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

[Bellhorn04]

I really do hate to say it, but at this point all the criticisms of the pitching moves seem well founded. Our ERA stinks and meanwhile, Lester and Lackey are pitching just like their new teams hoped they would.

[Northern Star]

I don't care what Ben's plan for the rotation was, you don't destroy a rotation and successfully rebuild it in one off season. Not with the pieces he used.

[a700hitter]

They handed over the keys of the team to an errand boy.

[iortiz]

Sorry for Cherrys lovers, but he has to go. We need someone who can build a team, specially at pitching.

[User Name]

I really do hate to say it, but at this point all the criticisms of the pitching moves seem well founded. Our ERA stinks and meanwhile, Lester and Lackey are pitching just like their new teams hoped they would.

 

Lackey's the loss that stings, since he's pitching for the league minimum.

[Kimmi]

Yep, the tigers were the one team in the last few years with a 4 ERA (4.01) that made the playoffs, but they also had a couple of big hammers that we didn't have -- Scherzer and Price (after the trading deadline). Also, their second best hitter last year was Miggy as VMart absolutely tore it up last year. Other than the 2014 Tigers, playoff teams in recent years have had ERAs under 4. An ERA over 4, certainly an ERA around 4.5, will not keep the 2015 Red Sox competitive.

 

The Rangers are another team that made the playoffs with an ERA over 4 in 2012, and there have been a couple of other teams with ERA in the high 3s with weaker offenses that have made the playoffs, but I get your point. I have always been a proponent of the "pitching and defense" philosophy over the "mash your way to the playoffs" philosophy.

 

That said, with the current team ERA being 4.48 and the offense being as putrid as it's been, the team has stayed in the race. If the offense hits to their level of expectation, we should be able to stay in the race for the remainder of the year, with the assumption that more pitching will be acquired by the deadline, and also with the possibility of getting help from one or more of our youngsters.

 

If the offense had been hitting up to expectations to date, there is a very good chance we'd be leading the division. In short, the staff can be good enough if the offense does its job.

[iortiz]

The Rangers are another team that made the playoffs with an ERA over 4 in 2012, and there have been a couple of other teams with ERA in the high 3s with weaker offenses that have made the playoffs, but I get your point. I have always been a proponent of the "pitching and defense" philosophy over the "mash your way to the playoffs" philosophy.

 

That said, with the current team ERA being 4.48 and the offense being as putrid as it's been, the team has stayed in the race. If the offense hits to their level of expectation, we should be able to stay in the race for the remainder of the year, with the assumption that more pitching will be acquired by the deadline, and also with the possibility of getting help from one or more of our youngsters.

 

If the offense had been hitting up to expectations to date, there is a very good chance we'd be leading the division. In short, the staff can be good enough if the offense does its job.

 

I do not like that approach/strategy -- leaving all the job to the offense and let the pitching to be mediocre.

 

I like balance, like STL.

 

As I said, this team was horrible assembled.

[a700hitter]

The Rangers are another team that made the playoffs with an ERA over 4 in 2012, and there have been a couple of other teams with ERA in the high 3s with weaker offenses that have made the playoffs, but I get your point. I have always been a proponent of the "pitching and defense" philosophy over the "mash your way to the playoffs" philosophy.

 

That said, with the current team ERA being 4.48 and the offense being as putrid as it's been, the team has stayed in the race. If the offense hits to their level of expectation, we should be able to stay in the race for the remainder of the year, with the assumption that more pitching will be acquired by the deadline, and also with the possibility of getting help from one or more of our youngsters.

 

If the offense had been hitting up to expectations to date, there is a very good chance we'd be leading the division. In short, the staff can be good enough if the offense does its job.

One team out of 30 in the last 3 seasons have had ERAs over 4 -- the 2014 Tigers with Scherzer and Price had a 4.01. The 2012 Rangers came close, but they came in at 3.99 to get the Wild Card. If the best we can hope for is a regression to 4.25, that will not get it done, no matter how much the offense mashes.

 

Edit: Also, our 4.48 went up after today's game.

Edited May 25, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

I really do hate to say it, but at this point all the criticisms of the pitching moves seem well founded. Our ERA stinks and meanwhile, Lester and Lackey are pitching just like their new teams hoped they would.

 

I don't think anyone is surprised that either Lester or Lackey are pitching well. The concern with Lester is not this year or even next, but what might happen towards the end of the contract. The Sox should have locked Lester up last spring, but once his price got as high as it did, the Sox were right to let him walk.

