Excited to see baseball starting up again?

[a700hitter]

I'm not talking about longterm. I'm talking about what he did when he got called up in 07.

 

Besides, KG was pretty talented. His sinker was pretty good and before he got hurt his change was a legit elite pitch. There was a couple months when the kid was absolutely insane. Then he hurt his elbow. I've always thought it was kind of a pity.

He was an emergency starter who made 6 starts in July. We are going to need more than that from Doubront. He needs to hold down the rotation slot from beginning to end. We haven't had a pitcher step up and do that in quite some time. Other than highly touted guys like Lester and Buchholz, the last marginally talented pitcher that we had step up and claim a rotation spot for the entire season was Arroyo.

[Dojji]

He was an emergency starter who made 6 starts in July. We are going to need more than that from Doubront. He needs to hold down the rotation slot from beginning to end. We haven't had a pitcher step up and do that in quite some time. Other than highly touted guys like Lester and Buchholz' date=' the last marginally talented pitcher that we had step up and claim a rotation spot for the entire season was Arroyo.[/quote']

 

We have this tendency to not give them a chance to do so. We load our rotation with big contracts and top prospects, not that surprised that the only time we get a guy who claims the job and keeps it when is a big contract or a top prospect. That's the only guys we break camp with.

 

Before we traded him and he got hurt in Texas, Gabbard was neck and neck with Lester. I didn't expect him to keep it up, but I thought he could have held down a #4-#5 spot in some NL playoff team's rotation pretty handily if he hadn't gotten hurt, and maybe more. Maybe he would have fallen apart anyway I dunno. A lot of kids like him do. I still think he had some legit talent and I still think he could have made something of himself.

 

I dunno why I got back on that again. I just hate unfulfilled potential, and I legit liked Gabbard, he was a rare bright spot in that disastrous 06 campaign and put up a bid to continue that the following year, so I always thought he was a derailed success story.

[jung]

One thing I am going to be interested to see is to what extent all of the publicity given to Beckett's taking a long time between pitches changes the way batters approach at bats against him.

 

That whole thing is a two way street. Now that the league's batters have seen the time between pitches played up the way it has been what is to prevent batters from stepping out just as Josh is ready to pitch. i think I would find it much more frustrating as a pitcher to have guys constantly stepping out just as I am about to go into my windup. If I were a batter and Josh has been this vocal about the issue I would make it a two way street.

 

In addition if it does get to be a pissing contest between Josh and whole teams of batters I would expect umps to just tell Josh to get on the rubber and throw the damned ball.

 

To say nothing of whether this is anything like the "advantage" Josh thinks it is. It would appear to be easier to upset a pitchers groove by continually taking longer periods between pitches and you surely weaken your defensive readiness regardless of Beckett comments that he went to his teammates and they said it did not matter to them.

[a700hitter]

We have this tendency to not give them a chance to do so. We load our rotation with big contracts and top prospects, not that surprised that the only time we get a guy who claims the job and keeps it when is a big contract or a top prospect. That's the only guys we break camp with.

 

Before we traded him and he got hurt in Texas, Gabbard was neck and neck with Lester. I didn't expect him to keep it up, but I thought he could have held down a #4-#5 spot in some NL playoff team's rotation pretty handily if he hadn't gotten hurt, and maybe more. Maybe he would have fallen apart anyway I dunno. A lot of kids like him do. I still think he had some legit talent and I still think he could have made something of himself.

 

I dunno why I got back on that again. I just hate unfulfilled potential, and I legit liked Gabbard, he was a rare bright spot in that disastrous 06 campaign and put up a bid to continue that the following year, so I always thought he was a derailed success story.

I attended one of his victories. I think he pitched a shutout against the White Sox. It was part of a day/night DH on a Sunday. He was not a hard thrower, but he knew how to pitch. Trading anyone for Gagne would have ended up being a mistake. Gabbard is not a terrible comparison, but we need Doubront to be an Arroyo type horse who can take the ball every 5th day and give the team a chance to win. Some of you may scoff at calling Arroyo a horse, but the guy has taken the ball every 5th day for many years. He's not a star, but he is a reliable piece of his teams rotation.

 

Edit: My memory was faulty on 3 counts. The game was played on a Saturday. It was not part of a day night DH and Gabbard pitched 7 innings giving up 1 run. He did not pitch a shutout.

[a700hitter]

We have this tendency to not give them a chance to do so. We load our rotation with big contracts and top prospects, not that surprised that the only time we get a guy who claims the job and keeps it when is a big contract or a top prospect. That's the only guys we break camp with.

 

Before we traded him and he got hurt in Texas, Gabbard was neck and neck with Lester. I didn't expect him to keep it up, but I thought he could have held down a #4-#5 spot in some NL playoff team's rotation pretty handily if he hadn't gotten hurt, and maybe more. Maybe he would have fallen apart anyway I dunno. A lot of kids like him do. I still think he had some legit talent and I still think he could have made something of himself.

 

I dunno why I got back on that again. I just hate unfulfilled potential, and I legit liked Gabbard, he was a rare bright spot in that disastrous 06 campaign and put up a bid to continue that the following year, so I always thought he was a derailed success story.

