Red Sox 2012/2013 Offseason Thread

[seabeachfred]

Next year, sure, but if the Stros ever sort themselves out they're one of the better teams in the league.

 

Well Dojji, the Stros made a gigantic step in he right direction when they canned Francona crony Brad Mills as manager late last season. The guy was as challenged in the dugout as anyone in baseball and notice that no team stepped up to hire the guy as their manager. He's a bench coach or a gofer at best. The Astros made a great move there.

[seabeachfred]

Next year, sure, but if the Stros ever sort themselves out they're one of the better teams in the league.

 

Well Dojji, the Stros made a gigantic step in he right direction when they canned Francona crony Brad Mills as manager late last season. The guy was as challenged in the dugout as anyone in baseball and notice that no team stepped up to hire the guy as their manager. He's a bench coach or a gofer at best. The Astros made a great move there.

[seabeachfred]

The value of a pitching coach, like the value of a catcher who is a 'good game-caller', or the manager himself, is difficult to measure so it invites skepticism. But I don't see how anybody can deny that it's possible for someone who is good at their trade to have a positive impact.

 

I took a couple of golf lessons this year for the first time ever. I had always been skeptical about their value. But the instructor immediately noticed that I had the weight on my feet too far back on my heels. Changing this one little thing made a huge improvement for me.

 

Let's keep in mind Bellhorn that Farrell will be no panacea for what ails our pitchers if he is in the same mindset as he was when he was our pitching coach. I can remember reading blogs from Firebrand and Dugout Confidential, among others, late in the 2010 season when they were saying what the Red Sox needed to do to get back in contention. One was that we needed a new medical staff, a second a new pitching coach. To be sure, in Farrell's first season with us in 2007 we had the best pitching in the American League. The last three years of his tutilege, not so good. Was it him? Was it the pitchers not listening? Was it the pitchers' talent eroding? Was it the hitters catching up with our pitchers?

 

It could be any one of those or a combo of those answers. All I do know is that our pitching fell off badly in 2009 and 2010, and keep in mind we now have a pitching coach that has never been a ML pitching coach before, only an assistant. My guess would be a better defensive catcher would help us more in that regard.

[jung]

In my opinion baseball players are more personally responsible for the level of their performance than players in any of the other "big 4" professional team sports.

 

Our pitching was not that good because in the main our pitchers were not that good.

[Behindenemylines]

In my opinion baseball players are more personally responsible for the level of their performance than players in any of the other "big 4" professional team sports.

 

Our pitching was not that good because in the main our pitchers were not that good.

 

If you don't include injuries into the mix then baseball's long 162 game season seperates the good from the bad teams in baseball. Teams weak spots are exposed (Sox starting pitching in 2012) over the course of the season.

[Station 13]

“Josh Reddick averaged 3.96 pitches per plate appearance last season, helped in large part by the 562 foul balls he hit, most in the majors.”

 

he also smack 32 bombs while at it and lead the AL in OF assist, and play great defense. Bailey is demoted following another disastrous season and Sweeney is release. Miles Head looks like Anthony Rizzo jr in the minors without the defense. Great trade, Cherry.

[Dojji]

Please don't get me started in the Bailey trade. That was such a shortsighted move.

 

I mean which was smarter? Paying Papelbon, or trading away Reddick for Bailey and using the savings on Victorino? I think that's pretty much a no-brainer.

 

Even if Bailey had pitched up to his ability and been able to pitch 50 or 60 innings, that was STILL a bad trade.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Its been one season, I think the trade will look at lot more even after next year.

[reYoukilis]

Its been one season, I think the trade will look at lot more even after next year.

 

Yeah, in order to see if a trade was a good one or not, its always helpful to see the acquired player....play.

[Dojji]

Its been one season, I think the trade will look at lot more even after next year.

 

Sure, I agree you need to look at the longish term for these trades.

 

So I tell ya what. See you after 4 years when Bailey has gone to another team and Reddick is still a cost-controlled lower middle of the order bat.

 

Long term, short term, midterm, any term. It. Was. A. Stupid. Deal.

 

Creating one hole to fill another hole is not smart. Ever.

[Bellhorn04]

Sure, I agree you need to look at the longish term for these trades.

 

So I tell ya what. See you after 4 years when Bailey has gone to another team and Reddick is still a cost-controlled lower middle of the order bat.

 

Long term, short term, midterm, any term. It. Was. A. Stupid. Deal.

 

Creating one hole to fill another hole is not smart. Ever.

