2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Spitball]

He doesn't miss bats, and he puts up an unimpressive whip. I suppose as a depth he makes some sense, but he isn't much more than that...and at more than $8 million.

 

I think we are hoping for better than Saunders.

[seabeachfred]

Ortiz' date=' Millar, Muellar, Beltre, etc...[/quote']

 

Interesting for you to bring that up MVP, and yes you can you got me good with those names, but keep in ind that Ortiz, Mueller and Millar were all signed before the 2003 season. Pretty much after that there weren't too many free agent signings that bore fruit with a notable exception being Curt Schilling who was signed later that year along with Keith Foulke, but I could also mention Clement, Meredith, Jason Johnson, Julio Lugo, etc, who were not good signings. I just happen to believe that all in all Epstein's free agent signings were pretty much a debacle after 2003.

[seabeachfred]

Epstink and FrancoMa were here for 2 WS titles. Some people need to get over the sour grapes.

 

In the game of baseball MVP it's the old saying of WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY, and lately the Red Sox have been one big lemon, 2009-2010-2011, and we should have won the AL in 2008 and would have if we had a manager who could change his pre game script when conditions changed---which, of course, we didn't. That's four years without a title of any kind, division, AL or WS. I would think that would be unacceptable to you because it sure as hell is unacceptable to me and others.

 

If you use the mantra of 86 years between titles, your argument is on a solid foundation, but some of us think that from 2004 on we were or should have been on a course of making up for lost time. Another title in 2007 (my favorite team BTW) was fine but we should have been in at least another World Series by now, certainly at least an AL East or AL Title but we have won nothing. You might not call that failure but I sure as hell don't call that success either.

[seabeachfred]

I'd rather Saunders than Andrew Miller.

 

Well we agree on this at least. Frankly MVP, I cannot understand how they could sign this guy in the first place. His mechanics are abominable, his control worse, and when he lays it in there he becomes a human pinata. I just heard of these Saunders rumors but he once was a pretty good pitcher for the Angels. I would certainly take a chance with him....and over Miller anytime.

[Meh]

He could be useful as a swingman, spot starter depth guy.[/quote)

 

Swingmen don't make 9 million...

[Bellhorn04]

I think the re-signing of Andrew Miller makes plenty of sense, though I trust they're not actually counting on him. It's a non-guaranteed deal which can cost at most a little over $1 million. We're getting a new pitching coach, maybe something can be salvaged from this guy yet. At the least maybe they can convert him to a decent reliever.

[Elktonnick]

I think the re-signing of Andrew Miller makes plenty of sense' date=' though I trust they're not actually counting on him. It's a non-guaranteed deal which can cost at most a little over $1 million. We're getting a new pitching coach, maybe something can be salvaged from this guy yet. At the least maybe they can convert him to a decent reliever.[/quote']

 

It might have made sense if it were the last thing done not the first!

[Palodios]

It might have made sense if it were the last thing done not the first!

 

What difference does it make? For a depth player practically at major league minimum, its fine. The market for lefthanded relievers is so incredibly small this year, that he might even have some trade value, although I hesitate to say that.

[SoxSport]

I think the re-signing of Andrew Miller makes plenty of sense' date=' though I trust they're not actually counting on him. It's a non-guaranteed deal which can cost at most a little over $1 million. We're getting a new pitching coach, maybe something can be salvaged from this guy yet. At the least maybe they can convert him to a decent reliever.[/quote']

 

Sure, it makes sense. As long as they don't trot him out start after start if he gets pounded.

 

He's a classic case of mismanagement in modern day baseball. Used to be a kid started out in the bullpen, and had to pitch his way out to the starting rotation. Not on the Red Sox. Maybe Valentine will straighten things out.

[jacksonianmarch]

Sox are going to have to get creative. Either they go after Edwin Jackson or make a humongous bid for Darvish (cause we know the Yankees are throwing a ton of money his way). After that, they are going to need to deal, and their system is pretty barren when it comes to high level prospects capable of snagging top of the rotation level starters. Maybe they just go the cheaper route and make a deal for a back end guy to stabilize the #4 spot and let Aceves make it in the 5 spot.

