Bard to Rotation a Mistake?

[User Name]

oh yeah' date=' but his past suggest me that he will do just fine in the future, but yeah, that's only me and Philly.[/quote']

 

Apparently yes. Most sportswriters also think it's a massive overpay.

[iortiz]

Apparently yes. Most sportswriters also think it's a massive overpay.

 

I do not share that in a yoy perspective. Hell, he is still young, he is more mature, he is healthy, he has put the numbers, etc. All the signs tell me that he'll be ok. I'm not sure why to think in the other way.

[ORS]

I think you pay the money based on the past. He has the numbers. He has shown durability. IMO he earned/deserved that contract. Sure only time will tell whether it is worth. In the end nothing is sure. Philly bet that it will worth. I'm with them. Red Sox and some around here think it will not worth. Only time will tell.

Paying money for past performance and durability is what got the Sox to where they are now with Lackey and Crawford, moves you are very critical of right now, and rightfully so, as they take up a lot of the Sox resources. I think part of the reason they didn't go into the market for Papelbon is they are bit gun-shy after getting burned by their FA signings recently.

[User Name]

I do not share that in a yoy perspective. Hell' date=' he is still young, he is more mature, he is healthy, he has put the numbers, etc. All the signs tell me that he'll be ok. I'm not sure why to think in the other way.[/quote']

 

History of relief pitchers.

 

Too many pitchers with solid histories of health and performance falling off a cliff in the middle of long-term contracts. There's a huge precedent. You seem to think Papelbon is above falling victim to the issues that derailed the career of these other relievers, and i don't. Simple as that.

[ORS]

A lot of the criticism levelled at the Front Office concerns poor FA decisions in the past. It demands accountability for these decisions. You are seeing that now. You will see a more conservative approach, IMO, in the FA market for a little while.

[iortiz]

Paying money for past performance and durability is what got the Sox to where they are now with Lackey and Crawford' date=' moves you are very critical of right now, and rightfully so, as they take up a lot of the Sox resources. I think part of the reason they didn't go into the market for Papelbon is they are bit gun-shy after getting burned by their FA signings recently.[/quote']

 

I do not think Lackey or CC are in the same boat ORS. CC signed a 7 yr contract. Lackey was overpaid. Some suggested that he had problems with his arm before coming to Boston.

 

This is a 4 year contract. Yeah this is still a bet. I would have supported this.

[iortiz]

History of relief pitchers.

 

Too many pitchers with solid histories of health and performance falling off a cliff in the middle of long-term contracts. There's a huge precedent. You seem to think Papelbon is above falling victim to the issues that derailed the career of these other relievers, and i don't. Simple as that.

 

See Mo. Why not to think he can make something aroud Mo, regardless he pitched in the same division.

 

Anyway... That is only my opinion.

[User Name]

A lot of the criticism levelled at the Front Office concerns poor FA decisions in the past. It demands accountability for these decisions. You are seeing that now. You will see a more conservative approach' date=' IMO, in the FA market for a little while.[/quote']

 

Red Sox fans want the FO to stop handing out misguided/careless contracts, and demand accountability while heavily criticizing the FO, then promptly ask the FO to hand out misguided/careless contracts and heavily criticize the FO for a conservative approach.

 

There's just no way to win with "Red Sox Nation".

[User Name]

See Mo. Why not to think he can make something aroud Mo, regardless he pitched in the same division.

 

Anyway... That is only my opinion.

 

Mariano is an exception. One example to several others that prove otherwise.

 

Like yours, that is my opinion.

[ORS]

I do not think Lackey or CC are the same boat ORS. CC signed a 7 yr contract. Lackey was overpaid. Some suggested that he had problems with his arm before coming to Boston.

 

This is a 4 year contract. Yeah this is still a bet. I would have supported this.

They are absolutely the same types of signings. Papelbon has a known shoulder subluxation in his past. He's not perfectly clean in the health department.

 

You demanded they learn their lessons from their previous bad signings. This is the what happens when they learn their lessons. They avoid them for a while. They get conservative. This is what you asked for.

