Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[iortiz]

I did not love every second of it, but largely yes ...

 

1. There is little evidence that the pitchers acquired were going to be 2014 Kershaw. There is even less evidence that they were going to be terrible.

2. There were only a couple of pitchers in the FA class who were going to move the needle and one of them was a guy we let go. (I did not love this)

3. The failures in 2014 were offensive - not exclusively of course but if you sliced the blame pie, the largest slice by far was for the lineup - they proactively addressed this. (and to be fair, those actions have largely been good so far)

4. The trade market was not going to open up in the offseason - nobody is bleeding money, and because of the 2nd wild card spot - almost every team can/has to sell postseason possibility to its fans and benefactors. The trade the Sox want was going to have to wait - the key is to be around long enough to do so.

 

Frankly coming into this season the expectation (not hope) was that the rotation could consistently spit out starts like Buchholz had yesterday. Not amazing, not horrendous - but don't screw up the offense's work and hand it over to the bullpen.

 

The problem has been the former has not been good enough to withstand crappy starts nor good enough to carry "okay" ones. That has to change - and given some of the BABIPs, that is a strong bet. And, as shaky as this stretch has been ... the larger thesis of "hanging in" still holds.

 

What would have been your approach last offseason regarding pitching.? Could you tell me the names you had in mind?

[sk7326]

What would have been your approach last offseason regarding pitching.? Could you tell me the names you had in mind?

 

1. I would have re-signed Lester - not because I expected him to be a 5-win pitcher, but because I didn't have to worry about him. And I have more faith in his decline being a bunny slope more than a double black diamond.

 

2. The only other starter who would have moved the needle is Scherzer - but age an issue there too and I am not sure his stuff would have aged as well as Lester's - just my own thoughts. Shields is a fly ball pitcher who has pitched in great pitching environments his whole career - aside from durability (which is important) he was not worth stretching out on.

 

3. Cole Hamels and Yovani Gallardo were the only two proven starters on the trade market in the offseason. Making a run at Gallardo made sense - but he is not worth "Tier 1" prospects. Hamels has been the subject of many gigabytes of board discussion - no need to add more. Other guys interest me too, like Johnny Cueto - but the Reds had a genuinely decent chance of being, well, decent. It is hard to sell your fans on a fire sale when the team is actually not terrible. Mat Latos interested me too - but from early evidence, I was wrong there.

 

4. I think the guys the Sox dealt for were largely solid choices - innings eaters young enough to dream more of, and with a good defense, perhaps some reachable upside. Note, my goal was not to replicate the 71 Orioles or the late 90s Atlanta Braves. It was to deliver a rotation which could do its job enough to keep the team around while the teams around them figure out if they are buyers or sellers.

[a700hitter]

Israel, imagine the abuse and insults that you would have endured if you had predicted that the pitching coach would have been fired before the middle of May. LOL!! What people are not getting is that it is quite obvious that the FO thinks it has big problems in the pitching department. Firing the pitching coach was a desparation move, because they don't have a lot of depth options right now. So, you and I and the FO are of like mind on the pitching at this point in time. Others want to continue to think that it is not that bad, but the actions of the FO say otherwise. In this case, I agree with the FO.

[a700hitter]

1. I would have re-signed Lester - not because I expected him to be a 5-win pitcher, but because I didn't have to worry about him. And I have more faith in his decline being a bunny slope more than a double black diamond.

 

2. The only other starter who would have moved the needle is Scherzer - but age an issue there too and I am not sure his stuff would have aged as well as Lester's - just my own thoughts. Shields is a fly ball pitcher who has pitched in great pitching environments his whole career - aside from durability (which is important) he was not worth stretching out on.

 

3. Cole Hamels and Yovani Gallardo were the only two proven starters on the trade market in the offseason. Making a run at Gallardo made sense - but he is not worth "Tier 1" prospects. Hamels has been the subject of many gigabytes of board discussion - no need to add more. Other guys interest me too, like Johnny Cueto - but the Reds had a genuinely decent chance of being, well, decent. It is hard to sell your fans on a fire sale when the team is actually not terrible. Mat Latos interested me too - but from early evidence, I was wrong there.

