2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[jung]

I was talking about "all they needed" to achieve what a700 said would have been a baseline level of success, which would have kept the majority of "realists" here from their daily/hourly crusade.

 

Who gives a s*** about a "baseline level of success." Wanna' ask Tito what he thinks about a baseline level of success? Even as a fan I don't give a crap about a baseline level of success, not as a measure of success.

 

Ya' know this is in fact what disturbs me about baseball more than the other major sports. I love the game. I loved playing the game. I love watching the game. But the degree to which people dive into the minutia of baseball which appears to allow them to lose track of the one undeniable fact of major pro sports "teams" (not organizations) drives me nuts. I am even willing to accept what I cannot change....the fact that the owners of baseball organization or any pro sport are running businesses to which a team is merely an asset and those business agenda's may be different from mine as a fan and different from those players and coaches taking the field.

 

It is fun to talk about stats and who is marginally better than what. Do not distort what in fact is the goal of any healthy, pro sports team (to distinguish from organization) and even any organized sports team from high school on. Do not undervalue the one underlying goal that every one of them has and do not imply that anything less is considered success. You either win it all or you don't.

 

I will even happily talk to you about who is better than what. However I cannot tolerate the view that the goal is something other than what I know it to be and there is some level of "satisfaction" that is derived from anything less. Pleasure at watching the game played....sure there is that. Satisfaction is a different standard even for me as a fan and it surely was different as a player and should be different for every player taking the field and every coach coaching them.

[User Name]

If anything less than a WS is a failed season, then either i'm not understanding your context, or you have unrealistic expectations jung.

 

Don't take this as a slight, i'd just like to know what exactly you mean by the above post.

[a700hitter]

Now you are in stage 2. You commence to post funny things and ridicule others since you do not have solid arguments anymore. Wait, I remember.... you like to laugh at him. Is it your modus operandi? Will you pass to stage 3? Will you laugh at me?.

 

If you want to debate, we can do that. If you want to ridicule me, sorry but I'm not in.

I was just being sensitive and thin-skinned when he told me that he laughs at me not with me. I need to toughen up. Yeah right.

[ORS]

Yes circles. Sorry' date=' I have no clue what is your point anymore. You refuse to write it. You say that you are not in a desire. Instead you still saying this " I decided to end discussion with you because you lack the ability to recognize the legitimacy of those consequences". Those consequences are your opinion, I do not share your opinion. You have a lack of tolerance. It's not my job to teach you either.[/quote']

No, they aren't my opinion. They follow clear, logical lines of action/reaction. Let's recap....

 

You said they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010. There are two ways to do this (you tried splitting those 2 ways into 4 or 5, but there are really only two). One, is to have added depth (Farm and Depth I think are the categories you listed, but they are really both the same thing, Farm is part of Depth). Two, is to be better at limiting injuries (Conditioning and Medical Staff I think are the categories you listed, but both of these work toward the same goal, mitigating injury impact).

 

As to mitigating injury, the state of team conditioning was not in question during the 2010 offseason. If you'll remember, the most of the injuries that hampered the team in 2010 were not the type you associate with poor conditioning. They were impact injuries. Knowing what was known in the 2010 offseason, it is not reasonable to expect drastic changes in their conditioning approach. The problem was identified at a later date. I'll agree, the medical staff has been suspect for some time now, and better diagnosis could have identified problems with Lackey/Matsuzaka earlier than they did in 2011. However, those injuries could have just as easily escaped more qualified medical professionals. And, the most impactful injury to the 2011 pitching staff was Buchholz, whose injury occurred during the season. While I acknowledge change is needed here, I do not think it would have modified their preseason plans significantly.

 

As to depth, there was only one way to add depth in the 2010 offseason, and that was by adding more contingency players in the FA market.