[a700hitter]

It is unrealistic to expect them to expand their budget' date=' especially when the expansion exceeds the league implemented soft cap and gets penalized at 40%. And your last paragraph indicates you do expect them to have made such a decision despite your statement in this paragraph that it isn't what you were calling for.[/quote']If it were my decision, I would have spent the additional money to bring in a bona fide starter, nothing too extravagant. Edwin Jackson would have fit the bill. That's my opinion, not my expectation. My expectation is that a starter would have been acquired in the off season, because the team badly needs one . There were a number of ways to accomplish this.

 

Furthermore' date=' you have been very critical of "Benny Boy" when he was not at the helm to make these poor decisions that lead to the current level of spending. I agree, I think they should have gotten more out of the money they spent on the likes of Lackey and Crawford, but that is in the past and should not be a source of criticism for the new GM.[/quote']I didn't even mention his name in the post. I was criticizing the entire organization for this, not just Cherries.

 

 

And' date=' can you quit with the creative number statements that are a transparent attempt to paint an intentionally bleak picture? Your "only 2 with 20 in 2011" is more than a bit disingenuous. Buchholz is an established MLB pitcher, and the ultimate quality of the 2012 rotation is not at all dependent upon how many starts the staff made in 2011. It certainly didn't help them last year going into the season with 5 pitchers who made more than 20 starts. [/quote']Hey, go inflate your ass donut, drop the attitude and don't tell me what I "can quit". If you don't like the "2 pitchers with 20 starts in 2011" factoid, that's your prerogative, but it is a fact. Yes, we have 3 established MLB pitchers. Unfortunately, one of them had a broken back last season from undetermined causes.

 

Would you have supported a rookie DH if it meant more pitching? I'm skeptical you would given your consistent view on rookies. And' date=' if not, don't bother listing it as an alternative, because you'd still be critical, just from another angle. I'm confident the only way your criticisms, ones that I think are a bit unrealistic and overstated, go away is if they had both Ortiz and the contingency pitching you want so bad, which takes us back to the expansion of resource cost.[/quote']I love it when you tell me what I would think. Buzz off with that s*** and let's discuss the issue. If it meant a choice between getting a pitcher, I would have looked elsewhere for a cheaper DH, not necessarily a rookie. Check the off season threads. I was consistently critical of the Sox offer of arbitration to Ortiz. I thought it was a tremendous waste of resources. They probably could have retained him for $9 million if they didn't offer him arbitration, and the amount they saved on the Arb and on Scutaro might have been enough to land us a pitcher. Again, stop telling me what you think I would think, because you are consistently wrong about that.

 

There certainly is more than one way to go about things. Just because this type of move wouldn't cost actual dollars' date=' it does cut into the their talent resources. Gonzalez was acquired for 4 good prospects. After the recent trades for talent like Gonzalez and Martinez, is it realistic to expect them to further deplete their good MiLB talent to that degree? I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere, with both money and talent. The only thing that seems consistent is that these lines don't seem to exist for you when it comes to making you comfortable with the roster + contingencies going into the season. [/quote']I used the Gonzalez trade to illustrate that avenues other than expanding payroll do exist. I wasn't making the case that the Gio Gonzalez deal was the right deal for the Sox.

 

IMO' date=' they should never spend money as a PR move.[/quote']

We can agree to disagree on this. I happen to think that maintaining brand excellence is of extreme importance, and I think 2011 damaged the brand.

 

Nice talking to you.

[iortiz]

They are absolutely the same types of signings. Papelbon has a known shoulder subluxation in his past. He's not perfectly clean in the health department.

 

You demanded they learn their lessons from their previous bad signings. This is the what happens when they learn their lessons. They avoid them for a while. They get conservative. This is what you asked for.

 

Sorry, they are not in the same boat. I do not see that way. I'm not against long term contracts. I've said this over and over again. Each case needs to be analyzed. Pap's case is another case.

[a700hitter]

They are absolutely the same types of signings. Papelbon has a known shoulder subluxation in his past. He's not perfectly clean in the health department.

 

You demanded they learn their lessons from their previous bad signings. This is the what happens when they learn their lessons. They avoid them for a while. They get conservative. This is what you asked for.

He hasn't had any health issue since 2006. Even Mo Rivera had some health issues early in his career.

[iortiz]

He hasn't had any health issue since 2006. Even Mo Rivera had some health issues early in his career.

