Who is the Biggest Problem Right Now?

[a700hitter]

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.

Assuming that Hanley could be converted to the outfield without ever having seen him in the outfield was a decision made in the dark. Assuming that Masterson would regain lost velocity without going to see him throw was an astonishing failure of the FO to do its homework. I don't care to hear any stats or stories about pitchers regaining velocity. Before you sign him to a $9million contract, you ask him to throw for you. He wasn't in a secret location for national security reasons or in a high security prison. You pick up the phone and tell his agent that you want to see him throw, and tell the agent how long you want the session to be and what you want to see him do. The Masterson signing was worse than operating in the dark. It was negligence.

[reYoukilis]

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.

Sometimes trades/acquisitions need more than one season to see if it was a good one or not. I can imagine that some of them will turn in our favor next season.

[a700hitter]

Sometimes trades/acquisitions need more than one season to see if it was a good one or not. I can imagine that some of them will turn in our favor next season.

which trades could you see turning in our direction?

[reYoukilis]

Kelly, Porcello, if Craig can get over his injury, him, Miley. I have no idea but I look at Andrew Miller and Mark Melancon and see that we need to be more patient.

 

I don't see anybody becoming dominant but if some of them can get better, with some prospects, we can gain momentum.

[cp176]

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.

 

If their plan is to develop a farm system and a core of young players while at the same time staying competitive year in and year out, they have failed terribly. Pitching - defense - offense - in that order. They failed to address the first two and made mistakes with respect to the third it looks like. They should be in rebuild mode.

[cp176]

If Ramirez balks at a position move, they would be a lot better off without him than they are with him. If the front office spouts the company line that they won't consider moving him then that is just an example of the incompetence that is becoming much too common place for this team. You would like to think that they might try to rectify some of the mistakes that they have made. They signed him with too many assumptions.

[Bellhorn04]

Our starting rotation is so bad that many of us, including me, have looked at Miley as one of the bright lights. But he has a 4.68 ERA (an ERA+ of 88), and he has averaged less than 5.8 innings per start.

[Behindenemylines]

Kelly, Porcello, if Craig can get over his injury, him, Miley. I have no idea but I look at Andrew Miller and Mark Melancon and see that we need to be more patient.

 

I don't see anybody becoming dominant but if some of them can get better, with some prospects, we can gain momentum.

 

I don't think Melancon would ever have the success under the bright lights of Boston that he has in Pittsburgh. Not everyone can play in Boston. Not resigning Miller was a mistake. Power arm out of the bullpen and your future closer. Not resigning really hurt the 2015 bullpen.

[Jasonbay44]

Our starting rotation is so bad that many of us, including me, have looked at Miley as one of the bright lights. But he has a 4.68 ERA (an ERA+ of 88), and he has averaged less than 5.8 innings per start.

Yet every time I mention he sucks, someone comments and defends him. I never got the love fest for him, he isn't good

[mvp 78]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

[cp176]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

 

If that is all it takes - How great would that be. Eck would love that.

[jd98]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

 

Eckersley for manager!

 

and/or GM

Edited August 10, 2015 by jd98

[sk7326]

I don't think Melancon would ever have the success under the bright lights of Boston that he has in Pittsburgh. Not everyone can play in Boston. Not resigning Miller was a mistake. Power arm out of the bullpen and your future closer. Not resigning really hurt the 2015 bullpen.

 

That was a lot of money for 50+ innings. Bullpens are fickle by definition. Miller served his purpose.

[Thunder]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

 

That is the biggest roast I've seen all summer... Wow. Shots fired.

[a700hitter]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

He should have been driving faster and earlier than today. He is going to be caught in a numbers crunch in the next few weeks when Betts comes back.

[Thunder]

The fact that we're now last in the AL emphasizes the point of having too many problems to handle.

[mvp 78]

That is the biggest roast I've seen all summer... Wow. Shots fired.

 

Yup. Way better than "hurr durr dae hate when da gamethurd is posted 2 days urly durr durr durpy durr."

[reYoukilis]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

One good day doesn't make for a "I told you so". That's a bit disappointing.

[Elktonnick]

One good day doesn't make for a "I told you so". That's a bit disappointing.

 

Bradley has the talent but his biggest problem still is between his ears.

