. Having stated that clearly, let me add that it would be a very bad development indeed if baseball executives were to stop making trades for promising young pitchers that they hope will develop just because TINSTAAPP. Connor Seabold was once a promising young pitcher. He got hurt and has so far never been able to regain his stuff. I'm glad Bloom turned drek into him and Pivetta, even as I am disappointed that he never developed. TINSTAAPP.
That trade was a massive win even with getting nothing from Seabold:

View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1613586941638840350?s=20
 

manny

New Member
Jul 24, 2005
273
I didn't miss it. It was appointment TV for me too. Guy was a dominant horse.

I just think that the nostalgia doesn't 100% align with the numbers. In Pedro's case, it clearly does. I'd take Clemens over Scott any day, especially because Scott's season was so fluky, as you note.

I'm not arguing that Clemens wasn't the best pitcher on earth that year. He probably was, but it was closer than everyone remembers.
Think you're setting a bar too high if the bar is Pedro 1999-2001. How many other seasons was there a hands-down, clear-cut best pitcher (if you're not considering 86 Clemens in that category)?
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
3,585
The Sticks
I didn't miss it. It was appointment TV for me too. Guy was a dominant horse.

I just think that the nostalgia doesn't 100% align with the numbers. In Pedro's case, it clearly does. I'd take Clemens over Scott any day, especially because Scott's season was so fluky, as you note.

I'm not arguing that Clemens wasn't the best pitcher on earth that year. He probably was, but it was closer than everyone remembers.
I'd say 1986 was probably fairly close...but 1990 wasn't. Clemens' 1990 would be talked about as one of the greatest Sox seasons of all time if the season had turned out better and/or Terry Cooney hadn't been so trigger happy to throw Roger out of a game in the ALCS and/or people hadn't been so fixated on wins that they gave Bob Welch the Cy Young. 1.93 ERA, 211 ERA+ (next best in either league was 169) - I'd say he was clearly better than anyone else. His "worst" month was March/April, when his ERA was 3.09 - every other month was a sub-2.60 ERA, and in each of the last three months his ERA was below 2. (Maybe you could ding him for missing a couple of starts in September? But Pedro missed starts every year, so I'm not sure that's fair.) He wasn't Pedro in his prime....but no one else has ever been, either.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,994
Mike Scott was clearly the best pitcher in the game down the stretch in 1986, he pitched a no-hitter the final week of the regular season and then back to back complete games in the NLCS, 18 8 1 1 1 19, the second game on 3 days rest (!!!). The Mets were dreading seeing him a third time in game 7, which is what made their extra inning wins in games 5 (I was there) and game 6 that much more important.

Clemens was nothing special by the time it got to the postseason that year (with the major exception of game 7 of the ALCS on 3 days rest), I was actually at game 2 of the WS that year and it was a very disappointing showdown between Clemens and Gooden, neither pitched well.

Anyway, every manager in baseball would have picked Scott over Clemens for that postseason. That is almost certainly the only month of their careers where that was close to true, but it's still true.
That's not exactly true. In September, Clemens put up these numbers:

4-0, 1.85 ERA, 31Ks, 33H in 39 innings.

Scott put up:

4-1, 2.29, 57Ks, 21 H in 39.1 innings.

So they're relatively close (aside from the Ks).

I will say that Clemens didn't have a great postseason (which was the start of a trend) as Scott, but I doubt that every manager in baseball would have picked Scott over Clemens going into that postseason. Clemens was the best pitcher of the regular season in 1986 and Scott was close, but he was easily the best post season pitcher of that year. But, as we know, the post season is a completely different animal than the regular season.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,900
Hingham, MA
Understood. I wouldn't lump Wakefield in with Pedro and Roger, but over the course of his first 15-20 Boston starts, Wakefield was the best pitcher in baseball.

EDIT: Or at least in the conversation with Maddux (not sure how Maddux fared during the same period, but I'm sure it at least nearly as comparable).
First 17 starts: 14-1, 131 IP, 1.65 ERA, 6 CG
There is no argument about Clemens in 1986. None. Sometimes numbers don't tell the entire story.