 

Their positions are different. The lenght of their contracts are different. The amount of their contracts are different. Their background are different. Etc.

 

As I said, I do not see them in the same boat.

[Dojji]

His peripherals (WHIP' date=' H/9, BB/9, HR/9) were all below what had been his career averages to date and what are his career averages right now. What is idiocy is looking at one stat to determine overall performance. You should know better.[/quote']

 

 

When that one stat is ERA+, it's hardly asinine, since it factors those other aspects of pitching in.

 

And what you think Papelbon's career averages have to do with whether a performance is elite or not, I have absobloodylutely no idea. The Papelbon of 06-08 had a looooooooooong way to fall before his performance wasn't elite anymore.

 

 

 

Absolutely asinine.

 

Statistically, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011 were his best seasons, and could all be considered "elite" seasons. All he had in 2009 was a better ERA and ERA+, which is not indicative of overall performance, and even less with relievers and their samples.

 

And if Papelbon was a borderline elite player, that would matter. I'm not going to discount Papelbon 09 just because he occasionally walked people.

 

ERA is not meaningless. ERA is the number that determines how many times per 9 innings you actually allowed earned runs. It's probably the most important number, it's just not always perfectly indicative of skill.

 

 

 

.

 

Also, don't take things out of context: My initial referral to Papelbon being "just a reliever" refers to the amount of money and years tied up to him by the Phillies. You don't pay that much for relief pitching.

 

I didn't take things out of context. You are now engaged in fudging the context.

 

Besides the interpretation you want to apply here, your referral to Papelbon being "just a reliever" was also partly in response to the concept of his being an elite player -- as in, the kind of player you pay out the nose to hold onto. If it was just about overpayment, your argument would be ridiculous -- even if he's now mortal, Paps is still one of the greatest closers in the league and clearly, easily, an elite closer.

 

If you think he'd be worth the money he's making for seasons similar for 2010, you're an idiot. No offense meant.

 

You're wrong. And you're not handling that particularly well right now.

[User Name]

When that one stat is ERA+, it's hardly asinine, since it factors those other aspects of pitching in.

 

And what you think Papelbon's career averages have to do with whether a performance is elite or not, I have absobloodylutely no idea. The Papelbon of 06-08 had a looooooooooong way to fall before his performance wasn't elite anymore.

 

ERA + is league-average ERA adjusted for stadium factors. It does not factor any other aspect of pitching. If you don't know how a stat is used, don't use it.

 

The point was that 2009 was not an elite performance, neither by his or league standards.

 

And if Papelbon was a borderline elite player, that would matter. I'm not going to discount Papelbon 09 just because he occasionally walked people.

 

ERA is not meaningless. ERA is the number that determines how many times per 6 innings you actually allowed earned runs. It's probably the most important number, it's just not always perfectly indicative of skill.

 

Who said ERA is meaningless? What i said (and correctly so) is that it is merely an aspect of pitching efficiency, and not necessarily the most important one, as you state.

 

Stick to debating what i actually say.

 

Also, it's a two-year sample of below-average performance. And your point regarding 2009 was dead wrong, don't backpedal.

 

I didn't take things out of context. You didn't supply a context.

 

Besides the interpretation you want to apply here, your referral to Papelbon being "just a reliever" was also partly in response to the concept of his being an elite player -- as in, the kind of player you pay out the nose to hold onto. If it was just about overpayment, your argument would be ridiculous -- even if he's now mortal, Paps is still one of the greatest closers in the league and clearly, easily, an elite closer.

 

The context is quite clear: You don't pay big money for relief pitching.

 

Papelbon is an elite closer, but he's still not worth that type of money, nor is any reliever, as evidenced by statistical analysis and empirical knowledge of relief pitcher volatility.

 

 

You're wrong. And you're not handling that particularly well right now.

 

Wrong about what? Reliever volatility? Knowledge of what ERA+ actually entails? The data that suggests the massive overpayment to Papelbon? An actually consistent thought process?

 

Nice attempt to pat yourself in the back, but your line of thinking has more holes than a spaghetti strainer.

[Dojji]

And yet I'm still right, and you're still wrong.

 

We're talking about elite talent. You don't pinch pennies with elite talent.

