2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[a700hitter]

The funny part is that if the Sox were trying to prove that Fister was virtually unavailable because the asking price was too high' date=' [i']why would they choose Weiland, Kalish and two low level prospects?[/i] Most fans don't know who Kalish is. Many (including you) might still have made the deal (again, based on hindsight).

 

If they were making it up, why not say "they were asking for Iglesias, Weiland, Kalish and Lavarnway" to just seal the deal? Or "Ranaudo, Kalish and Bryce Brentz"? There's plenty of deals that could be absolute locks according to anyone.

 

Weiland and Kalish and low-level ++ is only unacceptable to the informed. Joe-Red-Sox doesn't care about any of those players at this point and sees Fister as the potential savior...

The funny part is that you didn't answer the question.

[example1]

The funny part is that you didn't answer the question.

 

You weren't asking me.

 

You want to know why reporters tend to treat most inside sources as anonymous regardless of subject matter? Really?

[a700hitter]

You weren't asking me.

 

You want to know why reporters tend to treat most inside sources as anonymous regardless of subject matter? Really?

They quote them unless the conversation is off the record. Why would the etiquette in these situations be off the record.. really? Now, I am asking you.

[SoxSport]

I got the impression that Theo didn't want to trade any top prospects at the deadline. That's why he got outbid in a couple of deals. I think he felt they had enough to get to the playoffs. He was mistaken.

 

Pence, for example, wasn't a top priority, but he was a great fit long range in RF. And the real sparkplug they are short of--except for Pedey. Plus the RHD power bat they need to balance the lineup.

 

Has Theo gone stale after 8 years? Maybe so.

[example1]

They quote them unless the conversation is off the record. Why would the etiquette in these situations be off the record.. really? Now' date=' I am asking you.[/quote']

 

When do they quote specific FO members about deals that didn't happen? When was the last time you had Theo or Charrington say "yeah, they wanted Kalish and Bard for so and so"? It seems few and far between. Gammons, Edes, Bradford, etc., don't say anything like that about specific non-Red Sox players.

 

The etiquette in general is that you don't discuss specific players who may or may not be traded so when those discussions do happen the organization member who is talking doesn't want their name out there. Seems pretty simple to me.

[a700hitter]

When do they quote specific FO members about deals that didn't happen? When was the last time you had Theo or Charrington say "yeah, they wanted Kalish and Bard for so and so"? It seems few and far between. Gammons, Edes, Bradford, etc., don't say anything like that about specific non-Red Sox players.

 

The etiquette in general is that you don't discuss specific players who may or may not be traded so when those discussions do happen the organization member who is talking doesn't want their name out there. Seems pretty simple to me.

Not only doesn't this answer the question, but it doesn't even make sense. What are you saying? They put the names of the players out their on anonymous basis because to quote you "so when those discussions do happen the organization member who is talking doesn't want their name out there." Huh?

[Palodios]

...and it's done that way to CYA and provide both teams with deniability. That's the reason for the etiquette. If you disagree' date=' tell me the reason for doing it on a no-names basis. What the reason why that is the etiquette? The answer is not "well, that's just the way it is done." It's done that way for a reason. What's the reason?[/quote']

 

You can't be serious. There are several reasons. It is about respecting the decisions of other organizations, for one. And it is about respecting the players. There is no reason to come out and talk about players who may be traded, because then they may feel uneasy about the possibility of moving to another organization, and feel less obliged to the Red Sox later, or perform poorly because of it. I understand they are grown men, but how would you feel if your boss told you that there was a chance that they wanted you to move across the country? Humans have emotions-- sometimes they don't last more than a few days, but they are there.

 

Look what happened to Ellsbury, he explicitly mentioned he was bitter about possibly being traded, and some of the other things that happened to him, so he's waiting them out until free agency.

[a700hitter]

You can't be serious. There are several reasons. It is about respecting the decisions of other organizations' date='[/b'] for one. And it is about respecting the players. There is no reason to come out and talk about players who may be traded, because then they may feel uneasy about the possibility of moving to another organization, and feel less obliged to the Red Sox later, or perform poorly because of it. I understand they are grown men, but how would you feel if your boss told you that there was a chance that they wanted you to move across the country? Humans have emotions-- sometimes they don't last more than a few days, but they are there.

