Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[cp176]

It sounds like the Sox are committed to keeping Pablo and Hanley at 3B and LF, respectively, unless something happens in the offseason. I am hoping that those two will be committed during the offseason to improve their defense like Bogaerts did last offseason. It can be done with hard work.

 

I agree that the pitching shouldn't be too hard to fix. One major acquisition and one smaller one for the rotation, along with a few inexpensive middle relievers, should do it.

 

As far as the team being competitive every year, since this ownership took over, and that includes the 4 years that Ben has been the GM, I feel that the FO has put together a team that should have been competitive every year. I never once thought that, going into the season, the team had little or no chance of making the playoffs. Things have gone really badly 3 of the last 4 years, but I think the FO did its job during the offseason. Since they can't control what happens on the field, that's really all I can ask for.

 

If the FO didn't spend any money or if the team (on paper) looked terrible, then that would be a different story.

 

 

I think they tried to do the job. It just didn't get done. Everyone shares in the blame. It does not all fall onto the shoulders of the coaching staff. I would not be opposed to seeing a change at the top but if anyone truly thinks that that alone will solve the problems then they need to get their heads out of the sand and take a look around. The talent has not produced what people expected because it isn't as good as we all expected it to be.

[Thunder]

So now that Lucchino is gone, the original question of this thread is re-established. Who is the biggest problem in the mediocrity of this team?

[cp176]

So now that Lucchino is gone, the original question of this thread is re-established. Who is the biggest problem in the mediocrity of this team?

 

It remains a very difficult question to answer. Everyone involved with the recent moves should share in the blame. No one can hide.

[reYoukilis]

So now that Lucchino is gone, the original question of this thread is re-established. Who is the biggest problem in the mediocrity of this team?

I don't know because I don't know which decision is being made by whom but whomever made the decision to dick around too long about signing Lester, and whoever decided it was a good idea to sign Ramirez and Sandoval is who is responsible for where the Red Sox are.

 

My feeling is that it isn't Cherington because of the complete lack of sense that it makes.

[Kimmi]

I think they tried to do the job. It just didn't get done. Everyone shares in the blame. It does not all fall onto the shoulders of the coaching staff. I would not be opposed to seeing a change at the top but if anyone truly thinks that that alone will solve the problems then they need to get their heads out of the sand and take a look around. The talent has not produced what people expected because it isn't as good as we all expected it to be.

 

I still think the blame falls mostly on the players themselves. I think the talent is much better than what we saw this year. Why there has been such underperformance is beyond me. This is why I have to question the coaching staff, but no, they do not deserve all of the blame or even most of it.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know because I don't know which decision is being made by whom but whomever made the decision to dick around too long about signing Lester, and whoever decided it was a good idea to sign Ramirez and Sandoval is who is responsible for where the Red Sox are.

 

My feeling is that it isn't Cherington because of the complete lack of sense that it makes.

 

Not signing Lester, trading Lackey, expecting that Hanley would be fine in left field - those are the 3 critical failures to me, to be charged to whoever made the decisions.

 

The Masterson signing also deserves mention - the guy was done and somehow they didn't know it.

[iortiz]

Not signing Lester, trading Lackey, expecting that Hanley would be fine in left field - those are the 3 critical failures to me, to be charged to whoever made the decisions.

 

The Masterson signing also deserves mention - the guy was done and somehow they didn't know it.

 

... and Porcello?

[a700hitter]

I still think the blame falls mostly on the players themselves. I think the talent is much better than what we saw this year. Why there has been such underperformance is beyond me. This is why I have to question the coaching staff, but no, they do not deserve all of the blame or even most of it.

 

Do you think that the players have not been giving a full effort. Are some of them dogging it or just not trying?

[Bellhorn04]

... and Porcello?

 

If we had kept Lester and Lackey there'd be no Porcello.

[Dojji]

So now that Lucchino is gone, the original question of this thread is re-established. Who is the biggest problem in the mediocrity of this team?

 

Us. The team is in the crapper 3 of the last 4 years and we're still packing the stands like lemmingsheep. What incentive does that actually provide to ownership to fix things properly?

[Dojji]

If we had kept Lester and Lackey there'd be no Porcello.

 

I have no problem with moving Lackey along. It was a contract year and he'd only pitched the one good year here. Lester they should have kept until they were more positive they could replace him, which they clearly failed to accomplish.

[a700hitter]

Us. The team is in the crapper 3 of the last 4 years and we're still packing the stands like lemmingsheep. What incentive does that actually provide to ownership to fix things properly?

 

Some people blame the poor condition of this team on reactive moves made to please the fanbase. You seem to be saying the opposite.

[Bellhorn04]

I have no problem with moving Lackey along. It was a contract year and he'd only pitched the one good year here.

 

Not exactly. He'd pitched well for 1.67 years, or since he had the surgery. And he was under contract through 2015.