 

4. I think the guys the Sox dealt for were largely solid choices - innings eaters young enough to dream more of, and with a good defense, perhaps some reachable upside. Note, my goal was not to replicate the 71 Orioles or the late 90s Atlanta Braves. It was to deliver a rotation which could do its job enough to keep the team around while the teams around them figure out if they are buyers or sellers.

A staff with Lester and Porcello would look a lot better than what we have. There are lots of ways that the FO could have gone, and there is hope that these guys straighten themselves out enough to keep us competitive, but there is ample cause for concern based on what we have seen thus far.

[iortiz]

1. I would have re-signed Lester - not because I expected him to be a 5-win pitcher, but because I didn't have to worry about him. And I have more faith in his decline being a bunny slope more than a double black diamond.

 

2. The only other starter who would have moved the needle is Scherzer - but age an issue there too and I am not sure his stuff would have aged as well as Lester's - just my own thoughts. Shields is a fly ball pitcher who has pitched in great pitching environments his whole career - aside from durability (which is important) he was not worth stretching out on.

 

3. Cole Hamels and Yovani Gallardo were the only two proven starters on the trade market in the offseason. Making a run at Gallardo made sense - but he is not worth "Tier 1" prospects. Hamels has been the subject of many gigabytes of board discussion - no need to add more. Other guys interest me too, like Johnny Cueto - but the Reds had a genuinely decent chance of being, well, decent. It is hard to sell your fans on a fire sale when the team is actually not terrible. Mat Latos interested me too - but from early evidence, I was wrong there.

 

4. I think the guys the Sox dealt for were largely solid choices - innings eaters young enough to dream more of, and with a good defense, perhaps some reachable upside. Note, my goal was not to replicate the 71 Orioles or the late 90s Atlanta Braves. It was to deliver a rotation which could do its job enough to keep the team around while the teams around them figure out if they are buyers or sellers.

 

I think we agree more than disagree. Basically you would have made a couple of moves at the front-end of the rotation. Do not take me wrong, I liked the "innings eaters young enough to dream more of, and with a good defense..." approach BUT once signed the true No 1 & 2.

[iortiz]

Israel, imagine the abuse and insults that you would have endured if you had predicted that the pitching coach would have been fired before the middle of May. LOL!! What people are not getting is that it is quite obvious that the FO thinks it has big problems in the pitching department. Firing the pitching coach was a desparation move, because they don't have a lot of depth options right now. So, you and I and the FO are of like mind on the pitching at this point in time. Others want to continue to think that it is not that bad, but the actions of the FO say otherwise. In this case, I agree with the FO.

 

LOL!

 

The pitching coach is the least of our problems. IMO it was a scapegoat. Our real problem is how this team was assembled. When I realized that we were going to go like this, I said oh boy, this could turn into the worst mess regarding pitching, say in the last 10 Y, probably in RS history. At time saying this was like a blasphemy and I was called pessimist, unrealistic, whiner, etc.

 

There's still time, hopefully they have a plan B or C.

[iortiz]

If we become sellers by the trade deadline, I will question if the current strategy and people behind it should continue.

[Bellhorn04]

Israel, imagine the abuse and insults that you would have endured if you had predicted that the pitching coach would have been fired before the middle of May. LOL!! What people are not getting is that it is quite obvious that the FO thinks it has big problems in the pitching department. Firing the pitching coach was a desparation move, because they don't have a lot of depth options right now. So, you and I and the FO are of like mind on the pitching at this point in time. Others want to continue to think that it is not that bad, but the actions of the FO say otherwise. In this case, I agree with the FO.

 

Firing the pitching coach wasn't necessarily a desperation move. That's possible, but maybe it was just the right move.

[a700hitter]

LOL!

 

The pitching coach is the least of our problems. IMO it was a scapegoat. Our real problem is how this team was assembled. When I realized that we were going to go like this, I said oh boy, this could turn into the worst mess regarding pitching, say in the last 10 Y, probably in RS history. At time saying this was like a blasphemy and I was called pessimist, unrealistic, whiner, etc.

 

There's still time, hopefully they have a plan B or C.

