Hanrahan's Injury

[italstallianion]

I think we might get a better return on our investment with Hanrahan on the DL than if he were back pitching for us. Oh well, there have been many worse wastes of money in baseball.

[a700hitter]

Good points. So ok, though, I'm curious. How much would you have been willing to sign Paps for?

They didn'thave the budget to sign him, because they mismanaged their payroll horribly paying big bucks to useless slugs. No one is arguing that they could have signed him. The budget mess that they created was a reality. I think he is earning his money in Philadelphia.

[iortiz]

This is the problem you (and many others) have with player evaluation. What he DID is not what's important. What's important is what a player's projected TO DO over the life of a contract.

 

I couldn't care less about the past. All they need is an effective closer. It's that simple.

 

You look at the facts, then make a diagnosis and try to put a solution and preview the future. It's called prudence.

 

When I see Pap's history (facts) all indicates that he would have succeeded the next 4 years as closer since he signed. You could make a case comparing him with others. My point all this time is that there's no closer who you can compare with him since there's nobody who can match his numbers, so you just can't make an accurate case, and the only one who can match him is making what Pap is making right now and still succeeding. Why not to think that he is in that highway? why?

[Orange Juiced]

They didn'thave the budget to sign him, because they mismanaged their payroll horribly paying big bucks to useless slugs. No one is arguing that they could have signed him. The budget mess that they created was a reality. I think he is earning his money in Philadelphia.

 

Oh ok. So they couldn't have signed him. Well then, maybe that's why they didn't TRY to sign him.

 

He certainly is earning his money. Dude has been great his whole career. Top-shelf closer by any measure.

 

But oh well. We're crying over spilled milk here. Just see what can be done *now* to fix the problem. Looks like Hanrahan isn't the solution. Maybe (MAYBE!) a healthy Bailey is. I think Tazawa could be the answer, but as you pointed out, the proof is in the pudding.

[User Name]

You look at the facts, then make a diagnosis and try to put a solution and preview the future. It's called prudence.

 

When I see Pap's history (facts) all indicates that he would have succeeded the next 4 years as closer since he signed. You could make a case comparing him with others. My point all this time is that there's no closer who you can compare with him since there's nobody who can match his numbers, so you just can't make an accurate case, and the only one who can match him is making what Pap is making right now and still succeeding. Why not to think that he is in that highway? why?

 

You don't need to compare him with other closers. What you need is a competent closer who can perform at a high level without a long-term, super expensive commitment because those carry an amount of risk that no team, and especially the Sox, should be willing to take. Again, we're not reinventing the wheel here.

[italstallianion]

Maybe something is being lost in translation. You two should switch to Spanish. It'd be like Telemundo.

[User Name]

Bitch, you just jealous of my spanish-speaking swagger.

[mvp 78]

Maybe something is being lost in translation. You two should switch to Spanish. It'd be like Telemundo.

 

Talk Sox Gigante!

[iortiz]

You don't need to compare him with other closers. What you need is a competent closer who can perform at a high level without a long-term, super expensive commitment because those carry an amount of risk that no team, and especially the Sox, should be willing to take. Again, we're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

So your solution is keep on in experimental mode until you find the one while taxing you money, prospects, careers, wins, etc?

 

It was easier. You had to keep the one who had proved succeed, we're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

Anyway, what is done is done. Hopefully all these experiments end up in a happy ending some day.

[iortiz]

Maybe something is being lost in translation. You two should switch to Spanish. It'd be like Telemundo.

 

Podemos debatir en espa?ol si quieres jajaja

[User Name]

So your solution is keep on in experimental mode until you find the one while taxing you money, prospects, careers, wins, etc?

 

It was easier. You had to keep the one who had proved succeed, we're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

Anyway, what is done is done. Hopefully all these experiments end up in a happy ending some day.

 

What is experimental mode? There were clear choices they could have gone for. That is the key to the argument. They could have signed Nathan and be done with it. Could have signed Soriano and be done with it. Both could have adequately replaced Papelbon for a fraction of the money. No experimentation there.

[iortiz]

What is experimental mode? There were clear choices they could have gone for. That is the key to the argument. They could have signed Nathan and be done with it. Could have signed Soriano and be done with it. Both could have adequately replaced Papelbon for a fraction of the money. No experimentation there.