[Dojji]

Some people blame the poor condition of this team on reactive moves made to please the fanbase. You seem to be saying the opposite.

 

I'd say the two aren't mutually exclusive. The team leaders don't understand the fans as well as they think they do, and I'm afraid the reverse is also true. So the FO tries to please the fanbase by bringing in aging over 30 big contract talent when the fans would be just fine with a rebuild as long as it's well done and the future looks hopeful

 

Basically the result looks like hot garbage with no positive direction to it. If we were rebuilding the fanbase would know it and not care so much about the W-L. If we were ready to compete no one would have a problem with bringing in expensive overage talent. It's the fact that we're doing neither and both at the same time, and the fanbase isn't reacting by failing to reward this kind of dithering, that's the problem.

 

Think of it like this: When the Joe Thornton trade went down while at the same time the team showed no signs of a true proper rebuild Bruins fans reacted by deserting the Garden in droves. That's the correct reaction because it lights a fire under ownership to pick a direction to improve the team and stick with it. So they bring in Peter Chiarelli and Claude Julien to lead the team and start filtering in some young talent from trades, and you can say what you want about either of them, the team was competitive -- and despite the same ownership that they really hated, Bruins came back because it was clear that Jacobs had been forced to give at least half a damn and give control of the team to competent people. But it started because the team wasn't drawing flies anymore from the old way, forcing ownership to either respond, or alternatively, to lose money, which no competent businessmen however little he cares about the franchise will tolerate indefinitely.

 

Do we do that here in Red Sox Nation? I don't think we do. And that means that the ownership loses an important piece of feedback. That's what's behind some of the directionless meandering we're seeing from ownership and the FO. The fans aren't making it clear what they want so ownership is left guessing. If we were capable of making a statement they would respond. they're businessmen and they're not idiots, but because we can't accomplish this as a fanbase, they're stuck in left field trying to do without the most obvious form of feedback most front offices have to work with -- the general satisfaction of the fanbase as expressed by attendance

 

I hope that made some sense.

[Dojji]

Not exactly. He'd pitched well for 1.67 years, or since he had the surgery. And he was under contract through 2015.

 

Either way the man was in his late 30's. If we were rebuilding I would be fine with the trade as constituted. The only issue comes from the fact that we're clearly NOT rebuilding -- this team was built to compete. From that perspective neither the Lester trade nor the Lackey trade even make bad sense. They're complete nonsequiturs compared to the rest of what the team was doing at the time and I'm at a loss to understand these moves, especially the consecutive acquisition of two different third basemen..

 

We would have been a better team right now with Holt at third base, an outfield of Castillo/JBJ/Betts in some order, and Lester and Lackey leading the rotation, no doubt in my mind. We'd be light on offense but the pitching and defense could have made up for that -- and let's be honest, our offense isn't carrying the team either way. At least by accentuating starting pitching and the D, we'd have had a direction for the team while we develop the next generation.

[iortiz]

If we had kept Lester and Lackey there'd be no Porcello.

 

Well, it is called collateral damage haha.

 

Probably we would have kept Cespedes as well.

[Bellhorn04]

Either way the man was in his late 30's. If we were rebuilding I would be fine with the trade as constituted. The only issue comes from the fact that we're clearly NOT rebuilding -- this team was built to compete.

 

Yes, that's my position too. Trading Lackey would have made sense if we were rebuilding.

[mvp 78]

This team is clearly NOT built to compete. If it were, the carpenter should be fired.

[Bellhorn04]

They spent to compete though.

[a700hitter]

They spent to compete though.

 

That is because the FO architects are Incompetent.

[SoxHop]

This team is clearly NOT built to compete. If it were, the carpenter should be fired.

 

The thing that blows my mind is we are not championship baseball in any way. Not defense, not offense, not pitching, not running, not heads up baseball, nothing about the Sox game is elite.......

[Kimmi]

Not signing Lester, trading Lackey, expecting that Hanley would be fine in left field - those are the 3 critical failures to me, to be charged to whoever made the decisions.

 

The Masterson signing also deserves mention - the guy was done and somehow they didn't know it.

 

IMO, the only failure up front was not signing Lester. The other moves you mention are only failures (to date) in hindsight.

[Kimmi]

Do you think that the players have not been giving a full effort. Are some of them dogging it or just not trying?

 

I do not believe that any of them are intentionally dogging it. I believe that Hanley could put in more work on his defense, but I don't think it's a conscious effort on his part to say that he's not going to practice. From what I've read, he has willingly put in extra practice whenver one of the coaches has asked him to. I think he's too much of a flake to initiate it on his own.

 

With Pablo, I think he truly believed that his weight was not an issue, and before this year, it really hasn't been. Frankly, I'm not sure that it's the reason why he's been playing so poorly. If it is, then he needs to be put on a conditioning program. Regardless, he is giving his full effort on the field.