 

Look what happened to Ellsbury, he explicitly mentioned he was bitter about possibly being traded, and some of the other things that happened to him, so he's waiting them out until free agency.

You can't be serious. How does deliberately leaking the information on an anonymous basis achieve those things in bold? It doesn't. Seriously, you guys are disappointing me.

[Palodios]

How does deliberately leaking the information on an anonymous basis achieve those things in bold?

 

You answered your own question earlier. Deniability.

[example1]

Not only doesn't this answer the question' date=' but it doesn't even make sense. What are you saying? They put the names of the players out their on anonymous basis because to quote you "so when those discussions do happen the organization member who is talking doesn't want their name out there." Huh?[/quote']

 

We have this same damn discussion every year, and every year it seems like nothing but a conspiratorial diversion. The organizational member doesn't want to be identified. The writer with the story doesn't want to lose the trust of the organization or that particular member. Ergo, the person who spoke isn't identified... which is not shocking or demanded because organizational members are hardly ever identified when discussing trades that didn't happen.

 

That doesn't mean that what the organization member is saying is a lie, as you would like it to be. You are so freaking conspiratorial in your view of everyone that it is very hard to make sense to you.

 

I think the better question than the entire basis of anonymous sources in reporting in general, is why would the anonymous source fabricate a lie around two players who are of marginal value to most fans? How does that make sense?

 

Even you, who knows about Kalish and presumably were at least partially impressed by him in the past, would say that Fister might have been worth it. Why not fabricate a better lie, as long as they are fabricating for CYA? Why not say "They asked for Bard and Ranaudo"?

[a700hitter]

You answered your own question earlier. Deniability.

Thank you, and that is precisely why I put no stock in it.

[a700hitter]

We have this same damn discussion every year, and every year it seems like nothing but a conspiratorial diversion. The organizational member doesn't want to be identified. The writer with the story doesn't want to lose the trust of the organization or that particular member. Ergo, the person who spoke isn't identified... which is not shocking or demanded because organizational members are hardly ever identified when discussing trades that didn't happen.

 

That doesn't mean that what the organization member is saying is a lie, as you would like it to be. You are so freaking conspiratorial in your view of everyone that it is very hard to make sense to you.

You are missing the point. The writer always asks if they can quote the source or the source tells them up front that the conversation is off the record. Obviously, if they say it is off the record, they will protect the identity or lose the trust of the source. If the source says they can be quoted, they get quoted, because obviously a story with a named source has more credibility. That is not the call of the writer. It is the call made by the source. You have it all bollixed up. It's not the writer's intent that is important. I am asking why the organization source would want to be anonymous? I am still waiting for an answer.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't say it was a lie. It is CYA whether it's true or a lie. That's why it was put out there-- to make the FO look better. Read my prior posts. I said that it might be true or it might not be true. Until it has a name attached to it or it is confirmed by Seattle, I put no stock in it.

[CySox]

This is my humble suggestion for the off-season.

 

1. Sign a good, solid middle rotation starting pitcher. I like CJ Wilson and Mark Buehrle, although Buehrle would likely cost a couple million dollars more than Wilson.

 

2. Re-sign Papalbon. He had a great year and Daniel Bard didn't exactly instil confidence in his ability to close games with his performance in September. If Pap gets away in free agency or even if the Front Office just has a hole in their wallet, pursue Heath Bell, but this may not be necessary because Bobby Jenks will almost certainly pitch in more games in 2012 than 2011.

 

3. Re-sign Ortiz. Yes, he's going to be 36, but he is a big part of that locker room and had an excellent year in 2011.

 

4. Sign a 3B. I know we have Youkilis but he hasn't made it through a whole season in the last two years and I'm not confident he will in 2012 either. So by signing a 3B, Youkilis can platoon with Reddick in RF and with Ortiz at DH as well as providing a few spot starts at 3B and 1B. I like Albert Pujols or Aramis Ramirez here.