[Kimmi]

Assuming that Hanley could be converted to the outfield without ever having seen him in the outfield was a decision made in the dark. Assuming that Masterson would regain lost velocity without going to see him throw was an astonishing failure of the FO to do its homework. I don't care to hear any stats or stories about pitchers regaining velocity. Before you sign him to a $9million contract, you ask him to throw for you. He wasn't in a secret location for national security reasons or in a high security prison. You pick up the phone and tell his agent that you want to see him throw, and tell the agent how long you want the session to be and what you want to see him do. The Masterson signing was worse than operating in the dark. It was negligence.

 

The decision on Hanley was not made in the dark. Talent evaluators made an educated decision that he should be no worse off playing LF than he was playing SS based on Hanley's athleticism and some common sense. The idea that moving a player to an easier position would result in some improvement is not a difficult one to understand, nor is it unreasonable. Exhibit A: Alex Gordon

 

How do you know that the Sox didn't watch Masterson throw before signing him? It's also possible for a pitcher's velocity to return as the pitcher gets stronger, so his lack of velocity in the offseason does not necessarily mean that his velocity would not return once the season started. Either way, the gamble the Sox took on him was not insane, nor was it negligence. The key here is that it was a one year deal.

 

Seriously, the idea that the FO is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, then making moves just out of the blue with no research into the move is ludicrous. It's a fair opinion to think that this FO stinks. It's not a fair opinion to think that their moves are made in the dark. The FO has a team of analytics guys and scouts who put countless hours into every decision the FO makes.

[Kimmi]

Sometimes trades/acquisitions need more than one season to see if it was a good one or not. I can imagine that some of them will turn in our favor next season.

 

Absolutely. I posted before that I would give these players until at least midseason next season before thinking that they might not work out. Personally, I think that Pablo, Hanley, and Porcello will all perform at levels closer to expectations next season.

[Kimmi]

If their plan is to develop a farm system and a core of young players while at the same time staying competitive year in and year out, they have failed terribly. Pitching - defense - offense - in that order. They failed to address the first two and made mistakes with respect to the third it looks like. They should be in rebuild mode.

 

The plan worked in 2013. The competitive part failed miserably the other 3 seasons. However, I think that we do have a nice core of young players for years to come. A couple of key pitching acquistions this offseason and the team can be competitive next year.

[Kimmi]

@JackieBradleyJr: Huge thanks to @Eck43 for saying all the things I "can't"do these past few days. People like you is what drives me

 

JBJ is channeling his inner Pedroia.

[Kimmi]

That was a lot of money for 50+ innings. Bullpens are fickle by definition. Miller served his purpose.

 

Agree completely. I do not like large contracts for relief pitchers. That money can be spent much more wisely in another area.

[a700hitter]

The decision on Hanley was not made in the dark. Talent evaluators made an educated decision that he should be no worse off playing LF than he was playing SS based on Hanley's athleticism and some common sense. The idea that moving a player to an easier position would result in some improvement is not a difficult one to understand, nor is it unreasonable. Exhibit A: Alex Gordon

 

How do you know that the Sox didn't watch Masterson throw before signing him? It's also possible for a pitcher's velocity to return as the pitcher gets stronger, so his lack of velocity in the offseason does not necessarily mean that his velocity would not return once the season started. Either way, the gamble the Sox took on him was not insane, nor was it negligence. The key here is that it was a one year deal.

 

Seriously, the idea that the FO is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, then making moves just out of the blue with no research into the move is ludicrous. It's a fair opinion to think that this FO stinks. It's not a fair opinion to think that their moves are made in the dark. The FO has a team of analytics guys and scouts who put countless hours into every decision the FO makes.

 

I disagree completely about Masterson. I saw no reports that they saw him throw, and if they didn't it was completely negligent to just expect him to regain velocity.

 

The Alex Gordon analogy is not a great analogy. It doesnt prove any general rule that infielders can convert to the outfield at the major league level.

KC experimented with Gordon on their roster and it worked out. If it didn't, they would have moved him back to the Infield. Also, KC had little choice but to try to move one of their young players to the outfield as they had an Infield glut. They did not sign a free agent for big bucks to put him in a new position. That he could make the transition was a guess based on no information.

[Kimmi]

I disagree completely about Masterson. I saw no reports that they saw him throw, and if they didn't it was completely negligent to just expect him to regain velocity.