 

This is what I found to be an unreasonable expectation. Adding to your contingency in response to an abnormal distribution of difficulties is how you screw up your ability to be competitive. In baseball, it's because you are using your limited resources for "what if" scenarios that most likely won't happen. In contracting, it's because you price yourself out of the competitive market. Etc, etc. Your contingency is modelled on your industry, risk, and goals. When you encounter an abnormal amount of difficulties, you don't change your model. When you encounter a normal amount of difficulties, and your contingency is incapable of dealing with it, then you modify your model. The amount of injuries they had to recover from in 2010 was an abnormal amount of difficulties. They lost their AS second baseman halfway through the season, their AS first baseman for 2 months, and one of their top 3 pitchers for a significant period of time.

 

This is the consequence I spoke about last night. You rejected it out of hand and did not provide a rebuttal. If you continue to reject it without rebuttal, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

 

No circles, I'm still right where I was last night.

[jung]

If anything less than a WS is a failed season, then either i'm not understanding your context, or you have unrealistic expectations jung.

 

Don't take this as a slight, i'd just like to know what exactly you mean by the above post.

 

I know there is no slight intended and none taken.

 

I mean that I am glad to talk to you about which player is marginally better than which player and even which team is better than which team but that those marginally difference in players and teams should not translate into a marginal view of what accounts for success for a team of players. You either win it all or you don't. Winning it all is success and not is failure.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

If your question is more one of context ala' organization vs team that is specifically why I made that distinction. I cannot change the fact that the teams are merely assets of the organization and that at least in pro sports the organizations are businesses.

 

So maybe I should take the organizational view a step farther in an effort to explain. The organization in pro sports is there to make money. Winning is only valued to the degree that it satisfies their ultimate goal of making money. Taken to an extreme, don't expect a for profit business like a pro team to make changes that improve its chance of winning unless there is an associated benefit with a reasonable chance to flow to the bottom line.

 

I don't accept the notion or expect that things like a "baseline level of success" on the field are valued anywhere. The "team" made up of players and coaches won't and should not give a damn and for a different set of reasons the owners/business organizations won't give a damn either.

 

This is a different topic and only tangentially relevant but In part there is a relationship here to my comments regarding disappointment when Management reaches down into Baseball Operations. While it might not be avoidable Management should not be surprised when its reach exceeds its grasp and at the extreme ends of consequence they end up with a team that is rotten to the core. That is not the only reason that the seed of rot might be implanted in a team but it is one of them.

 

Do I enjoy discussing the business aspects of pro baseball. Yes I do. But when I discuss the business aspects of pro baseball I do not have my fan hat on at all. So once again, even in that case, terms like baseline level of success really have no meaning for me (see above).

 

Another only tangentially relevant discussion is JH and his propensity to admire James and contemporary statistical merits in team building because none of those elements to team building are interested in pretty faces. They don't care if a player has a Hollywood smile or a body like Adonis.

The player either gets on base thus producing runs or he prevents guys from getting on base thus reducing runs (oversimplification... I know but you get my meaning). To me, JH owns an organization that regularly opts for style over substance....for marketing glitz over actual expectations for field performance. As has often been mentioned here, I think JH's view was at least more balanced toward winning earlier in his ownership than it is today. However I do not mean to imply that JH ever cared about winning any more than what was required to meet his true business objectives.

[iortiz]

No, they aren't my opinion. They follow clear, logical lines of action/reaction. Let's recap....

 

You said they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010. There are two ways to do this (you tried splitting those 2 ways into 4 or 5, but there are really only two). One, is to have added depth (Farm and Depth I think are the categories you listed, but they are really both the same thing, Farm is part of Depth). Two, is to be better at limiting injuries (Conditioning and Medical Staff I think are the categories you listed, but both of these work toward the same goal, mitigating injury impact).