They do have the resources to make some changes. I think they are waiting to see which of the kids (Johnson, Rodriguez or Owens) can make a solid contribution at the big league level before pulling the trigger on some acquisitions. Mid-season acquisitions will not be cheap.

[sk7326]

Firing the pitching coach wasn't necessarily a desperation move. That's possible, but maybe it was just the right move.

 

I think it was partially providing a fall guy - one of those cases where the Sawx as a NESN television program trumped the baseball thing. But it is hard to get worked up one way or the other - you'd like to think Farrell has command over what he wants from his pitching staff. (including assistant coaches)

[iortiz]

Firing the pitching coach wasn't necessarily a desperation move. That's possible, but maybe it was just the right move.

 

If we keep this pace, the pitching coach won't likely be answer. As I said our problem is way beyond a pitching coach. The talent put on the field regarding pitching was overvalued by our FO IMO. There's the problem if you ask me.

[a700hitter]

Firing the pitching coach wasn't necessarily a desperation move. That's possible, but maybe it was just the right move.

We can differ on that. I have asked some former MLB pitchers about the influence of pitching coaches. I asked Tom Seaver if the Mets instructed in the drop and drive delivery used by him and all of the Mets pitchers of his era. He said that he and the other pitchers did it all on their own at the major league level, but Joe Pignatano grew very nice tomatos in the dirt by the outfield stands. Leo Mazzone was a guru when he had Glavine, Maddox and Smoltz. When he moved to the Orioles to mentor their young pitchers, the gloss came off of Mazzone's image. If you want to believe that firing Nieves was the right move, I think you are buying into the cover story that the FO has to tell. No FO will ever say that they made a desparation move, but it surely looks that way to most people. I think you are in the minority on this one.

[sk7326]

I think we agree more than disagree. Basically you would have made a couple of moves at the front-end of the rotation. Do not take me wrong, I liked the "innings eaters young enough to dream more of, and with a good defense..." approach BUT once signed the true No 1 & 2.

 

Not exactly - I think what the Sox did with Lester is comparable to the Patriots defensive moves this offseason. Once Revis left, instead of trying for a low rent version of that defense, the Patriots just decided to do something different and bolster the front seven in order to try to help the weakness along.

 

Once you let an ace leave, and figure that there is no real substitute (or at least one you want) then you try to figure out how to close the hole. The Sox choices have been to improve the offense and the rotation depth. The latter has not paid off - but it should definitely be better than the current results.

 

Personally, upgrading the top of the rotation makes sense - and I think they see the need, but are just waiting for the opportunity.

[Bellhorn04]

We can differ on that. I have asked some former MLB pitchers about the influence of pitching coaches. I asked Tom Seaver if the Mets instructed in the drop and drive delivery used by him and all of the Mets pitchers of his era. He said that he and the other pitchers did it all on their own at the major league level, but Joe Pignatano grew very nice tomatos in the dirt by the outfield stands. Leo Mazzone was a guru when he had Glavine, Maddox and Smoltz. When he moved to the Orioles to mentor their young pitchers, the gloss came off of Mazzone's image. If you want to believe that it was the right move, I think you are buying into the cover story that the FO has to tell. No FO will ever say that they made a desparation move, but it surely looks that way to most people. I think you are in the minority on this one.

 

I'm not buying into anything. Please note how I phrased my statement - 'wasn't necessarily', 'possible', 'maybe'. You and iortiz are the ones who are so certain about being right, based on nothing.

[Palodios]

I have two of the jackholes on ignore. Read the thread. I almost never respond to their attacks, because I can't see them unless quoted. So, you are wrong in your assessment of me continuing this. They started it and have continued it, but I will not be bullied. If you want to side with the clearly aggressive bullies, that's your decision.

 

You're not any different than UN or MVP, you're just more subtle.

 

Its bad enough with the team being this awful. If you guys just stop with the "I told you so's" in every single thread, people wouldn't be so ready to pick a fight with you.

[iortiz]

Not exactly - I think what the Sox did with Lester is comparable to the Patriots defensive moves this offseason. Once Revis left, instead of trying for a low rent version of that defense, the Patriots just decided to do something different and bolster the front seven in order to try to help the weakness along.