[mvp 78]

Interesting for you to bring that up MVP' date=' and yes you can you got me good with those names, but keep in ind that Ortiz, Mueller and Millar were all signed before the 2003 season. Pretty much after that there weren't too many free agent signings that bore fruit with a notable exception being Curt Schilling who was signed later that year along with Keith Foulke, but I could also mention Clement, Meredith, Jason Johnson, Julio Lugo, etc, who were not good signings. I just happen to believe that all in all Epstein's free agent signings were pretty much a debacle after 2003.[/quote']

 

Meredith was drafted by the Sox.

Clement was an All-star before getting hit in the face.

Jason Johnson was brought in as a stop gap 6th 7th starter type.

The only downer on the list was Lugo.

 

Was Theo's strength FA signings? Of course not. However, he was here for 2 titles that many people thought they'd die before seeing. He built a much improved farm system, especially in contrast to the Lou Gorman/DD days. Some of your posts and nicknames just really lack perspective on the past decade. You haven't been through lean years with this team. You should at least appreciate the past few years and get over the FrancoMa/Epstink nonsense.

[seabeachfred]

Sure, it makes sense. As long as they don't trot him out start after start if he gets pounded.

 

He's a classic case of mismanagement in modern day baseball. Used to be a kid started out in the bullpen, and had to pitch his way out to the starting rotation. Not on the Red Sox. Maybe Valentine will straighten things out.

 

We've seen that in the past, haven't we Sox Sport???? Remember Jason Johnson, circa 2006? He was a human pinata in every start he made for us that summer save one effort against I believe KC, yet he kept being trooped out there because Epstein insisted we might have a sleeper on our hands even though the Guardians had had their fill of him and let him go. How about Smoltz and Penny in 2009? By the summer of that year they were getting hammered every time out yet FrancoMa started those two boobs in crucial opening series games against the Yankees despite the fact they both could have been bypassed and Beckett and Lester used in their place since they were on full rest and ready to go. I needn't tell how those things worked out.

 

Call it over confidence in mediocrity or just plain stupidity but the Red Sox have this tendency to keep sending these battered has-beens out there until the damage has been enormous. This is what we might see in Miller. As Elktnnick said, Miller should have been a last signing this winter, not a first. And we still haven't done a damn thing to improve the team and we're almost in mid-December.

[seabeachfred]

Meredith was drafted by the Sox.

Clement was an All-star before getting hit in the face.

Jason Johnson was brought in as a stop gap 6th 7th starter type.

The only downer on the list was Lugo.

 

Was Theo's strength FA signings? Of course not. However, he was here for 2 titles that many people thought they'd die before seeing. He built a much improved farm system, especially in contrast to the Lou Gorman/DD days. Some of your posts and nicknames just really lack perspective on the past decade. You haven't been through lean years with this team. You should at least appreciate the past few years and get over the FrancoMa/Epstink nonsense.

 

No MVP, I haven't been a Red Sox fan as long as you have and wasn't around for those years you call lean. I know about them though and they weren't lean, they were miserable. I would call the past three seasons lean years, however. When you start winning you want to keep winning and frankly I thought after 2007 we were about to go on a magical run of real success. The last four seasons have been disappointing in that we have won nothing at all, not a division or a league title, let alone another WS, and this past season cannot be described as anything but miserable and disastrous. I wish it weren't so.

[mvp 78]

I think you'd be happier being a Yankees then. They are sure to win you more titles over the rest of your lifetime.

 

The Sox teams I grew up with didn't miss the playoffs by one game. Count your blessings.

[sleepyhollow]

Manny reinstated by MLB

[a700hitter]

 

Swingmen don't make 9 million...

He makes $9 million? Screw that!! We can do better than him.:thumbdown

[a700hitter]

I think you'd be happier being a Yankees then. They are sure to win you more titles over the rest of your lifetime.

 

The Sox teams I grew up with didn't miss the playoffs by one game. Count your blessings.

The Sox I grew up with missed the playoffs by 1 game and one time they even missed by half of a game. They also made the post season 8 times. This includes 3 trips to the World Series, 6 League or Division Championships (5 more than current ownership) and 2 Wild Card Trips all before current ownership took over the team. Five of those trips were prior to the existence of a Wild Card. If the Wild card had existed in the prior years, they would have had a few more post seasons. The Wild Card opportunity has made this ownership look much better in its record than it is. With no Wild Card like in the time when I grew up, this ownership would have made the post season once in 10 years. There's your perspective.

