Official 2012 Keep your shit together thread

[The Boomer]

Now you are on to a different topic' date=' the issue of the risk inherent with change. Before you stated you didn't see cheap options available. Yes, there is risk, but the options are there. When the stars align, and your biggest needs match up with your best prospects, that is the worst time to create other holes, especially when those you propose trading aren't a drain on your resources.[/quote']

 

Hold on now, the assertion as I understood it was that those cheap options could replace the production lost. I don't see that. Of course we have cheap options. But how likely are they to produce 10+ WAR collectively in 2013? That I don't see that at this point.

[The Boomer]

Im saying he could have helped. If you think this bullpen is just fine the way it is...then you have rose colored glasses on. He could have came in and pitched 2 maybe 3 innings on Thursday and our lineup could have maybe done something in the extra innings. The backend of this bullpen is a joke as currently constituted. He can have an effect on 3 to 4 games a week...instead of 6 to 7 innings once maybe twice a week. Its a no brainer.

 

Who's going to start his games then? Plus, IMHO once you've settled on someone you need to stick with it until it's clear it's not working. Everyone knew it was a decision with risk attached to it, but it's a decision that's been made and Bard deserves his shot.

[User Name]

Hold on now' date=' the assertion as I understood it was that those cheap options could replace the production lost. I don't see that. Of course we have cheap options. But how likely are they to produce 10+ WAR collectively in 2013? That I don't see that at this point.[/quote']

 

But trading our cheap, established players for unproven prospects makes sense?

 

Which is it? You either give prospects a chance, or you don't.

[jung]

The other thing that we are forgetting is that Bard is the FO choice. V does not make the decision on Bard. That has already been proven. V did not get any of the three roster moves to happen the way he wanted them to happen. So we should likely stop wasting type on Bard to the bullpen. The FO wants him to have his shot at starting and I don't see them changing that view for anything.

[FredLynn]

The other thing that we are forgetting is that Bard is the FO choice. V does not make the decision on Bard. That has already been proven. V did not get any of the three roster moves to happen the way he wanted them to happen. So we should likely stop wasting type on Bard to the bullpen. The FO wants him to have his shot at starting and I don't see them changing that view for anything.

 

WHAT???

You mean we don't get to make the decisions here?

Its all discussion and speculation Jung. Exchanging ideas.

[jung]

I agree pumpsei...it is all speculation and discussion. However when the discussion revolves around a roster move that is just not going anywhere while having been beaten to death then you don't get to the things that might actually happen.

[ORS]

Hold on now' date=' the assertion as I understood it was that those cheap options could replace the production lost. I don't see that. Of course we have cheap options. But how likely are they to produce 10+ WAR collectively in 2013? That I don't see that at this point.[/quote']

We'll if that is your point can you at least introduce realism to the question? 10 WAR, the players in question are as unlikely to reach that level as their replacements are. Papi and Youk were good for 7.9 WAR last year, and them only being a year older means they are unlikely to reach that number. I don't think the two rookies will be a safe bet to get to 7.5 in their first full years, but they could, however I think they could get to a 5, which I'd take at 1/25 the cost.

[FredLynn]

I agree pumpsei...it is all speculation and discussion. However when the discussion revolves around a roster move that is just not going anywhere while having been beaten to death then you don't get to the things that might actually happen.

 

Valentine was asked if Bard might move to the closer role within the last day or two.

His response: "Maybe".

It could still happen. I think things are still evolving. Losing Bailey was a crushing blow to the pen.

[SoxSport]

Base on performance I would drop either Padilla or Morales into the closers role for now. My preference would be Padilla. He simply does not give a damn what inning it is.

 

Aceves has fallen apart between the ears. It is not his arm. If Padilla is sound he will make his pitches regardless of what inning it is. The fact that we really do not know how long Padilla could go on any given night also suggests the closer role since he would be coming in for one inning stints. Granted Padilla in this role is a matter of necessity brought on by the Bailey mess but that is what I would do.

 

Padilla threw 4 shutout innings yesterday on 51 pitches. What was to prevent him from going out for the 9th with a lead? And getting the win? What prevented him was the mindset of using a closer in a save situation, and Bobby Vs premature pronouncement that Aceves was the closer. He threw a guy in there who had pitched the day before instead of leaving in the dominant guy. Padilla gets into trouble in the 9th--then you take him out.

 

The difference between a great manager and the run of the mill type is having the balls to go against the grain. Bobby missed the opportunity yesterday.

 

I see the Globe has trotted out its staff this aft to rebuke Cafardo again on Bard closing. It's poll shows 80% think Bard should close at this point. The readers agree with Cafardo.

