2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[seabeachfred]

I remember posting that we would not get a decent #4 SP. I wrote that the FO would claim that they have done due diligence in their search and in the end would profess total confidence in our current pitching staff (regardless of the fact that its no better than last year). I do not disagree with this tactic as long as it keeps us under the cap' date=' mind you, but several of us here clearly have our FO's modus operandi down pretty good.[/quote']

 

Boy do I remember you saying that Pumpsie, but that only points out that you and others knew the team would not allocate the money needed to sign a solid starting pitcher. However, those front office apologists, instead of admitting that those of us who correctly predicted what would happen and saying so, have hunkered down with deep resentment and have done nothing but hurling insults at us. Kind of reminds of another band of miscreants from elsewhere, doesn't it?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Palodios]

Early this morning, reports said that the Rangers are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Later this evening, reports said that the Cardinals are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Spring training is right around the corner, he's getting desperate, and the FO has all the leverage now. Offer him 7-8 million with incentives and call it an offseason!

[seabeachfred]

This is going to be tough.........

 

*cough*I agree*cough*

 

Shouldn't be so tough Chin. We seem to agree of a lot of things. Whatever personal beef you may have with me shouldn't get in the way that we are on the same page with the way the front office has botched things this winter. At last check, we still haven't gotten that No. 4 pitcher we need, have we?

[FredLynn]

Boy do I remember you saying that Pumpsie' date=' but that only points out that you and others knew the team would not allocate the money needed to sign a solid starting pitcher. However, those front office apologists, instead of admitting that those of us who correctly predicted what would happen and saying so, have hunkered down with deep resentment and have done nothing but hurling insults at us. Kind of reminds of another band of miscreants from elsewhere, doesn't it?:rolleyes::rolleyes:[/quote']

 

In fairness Fred, on this board there was a consensus that we really did need a quality #4 SP to be truly competitive this year. I don't remember a single poster not agreeing with that. Some thought that we would get one; some, including me, didn't. There are still a few days left before ST to sign Oswalt, but its been the modus operandi of this ownership group to pinch pennies at times. They spent a lot last year, some of it unwisely. There are only a very few here who attempt to defend our FO no matter how illogical they conduct business. Seems most of those folks have nested elsewhere.

[FredLynn]

Early this morning, reports said that the Rangers are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Later this evening, reports said that the Cardinals are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Spring training is right around the corner, he's getting desperate, and the FO has all the leverage now. Offer him 7-8 million with incentives and call it an offseason!

 

I wonder if he would retire rather than pitch for the Red Sox. He might really not want to play here, no matter what.

[seabeachfred]

I am preparing my resume as we speak.

 

Putting your caustic wit aside, you probably couldn't have done any worse than our front office has done this winter. If you would not have offered Ortiz arbitration and traded Scutaro, then you have the Red Sox front office beaten just by that.:):):)

[Palodios]

I wonder if he would retire rather than pitch for the Red Sox. He might really not want to play here' date=' no matter what.[/quote']

 

I think he knows he has another season in him. The teams he's most linked to are either World Series teams (Cards/Rangers) and two teams everyone predicted to go to the WS (Phillies/Red Sox).

 

http://boston.sbnation.com/boston-red-sox/2012/2/4/2772090/red-sox-roy-oswalt-have-mutual-interest-in-one-another

[seabeachfred]

Early this morning, reports said that the Rangers are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Later this evening, reports said that the Cardinals are unlikely to sign Oswalt.

 

Spring training is right around the corner, he's getting desperate, and the FO has all the leverage now. Offer him 7-8 million with incentives and call it an offseason!

 

PALODIOS FOR GM!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FredLynn]

I think he knows he has another season in him. The teams he's most linked to are either World Series teams (Cards/Rangers) and two teams everyone predicted to go to the WS (Phillies/Red Sox).

