Should the Sox trade some Bullpen arms?

[User Name]

Papelbon can go more than an inning. Of his 18 appearances in the postseason, 13 of them were more than an inning, the first 12 of which were scoreless.

 

He barely did it in the regular season, and 13 appearances over several postseasons does not validate this argument. Furthermore, the Red Sox themselves said several times they would refrain from using Papelbon for more than one inning to protect this shoulder. You're arguing for the sake of arguing here.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, he just allowed walkoff singles in tie games that were crucial to the team getting a playoff berth :harhar:

And Mo Rivera blew game 7 of the 2001 World Series. I wish the Yankees let him walk after that.

[mvp 78]

My point is that Paps was not irreplaceable. They just didn't find the right replacement.

 

Paps is basically a 3 out reliever. Anything else and it's too much for him.

[a700hitter]

My point is that Paps was not irreplaceable. They just didn't find the right replacement.

 

Paps is basically a 3 out reliever. Anything else and it's too much for him.

And he was the best, most consistent 3 out closer in Red Sox history. A comparable replacement may take many years. For a manager, being able to pencil in his numbers year after year made Tito's job a lot easier. Now, the 9th inning will be a crap shoot for years. You pay a premium for that certainty. People can point to Rodney as a cheap alternative. The Rays got very lucky with him, and with his inconsistent history, there is no guarantee what he will give them this year. When your closer blows up, it can take a sledge hammer to your season. I think iortiz or another poster asked what other closers have had such a consistent run of excellence like Papelbon. I think currently no one rivals his current run.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's what I think, and you'll have to excuse for me for being philosophical but I get like that sometimes.

 

To me it's a little strange how so many people, including people whose baseball knowledge I totally respect, are so easily dismissive of Papelbon's contributions. He's arguably the best at his position in team history.

 

I think to a certain degree it reflects the new mentality of baseball fans. We're in an age where salaries are insane, fantasy gaming is huge, and fans get a chance to come on forums like this and play general manager, or fanager, on a daily basis. When a player like Papelbon is let go, the fanagers don't look at it from a baseball perspective as much as they once did. They look at it as 'How can we replace this guy and at what cost? Hey, we can spend that money better elsewhere. Good riddance!'

 

I've been a fan since the late Sixties. In the late Seventies we had some great teams and then we let some great players like Fisk and Lynn go, and there was outrage that still exists to this day. Hardly any of us who were outraged were thinking about the money saved by letting those players go.

 

Another thing that works against Papelbon is his personality, I think. Not the most likable guy, said some really stupid things, and seems to be a me first guy all the way. I think that adds to some bias against him.

[example1]

I think the fact that Papelbon was always intent on testing the FA market didn't help either. He was demanding premium FA salary and got it. There's nothing wrong with that, but most of us could have predicted that the Sox weren't going to pay that from about 2008 on. It just wasn't going to happen.

 

I for one don't have a problem with the Sox not outbidding the Phillies to keep him around. I bet the Phillies wish they didn't have him on the payroll right now, and they certainly would get back at least a couple million from his bloated salary if they could--given that they suck right now.

[User Name]

Of course his me-first attitude adds bias against him. Even though his contributions were great, he was at a position were production is relatively easy to replace in this day and age, and he simply didn't seem like a guy who was willing to put everything on the line for the team if it went against his chances of making more money. That's why i don't think the Fisk and Lynn comparisons are valid. Even more so Fisk, who would play with his left arm hanging by a thread if his right hand was healthy enough to throw a runner out.

 

Current baseball economics factor into the equation, as Bellhorn said, and there's a reason for that. With rising constraints on how much teams can spend, and the atrocity that was the 2012 Red Sox, i think now more than ever is a time when this type of thinking (where can we produce at lower cost) is more important.

[a700hitter]

Here's what I think, and you'll have to excuse for me for being philosophical but I get like that sometimes.

 

To me it's a little strange how so many people, including people whose baseball knowledge I totally respect, are so easily dismissive of Papelbon's contributions. He's arguably the best at his position in team history.

 

I think to a certain degree it reflects the new mentality of baseball fans. We're in an age where salaries are insane, fantasy gaming is huge, and fans get a chance to come on forums like this and play general manager, or fanager, on a daily basis. When a player like Papelbon is let go, the fanagers don't look at it from a baseball perspective as much as they once did. They look at it as 'How can we replace this guy and at what cost? Hey, we can spend that money better elsewhere. Good riddance!'

 

I've been a fan since the late Sixties. In the late Seventies we had some great teams and then we let some great players like Fisk and Lynn go, and there was outrage that still exists to this day. Hardly any of us who were outraged were thinking about the money saved by letting those players go.

 

Another thing that works against Papelbon is his personality, I think. Not the most likable guy, said some really stupid things, and seems to be a me first guy all the way. I think that adds to some bias against him.

Bells, I don't think it is even arguable that he is the greatest closer in Red Sox history. If you remember Lynn and Fisk, you remember the lat inning horrors of 1976. That team lost something like 30+ games after the 6th inning. They tried to buy Hall of Famer Rollie Fingers to stem the tide. But for the horrendous late inning bullpen, that team would have won the division. I remember when all time greats like Lynn and Fisk were sent packing over salary issues. My heart sank. I am still waiting for the next Fisk and the next rookie like Lynn. The great ones are not easily replaceable.

 

Here's the bottom line with Papelbon. He is a great closer and the best in our history. The FO had made so many other bad high priced decisions that they could not afford him. If they had managed their house better, they would have been able to keep Papelbon. Papelbon didn't get a bad contract. The FO gave away some terrible contracts for years before he left.

