Red Sox 2012 Spring Training Thread.

[User Name]

So when do you try to resolve the issue of trying to vet the possibility of gaining a real deal starter out of Bard? This year they make him the 5 which automatically limits his innings and they have dice coming back mid season allowing them to decide at that time whether it makes sense to move Bard back to the pen for what remains of this season. If he performs well as a starter Bard will know that moving back to the pen will be as a consequence of dice returning so it is not like he will go into the tank because he goes back to the pen at that point. If that happens hopefully Bard will go back because for once we will have an abundance of starting pitching.

 

The Sox are simply not going to be better set up to vet Bard as a starter than they are this year.

 

I was about to post something similar jung, very good point.

[Spudboy]

BTR, If you'll pardon my audacity in trying to speak for all my colleagues around here, I'm sure none of us have forgotten Alfredo at all. We know the guy gives his all and usually does very well but it's a helluva lot to ask that all of a sudden without warning he is asked to be the closer when he hasn't ever closed before---and only days before the season begins. What the hell was going on in the first place when all the lips were sealed and no one said boo about Bailey's bum thumb? After all, it had been ten days since he had pitched and someone had to know something was amiss.

 

It's too late for that person who demanded that Bard become the closer the day Papelbon signed with the Phillies, but we sure should have had something in readiness the moment it was found that Bailey had come up lame. All winter long there have been two camps on this board....one camp who believes that this season is a rebuilding or reviving one and the other who think that t here is a real possibility to make a go of it. Now hearing this s***, what are the upbeat people to think? Hell of a way to enter a new season.

 

Hey Fred. Skip the Viagra today.

 

Take a Midol.

[Bellhorn04]

Relatively speaking, Fred is very calm right now. Wait till the games start.

[ORS]

The problem is that Bard in the rotation is a long-long term plan. He's not breaking 150 innings this year' date=' and won't be a top of the rotation guy this year. My argument is that Cook/Padilla could potentially do nearly as well as Bard in the rotation... while Bard would do significantly better in the rotation than Cook/Padilla. Unless someone sees Bard throwing in the mid 3s as a starter, it just seems like the bullpen is where he has the most value to this team.[/quote']

A lot of this has merit and the potential to happen....it's still shortsighted, because it only considers what's beneficial for the team this year. Bard has the potential to be a top of the rotation starter, eventually if not this year. This is why the long view should not be ignored, because top of the rotation starters are more valuable than elite relievers. Another year in the BP means it is less likely they ever try to realize this gain.

 

The ball is in play, the wheel is turning, et al........see it through. In for a penny, in for a pound. Don't quit the plan because the scheduled closer might miss the first 10 games.

[a700hitter]

A lot of this has merit and the potential to happen....it's still shortsighted, because it only considers what's beneficial for the team this year. Bard has the potential to be a top of the rotation starter, eventually if not this year. This is why the long view should not be ignored, because top of the rotation starters are more valuable than elite relievers. Another year in the BP means it is less likely they ever try to realize this gain.

 

The ball is in play, the wheel is turning, et al........see it through. In for a penny, in for a pound. Don't quit the plan because the scheduled closer might miss the first 10 games.

Bridge year?

 

The problem that I have with developing Bard as a starter is that he will be coming up on free agency around the time that he establishes himself as a good starter. I really hate developing guys for other teams.

[jacksonianmarch]

A lot of this has merit and the potential to happen....it's still shortsighted, because it only considers what's beneficial for the team this year. Bard has the potential to be a top of the rotation starter, eventually if not this year. This is why the long view should not be ignored, because top of the rotation starters are more valuable than elite relievers. Another year in the BP means it is less likely they ever try to realize this gain.

 

The ball is in play, the wheel is turning, et al........see it through. In for a penny, in for a pound. Don't quit the plan because the scheduled closer might miss the first 10 games.