 

http://boston.sbnation.com/boston-red-sox/2012/2/4/2772090/red-sox-roy-oswalt-have-mutual-interest-in-one-another

 

None of those other teams need a SP. Their rotations are set. That leaves the Sox, and if he really has an aversion to pitching here, he might just retire. I am sure he won't starve.

[Palodios]

None of those other teams need a SP. Their rotations are set. That leaves the Sox' date=' and if he really has an aversion to pitching here, he might just retire. I am sure he won't starve.[/quote']

 

He's a 34 year old who is only a year removed from having ace status. If he has a career average year and proves his back is fine, he'll get a multi-year contract for 2013 if he wants it.

[jacksonianmarch]

He's playing chicken IMO. The only thing he isnt realizing is that the teams he's playing with dont absolutely need him. It's career suicide to come to Boston. Even if he puts up a respectable 4.20ERA, he's effectively going to significantly cut into his future contract. Health will be regardless of locale, seeing as being injured in Boston will have the same effect on him if he is injured in StL. But putting up a 3.20ERA in StL could see a $10+ million gain in future contact compared to a 4.20ERA in Boston

[User Name]

Putting your caustic wit aside' date=' you probably couldn't have done any worse than our front office has done this winter. If you would not have offered Ortiz arbitration and traded Scutaro, then you have the Red Sox front office beaten just by that.:):):)[/quote']

 

I sent in my application already.

 

In it i put "I would not have offered Ortiz arb or traded Scutaro". Fingers crossed, i'll let you know how it goes!

[seabeachfred]

I sent in my application already.

 

In it i put "I would not have offered Ortiz arb or traded Scutaro". Fingers crossed, i'll let you know how it goes!

 

Well we've just kicked Paolodios upstairs to CEO (hit the road Larry), so the GM job is yours.

 

Now just offer Oswalt a couple of million more and get the guy signed. I really think this would make a big difference for us.....both in the pitching staff and psychological as well.

[User Name]

But first, i'm hiring a private Psychologist for Padilla and putting Silva on a Low-carb diet!

[Bellhorn04]

He's playing chicken IMO. The only thing he isnt realizing is that the teams he's playing with dont absolutely need him. It's career suicide to come to Boston. Even if he puts up a respectable 4.20ERA' date=' he's effectively going to significantly cut into his future contract. Health will be regardless of locale, seeing as being injured in Boston will have the same effect on him if he is injured in StL. But putting up a 3.20ERA in StL could see a $10+ million gain in future contact compared to a 4.20ERA in Boston[/quote']

 

'Career suicide to come to Boston' is way overstating it.

 

First of all teams aren't exactly lining up to sign him at his price.

 

Secondly, lots of pitchers have been able to hook on with other teams after failing in Boston or New York. In 2009 Penny and Smoltz bombed in Boston but NL teams picked them up immediately. In 2010 Javy Vazquez posted a 5.32 ERA for the Yankees but Florida signed him for 2011.

[Bellhorn04]

Running a baseball team is not rocket science. With proper training my guess is that several posters here would exhibit much better common sense and judgement than our previous GM. Jury is out on Cherington IMO.

 

No, there is no comparison betwen rocket science and running a major league team.

 

Rocket science is an exact science dealing with aerodynamic engineering.

 

Running a major league team, i.e. making personnel and financial allocation decisions, is an extremely inexact science, dealing with estimations of human performance values within a highly competitive, economically inefficient, limited and shifting market.

 

No comparison at all.

[seabeachfred]

But first' date=' i'm hiring a private Psychologist for Padilla and putting Silva on a Low-carb diet![/quote']

 

You do have a sense of humor User. Good show!!!! Now are you hiring that psychologist before or after Padilla gets out of the slammer? As for Silva and a diet, that seems like an oxymoron to me. Good luck with that. Strange, though, Padilla might be the best of the bunch of retreads that were signed and I would like him as a starter and not in the bullpen. Send either Bard or Aceves there to give us a deeper pen. We may need a lot of good ones down there this season if our starters can't go deeper into games than they did last season.