[SoxSport]

Valentine was asked if Bard might move to the closer role within the last day or two.

His response: "Maybe".

It could still happen. I think things are still evolving. Losing Bailey was a crushing blow to the pen.

 

Bobby has to get permission from Ben.

[mvp 78]

What prevented Padilla going out for the 9th was BV wanting a shorter workload for him due to his injuries in ST.

[The Boomer]

But trading our cheap, established players for unproven prospects makes sense?

 

Which is it? You either give prospects a chance, or you don't.

 

You are conflating two distinct points.

 

#1. I currently don't see Lavy and Middlebrooks as able to replace Papi and Youk or even close. I will be happy to revise that opinion as the season goes on.

 

#2. If we are 12 games out of first at the ASB, then moving someone who has value who isn't going to be around long-term and who will be of marginal value to us in 2013-2014 is something to think about. If you do that, then you want high-quality prospects in return who can produce cheaply in 2014 and beyond.

 

None of the names I mentioned are cheap except in MLB terms. Two will be making more than $10 million in 2013. One is a pitcher who has an injury history. All of them should be candidates for trades at the right price. I'd much rather trade Lackey, but I assume he has negative value right now so there's no point. Beckett's contract will highly reduce whatever we get back, so that's not worthwhile since you only do it for real value.

[The Boomer]

We'll if that is your point can you at least introduce realism to the question? 10 WAR' date=' the players in question are as unlikely to reach that level as their replacements are. Papi and Youk were good for 7.9 WAR last year, and them only being a year older means they are unlikely to reach that number. I don't think the two rookies will be a safe bet to get to 7.5 in their first full years, but they could, however I think they could get to a 5, which I'd take at 1/25 the cost.[/quote']

 

Fine, 8-9 WAR seems reasonable as Youk was injured last year. However, the assertion was for 2013, not the future. How much it costs didn't enter into it, IIRC.

 

So it looks like we agree that they can't replace the production lost from the farm. That was the only point I was trying to make.

[jung]

Padilla threw 4 shutout innings yesterday on 51 pitches. What was to prevent him from going out for the 9th with a lead?

 

Which is why I think that if you are going to have a "named" closer at this point it should be Padilla.

 

What prevented him was the mindset of using a closer in a save situation, and Bobby Vs premature pronouncement that Aceves was the closer.

 

Why would V think Aceves has "the mindset" of a closer when he has never closed. Padilla does not give a s*** what inning it is. I will say it again...he will make his pitches if he is sound.

 

Aceves got the job because Aceves was considered to be the Sox best reliever. He is the Sox best reliever but he has in my view allowed the closer role to overwhelm him with the result that he is just out there throwing. He is not pitching.

 

I can see why V decided to bring in Aceves for Padilla and in hindsight, sure I would think Padilla would have done better. He could not have done worse.

 

If the Sox are dedicated to having a named closer then they are going to use him that way. The reason I think it should be Padilla at this point is because he is one of the few guys the Sox have that will not in my view wilt in the face of the closers role which in effect is what has happened to Aceves. Padilla is also throwing well enough to close and he has gas. I would prefer for the moment that we use Padilla that way than have him come in for 4 innings including the 9th in one game and then be on the shelf for a few games.

[SoxSport]

What prevented Padilla going out for the 9th was BV wanting a shorter workload for him due to his injuries in ST.

 

Maybe he shouldn't have gone 4 innings, then? Don't think so.

[mvp 78]

Maybe he shouldn't have gone 4 innings' date=' then? Don't think so.[/quote']

 

This makes zero sense. It's already been stated that he's on a limited pitch count, which is why he was not in consideration for the rotation.

[SoxSport]

Which is why I think that if you are going to have a "named" closer at this point it should be Padilla.

 

 

 

Why would V think Aceves has "the mindset" of a closer when he has never closed. Padilla does not give a s*** what inning it is. I will say it again...he will make his pitches if he is sound.

 

Aceves got the job because Aceves was considered to be the Sox best reliever. He is the Sox best reliever but he has in my view allowed the closer role to overwhelm him with the result that he is just out there throwing. He is not pitching.

 

I can see why V decided to bring in Aceves for Padilla and in hindsight, sure I would think Padilla would have done better. He could not have done worse.

 

If the Sox are dedicated to having a named closer then they are going to use him that way. The reason I think it should be Padilla at this point is because he is one of the few guys the Sox have that will not in my view wilt in the face of the closers role which in effect is what has happened to Aceves. Padilla is also throwing well enough to close and he has gas. I would prefer for the moment that we use Padilla that way than have him come in for 4 innings including the 9th in one game and then be on the shelf for a few games.