 

Once you let an ace leave, and figure that there is no real substitute (or at least one you want) then you try to figure out how to close the hole. The Sox choices have been to improve the offense and the rotation depth. The latter has not paid off - but it should definitely be better than the current results.

 

Personally, upgrading the top of the rotation makes sense - and I think they see the need, but are just waiting for the opportunity.

Hopefully we still in the run by the trade deadline, and catch that opportunity, otherwise this could turn into another disaster.

[a700hitter]

You're not any different than UN or MVP, you're just more subtle.

 

Its bad enough with the team being this awful. If you guys just stop with the "I told you so's" in every single thread, people wouldn't be so ready to pick a fight with you.

I like to think that I am more civil, not more subtle, but you have your own way of looking at things.

 

Edit: I resort to attacks only after being attacked. I don't attack someone for their opinions on sports. Show me where I have done that?

 

Also, I don't even converse with U.N., but he is constantly taking potshots at me. That doesn't tell you who is picking the fights?

Edited May 11, 2015 by a700hitter

[iortiz]

I'm not buying into anything. Please note how I phrased my statement - 'wasn't necessarily', 'possible', 'maybe'. You and iortiz are the ones who are so certain about being right, based on nothing.

 

 

LOL, we are not claiming to hold the true or be right, we are just making our opinions, just as you did... and BTW based on what we see. Nothing more, nothing less Bell.

[sk7326]

Some pitching coaches clearly add value. Don Cooper with the White Sox is one obvious example - who has been able to work with guys with odd deliveries and has taught the cutter to pitchers and changed their outlook. (perhaps a reason Nieves was a good candidate to begin with)

 

Nieves would be hard to blame for the pitchers woes - but it also does not seem like he has provided consistent value-add to guys coming at the major league level. Yeah, there is clear PR with this move, but hard to be too worked up in either direction.

 

One thing that makes sense though is, as Farrell's area of expertise, I have to assume he is looking at pitching coaches who match his philosophy or can be taught it. And if the pitching coach is not doing some magic, he can fill the gaps in. Or at least you'd hope so.

[a700hitter]

I'm not buying into anything. Please note how I phrased my statement - 'wasn't necessarily', 'possible', 'maybe'. You and iortiz are the ones who are so certain about being right, based on nothing.

I am not certain, but I do find it hard to believe that Nieve's ability to communicate broke down so badly 5 weeks into the season that it warranted him being fired. If communications were really the issue, they probably would have given him a warning and a little more time. If there had been reports of bad behavior, the firing would have been understandable, but I have heard none. I am not certain, but I am going with the probability that he was the scapegoat. What do you think was the likely reason for his firing or don't you have enough information to form an opinion?

[sk7326]

Hopefully we still in the run by the trade deadline, and catch that opportunity, otherwise this could turn into another disaster.

 

To extend the Patriots analogy further - the hope was the lineup could essentially provide what Brady and Gronk do - some measure of insulation around the less certain parts of the team. And THAT has been where the problem is.

[a700hitter]

Some pitching coaches clearly add value. Don Cooper with the White Sox is one obvious example - who has been able to work with guys with odd deliveries and has taught the cutter to pitchers and changed their outlook. (perhaps a reason Nieves was a good candidate to begin with)

 

Nieves would be hard to blame for the pitchers woes - but it also does not seem like he has provided consistent value-add to guys coming at the major league level. Yeah, there is clear PR with this move, but hard to be too worked up in either direction.

 

One thing that makes sense though is, as Farrell's area of expertise, I have to assume he is looking at pitching coaches who match his philosophy or can be taught it. And if the pitching coach is not doing some magic, he can fill the gaps in. Or at least you'd hope so.

I agree with this. This is a great analysis of the move.

[iortiz]

To extend the Patriots analogy further - the hope was the lineup could essentially provide what Brady and Gronk do - some measure of insulation around the less certain parts of the team. And THAT has been where the problem is.

 

Well, Other than the redskins (and not that much) I do not follow that much NFL or the Patriots, so I do not know exactly what you are talking about LOL!