[User Name]

No, there is no comparison betwen rocket science and running a major league team.

 

Rocket science is an exact science dealing with aerodynamic engineering.

 

Running a major league team, i.e. making personnel and financial allocation decisions, is an extremely inexact science, dealing with estimations of human performance values within a highly competitive, economically inefficient, limited and shifting market.

 

No comparison at all.

 

Plus evaluating the value of amateur and international assets with very little available data in a setting that can punish a succesful team.

[FredLynn]

No, there is no comparison betwen rocket science and running a major league team.

 

Rocket science is an exact science dealing with aerodynamic engineering.

 

Running a major league team, i.e. making personnel and financial allocation decisions, is an extremely inexact science, dealing with estimations of human performance values within a highly competitive, economically inefficient, limited and shifting market.

 

No comparison at all.

 

Thats my point. It involves a lot of judgement. Our management team over the past few years has the same set of data that everyone else has access to, but the judgement part of it has been highly questionable. I think that some people on this board, if properly trained on how to look at the available data, could make better decisions.

[Bellhorn04]

Thats my point. It involves a lot of judgement. Our management team over the past few years has the same set of data that everyone else has access to' date=' but the judgement part of it has been highly questionable. I think that some people on this board, if properly trained on how to look at the available data, could make better decisions.[/quote']

 

Possibly so. But when you look at the number of large-scale blunders that are made each year throughout baseball, it makes you wonder if the whole system isn't just built to fail.

 

2011 was a classic year for big blunders: free agent busts Crawford (hopefully that will change some), Werth, and Dunn. The Angels taking on Vernon Wells from the Jays for 4 years, 80 million and in the same deal getting rid of an inexpensive Mike Napoli.

 

2012 we have Pujols, Fielder, C J Wilson. Will they be big successes or massive blunders? Who knows? The risk and uncertainty in these moves is off the charts, but people keep making them. I don't think I'd want to be in the position of being judged on moves like that. Common sense frankly goes out the window when you make moves like that.

[jung]

I don't think Oswalt would retire as opposed to coming to Boston. If he was going to retire then he would no longer be so concerned with a long term deal next year and would just take the money this year. So I actually suspect that would enhance the chances of his coming here.

 

This looks like the best shot they could possibly have of getting him although I have thought for a long time now that more teams would come out of the woodwork at the eleventh hour figuring they could get him cheap. I still think he would pitch outside of the AL East for cheap before coming to the AL East for something slightly more than cheap. I don't see the Sox offering anymore than $7M, maybe $8M. I would guess he would take $6M from somewhere outside of the AL East and maybe as little as $5M anywhere in the NL. Watch out for SF.

[ORS]

Thats my point. It involves a lot of judgement. Our management team over the past few years has the same set of data that everyone else has access to' date=' but the judgement part of it has been highly questionable. I think that some people on this board, if properly trained on how to look at the available data, could make better decisions.[/quote']

I think you are missing his point.

 

You said, "it's not rocket science", suggesting it's easier. I think his point suggests it's more difficult, or at least more difficult to find consistent success, than rocket science because of the variable nature of the components one is trying to forecast.

 

Yes, rocket science is more difficult to learn academically than management is. However, once the academics are complete, rocket science, being an exact science, produces clear, consistent results from the theory. This is not so with personnel management in competitive sports. There are too many undefined variables that affect player performance to provide consistenly reliable results.

 

Yes, they had the same limited data that everyone else did. Other teams went after the same players the Sox ultimately signed and subsequently had blow up in their face. It wasn't like the Sox were alone in chasing these players, like they were out pissing in the wind while everyone else was clued into some extra info that forecasted the disasters that were John Lackey and Carl Crawford. The Sox got them because they had the ability to offer more and represented a clear shot to win a title, but the bidding was competitive because the data available suggested these were players a team wanted.

[seabeachfred]

No, there is no comparison betwen rocket science and running a major league team.

 

Rocket science is an exact science dealing with aerodynamic engineering.

