Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

In order:

 

Farrell

coaches

players

Cherington

owners

[Palodios]

What if the biggest problem this year is change?

 

New pitching coach, new hitting coach, four new catchers. Hanley is at a new position, and a newish team. Pablo is playing outside of San Francisco for the first time ever. Porcello, and Miley are both new here. Rookies.

 

Maybe the Sox need to accept a rough year for this team to click, and avoid shaking things up too much again.

[jacksonianmarch]

That could be a plan Pal. Sometimes proven players take time to adjust, especially when you move for the first time like Pablo. But I think the culture is the bigger issue, to be totally honest. Pablo has always been known as a "me first" guy. Hanley has been known as a cancer. Miley and Gibson came to blows last year. They didn't exactly bring in character guys. Add to that Papi, who's a great leader when things are going well, but a bitch prima Donna when things aren't and you have the makings of a toxic clubhouse. Pedroia seems to have taken a step back as a leader. Youk and Tek are gone. You don't have leadership on the mound, as Clay is a fragile flower with the heart of a mouse and he's meant to lead the rotation? When your team is going great, leaders pop up all over the place. When things are hitting the fan, true leaders emerge and try to pull you out of it. I don't think the sox have any save maybe Pedroia. And that's why you're seeing no accountability and a generalized "I don't give a f***" look to the team.

[SoxnCycles]

Sorry, but when people are delusional enough to start comparing their own jobs to running a MLB team, I stop reading.

[sk7326]

Misery loves company, so I might as well come back to this board. Ben's at fault. He had lots of money to spend and plenty of flexibility as to what he could do, and he decided to try some outside-the-box moves, and they have failed horribly. There's been tons of talk about Hanley's horrible defense; that's all on Ben. Hanley should have never been in LF. Once he was signed, Sox had 2 primarily SS's who had each spent time at 3B. Put one at SS and one at 3B. Several people have defended the Sandoval signing by saying the Sox needed a 3B. Not after Hanley had signed. The minute he signed, talks with Sandoval should have ended.

 

After signing both of those, he had to skimp on the SP. Sure they *may* be decent enough, but with the 3rd highest payroll in baseball, I'd expect at least 1 reliably good SP. He did a terrible job at putting together a team considering the resources he had available. They need to be good on the field, not on paper or a computer (and I don't know how any computer would have predicted the SP to be anything but bad).

 

Another questionable move that was mostly overlooked was Ranaudo for Ross. Sure, Ranaudo looked bad in his brief stint in MLB and Sox had plenty of SP prospects, but for Robbie f***ing Ross. Ranaudo was expendable, but he was still a top 10 prospect at the time, so for Robbie Ross? Seriously? Robbie Ross? The 2 worst ERA's in the AL last year, minimum 70 IP were

Robbie Ross 6.20 ERA in 78.1 IP (with equally bad peripherals)

Justin Masterson 5.51 ERA in 98 IP (was even worse after going to NL)

 

If Ben saw potential in these guys and could acquire them as a buy low candidate and see if they improve, then maybe that's OK, but he didn't buy low. He paid $9.5 mil for 1 year for one, and traded a top 10 prospect for the other. That's not buying low, that's buying as if they are going to be quality contributors.

 

And there's more of course, but this post is long enough. On a positive note, I am glad my MLBtv subscription starting freezing a lot, causing me to cancel after 1 month, so I haven't been watching this crap. Hmm, not sure that was positive either.

 

9.5M is essentially nothing to the Red Sox

Ranaudo is a AAAA pitcher.

 

Neither move has had many desirable results - neither move was scandalous.

 

Any reasonable model would have had the starting pitching be average - not bad, but average. (in fact ZIPS and Steamer projections had the rotation collectively as good as last year - dropoff from Lester, improvement from Peavy and the De La Rosa-Webster-Ranaudo pu pu platter) They have underachieved - because they have been below "ordinary". You can win a lot of games with offense and #3 pitchers - they are getting neither of those, though both were reasonable projections.

