The Official 2011 Red Sox Injury Thread.

[SoxFanForsyth]

So....hey has anyone seen Black Swan? I hear Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman have a sex scene.

[Dipre]

So....hey has anyone seen Black Swan? I hear Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman have a sex scene.

 

I'd love to go see it, but it'd take away time from my Palodios chasing, and we can't have that now, can we?

 

Now if you'll excuse me, i have to go bore myself to death preparing a presentation about the need for balance between political appointees and civil servants in government agencies.

 

I'll be back later for more Palodios chasing and perhaps some baseball discussion on the side.

 

(Mila Kunis, yum).

[Northern Star]

So....hey has anyone seen Black Swan? I hear Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman have a sex scene.

 

As a veteran of Bound and Mulholland Dr. I look forward to seeing this.

[Spudboy]

This from Cafardo in today's Globe:

 

8. J.D. Drew, RF, Red Sox — He had some lingering hamstring issues this offseason and may be slowed up a tad to start spring training. The Sox have Ryan Kalish ready to go as Drew’s eventual replacement in right field, as this is the last season of Drew’s five-year, $72 million contract. He gave indications last spring that this could be his last year in baseball but backed off that when he felt healthy during the season. He still appears to have something left in the tank at age 35, going into his 14th season.

[Dojji]

If you didn't enjoy it' date=' you wouldn't write full page rants insulting me--among other posters-- and making it personal. I don't know why the other posters on this board don't seem to care that you're such an ******* to anyone with an opinion you find illogical, but quite frankly, I think you're a horrible human being.[/quote']

 

Don't bother. There's fights you can win, and then there's fights with Dipre. Whether you're actually right or not has less than nothing to do with it.

[Dojji]

This from Cafardo in today's Globe:

 

8. J.D. Drew, RF, Red Sox — He had some lingering hamstring issues this offseason and may be slowed up a tad to start spring training. The Sox have Ryan Kalish ready to go as Drew’s eventual replacement in right field, as this is the last season of Drew’s five-year, $72 million contract. He gave indications last spring that this could be his last year in baseball but backed off that when he felt healthy during the season. He still appears to have something left in the tank at age 35, going into his 14th season.

 

Yeah, Kalish's availability as a replacement really takes the sting out of any concern about Drew's health. Or, for that matter' Cameron's.

 

Add the fact that Reddick showed some signs of turning the corner towards the end of last year and Nava could at least fill in if the guy can't play for a few days, plus the fact that we just plain aren't in a position where we have to demand that Drew play at peak level anyway thanks to Crawford and Gonzalez, and I'm all kinds of not worried about Drew. He comes in and has an .850-.900 OPS season over 120 games played, all to the good. He comes in and has a .750 OPS, or misses significant time, then oh well, it was his last year anyway and we can work around that.

[Dipre]

I actually agree with most of your points, save for two things.

 

1) With such a LH lineup, a Kalish-for-Cameron trade-off doesn't make much sense, because he's an important RH bat, whereas Kalish is a lefty.

 

2) Please please please please please stop beating the Nava drum.

[Dipre]

By the way, i don't care what either you or Palodios think. Maybe if you took two seconds to think before you post i wouldn't call you out. Ooooh i made it personal!

 

Oh, and your incessant baiting is getting annoying.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Yeah, Kalish's availability as a replacement really takes the sting out of any concern about Drew's health. Or, for that matter' Cameron's.

 

Add the fact that Reddick showed some signs of turning the corner towards the end of last year and Nava could at least fill in if the guy can't play for a few days, plus the fact that we just plain aren't in a position where we have to demand that Drew play at peak level anyway thanks to Crawford and Gonzalez, and I'm all kinds of not worried about Drew. He comes in and has an .850-.900 OPS season over 120 games played, all to the good. He comes in and has a .750 OPS, or misses significant time, then oh well, it was his last year anyway and we can work around that.

 

Surprisingly, Drew has had an easy offseason off in terms of worrying by Sox fans. One thing that I think is going to benefit Drew incredibly this year is sitting him vs solid to tough lefties. He'll still get his 130 games in this year, but borderline platooning him with Cam will keep him healthy and productive.

