2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[Emmz]

Yes' date=' Terry Ryan used the terminology correctly.[/quote']

 

I cant say "correct" but I believe you. But the idea of using the term to other meanings still exists. Dumpster diving could mean anything no one wants, not just damaged goods. Calling Beltre or Abreu a dumpster dive is not that far off base if you think about it objectively. Same with calling Manny low risk, high reward.

[a700hitter]

Speaking of Oscars' date=' does anybody know if Brad Pitt uses the term 'low risk, high reward' in Moneyball? [/quote']Hollywood never gets anything right.

[seabeachfred]

I don't even recall those two contract prices' date=' and they were somewhat relied on to try and be starters. That is definitely not a low risk.[/quote']

 

I can't remember what they signed for either, but I do know that Epstein called them low risk, high reward signings so I took his word for that. Since they both became starters the risk went to high....and that was my point. The wording can change just by the reality of the posiition those signings take when the season began. We were fighting for a division title that summer, and, in fact, had a three game lead at the ASB. Because those two orignally "low risk, high reward" pitchers were thrust into the cauldron of the pennant race and failed thoroughly, didn't it become a high risk adventure? Again, that is why I don't take too much stock in that term.

 

To me it takes on meaning if you don't expect much at all from them and don't use them extensively but when you do they pleasantly surprise you. You might even get lucky and start using them more and, walla, they pull a Garcia or a Colon and you're home free. I would like to see a couple of those types of signing work for us this season because we have a lot of those "low risk, high reward types. Or is is low risk, so-so reward types? It can get confusing.

[VA Sox Fan]

Speaking of Oscars' date=' does anybody know if Brad Pitt uses the term 'low risk, high reward' in Moneyball? [/quote']

 

 

Haven't seen it yet.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I'm going to go ahead and open up a can of worms because my wife is watching the Academy Awards and I need something to occupy me tonight.

 

Crawford should hit 2nd this year, and Doubront will be our 5th starter out of ST.

[a700hitter]

I cant say "correct" but I believe you. But the idea of using the term to other meanings still exists. Dumpster diving could mean anything no one wants' date=' not just damaged goods. Calling Beltre or Abreu a dumpster dive is not that far off base if you think about it objectively. Same with calling Manny low risk, high reward.[/quote']The term as used by Theo is not even a reasonable misuse. As Boomer pointed out, if there were low risk/high reward assets, everyone would want them. My portfolio would be full of only low risk/high reward assets. Who wants to take risk, and high reward is better than low reward. Once everyone would want these assets, the price would go up. The usage of the term just doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with context. Widespread ignorance about it doesn't make the common usage correct.

[SoxFanForsyth]

The term as used by Theo is not even a reasonable misuse. As Boomer pointed out' date=' if there were low risk/high reward assets, everyone would want them. My portfolio would be full of only low risk/high reward assets. Who wants to take risk, and high reward is better than low reward. Once everyone would want these assets, the price would go up. The usage of the term just doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with context. Widespread ignorance about it doesn't make the common usage correct.[/quote']

 

They're called penny stocks.

[a700hitter]

I'm going to go ahead and open up a can of worms because my wife is watching the Academy Awards and I need something to occupy me tonight.

 

Crawford should hit 2nd this year, and Doubront will be our 5th starter out of ST.

Ellsbury hits 3rd or Pedroia hits 3rd?

[jung]

The point is that they were never "low risk, high reward". They were low cost, high potential reward relative to their cost.

 

They were always high risk based on where they were at that point in their careers. Something does not become "high risk" at the point when your worst fears are realized. When that happens the risk is simply realized in the actual outcome. In simplest terms the chances were much greater that they were for all intents and purposes done than that their careers would continue unabated. That much was reflected in the cost.

 

If anything you can probably take the Sox to task for having done to many high cost, high risk, low potential reward deals where the risk was not reflected in the cost and the potential reward did not seem great enough to justify the cost.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Ellsbury hits 3rd or Pedroia hits 3rd?

 

Ellsbury - Crawford - Pedroia - Gonzo - Ortiz - Youk.