[sk7326]

To add a little more mitigation to the rotation - their numbers have been bad, but one of the things the Sox were counting on was run prevention help from the field, and that has not happened - almost entirely because of Sandoval and Ramirez.

[cp176]

To add a little more mitigation to the rotation - their numbers have been bad, but one of the things the Sox were counting on was run prevention help from the field, and that has not happened - almost entirely because of Sandoval and Ramirez.

 

So - ZIPS and Steamer projected that the rotation would be as good as last year. What were the projections for how they would do in the field? I only ask because I am questioning all projections made by any of us using whatever we use to measure them by. Personally I think that a lot more attention should have been paid to the character quality of the acquisitions that we made this year.

[jd98]

9.5M is essentially nothing to the Red Sox

Ranaudo is a AAAA pitcher.

 

Neither move has had many desirable results - neither move was scandalous.

 

Any reasonable model would have had the starting pitching be average - not bad, but average. (in fact ZIPS and Steamer projections had the rotation collectively as good as last year - dropoff from Lester, improvement from Peavy and the De La Rosa-Webster-Ranaudo pu pu platter) They have underachieved - because they have been below "ordinary". You can win a lot of games with offense and #3 pitchers - they are getting neither of those, though both were reasonable projections.

 

I agree neither move was scandalous, but I can't see acquiring possibly the worst SP and worst RP from the previous season (and not cheaply) as a good way to build an already questionable pitching staff. That's just not good GMing. The $9.5 mil for Masterson ended up being nothing because they went sailing over the luxury cap. If they would have stayed under the cap, that's less money to spend elsewhere. When they are staying under the cap, every million they overpay someone is less money towards another position. That's why overpaying Sandoval does matter (even if he wasn't sucking), probably starting next year.

 

Not a problem trading Ranaudo. The problem is for Ross. I thought I was clear on that, lol, I mentioned him like 4 times. Stick Ranaudo in AAA, if he continues to do well there, he could be used in a package for somebody a helluva lot better than Ross.

 

If you can find Steamer projections pre-2014, look at them, and then look at the actual results, and then tell me why anyone should pay one bit of attention to computer projections.

 

I don't know how far below average you have to go to call it bad, so maybe it's just semantics, but it seemed very unlikely to me that this rotation would be average. Even if the rotation matched last years initial rotation (which I think was only possible if Buchholz matched what Lester did ), then it's still below average, because last years rotation was below average, even before trading away everybody. They were well below average over the entire season. Sure, if they're not too far below average, that should be good enough to compete, and that's the point you're trying to make, but I'd say to predict a literally league average rotation (or better) was closer to delusional than reasonable.

[User Name]

RR jr was a starter last year, but was a pretty decent reliever before that. The one move that still busts my balls about the offseason is the Sandoval signing. Why did they sign him? I just don't get it.

[Bellhorn04]

This team is giving reasonable projections a bad name.

[jd98]

RR jr was a starter last year, but was a pretty decent reliever before that. The one move that still busts my balls about the offseason is the Sandoval signing. Why did they sign him? I just don't get it.

 

I didn't even notice Ross was mostly a starter last year. I gotta pay more attention. Although he was even worse as a RP last year, but it was only in 18IP. 7.85 ERA, 30 hits, 6 BB, 9 K. Yikes. That trade makes just a little more sense now, but I still think it was bad. And it's just a minor blip on a list of Ben's blunders. I agree with you, Sandoval was the biggie. Signing him for 5/$95 was bad, but acceptable. Signing him for 5/$95 after signing Hanley for 4/$88 was inconceivable.

[Thunder]

Even though I think this is mainly on Farrell, against my best desires, I must say that Cherington really screwed up when he put this rotation together. He paid way too much for Ross and Masterson, and signed Miley for too long of a time period. Ross has been decent this year, at least by my standards, but the fact that we gave away Ranaudo for him makes it worse. They are rather similar, so Ross was a waste of money.