 

When all is said and done the lineup will look something like this:

1. Ellsbury CF

2. Pedroia 2B

3. Gonzalez 1B

4. Pujols 3B

5. Ortiz DH

6. Youkilis RF

7. Crawford LF

8. Saltalamacchia C

9. Scutaro SS

 

Bench: Lavarnway, Lowrie, Reddick, Kalish

 

Rotation:

1. Beckett

2. Lester

3. Buckholz

4. Wilson

5. Lackey

 

Bullpen: Papelbon, Bard, Jenks, Morales, Albers, Aceves, Weiland

 

All for a grand total of around $190 million. Most of the $20 million dollar increase from last season would be from signing Albert Pujols to a deal comparable to Gonzalez's.

[jacksonianmarch]

Wilson is a top of the rotation pitcher who will likely get close to 100 million dollars

[example1]

You are missing the point. The writer always asks if they can quote the source or the source tells them up front that the conversation is off the record. Obviously' date=' if they say it is off the record, they will protect the identity or lose the trust of the source. If the source says they can be quoted, they get quoted, because obviously a story with a named source has more credibility. That is not the call of the writer. It is the call made by the source. You have it all bollixed up. It's not the writer's intent that is important. I am asking why the organization source would want to be anonymous? I am still waiting for an answer. [/quote']

 

Why don't you ask the writer? The main reason I can think of is that the source wouldn't want the Sox brass to know that they are revealing details of negotiations to the press, or because they don't want Seattle to know that negotiations that are supposed to be secret are not secret, due to the loose lips of Ben Charrington or Theo Epstein or whoever else it might be. It could also be annonymous because the source is bad or someone that nobody would know. There's plenty of reasons.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't say it was a lie. It is CYA whether it's true or a lie. That's why it was put out there-- to make the FO look better. Read my prior posts. I said that it might be true or it might not be true. Until it has a name attached to it or it is confirmed by Seattle, I put no stock in it.

 

There's nothing incredible about this proposed deal. Covering their ass for not trading a real 5 tool prospect for a marginal starter? Who even cares enough to get worked up about this?

[a700hitter]

Why don't you ask the writer? The main reason I can think of is that the source wouldn't want the Sox brass to know that they are revealing details of negotiations to the press' date='[/quote']

If they are someone low enough on the food chain that they would have this concern, they are not a credible source. If it is Theo or LL, they would have no such concern. If it is someone under them, the Sox have been very good about keeping information from leaking in recent years. No one would risk their job for this stupid tidbit, so it was obviously planted with the approval of the organization.

 

or because they don't want Seattle to know that negotiations that are supposed to be secret are not secret' date=' due to the loose lips of Ben Charrington or Theo Epstein or whoever else it might be.[/quote']Leaking it anonymously doesn't help.

It could also be annonymous because the source is bad or someone that nobody would know. There's plenty of reasons.

Yet another reason not to give credence to the story.

 

There's nothing incredible about this proposed deal. Covering their ass for not trading a real 5 tool prospect for a marginal starter? Who even cares enough to get worked up about this?

They are covering their ass for not getting enough pitching help, not for "not trading a real 5 tool prospect." Are you even making an attempt to understand what we are discussing here? They float the usual stories from unnamed sources that the guys they didn't get to help the team were too expensive. That's the CYA. It's the usual MO.

[jung]

Man I know we look at our own Sox with more than mild irritation at their inability to come through in the clutch either at the plate or on the mound.

 

However looking at these last several critical games of various division series, I am more inclined to indict the modern ballplayer that simply does not for one thing approach hitting with much intelligence. Even if you want, take Howard and his last at bat, the last gasp of the Phillies against Carpenter in the 5th and final game as it makes for a good example. Howard takes ball one and is up in the count 1-0. He then swings at the next pitch which started on the inner half and was riding in on his hands. It finished inside and had he let it go it would have left him up 2-0 in the count. There was a time when a batter would have laid off that pitch for no other reason than it was clearly either on the edge of the plate or off the plate and he was already up in the count. Howard swings at the next pitch which is a strike but is a pitchers pitch which I am inclined to think he felt he had to swing at because if he let it go by he would have been down in the count at that point 1-2 instead of up in the count 2-1 anyway. Actually there was a time when a hitter would even have let that one go by as well because there was nothing he could have done with it but hit it foul or worse simply ground to the left side of the infield. Hitters had enough bat control and enough intelligence at the plate to take the chance that they could foul off good pitches until they got something they could get through the infield or if they were lucky enough drive somewhere. This was especially the case with the better hitters in baseball. As I am sure you guys are aware, he was soon recorded as the last out of the game feebly grounding another pitchers pitch to second base.

