2015 Red Sox In-Season Thread

[Elktonnick]

What happened to Bard was rare and unforeseeable, IMO. Countless other guys go back and forth between starting and relieving without this kind of disaster occurring.

I disagree. It was totally foreseeable. I recall former GM Jim Bowden saying it wasn't a good idea and then there is the much maligned Bobby Valentine. BV may have be a difficult personality but he does know his baseball and he was right about Bard. BTW the problem isn't going from starting to relieving it is the reverse that is the difficult transition and many can't make it at the major league level. And it wasn't like this was th first time Bard tried to convert to a starter and failed.

 

"Drafted as a starting pitcher, Bard spent the 2007 season in the same role starting all 22 of his appearances in 2007 with the Greenville Drive and Lancaster Jethawks. Unfortunately for Bard, the results were disastrous: He posted a 7.05 ERA between the two levels, and walked 78 batters in 75⅓ innings pitched.

 

Because of the poor success starting, at the end of the 2007 season Bard was moved into the bullpen to pitch as a reliever.[4] While pitching out of the bullpen in winter ball in Hawaii, Bard put up a 1.08 ERA in 16 appearances. While control was still an issue, there was still a large improvement."

[iortiz]

I think where is the issue, SK.

 

No one here is disputing that Ben made this moves without a plan or a case behind each move. Of course he and his colleagues had their reasons to do, whatever they tried to do. In fact some like you agreed with most of their decisions, didn't you? And it is fine. On the other hand, other fans, experts, etc. like me, thought that this strategy was a bad idea since day 1, and we as Ben, rest our cases as well.

 

In the end, the entire strategy has not worked out for whatever reason. His responsibility does not end once the the product is on the field, No sir. His responsibility depends on the result of the product, since he is the GM, regardless the strategy he decided to use.

Edited June 26, 2015 by iortiz

[Elktonnick]

I think where is the issue, SK.

 

No one here is disputing that Ben made this moves without a plan or a case behind each move. Of course he and his colleagues had their reasons to do, whatever they tried to do. In fact some like you agreed with most of their decisions, didn't you? And it is fine. On the other, other fans, experts, etc. like me, thought that this strategy was a bad idea since day 1, and we as Ben, rest our cases as well.

 

In the end, the entire strategy has not worked out for whatever reason. His responsibility does not end once the the product is on the field, No sir. His responsibility depends on the result of the product, since he is the GM, regardless the strategy he decided to use.

 

Excellent point. After all as GM he is responsible for hiring the personnel charged with executing his strategy. He hired Farrell. If Farrell can't manage Cherrington can't pass the buck. Here yet is another example of Cherrington's misjudgment of talent. Farrell is managing as poorly in Boston as he did in Toronto except for one year which was clearly an anomaly.

[Bellhorn04]

I disagree. It was totally foreseeable. I recall former GM Jim Bowden saying it wasn't a good idea and then there is the much maligned Bobby Valentine. BV may have be a difficult personality but he does know his baseball and he was right about Bard. BTW the problem isn't going from starting to relieving it is the reverse that is the difficult transition and many can't make it at the major league level. And it wasn't like this was th first time Bard tried to convert to a starter and failed.

 

 

Failure may have been foreseeable. Destroying his ability to throw strikes and ending his career in the big leagues was not IMO. I don't think there are other cases quite like Bard's. They called it Steve Blass Syndrome, but Blass was always a starter, it just happened to him out of nowhere.

[sk7326]

The rotation cobbled together at the start of the season lacked a top of the rotation. It was a pair of 4s, a pair of 5s and a 3, and the 3 was a borderline 4. You can't win with that. 4s and 5s are not mediocre. Generally, they suck. When combined with top of the rotation pitchers the overall result usually averages out to mediocre, I.e. League average. A rotation comprised solely of 4s and 5s will usually combine to produce a bad result.

 

To this point our two 4s, two 5a, and a 3 have performed like two 5s, two DFAs, and a 2/3 (Buch).

 

Edit: btw, the 1975 Reds had a great top of the rotation pitcher in Don Gullett. His career was cut short by injury, but he was very good -- a star that was still on the rise when injuries ends his career.