 

 

The point is don't fix what ain't broke. When a guy is goin' good, don't change for an unknown. Not unless the guy gets into trouble. No sense in increasing the risk factor.

 

The great Jim Leyland blew the opening game taking Verlander out with a 1-0 lead after 8 innings, 104 pitches. The "unknown", closer Valverde pitched the 9th and s*** the bed. 20 years ago, Verlander completes the game--or at least starts the 9th until he gets into trouble.

 

There used to be a lot more common sense in the way pitchers were handled in baseball.

The closer thing got out of hand with agents and fantasy saves.

[ellsburyforMVP]

Padilla threw 4 shutout innings yesterday on 51 pitches. What was to prevent him from going out for the 9th with a lead? And getting the win? What prevented him was the mindset of using a closer in a save situation, and Bobby Vs premature pronouncement that Aceves was the closer. He threw a guy in there who had pitched the day before instead of leaving in the dominant guy. Padilla gets into trouble in the 9th--then you take him out.

 

The difference between a great manager and the run of the mill type is having the balls to go against the grain. Bobby missed the opportunity yesterday.

 

I see the Globe has trotted out its staff this aft to rebuke Cafardo again on Bard closing. It's poll shows 80% think Bard should close at this point. The readers agree with Cafardo.

 

you do realize padilla is essentially last years aceves......just because a guy can come into a game and shut down the opposing team for 3-4-5 innings, doesnt mean they can handle being the closer....exp....aceves ...2 gms 0 outs recorded 5 batters faced 4 hits 1 hbp 3 runs

[jung]

Regardless of whether or not the idea of having a closer is flawed I doubt we will see that flip flop the other way. Hence, if I were a betting man I would bet the Sox will have a named closer.

[ORS]

Padilla threw 4 shutout innings yesterday on 51 pitches. What was to prevent him from going out for the 9th with a lead? And getting the win? What prevented him was the mindset of using a closer in a save situation, and Bobby Vs premature pronouncement that Aceves was the closer. He threw a guy in there who had pitched the day before instead of leaving in the dominant guy. Padilla gets into trouble in the 9th--then you take him out.

 

The difference between a great manager and the run of the mill type is having the balls to go against the grain. Bobby missed the opportunity yesterday.

 

I see the Globe has trotted out its staff this aft to rebuke Cafardo again on Bard closing. It's poll shows 80% think Bard should close at this point. The readers agree with Cafardo.

I agree with this, he had an effective long reliever who had just put away the side in the 8th with minimal effort. If Padilla was up to it, he should have been sent out there. I think it is safe to assume he never got asked, and the manager stuck to the conventional wisdom script.

[User Name]

You are conflating two distinct points.

 

#1. I currently don't see Lavy and Middlebrooks as able to replace Papi and Youk or even close. I will be happy to revise that opinion as the season goes on.

 

#2. If we are 12 games out of first at the ASB, then moving someone who has value who isn't going to be around long-term and who will be of marginal value to us in 2013-2014 is something to think about. If you do that, then you want high-quality prospects in return who can produce cheaply in 2014 and beyond.

 

None of the names I mentioned are cheap except in MLB terms. Two will be making more than $10 million in 2013. One is a pitcher who has an injury history. All of them should be candidates for trades at the right price. I'd much rather trade Lackey, but I assume he has negative value right now so there's no point. Beckett's contract will highly reduce whatever we get back, so that's not worthwhile since you only do it for real value.

 

What i am noting are inconsistencies in your thought process. In both scenarios, you are exchanging proven MLB players for unproven prospects, but in one scenario, you are exchanging young, cost-controlled players , instead of using already-under control talent and letting go of veteran, in-decline talent to do so. The players you mentioned as possible "trade bait" are players who should be around in 2014 and beyond. Also, them being "only cheap in MLB teams" does not matter to this discussion, because they are indeed cheap when factoring in their production, and this is indeed MLB. Also, this is the Boston Red Sox, not Kansas City Royals, meaning they don't need to trade away premium talent for prospects.

 

I just don't see how trading away core players for prospects makes sense, when they have money coming off the books and in-team prospects to plug holes. It seems like a scenario where you do something for the sake of doing something.

[ORS]

Fine, 8-9 WAR seems reasonable as Youk was injured last year. However, the assertion was for 2013, not the future. How much it costs didn't enter into it, IIRC.

 

So it looks like we agree that they can't replace the production lost from the farm. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Sure, if you are going apply a standard of absolute replacement, ie it needs to be one for one, the same number, then I can't argue with what you said. Of course, I don't think any path leads to that unnecessarily narrow standard. And, yes cost did play a role in the discussion. You stated "cheap" replacements, or what was it, "cheap" options to replace the production. Cost is central to that point, and dropping the one for one requirement, I think a "cheap" approximate is close enough to warrant consideration and discussion.