 

I know that goes L L R L L, but when you have Ells, Gonzo, and Ortiz that hit lefties well, then that won't matter. And if Ortiz struggles vs LHP again this year, then swap he and Youk in games vs LHP. But until then, I like that.

 

We all know that Pedroia will rake in the 3 hole and probably knock in 100 and score 100, you put Crawford into his comfortable situation where he can turn back into himself, and then you've got Pedroia and Gonzo who put dents in the monster every game hitting behind 2 guys who can score from 1st on those wall ball doubles.

[a700hitter]

They're called penny stocks.

Penny stocks are very very high risk assets.

[mvp 78]

Ellsbury hits 3rd or Pedroia hits 3rd?

 

CC

Pedey

Ells

Agon

Youk

Ortiz

[a700hitter]

CC

Pedey

Ells

Agon

Youk

Ortiz

I like this much better than SFF's. I don't like Pedroia in the 3 hole.

[SoxFanForsyth]

If Crawford turns back into the .305/.355/.450 guy like he was in TB in 2010 by getting comfortable and hitting in the 2 slot, and you see very little or no change in Pedroia's game, then I don't think there's any argument against it.

 

Regardless, we have to give Crawford his best chance to get back to those numbers. Too many people are projecting 2012 based on an aberration in 2011. He's come out and said he didn't feel comfortable in the bottom of the line up and go out of his game and started trying to hit HR, trying to work too hard so that he could earn a slot back in the top of the order, and it all went to s***. So give him his best shot to get back to those numbers from 2010 because if he gets back there, this team is just that much better.

[Palodios]

I'm going to go ahead and open up a can of worms because my wife is watching the Academy Awards and I need something to occupy me tonight.

 

Crawford should hit 2nd this year, and Doubront will be our 5th starter out of ST.

 

From the reports I've read, the FO seems to be leaning on Doubront as of right now. I bet you Crawford bats in the bottom third of the lineup, but having him there will significantly lengthen the lineup.

[jacksonianmarch]

I would be SO f***ING HAPPY if you moved Crawford to leadoff and lost nearly 40 points of OBP in the spot that gets the most ABs

[a700hitter]

Since Cc hates lead-off, I might go with:

 

1. Pedroia

2. Crawford

3. Ellsbury

4. AGon

5. Youk

6. Ortiz

[SoxFanForsyth]

I like this much better than SFF's. I don't like Pedroia in the 3 hole.

 

I really, really don't like Crawford leading off. He doesn't walk enough to be a leadoff hitter, and he doesn't have a high enough OBP. He's much better off hitting in the 2 slot IMO.

 

Man. I would be thrilled to see Pedroia in the 3 hole myself. But more than anything, I would hate to move Ellsbury. That guy is no question the best leadoff hitter in baseball. I'd rather go Ellsbury - Pedroia - Crawford than to leadoff Crawford.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I would be SO f***ING HAPPY if you moved Crawford to leadoff and lost nearly 40 points of OBP in the spot that gets the most ABs

 

Son. Of. A. Bitch.

 

We agree on something.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Since Cc hates lead-off, I might go with:

 

1. Pedroia

2. Crawford

3. Ellsbury

4. AGon

5. Youk

6. Ortiz

 

I'm ok with this, I guess. To me, we found gold with Ellsbury in the leadoff spot. He sets the pace of the game so well. He gets on 1st base and he's in scoring position with those wheels. He has a .370+ OBP, which is elite. And Pedroia has come out and said he hates leading off too.

[a700hitter]

Ellsbury - Crawford - Pedroia - Gonzo - Ortiz - Youk.

 

I know that goes L L R L L, but when you have Ells, Gonzo, and Ortiz that hit lefties well, then that won't matter. And if Ortiz struggles vs LHP again this year, then swap he and Youk in games vs LHP. But until then, I like that.

 

We all know that Pedroia will rake in the 3 hole and probably knock in 100 and score 100, you put Crawford into his comfortable situation where he can turn back into himself, and then you've got Pedroia and Gonzo who put dents in the monster every game hitting behind 2 guys who can score from 1st on those wall ball doubles.

