2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[a700hitter]

Do you put a lot of stock into the "even year" stuff? Sounds very la-la landish to me.

 

I don't discount that he has performed better in odd years than even years, so the correlation does exsit. That doesn't mean I think there's causation. If I did, I would be out looking for leprechauns at the end of the rainbow and the Easter Bunny.

I think you are seizing on the calendar aspect when the point is about repetitive workload and wear and tear. There are lots of theories about pitchers having down years after seasons where their workloads have been heavy. Omar Minaya used to build his bullpen by acquiring relievers with past success who had a down season the prior year. He felt that their value was low and there was a history of relief pitchers rebounding. I never agreed with his theory and I don't think it worked very well, but that was his theory-- an alternate, year theory if you will. Beckett has had a history of having down alternate years. They just so happen to fall in even calendar years. It is not the calendar year that is the causation, but the workload and stress from the prior year that would be the cause under this theory, but I am pretty sure that you knew that. Leprechauns and Easter Bunnies have nothing to do with it.

[Bellhorn04]

I think you are seizing on the calendar aspect when the point is about repetitive workload and wear and tear. There are lots of theories about pitchers having down years after seasons where their workloads have been heavy. Omar Minaya used to build his bullpen by acquiring relievers with past success who had a down season the prior year. He felt that their value was low and there was a history of relief pitchers rebounding. I never agreed with his theory and I don't think it worked very well' date=' but that was his theory-- an alternate, year theory if you will. [b']Beckett has had a history of having down alternate years. They just so happen to fall in even calendar years.[/b] It is not the calendar year that is the causation, but the workload and stress from the prior year that would be the cause under this theory, but I am pretty sure that you knew that. Leprechauns and Easter Bunnies have nothing to do with it.

 

The history consists of 3 years-2006, 2008, 2010. 2010 he was injured. 2006 was his first year in the AL and yes, he got hammered.

 

2008 was not that bad at all if you look past the ERA. His WHIP was better than career average and his SO/BB ratio was a career best.

 

And in 2007 he had a great year after throwing 204 innings the year before so the workload thing didn't apply there.

 

There might be something to the alternate year stuff, but the underlying data here doesn't add up to much.

[ibot2much]

Josh Beckett has thrown 190+ innings four out of the six years he's been a Red Sox. Bucholz was on pace to throw around 185 and got a freak injury.

 

Expecting 560 innings out of the three of them is not unrealistic unless you're stupidly negative.

 

Why is it "stupidly negative"? Maybe it is just an opinion.......like yours

[User Name]

Why is it "stupidly negative"? Maybe it is just an opinion.......like yours

 

An opinion is saying "Perhaps they won't.....and this is why". Saying "THEY WON'T AND YOU'RE A POLYANNA FOR THINKING THEY WILL" is not an opinion.

 

But thanks for your opinion.

[User Name]

The history consists of 3 years-2006, 2008, 2010. 2010 he was injured. 2006 was his first year in the AL and yes, he got hammered.

 

2008 was not that bad at all if you look past the ERA. His WHIP was better than career average and his SO/BB ratio was a career best.

 

And in 2007 he had a great year after throwing 204 innings the year before so the workload thing didn't apply there.

 

There might be something to the alternate year stuff, but the underlying data here doesn't add up to much.

 

Correlation =/= causation.

[Muggah]

Do you put a lot of stock into the "even year" stuff? Sounds very la-la landish to me.

 

I don't discount that he has performed better in odd years than even years, so the correlation does exsit. That doesn't mean I think there's causation. If I did, I would be out looking for leprechauns at the end of the rainbow and the Easter Bunny.

 

I posted a fact. You don't like that fact, so you equate it to the Easter Bunny. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Any idea at all? Dear god.

[Muggah]

The history consists of 3 years-2006, 2008, 2010. 2010 he was injured. 2006 was his first year in the AL and yes, he got hammered.

 

2008 was not that bad at all if you look past the ERA. His WHIP was better than career average and his SO/BB ratio was a career best.

 

And in 2007 he had a great year after throwing 204 innings the year before so the workload thing didn't apply there.

 

There might be something to the alternate year stuff, but the underlying data here doesn't add up to much.

 

Lots of wishful thinking there, Bob. Be careful!! LOL

[Muggah]

Why is it "stupidly negative"? Maybe it is just an opinion.......like yours

 

He can't help it. He's one of those hardcore apologists who's perfectly content to come off looking like a complete dope just so long as he doesn't have to admit any fault with his team.

[User Name]

Muggah, you're an idiot. There's no if or but about it. Have fun with your "sky is falling" ********.