 

When you platoon Drew and Cam, you get a RF that has a career .921 OPS vs RHP (Drew) and a guy in Cam who hasn't had an OPS vs LHP of less than .950 in the past 3 years.

 

I know a lot of people complain about JD Drew's salary and think if we're going to pay him 14mm, he needs to play more than 130 games. I completely, 110% disagree. To me, his contract is a sunk cost. Its in the past, we can't do anything about it now. All we can do now is maximize his contributions to the team, and that comes in the form of 120-130 games vs primarily RHP.

[Dipre]

Excuse me, but how is Drew a sunk cost?

 

I would like to be enlightened as it pertains to this line of thinking.

[italstallianion]

Technically, everyone on the team is a sunk cost unless they are traded. A sunk cost doesn't refer to one's worth, (although the intented implication may), but rather the fact that the expense is already incurred and (barring a trade or injury clause) cannot be undone.

[Dipre]

You know what he meant and what i'm asking wise-ass.

[Dojji]

In all actuality, he's right though, that's the definition of a sunk cost. The investment has been made, and now we have this guy, so the salary really shouldn't be that big a factor in the discussion. The only reason it has that other connotation is because the term generally comes up when we want to get rid of a guy, or when talking about, say, Daisuke's posting fee which we have no way of getting back.

[Dojji]

I actually agree with most of your points, save for two things.

 

1) With such a LH lineup, a Kalish-for-Cameron trade-off doesn't make much sense, because he's an important RH bat, whereas Kalish is a lefty.

 

2) Please please please please please stop beating the Nava drum.

Please stop talking like I am referring, or ever have referred, to Nava as a superstar hitter. I like his style, appreciate a guy who can overcome a percieved lack of talent to crack the roster out of indy ball, and think of him as an adequate offensive fill-in if needed, that's pretty much it. Maybe if you'd stop reacting so hilariously every time I bring the guy up I'd get bored of it.

 

I can't agree with 1 and 2 simultaneously anyway, because Nava's a factor in the Cameron question if only because he's our only minor league outfield depth that bats righthanded (switch hits, actually, but it's the righthanded side that's important). If Cameron goes down, Theo could go one of two ways -- call up the guy who can hit righthanded in a platoon and at least get on base, or go with maximum talent (Kalish) and have an all-lefty outfield. It's really a judgment call and either way, it's very likely Nava will be on the big league club for at least a game or two here and there depending on Cameron's health. So he is a factor, whether you consider him uninteresting or not.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Excuse me, but how is Drew a sunk cost?

 

I would like to be enlightened as it pertains to this line of thinking.

 

I never said JD Drew is a sunk cost. I said his contract is a sunk cost. Meaning we cannot go back and say "Hey Drew, you've played at about an $8mm level, so we're going to reduce your salary".

 

Everyone's contract on the team is a sunk cost, which is why I've never understood the mindset that you HAVE to play someone every single game because they're getting paid so much. If you get the most production out of a player by hitting them vs RHP and playing them 125 games, then regardless of their contract, by all means, play him 125 games and get maximum production out of the player.

 

Basically - if we're just paying Buchholz 425k this year, do we expect him to be a 6th inning middle reliever that posts a 4.27 ERA? No, not at all. Every year, payroll is a sunk cost once the season begins. You can't change anything about it. Contracts are set. Money is guaranteed barring a trade. So at that point, you make your team the best it can be regardless of how much each player is being paid.

 

I never said that JD Drew, as a player, is a sunk cost. Not even close. Please read my posts before putting words in my mouth.

[SoxFanForsyth]

@ Dipre, just to further prove my point, since I'm sure you won't admit to being wrong.

 

Surprisingly, Drew has had an easy offseason off in terms of worrying by Sox fans. One thing that I think is going to benefit Drew incredibly this year is sitting him vs solid to tough lefties. He'll still get his 130 games in this year, but borderline platooning him with Cam will keep him healthy and productive.

 

When you platoon Drew and Cam, you get a RF that has a career .921 OPS vs RHP (Drew) and a guy in Cam who hasn't had an OPS vs LHP of less than .950 in the past 3 years.