 

Gullett was good. The Reds were 14th in fWAR in 1975, 6th in 1976, which was their most productive staff in the Big Red Machine era. The pitching was "enough" - when the position players hold up their end of the deal. Teams win with weaknesses all the time - 100 games a season.

[Elktonnick]

I think we were talking about failure. According to a 2010 NESN report Bard was diagnosed with Blass syndrome in 2007. He overcame it to be a successful reliever. So it was a problem that was known to the Red Sox before the failed attempt to convert him back to a starter. This clearly refutes the claim that this was unforeseeable but shows it was in fact well known by the Cherrington. Edited June 27, 2015 by Elktonnick

[a700hitter]

Gullett was good. The Reds were 14th in fWAR in 1975, 6th in 1976, which was their most productive staff in the Big Red Machine era. The pitching was "enough" - when the position players hold up their end of the deal. Teams win with weaknesses all the time - 100 games a season.

Gullett wasnt just good. He was headed for greatness before he was cut down by injury. Gary Nolan was also a big top of the rotation arm on that Reds staff when healthy. He was more injury cursed than Gullett. The trash heap that we rolled out to start the 2015 season cannot be compared to the Reds staff in 1975. While I am sure that those WAR numbers for the Reds rotation are correct, I am also sure that they were heavily influenced by the managerial style of Sparky (Captain Hook) Anderson. He did not try to get 100 pitches from his starters. If his starters gave up 2 or 3 runs in the first inning and there were 5 base runners, he'd go to the pen. He had a bunch of good arms in his bullpen and he went to them early and often. He had no patience to let his starters work out of trouble. Edited June 27, 2015 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

Gullett wasnt just good. He was headed for greatness before he was cut down by injury. Gary Nolan was also a big top of the rotation arm on that Reds staff when healthy. He was more injury cursed than Gullett. The trash heap that we rolled out to start the 2015 season cannot be compared to the Reds staff in 1975. While I am sure that those WAR numbers for the Reds rotation are correct, I am also sure that they were heavily influenced by the managerial style of Sparky (Captain Hook) Anderson. He did not try to get 100 pitches from his starters. If his starters gave up 2 or 3 runs in the first inning and there were 5 base runners, he'd go to the pen. He had a bunch of good arms in his bullpen and he went to them early and often. He had no patience to let his starters work out of trouble.

 

Those were for the staff as a whole .... Anderson had a very quick hook, partially to make sure the staff did not screw up what arguably the best everyday lineup ever fielded did.

[cp176]

Those were for the staff as a whole .... Anderson had a very quick hook, partially to make sure the staff did not screw up what arguably the best everyday lineup ever fielded did.

 

Possibly the best lineup is right. would have liked to have seen Rice in that World Series lineup. Might be saying the about the 75 sox if he had been.

[a700hitter]

Those were for the staff as a whole .... Anderson had a very quick hook, partially to make sure the staff did not screw up what arguably the best everyday lineup ever fielded did.

I watched those Reds a lot as I always watched many Mets games on TV and in person. Gullett and Nolan were big starting pitching talents and the 1975 Reds had the 3rd best ERA in the league. There is no comparing that staff to our pile of garbage.

 

You are a good poster that provides thoughtful posts and good analysis, but this is just way out there.

Edited June 28, 2015 by a700hitter

[Behindenemylines]

Sox pitching is so inconsistent they can not put a string of wins together to get back in it. Based on the current make up of the roster, if they make it back to .500 that would be a big accomplishment.

[sk7326]

I watched those Reds a lot as I always watched many Mets games on TV and in person. Gullett and Nolan were big starting pitching talents and the 1975 Reds had the 3rd best ERA in the league. There is no comparing that staff to our pile of garbage.

 

You are a good poster that provides thoughtful posts and good analysis, but this is just way out there.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1975.shtml ... other mitigating factors like ballparks (all those cookie cutter astro turf parks), opposition, defense had a lot of impact. fWAR is less kind since it directly addresses the idea that the staff did not strike out a lot of guys - leaned on a good defense.

[sk7326]

I think where is the issue, SK.