I honesty don't think the order matters much as long as they have the top six hitters in the top six spots in the order. Whatever the order is will not matter much. My theory is just to bunch your best hitters at the top. We are fortunate to have 6 really good hitters.

[jacksonianmarch]

Until Crawford shows he is healthy and shows he has his s*** together, why put him at the top of the order at all? The guy was a liability offensively last season and is coming off wrist surgery. The question should be, if Crawford comes back to his .293/.333/.441 line, then when do you put him? This version of Crawford isnt one you put anywhere near the top of the order

[SoxFanForsyth]

I honesty don't think the order matters much as long as they have the top six hitters in the top six spots in the order. Whatever the order is will not matter much. My theory is just to bunch your best hitters at the top. We are fortunate to have 6 really good hitters.

 

Well, to a point I agree. I want guys with speed to be at the top where they can get on base and put pressure on the pitchers and give the 3-6 hitters some mistake pitches and higher ratios of fastballs.

 

Also, while we're on this, Youkilis needs to be in the 6 hole, not the 4 hole. He isn't nearly aggressive enough to be a 4 hitter. He tries to work the count too much, takes too many walks, etc. Gonzo and Ortiz are aggressive at the plate and actually try to drive in runs. That's one thing that drove me crazy last year with Youk. That and his Away splits.

[jung]

Historically CC has not had the kind of plate discipline you want from your lead off hitter. I think you want Ells there since the only other logical choice is Pedey and you really would prefer him farther down in the order.

 

So I think:

Ells

CC

Pedey

Agons

Youk

Ortiz

 

or Maybe Ortiz and then Youk makes more sense.

 

I hope they do not move CC around this year. Once Tito started moving him all over creation the whole thing no longer had any sense to me. Maybe I could have seen one move early in the year if Tito asked the player to see if he could get his bat going without the pressure of being up in the batting order. I can't tell if even one move would have worked in CC's case. In retrospect his lack of familiarity with that lower spot in the lineup seems to have been more of a problem than allowing him to work his way out of it from a spot where he is at least comfortable. Anyway I hope they don't move him around this year.

[Palodios]

L) Ells

R) Pedroia

L) Gonzalez

R) Youkilis

L) Ortiz

R) Ross

L) Crawford

R) Aviles

S) Saltalamacchia

 

 

This is probably the best possible lineup using those nine guys. There is absolutely no handedness vulnerability, Crawford doesn't get stuck behind the three heavy set guys, and the team's best three players get the most ABs.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Until Crawford shows he is healthy and shows he has his s*** together' date=' why put him at the top of the order at all? The guy was a liability offensively last season and is coming off wrist surgery. The question should be, if Crawford comes back to his .293/.333/.441 line, then when do you put him? This version of Crawford isnt one you put anywhere near the top of the order[/quote']

 

Because you don't project 2012 based on an aberration in 2011. You look at his 2010 year, and try to replicate that. How does that start? By getting him comfortable in the order. Based both on how he performed there in his 2010 season, as well as the comments he made this offseason, the 2 hole is the first step in getting him back into that player. The last thing you do is carryover 2011 into 2012 and basically say "You sucked last year. We're not wiping the slate clean. You have to re-earn yourself back into the top of the order." That's the worst possible thing you can do.

 

Another thing that Valentine needs to do is sit Crawford down and have a talk with him. Crawford has to be treated with kid gloves.

 

So you sit him down, and you tell him "Listen Carl. We know what kind of player you are. We saw what you did in 2010. We know you're still that player, and we're going to show our confidence in you. We don't care what your stats say, how many hits you have, how many stolen bases you have, nothing. You're our 2 hole hitter. You're not moving regardless of production. If we have to reassess, it won't be well into the season, Memorial Day. But we aren't going to have to do that. Go be Carl Crawford."

 

Remove ALL pressure off of him and let him go out and be himself.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Historically CC has not had the kind of plate discipline you want from your lead off hitter. I think you want Ells there since the only other logical choice is Pedey and you really would prefer him farther down in the order.

