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

[iortiz]

Betting the over/under on soccer games sounds like self-inflicted torture to me.

Yeah Bell.

Over/Unders bets are 50/50. When I bet on overs/unders I usually bet when the game is already started (on bet365 you can do that) in order to have more idea how it could end up. When I bet on soccer games, I usually bet on handicap bets called "double opportunity".

Edited February 5, 2015 by iortiz

[a700hitter]

We both see the thing eye to eye but one has not idea, and the other is partially correct haha. As always, you are bitching just for the sake of bitch. You are presenting s*** and waiting if it sticks since you do not know what we are even talking about.

"Partially correct"? The metrics show that I am right 98.6 percent of the time-- the same as human body temperature. LOL!

 

Anyway, in matters of betting and setting odds, I defer to you, because you are very involved in that world. Me telling you about betting would be like me telling UN how to prepare mashed plantains.

Edited February 5, 2015 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

Huh? If that were the case, then you'd have one championship on the books (2007) since the other two were augmented significantly through the FA process. Listen, a guy from the DR or Cuba doesn't give a rats ass about the Yankee-Sox rivalry. Neither does a kid from Florida or Cali. Most of these guys are from over 1,000 miles from Boston. There is no engrained loyalty there. And I know you say these things now, but if you were a player, you'd do the same thing

 

 

I understand all of that. There may not be any engrained loyalty, but I would hope that after coming up through a team's farm system, then playing with the team for 6 years, there would be some sense of loyalty. It just bothers me that almost always, it's all about the money. It would be nice if more players made a decision based on being happy where they are and loving the team and city that they are playing for.

 

As far as whether I would do the same thing or not, I have no way of knowing, so it's rather presumptuous of you to say that I would do the same thing. I have never seen anything close to the kind of money these guys are getting.

[Kimmi]

They are good enough to compete for the division:

 

If Buch stays healthy

 

If Masterson stays healthy and gets back 4 mph on his fastball.

 

If Miley doesn't give up a couple of dozen HRs and can get his ERA below 4, and

 

If Kelly can be more than a 5 inning pitcher.

 

When you have this many "ifs," a few of them will not turn out well. When 2 or more don't happen, things tend to go south. So, I disagree that this rotation is good enough on paper to compete. They can compete "if" 4 of them can turn around last year's performances.

 

When I start hearing, if, if, if, if, I think that means trouble.

 

 

Once again, these guys are not supposed to be a top 3 rotation. They are just projected to be good enough to keep the team in the game more often than not, where the offense can do its job. There are some ifs, and it's likely that not everything is going to work out the way that the FO foresees it to. Regardless they should be good enough to keep the team in contention. And reinforcements will be available, if needed.

 

Here's a good read on Miley, if you haven't seen it yet:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wade-miley-who-is-better-than-you-think/

[Kimmi]

Because they have "Red Sox glasses". Whatever the hell those are.

 

 

LOL

 

This really struck me as funny, for some reason.

[User Name]

The Sox will hit. If their pitching corps is league average overall, they can make the playoffs. There's really not much debating that.

[Kimmi]

Preseason prognostications always bring out the philosopher in me. What were the preseason odds on SF and KC last year? What were the odds on the Red Sox in 2013? I wish somebody would keep track of the preseason calls and compare them to the actual results. But nobody does it because it would make the whole concept of preseason picks look foolish. It would also be pretty tedious.

 

Nobody knows s***, and your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

This is true Bellhorn, as far as how the season will actually play out.

 

But doesn't the fact that the Sox are projected to win the division and be one of the top 5 or 6 teams in baseball mean that the FO has put together what should be a contending team? On paper, we look better than most of the other teams. At this point, that's really all you can hope for from the FO.

[User Name]

This is true Bellhorn, as far as how the season will actually play out.

 

But doesn't the fact that the Sox are projected to win the division and be one of the top 5 or 6 teams in baseball mean that the FO has put together what should be a contending team? On paper, we look better than most of the other teams. At this point, that's really all you can hope for from the FO.

 

You can also expect them to spend like drunken sailors, then complain when it stops them from making future acquisitions.

[Kimmi]

You can also expect them to spend like drunken sailors, then complain when it stops them from making future acquisitions.