 

While I like those names, still they would have been experiments. Jenks, Bailey and Hanrahan on paper were good options at time. Look what happened/is happening.

[a700hitter]

Oh ok. So they couldn't have signed him. Well then, maybe that's why they didn't TRY to sign him.

 

No one is saying otherwise. It is pretty well accepted that they couldn't sign him because of their massive budgetry mismanagement. No one is crying over spilled milk. I still reminisce about Yaz playing LF and Rice hitting huge HRs and Dewey throwing peas to 3rd. When the great players leave, all you have left is memories and comparisons to their successors. Papelbon was a great Red Sox player. He will not soon be forgotten.

[User Name]

While I like those names, still they would have been experiments. Jenks, Bailey and Hanrahan on paper were good options at time. Look what happened/is happening.

 

No they would not have been. Bailey/Hanrahan were experiments. Let's be realistic here. And Bailey still has the chance of working out if he can hold up over the rest of the season.

 

An experiment is an unknown quantity, Nathan/Soriano are capable closers.

[Orange Juiced]

No they would not have been. Bailey/Hanrahan were experiments. Let's be realistic here. And Bailey still has the chance of working out if he can hold up over the rest of the season.

 

An experiment is an unknown quantity, Nathan/Soriano are capable closers.

 

Again, Nathan was a massive risk at the time. Soriano would have been, in all likelihood, a good signing. But he got, what, $10 million from the Yankees? If 700 is right, the Sox simply didn't have the money to sign Papelbon, so they probably couldn't have afforded Soriano either.

 

So neither of those guys were realistic options.

[User Name]

Again, Nathan was a massive risk at the time. Soriano would have been, in all likelihood, a good signing. But he got, what, $10 million from the Yankees? If 700 is right, the Sox simply didn't have the money to sign Papelbon, so they probably couldn't have afforded Soriano either.

 

So neither of those guys were realistic options.

 

Soriano opted out of his contract and was a free agent before this season.They had just purged all of the big contracts and shelled 7 million PLUS players for Hanrahan. Why couldn't they have afforded Soriano again?

 

And Nathan had proven he was healthy after TJ, which is a procedure guys go through all the time these days. There's really no excuse.

[Orange Juiced]

Soriano opted out of his contract and was a free agent before this season.They had just purged all of the big contracts and shelled 7 million PLUS players for Hanrahan. Why couldn't they have afforded Soriano again?

 

And Nathan had proven he was healthy after TJ, which is a procedure guys go through all the time these days. There's really no excuse.

 

I thought you were referring to Soriano after he was TB's closer. My bad. I think he would have been a good get, but the reason he opted out of his Yankee contract was because he was expecting HUGE dollars. The Sox weren't going to go there, that's for sure.

 

As for Nathan, I'll just repost what I said a little while ago here (http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/17323-hanrahans-injury-6.html#post838818):

 

Nathan would have been a massive risk. He missed the entire 2010 season with an injury. He missed over a month in 2011 with an injury and compiled an era of 4.84 and the worst k/9 number (8.7) of his career. He signed for $7 million a year in the offseason between 2011 and 2012.

 

Please tell me you weren't advocating that the Sox sign a 37-year old pitcher coming off two major injuries and a season where he put up the worst numbers of his career to a $7 million a year contract to be the team's closer in 2012-13.

[User Name]

Believe it or not, i was. He was coming off TJ surgery, which typically has players coming back throwing harder and with similar effectiveness to what they exhibited before the surgery.

 

There's usually an adjustment period after TJ, as seen with many other pitchers who return from said surgery. The Rangers thought he'd get back to the level he was prior to the surgery, and they were right.

[Orange Juiced]

Believe it or not, i was. He was coming off TJ surgery, which typically has players coming back throwing harder and with similar effectiveness to what they exhibited before the surgery.

 

There's usually an adjustment period after TJ, as seen with many other pitchers who return from said surgery. The Rangers thought he'd get back to the level he was prior to the surgery, and they were right.

 

Well it turned out to be a good gamble. But it was an expensive and risky move nonetheless. Remember, Nathan didn't just have to "adjust" after TJ surgery... He missed a month in the middle of 2011 due to injury. So that made two years in a row that he missed significant time from injury. At his age (37) that made him a big, big risk.

 

Sometimes gambles pay off. Other times (Bailey, Hanrahan), they don't. It happens.