 

As to mitigating injury, the state of team conditioning was not in question during the 2010 offseason. If you'll remember, the most of the injuries that hampered the team in 2010 were not the type you associate with poor conditioning. They were impact injuries. Knowing what was known in the 2010 offseason, it is not reasonable to expect drastic changes in their conditioning approach. The problem was identified at a later date. I'll agree, the medical staff has been suspect for some time now, and better diagnosis could have identified problems with Lackey/Matsuzaka earlier than they did in 2011. However, those injuries could have just as easily escaped more qualified medical professionals. And, the most impactful injury to the 2011 pitching staff was Buchholz, whose injury occurred during the season. While I acknowledge change is needed here, I do not think it would have modified their preseason plans significantly.

 

As to depth, there was only one way to add depth in the 2010 offseason, and that was by adding more contingency players in the FA market.

 

This is what I found to be an unreasonable expectation. Adding to your contingency in response to an abnormal distribution of difficulties is how you screw up your ability to be competitive. In baseball, it's because you are using your limited resources for "what if" scenarios that most likely won't happen. In contracting, it's because you price yourself out of the competitive market. Etc, etc. Your contingency is modelled on your industry, risk, and goals. When you encounter an abnormal amount of difficulties, you don't change your model. When you encounter a normal amount of difficulties, and your contingency is incapable of dealing with it, then you modify your model. The amount of injuries they had to recover from in 2010 was an abnormal amount of difficulties. They lost their AS second baseman halfway through the season, their AS first baseman for 2 months, and one of their top 3 pitchers for a significant period of time.

 

This is the consequence I spoke about last night. You rejected it out of hand and did not provide a rebuttal. If you continue to reject it without rebuttal, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

 

No circles, I'm still right where I was last night.

 

I see where the problem is. We are in different channels. You base all my argument (Injuries-No excuses) on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010". I encourage you to read the #5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568 post, since the board do not let me quote all those posts. Notice that the debate began when Palodios posted "Gammons reported that Lackey might need TJ surgery in June 2011".

 

The main point to me here is "Injuries are not an excuse". I've been saying that. They are not an excuse. We can't excuse the FO. I'm not sure what is your position on this, beyond the 2010 thing. To me, the 2010 thing is just an antecedent/fact to consider. Nevertheless I already made a whole analysis (read my posts). 2010 and 2011 should be antecedents/facts to consider in order to move forward and try to avoid this issue. They have made some decisions. They surly will make more. Are they going to work it out? did they make the correct decisions in order to absorb this issue? IMO those moves are not enough. We will have a huge risk. A lot of ifs and question marks. Only time will tell, but again, I encourage you to read my posts. (#5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568)

 

On the other hand, If you want to debate "Injuries-No excuses" based only on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010", that's another kind/nature of discussion.

[ORS]

I see where the problem is. We are in different channels. You base all my argument (Injuries-No excuses) on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010". I encourage you to read the #5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568 post, since the board do not let me quote all those posts. Notice that the debate began when Palodios

posted "Gammons reported that Lackey might need TJ surgery in June 2011".

 

The main point to me here is "Injuries are not an excuse". I've been saying that. They are not an excuse. We can't excuse the FO. I'm not sure what is your position on this, beyond the 2010 thing. To me, the 2010 thing is just an antecedent/fact to consider. Nevertheless I already made a whole analysis (read my posts). 2010 and 2011 should be antecedents/facts to move forward and try to avoid this issue. They have made some decisions. They surly will make more. Are they going to work it out? did they make the correct decisions in order to absorb this issue? only time will tell, but again, I encourage you to read my posts. (#5386, 5514, 5516, 5533 and the 5568)

 

On the other hand, If you want to debate on "they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010" vs "Injuries-No excuses", that's another kind/nature of discussion.

I've read your posts. My point is not an attempt to allow injuries as an excuse. It was a direct rebuttal to one of the points you made about how they failed to plan for injuries, and how 2010 should have impacted that plan. I directed you to the consequences of that action. That's it. You are reading way too much into this.

[a700hitter]

No, they aren't my opinion. They follow clear, logical lines of action/reaction. Let's recap....