 

In hindsight, the Lackey trade looks really bad right now. I completely understand the rationale behind it though. I also think we need to give the trade some more time before calling it a bust.

[iortiz]

I don't think anyone is surprised that either Lester or Lackey are pitching well. The concern with Lester is not this year or even next, but what might happen towards the end of the contract. The Sox should have locked Lester up last spring, but once his price got as high as it did, the Sox were right to let him walk.

 

In hindsight, the Lackey trade looks really bad right now. I completely understand the rationale behind it though. I also think we need to give the trade some more time before calling it a bust.

If Lester provides No. 3 numbers by the end of his contract I will call it deal, which is likely IMO.

[a700hitter]

I don't think anyone is surprised that either Lester or Lackey are pitching well. The concern with Lester is not this year or even next, but what might happen towards the end of the contract. The Sox should have locked Lester up last spring, but once his price got as high as it did, the Sox were right to let him walk.

 

In hindsight, the Lackey trade looks really bad right now. I completely understand the rationale behind it though. I also think we need to give the trade some more time before calling it a bust.

The rationale was that we were getting back 2 good players. The FO threw in the towel on half of trade in the off season when they signed Hanley after signing Castillo late last year. Those two moves essentially crowded Craig out of a roster spot, making him a very expensive spare part.

[Kimmi]

One team out of 30 in the last 3 seasons have had ERAs over 4 -- the 2014 Tigers with Scherzer and Price had a 4.01. The 2012 Rangers came close, but they came in at 3.99 to get the Wild Card. If the best we can hope for is a regression to 4.25, that will not get it done, no matter how much the offense mashes.

 

Edit: Also, our 4.48 went up after today's game.

 

Fangraphs has the 2012 Rangers at a 4.02 ERA.

 

Regardless, to you agree that our offense has been putrid, and that, despite that, the team has been able to stay in the race so far with a 4.48 (and now slightly higher) ERA? If the answer to that question is yes, then I don't understand why a better offense and a better team ERA can't be good enough to get it done, at least until July, when we can hope for reinforcements.

[Kimmi]

I do not like that approach/strategy -- leaving all the job to the offense and let the pitching to be mediocre.

 

I like balance, like STL.

 

As I said, this team was horrible assembled.

 

I have said many times that I much prefer a strong pitching staff and mediocre offense over the reverse of that.

 

However, I disagree that the team was horribly assembled. They are playing horribly right now, but they are better than what they have shown so far.

[Kimmi]

The rationale was that we were getting back 2 good players. The FO threw in the towel on half of trade in the off season when they signed Hanley after signing Castillo late last year. Those two moves essentially crowded Craig out of a roster spot, making him a very expensive spare part.

 

Threw in the towel on Craig because they signed Hanley? Maybe they saw an opportunity to sign a very good hitter at a decent price. Maybe they saw an opportunity to acquire some depth since that was one of the things lacking in last year's team. Maybe they saw an opportunity to give the team some more flexibility so that they could make some trades.

 

Things don't always work out. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a good decision at the time. Maybe Craig bounces back with some everyday at bats in AAA.

[a700hitter]

Fangraphs has the 2012 Rangers at a 4.02 ERA.

 

Regardless, to you agree that our offense has been putrid, and that, despite that, the team has been able to stay in the race so far with a 4.48 (and now slightly higher) ERA? If the answer to that question is yes, then I don't understand why a better offense and a better team ERA can't be good enough to get it done, at least until July, when we can hope for reinforcements.

The improvement in our pitching will have to come from AAA or trades. The current crew will not "regress" enough for us to compete.

 

I don't understand the discrepancy with fangraphs. The Angels had a 4.02 ERA in 2012 and the Rangers had a 3.99 ERA

[Northern Star]

I don't think anyone is surprised that either Lester or Lackey are pitching well. The concern with Lester is not this year or even next, but what might happen towards the end of the contract. The Sox should have locked Lester up last spring, but once his price got as high as it did, the Sox were right to let him walk.

 

In hindsight, the Lackey trade looks really bad right now. I completely understand the rationale behind it though. I also think we need to give the trade some more time before calling it a bust.

 

I don't like long contracts to pitchers, I'm dead against it, but if the Red Sox refuse to give out any, they are gonna be left behind. The market is the market.

[a700hitter]

Threw in the towel on Craig because they signed Hanley? Maybe they saw an opportunity to sign a very good hitter at a decent price. Maybe they saw an opportunity to acquire some depth since that was one of the things lacking in last year's team. Maybe they saw an opportunity to give the team some more flexibility so that they could make some trades.