 

I agree it looks like a bad deal, but at the time it was made Reddick seemed like the odd guy out in the outfield. They obviously preferred Kalish for RF and of course Crawford was LF.

[Dojji]

Two people who I feel should be pointed out for obvious reasons, were injured at the time with potentially career-altering injuries.

 

They wouldn't have asked for Sweeney back if they weren't worried about their outfield depth. That should have been a sign to them to rethink their strategy.

[a700hitter]

I agree it looks like a bad deal, but at the time it was made Reddick seemed like the odd guy out in the outfield. They obviously preferred Kalish for RF and of course Crawford was LF.

It doesn't matter how things looked at the time. You get judged on results. Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell didn't look bad at the time either, because Bagwell had showed little pop and was blocked in the Red Sox organization. We know the result. It can't be defended because of how it looked at the time.

[Dojji]

I disagree to a point. A trade can be defended because:

 

1: The idea was fundamentally sound, and the player faltered for reasons unknown at the time of the trade. An example here might be a player who is traded for, and then becomes injured and ineffective. An obvious exception to that is if the injury was predictable, or one that was a known risk at the time of the deal, such as the Bailey or Gagne trades.

 

2: the trade was an attempt to seize a championship and, whether the championship was or was not itself seized, the player lived up to his end of the bargain. I didn't like the trade for Victor Martinez, but it can be defended based on the fact that he played up to his ability in Boston.

 

3: The reward turned out to be low, but little risk was taken in the transaction. This could mean that the trade return wasn't effective but also wasn't necessary or expensive, such as in the Gagne trade, or that the outgoing pieces had no place on the team, such as in the Martinez trade.

 

The reason I'm down on the Reddick for Bailey trade far more so than Lowrie for Melancon, is that the latter trade was ultimately in category 3. We really didn't give up all that much. As much as I liked what Lowrie could have done if healthy, he wasn't. And really, while Melancon struggling a bit more in the AL East than he did in Houston was predictable, the order of magnitude of the disaster really wasn't.

 

Bailey on the other hand, we gave up a player who had already played at a high level for us, at a position that wasn't securely held by anyone else, to get back a player who was under control for less years and had well documented injury concerns going in, you don't get any pity points when the coup de fail is complete and the guy actually gets hurt.

[Bellhorn04]

It doesn't matter how things looked at the time. You get judged on results. It can't be defended because of how it looked at the time.

 

a) I said it looked like a bad deal.

I was responding to Dojji's comments about the deal being 'stupid' because it 'created a need'.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Sure, I agree you need to look at the longish term for these trades.

 

So I tell ya what. See you after 4 years when Bailey has gone to another team and Reddick is still a cost-controlled lower middle of the order bat.

 

Long term, short term, midterm, any term. It. Was. A. Stupid. Deal.

 

Creating one hole to fill another hole is not smart. Ever.

 

That hole was opened up for Kalish who the team bet would be a better bet going forward than Reddick. After ONE year that has not been the case, but again I'd look at this deal on a 3-4 year timeline, evaluating Kalish vs. Reddick as well as Bailey's performance and Head's performance.

 

Bailey has been injury prone but a freak thumb injury bodes better for the future than an elbow or shoulder injury.

[Dojji]

Kalish was hurt when the hole was made.

 

If we had a stable RF who had been productive the 3 years before and signed for multiple seasons after, I can see trading Reddick. Such was not the case.

 

I judge these deals at least in part based on how well I can understand what the GM is thinking. I don't like the thought process that deal represents. It was a desperation move and not very clearly thought out.

 

The correct move would have been to re-sign Jonathan Papelbon and keep both Kalish and Reddick in the mix in right field until one of them made the job his own. That would have played out much more in our favor this year, and even if it hadn't, it would still have been the better move to try.

[jung]

Some of the folks that were not in favor of the Sox competing with the Philles for Paps services myself included, argued that the Phillies were paying Paps all the money because they thought they were set up to go all the way with the exception of a closer that they thought was as strong as the other components of their team.

 

The Sox to me and I think others did not look like they were not in the same place as the Phillies and had other holes they could use $11m per year to fill.

 

There was much discussion that Bard was not moving into the closers role because the Sox had lost confidence in his ability to close having groomed him for the job to that point. I do not remember anybody from the Sox coming out and saying that or even implying it at that time (I could be wrong).

 

If in fact they still were confident that he could close then the move was not keep Paps nor was it trade for Bailey. The move was to insert Bard as the closer keeping both Riddick and Kalish. They could have kept Aceves in his versatility bullpen role. They could have promoted somebody or gotten a 5th starter someplace. Instead they took the big crap shoot that Bard would suddenly turn into a starter.