 

You could of course argue that Howard knew there were two outs and that his approach was homer or out. An argument that one could buy were it not for the fact that the entire Phillies team approached its plate appearances this night like a teenager on his first date with a high school cheerleader.

 

I would be willing to bet that Ted Williams could not watch a modern baseball game without putting his foot straight through the TV screen in protest to the idiocy of the modern baseball player particularly in the way he approaches his business at the plate.

 

It has gotten to the point where I don't wonder if it were possible for one manager and one team to play the game the way it was meant to be played, if they would not wear out opposing pitching staffs to such a degree that the rest of the league would be made to look silly in comparison. A guy takes one pitch these days and is deemed patient at the plate. I am not recommending that all first pitches should be taken. But all first pitches that are pitchers pitches should be taken and all second pitches when up on the count 1-0 that are not sweet to hit should be taken.

 

In fact there was one element of tonight's Phillies/Cards game that was reminiscent of the old days, the way the Cards defended the plate against Halliday in the early innings. Maybe LaRossa is the answer to at least some of our woes.

[example1]

If they are someone low enough on the food chain that they would have this concern' date=' they are not a credible source. If it is Theo or LL, they would have no such concern. If it is someone under them, the Sox have been very good about keeping information from leaking in recent years. No one would risk their job for this [b']stupid tidbit[/b], so it was obviously planted with the approval of the organization.

 

This pretty much sums up this whole discussion in my mind. "Stupid tidbit".

 

I have no reason to believe that Kalish and Weiland and two other minor leaguers wasn't exactly the type of package that Seattle would ask for, and Boston would turn down. It doesn't change my thinking about the season at all, and since you don't give it any credence it doesn't change your thinking either...

 

yet here we are, a full page later in discussion, continuing to talk about your theories about which press releases you will believe and why and talking about the typical CYA job by the FO, etc.,

 

I hope something newsworthy happens sometime soon...

[SoxSport]

Responding to Jung's post above, I agree ballplayers tend to swing at bad pitches in tense situations.

Howard is certainly not a very smart hitter. It's incredible the Phillies are paying him a fortune to hit .260.

You pay Pujols, but you don't pay a hitter like Howard.

 

The statistics people downplay batting average these days in deference to OBP and OPS. But Batting average is a measure of how good a hitter a guy is--not how good he is at forcing a walk. What happens when the ball hits the bat, and how often.

 

Having seen Ted Williams at bat many times, I will tell you that he had tremendous plate discipline.

He swung only at strikes--regardless of the situation, and got lots of intentional walks. As a result his OBP was huge. As was Babe Ruth's and Barry Bond's--for the same reasons. Is a walk a measure of how good a hitter a guy is? No. It's a measure of how good a batting eye he has. What he does when the ball hits the bat is another story, though his chances are much better if he swings only at strikes--as Williams so aptly showed in his book on hitting. "Get a good pitch to hit", but you got to know what is a good pitch.

 

Mantle, by the way, disagreed with Ted's philosophy. He was up there swinging for the fences every pitch--so he said. The situation dictated what he did. Ted never concerned himself with the situation.

[example1]

Good post SoxSport. Williams must have been awesome to see.

 

The elite hitters are guys who regardless of situation use their approach at the plate. It is also the measure of a good veteran. You can tell the guys who have made a habit of having those types of ABs, like Pedroia, who sometimes looks like he is stepping out of the box on the first pitch in order to take it at all costs. It is amazing how at such a high level of play the tactic of NOT swinging becomes so powerful. A guy like Carl Crawford--for all his other strengths--could really use that skill.