 

 

There is that, too.

 

To me, it seems like the FO is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

They got blasted for re-signing Beckett before he hit FA, then got blasted for not re-signing Lester before he hit FA.

[Northern Star]

Those ifs are piling up. When you're dependent on a bunch of things all going right, the odds are long.

[User Name]

You're always dependent on a bunch of things going right. It's like 2013 never happened. That team may have had more ifs than this one an d it went all the way. The glass isn't always half-empty.

[seabeachfred]

Bitching and moaning is a lot easier to take if the team is winning.

 

Yes it is.....and there is a lot less of that too.

[a700hitter]

There is that, too.

 

To me, it seems like the FO is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

They got blasted for re-signing Beckett before he hit FA, then got blasted for not re-signing Lester before he hit FA.

They are not damned if they win. All that matters is the record. That is the only metric that means anything.

[User Name]

Yes it is.....and there is a lot less of that too.

 

No there isn't fred. You know better. Farrell sucks, so so is a pussy, so so sucks, etc etc

[jacksonianmarch]

I understand all of that. There may not be any engrained loyalty, but I would hope that after coming up through a team's farm system, then playing with the team for 6 years, there would be some sense of loyalty. It just bothers me that almost always, it's all about the money. It would be nice if more players made a decision based on being happy where they are and loving the team and city that they are playing for.

 

As far as whether I would do the same thing or not, I have no way of knowing, so it's rather presumptuous of you to say that I would do the same thing. I have never seen anything close to the kind of money these guys are getting.

 

And if you were in their shoes, it would be all about the money as well. You get one or two big contracts as a baseball player. And you have those one or two contracts to make all the money you could ever make. You go for the most, every time.

[User Name]

Except for the guys that don't, like Cliff Lee, or Pedroia, or horseface Teixeira, who turned down two bigger deals to play with the Yanks.

[Spudboy]

And if you were in their shoes, it would be all about the money as well. You get one or two big contracts as a baseball player. And you have those one or two contracts to make all the money you could ever make. You go for the most, every time.

 

This is wrong.

 

When players retire they are fully capable of becoming employed in real jobs where they can make realistic salaries.

 

Just because a player does not play anymore does not mean that he has no capacity to earn.

[sk7326]

I understand all of that. There may not be any engrained loyalty, but I would hope that after coming up through a team's farm system, then playing with the team for 6 years, there would be some sense of loyalty. It just bothers me that almost always, it's all about the money. It would be nice if more players made a decision based on being happy where they are and loving the team and city that they are playing for.

 

As far as whether I would do the same thing or not, I have no way of knowing, so it's rather presumptuous of you to say that I would do the same thing. I have never seen anything close to the kind of money these guys are getting.

 

For most of those years - they are making (if the prospect is solid) way less than what they produced. So after FA is your first chance to cash in - and at the end of the day the team is special to us, but it's a gig - one of 30 of them. It's not like the Red Sox (or anybody else) is paying farmhands to compensate them above minimum wage (look at the lawsuit filed on behalf of minor leaguers in this respect). The hometown discount is not about a sense of loyalty to me - it's simply that you like it here, and the familiarity and happiness comes is worth something. Not everybody is required to enjoy Boston's weather, or having to answer questions about what they had for breakfast. I think players DO make decisions on lifestyle all the time - the ones who go to the auction process decided the lifestyle they have is not a significant plus. I wish every guy loved playing in Boston. Loyalty to the org? Hey the org's loyalty is exactly to the extent that the player can hit, throw or field.

[cp176]

For most of those years - they are making (if the prospect is solid) way less than what they produced. So after FA is your first chance to cash in - and at the end of the day the team is special to us, but it's a gig - one of 30 of them. It's not like the Red Sox (or anybody else) is paying farmhands to compensate them above minimum wage (look at the lawsuit filed on behalf of minor leaguers in this respect). The hometown discount is not about a sense of loyalty to me - it's simply that you like it here, and the familiarity and happiness comes is worth something. Not everybody is required to enjoy Boston's weather, or having to answer questions about what they had for breakfast. I think players DO make decisions on lifestyle all the time - the ones who go to the auction process decided the lifestyle they have is not a significant plus. I wish every guy loved playing in Boston. Loyalty to the org? Hey the org's loyalty is exactly to the extent that the player can hit, throw or field.