Clemens was absolutely dominant that year. No pitcher was even close, and that includes Gooden and Scott in the NL. The idea was that Scott was cheating like crazy because his splitter came out of nowhere--before that year Scott was just another dude who bounced around a few organizations. Supposedly he met Roger Craig who imparted some wisdom (among other stuff) and Scott's career took off. Clemens was a phenom and he wasn't using whatever Scott was using, he was throwing hard and throwing it by batters night after night after night.

While he wasn't Pedro 1999-01, a Clemens start (especially after the 20K game) was appointment TV. At one point he was 14-0 and it didn't look like he'd ever lose. I hate to say this, but if you didn't experience peak Clemens, you really missed something. Dude was incredible.
Only 1 ND in his first 15 starts. 14-0, 123.2 IP, 2.18 ERA, 5 CG, 13 starts with 8+ IP. Think about that, 123 2/3 IP out of a possible 135. 371 outs out of 405. Nearly 8 1/3 IP per start.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,235
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Clemens got hit off the arm on a semi-hard line drive against....Baltimore I think, in his last or penultimate start in the '86 season. That predictably caused a lot of angst and he had a poor Game 1 start in the ALCS.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,528
Mike Scott was clearly the best pitcher in the game down the stretch in 1986, he pitched a no-hitter the final week of the regular season and then back to back complete games in the NLCS, 18 8 1 1 1 19, the second game on 3 days rest (!!!). The Mets were dreading seeing him a third time in game 7, which is what made their extra inning wins in games 5 (I was there) and game 6 that much more important.

Clemens was not exceptional by the time it got to the postseason that year, a couple of really good games and a few bad ones, I was actually at game 2 of the WS that year and it was a very disappointing showdown between Clemens and Gooden, neither pitched well.

Anyway, every manager in baseball would have picked Scott over Clemens for that postseason. That is almost certainly the only month of their careers where that was close to true, but it's still true.
I agree about Scott down the stretch that year. Clemens was good. Scott was unhittable.
Hard to believe, but by the end of 86, Dwight Gooden was about done being DWIGHT GOODEN. He certainly had success for 5 or 6 years after, but he was just another really good pitcher after 86.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
21,557
Clemens got hit off the arm on a semi-hard line drive against....Baltimore I think, in his last or penultimate start in the '86 season. That predictably caused a lot of angst and he had a poor Game 1 start in the ALCS.
Yes, off the bat of Jim Traber, I believe. Not sure it hit Clemens's arm, though. Not saying it didn't, just don't recall. I would have guessed it was his back (while his top half was still parallel to the ground) for some reason.

EDIT: I was wrong. It appears that John Stefero was the batter.
 
Last edited:

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Clemens got hit off the arm on a semi-hard line drive against....Baltimore I think, in his last or penultimate start in the '86 season. That predictably caused a lot of angst and he had a poor Game 1 start in the ALCS.
Clemens always had a post-season excuse, and you could never quite count on him to get it done when it mattered. https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/OAK/OAK199010100.shtml

View: https://youtu.be/wtQoEA6GpPA?t=486


That's not the greatest pitcher on the planet.




Compare to: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE199910110.shtml
View: https://youtu.be/HkfnfWhO_u0?t=4466


Watch it for an inning and listen to the crowd noise. That's what the greatest pitcher on the planet does.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,255
I have never agreed with you more @Rovin Romine. Aside from the fact that Pedro wasn't the best pitcher on the planet. He was the best pitcher ever to live on this planet or any other planet, including those we don't know about.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,478
Pedro sometimes gets a bad rap for not being a great postseason pitcher. And to be sure, he had a few bumps. But here are his career postseason numbers:

16g, 96.1 ip, 74 h, 37 r, 37 er, 30 bb, 96 k, 3.46 era, 1.08 whip, 9.0 k/9

That includes these gems:

1999 ALDS G5: 6.0 ip, 0 h, 0 r, 0 er, 3 bb, 8 k - in relief, with a bad back, barely able to hit 90 mph against the mighty Indians
1999 ALCS G3: 7.0 ip, 2 h, 0 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 12 k - vs NYY
2004 WS G3: 7.0 ip, 3 h, 0 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 6 k
2009 NLCS G2: 7.0 ip, 2 h, 0 r, 0 er, 0 bb, 3 k
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Yes, off the bat of Jim Traber, I believe. Not sure it hit Clemens's arm, though. Not saying it didn't, just don't recall. I would have guessed it was his back (while his top half was still parallel to the ground) for some reason.

EDIT: I was wrong. It appears that John Stefero was the batter.
He also pitched 254 innings as a 24 year old. And 264 in 1988. So, I dunno, this stuff isn't easy. On the other hand Hurst so completely rose to the challenge that everyone, including Clemens, looks pretty un-clutch by comparison.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,792
I have never agreed with you more @Rovin Romine. Aside from the fact that Pedro wasn't the best pitcher on the planet. He was the best pitcher ever to live on this planet or any other planet, including those we don't know about.
I always find it cute when younger fans try to argue for deGrom or Kershaw. Ignore the fact that I myself have yet to turn 30.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,604
Maine
He also pitched 254 innings as a 24 year old. And 264 in 1988. So, I dunno, this stuff isn't easy. On the other hand Hurst so completely rose to the challenge that everyone, including Clemens, looks pretty un-clutch by comparison.
254 innings as a 24 year old coming off shoulder surgery. It's incredible how much usage has changed for pitchers over the last 40 years or so.

That '86 postseason was strange for Clemens. He had a real off night in Game 1, pitched fairly well on short rest in Game 4 (8.1 IP, 3 R, 8 H, 9 K, 134 pitches!), then had arguably his best game of that post-season in Game 7 while dealing with flu-like symptoms. In the World Series, again pitching on short rest, he came out early of a mediocre Game 2 start but looked like his usual self on full rest in Game 6.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,528
254 innings as a 24 year old coming off shoulder surgery. It's incredible how much usage has changed for pitchers over the last 40 years or so.
He was also a horse. Despite all that, he lasted into his 40s. Clemens may have thrown a lot of pitches in college, but he benefitted from taking on the full MLB load when he was a bit older.

Gooden -- who came along at roughly the same time -- was 218 innings (at 19 y/o), 276 and 250 in his 1st 3 MLB seasons. After throwing 191 in A ball (with 300Ks) as an 18yr old,. The eventual drug habit didn;t help, but still . . .
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,267
I'd be fine if they brought JBJ back on a minor league deal, as long as if he made the team, they platooned him-- not on a lefty-righty basis, but on a home-road basis. He hit 288/320/466 in 152 PA in Fenway last year.
In road games, he hit like a pitcher: 153/224/222.
He's pretty likely completely washed up, but on a minor league deal, why not? He would probably still be the best defensive RF in the organization, other than Rafaela.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,342
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
JBJ is an excellent late inning defensive replacement and occasional spot starter, imho. I absolutely love the guy, but I realize his limitations. Not sure how he works with the 40 man, but I wouldn't hate having him back. Ideally, we move Duran, Dalbec and/or others in trades for Kim and others.
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,389
Here
He was also a horse. Despite all that, he lasted into his 40s. Clemens may have thrown a lot of pitches in college, but he benefitted from taking on the full MLB load when he was a bit older.