[jung]

Mantle, by the way, disagreed with Ted's philosophy. He was up there swinging for the fences every pitch--so he said.

 

Got to see Mantle bat more than Williams.

 

Mantle did go up there hacking hard at anything within his reach. Of course one thing we forget is that none of those guys came to the plate with modern batting helmets and the battle armor bicep to wrist and knee to ankles in some cases that the modern ball player comes to the plate with and pitchers were not normally warned or ejected for throwing at guys. So while Mantle was not a guy that made you think plate discipline, he did not stick his nose out there over the plate and therefore really could not cover the outer 3" of the plate. Nobody did back then. You were taking your life in your hands if you set up in the batters box such that you were taking the outer 3" away from the pitcher. Pitchers did not care who you were. You were going down, hard and they were pitching from the original mound height back then. As a hitter you hoped it tailed outside or if you had two strikes you tried to foul it off and live for another pitch. Plus while being somewhat undisciplined, Mantle never liked the idea of hitting a weak grounder or a weak pop fly to the opposite field a common occurrence if you went after a pitch like that. That in itself instilled something of an enforced plate discipline on everybody. But if Mantle could reach it with his natural swing he was swinging hard at it.

 

Berra was the guy that while not setting up so that he could reach the outer half naturally (as crazy as he was he still wanted to live past the current at bat), he would lunge out after a ball if he thought he could get the bat on it and he did have an uncanny ability to hit the ball hard someplace doing that even if the pitch was a tiny bit off the plate.

 

There is maybe one guy or two guys that comes along in a generation of hitters that has the combination of hand/eye coordination and quickness in the wrists that Mantle had. Maybe you get one guy in a lifetime that has all of that AND the natural strength that Mantle had. Williams was the hand/eye coordination, quickness of wrists and plate smarts guy to Mantle's raw power.

 

Makes ya' wonder who some of these guys (like Howard) think they are.....Mantle or Williams....NOT!!!!!

[a700hitter]

Got to see Mantle bat more than Williams.

 

Mantle did go up there hacking hard at anything within his reach. Of course one thing we forget is that none of those guys came to the plate with modern batting helmets and the battle armor bicep to wrist and knee to ankles in some cases that the modern ball player comes to the plate with and pitchers were not normally warned or ejected for throwing at guys. So while Mantle was not a guy that made you think plate discipline, he did not stick his nose out there over the plate and therefore really could not cover the outer 3" of the plate. Nobody did back then. You were taking your life in your hands if you set up in the batters box such that you were taking the outer 3" away from the pitcher. Pitchers did not care who you were. You were going down, hard and they were pitching from the original mound height back then. As a hitter you hoped it tailed outside or if you had two strikes you tried to foul it off and live for another pitch. Plus while being somewhat undisciplined, Mantle never liked the idea of hitting a weak grounder or a weak pop fly to the opposite field a common occurrence if you went after a pitch like that. That in itself instilled something of an enforced plate discipline on everybody. But if Mantle could reach it with his natural swing he was swinging hard at it.

 

Berra was the guy that while not setting up so that he could reach the outer half naturally (as crazy as he was he still wanted to live past the current at bat), he would lunge out after a ball if he thought he could get the bat on it and he did have an uncanny ability to hit the ball hard someplace doing that even if the pitch was a tiny bit off the plate.

 

There is maybe one guy or two guys that comes along in a generation of hitters that has the combination of hand/eye coordination and quickness in the wrists that Mantle had. Maybe you get one guy in a lifetime that has all of that AND the natural strength that Mantle had. Williams was the hand/eye coordination, quickness of wrists and plate smarts guy to Mantle's raw power.

 

Makes ya' wonder who some of these guys (like Howard) think they are.....Mantle or Williams....NOT!!!!!

You make some very good points. People who didn't see the game in the 50's or 60's just don't understand how different the game has become. Mantle was brute of a guy, but if you watched film of Yankee games back when he played you would see that Mantle didn't dig in like today's hitters. He swung harder than anyone and he would corkscrew himself into the ground on a swing and miss, but he was light on his feet in the box. They all were on their toes in the batters box. They had to be or the pitch would come under their chins.