[example1]

The Sox I grew up with missed the playoffs by 1 game and one time they even missed by half of a game. They also made the post season 8 times. This includes 3 trips to the World Series' date=' 6 League or Division Championships (5 more than current ownership) and 2 Wild Card Trips all before current ownership took over the team. Five of those trips were prior to the existence of a Wild Card. If the Wild card had existed in the prior years, they would have had a few more post seasons. [b']The Wild Card opportunity has made this ownership look much better in its record than it is. [/b] With no Wild Card in the time when I grew up, this ownership would have made the post season once in 10 years. There's your perspective.

 

This ownership has won the 2nd most games of all teams in baseball during its tenure. That's not an inflated record, its a fact.

 

The existence of the wild card was a strategic reality for this team, meaning they didn't have to win the division. It simply didn't matter as much as entering the playoffs healthy. People may not like that, but it is also a fact about how this team strategized.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's another way to look at it. In the 10 years of the Henry ownership the Sox have reached 95 wins 6 times. In the prior 52 years they reached 95 wins 4 times.

[a700hitter]

This ownership has won the 2nd most games of all teams in baseball during its tenure. That's not an inflated record, its a fact.

 

The existence of the wild card was a strategic reality for this team, meaning they didn't have to win the division. It simply didn't matter as much as entering the playoffs healthy. People may not like that, but it is also a fact about how this team strategized.

I'm not hammering the current ownership. You always take things that way. I realize the things you are saying. I am, however, saying that the team that captured my interest in 1967 and kept it throughout the decades since was not a team of failure as some would like to think, but rather a very exciting, competitive and successful team for many of those years. The single thing with regard to which this ownership has completely outstripped its predecessors has been making money. They have turned this franchise into a huge financial success. It is for this reason why they must continually put out a successful, not just a competitive team. That is the byproduct of having created this huge financial enterprise.

[example1]

Also, I'm curious if you've thought about this as a percentage. You listed off the totals of their accomplishments during your fandom prior to this ownership. Would you mind presenting that as a percentage?

 

This ownership group has made the playoffs 6 times in 9 seasons.

 

Just a quick use of Excel shows that this ownership group has averaged 93 wins in 9 years.

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1994-2002)

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1986-1994)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1976-1985)

The previous 9 years averaged 88 wins. (1967-1975)

The previous 9 years averaged 73 wins. (1958-1966)

The previous 9 years averaged 84 wins. (1949-1957)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1939-1948)

 

Even when I cherry pick seasons to include the 9 best seasons around multiple 90 win runs it doesn't approach 93 wins:

(1975-1979): Best 9 years including those years: 1971-1979 averaged 89.7 (round to 90) wins

(1946-1950): Best 9 years including those years: 1946-1954 avearaged 87.6 (round to 88) wins

 

I don't see how any argument could be made that this team has ever had such a sustained period of success. This doesn't even mention the fact that they have won two world series in that time.

 

I think WINS are a much better barometer of success than playoff appearances. Wins are something the team can control. Playoff appearances depend on the play of other teams over the course of a season.

 

Hell, not counting 2007, this team has finished in first place 13 times. In those seasons, the team averaged FEWER wins than this current ownership has:

 

Average wins for 13 first place teams: 92.84

Average wins for 9 JH/TW/LL teams: 93.22

[example1]

I'm not hammering the current ownership. You always take things that way. I realize the things you are saying. I am' date=' however, saying that the team that captured my interest in 1967 and kept it throughout the decades since was not a team of failure as some would like to think, but rather a very exciting, competitive and successful team for many of those years. The single thing with regard to which this ownership has completely outstripped its predecessors has been making money. They have turned this franchise into a huge financial success. It is for this reason why they must continually put out a successful, not just a competitive team. That is the byproduct of having created this huge financial enterprise.[/quote']

 

From 1967-2002 the team averaged 85 wins, and made the playoffs in 8 out of 36 seasons.

 

I realize you aren't ripping on the current management, but you did enter the discussion seemingly in defense of seabeachfraud whining about the success of this team over the past few years. The point was that any longtime Red Sox fan should rightly see this as a period of great wealth for the franchise, not something to whine about.