 

That's the high risk-high reward model. Some subscribe to it, some don't. The conservative method would be to keep him where he is, and that is the relief ace role that you know he can thrive in. The risk of moving Bard to the rotation is losing his effectiveness in any role. I think Joba needs to be the posterchild of what can happen to a high ceiling pitcher being yanked between roles. Ineffective as a starter, then injured, and comes back with slightly less stuff than before and not as effective as before. The jackpot of moving him to the rotation is obviously higher for both Bard and the sox. But the risk needs to be addressed as a possibility

[Dojji]

No, not a bridge year. There's a difference between a bridge year and letting kids develop in place.

 

This is the issue I had with dealing Masterson when they did. He had all the potential he's showing now, when he was here, ground ball pitcher with strikeout stuff, poised with all the talent to dominate in the rotation, but no one seemed to want to let him go through his growing pains in the rotation and everyone kept wanting to squeeze him into the bullpen instead as a result.

 

Heck I'm as guilty as anyone else when it came to Buchholz, but that's mostly because my first impression of the kid was as a guy who couldn't buy a third out to save his immortal soul and when he wasn't missing bats, the ball was getting launched. Masterson had neither problem.

 

Masterson could wind up as one of the top pitchers in the league for a long time -- he's got all the stuff he ever needed to do it -- and they sacrificed that for 1 1/2 years of a catcher who should have been DHing because "he's a reliever!" Just because that's what he first started succeeding at. Still frustrates me.

[jacksonianmarch]

Masterson was abused by lefties and had a minus changeup that needed a lot of development. If he never developed it, he was going to be a RH specialist. They got offered a catcher who could hit .300 and 20+HR's who became the 3 hitter on an 89 win and a 95 win team. Not like you got s*** for him.

[User Name]

That's the high risk-high reward model. Some subscribe to it' date=' some don't. The conservative method would be to keep him where he is, and that is the relief ace role that you know he can thrive in. The risk of moving Bard to the rotation is losing his effectiveness in any role. I think Joba needs to be the posterchild of what can happen to a high ceiling pitcher being yanked between roles. Ineffective as a starter, then injured, and comes back with slightly less stuff than before and not as effective as before. The jackpot of moving him to the rotation is obviously higher for both Bard and the sox. But the risk needs to be addressed as a possibility[/quote']

 

Why do you keep comparing Bard to Joba? The main reason Joba broke down was because he's a fat, out-of-shape slob who had known injury issues before the conversion. There are several examples of guys who were bullpen pitchers for a while then transitioned to the rotation with little to no trouble.

[Dojji]

Masterson was abused by lefties and had a minus changeup that needed a lot of development. If he never developed it' date=' he was going to be a RH specialist. They got offered a catcher who could hit .300 and 20+HR's who became the 3 hitter on an 89 win and a 95 win team. Not like you got s*** for him.[/quote']

 

Masterson wasn't any worse against lefties than other similar pitchers like Brandon Webb. That weakness was exaggerated into an excuse to fail to develop him aggressively.

 

As for VMart, agreed the man could hit, it's just that we already had a DH, and asking him to catch was a study in failure which meant that the problem he was brought in to fix wasn't really addressed -- that being, having someone to play catcher after Tek was done. At least with Salty as our starter we didn't pay a potential #1/2 SP for the privilege of missing the playoffs.

[a700hitter]

No, not a bridge year. There's a difference between a bridge year and letting kids develop in place.

 

This is the issue I had with dealing Masterson when they did. He had all the potential he's showing now, when he was here, ground ball pitcher with strikeout stuff, poised with all the talent to dominate in the rotation, but no one seemed to want to let him go through his growing pains in the rotation and everyone kept wanting to squeeze him into the bullpen instead as a result.

 

Heck I'm as guilty as anyone else when it came to Buchholz, but that's mostly because my first impression of the kid was as a guy who couldn't buy a third out to save his immortal soul and when he wasn't missing bats, the ball was getting launched. Masterson had neither problem.

 

Masterson could wind up as one of the top pitchers in the league for a long time -- he's got all the stuff he ever needed to do it -- and they sacrificed that for 1 1/2 years of a catcher who should have been DHing because "he's a reliever!" Just because that's what he first started succeeding at. Still frustrates me.