 

You are right about this one. There probably comes a point where enough actually is enough for the high priced free agent. If a player chooses to play for 150 million as opposed to say 140 million, he has to be considering many other things other than the money. At some point it becomes a decision truly based on where they want to be I would think.

[Kimmi]

And if you were in their shoes, it would be all about the money as well. You get one or two big contracts as a baseball player. And you have those one or two contracts to make all the money you could ever make. You go for the most, every time.

 

 

I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes. I do know that I don't have an ego that needs to be validated by money. I also know that I am not a material person. My decision would be based on a number of factors and not just where the most money is.

[Kimmi]

For most of those years - they are making (if the prospect is solid) way less than what they produced. So after FA is your first chance to cash in - and at the end of the day the team is special to us, but it's a gig - one of 30 of them. It's not like the Red Sox (or anybody else) is paying farmhands to compensate them above minimum wage (look at the lawsuit filed on behalf of minor leaguers in this respect). The hometown discount is not about a sense of loyalty to me - it's simply that you like it here, and the familiarity and happiness comes is worth something. Not everybody is required to enjoy Boston's weather, or having to answer questions about what they had for breakfast. I think players DO make decisions on lifestyle all the time - the ones who go to the auction process decided the lifestyle they have is not a significant plus. I wish every guy loved playing in Boston. Loyalty to the org? Hey the org's loyalty is exactly to the extent that the player can hit, throw or field.

 

 

SK you make some good points with which I do not disagree. I stated previously that the loyalty thing goes both ways. I also realize that the hometown discount is not just about loyalty, but also about the things you mentioned. All I'm saying is that it would be refreshing to see more players who are not all about the money. I know many players say that they would love to stay with their current team, but then it seems they almost always end up going to whoever offers the most money. What about loyalty, not just to the team but to the fans, love of the game, love of the city, or happiness as reasons to take a lesser contract?

[wyo-sox]

I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes. I do know that I don't have an ego that needs to be validated by money. I also know that I am not a material person. My decision would be based on a number of factors and not just where the most money is.

 

I know I'll never have to worry about what I would do in that situation, lol.

[Kimmi]

I know I'll never have to worry about what I would do in that situation, lol.

 

 

LOL I won't either.

[Ogden]

I know I'll never have to worry about what I would do in that situation, lol.

 

 

I had to make that decision when I was in my late teens but I decided I wanted to spend my summers working in a snack bar at a swim club because the scenery and social life was better.

 

 

Actually only half of that statement is true. I'll let you figure out which half.

[sk7326]

SK you make some good points with which I do not disagree. I stated previously that the loyalty thing goes both ways. I also realize that the hometown discount is not just about loyalty, but also about the things you mentioned. All I'm saying is that it would be refreshing to see more players who are not all about the money. I know many players say that they would love to stay with their current team, but then it seems they almost always end up going to whoever offers the most money. What about loyalty, not just to the team but to the fans, love of the game, love of the city, or happiness as reasons to take a lesser contract?

 

The fans I get to a degree - but the loyalty comes in how hard they played. Love of the game was more or less established all that time riding buses and making below minimum wage.

[seabeachfred]

The fans I get to a degree - but the loyalty comes in how hard they played. Love of the game was more or less established all that time riding buses and making below minimum wage.

 

I know it's being cynical but it does seem to always be about the money. I sometimes wonder if baseball wouldn't be better off with a salary cap as they have in football and basketball, but with the MLBPA so powerful that isn't coming to pass in my lifetime and maybe not yours either. What we need this coming season is a team all pulling together on the same rope, the pitchers over-achieving, the offense doing what we think they should do, and an airtight defense that smothers hits along with a bullpen that shuts the doors. A lot to ask for but let's hope it gets done. I'd love to see us go real deep in the playoffs this year.....you know, last to first to last to first again.

[sk7326]

I know it's being cynical but it does seem to always be about the money. I sometimes wonder if baseball wouldn't be better off with a salary cap as they have in football and basketball, but with the MLBPA so powerful that isn't coming to pass in my lifetime and maybe not yours either. What we need this coming season is a team all pulling together on the same rope, the pitchers over-achieving, the offense doing what we think they should do, and an airtight defense that smothers hits along with a bullpen that shuts the doors. A lot to ask for but let's hope it gets done. I'd love to see us go real deep in the playoffs this year.....you know, last to first to last to first again.