 

One day a few years ago, I was listening to that Bozo, Chris Mad Dog Russo criticize the quality of play he had observed watching a film of the '52 World Series. He said that the defense was not that crisp and that even the star players bailed out on breaking pitchers. I called his show and mentioned that the infields were real dirt back then, not the multi million dollar composite material in today's infields. They actually had an occasional pebble. Those infields were not tended to by PHD's. The fielder's also had smaller gloves. As to the bailing out comment, I had to remind him that they were playing day games and they weren't wearing helmets. They stayed on their toes mindful that they could get one off the old noggin if they had dug in.

 

Today's players don't know how to get out of the way of a pitch. Those old timers knew how to avoid getting hit. Yaz swung as hard as anyone, but a pitcher couldn't hit him in the head. He said that he would move his head forward and duck under a pitch that was thrown behind his ear. Today's players dive into the pitch so early that they can't get out of the way if the pitch is thrown at them.

[a700hitter]

Wish list for 2012:

 

Manager: Tony La Russa

Pitching Coach: Dave Duncan

Starting Pitcher: C.J. Wilson

[VA Sox Fan]

Wish list for 2012:

 

Manager: Tony La Russa

Pitching Coach: Dave Duncan

Starting Pitcher: C.J. Wilson

 

What makes you think La Russa would want to leave St Louis?

[a700hitter]

What makes you think La Russa would want to leave St Louis?

It's a wish list.

[a700hitter]

What makes you think La Russa would want to leave St Louis?

Plus, I really don't want LaRussa. It's Duncan that I want.

[VA Sox Fan]

Plus' date=' I really don't want LaRussa. It's Duncan that I want.[/quote']

 

Good because it wouldn't happen. Also I would not want him, at all.

[a700hitter]

Good because it wouldn't happen. Also I would not want him, at all.

What about Duncan? He seems to perform magic on pitchers. He has turned many bags of trash pitchers into productive starters, and we have lots of bags of trash.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Here's a few things I'd like to see happen this offseason(In no particular order)

 

1) Get CJ Wilson - There was too much pressure on Lester and Beckett IMO especially with Buchholz going down. Not sure how Buchholz and Dice-K will perform next year with the 2011 injuries. Lackey is just a turd. I'm usually optimistic about our players but Lackey sucks ass.

2) Get rid of Bogar - He's an idiot. No need to explain.

3) Resign Papelbon and Ortiz - Not sure why anyone would disagree. If somehow we don't get Papelbon, get Heath Bell. Leave Bard as setup man.

4) Get rid of Wakefield - Much respect for the guy but time to hang em' up old guy. It's been a long career and you got your 200.

5) Dave Martinez for Red Sox manager - Don't think LaRussa will be leaving. Martinez is working under a great manager. White Sox got Robin Ventura so maybe we can get him.

6) Pick up Scutaro's option - No one will be pleading for Jed Lowrie now, am I right?

[a700hitter]

Here's a few things I'd like to see happen this offseason(In no particular order)

 

1) Get CJ Wilson - There was too much pressure on Lester and Beckett IMO especially with Buchholz going down. Not sure how Buchholz and Dice-K will perform next year with the 2011 injuries. Lackey is just a turd. I'm usually optimistic about our players but Lackey sucks ass.

2) Get rid of Bogar - He's an idiot. No need to explain.

3) Resign Papelbon and Ortiz - Not sure why anyone would disagree. If somehow we don't get Papelbon, get Heath Bell. Leave Bard as setup man.

4) Get rid of Wakefield - Much respect for the guy but time to hang em' up old guy. It's been a long career and you got your 200.

5) Dave Martinez for Red Sox manager - Don't think LaRussa will be leaving. Martinez is working under a great manager. White Sox got Robin Ventura so maybe we can get him.

6) Pick up Scutaro's option - No one will be pleading for Jed Lowrie now, am I right?

I like your list. I don't know much about Dave Martinez, except that he was a pretty heady ballplayer.