[User Name]

My point is that Paps was not irreplaceable. They just didn't find the right replacement.

 

Paps is basically a 3 out reliever. Anything else and it's too much for him.

 

This is what i've been saying all along. And they had short-term choices, including Bard. To be honest, i was initially completely against the Bard-to-the rotation project, thinking he may become an elite close for little money. I, like many others, fell in love with the idea of having his stuff in the rotation, but bought fool's gold.

 

In hindsight, not making Bard the closer goes hand in hand with the hiring of Bobby Valentine and the non-pursuit of an established starter to fill out the rotation as the biggest mistakes of the 2012 season.

[User Name]

Here's the bottom line with Papelbon. He is a great closer and the best in our history. The FO had made so many other bad high priced decisions that they could not afford him. If they had managed their house better, they would have been able to keep Papelbon. Papelbon didn't get a bad contract. The FO gave away some terrible contracts for years before he left.

 

This is failthought. The many bad contracts before him is and should be an indicator of why the Red Sox shouldn't have paid him like the Phillies did, not the opposite.

[iortiz]

Bells, I don't think it is even arguable that he is the greatest closer in Red Sox history. If you remember Lynn and Fisk, you remember the lat inning horrors of 1976. That team lost something like 30+ games after the 6th inning. They tried to buy Hall of Famer Rollie Fingers to stem the tide. But for the horrendous late inning bullpen, that team would have won the division. I remember when all time greats like Lynn and Fisk were sent packing over salary issues. My heart sank. I am still waiting for the next Fisk and the next rookie like Lynn. The great ones are not easily replaceable.

 

Here's the bottom line with Papelbon. He is a great closer and the best in our history. The FO had made so many other bad high priced decisions that they could not afford him. If they had managed their house better, they would have been able to keep Papelbon. Papelbon didn't get a bad contract. The FO gave away some terrible contracts for years before he left.

Period.

[iortiz]

Boy, last year posted 2.44 ERA and 38 SVs... That contract left short hahahaha

[User Name]

Nathan posted 2.80/38 saves on a two-year deal for a significantly lower cost. Would you have complained if we had him instead of Papelbon? Just a question.

[BSN07]

Boy, last year posted 2.44 ERA and 38 SVs... That contract left short hahahaha

 

Nothing better then an expensive elite closer on a s***** baseball team wooot :thumbsup:

[BSN07]

Nathan posted 2.80/38 saves on a two-year deal for a significantly lower cost. Would you have complained if we had him instead of Papelbon? Just a question.

 

Of course, his name is not Paps and he doesn't river dance.... pffft can't believe you could even ask that...

[jung]

Nothing better then an expensive elite closer on a s***** baseball team wooot

 

ding'...ding....ding. That has been my point for two years now.

[a700hitter]

Nothing better then an expensiveu elite closer on a s***** baseball team wooot :thumbsup:

You are right. They did such a thorough job of running the franchise into the ground that the closer doesn't matter.

[Bellhorn04]

Nothing better then an expensive elite closer on a s***** baseball team wooot :thumbsup:

 

Yeah, that's the 'we would have sucked anyway' defence which came in handy last year. People already have it lined up for 2013 as well.

[User Name]

And they should. Because the forecast for 2013 is suckitude unless Cherington gets his ass in gear.

[Behindenemylines]

The 2013 closer will come from the list of relievers in house with Bailey probably getting the first crack at it. With so many other holes on the roster I can't see them bringing in any one else unless Bailey is used as a chip to fill another hole.

[RedSoxNC84]

I think they will sign Brian Wilson to a contract that will help him rebuild value. Even if he's coming off his second TJ, I think he would be better than Bailey.

[redsoxfan3]

I think they will sign Brian Wilson to a contract that will help him rebuild value. Even if he's coming off his second TJ, I think he would be better than Bailey.

 

Wilson will not be a bad pickup. It is already known that the FO does not think too highly of Bailey. They already tried sending him to Toronto for compensation for Farrell. I think we should keep Bailey to help rebuild his trade value, but having Wilson around would be a plus. I would not mind giving Wilson a shot and sending Bailey's fat ass on his way.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe Bailey will be motivated to come back strong this year. It's a pretty important one for his career.

[mvp 78]

Wilson will not be a bad pickup. It is already known that the FO does not think too highly of Bailey. They already tried sending him to Toronto for compensation for Farrell. I think we should keep Bailey to help rebuild his trade value, but having Wilson around would be a plus. I would not mind giving Wilson a shot and sending Bailey's fat ass on his way.

 

Toronto asked for Bailey. He wasn't offered by the Sox.

[redsoxfan3]

Toronto asked for Bailey. He wasn't offered by the Sox.

 

I actually misread that. How do you know for sure that Bailey was not offered? Here is what NESN reported:

 

Compensation talks between the two teams for Farrell's services came down to either Aviles or Red Sox closer Andrew Bailey, according to ESPN's Buster Olney, although it's unclear how the two clubs ultimately decided on Aviles.

 

NESN is saying that it is not clear how Aviles was decided. It could be because the Jays asked for Bailey and the Red Sox did not want to give him up, although there is no proof of that in the article.

 

Either way, Bailey is still on the market, whether or not he was offered as compensation. Here is something reported from MLBTR:

 

Rival teams say the Red Sox are open to dealing Andrew Bailey, Olney reports (on Twitter). However, the reliever’s trade value remains low, so it doesn’t appear likely that the Red Sox will move him. Olney reported last month that the Blue Jays considered acquiring Bailey for manager John Farrell.

 

It is still the fact the FO is open to trading Bailey. We should definitely be interested in a guy like Brian Wilson. That would probably give us a little flexibility if we do want to trade Bailey.