[User Name]

And yet I'm still right, and you're still wrong.

 

We're talking about elite talent. You don't pinch pennies with elite talent.

 

That's absolute nonsense.

 

There is a market value even for "elite" talent. Overpaying is overpaying.

[Dojji]

Does that market value calculate the cost of dealing prospects to fill the hole Paps left behind?

 

I would rather have Reddick and Paps than Sweeney and Bailey, even if it put is over the cap and prevented us from signing such historic luminaries as Nick Punto and Cody Ross.

[ORS]

Hey' date=' go inflate your ass donut, drop the attitude and don't tell me what I "can quit". If you don't like the "2 pitchers with 20 starts in 2011" factoid, that's your prerogative, but it is a fact. Yes, we have 3 established MLB pitchers. Unfortunately, one of them had a broken back last season from undetermined causes.[/quote']

I don't have an attitude. It's an irrelevant factoid. I didn't tell you to drop, I asked you to. And, my surgery has f***all to do with this discussion. Nice job keeping the personal stuff out of this, you massive hypocrite.

 

I love it when you tell me what I would think. Buzz off with that s*** and let's discuss the issue. If it meant a choice between getting a pitcher, I would have looked elsewhere for a cheaper DH, not necessarily a rookie. Check the off season threads. I was consistently critical of the Sox offer of arbitration to Ortiz. I thought it was a tremendous waste of resources. They probably could have retained him for $9 million if they didn't offer him arbitration, and the amount they saved on the Arb and on Scutaro might have been enough to land us a pitcher. Again, stop telling me what you think I would think, because you are consistently wrong about that.

How am I wrong, my question is still unanswered? I didn't ask what you would have done, I asked if you would be OK with a rookie as DH instead of Ortiz, because I think that is the clear course of action they would have taken if they let Oritz go. Is it so difficult to answer the question?

 

Nice talking to you.

Don't be a phony. This is BS after the nastiness you posted above.

[ORS]

Sorry' date=' they are not in the same boat. I do not see that way. I'm not against long term contracts. I've said this over and over again. Each case needs to be analyzed. Pap's case is another case.[/quote']

We've been down this road before. You get caught arguing both sides of a debate and start calling things "different". I'm not interested in continuing if you are going try and weasel out of this by calling two situations that are so similar "different".

[User Name]

Does that market value calculate the cost of dealing prospects to fill the hole Paps left behind?

 

I would rather have Reddick and Paps than Sweeney and Bailey, even if it put is over the cap and prevented us from signing such historic luminaries as Nick Punto and Cody Ross.

 

Apples to Oranges comparison. What exactly does this even mean?

 

They could've found a suitable alternative for less money without the use of prospects.

 

Your "preference" doesn't take away from the main point of contention: Papelbon's contract is a massive overpayment.

 

Also, Reddick sucks, and keeping Papelbon would've meant Ortiz is gone, so you would have created another hole (albeit probably an easier-to-fill one, i will concede).

 

I have not said in any place that i would have preferred for Papelbon not to come back, but rather not at that length and that price.

 

What is it with you not being able to understand what others clearly state?

[iortiz]

We've been down this road before. You get caught arguing both sides of a debate and start calling things "different". I'm not interested in continuing if you are going try and weasel out of this by calling two situations that are so similar "different".

 

get caught? Sounds like you are FBI or something and I'm a criminal C'mon ORS it is only a point of view. I have no problem with long term contracts. Avoid them is not the solution. Each case is different specially when they play different positions. Do not be surprised if they sign a big fish in 2013.

 

No problem at all. I'm just saying that their contracts/situations are different. I wouldn't compare them. If you want compare Adrian Gonzalez/Votto/Fielder/Pujols/Teixeria you probably could have a better case, but compare Lackey/CC/Pap contracts doesn't make sense to me. You are comparing apples with pears. If you think the opposite, it is your opinion and I respect it but I do not share it. And yes... they should learn from the past. I'm not sure if they have. They let walk a healthy/solid/proved closer and instead they brought an injury prone player. On the other hand the strategy/plan could work out as I said early. It depends how you want to see the glass.

[ORS]

get caught? Sounds like you are FBI or something and I'm a criminal C'mon ORS it is only a point of view. I have no problem with long term contracts. Avoid them is not the solution. Each case is different specially when they play different positions. Do not be surprised if they sign a big fish in 2013.