Gooden -- who came along at roughly the same time -- was 218 innings (at 19 y/o), 276 and 250 in his 1st 3 MLB seasons. After throwing 191 in A ball (with 300Ks) as an 18yr old,. The eventual drug habit didn;t help, but still . . .
Roger's eventual drug habit helped quite nicely
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
JBJ is an excellent late inning defensive replacement and occasional spot starter, imho. I absolutely love the guy, but I realize his limitations. Not sure how he works with the 40 man, but I wouldn't hate having him back. Ideally, we move Duran, Dalbec and/or others in trades for Kim and others.
Yep, if differently constructed he would be an excellent 5th outfielder/last guy off the bench for this team. As the team currently stands they would likely need to add two other OFs before even considering Bradley.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,402
Yep, if differently constructed he would be an excellent 5th outfielder/last guy off the bench for this team. As the team currently stands they would likely need to add two other OFs before even considering Bradley.
Career 120/202/213 in 84 plate appearances as a substitute.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,402
I'm not sure what you thought I was suggesting, but offensive contributions weren't high on the list considering I was agreeing with him being a defensive replacement.
Is OF defensive replacement really a role on a major league team in 2023? It’s a waste of a roster spot. They need a RH OF who can hit, not a LH who can’t.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,518
Is OF defensive replacement really a role on a major league team in 2023? It’s a waste of a roster spot. They need a RH OF who can hit, not a LH who can’t.
Counterpoint: If you can't hit, it doesn't matter which side you're not hitting from. But yeah, seems suboptimal. We already acquired the illustrious Greg Allen.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,342
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Yep, if differently constructed he would be an excellent 5th outfielder/last guy off the bench for this team. As the team currently stands they would likely need to add two other OFs before even considering Bradley.
Agreed. I might elevate him to 4th, but ymmv.
Career 120/202/213 in 84 plate appearances as a substitute.
I'm not sure what you thought I was suggesting, but offensive contributions weren't high on the list considering I was agreeing with him being a defensive replacement.
Is OF defensive replacement really a role on a major league team in 2023? It’s a waste of a roster spot. They need a RH OF who can hit, not a LH who can’t.
Late in a game with a small lead or the heart of our offense coming up, he’d be a key part in reducing the likelihood of more runs scored against us. Heart of the order does not include JBJ’s bat. Hence, defensive replacement. He could come in to add speed as a pinch runner and replace said player with a better glove.
Did you even read my post or the one that I responded to?
No
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,852
San Diego
Here's one from Jennings: Adalberto Mondesí. This was one of the guys I believe @chawson mentioned in the Story thread. He's a former top prospect in the KC system who's dealt with injuries throughout his career. Although he was putrid last year and a career .244 hitter, he's still a pretty good defensive shortstop and he's only 27. Maybe there's still some potential?
 

HighTek

New Member
Feb 9, 2020
23
LA
Sone Rumors about Jo Adell and the Halos not seeing eye to eye - what about change of scenery swap w/ Adell for Duran?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,604
Maine
Mondesi, Iglesias, Andrus...whoever you wish but we need absolutely a real major league shortstop NOW
Are they playing a game today?

I get the urgency, but it's not like any of those guys are in high demand. Camp opens in a little over a month. There's still time to address the middle infield.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,604
Maine
Jo Adell was a consensus top 10 prospect. The chances of the Angels agreeing to this are nil.
I agree that the Angels most likely say no. However, take it for what it's worth, but Baseball Trade Values says a straight up Adell for Duran trade is a slight overpay by the Red Sox. I suspect it's entirely about the extra year of control for Duran. Not only does Adell have the better pedigree, he's also almost three years younger than Duran. I'd bet on Adell improving and growing into his top prospect expectations over Duran becoming more than a 5th outfielder in the big leagues.
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
Dalbec has show he can hit LHP. Assuming he’s on the roster…. Can he spell Casas at 1B and Yoshida at DH against lefties? Can he hold down the fort at 2B or 3B in day after night games?

Expectations for the Sox are way down. Might Bobby play a little better with less pressure and better utilization?
Yoshida isn't the DH; he's playing LF. Turner will be the primary DH, and should also spell Casas against LHPs. The best role for Dalbec is trade fodder
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
How about switching out Chris Sale for Houck? Looks like the Padres are going for it this year. Any thoughts?
Padres are already paying the luxury tax, and Sale is making $31 million. Sox would have to pay a lot of it to move him, and if that's the case it makes no sense. However, if Sale comes back healthy and pitches well, dealing him at the deadline could definitely be in play.
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD
Mike Scott was clearly the best pitcher in the game down the stretch in 1986, he pitched a no-hitter the final week of the regular season and then back to back complete games in the NLCS, 18 8 1 1 1 19, the second game on 3 days rest (!!!). The Mets were dreading seeing him a third time in game 7, which is what made their extra inning wins in games 5 (I was there) and game 6 that much more important.