 

You said they should have learned how to deal with injuries better after 2010. There are two ways to do this (you tried splitting those 2 ways into 4 or 5, but there are really only two). One, is to have added depth (Farm and Depth I think are the categories you listed, but they are really both the same thing, Farm is part of Depth). Two, is to be better at limiting injuries (Conditioning and Medical Staff I think are the categories you listed, but both of these work toward the same goal, mitigating injury impact).

 

As to mitigating injury, the state of team conditioning was not in question during the 2010 offseason. If you'll remember, the most of the injuries that hampered the team in 2010 were not the type you associate with poor conditioning. They were impact injuries. Knowing what was known in the 2010 offseason, it is not reasonable to expect drastic changes in their conditioning approach. The problem was identified at a later date. I'll agree, the medical staff has been suspect for some time now, and better diagnosis could have identified problems with Lackey/Matsuzaka earlier than they did in 2011. However, those injuries could have just as easily escaped more qualified medical professionals. And, the most impactful injury to the 2011 pitching staff was Buchholz, whose injury occurred during the season. While I acknowledge change is needed here, I do not think it would have modified their preseason plans significantly.

 

As to depth, there was only one way to add depth in the 2010 offseason, and that was by adding more contingency players in the FA market.

 

This is what I found to be an unreasonable expectation. Adding to your contingency in response to an abnormal distribution of difficulties is how you screw up your ability to be competitive. In baseball, it's because you are using your limited resources for "what if" scenarios that most likely won't happen. In contracting, it's because you price yourself out of the competitive market. Etc, etc. Your contingency is modelled on your industry, risk, and goals. When you encounter an abnormal amount of difficulties, you don't change your model. When you encounter a normal amount of difficulties, and your contingency is incapable of dealing with it, then you modify your model. The amount of injuries they had to recover from in 2010 was an abnormal amount of difficulties. They lost their AS second baseman halfway through the season, their AS first baseman for 2 months, and one of their top 3 pitchers for a significant period of time.

 

This is the consequence I spoke about last night. You rejected it out of hand and did not provide a rebuttal. If you continue to reject it without rebuttal, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

 

No circles, I'm still right where I was last night.

So now the whole argument is about some statement made about 2010? Give me a break. I thought you just wanted to make sure that the effect of the injuries were not dismissed as a cliche? Make up your mind. Spinning circles round and round.

[iortiz]

I've read your posts. My point is not an attempt to allow injuries as an excuse.

 

Finally, we are agree.

 

It was a direct rebuttal to one of the points you made about how they failed to plan for injuries, and how 2010 should have impacted that plan. I directed you to the consequences of that action. That's it. You are reading way too much into this.

 

As I said, we were in different channels. I think we can move on.

[ORS]

So now the whole argument is about some statement made about 2010? Give me a break. I thought you just wanted to make sure that the effect of the injuries were not dismissed as a cliche? Make up your mind. Spinning circles round and round.

Read the thread.

[a700hitter]

Read the thread.

I read enough from you for one day. I don't need to re-read it. You can have the last word on this too.

[ORS]

I read enough from you for one day. I don't need to re-read it. You can have the last word on this too.

It's not about having the last word. It's about responding to an incorrect accusation. Read the thread. I had discussion with iortiz on two separate issues last night, one had to do with his comical "no excuses" absolutism where he was trying to eliminate the impact of injury from the discussion, the other was about a comment he made about planning to recover from injuries. You jump in half cocked and start pointing fingers at me and I am going to ask that you inform yourself when you are wrong.

[a700hitter]

It's not about having the last word. It's about responding to an incorrect accusation. Read the thread. I had discussion with iortiz on two separate issues last night' date=' one had to do with his comical "no excuses" absolutism where he was trying to eliminate the impact of injury from the discussion, the other was about a comment he made about planning to recover from injuries. You jump in half cocked and start pointing fingers at me and I am going to ask that you inform yourself when you are wrong.[/quote']I'm gonna watch my Giants now. It's a really good game. Like I said, you can have the last word. This horse has been beat to death.

[User Name]

Aaaaand match goes to: ORS!