 

The Alex Gordon analogy is not a great analogy. It doesnt prove any general rule that infielders can convert to the outfield at the major league level.

KC experimented with Gordon on their roster and it worked out. If it didn't, they would have moved him back to the Infield. Also, KC had little choice but to try to move one of their young players to the outfield as they had an Infield glut. They did not sign a free agent for big bucks to put him in a new position. That he could make the transition was a guess based on no information.

 

Well of course you're going to disagree. My arguments don't support your opinion.

 

When a pitcher rebounds from injury, it's not illogical to expect him to regain velocity, whether they saw him pitch or not. It might also not have done any good to see him pitch during the offseason because his velocity could have returned at a later date. Either way, it's not a bad risk to take on a one year deal.

 

The Alex Gordon analogy has nothing to do with whether he was already on the team or not. The point of the analogy is that it is quite reasonable to take a below average defender at a tough position and make him a better defender at an easier position, especially if that player has the athleticism, which Hanley does.

[Bellhorn04]

When a pitcher rebounds from injury, it's not illogical to expect him to regain velocity, whether they saw him pitch or not. It might also not have done any good to see him pitch during the offseason because his velocity could have returned at a later date. Either way, it's not a bad risk to take on a one year deal.

 

It's debatable whether Masterson was a bad risk or not, I guess. But $9.5 million was quite a bit for a dumpster dive. The end results were 59.1 innings and a fWAR of -0.2, for a negative dollar value of $1.7 million, for a net loss of $11.2 million.

[SoxHop]

Well of course you're going to disagree. My arguments don't support your opinion.

 

When a pitcher rebounds from injury, it's not illogical to expect him to regain velocity, whether they saw him pitch or not. It might also not have done any good to see him pitch during the offseason because his velocity could have returned at a later date. Either way, it's not a bad risk to take on a one year deal.

 

If the rest of the rotation was strong it might have been an acceptable gamble. But when you are gambling on Buch and Kelly also, then I don't think it makes sense. It's too many gambles with a 200 mil team.

[a700hitter]

Well of course you're going to disagree. My arguments don't support your opinion.

 

When a pitcher rebounds from injury, it's not illogical to expect him to regain velocity, whether they saw him pitch or not. It might also not have done any good to see him pitch during the offseason because his velocity could have returned at a later date. Either way, it's not a bad risk to take on a one year deal.

 

The Alex Gordon analogy has nothing to do with whether he was already on the team or not. The point of the analogy is that it is quite reasonable to take a below average defender at a tough position and make him a better defender at an easier position, especially if that player has the athleticism, which Hanley does.

Kimmi, is it possible that they would have learned something if they had watched him throw? I know you keep saying that it is "only" $9.5 million for 1 year. Don't you think it would be worth a couple of plane tickets and some incidental travel expenses to see if he could hit 90? Or is $9.5 million such chump change that it was not worth the organization's time to check out what would be 1 of their 5 starting pitchers for the year. It was lazy and negligent not to check him out. I also challenge your statement that pitchers recovering from arm injuries often regain their velocity. That may be true of TJ surgery, but he didn't have TJ surgery. I would say that recovery from most other injuries to pitchers is not accompanied by a return of velocity.

[sk7326]

Kimmi, is it possible that they would have learned something if they had watched him throw? I know you keep saying that it is "only" $9.5 million for 1 year. Don't you think it would be worth a couple of plane tickets and some incidental travel expenses to see if he could hit 90? Or is $9.5 million such chump change that it was not worth the organization's time to check out what would be 1 of their 5 starting pitchers for the year. It was lazy and negligent not to check him out. I also challenge your statement that pitchers recovering from arm injuries often regain their velocity. That may be true of TJ surgery, but he didn't have TJ surgery. I would say that recovery from most other injuries to pitchers is not accompanied by a return of velocity.

 

Did they not check him out? These are significant investments - they probably had medicals anyway. For them, $9.5M IS chump change for a 1-year hitch by Red Sox standards. That said, I do agree with you that they spent far too much time down this rabbit hole. It wasn't as bad one as say, Grady Sizemore last season ... but the warning signs were there early enough to cut bait quickly. I blame the management for not tacking quickly on Masterson who was highly speculative to begin with. This also applies to Kelly who was fringy too and might have been a wipeout bullpen weapon (which would have turned out quite handy).