Clemens was not exceptional by the time it got to the postseason that year, a couple of really good games and a few bad ones, I was actually at game 2 of the WS that year and it was a very disappointing showdown between Clemens and Gooden, neither pitched well.

Anyway, every manager in baseball would have picked Scott over Clemens for that postseason. That is almost certainly the only month of their careers where that was close to true, but it's still true.
In the 1986 post-season, you would have chosen Scott over ANYONE
 

billy ashley

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,245
Washington DC
Last off-season I tried to think of ways the Sox could "buy" Adell through absorbing a bad contract. He seemed like a great candidate for that at the time in that he'd lost a lot of the hype but there was still a pretty could chance he could be a good low average/obp high power player with acceptable defense. Someone akin to Hunter Renfroe, albeit with more upside.

I think at this point it's questionable if he'll even be a 40 hit skill guy. He's probably a DFA candidate for the Angels, given the number of teams with 40 man crunches, right now.

I'd be happy to take him on for Duran, but honestly, I don't think either should be given a shot to start going into next year. They're both too talented to completely dismiss (Adell with the much better pedigree and also being younger) but I woudln't bet on either being much of anything at this point.
 

walt in maryland

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
223
Woodbine, MD

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,372
around the way
I agree that the Angels most likely say no. However, take it for what it's worth, but Baseball Trade Values says a straight up Adell for Duran trade is a slight overpay by the Red Sox. I suspect it's entirely about the extra year of control for Duran. Not only does Adell have the better pedigree, he's also almost three years younger than Duran. I'd bet on Adell improving and growing into his top prospect expectations over Duran becoming more than a 5th outfielder in the big leagues.
I wouldn't bet on either being able to hit MLB pitching credibly. I hope that we're aiming a little higher.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
5,008
Yoshida isn't the DH; he's playing LF. Turner will be the primary DH, and should also spell Casas against LHPs. The best role for Dalbec is trade fodder
You’re not necessarily wrong but who spells Turner at DH when Turner spells Casas at 1B?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,124
Rogers Park
Padres are already paying the luxury tax, and Sale is making $31 million. Sox would have to pay a lot of it to move him, and if that's the case it makes no sense. However, if Sale comes back healthy and pitches well, dealing him at the deadline could definitely be in play.
If Sale comes back and pitches well, I’d keep him.
You’re not necessarily wrong but who spells Turner at DH when Turner spells Casas at 1B?
Refsnyder? (Possibly in LF with Yoshida at DH)
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,977
You’re not necessarily wrong but who spells Turner at DH when Turner spells Casas at 1B?
Could be Dalbec. They could also slide Yoshida to DH and start Refsnyder in RF to get another RHH in the lineup, assuming Turner is at 1B to shield Casas against tough LHH.

LOL, @nvalvo beat me to it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,604
Maine
Man, SI has fallen off a fucking cliff.

The only way Sanchez has been "linked" to the Red Sox is by a blogger who mentions the Sox among a few times who could be interested. This is just like that persistent Marlins trade thing. It's one random guy's opinion that everyone links back to like it was real breaking news. It's fantasy. I don't think Bloom goes anywhere near Gary Sanchez.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
637
New York, USA
Yoshida isn't the DH; he's playing LF. Turner will be the primary DH, and should also spell Casas against LHPs. The best role for Dalbec is trade fodder
You might be right but Dalbec might have an end of the bench role due to his versatility and the ability to hit LHP. Not sure why Dalbec can’t spell Casas at 1B and Turner remains at DH.

If he’s on the roster. Sox are light on infielders and Dalbec has played around the infield. He’s cheap and if he hits at all his value as trade bait could rise.