[a700hitter]

^ I'm sure this was baseball related.

[a700hitter]

Zumaya signs with Minnesota

Permalink|Comments () Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff January 15, 2012 02:57 PM

 

By Peter Abraham, Globe Staff

 

The Red Sox were interested in former Detroit reliever Joel Zumaya, but not enough to keep him away from the Twins. MLB.com reports that Minnesota signed the righthander to a one-year deal worth $800,000 with a possible $900,000 in incentives.

 

Zumaya was a stud for the Tigers in his rookie season of 2006, appearing in 62 games. He struck out 97 in 83.1 innings and had one of the best fastballs in the game.

 

He has appeared in only 109 games since, his career undone by a series of injuries. Zumaya has had surgery on his shoulder (twice), elbow (twice) and middle finger.

 

When he can pitch, Zumaya pitched fairly well. In the last four seasons, over 126.1 innings, he has 113 strikeouts (albeit with 72 walks) while allowing 113 hits. He is a classic low risk signing who could provide a high reward.

 

The Red Sox, at this point, do not necessarily need another reliever. But they could use a few hopefuls to bring to camp and challenge the likes of Matt Albers.

 

The Sox officially announced today (via Twitter) RHPs Aaron Cook and Justin Germano were signed to minor league contracts and invited to spring training.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Zumaya signed elsewhere? Damn Cherington to hell! Doesn't he care about the fans?? Fire him! TP his house!

[iortiz]

It's not about having the last word. It's about responding to an incorrect accusation. Read the thread. I had discussion with iortiz on two separate issues last night' date=' one had to do with his comical "no excuses" absolutism where he was trying to eliminate the impact of injury from the discussion, the other was about a comment he made about planning to recover from injuries. You jump in half cocked and start pointing fingers at me and I am going to ask that you inform yourself when you are wrong.[/quote']

 

Just for the record. I'm still saying "Injuries are not excuses", They are a key part of the game. We already agreed, didn't we?. There's no absolutism here. It's the way I see the thing. Some can think different, Some can say that injuries are an excuse, fine. I do not share that opinion. I already rest my case. I do not find out "excuses' comical, at all. We could miss the POs in a 3-year-in-a-row because of this issue AMONG A LOT OTHER ISSUES.

 

On the other hand, I clearly see the impact of injuries. They are always a threat and a challenge in baseball, I already said that. As I said, Injuries could be one of the biggest issues (no make the POS) next year. We'll see if their decisions (2011 offseason) are better than recent years in order to try to absorb/counterbalance this issue.

[a700hitter]

Blurbs and stories like this don't bode well for getting another starter. Also, they are so full of s*** about all the trade candidates available in July. On August 1st we'll get the song and dance about how the trade options were too expensive and yada yada yad not wanting to sacrifice the future for the short run yada yada yada.

 

The Red Sox shouldn't feel pressured to answer the Yankees' pitching acquisitions immediately, says Brian MacPherson of the Providence Journal, arguing that plenty of new trade candidates could emerge by July's trade deadline.

[a700hitter]

Zumaya signed elsewhere? Damn Cherington to hell! Doesn't he care about the fans?? Fire him! TP his house!

Yeah, keep on trollin.

[a700hitter]

Yankees Have Spoken To Johnny Damon

By Mike Axisa [January 15 at 3:23pm CST]

 

With Jesus Montero headed to the Mariners, the Yankees have spoken to Johnny Damon about the possibility of returning to New York as a DH according to Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com (all Twitter links). He says they don't have much money left to spend on a hitter, adding that there's a "very small chance" they would consider Jorge Posada since he has yet to make his retirement official.

 

Damon spent four seasons in pinstripes, hitting .285/.363/.458 from 2006-2009. He hit .261/.326/.418 with 16 homers and 19 steals for the Rays last year, with 596 of his 647 plate appearances coming as the DH. The Orioles have expressed interest in him this month, though a return to Tampa is unlikely after they signed Luke Scott. Andy Martino of The New York Daily News says the Yankees have not yet fully evaluated their DH options following the Montero trade, and MLB.com's Bryan Hoch adds that they may be okay with Andruw Jones and minor league slugger Jorge Vazquez at the position to start the year (Twitter links).