[Muggah]

Muggah' date=' you're an idiot. There's no if or but about it. Have fun with your "sky is falling" ********.[/quote']

 

Boy are you clever. no doubt about that. LMAO

[ibot2much]

An opinion is saying "Perhaps they won't.....and this is why". Saying "THEY WON'T AND YOU'RE A POLYANNA FOR THINKING THEY WILL" is not an opinion.

 

But thanks for your opinion.

 

No. that is an opinion. Unless it is a proven fact, it is an opinion.

[User Name]

For the record, i didn't post the 560 IP benchmark for the top three arbitrarily:

 

Upon some research, the league average for top-three starters is right around 540 IP. The Sox have been right around 546 during the same time period.

 

I never said it was set in stone that they'll get over 560 innings between the three of them. What i am saying, is that there is a strong possibility, unless a catastrophic injury happens, of the three of them combining for that amount.

 

For the record, during Beckett's 2008 (which is being touted as one of the super bad years) Beckett combined with Wakefield and Lester to provide 565 IP of Sub-4 ERA ball.

[User Name]

No. that is an opinion. Unless it is a proven fact' date=' it is an opinion.[/quote']

 

He sure treats them like they're facts, which is the point.

 

I understand we don't know what's going to happen during the season. We're all making educated guesses here. But how am i engaging in "wishful thinking" for assuming that, granted some semblance of health, the top three could provide slightly above average IP production for this team?

[example1]

Anyone who watched Beckett pitch last year and didn't see a very different pitcher wasn't watching very closely. He was more effective than he has been before, showed better command, mixed pitches better, etc., I think it is more than just blind optimism to believe he actually turned a corner.

 

As for Buchholz... It doesn't take a big stretch to conclude that his injury last year derailed what was developing to be a nice season for Buchholz. On the tail of his 2010 that would have put him among the better pitchers in baseball, IMO.

 

I seemed to remember that he was pitching very well prior to that injury, and the numbers backed that up:

 

During the 9 starts prior to his injury he was 5-0 with a 2.59 ERA and a .574 OPS against.

 

In 2010 his line was 17-7 with a 2.33 ERA and a 1.203 WHIP.

 

This really is an issue of glass half-full vs. glass half-empty. Injury history definitely lends some weight to the half-empty folks, but if he's healthy we should expect 170+ IP and an ERA under 4 as the floor for Buchholz's season.

 

It really doesn't take an unrealistic dose of optimism to see Beckett, Lester and Buchholz as being capable of each putting up 200 innings. Of course, if you're by nature a pessimist, you likely see any optimism as an unrealistic amount and those being optimistic as basing their views on nothing substantive at all...

[example1]

He can't help it. He's one of those hardcore apologists who's perfectly content to come off looking like a complete dope just so long as he doesn't have to admit any fault with his team.

 

He's admitted plenty of fault with the team. However, he doesn't say that they are a worthless lot witout much talent, and he doesn't look at everything in the most negative light possible. That's all.

[jung]

Beckett has turned a corner in my opinion. He has gradually become more and more of a pitcher and less of a thrower which is a transition he must make successfully. I would have liked to see him make even more progress in that regard last year but he did make progress. It will be interesting to see if he continues to make progress in that regard.

[ORS]

I posted a fact. You don't like that fact' date=' so you equate it to the Easter Bunny. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Any idea at all? Dear god.[/quote']

You posted a fact, that he has struggled in "even number" years and then went on to suggest anyone who thinks he could be good this year, an "even number" year, is in la-la land.

 

I have no issue with the fact of his past. Facts are what they are. I have issue with using something so unrelated to what will actually impact his performance, the number on the calendar, as a predictive metric to call others names. And, I find it particularly funny when someone uses the term la-la land in derogatory way when their entire point is based on hocus-pocus and fantasy (IMO).

 

Enter the Easter Bunny. I mean, the irony of your post, pointing the la-la land finger while propping your argument up on such superstitious mumbo-jumbo, was too rich to pass up.

[a700hitter]

Anyone who watched Beckett pitch last year and didn't see a very different pitcher wasn't watching very closely. He was more effective than he has been before, showed better command, mixed pitches better, etc., I think it is more than just blind optimism to believe he actually turned a corner.

 

As for Buchholz... It doesn't take a big stretch to conclude that his injury last year derailed what was developing to be a nice season for Buchholz. On the tail of his 2010 that would have put him among the better pitchers in baseball, IMO.

 

I seemed to remember that he was pitching very well prior to that injury, and the numbers backed that up:

 

During the 9 starts prior to his injury he was 5-0 with a 2.59 ERA and a .574 OPS against.

 

In 2010 his line was 17-7 with a 2.33 ERA and a 1.203 WHIP.