 

I know a lot of people complain about JD Drew's salary and think if we're going to pay him 14mm, he needs to play more than 130 games. I completely, 110% disagree. To me, his contract is a sunk cost. Its in the past, we can't do anything about it now. All we can do now is maximize his contributions to the team, and that comes in the form of 120-130 games vs primarily RHP.

 

I literally have looked over this multiple times and cannot fathom how you could possibly ever consider this to say "JD Drew is a sunk cost". I was literally as clear and articulate as I could ever possibly be about it being specifically his contract that is a sunk cost. It's incredibly aggravating when I write something, you question it, someone answers you with exactly what I wrote (basically), and then you say "That's not what he meant"

[Dipre]

Wait, what?

 

All i asked was why you thought his contract was a "sunk cost". Because that's literally what you said: "To me, his contract is a sunk cost".

 

There could have been multiple explanations as to why you could have said that, one being the literal definition of sunk cost, maybe you thought he didn't play enough, or didn't produce enough, maybe you don't like the fact that he doesn't have "grit" like Trot Nixon did. How would i know?

 

That's all i asked. Way to be a drama queen.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Excuse me' date=' but [b']how is Drew a sunk cost?[/b]

 

I would like to be enlightened as it pertains to this line of thinking.

 

Technically' date=' everyone on the team is a sunk cost unless they are traded. A sunk cost doesn't refer to one's worth, (although the intented implication may), but rather the fact that the expense is already incurred and (barring a trade or injury clause) cannot be undone.[/quote']

 

You know what he meant and what i'm asking wise-ass.

 

First - you asked how Drew is a sunk cost. Then Italian told you exactly what I meant. Then you claimed that's not what I was saying.

 

You were being a pretty big smartass to only be truly asking what my real opinion about the matter was.

[Dipre]

In the final post, what i wanted to say was: "You don't know what he meant, but you know why i ask".

 

And the reason i asked is because Drew is an oft-discussed topic in this board. Some people think he's the most overpaid player in Red Sox history; some people think he's a nice player, but way overpaid; some people, like me, actually like the guy.

 

He's been referred to as a "sunk cost" before in more than one instance in what you may consider an incorrect manner (or correct, depending on who you ask, because some argue that sunk costs actually don't exist, and would rather call them "minimal return on investment"). So i wanted to know what you meant.

 

But thanks for the rant.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well I haven't seen him discussed on this board before since I just joined and it's been all Gonzo/Crawford. Other than last year, I'm ok with his contract, I don't mind paying a guy $14mm if he gets on base 40% of the time. To me, OBP is an incredibly undervalued aspect of the game, plus he puts up 20+HR and 80+ RBI's a year, crushes righties.

 

All I was saying was that his contract has already been signed, I'm tired of hearing people cry about it every offseason. If we pay him too much, it's marginally too much. But it doesn't matter. Now we need to worry about getting max production from him.

[Dipre]

What does "being right or wrong" have to do with it?

 

You made a statement, i asked what you meant. I'm not inside your head to know exactly what you mean, which is why i asked, instead of making an assumption, because the term has been used before to declare Drew a "bust".

 

I would have used my mind-reading crystal ball, but it broke the last time i tried to read Mick Jagger's mind to know how many surgeries he's actually had.

[SoxFanForsyth]

What does "being right or wrong" have to do with it?

 

You made a statement, i asked what you meant. I'm not inside your head to know exactly what you mean, which is why i asked, instead of making an assumption, because the term has been used before to declare Drew a "bust".

 

I would have used my mind-reading crystal ball, but it broke the last time i tried to read Mick Jagger's mind to know how many surgeries he's actually had.

 

I edited that post because I took a while to write it because I'm at work, and by the time it posted, you had written something else so I just decided to axe it.

 

Doesn't matter. What you wrote came across as being a smart ass comment in that I was stupid for calling JD Drew's contract a sunk cost, but if that's not how you meant for it to be conveyed, then that's fine no big deal.

[Dipre]

A guy who used to post here a lot more (TheKilo) used to say that "JD Drew is the litmus test for baseball fans" because there are people who don't believe in the importance of OBP and/or defense, and that a player shouldn't be paid based on those two factors, and that people who thought like that don't understand the way the game has evolved over the years.