 

They were not a laughingstock during your 36 years of fandom, and they aren't that now. Not even close.

[a700hitter]

Also, I'm curious if you've thought about this as a percentage. You listed off the totals of their accomplishments during your fandom prior to this ownership. Would you mind presenting that as a percentage?

 

This ownership group has made the playoffs 6 times in 9 seasons.

 

Just a quick use of Excel shows that this ownership group has averaged 93 wins in 9 years.

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1994-2002)

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1986-1994)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1976-1985)

The previous 9 years averaged 88 wins. (1967-1975)

The previous 9 years averaged 73 wins. (1958-1966)

The previous 9 years averaged 84 wins. (1949-1957)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1939-1948)

 

Even when I cherry pick seasons to include the 9 best seasons around multiple 90 win runs it doesn't approach 93 wins:

(1975-1979): Best 9 years including those years: 1971-1979 averaged 89.7 (round to 90) wins

(1946-1950): Best 9 years including those years: 1946-1954 avearaged 87.6 (round to 88) wins

 

I don't see how any argument could be made that this team has ever had such a sustained period of success. This doesn't even mention the fact that they have won two world series in that time.

 

I think WINS are a much better barometer of success than playoff appearances. Wins are something the team can control. Playoff appearances depend on the play of other teams over the course of a season.

 

Hell, not counting 2007, this team has finished in first place 13 times. In those seasons, the team averaged FEWER wins than this current ownership has:

 

Average wins for 13 first place teams: 92.84

Average wins for 9 JH/TW/LL teams: 93.22

Did you even bother to read my last post before posting this? As usual, you overreact to everything.

[a700hitter]

From 1967-2002 the team averaged 85 wins, and made the playoffs in 8 out of 36 seasons.

 

I realize you aren't ripping on the current management, but you did enter the discussion seemingly in defense of seabeachfraud whining about the success of this team over the past few years. The point was that any longtime Red Sox fan should rightly see this as a period of great wealth for the franchise, not something to whine about.

 

They were not a laughingstock during your 36 years of fandom, and they aren't that now. Not even close.

I never said that this ownership's tenure had been a laughingstock, but the last couple of years have been a big disappointment. As you have pointed out this has been a period of "great wealth" and because the Sox owners have built this huge financial enterprise, they (not us the fans) can't tolerate back to back years like 2010 and 2011 and follow it up with no playoffs in 2012. The brand they have built is one of excellence.

 

What happened in 2011 with the collapse hurt that brand whether you want to believe it or not, because it was a collapse that was not only unprecedented in Red Sox history but in the history of baseball. It was the reason why the owners cleaned house with regard to FO and onfield management. Whether you want to believe Theo was shown the door or not, in the words of Hawk Harrelson--"He gone!" Based on Ben's statement this week, they really have little interest in getting compensation for Theo.

 

It is because of the great pains that the current ownership has made in building this tremendous brand that I think they will build a team in 2012 that will return to the playoffs even if it means breaking the LT cap. Up to this point of the off season, the FO has made no moves in that direction. The moves that have been made are going in the wrong direction IMO. Until Ben & Cherries starts making moves in the right direction I will remain uneasy and upset about 2011. It was a disgrace and it did turn the Sox temporarily into a laughingstock as result of poor leadership and dysfunctional management.

[a700hitter]

Darren Oliver Keeping An Open Mind About 2012

By Mike Axisa [December 10, 2011 at 12:25pm CST]

 

Earlier this week it appeared as though Darren Oliver would be heading back to the Rangers next season, but that's not necessarily the case. ESPN's Jerry Crasnick says that Oliver is keeping an open mind about his 2012 destination, and he's drawing interest from the Red Sox and other clubs (Twitter links).

 

Oliver, 41, pitched to a 2.29 ERA in 51 innings this past season, striking out 44 and walking just 11. During his two most recent years in Texas, he's held left-handed batters to a .212/.250/.306 batting line with 66 strikeouts and just seven walks in 207 plate appearances. Oliver is one of the few remaining left-handed relievers on the free agent market.

Another possible under the radar move for Ben & Cherries?

[Palodios]

Another possible under the radar move for Ben & Cherries?

 

There are very few good lefthanded pitchers available. I worry that he will come with a price unfitting of a 41 year old, but he is one of those rare players that blossomed in his later years.