 

No problem at all. I'm just saying that their contracts/situations are different. I wouldn't compare them. If you want compare Adrian Gonzalez/Votto/Fielder/Pujols/Teixeria you probably could have a better case, but compare Lackey/CC/Pap contracts doesn't make sense to me. You are comparing apples with pears. If you think the opposite, it is your opinion and I respect it but I do not share it. And yes... they should learn from the past. I'm not sure if they have. They let walk a healthy/solid/proved closer and instead they brought an injury prone player. On the other hand the strategy/plan could work out as I said early. It depends how you want to see the glass.

They all represent the same inherent risk of underpeformance and/or injury regardless of position. When they have experienced failure, and they should "learn from the past", one should expect a conservative approach to future signings. This is what we are seeing.

[a700hitter]

I don't have an attitude. It's an irrelevant factoid. I didn't tell you to drop' date=' I asked you to. And, my surgery has f***all to do with this discussion. Nice job keeping the personal stuff out of this, you massive hypocrite.[/quote']I know those ass donuts need periodic inflating. I thought your mood might have been affected by under-inflation. I didn't want to assume that you are inherently nasty.

 

...and it is not an irrelevant factoid. That's your opinion. We have 3 experienced MLB starters-- one of which had a broken back from undetermined causes last season

 

How am I wrong' date=' my question is still unanswered? I didn't ask what you would have done, I asked if you would be OK with a rookie as DH instead of Ortiz, because I think that is the clear course of action they would have taken if they let Oritz go. Is it so difficult to answer the question?[/quote']Why should I answer that? A rookie was not the only alternative to not offering arb to Ortiz. Ortiz could be retained cheaply, or there were other cheap veteran options available. Why should I answer something about a rookie as if it was the only option. As for a rookie, it would depend on who the rookie was. Lavarnway thumped the ball pretty well during Spring Training. I could have seen him sharing the position with someone like Bobby Abreu who is excess baggage for the Angels. The Angels would probably eat most of his salary.

 

Don't be a phony. This is BS after the nastiness you posted above.

Maybe you don't see your own abrasive tone? You often come across as nasty and pricky to me in unprovoked situations. At least I am just a prick, when I feel provoked --notice I used the term "feel" because you will deny being confrontational.

[a700hitter]

get caught? Sounds like you are FBI or something and I'm a criminal C'mon ORS it is only a point of view. I have no problem with long term contracts. Avoid them is not the solution. Each case is different specially when they play different positions. Do not be surprised if they sign a big fish in 2013.

 

No problem at all. I'm just saying that their contracts/situations are different. I wouldn't compare them. If you want compare Adrian Gonzalez/Votto/Fielder/Pujols/Teixeria you probably could have a better case, but compare Lackey/CC/Pap contracts doesn't make sense to me. You are comparing apples with pears. If you think the opposite, it is your opinion and I respect it but I do not share it. And yes... they should learn from the past. I'm not sure if they have. They let walk a healthy/solid/proved closer and instead they brought an injury prone player. On the other hand the strategy/plan could work out as I said early. It depends how you want to see the glass.

And the term "weasel out of" is not confrontational? Really, go take a midol and a nap, ORS.

[ORS]

Well, there is no "ass donut" to inflate. I take the pain with a side of fava beans and a nice Chianti.

[ORS]

And the term "weasel out of" is not confrontational? Really' date=' go take a midol and a nap, ORS.[/quote']

It's what he's doing. A spade is a spade.

[a700hitter]

It's what he's doing. A spade is a spade.

And without provocation, you have been very confrontational today. That's a spade too. A little more Chianti might be in order.

[iortiz]

They all represent the same inherent risk of underpeformance and/or injury regardless of position. When they have experienced failure' date=' and they should "learn from the past", one should expect a conservative approach to future signings. This is what we are seeing.[/quote']

 

Oh yeah, all long term contracts have inherent risks. The thing is that I see different risk levels in each contract since each one is different.

 

I see less risks in Pap's contract than in CC's or Lackey's contracts for example. Some think different and that's fine but it doesn't mean that I'm correct or wrong. It is only an opinion in the end.