 

Things don't always work out. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a good decision at the time. Maybe Craig bounces back with some everyday at bats in AAA.

The best that they can hope for is that Craig establishes some trade value by playing in AAA.

[Northern Star]

The best that they can hope for is that Craig establishes some trade value by playing in AAA.

 

He'd still have to come back and be showcased at the major level, unless the Sox suck up his remaining salary and throw him in on a trade centered on someone else.

[User Name]

I do not like that approach/strategy -- leaving all the job to the offense and let the pitching to be mediocre.

 

I like balance, like STL.

 

As I said, this team was horrible assembled.

 

Did you even read her post? She clearly stated that the pitching staff would need to be upgraded.

[User Name]

I don't like long contracts to pitchers, I'm dead against it, but if the Red Sox refuse to give out any, they are gonna be left behind. The market is the market.

 

This is a good point, but not entirely correct, as the Rays, A's, and to an extent, the Cardinals can attest to. You can develop/trade for your pitching, but it's not that easy.

[iortiz]

Did you even read her post? She clearly stated that the pitching staff would need to be upgraded.

 

So? I'm addressing the strategy. Where did you leave your reading comp skills and common sense? Stop whinning!

[Northern Star]

This is a good point, but not entirely correct, as the Rays, A's, and to an extent, the Cardinals can attest to. You can develop/trade for your pitching, but it's not that easy.

 

Except that this is Boston. Ain't nobody got time for that. I am a big believer in developing and not giving up top prospects for older players, but you're likely not gonna develop three real top pitchers all at the same time, so once in a while, you gotta pay out.

[User Name]

Except that this is Boston. Ain't nobody got time for that. I am a big believer in developing and not giving up top prospects for older players, but you're likely not gonna develop three real top pitchers all at the same time, so once in a while, you gotta pay out.

 

Those three teams don't, and they always have a stable of young, reliable pitching. What are they doing that the Red Sox are not?

[iortiz]

Putting a GM who can build a pitching staff?

[iortiz]

Wonder what is the core pitching staff that our FO has been building (since Theo left) like TB, As, STL, etc have built. Porcello? Miley?... Really?

 

We are two light years from those organizations in terms of running a team. Wonder what would happen if teams like OAK, TB, KCR, HOU, etc had the budget that the Red Sox have every year...

[a700hitter]

What pitching are we building or offense other than Betts? We love Betts, and he seems like he could be a very good player for years, but it has been a long drought waiting for a player like him. Bogaerts should be a good player, but he is not jumping out of the starting gate as a star. Yes, he is only 22, but Nomar was a huge Superstar by age 23. We really haven't developed a star OFer in a long time. Betts will be in our OF, but he is an IFer by trade. Our farm has not been churning out a lot of star players since the arrivals of Ellsbury, Pedroia, Lester, and Buch. On the pitching side, the drought has been even more noticeable. Something is wrong with our scouting or player development or both when it comes to pitching.

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox have had problems drafting and developing top tier starting pitchers for a long time. The only major exceptions in the last 40 years or so have been Clemens and Lester.

[Palodios]

The Red Sox have had problems drafting and developing top tier starting pitchers for a long time. The only major exceptions in the last 40 years or so have been Clemens and Lester.

 

Does Anibal Sanchez count? Otherwise, yeah, not many recently.

[sk7326]

Lackey's the loss that stings, since he's pitching for the league minimum.

 

Yeah. Pretty much.

 

Lester's Year 1 performance in that deal was bound to be good. So that is not a fair comparison point (they surely did not let him go thinking he'd stink in 2015).

 

The relatively smaller number of star pitchers the Red Sox have produced speaks less to an internal flaw than the reality of a team who has not had many top draft picks in the last decade.

[jacksonianmarch]

Developing top tier pitching is difficult nonetheless. You're either trying to develop a 16 year old crap shoot out of the DR or having to draft an ace, which is hard to do when you're consistently in the bottom half of the draft. That being said, dealing Lackey for the two stiffs you got was a ridiculously bad deal in hindsight. I think you have to move Kelly to the pen and see what that arm can do in 1 inning stints. Craig is a lost cause. Now you need to plug two spots. I know you don't want to burn kids at this point, but Owens and Rodriguez should be up. You have a need, bring them up. If they suck, then you Give them big league experience in a season that would be a lost cause anyway. If they keep you afloat, then you have a ton of options