 

Absolutely - positively no ... the salary cap would put more money into John Henry's hands, that's it.

 

If you want Judge Smails to be happy, fine - but it would not do bubkus for competitive balance. In fact, the changes baseball has made now (rookie bonus pool, cap on bonuses for internationals) has hurt competitive balance even though they are "caps".

[wyo-sox]

Absolutely - positively no ... the salary cap would put more money into John Henry's hands, that's it.

 

If you want Judge Smails to be happy, fine - but it would not do bubkus for competitive balance. In fact, the changes baseball has made now (rookie bonus pool, cap on bonuses for internationals) has hurt competitive balance even though they are "caps".

 

It's funny to me that baseball really has the most competitive balance. The NFL should, with how it's run and it's salary cap... but with the NFL you could about narrow the Super Bowl teams down to 4 teams before the season even starts. I've not seen anyone good at predicting what MLB teams will have good years or not. I think the many many things that have to go right to win games in baseball, the large number of games, and the detailed skill required to be successful at baseball, keep it very competitive for all teams every year. I would like to see something in place so that MLB teams have a little less turnover. It would more fun to be a fan if the roster didn't look completely different every year.

[sk7326]

It's funny to me that baseball really has the most competitive balance. The NFL should, with how it's run and it's salary cap... but with the NFL you could about narrow the Super Bowl teams down to 4 teams before the season even starts. I've not seen anyone good at predicting what MLB teams will have good years or not. I think the many many things that have to go right to win games in baseball, the large number of games, and the detailed skill required to be successful at baseball, keep it very competitive for all teams every year. I would like to see something in place so that MLB teams have a little less turnover. It would more fun to be a fan if the roster didn't look completely different every year.

 

It is a zero sum thing - it would be nice for players to stay longer, but that means the players do not have the freedom to switch jobs normal people have. That players move keeps interest up in lots of markets.

 

I think the reason football lacks the parity of baseball is simply a matter of the sports themselves. If you accept that the person with the largest impact on any baseball game is the pitcher (and it is - pitching is not 90% of the game or 50% of the game, but it has more impact than any other position), then that baseball teams rotate starting pitchers means that the team fielded can vary wildly in quality. To put it another way, the 1972 Phillies went 59-97. The Phillies were 30-11 in Steve Carlton's starts that year. So for those 41 starts, the Phillies were actually pretty good relative to whom the opponent was putting out there. Because of this, even a bad team is a favorite against a good team occasionally.

 

Football, with the dependencies on team continuity, and that the same personnel play every game (assuming health), the advantages are much more permanent. Also, physical advantages are much more profound. (size of linemen and such)

 

A salary cap would not change this reality at all. In fact, what baseball has done with its tax system is create a system where all 30 markets are healthy and all of them can build competitive teams according to the realities of the city and fan base. Now clearly the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers have more room for error than the Rays and Royals. But the Rays and Royals can absolutely afford to keep core guys - if they don't it is because of choice. And that is all you can ask for regarding balance. Can a well managed team succeed anywhere - and the answer in baseball is hell yes.

[iortiz]

Shields to San Diego for 75 M or something. Damn! Is it really a bad contract? He's 33 and all but this sounds like a bargain to me.

 

Anyways, 4 months ago, we were told to wait and be patience since it was too early and we had to trust and let the FO work because they were likely going to land at least one No. 1. The time ran and Cherrys signed a combo full of ?s and said that he felt comfortable with the actual rotation going forward and some thought that it was pure BS since it was simply part of his PR strategy or something. Then the speech changed and some drank that kool aid and began to make to the idea that this rotation was good enough since it has a huge potential and/or the ALE pitching is as mediocre as ours and that we could easily grab an ace in the trade deadline if needed. Once again we were told to be patience, fine.

 

Now that we are certain of how we are moving forward, Hopefully Cherry's baby work out because this is the worst rotation I've ever seen for my Red Sox on paper entering into a new season.

Edited February 9, 2015 by iortiz