 

No one here is disputing that Ben made this moves without a plan or a case behind each move. Of course he and his colleagues had their reasons to do, whatever they tried to do. In fact some like you agreed with most of their decisions, didn't you? And it is fine. On the other hand, other fans, experts, etc. like me, thought that this strategy was a bad idea since day 1, and we as Ben, rest our cases as well.

 

In the end, the entire strategy has not worked out for whatever reason. His responsibility does not end once the the product is on the field, No sir. His responsibility depends on the result of the product, since he is the GM, regardless the strategy he decided to use.

 

You should get graded on the results and the process. If you drafted Bryce Harper and then Bryce Harper got hit by a bus, did the draft pick become a bust?

[iortiz]

You should get graded on the results and the process. If you drafted Bryce Harper and then Bryce Harper got hit by a bus, did the draft pick become a bust?

 

That's the thing. The owner hires you to command/lead/implement whatever strategy/process that has made you successful as a GM regardless the industry. This is what/why you are paid to do.

 

Said that, the process has practically zero importance when most of your decisions have not worked out, not for 1 but 3 of the last 4 years with plenty of resources. Results are what keep you in that chair.

 

BL. Processes are meaningless without results.

Edited June 29, 2015 by iortiz

[a700hitter]

You should get graded on the results and the process. If you drafted Bryce Harper and then Bryce Harper got hit by a bus, did the draft pick become a bust?

If that were to happen, that shouldn't get factored in at all. You wouldn't know if he would have been a star or a bust. Other than an act of god or unforeseen injury, they should get graded on the players that make it to the bigs and those who wash out.

[sk7326]

That's the thing. The owner hires you to command/lead/implement whatever strategy/process that has made you successful as a GM regardless the industry. This is what/why you are paid to do.

 

Said that, the process has practically zero importance when most of your decisions have not worked out, not for 1 but 3 of the last 4 years with plenty of resources. Results are what keep you in that chair.

 

BL. Processes are meaningless without results.

 

Oh certainly - although the process looks to have produced 3 quality starters going forward already - and a trade landed a potential ace. That cannot be discounted.

[Divinity]

Word has it the Sox are seeking to unload Hanley, Sandoval and Napoli, similiar to the move they made a few years ago when they traded A-Gon, Beckett and Crawford.

[Bellhorn04]

Word has it the Sox are seeking to unload Hanley, Sandoval and Napoli, similiar to the move they made a few years ago when they traded A-Gon, Beckett and Crawford.

 

Source?

[Divinity]

Source?

 

Mike Francesa was just talking about it on his FOX Sports broadcast.

 

FOX sports writer Ken Rosenthal also recently wrote "The only proper solution for the Sox is to re-enact the Great Cleanse of '12, and fumigate the clubhouse again. Hanley Ramirez, gone. Pablo Sandoval, gone,"

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-pablo-sandoval-hanley-ramirez-trade-ken-rosenthal-061915?vid=467707971736

[sk7326]

Word has it the Sox are seeking to unload Hanley, Sandoval and Napoli, similiar to the move they made a few years ago when they traded A-Gon, Beckett and Crawford.

 

1. I'll believe it when I see it

2. All three contracts are much more moveable than the older three.

[Elktonnick]

If (and this is a very big if ) such a deal were to be done, how does John Henry rationalize to himself and Bosox fans keeping Cherrington. Doesn't Cherrington have to go as well to placate the fanbase. I just can't see such a housecleaning happening.

[a700hitter]

If (and this is a very big if ) such a deal were to be done, how does John Henry rationalize to himself and Bosox fans keeping Cherrington. Doesn't Cherrington have to go as well to placate the fanbase. I just can't see such a housecleaning happening.

Cherington is awful. He needs to go because he is awful and JH doesn't want to finish last again. It doesn't matter what the fan base thinks.

[Elktonnick]

I don't disagree but I can't see Henry admitting the Cherries has been such a disaster, at least not yet.

[Palodios]

Ben Cherrington. Has he done a good job? Bad job? I want to look at his key moves of his time here so far. This is assuming there has been no meddling, for better or worse from ownership.

 

 

Wins

 

Koji. Excellent.

Napoli. Excellent despite the third year's struggles.

