Options at first base

[Dojji]

I know your pushing for Laroche' date=' which is a lost cause. Nothing personal against the guy, it's just not going to happen.[/quote']

 

I know, but it would be a decent move anyway.

 

Besides if you get Laroche your replacing a GG 1B with a guy with a -UZR150 rating(I know it's not the best for 1B ). And then taking that GG first basemen and moving him to 3B where he is good, but not great.

 

As long as a guy isn't a disaster covering his position, there's only so much more you can gain out of good defense at the corners. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but I'm saying that it's more important to have great offense and an adequate glove than the reverse.

Why not just add Beltre which will put GG's at both corners?

 

Because Beltre's defense is like everything else about him. Very talented, very athletic, very shiny -- but flawed. He's fairly error prone. Besides, HR count is nice, but OBP still matters, and we're coming back to the fact that Beltre's is substantially below average.

 

Both Beltre and Laroche are 25 HR guys. But Beltre is RH which the Sox desperately need.

 

And LaRoche actually has about the same offense as healthy Lowell, which represents a better upgrade of overall run production.

 

And I swear if you bring up Huff or Branyan I will disown you

 

Fair enough. I'm throwing them out there mostly for the sake of conversation, and not to make it too obvious I was shilling for LaRoche.

[Paradisecity]

And when I said it I was right. I don't think it was reasonable to expect me or anyone else to predict just how far Anderson's stock was going to fall.

 

I don't disagree with his stock falling, but this again was inferential thinking. IF Mike Lowell stays healthy. IF this kid lives up to his potential when he still has a ways to go. HUGE ifs when a healthy stud was available. And who knows- maybe the kid will still be great? Either way, you can't bank on these premises when determining the long term needs of an organization. You can factor them in, but you can't bank on them.

 

This could amount to our philosophical differences on how to best fill holes within an organization, I just think that this organization needs to cash in chips eventually and/or actually SPEND MONEY. Not on Adam LaRoche or some other dojji pick, but on pedigree.

[Dojji]

The point that is being brought up is that nobody seems to be worthy of replacing Mike Lowell to you' date=' including moving over a gold glove, MVP vote getting 1B for another gold glove MVP vote getting, switch hitting 1B. which was an option.[/quote']

 

OK, I know the switch-hitter is Teixeira, but you'll have to clue me in on the other fella. I assume you meant "3B" there and are talking about Beltre. In Beltre's case, I have fairly rigid criteria for what I consider an acceptable replacement for a player who hasn't screwed up too badly recently, and a .317 OBP falls well outside those criteria. I don't propose to give up that many outs in a position that's likely to be somewhere in the middle of the order.

 

Regarding the above-average swap, I could buy into that logic if one player wasn't age 34 (and that is allegedly) coming off a 113 game season (where coincidentally, he put up nearly identical stats to this year) But I do remember you saying that, and I could buy into that argument.

 

Fair 'nuff. I was being fairly optimistic on the subject of Lowell, but in my defense the guy was one year removed from being a franchise hero. I didn't see any particular reason he couldn't at least have maintained his 2008 form, which in aggregate would have been good enough.

 

I'm not bludgeoning you with hindsight. I'm bludgeoning you with the FORESIGHT that most reasonable people had regarding Mike Lowell, mid-30's coming off of hip surgery.

 

Did I not talk about this extensively last offseason, with you right in the thick of the argument? Could you explain, then, how it is hindsight?

 

Because things turned in your favor a little too perfectly to blame it all on foresight. Sure, Lowell had complications with his surgery that meant cortisone shots and reduced range at third, that was predictable, and in fact I predicted it too. But if Anderson had held to form and produced like he was supposed to, which is the other half of the equation I was drawing at the time, then Lowell's last couple years would be as an average kind of a placeholder while we waited for the heir apparent, with Youks going to third more and more as the aging stalwart continued to decline.

 

In fart that part happened, it's just that the heir apparent had been tripped up in AA and we were left scrambling for a replacement -- enter LaRoche and Kotchman.

 

Personally, I'm kind of neutral on Beltre, other than the concept that we'd essentially be paying him like 17M to play third after the Lowell dump (assuming Lowell could actually play 3rd next year).

 

We ate that money in order to pick up Max Ramirez, so as much as I'm not keen on Beltre, it wouldn't be fair to blame him for that. Not his fault.