 

This really is an issue of glass half-full vs. glass half-empty. Injury history definitely lends some weight to the half-empty folks, but if he's healthy we should expect 170+ IP and an ERA under 4 as the floor for Buchholz's season.

 

It really doesn't take an unrealistic dose of optimism to see Beckett, Lester and Buchholz as being capable of each putting up 200 innings. Of course, if you're by nature a pessimist, you likely see any optimism as an unrealistic amount and those being optimistic as basing their views on nothing substantive at all...

The Buchholz situation is a glass half full/half empty scenario. I don't think that even his doctors are certain whether the condition will recur, so I don't think it is unduly pessimistic to acknowledge questions about his health and durability. Similarly, if the condition doesn't recur and he stays healthy, I don't think it unreasonably optimistic to expect 180 innings from him. I believe in hoping for the best, but planning for the worst. Ben didn't plan for the bad IMO.

[a700hitter]

Morneau: Concussion Symptoms May Threaten Career

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [February 24, 2012 at 9:51am CST]

 

Justin Morneau has played just 69 games since being concussed July of 2010, and there's no guarantee his troubles are over with. The 30-year-old first baseman acknowledged that concussion symptoms could end his career, according to Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

 

“I don’t think there will be a career if it’s something I’m dealing with," he said. “That’s the reality of the whole thing. I’m obviously not going to continue to mess around with this if it continues to be a problem. There comes a point where you can only torture yourself for so long."

 

Morneau explained that he enjoys playing baseball, but finds it frustrating not to be able to contribute on the field. He's under contract for $14MM in 2012 and the same amount in 2013. Morneau is a four-time All-Star who won the 2006 American League MVP at the age of 25.

This is sad.

[FredLynn]

The Buchholz situation is a glass half full/half empty scenario. I don't think that even his doctors are certain whether the condition will recur' date=' so I don't think it is unduly pessimistic to acknowledge questions about his health and durability. Similarly, if the condition doesn't recur and he stays healthy, I don't think it unreasonably optimistic to expect 180 innings from him. I believe in hoping for the best, but planning for the worst. Ben didn't plan for the bad IMO.[/quote']

 

Ben didn't have the resources to plan for the bad. Had Henry opened up his wallet we could have obtained a decent SP. He didn't, and we didn't. And no one is going to trade for any of our mediocre farm system player in exchange for a good ML SP. Hard to blame Cherington for the makeup of this year's team. I blame Epstein because he is the one who upon leaving raped the team.

[User Name]

Ben didn't have the resources to plan for the bad. Had Henry opened up his wallet we could have obtained a decent SP. He didn't' date=' and we didn't. [b']And no one is going to trade for any of our mediocre farm system player in exchange for a good ML SP. [/b]Hard to blame Cherington for the makeup of this year's team. I blame Epstein because he is the one who upon leaving raped the team.

 

You don't know the Red Sox farm system very well, do you?

 

A package of Ryan Lavarnway, Will Middlebrooks and Xander Bogaerts gets any team listening regarding a SP. The fact that several of the better prospects are considered part of the team's future, and to an extent "untouchable" is a testament to the level of the farm.

[FredLynn]

Lots of wishful thinking there' date=' Bob. Be careful!! LOL[/quote']

 

Certainly its been Beckett's trend to pitch poorly on alternate years. No one can really debate that. Its a fact-every other year he has been decidedly ordinary or worse, and if you are supposed to be an ace and supposed to pitch like one (after all, he is getting PAID like one), then his performance for the team has been unimpressive. As to how he will do this year, its really anyone's guess. This is the odd year for him, so if I had to guess I would say his performance is going to be worse or maybe much worse than last year. Still, its all reading tea leaves.

[FredLynn]

You don't know the Red Sox farm system very well, do you?

 

A package of Ryan Lavarnway, Will Middlebrooks and Xander Bogaerts gets any team listening regarding a SP. The fact that several of the better prospects are considered part of the team's future, and to an extent "untouchable" is a testament to the level of the farm.

 

Actually, I do. I showed you recently some ratings of our farm system that proved that we are no better than middle of the pack. We do not have enough depth to surrender the few guys we have left. Sure, if we completed the rape that Epstein began we might get people listening-maybe. You think thats a good idea? Or do you think its smarter to keep the few real prospects we have left that MIGHT some day make the majors (none are near ready; Lavarnway is already here) as our current GM has done?

[User Name]

Actually' date=' I do. I showed you recently some ratings of our farm system that proved that we are no better than middle of the pack. We do not have enough depth to surrender the few guys we have left. Sure, if we completed the rape that Epstein began we might get people listening-maybe. You think thats a good idea? Or do you think its smarter to keep the few real prospects we have left that MIGHT some day make the majors (none are near ready; Lavarnway is already here) as our current GM has done?[/quote']

 

Did you not read the post? Also, different rankings showed different things. Sickels has them on the verge of being top-10, while some have them in the top 10. A lot of of writers go for certainty over ceiling, but as the Adrian Gonzales trade shows, not everyone shares the same thinking.