 

I agree with that sentiment.

 

The reason why i asked what you meant is because you don't strike as an "OBP is overrated" kinda guy, so i wanted to make sure what you meant before engaging in typical Drew discussion.

 

On the topic of sunk cost, i am of the idea that "sunk cost" as referencing to money you can't get back in an investment, is an incorrect term, because you usually (directly or indirectly) receive a ROI from invested revenue, so it's either "minimal" or "uncertain" ,however, i am in the minority of the people who think that way, and i have even used the term several times to describe why relievers shouldn't receive long-term contracts.

 

And since i'm in the minority of the people who accept the alternate definition, chances are, i'm wrong about it. See? I admitted i was wrong. Now you can sleep better at night.

[SoxFanForsyth]

A guy who used to post here a lot more (TheKilo) used to say that "JD Drew is the litmus test for baseball fans" because there are people who don't believe in the importance of OBP and/or defense, and that a player shouldn't be paid based on those two factors, and that people who thought like that don't understand the way the game has evolved over the years.

 

I agree with that sentiment.

 

The reason why i asked what you meant is because you don't strike as an "OBP is overrated" kinda guy, so i wanted to make sure what you meant before engaging in typical Drew discussion.

 

On the topic of sunk cost, i am of the idea that "sunk cost" as referencing to money you can't get back in an investment, is an incorrect term, because you usually (directly or indirectly) receive a ROI from invested revenue, so it's either "minimal" or "uncertain" ,however, i am in the minority of the people who think that way, and i have even used the term several times to describe why relievers shouldn't receive long-term contracts.

 

And since i'm in the minority of the people who accept the alternate definition, chances are, i'm wrong about it. See? I admitted i was wrong. Now you can sleep better at night.

 

How do I put this as my sig? :thumbsup:

 

No but I understand - OBP and defense aren't your typical attractive stats like HR, RBI, Avg, etc.

 

On the topic of sunk cost - what you're describing sounds more like realized gains or losses. You've got a $70mm sunk cost invested. But, you've received (according to Fangraphs) $57.1mm in terms of production from Drew over the first 4 years of his contract. So far, you've paid $56mm of the $70mm contract, so, essentially, you've realized a $1.1mm gain (or 2% ROI) on the investment in Drew. So while you've sunk $70mm of cost into him, you can still see an ROI.

 

From what I understand, that sounds more like what you're talking about than the term "sunk cost".

[Dojji]

I was a dismal failure in the one accounting class I ever took, but that sounds right to me. Cost being an independent factor, as in you're always going to spend what it costs to start a process rolling in the hopes that it'll be balanced by earnings. Cost and profit can definitely coexist. Now if he was calling Drew as "sunk loss' then there'f be some reason to steam about it.

[AtWork]

Hey look, an injury thread!

 

Perhaps here would be a good place to discuss the backs of Youk and Buchholz, the heal of Ortiz, the shoulder of Drew and the rehab assignments of Kalish, Doubront and Tazawa.

[SoxSport]

Speaking of injuries, everybody's wondering where AdGon's power has gone. 1 HR since the all-star break. Doesn't Ells have more HRs now than AdGon?

 

Jasper/Dupont over at the Globe wonder if his shoulder is bothering him. That qualifies for this thread.

 

It's either his shoulder or the all-star HR hitting contest--which has "robbed" more than one contestant lately of 2nd half power. Corked bats? corked balls? The ESPN crew let that slip a couple of years ago.

All for entertainment? Maybe it throws their timing off.

[SoxFanForsyth]

It's Gonzo's neck. They've come out and talked about it I believe.

[SoxSport]

AdGon isn't the only guy to come out of that HR contest into a HR drought.

 

You wonder if making it too easy in that contest makes it harder afterwards.

[ORS]

AdGon isn't the only guy to come out of that HR contest into a HR drought.

 

You wonder if making it too easy in that contest makes it harder afterwards.

They did a study about this and found that approximately 50% of the participants did worse in HR production in the 2nd half, and approximately 50% did better. In other words, it's very unlikely that the HR Derby is responsible for any impact on actual performance. There's smoke, but there isn't a fire.