[Paradisecity]

Dojji- the 1b -1b reference was moving youk over and having tex at first.

 

 

Personally, I hope they just make a huge play for Adrian Gonzalez and hang on to our best pitching prospects in the process.

[Paradisecity]

 

 

 

In fart that part happened, it's just that the heir apparent had been tripped up in AA and we were left scrambling for a replacement -- enter LaRoche and Kotchman.

 

 

 

Nice slip!

[Dojji]

I don't disagree with his stock falling, but this again was inferential thinking. IF Mike Lowell stays healthy. IF this kid lives up to his potential when he still has a ways to go. HUGE ifs when a healthy stud was available. And who knows- maybe the kid will still be great? Either way, you can't bank on these premises when determining the long term needs of an organization. You can factor them in, but you can't bank on them.

 

This could amount to our philosophical differences on how to best fill holes within an organization, I just think that this organization needs to cash in chips eventually and/or actually SPEND MONEY. Not on Adam LaRoche or some other dojji pick, but on pedigree.

 

Now you really expect me to believe what you said back then about not trying to make this a Teixeira argument? You've been talking around Teixeira since your first post in this thread. In fact you're deliberately staging an inquest on my position on Teixeira in the guise of discussing Beltre, which suggests to me that the real reason you're in here has zero to do with Adrian Beltre, or the next 1B for the Sox whoever he might be.

 

The fact is that we weren't getting Mark Teixeira. The Yankees had a gap at 1B and were prepared to not let us beat them to the guy. The Yankees were well primed to write him a blank check and we weren't going to be able to go as far as they were. It's just what it is. That's the other thing I was saying at the time.

 

Half the reason I argued against Teixeira last year was because I saw the situation, with MY FORESIGHT, and made the obvious conclusion about which way the wind was blowing and did not let myself get caught up emotionally in the vain pursuit of a player was not ever, EVER coming to Boston except as a competitor.

[ORS]

As long as a guy isn't a disaster covering his position' date=' there's only so much more you can gain out of good defense at the corners. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but I'm saying that it's more important to have great offense and an adequate glove than the reverse.[/quote']

Actually, the opposite is true. If you are talking about a 1 for 1 run value tradeoff, it's better to limit opponent scoring than it is to increase your scoring. Think about it in terms of the Pythagorean W/L record, and suppose the baseline is 800 runs scored.

 

If you score 800 and give up 800, you should win 50% of your games.

 

If you score 850 and give up 800, you should win 53.0% of your games.

 

If you score 800 and give up 750, you should win 53.2% of your games.

 

The smaller the tradeoff, the smaller the impact. However, as the baseline decreases, the impact increases with a static tradeoff. Either way, the assumption was wrong.

[Dojji]

But the best place to do that isn't necessarily the corners, which is why I tried to be specific about that.

[ORS]

Well, the run production / run prevention relationship is blind to position. I'll agree that it is harder to find defensive prowess at a corner that can trade on a 1 for 1 basis with offensive production variation, but it shouldn't be discounted when it does just because it's at a corner.

[Paradisecity]

Now you really expect me to believe what you said back then about not trying to make this a Teixeira argument? You've been talking around Teixeira since your first post in this thread. In fact you're deliberately staging an inquest on my position on Teixeira in the guise of discussing Beltre, which suggests to me that the real reason you're in here has zero to do with Adrian Beltre, or the next 1B for the Sox whoever he might be.

 

The fact is that we weren't getting Mark Teixeira. The Yankees had a gap at 1B and were prepared to not let us beat them to the guy. The Yankees were well primed to write him a blank check and we weren't going to be able to go as far as they were. It's just what it is. That's the other thing I was saying at the time.

 

Half the reason I argued against Teixeira last year was because I saw the situation, with MY FORESIGHT, and made the obvious conclusion about which way the wind was blowing and did not let myself get caught up emotionally in the vain pursuit of a player was not ever, EVER coming to Boston except as a competitor.

 

 

No. This isn't about Mark Teixeira. I was using the logic you used in disagreeing with signing him (since we have plenty of discussion on him saved) to question what exactly you want the sox to do now? The concept of spending to get the great player they need doesn't match your logic from a year ago (which is my opinion, and you are saying im mischaracterizing), which is why I brought it up, and now we've gone full circle.