Melancon --> Brock Holt. Good.

Andrew Miller --> Rodriguez. Awesome.

Agon/Beckett/Punto--> RDLR/Webster Franchise changing

Iglesias--> Peavy. Excellent.

RDLR/Webster--> Miley. Looks pretty good to me.

 

Losses

John Lackey --> Kelly/Craig. Awful.

Reddick --> Andrew Bailey. Awful. 12 WAR with the Athletics over the years.

Jon Lester --> Cespedes/1st rounder --> Porcello + extension. Bad.

Castillo. Could easily go into Debateable column, but so far it looks Bad.

Pablo Sandoval. Bad.

Lowrie-->Melancon. Bad.

AJ Pier bad

Masterson Bad

 

Debateable

 

Hanley Ramirez. The offense has been excellent, and the defense has been awful. I see potential for Hanley to turn it around.

Shane Victorino. Helped win a championship. Hasn't done much since.

Moncada. Still early.

 

 

Best Young Players Traded

Reddick 12 WAR/4 Years

Lowrie 9 WAR/3 years

Iglesias 2+ WAR, plenty of injuries over 2 years

 

 

He has made plenty of excellent moves, but yeah, there have been some stinkers

[sk7326]

Ben Cherrington. Has he done a good job? Bad job? I want to look at his key moves of his time here so far. This is assuming there has been no meddling, for better or worse from ownership.

 

 

Wins

 

Koji. Excellent.

Napoli. Excellent despite the third year's struggles.

Melancon --> Brock Holt. Good.

Andrew Miller --> Rodriguez. Awesome.

Agon/Beckett/Punto--> RDLR/Webster Franchise changing

Iglesias--> Peavy. Excellent.

RDLR/Webster--> Miley. Looks pretty good to me.

 

Losses

John Lackey --> Kelly/Craig. Awful.

Reddick --> Andrew Bailey. Awful. 12 WAR with the Athletics over the years.

Jon Lester --> Cespedes/1st rounder --> Porcello + extension. Bad.

Castillo. Could easily go into Debateable column, but so far it looks Bad.

Pablo Sandoval. Bad.

Lowrie-->Melancon. Bad.

AJ Pier bad

Masterson Bad

 

Debateable

 

Hanley Ramirez. The offense has been excellent, and the defense has been awful. I see potential for Hanley to turn it around.

Shane Victorino. Helped win a championship. Hasn't done much since.

Moncada. Still early.

 

 

Best Young Players Traded

Reddick 12 WAR/4 Years

Lowrie 9 WAR/3 years

Iglesias 2+ WAR, plenty of injuries over 2 years

 

 

He has made plenty of excellent moves, but yeah, there have been some stinkers

 

Not sure if Sandoval is bad - as much as I don't like it.

The Lester move is also debateable, although Porcello has not been a good flag bearer so far.

The Redick deal was bad although one can argue Jed Lowrie for Melancon was worse. At the same time, Reddick seemed to bottom out in Boston - Oakland might have been able to tolerate his flaws (basically, zero approach) for the good stuff

 

I tend to give Cherington the thumbs up in a very very difficult job. The +/- with major league moves is plus and the stocking up of the org at large has been very strong.

[Elktonnick]

In the business of MLB, it's all about the bottom line. The only measures that count are: fannies in the seats and where they are in the standings, in that order.

[Bellhorn04]

In the business of MLB, it's all about the bottom line. The only measures that count are: fannies in the seats and where they are in the standings, in that order.

 

Attendance as the #1 factor would indicate Cherington is doing fine.

[a700hitter]

I am shocked that any Red Sox fan would risk enduring more garbage performance at the hands of Cherington. FO personnel is fungible. There is no unique talent involved in being a GM. Time to change horses.

[Elktonnick]

Attendance as the #1 factor would indicate Cherington is doing fine.

 

Not if it is declining as it is and the NESN ratings continue to crater as they are. If the customers believe you are delivering a second rate product at inflated prices which the Red Sox are doing, the market will punish you.

[iortiz]

I would start rebuilding the FO. Then everything else. Once again in the last place is inexcusable, so BC has to go.