 

I don't see anyone else not giving their best effort, except for Ortiz in not running out grounders, but that is not anything new.

[Kimmi]

Either way the man was in his late 30's. If we were rebuilding I would be fine with the trade as constituted. The only issue comes from the fact that we're clearly NOT rebuilding -- this team was built to compete. From that perspective neither the Lester trade nor the Lackey trade even make bad sense. They're complete nonsequiturs compared to the rest of what the team was doing at the time and I'm at a loss to understand these moves, especially the consecutive acquisition of two different third basemen..

 

We would have been a better team right now with Holt at third base, an outfield of Castillo/JBJ/Betts in some order, and Lester and Lackey leading the rotation, no doubt in my mind. We'd be light on offense but the pitching and defense could have made up for that -- and let's be honest, our offense isn't carrying the team either way. At least by accentuating starting pitching and the D, we'd have had a direction for the team while we develop the next generation.

 

The team does have a direction and a plan. It failed miserably this year and last, but the direction is there. It is to develop a farm system and a core of young players, while staying competitive each year in the meantime. It's not a full rebuilding mode, nor is it a win now at any costs mode, but it doesn't have to be an either or situation. It is possible to "rebuild" while staying competitive at the same time. The Sox did it in 2013.

[Kimmi]

Yes, that's my position too. Trading Lackey would have made sense if we were rebuilding.

 

It makes sense if you think of it in terms of trying to stay competitive while also building for the future. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[reYoukilis]

Either way the man was in his late 30's. If we were rebuilding I would be fine with the trade as constituted. The only issue comes from the fact that we're clearly NOT rebuilding -- this team was built to compete. From that perspective neither the Lester trade nor the Lackey trade even make bad sense. They're complete nonsequiturs compared to the rest of what the team was doing at the time and I'm at a loss to understand these moves, especially the consecutive acquisition of two different third basemen..

 

We would have been a better team right now with Holt at third base, an outfield of Castillo/JBJ/Betts in some order, and Lester and Lackey leading the rotation, no doubt in my mind. We'd be light on offense but the pitching and defense could have made up for that -- and let's be honest, our offense isn't carrying the team either way. At least by accentuating starting pitching and the D, we'd have had a direction for the team while we develop the next generation.

 

I agree with this whole heartedly. And I agree with the FO for not giving out long contracts to players...except Lester. We make this one exception and chances are we have a good pitcher for years. He's young enough that he could still be useful with a rebuilt team when it comes together.

 

I also agree with your other post about the large fan base being almost a hindrance to the red sox rebuilding. But I also agree that if you really go for it, they'll understand. The losses would be growing pains which we learn from. I admire teams like Houston and KC who are set up for years of, at least winning seasons.

[Thunder]

That is because the FO architects are Incompetent.

 

I've never liked Cherington. I think I've been advocating that since he was hired. I took a hit when Theo left.

[Bellhorn04]

IMO, the only failure up front was not signing Lester. The other moves you mention are only failures (to date) in hindsight.

 

OK, well, you do agree that it was a failure to sign Lester. And that was a huge one.

 

They just got so many things wrong.

 

What made them think Craig would rebound?

 

What made them think Masterson would regain the lost speed on his fastball?

 

What made them think Hanley could do the job in left?

 

It seems like they made a bunch of guesses in the dark, and they were all dead wrong.

[Kimmi]

OK, well, you do agree that it was a failure to sign Lester. And that was a huge one.

 

They just got so many things wrong.

 

What made them think Craig would rebound?

 

What made them think Masterson would regain the lost speed on his fastball?

 

What made them think Hanley could do the job in left?

 

It seems like they made a bunch of guesses in the dark, and they were all dead wrong.

 

I do agree that the FO screwed up big time in not re-signing Lester last spring.

 

As far as Craig and Masterson go, both players were injured last year. Is it so unreasonable to think that players can return to form once they become healthy? You said yourself that players who look like they are done can come back and have great seasons. Look at Teixeira's season. Neither Craig nor Masterson are that old.

 

Also, it is so unreasonable to move an athlete from a difficult defensive position to an easier defensive postion and think he can improve? Teams do it all the time. At the very least, you wouldn't expect him to get significantly worse.

 

Yes, there were some risks involved. However, none of the moves were insane or even bad, pre-hindsight. While it was reasonable to think that one of them might not work out, it was not unreasonable to think any of those things could have worked out. The fact that none of the moves have worked and they have all failed to the degree that they have is uncanny. There's really no other way to put it.

[Kimmi]

It seems like they made a bunch of guesses in the dark, and they were all dead wrong.

 

I will add that they were not guesses in the dark. They were guesses, as pretty much everything in baseball is, but they were not made in the dark.