 

Regurgitating other's information does not show a knowledge of the farm system on a player-by-player basis (at least the top ones).

 

As for the "farm-system rape", you're moving the goal posts. You said they couldn't get a decent SP using the farm, i disagreed and showed you a couple players (let's put Brandon Jacobs, Anthony Ranaudo and Matt Barnes in that group) that could get it done in a package.

 

I do not advocate trading them, i am merely contesting your point that the team doesn't have enough talent in the minors to trade for a good SP option.

[FredLynn]

Did you not read the post? Also, different rankings showed different things. Sickels has them on the verge of being top-10, while some have them in the top 10. A lot of of writers go for certainty over ceiling, but as the Adrian Gonzales trade shows, not everyone shares the same thinking.

 

Regurgitating other's information does not show a knowledge of the farm system on a player-by-player basis (at least the top ones).

 

As for the "farm-system rape", you're moving the goal posts. You said they couldn't get a decent SP using the farm, i disagreed and showed you a couple players (let's put Brandon Jacobs, Anthony Ranaudo and Matt Barnes in that group) that could get it done in a package.

 

I do not advocate trading them, i am merely contesting your point that the team doesn't have enough talent in the minors to trade for a good SP option.

 

If we are dealing with reality, those players are not going to be packaged in a deal for anyone. Sure, if we gave away our top 10 prospects for a good SP, we could get one. My point is that with the guys we have in the minor leagues WHO ARE AVAILABLE, we aren't going to be able to get what we need. All of us regurgitate information provided by others, unless YOU have been scouting the prospects yourself. Have you?

As for the overall depth of our farm system, we have NO ONE who is not already here who is ML ready. That means we have lots of maybe's who may or may not pan out. The overall rankings ranged from 10th to 18th-middle of the pack. Unfortunately, that IS a fact. Thats where we are right now.

[User Name]

If we are dealing with reality, those players are not going to be packaged in a deal for anyone. Sure, if we gave away our top 10 prospects for a good SP, we could get one. My point is that with the guys we have in the minor leagues WHO ARE AVAILABLE, we aren't going to be able to get what we need.

As for the overall depth of our farm system, we have NO ONE who is not already here who is ML ready. That means we have lots of maybe's who may or may not pan out. The overall rankings ranged from 10th to 18th-middle of the pack. Unfortunately, that IS a fact. Thats where we are right now.

 

You mean like Reymond Fuentes, who was one of the centerpieces of the Gonzales deal?

 

Let's remove top prospects from the equation. Prospects do not need to be MLB-ready to fetch a good return. The Red Sox have some redundant guys (regarding position) with high upside who could be packaged in a deal for a good SP, like Garin Cecchini, Bryce Brentz, and Kolbrin Vitek who could be used in conjunction with a better piece in a trade.

 

Don't underestimate the farm just because it lacks "ready now" prospects. A lot of the times, those guys who are a little farther off are still highly appreciated by other teams.

[mvp 78]

Who's to say they are unavailable for the right trade?

[Johnny]

It won't be long before the 3 stooges destroy this board

[FredLynn]

You mean like Reymond Fuentes, who was one of the centerpieces of the Gonzales deal?

 

Let's remove top prospects from the equation. Prospects do not need to be MLB-ready to fetch a good return. The Red Sox have some redundant guys (regarding position) with high upside who could be packaged in a deal for a good SP, like Garin Cecchini, Bryce Brentz, and Kolbrin Vitek who could be used in conjunction with a better piece in a trade.

 

Don't underestimate the farm just because it lacks "ready now" prospects. A lot of the times, those guys who are a little farther off are still highly appreciated by other teams.

 

Why would we remove top prospects from the equation? Could that be because ours do not measure up to the top prospects in the farm systems of the top 10 ML teams? I would rather have minor league prospects, especially PITCHING prospects (of which we have very few who are likely to sniff our roster), than middle of the pack guys with a so-called "upside". That category of prospect described Lars Anderson, Felix Doubront, and Michael Bowden not too long ago.

Guys that are closer to being able to contribute are certainly preferable than what we have in our farm system. Thats why our farm system is ranked as very ordinary compared to the top tier. And getting back to my original point, its a reason Cherington didn't have the goods to make a deal for a prime SP, along with the owners reluctance to open wide their wallets. Its why we are where we are today.

[FredLynn]

It won't be long before the 3 stooges destroy this board

 

Which one are you?