The problem with developing Bard in place is that if it takes him a year to develop, we will lose control of him almost immediately. This is not a case of developing a kid (and riding out the growing pains) who will be under the organizations control for a few years.

[a700hitter]

From today's Boston Herald about Bailey's thumb injury:

In addition, this thumb situation could be nothing more than a bruise that will need just a few days to heal.

 

But if it’s not, the Red Sox have a whole lot of rethinking to do about a bullpen they thought already was rebuilt.

[ORS]

Bridge year?

 

The problem that I have with developing Bard as a starter is that he will be coming up on free agency around the time that he establishes himself as a good starter. I really hate developing guys for other teams.

Bard has 2.148 years of service time going into this season. They have all of this year, and then three more years where he'd be under arb control prior to his free agency. And, they can always extend him through his first couple of FA years like they did with Lester and Buchholz.

 

And, I don't think it will take him 4 years to establish himself as a good starter. I think the team will be able to tell if he's headed that way by the end of this year, and if he's headed that way he'll achieve it by the end of year 2. He's already developed the ability to face MLB hitters and get them out, so it's not like we are talking about a pure prospect in terms of development into a good SP.

[Station 13]

This is the Red Sox, if Bard becomes a front starter, they'll gladly shell out $100+M to keep him.

[ORS]

That's the high risk-high reward model. Some subscribe to it' date=' some don't. The conservative method would be to keep him where he is, and that is the relief ace role that you know he can thrive in. The risk of moving Bard to the rotation is losing his effectiveness in any role. I think Joba needs to be the posterchild of what can happen to a high ceiling pitcher being yanked between roles. Ineffective as a starter, then injured, and comes back with slightly less stuff than before and not as effective as before. The jackpot of moving him to the rotation is obviously higher for both Bard and the sox. But the risk needs to be addressed as a possibility[/quote']

Joba is a terrible example. He's an effort pitcher who ended up needing TJ surgery. This is not a groundbreaking set of circumstances.

 

I think the risk of losing his ability to continue to perform in the BP is minimal.

[a700hitter]

Bard has 2.148 years of service time going into this season. They have all of this year, and then three more years where he'd be under arb control prior to his free agency. And, they can always extend him through his first couple of FA years like they did with Lester and Buchholz.

 

And, I don't think it will take him 4 years to establish himself as a good starter. I think the team will be able to tell if he's headed that way by the end of this year, and if he's headed that way he'll achieve it by the end of year 2. He's already developed the ability to face MLB hitters and get them out, so it's not like we are talking about a pure prospect in terms of development into a good SP.

How can he have only 2.148 years of service? He came up to the majors on May 13, 2009. Arb control is really not control. He'll be getting Fair Market Value at arb. No big value there. We will not be suffering through rough spots to enjoy a below market value commodity for any period of time. Arb is designed to give market value, and then he will walk.

[ORS]

How can he have only 2.148 years of service? He came up to the majors on May 13' date=' 2009. Arb control is really not control. He'll be getting Fair Market Value at arb. No big value there. We will not be suffering through rough spots to enjoy a below market value commodity for any period of time. Arb is designed to give market value, and then he will walk.[/quote']

Sure it is control. Only the 3rd year arb contract comes close to approaching market value for a player of that ability. The first two arb years represent significant savings over what market value for a player of that ability would be. And, the arb awards are dependent upon the quality of play.

 

He's has 2.148 years of service time.....don't ask me how, that's what's listed on BB-Ref and Cots. However, I was wrong about how long they have control, as he was apparently a Super-2 and is in his first arb year now (2012 - Cots says he signed for $1.6M and avoided arb).

 

I still think he'll make-it/break-it as a SP well before they lose control.

[a700hitter]

Sure it is control. Only the 3rd year arb contract comes close to approaching market value for a player of that ability. The first two arb years represent significant savings over what market value for a player of that ability would be. And, the arb awards are dependent upon the quality of play.