[Bellhorn04]

I am not certain, but I do find it hard to believe that Nieve's ability to communicate broke down so badly 5 weeks into the season that it warranted him being fired. If communications were really the issue, they probably would have given him a warning and a little more time. If there had been reports of bad behavior, the firing would have been understandable, but I have heard none. I am not certain, but I am going with the probability that he was the scapegoat. What do you think was the likely reason for his firing or don't you have enough information to form an opinion?

 

Yes it's 5 weeks into the season, but it's also his 3rd season, so they know him pretty well. They said they didn't think he was communicating well with this year's staff.

 

One of the beat reporters-Brian McPherson, I believe-kept a tally on Nieves's mound visits this year. His numbers showed that after 19 visits, the next batter had a hit or walk 15 times. Obviously that in itself didn't get him fired, but you could look at it as symptomatic of a problem.

 

The bottom line is, none of us know jackshit about why he really got fired. We probably never will.

[a700hitter]

Yes it's 5 weeks into the season, but it's also his 3rd season, so they know him pretty well. They said they didn't think he was communicating well with this year's staff.

 

One of the beat reporters-Brian McPherson, I believe-kept a tally on Nieves's mound visits this year. His numbers showed that after 19 visits, the next batter had a hit or walk 15 times. Obviously that in itself didn't get him fired, but you could look at it as symptomatic of a problem.

 

The bottom line is, none of us know jackshit about why he really got fired. We probably never will.

But we know what it looks like. It's like when an owner gives a vote of confidence to his manager. It usually comes right before the manager gets fired. We know what it looks like despite what the FO says. So while we don't know the exact circaumstances of this firing, we know what it looks like -- like scapegoating.

 

Edit: I'll ask again. What do you think was the likely reason for his firing or don't you have enough information to form an opinion?

[sk7326]

The way I'd look at the Nieves thing is - I remember the arguments when Farrell hired him. There were those who wondered why they did not hire a sexy name, one of those guys like Leo Mazzone whom we've heard of. But this was not the case of a manager without a ton of pitching coaching experience outsourcing that job. It was a guy with a pitching background hiring a guy to mold into a MiniMe - or something like that.

 

If there is a reason for the firing (all speculation bien sur) - it's probably after 3 seasons Farrell just never got that mind meld he was targeting.

[cp176]

The latest telling piece that I read came from Buchholz - he and the rest of the staff were very surprised that Nieves was fired. I don't think that it was a communication issue at all. Simply saying that management felt that some sort of change was necessary and that the manager was going to remain would have been good enough for me. It appears that an attempt to create an issue was made and that I don't like. I'm hoping that they were a little more straight forward with Nieves. We get to see how it all works out.

[Bellhorn04]

But we know what it looks like. It's like when an owner gives a vote of confidence to his manager. It usually comes right before the manager gets fired. We know what it looks like despite what the FO says. So while we don't know the exact circaumstances of this firing, we know what it looks like -- like scapegoating.

 

Edit: I'll ask again. What do you think was the likely reason for his firing or don't you have enough information to form an opinion?

 

Of course I don't have enough information, and neither do you or anyone else.

 

But if pressed on it, I'd say it's a case of having to do something to try to change things for the better. I don't think it's a PR move. That doesn't make a lot of sense. What great PR do they get from this move?

 

To me it's a baseball move unless I see evidence to the contrary.

[Bellhorn04]

The latest telling piece that I read came from Buchholz - he and the rest of the staff were very surprised that Nieves was fired.

 

That's a pretty typical post mortem comment though. It's pretty rare that players pile on a guy who just got fired unless there was some serious hate.

[a700hitter]

Of course I don't have enough information, and neither do you or anyone else.

 

But if pressed on it, I'd say it's a case of having to do something to try to change things for the better. I don't think it's a PR move. That doesn't make a lot of sense. What great PR do they get from this move?

 

To me it's a baseball move unless I see evidence to the contrary.

There isn't enough information to draw a conclusion, but there is plenty of information on which to form an opinion. I don't think anyone thinks it is a pure PR move. Scapegoating is not usually done just for PR purposes. It is usualy done to send a message to those who remain behind that they could be next. It is meant to be motivational, but I think it is a very poor motivational technique.