[jung]

you do realize padilla is essentially last years aceves......just because a guy can come into a game and shut down the opposing team for 3-4-5 innings, doesnt mean they can handle being the closer....exp....aceves ...2 gms 0 outs recorded 5 batters faced 4 hits 1 hbp 3 runs

 

There is no evidence that Aceves cannot successfully go back to last year's role. There is however some evidence that he might well be spitting the bit as a closer.

 

In my view the difference is that Padilla just does not give a s***. He will not in my view spit the bit as a closer. If he is sound I believe he will make his pitches whereas Aceves is not pitching...he is just throwing.

[ellsburyforMVP]

It's just hard to look back at last yr and remember how good aceves was in all kinds of situations, dont see why you should mess with something that worked so good........ Side note this MLB package is really pissing me off with shady coverage....$180 you think they would get THEIR s*** together

[Palodios]

It's just hard to look back at last yr and remember how good aceves was in all kinds of situations' date=' dont see why you should mess with something that worked so good........ Side note this MLB package is really pissing me off with shady coverage....$180 you think they would get THEIR s*** together[/quote']

 

Nothing is as bad as it was four years ago. Ugh.

[SoxSport]

This makes zero sense. It's already been stated that he's on a limited pitch count' date=' which is why he was not in consideration for the rotation.[/quote']

 

ditto.

[The Boomer]

What i am noting are inconsistencies in your thought process. In both scenarios, you are exchanging proven MLB players for unproven prospects, but in one scenario, you are exchanging young, cost-controlled players , instead of using already-under control talent and letting go of veteran, in-decline talent to do so. The players you mentioned as possible "trade bait" are players who should be around in 2014 and beyond. Also, them being "only cheap in MLB teams" does not matter to this discussion, because they are indeed cheap when factoring in their production, and this is indeed MLB. Also, this is the Boston Red Sox, not Kansas City Royals, meaning they don't need to trade away premium talent for prospects.

 

I just don't see how trading away core players for prospects makes sense, when they have money coming off the books and in-team prospects to plug holes. It seems like a scenario where you do something for the sake of doing something.

 

Letting go of veteran, in-decline players will net you exactly squat in today's market. If it was that easy, then the Cubs and Mets would not have the lineups they do today. If you want value, you have to offer value.

 

It's possible we could trade a Beckett to a contender at the ASB, but they aren't going to be that eager to give up much for him since they's prefer (and can probably get) a cheap rental for a fraction of the cost.

[User Name]

Letting go of veteran' date=' in-decline players will net you exactly squat in today's market. If it was that easy, then the Cubs and Mets would not have the lineups they do today. If you want value, you have to offer value. [/quote']

 

That would be incorrect. It very much depends on the veteran. If that veteran gets re-signed, he'll net you draft picks. If he's not good enough to net you a couple picks, he doesn't have any trade value anyway.

 

The Mets and Cubs are, again, invalid comparisons to the Red Sox. They are what they are because they are poorly run, and have not drafted well in the past couple years.

 

Again, i don't see the need for a team with resources like the Red Sox that has such a good track record drafting and developing players to trade cheap, all-star level talent just because. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.

 

It's possible we could trade a Beckett to a contender at the ASB, but they aren't going to be that eager to give up much for him since they's prefer (and can probably get) a cheap rental for a fraction of the cost.

 

Which is exactly the point. The couple desirable guys the Red Sox have who they probably should trade will either bring minimal value back because of their prohibitive cost, or they don't have an obvious replacement.

[Elktonnick]

It's just hard to look back at last yr and remember how good aceves was in all kinds of situations' date=' dont see why you should mess with something that worked so good........ Side note this MLB package is really pissing me off with shady coverage....$180 you think they would get THEIR s*** together[/quote']

 

For what it's worth : The blackout policy is a pain but I find that the MLB package of Direct TV with the sports package ( which are the local sports channels such as CSNE and NESN etc) is worth the additional money because of highlights and local sports commentary shows etc.

[redsoxfan3]

For what it's worth : The blackout policy is a pain but I find that the MLB package of Direct TV with the sports package ( which are the local sports channels such as CSNE and NESN etc) is worth the additional money because of highlights and local sports commentary shows etc.

 

I don't think the game tonight will be blacked out if I live in Florida, correct? I am not part of the local area network. I am assuming the games will be blacked out when we play Tampa, but I can always watch them on TV. I do not like how on Saturday and Sunday, some games are blacked out at certain times.