 

He's has 2.148 years of service time.....don't ask me how, that's what's listed on BB-Ref and Cots. However, I was wrong about how long they have control, as he was apparently a Super-2 and is in his first arb year now (2012 - Cots says he signed for $1.6M and avoided arb).

 

I still think he'll make-it/break-it as a SP well before they lose control.

So there are two years of arb left? He'll probably be average this year. If he shoots out the lights next season, we get to keep him for 1 more yr at full FMV. To me, it is not worth the bumps in the road developing a guy unless you get a few good years out of him. That's just my opinion.

[Bellhorn04]

So there are two years of arb left? He'll probably be average this year. If he shoots out the lights next season' date=' we get to keep him for 1 more yr at full FMV. To me, it is not worth the bumps in the road developing a guy unless you get a few good years out of him. That's just my opinion.[/quote']

 

You seem to be completely ruling out the possibility the Red Sox could make a deal with him before he reaches free agency.

[User Name]

You seem to be completely ruling out the possibility the Red Sox could make a deal with him before he reaches free agency.

 

Because it's always the absolutely worst-case scenario.

 

Either Bard sucks as a starter, or he becomes a good one and the Sox don't keep him.

 

No positive outcomes or middle ground here.

[BornToRun]

Because it's always the absolutely worst-case scenario.

 

Either Bard sucks as a starter, or he becomes a good one and the Sox don't keep him.

 

No positive outcomes or middle ground here.

 

Welcome to the Boston red sox fan base

[a700hitter]

You seem to be completely ruling out the possibility the Red Sox could make a deal with him before he reaches free agency.

That's not such a big bargain. I am not big on buying out a year or two of free agency for a pitcher by overpaying for control years. We bought out Buchholz's first year of FA and overpaid for 201--a lost season for Buchholz.

[Bellhorn04]

That's not such a big bargain. I am not big on buying out a year or two of free agency for a pitcher by overpaying for control years. We bought out Buchholz's first year of FA and overpaid for 201--a lost season for Buchholz.

 

What about Lester's deal-that one is working out pretty well.

[a700hitter]

Ha ha, U.N. remains obsessed with me! A700Hitter remains a must read, love him or hate him.

 

VA, I apologize for the 3rd person reference, but it's not really a 3rd person reference when you think about it. A700Hitter is just an internet identity-- not who I am by a long shot. A700Hitter is whoever the reader has conjured up in his/her own minds, and none of it approaches the real person. Again, I apologize, because I know it is a pet peeve of yours.

[User Name]

Get off your high horse. Several posters have expressed the same exact take towards the Bard situation.

[BornToRun]

Ha ha, U.N. remains obsessed with me! A700Hitter remains a must read, love him or hate him.

 

VA, I apologize for the 3rd person reference, but it's not really a 3rd person reference when you think about it. A700Hitter is just an internet identity-- not who I am by a long shot. A700Hitter is whoever the reader has conjured up in his/her own minds, and none of it approaches the real person. Again, I apologize, because I know it is a pet peeve of yours.

 

So I'm gonna take a guess and say you're slightly more sane outside of this forum?

[a700hitter]

What about Lester's deal-that one is working out pretty well.

Lester had developed into an ace in his second full season of service. His 2008 and 2009 were unbelievable bargains. Bard already has more than 2 years of service under his belt and has never been a starter. I don't think the two situations are comparable. Lester was a guy who was developed initially as a starter and even after his rough spots, there were several more seasons of cost control.

[a700hitter]

So I'm gonna take a guess and say you're slightly more sane outside of this forum?

I wouldn't count on that.

[Bellhorn04]

Lester had developed into an ace in his second full season of service. His 2008 and 2009 were unbelievable bargains. Bard already has more than 2 years of service under his belt and has never been a starter. I don't think the two situations are comparable. Lester was a guy who was developed initially as a starter and even after his rough spots' date=' there were several more seasons of cost control.[/quote']

 

The comparison I meant was to Buchholz's deal that you didn't like.

[a700hitter]

The comparison I meant was to Buchholz's deal that you didn't like.

I would agree that it was better. Lester didn't have any lost seasons in what would have otherwise been cost controlled years.