[cp176]

Even though I think this is mainly on Farrell, against my best desires, I must say that Cherington really screwed up when he put this rotation together. He paid way too much for Ross and Masterson, and signed Miley for too long of a time period. Ross has been decent this year, at least by my standards, but the fact that we gave away Ranaudo for him makes it worse. They are rather similar, so Ross was a waste of money.

 

I truly wish that it was primarily Farrell's doing. With the right roster, I trained monkey could get the job done.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

The team is underachieving horribly and they can't escape slumps. That's on Farrell and the coaches.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

I truly wish that it was primarily Farrell's doing. With the right roster, I trained monkey could get the job done.

Well that's completely false.

[cp176]

oh boy - What do you think Farrell should do? Obviously you think that he should quit. We know that is not happening. What should he do? You think that he should bench Ramirez and Sandoval maybe? Move some more kids up from Pawtucket or wherever our great future players are? I think that he is up against a roster that is fairly well set. No amount of motivational speech is going to work with overpaid professional athletes. What do you think he should do? He is the boss so he represents part of the problem. That is the way it works but anybody who thinks that he is the primary problem is wrong. With the right players a manaquin seated in the right position could win.

[User Name]

Well that's completely false.

 

I don't understand why people can never find the middle ground. It's stupid to think that a manager has a gigantic impact on team performance, but it's also stupid to think he has no impact.

[cp176]

I don't understand why people can never find the middle ground. It's stupid to think that a manager has a gigantic impact on team performance, but it's also stupid to think he has no impact.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that. I just don't think that firing him is any kind of quick fix.

[cp176]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I just don't think that firing him is any kind of quick fix.

 

 

Actually I should have said I agree with that.

[jacksonianmarch]

Sometimes the change in manager makes the team become less complacent and play with more urgency.

[Spudboy]

Sometimes the change in manager makes the team become less complacent and play with more urgency.

 

That is a best case scenario. It does happen. I saw this with Joe Morgan.

 

I'd rather the Sox own their mistakes and get rid of guys like Panda.

[sk7326]

That is a best case scenario. It does happen. I saw this with Joe Morgan.

 

I'd rather the Sox own their mistakes and get rid of guys like Panda.

 

Wouldn't canning a manager you extended be owning a mistake?

[Spudboy]

Wouldn't canning a manager you extended be owning a mistake?

 

Yes if the Manager was the problem.

 

Getting rid of a manager mid-season won't likely do much to right this ship. Changing players may.

[sk7326]

Yes if the Manager was the problem.

 

Getting rid of a manager mid-season won't likely do much to right this ship. Changing players may.

 

It is not likely to save the season. But it could help. Changing the players may or may not fix things - the players are not that bad and some of the underlying stats seem to lead you there. Also - if everybody is underachieving at the same time, it is unlikely all 25 guys stink.

[Spudboy]

There will be no quick or easy fixes to this mess. To blame and punish Farrell is short sighted and stupid.

[iortiz]

There will be no quick or easy fixes to this mess. To blame and punish Farrell is short sighted and stupid.

 

Agree. They need to clean up the house from top to the button and that is going to take time, unfortunately.

[Spudboy]

Agree. They need to clean up the house from top to the button and that is going to take time, unfortunately.

 

Yup. Even radical moves can't turn this around.

 

In the mean time I'm going to continue to watch the young nucleus of this team. Aside from Castillo who is most likely going to be the next bust du jour, the rookie types are very fun to watch.

[cp176]

Yup. Even radical moves can't turn this around.

 

In the mean time I'm going to continue to watch the young nucleus of this team. Aside from Castillo who is most likely going to be the next bust du jour, the rookie types are very fun to watch.

 

This I agree with. It is the no ******** theory. I'm also not sold on Castillo.

[cp176]

Sometimes the change in manager makes the team become less complacent and play with more urgency.

 

 

true

[cp176]

That is a best case scenario. It does happen. I saw this with Joe Morgan.

 

I'd rather the Sox own their mistakes and get rid of guys like Panda.

 

Morgan Magic was special. Didn't last forever but it was fun to see.