 

Running a major league team, i.e. making personnel and financial allocation decisions, is an extremely inexact science, dealing with estimations of human performance values within a highly competitive, economically inefficient, limited and shifting market.

 

No comparison at all.

 

I think that was Pumpsie's point all along and we all can agree on that. BTW, are you HFX Bob? Someone told me you were.

[a700hitter]

Okay, so Rocket Science is easier than being a GM. Now we are arguing about the meaning and usage of common phrases and expressions. Being a garbage man or a mail man is a lot harder than being a Rocket Scientist too with all that walking and lifting. Many GMs don't even have an advanced level of business training. Theo is a History major with a Law Degree, neither of which involve business training. The heads of most major businesses are run by people with formal business training. A GM in baseball doesn't need that training. Many old jocks etc have become GMs. It ain't that hard. You need to know how to evaluate talent and work within a budget. The are 10,000 candy store owners in Brooklyn that could do the job.

 

What common expression should we argue about next? How about "That's how the cookie crumbles."

[Bellhorn04]

I think that was Pumpsie's point all along and we all can agree on that. BTW' date=' are you HFX Bob? Someone told me you were.[/quote']

 

Yes.

[Bellhorn04]

Okay, so Rocket Science is easier than being a GM. Now we are arguing about the meaning and usage of common phrases and expressions. Being a garbage man or a mail man is a lot harder than being a Rocket Scientist too with all that walking and lifting. Many GMs don't even have an advanced level of business training. Theo is a History major with a Law Degree, neither of which involve business training. The heads of most major businesses are run by people with formal business training. A GM in baseball doesn't need that training. Many old jocks etc have become GMs. It ain't that hard. You need to know how to evaluate talent and work within a budget. The are 10,000 candy store owners in Brooklyn that could do the job.

 

What common expression should we argue about next? How about "That's how the cookie crumbles."

 

I was just trying to make a point and to stir up some discussion, which I think it has. When you say 'it ain't that hard', though, I think you're sidestepping the question of why, if it's so easy, GM's throughout baseball keep making massively expensive blunders year after year.

[User Name]

Being a baseball GM is not an easy job. Those who say it is either don't know what it entails or overvalue their own management abilities.

[seabeachfred]

To me the first order of business for a Major League General Manager is that he be a good judge of talent. Not only that but he and his scouts must know as much as they can about a prospective prospect's character. That part is harder but with thorough cross checking it can be ascertained. True, it is not an easy job but with those two qualities in your possession it does make it easier for that person.

 

Today with so many GM's with business backgrounds there seems to be a de-emphasis on people with talent judgment skills. I remember when I was a kid and the Brooklyn Dodgers had a GM-part owner named Branch Rickey running the show. He was a near genius in spotting talent and that is how he was able to sign, trade for or draft the like of the players he did----Snider, Campanella, Reese, Robinson, Hodges, Furillo, Newcombe, Erskine, Labine. Many of those are in the Hall of Fame and some are close to getting in. I also think it is better to have two men occupy that spot with clearly delinated duties---one in charge of player personnel, the other with finance and contracts. I hate to use them as an example since I despise them since they left Brooklyn but the Dodgers for years under the O'Malley's had two such men in that job. Buzzy Bavasi ran the personnel part of it and Fresco Thompson the business end. It seemed to work for them well in the 60's.

[User Name]

But you do agree that it is not an easy job in the least right?

[Bellhorn04]

To me the first order of business for a Major League General Manager is that he be a good judge of talent. Not only that but he and his scouts must know as much as they can about a prospective prospect's character. That part is harder but with thorough cross checking it can be ascertained. True, it is not an easy job but with those two qualities in your possession it does make it easier for that person.

 

Aha, but judging talent and predicting future performance may be two entirely different things, and GM's also have to make very expensive bets on how players who have performed in the past will perform in the future. Epstein continues to get crushed for Lackey and Crawford. Maybe deservedly so. But I don't think anybody predicted how bad their numbers would be for us.