Damon still has something to bring to the table.

[iortiz]

I'm gonna watch my Giants now. It's a really good game. Like I said' date=' you can have the last word. This horse has been beat to death.[/quote']

 

Are you a Giant fan?.. I'm a skin fan....

 

 

Tough match against GB.

[jung]

Their waiting for Oswalt to fall to $5M on a one year deal.

[a700hitter]

Athletics Agree To Sign Bartolo Colon

By Mike Axisa [January 15 at 2:53pm CST]

 

2:53pm: MLB.com's Joey Nowak reports that the deal is worth nearly $2MM and could include a signing bonus. Both sides are still working to finalize the agreement.

 

1:26pm: The Athletics and Bartolo Colon have agreed to a one-year contract, reports ESPN's Jayson Stark. The deal is still pending a physical. The Diamondbacks had shown interest in Colon recently, and the Yankees indicated a willingness to re-sign him earlier this winter.

 

The Mitch Frankel client resurrected his career with New York in 2011, pitching to a 4.00 ERA with 7.4 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9 in 164 1/3 innings after signing a minor league contract. The 38-year-old Colon did not pitch in MLB in 2010, and has been treated with stem cells from his bone marrow and fat to repair tears in his elbow and rotator cuff. He was regularly hitting 94-96 with his fastball last year before fading down the stretch.

 

Having traded both Gio Gonzalez and Trevor Cahill this offseason, the Athletics are looking at Colon as a stopgap for a rotation that will also include Brandon McCarthy, Guillermo Moscoso, and possibly a healthy Dallas Braden. Brett Anderson will be out until midseason due to Tommy John surgery, though the recently acquired Jarrod Parker, Tom Milone, and Brad Peacock will all make their case for a starting spot in Spring Training.

 

USA Today's Bob Nightengale first reported that Colon had agreed to a deal with an unknown team, then later added details along with CBSSports.com's Jon Heyman (all Twitter links)

[a700hitter]

Are you a Giant fan?.. I'm a skin fan....

 

 

Tough match against GB.

Yes, I am a Giants fan-- and they say we agree on everything.

[a700hitter]

Phillies Agree To Sign Joel Pineiro

By Mike Axisa [January 15 at 4:02pm CST]

 

The Phillies have agreed to sign Joel Pineiro to a minor league contract, reports ESPN's Jayson Stark. The Wasserman Media Group client also received an invitation to Spring Training.

 

Pineiro, 33, pitched to a 5.13 ERA with just 3.8 K/9 in 145 2/3 innings for Angels last year while battling shoulder tightness. After earning his two-year, $16MM deal from the Halos thanks to a 60.5% ground ball rate and 1.14 BB/9 with the Cardinals in 2009, those rates fell to a still solid 48.3% and 2.35 BB/9 in 2011. Pineiro will give the team some back of the rotation protection behind Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Cole Hamels. Vance Worley and Joe Blanton figure to round out the starting staff, though the latter was limited to just 41 1/3 innings last year due to elbow problems.

[iortiz]

Yes' date=' I am a Giants fan-- and they say we agree on everything.[/quote']

 

20-10 thus far... ****sorry off topic*******

[SoxSport]

Their waiting for Oswalt to fall to $5M on a one year deal.

 

If Darvish signs on Wed with Texas, maybe Oswalt will drop his price.

[jung]

Geez 700 not that I am a Giants fan but I hope you were not typing something to us knuckleheads as that half ended.

[FredLynn]

Zumaya signed elsewhere? Damn Cherington to hell! Doesn't he care about the fans?? Fire him! TP his house!

 

Thats right. Damn that Cherington. He missed out on another piece of garbage. He is slipping. I thought he would sign them all.