Worst In Game Pitching Decision In Red Sox History

Which do you think was the worst in game pitching decision in Red Sox history

  • Joe McCarthy starting Denny Galehouse in the 1948 tie breaking game against the Indians

    Votes: 11 3.4%
  • Darrell Johnson bringing in rookie Jim Burton for 9th inning of tied Game 7 of the 1975 World Series

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Don Zimmer starting rookie Bobby Sprowl in the last game of the 1978 Boston Massacre

    Votes: 9 2.8%
  • John McNamara skipping over Roger Clemens for relief in Game 7 of the 1986 World Series

    Votes: 30 9.4%
  • Grady Little leaving a tired Pedro Martinez in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS too ong

    Votes: 262 81.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Total voters
    320

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,339
It was indeed a terrible signing, not because they gave Sale an extension per se, but because they gave him an extension right after a season in which he couldn't really pitch the last two months (used very sparingly) because he was significantly hurt, AND he had another year left on his team-friendly contract (plenty of time to see what he could do coming off an injured season, and then decide), AND they knew they were staring down Mookie's free agency, and would only break the bank for so many bajillion dollar contracts.

That said, of course I hope Sale recovers. Like, by his next start. Or he has the wiles to become an effectively crafty pitcher for the rest of his career. But it was a terrible signing by virtue of its timing as much as anything else.
They didn't extend Sale until Mookie had already turned down their extension offer, they probably had a pretty good idea at that point that there was a strong chance he was gone in 2 years, so that shouldn't have come into the equation when choosing to extend Sale or not. And the deal was a lot smaller than you'd expect a 29 year old superstar ace coming off back to back cy young caliber seasons to get because of the injury potential. If they waited a year and he had another strong year then instead of 5-145 you're looking at a monster deal if you want to retain him, I mean look at what Cole signed for with a much weaker resume than Sale.

They took a calculated gamble that they were buying low on an extension, the next 3 years will determine if they were right or not.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,644
Chicago, IL
They didn't extend Sale until Mookie had already turned down their extension offer, they probably had a pretty good idea at that point that there was a strong chance he was gone in 2 years, so that shouldn't have come into the equation when choosing to extend Sale or not. And the deal was a lot smaller than you'd expect a 29 year old superstar ace coming off back to back cy young caliber seasons to get because of the injury potential. If they waited a year and he had another strong year then instead of 5-145 you're looking at a monster deal if you want to retain him, I mean look at what Cole signed for with a much weaker resume than Sale.

They took a calculated gamble that they were buying low on an extension, the next 3 years will determine if they were right or not.
You make some good arguments. Though are we certain they had given up on Mookie at that point? I'm not sure that's right.

Meanwhile, at this point, even if Sale has an effective next 3 seasons, he's missed 1.75 seasons. So, rather paying him 145,000,000 for five years of play (averaging 29/per year of active play) they are paying him 145 million for (hopefully) 3.25 years of play (averaging 44.6 M/year of active play). While not 8 or 9 years, at this point that effectively still amounts to a monster contract. Even if he's healthy and good 2022-24.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,339
You make some good arguments. Though are we certain they had given up on Mookie at that point? I'm not sure that's right.

Meanwhile, at this point, even if Sale has an effective next 3 seasons, he's missed 1.75 seasons. So, rather paying him 145,000,000 for five years of play (averaging 29/per year of active play) they are paying him 145 million for (hopefully) 3.25 years of play (averaging 44.6 M/year of active play). While not 8 or 9 years, at this point that effectively still amounts to a monster contract. Even if he's healthy and good 2022-24.
It's not 145, it's actually 125 because of the short season. So yeah he basically has to be worth about 115-120m over the next 3 seasons to be a neutral value contract, or about 55m next season if he opts out. So basically he has to be about a 5 WAR player for the next 3 years. If he's healthy and good he'll likely exceed that.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,644
Chicago, IL
It's not 145, it's actually 125 because of the short season. So yeah he basically has to be worth about 115-120m over the next 3 seasons to be a neutral value contract, or about 55m next season if he opts out. So basically he has to be about a 5 WAR player for the next 3 years. If he's healthy and good he'll likely exceed that.
YOu're right, I stand corrected on 2020. Do you think he'll have 3 seasons better than Eovaldi's 2021 (4.6 WAR)? I suspect that is highly unlikely, but I hope I'm wrong!
 

Pegleg

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
42
Sayre, PA
Letting Robles face Arozarena.
After the initial homer, it was obvious Robles didn't have his stuff. After the double following it, he should have been yanked. I had a terrible feeling TB was going to get 4 more runs that inning. Cora left him in WAAAY too long.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,335
Robles looked great the batter before Arozarena. I understand the case for pulling him, but it was not a simple or obvious choice.

One thing that would change my assessment: is it clear when Cora became aware of Robles' illness?