[Elktonnick]

What difference does it make? For a depth player practically at major league minimum' date=' its fine. The market for lefthanded relievers is so incredibly small this year, that he might even have some trade value, although I hesitate to say that.[/quote']

 

The problem with the Miler signing is it is further indication that Cherries doesn't have his priorities in order. I hope I am wrong but the Miller signing is classic approach-avoidance behavior. Cherrington appears to me to be an indecisive procrastinator. The Miller moves gives the appearnace of doing something positive when in reality it doesn't achieve anything.

[iortiz]

Also, I'm curious if you've thought about this as a percentage. You listed off the totals of their accomplishments during your fandom prior to this ownership. Would you mind presenting that as a percentage?

 

This ownership group has made the playoffs 6 times in 9 seasons.

 

Just a quick use of Excel shows that this ownership group has averaged 93 wins in 9 years.

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1994-2002)

The previous 9 years averaged 83 wins. (1986-1994)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1976-1985)

The previous 9 years averaged 88 wins. (1967-1975)

The previous 9 years averaged 73 wins. (1958-1966)

The previous 9 years averaged 84 wins. (1949-1957)

The previous 9 years averaged 85 wins. (1939-1948)

 

Even when I cherry pick seasons to include the 9 best seasons around multiple 90 win runs it doesn't approach 93 wins:

(1975-1979): Best 9 years including those years: 1971-1979 averaged 89.7 (round to 90) wins

(1946-1950): Best 9 years including those years: 1946-1954 avearaged 87.6 (round to 88) wins

 

I don't see how any argument could be made that this team has ever had such a sustained period of success. This doesn't even mention the fact that they have won two world series in that time.

 

I think WINS are a much better barometer of success than playoff appearances. Wins are something the team can control. Playoff appearances depend on the play of other teams over the course of a season.

 

Hell, not counting 2007, this team has finished in first place 13 times. In those seasons, the team averaged FEWER wins than this current ownership has:

 

Average wins for 13 first place teams: 92.84

Average wins for 9 JH/TW/LL teams: 93.22

 

Yes, wins is a good KPI in order to rate successful seasons in low/mid market teams. In large market teams, wins are not enough. Wins is not the correct barometer or KPI in order to call a season as successful in large market teams. ALCS/WS/Rings are. You can't ask/demand less to a large market team. They spend tons of money in order to build WS contender teams. Boston is one of those teams at least the last decade. ALCS/WS/Rings is the accurate KPI in order to even consider a season as susccesful in teams like Boston. Sorry, doesn't matter how you want to split those wins, it doesn't matter if you can't support them with making at least the ALCS. Even making the POs is not enough in orden to call a season as successful. That is understood or given that you have to achieve as minimal objective when a season begins, and still, it is not enough in order to call it as successful. Sorry, There's no other way to see it.

 

Hell, It's unacceptable that a team like TB with a 1/4 of your payroll has owned you, let's say, the last 4 years?.

[example1]

Did you even bother to read my last post before posting this? As usual' date=' you overreact to everything.[/quote']

 

First of all, I wrote that as an immediate addendum to my previous post and posted it before I would have had a chance to read your post.

 

Secondly, this wasn't specifically a reaction to you, though you might be part of the intended audience. I provided those numbers so that whenever someone tries to argue that the current group is insufficient, or some other nonsense--not just today but into the future--we would have at least one summary of their success compared to other eras for the red sox.

 

What you call an over reaction I call taking the time to actually look up the information. I wasn't around in the 60s and didn't know if the sox had ever had a 9 year period of 93 wins on average. I went to the trouble of looking it up and decided to share my findings for all to see. That's not an over reaction. If everyone else already knew the average wins over all those spans then I apologize for my ignorance. Otherwise I would posit that it was a useful frame for a discussion that happens seemingly too often here.

 

I actually really appreciated your comments about the team not sucking for all those years. Your history with the team is valuable.

[mvp 78]

Here's another way to look at it. In the 10 years of the Henry ownership the Sox have reached 95 wins 6 times. In the prior 52 years they reached 95 wins 4 times.

 

Doom! Gloom! This franchise has been run so horribly!

 

These are the golden days of Sox baseball. Let's try to enjoy it.