[User Name]

Well it turned out to be a good gamble. But it was an expensive and risky move nonetheless. Remember, Nathan didn't just have to "adjust" after TJ surgery... He missed a month in the middle of 2011 due to injury. So that made two years in a row that he missed significant time from injury. At his age (37) that made him a big, big risk.

 

Sometimes gambles pay off. Other times (Bailey, Hanrahan), they don't. It happens.

 

By "adjustment" i mean that his numbers suffered initially. And iirc, the injury he suffered in 2011 was something regarding theTJ itself.

[iortiz]

No they would not have been. Bailey/Hanrahan were experiments. Let's be realistic here. And Bailey still has the chance of working out if he can hold up over the rest of the season.

 

An experiment is an unknown quantity, Nathan/Soriano are capable closers.

 

A hand of allstars are not in the same wagon (Soriano, Nathan)? C'mon man.

 

Aceves was an experiment. Bard was an experiment. Padilla was an experiment. And Tazawa will be an experiment.

[iortiz]

All of them are/were/will/would have been experiments. All.

[Dojji]

No they would not have been. Bailey/Hanrahan were experiments.

 

No they were not. Both players were mid to low cost proven closers who were brought in because they had a track record of success in the closer's role in other divisions.

 

Exactly the kind of guy you want us to keep bringing in.

 

In the aftermath when they fail it's easy to dismiss these guys as not really up to the task, but that's not fair to them and it's not a truthful reflection of the real situation. The real situation is that it's danged hard to close in the AL East. letting someone who'd proven he could get it done on a consistent basis, walk to Philly, has NOT helped us, a team that prides itself on its ability to win consistently, to win consistently.

[iortiz]

No they were not. Both players were mid to low cost proven closers who were brought in because they had a track record of success in the closer's role in other divisions.

 

Exactly the kind of guy you want us to keep bringing in.

In the aftermath when they fail it's easy to dismiss these guys as not really up to the task, but that's not fair to them and it's not a truthful reflection of the real situation. The real situation is that it's danged hard to close in the AL East. letting someone who'd proven he could get it done on a consistent basis, walk to Philly, has NOT helped us, a team that prides itself on its ability to win consistently, to win consistently.

Exactly. You put it in a better way than me

[Dojji]

The pity of it is there's nothing to do BUT keep bringing in these retreads, if we're being realistic. That die is cast. My idea, Kenley Jansen, is almost certanily LAD's closer of the future and unavailable for blood or money, so we'll keep leaking prospects and paying three people borderline closer money until we wise up, get lucky, or both.

[mvp 78]

All of them are/were/will/would have been experiments. All.

 

Napoli at 1st - experiment

Ross as backup - experiment

Vic in RF - experiment

Dempster at SP - experiment

Uehara - experiment

 

This game is fun!

[Orange Juiced]

No they were not. Both players were mid to low cost proven closers who were brought in because they had a track record of success in the closer's role in other divisions.

 

Exactly the kind of guy you want us to keep bringing in.

 

This is exactly right. Hanrahan was a "proven" closer. Bailey was a "proven" closer. There was no more reason, really, to think that a 37-year old Joe Nathan, who missed major time in two straight seasons and who posted the worst numbers in his career, was any better of a bet than Bailey or Hanrahan. None.

[italstallianion]

I feel like threads like these exemplify that it's really hard to win as a GM because fans will come at you sideways regardless of what decisions you do or don't make.

[a700hitter]

I feel like threads like these exemplify that it's really hard to win as a GM because fans will come at you sideways regardless of what decisions you do or don't make.

I get what you are saying, but I look at it differently. The GM's and FO don't play the games. I don't cheer for them, because they are not on the field. They are not the performers. They like managers will be second guessed and dissected, but that comes with the territory. I wouldn't feel sorry for them. They have pretty sweet jobs and I doubt that they read message boards.

[Dojji]

Napoli at 1st - experiment

 

Absolutely. An experiment worth trying but definitely an experiment.

 

Ross as backup - experiment

Vic in RF - experiment

Dempster at SP - experiment

Uehara - experiment

 

This game is fun!

 

Hard to call a player with multiple years experience at the position you're trying him at, an experiment.

 

Other than Maybe Uehara, I don't see your point. Especially since besides Uehara you're trying to compare relief to everyday starters, which is dubious to begin with.