Who else have we given up on besides Gabbard?

[Dojji]

Masterson springs to mind pretty quickly. One of my all-time favorites. Boston kept trying to shoehorn him into a relief role. Definitely rather have him than Lackey right now.

[mvp 78]

Before we traded him and he got hurt in Texas, Gabbard was neck and neck with Lester.

 

Neck and neck in what? MLB stats? Propect potential?

 

Gabbard was pretty unheralded. The big pitching prospects were Paps and Lester. Gabbard had more in common with Davod Pauley. There were little to no expectations set for him.

 

Sox sold high on him. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[mvp 78]

Masterson springs to mind pretty quickly. One of my all-time favorites. Boston kept trying to shoehorn him into a relief role. Definitely rather have him than Lackey right now.

 

He was traded for a #4 hitting catcher, not given up on.

[a700hitter]

He was traded for a #4 hitting catcher' date=' not given up on.[/quote']Maybe we traded the wrong guy. Maybe we should have moved Broke Back Buchholz instead of Masterson.

[Dojji]

He was traded for a #4 hitting catcher' date=' not given up on.[/quote']

 

He was traded for an aging rental because the ownership was desperate to go over the top against the Rays. We got one playoff appearances out of it. If you believe the guy is a potential top starter you don't do that. They were wrong, and sold low.

 

I'm not gonna hold that against them and picket Yawkey Way with a "Fire Everyone Now!" sign. I was asked a question, and that's an answer. And for that matter, Masterson himself was a high level pitching prospect, they just saw him in the bullpen rather than the rotation.

 

This organization is much too obsessed in trying to assure all 5 rotation spots are filled with top prospects and big contracts. They want sure things, the problem being that this is baseball.

[Dojji]

Neck and neck in what? MLB stats? Propect potential?

 

Performance. Which isn't just stats. He was showing very good poise and intangibles too, and his stuff wasn't quite Lesterish, but was big league. Different kind of pitcher from Lester so a striaight up comparison is foolish anyway. So calling it just "stats" is a bit inaccurate. He didn't have the potential to improve that Lester obviously had, and ultimately his performance would always be limited by his command, but he was getting the job done and you saw an ability in him that suggests to me that he could have continued it at least to the point of being in the bottom of someone's rotation.

 

Gabbard was pretty unheralded. The big pitching prospects were Paps and Lester. Gabbard had more in common with Davod Pauley. There were little to no expectations set for him.

 

Pauley never had that multiple start stretch that Gabbard managed twice where he was taking the ball, getting into or through the 6th, and getting wins. Comparing Gabbard to Pauley made sense before he started pitching in Boston, but end of 2006 and through the deadline in 07, Gabbard had Pauley beat by a fair margin. Seattle subsequently evened the score quite a bit, but that's Seattle, anyone and their fish can pitch in Seattle.

 

Sox sold high on him. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

No, nothing really wrong with it. It was the right move if you were sold on Lester and didn't think any Red Sox starter would ever get hurt again for as long as Gabbard had options left. So yeah, it was fine.

[mvp 78]

In hindsight, Masterson should have been used as a SP rather than a setup guy. They tried to make a run, but it didn't work out with VMart. Not too many people opposed the trade when it happened.

 

This board would have been much better if you posted more this offseason imo.

[jung]

The tough thing to me about having given up Masterson is that VMart was here and gone. I thought that it was a worthwhile move at the time because I thought the Sox really had given themselves a chance to improve the team past the sort of one year rent a player approach.

 

If you told me that the Sox would simply let VMart go like that then I would not have given up Masterson for him. That is the part that surprised me.

[Dojji]

In hindsight' date=' Masterson should have been used as a SP rather than a setup guy. They tried to make a run, but it didn't work out with VMart.[b'] Not too many people opposed the trade when it happened. [/b]

 

 

I did, at the time. I saw him as a future starter -- maybe not top end, but a 3.9-4.2 200 innings guy, I saw that coming, and didn't want it traded for an aging catcher with maybe 1 good year in him.

 

This board would have been much better if you posted more this offseason imo.

 

The problem being I was militantly indifferent to this offseason. I wasn't going to defend the FO, and if I posted here, I would have been roped into defending the FO. Besides, I saw going in that the odds were that this wouldn't be an active offseason to begin with. The only big shock was Papelbon not re-signing and they handled the aftermath too well for me to complain that much.

 

I was also disillusioned for months after Tito's firing (thus the avatar) because he was one of the best managers this long and storied franchise has ever had. It's still going to take me awhile to get fully reinvested in the team. They broke my heart over and over again in the last few months.

[Dojji]

The tough thing to me about having given up Masterson is that VMart was here and gone. I thought that it was a worthwhile move at the time because I thought the Sox really had given themselves a chance to improve the team past the sort of one year rent a player approach.

 

If you told me that the Sox would simply let VMart go like that then I would not have given up Masterson for him. That is the part that surprised me.

 

They had Papi and VMart was done as a catcher. That was a big part of why I didn't like the trade.