 

If they still thought Bard could close "some day" it would have been so like them to not give him the job when they should have. Just as many teams would play the whole Lavs/Salty thing differently than I suspect the Sox will play it, many teams would have just given Bard the job at that point in time. So frigging typical.

 

Near as I can tell, the lost all the way around on that deal.

[User Name]

Are You Still Seriously Blowing The Papelbon Whistle? @ Dojji

[Dojji]

Yes I am, and with good reason. In retrospect, losing Papelbon on has cost us Reddick, Lowrie, and a number of prospects, and forced us to sign Shane Victorino for more money than paps wanted. It was questionable at the time, and absolutely burned us in retrospect.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Kalish was hurt when the hole was made.

 

If we had a stable RF who had been productive the 3 years before and signed for multiple seasons after, I can see trading Reddick. Such was not the case.

 

I judge these deals at least in part based on how well I can understand what the GM is thinking. I don't like the thought process that deal represents. It was a desperation move and not very clearly thought out.

 

The correct move would have been to re-sign Jonathan Papelbon and keep both Kalish and Reddick in the mix in right field until one of them made the job his own. That would have played out much more in our favor this year, and even if it hadn't, it would still have been the better move to try.

 

Maybe Cherrington was thinking exactly what you were thinking about the trade:

 

From the Red Sox Acquire Bailey thread:

 

I'm holding out to see if Lavs went the other way.

 

If he did, we didn't come out ahead.

 

Olney says 3 for 2. No Lavs. Head/Reddick/Alcantara for Bailey/Sweeney.

 

That is a good deal if true

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Stop acting all holier than thou when you supported the deal when it went through.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Maybe Cherrington was thinking exactly what you were thinking about the trade:

 

From the Red Sox Acquire Bailey thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Stop acting all holier than thou when you supported the deal when it went through.

 

haha good find. Not to call you out specifically dojj but you got caught here. However, there's a hoard of posters here who only evaluate moves in hindsight and its stupid to argue with them because they are always 'right'.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Nobody has mentioned it yet, but Berkman signed yesterday with the Rangers for 1/11mm. Pretty big check for a 37 year old guy who played 32 games last year.

 

I was certainly interested in him, but not close to that price.

[User Name]

Maybe Cherrington was thinking exactly what you were thinking about the trade:

 

From the Red Sox Acquire Bailey thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Stop acting all holier than thou when you supported the deal when it went through.

 

Well Played

[User Name]

haha good find. Not to call you out specifically dojj but you got caught here. However, there's a hoard of posters here who only evaluate moves in hindsight and its stupid to argue with them because they are always 'right'.

 

You are now my favorite poster on this board

[mvp 78]

You are now my favorite poster on this board

 

He's on the list...

[example1]

haha good find. Not to call you out specifically dojj but you got caught here. However, there's a hoard of posters here who only evaluate moves in hindsight and its stupid to argue with them because they are always 'right'.

 

It's actually that there are people here who will call for "Move A" and then when "Move A" doesn't work out they will insult the intelligence of people who also liked move A (such as the FO), but who didn't have the information at the time to know that Move A wouldn't work out. They will call this hypocritical criticism "holding people accountable" even though it is in no way holding anyone accountable by any reasonable use of that term.

[User Name]

It's actually that there are people here who will call for "Move A" and then when "Move A" doesn't work out they will insult the intelligence of people who also liked move A (such as the FO), but who didn't have the information at the time to know that Move A wouldn't work out. They will call this hypocritical criticism "holding people accountable" even though it is in no way holding anyone accountable by any reasonable use of that term.

 

You may as well have named names

[BSN07]

You may as well have named names

 

Haha no way, this is way better

[seabeachfred]

Haha no way, this is way better

 

How about a little dose of realism here guys. You can talk of this trade not being a true gauge of who got the best of who until a few years down the road, but that is pure ********!!!!! Only ball washers and front office apologists would even dare to mutter such rubbish. The A's got a guy who will hit between 25-30 homers for the next few years, a minor league first baseman who is better than any first base prospect we have in our system. What did we get? A bum like Sweeney who showed no power, no speed and is no longer part of the team. We got a "closer" who came up lame doing a jumping jack, then was out for practically the whole freakin' season, and is no longer our closer.

 

This is a prime example of those of us who are criticized for being on the front office's case as to why we have gone from first to last in just five short years. You don't get there without a large number of those bungled moves no matter what the apologists and water carriers for the front office say.