 

So I think:

Ells

CC

Pedey

Agons

Youk

Ortiz

 

or Maybe Ortiz and then Youk makes more sense.

 

I hope they do not move CC around this year. Once Tito started moving him all over creation the whole thing no longer had any sense to me. Maybe I could have seen one move early in the year if Tito asked the player to see if he could get his bat going without the pressure of being up in the batting order. I can't tell if even one move would have worked in CC's case. In retrospect his lack of familiarity with that lower spot in the lineup seems to have been more of a problem than allowing him to work his way out of it from a spot where he is at least comfortable. Anyway I hope they don't move him around this year.

 

Exactly. See the last paragraph of my last post. This is exactly what they need to do. Stick with him.

 

Hell, they stuck with Papi in 2009 and 2010 when he hit .190 in April. Give Crawford the same treatment. He's an elite player as well. So don't treat him like he's a rookie and make him earn his spot all over again. No veteran is going to perform well, especially not someone who is sensitive to these things like Carl.

[SoxFanForsyth]

L) Ells

R) Pedroia

L) Gonzalez

R) Youkilis

L) Ortiz

R) Ross

L) Crawford

R) Aviles

S) Saltalamacchia

 

 

This is probably the best possible lineup using those nine guys. There is absolutely no handedness vulnerability, Crawford doesn't get stuck behind the three heavy set guys, and the team's best three players get the most ABs.

 

One of the most important things that this team needs to do this year is get Crawford back into his comfort zone. He won't be comfortable in the bottom of the order. He doesn't change the game in the 7 slot like he does in the 2 slot.

 

IMO, you put him in the 2 spot and you leave him there, period. He's too good of a player not to get back to his true talent.

[jacksonianmarch]

Because you don't project 2012 based on an aberration in 2011. You look at his 2010 year, and try to replicate that. How does that start? By getting him comfortable in the order. Based both on how he performed there in his 2010 season, as well as the comments he made this offseason, the 2 hole is the first step in getting him back into that player. The last thing you do is carryover 2011 into 2012 and basically say "You sucked last year. We're not wiping the slate clean. You have to re-earn yourself back into the top of the order." That's the worst possible thing you can do.

 

Another thing that Valentine needs to do is sit Crawford down and have a talk with him. Crawford has to be treated with kid gloves.

 

So you sit him down, and you tell him "Listen Carl. We know what kind of player you are. We saw what you did in 2010. We know you're still that player, and we're going to show our confidence in you. We don't care what your stats say, how many hits you have, how many stolen bases you have, nothing. You're our 2 hole hitter. You're not moving regardless of production. If we have to reassess, it won't be well into the season, Memorial Day. But we aren't going to have to do that. Go be Carl Crawford."

 

Remove ALL pressure off of him and let him go out and be himself.

 

I see, so you can now pick and choose which seasons are relevant. Gotcha. He is coming off a career worst season and is entering this season with a wrist that just was surgically repaired. Doesnt sound like he's gonna be top notch from day 1 here. Stash him behind Papi, see if he has his bat speed back, if he tears the cover off the ball, you move him up

[SoxFanForsyth]

I see' date=' so you can now pick and choose which seasons are relevant. Gotcha. He is coming off a career worst season and is entering this season with a wrist that just was surgically repaired. Doesnt sound like he's gonna be top notch from day 1 here. Stash him behind Papi, see if he has his bat speed back, if he tears the cover off the ball, you move him up[/quote']

 

It's not picking and choosing when it's his career vs 1 bad year due in large part to poor managing and discomfort in the lineup.

 

Obviously Craw wasn't comfortable last year. So you get him comfortable and stick him back in the 2 slot.

 

Why the hell would you stick him in the bottom of the order and make him earn his way back when he came out and said, just 2-3 days ago, that he was trying to do too much last year because he felt like he had to earn his way back into the top of the order and that ruined his game?!?

 

Oh - and I'll take 85-90% of Carl Crawford while his wrist heals all day in the top 3 of the order.

 

I'm very happy that you're not making out the lineup.