[Bellhorn04]

This organization is much too obsessed in trying to assure all 5 rotation spots are filled with top prospects and big contracts. They want sure things' date=' the problem being that this is baseball.[/quote']

 

Really? I thought one of the major complaints against this organization, lately anyway, was that too many high-risk dumpster dives were being counted on for the rotation.

[a700hitter]

This organization is much too obsessed in trying to assure all 5 rotation spots are filled with top prospects and big contracts. They want sure things' date=' the problem being that this is baseball.[/quote']I'm not sure that this is true. The only time they attempted to do this was in 2010 when they made the mistake of getting Lackey. Other than that example there have been several years where the 5th spot has be a rotating spot for retreads and minor leaguers. What is wrong with having 5 reliable starters? I am not sure what you have against that as a goal.

[Dojji]

there have been several years where the 5th spot has be a rotating spot for retreads and minor leaguers.

 

To break camp?

 

There have been times when Plan A has failed and a rotation spot opened, like it did for Masterson when Schilling was never able to pitch in 2008, but unless Wakefield is a retread or a minor leaguer the last time they had a spot actually open for competition out of camp was 2007, and that was because of Lester's cancer. Even in 06 they had a solid plan, it just failed in every concievable way.

[a700hitter]

To break camp?

 

There have been times when Plan A has failed and a rotation spot opened, like it did for Masterson when Schilling was never able to pitch in 2008, but unless Wakefield is a retread or a minor leaguer the last time they had a spot actually open for competition out of camp was 2007, and that was because of Lester's cancer. Even in 06 they had a solid plan, it just failed in every concievable way.

Is your point that all plans are doomed to fail, so that you can never have 5 solid starters for a season?

[ORS]

The problem being I was militantly indifferent to this offseason.

Yeah, this is pretty huge oxymoron. You can't vigorously, or aggressively, force yourself to not care. You either care or you do not. You can militantly avoid a topic in the wish to refrain from discussion, which is what it sounds like you meant. But, you cannot be "militantly indifferent".

[jung]

Five more days to wait till the first spring game. Feel like I am crawling over the finish line. Can't come fast enough.

[Dojji]

You can't vigorously' date=' or aggressively, force yourself to not care. [/quote']

 

You sure about that?

[RedSox_Ruszkowski]

^ i agree. these past few weeks have seemed like forever! i keep staring at my tickets for the Sox/Yanks game at Steinbrenner field..... come on March 13th! i like to keep my optimism about this team so far this off-season. i have high hopes for this year and the only way i will change is if the team convinces me i need to. this team can/will play good ball. i have watched CC far too many years down here in Tampa to think he'll have a repeat year like last year. i see A-gon having a repeat year, although i would like to see him carry on the monster numbers after the AS break ( i'm a firm believer in not participating in Home-run derbys. it somehow seems to mess hitters up). hope BV will mesh well with the players, but overall i see good things to come for this team. no way we have the same start/finish as last year. no way. Just get to October!

[ORS]

You sure about that?

Very sure. If your indifference requires effort to maintain it, then it doesn't really exist.

[SoxSport]

I think the Braun story has put a damper on Baseball for me--at least at this point. There have been too many liars in Baseball--guys who just won't admit they cheated to inflate their stats--especially in contract years. Clemens got off on a similar technicality in court--though the judge is reviewing that, I hear. Didn't Bonds get off in a similar way, too?

 

I think most fans realized, after the Mitchell report, that Selig and the rest knew about players taking steroids, and just looked the other way. They were more interested in increased revenues from Mac and Bonds hitting 100 HRs. The game stinks because of it. Too bad, because the rest of the game is still pretty good--as good as ever.

 

Maybe it just doesn't make any difference. Some think the players should just come clean, admit it , and everything should be legal. After all, ARod just had some undisclosed treatments in Germany to restore his knees--the Yankees are paying him $28mil per year until he's 42, and last year Colon suddenly developed a bionic arm after years of being washed up. High tech is alive and kicking in Baseball, so what's the big deal about steroids and HGH.

[Dojji]

Is your point that all plans are doomed to fail' date=' so that you can never have 5 solid starters for a season?[/quote']

 

Kinda. My point is that there is no such thing as a spare starting pitcher.

[a700hitter]

Kinda. My point is that there is no such thing as a spare starting pitcher.

Aren't you concerned that we don't have 5 planned starters. We only have 4. Our depth guys need to cover the 5th slot. What if something happens to one of the 4 in addition? We have to dig further into the depth options. I agree that there is no such thing as a spare pitcher ,which is why I'd like to have 5 planned starters at the start of spring training.

[Dojji]

I'm very concerned. It's just that I'm not sure what could have been done that wasn't at least tried.

[jung]

I for one would have preferred 5 pitchers as well but it did not happen that way. I think I am going to be OK with it if Doubront is the guy. I will consider that a victory for the development program and be happy to see the guys that were brought in fill the depth role. As long as Doubront earns it what is wrong with a guy out of the system becoming the number 5? I recognize that we end up with an unproven 4 and 5 but it looks like that is where we were going anyway.