2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[User Name]

The widespread underperformances and the degree of those underperformances was certainly bad luck.

 

Hanley and Pablo both playing below replacement level is bad luck in and of itself.

 

Masterson, Kelly, and Porcello underperformed by quite a bit. Pretty much every BP arm that Farrell threw out there besides Taz and Koji absolutely stunk.

 

We lost our #1 and #2 starting catchers. Pedroia was injured. Napoli underperformed.

 

I'd say the team had some pretty bad luck.

 

Funny how he conveniently forgets losing BOTH catchers and Napoli hitting like a pitcher.

[Spudboy]

Money has not been an issue for this team's ownership and won't be going forward. We needed a third baseman. Had to overpay to get him which is what we did. we had no idea he would turn into a turd baseman. Even the Porcello deal was a gross overpay. Now if you wait just a couple more years when every back of the rotation guy is grossly overpaid, even his contract will look sensible.

 

 

Now that is an apt description. I may drop Fatboy.

[Spudboy]

Or it could be that I was just being a tad facetious. You want some clarity from me I will say this - You obviously have some inside scoop on Sandoval that I don't have access to you. 2 a day workouts and great cars plus a desire to be better this year is what I have heard. If he in fact has been doing 2 a days and gaining weight, then he is not the only one to blame. i know something about fitness. Before I got to critical, I would have to know what his workouts looked like. Just sos you know - My comment about Porcello was meant to be a joke. I just post here and read the board for something to do. I have yet to see a poster who has stunned me with their brilliance. I have been baffled by the ******** though.

 

Lol.

 

 

Yeah brilliance is a rare commodity here. Although you can hear some new and good ideas. I don't think that you should be baffled by the ********. The important thing is that you realize it is ********.

[cp176]

Now that is an apt description. I may drop Fatboy.

 

thanks for noticing that one. I was thinking that my attempt had gone all for naught.

[User Name]

I did not find it amusing, as it is an insult to turds everywhere.

[Spudboy]

Homer Bailey and Mike Leake are pretty good comparables to Porcello over their respective careers, and look at how much money they got. It's the fruit the market's bearing.

 

It's interesting that at one point the Bailey deal was used ( somewhat ) as a baseline or guide to what Lester would be worth and now we use his contract to justify the Porcello deal.

 

Just a casual observation, not a dig at you.

[cp176]

Lol.

 

 

Yeah brilliance is a rare commodity here. Although you can hear some new and good ideas. I don't think that you should be baffled by the ********. The important thing is that you realize it is ********.

 

Absolute truth!!! There are some very bright people here but probably one of the reasons I do like DD is that he will not suffer from the classic "paralysis via analysis" that seems to be the theme of the day.

[cp176]

I did not find it amusing, as it is an insult to turds everywhere.

 

 

You're killing me here once again. Right down the goddam drain I go.

[User Name]

It's interesting that at one point the Bailey deal was used ( somewhat ) as a baseline or guide to what Lester would be worth and now we use his contract to justify the Porcello deal.

 

Just a casual observation, not a dig at you.

 

That's because it was a stupid baseline. I've always thought they simply did not want to re-sign Lester. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Spudboy]

I did not find it amusing, as it is an insult to turds everywhere.

 

 

lulz.

 

I get a kick out of most people accepting Panda's published weight as 245 early last season. Jung suggested that Pablow was at 290 or so by season's end.

 

I would stake my considerable reputation on the following assertion. He was over 300 most of the season.

 

I've been 300 and I am 4-6 inches shorter than that blimp. The men on this board who have carried big pounds know what I am talking about.

 

Jung's idea that each time your weight cycles down then up it become harder to keep the pounds off is not known physiological fact as far as Dr. Spudboy is aware.

 

He is a lazy fat f***. If he had a true ailment or impairment I would never criticize the lump. I criticized JD Drew for being soft when in fact his Son was very ill.

 

Turd baseman should have more pride than to allow himself to be seen as a lazy, under performing, overpaid blob. He is an athlete. He gets paid to be in shape and to be productive. He consciously decides to stay fat. I know it, and every fat man on this site knows it.

 

He will never get any slack from me in that regard.

[jung]

Google yo-yo dieting for a lesson in physiology.

 

Here is a quick study:

One of the greatest frustrations people with weight problems can go through is the so-called weight cycling or yo-yo dieting – losing weight successfully, only to gain it all back. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is quite common. Over 80 percent of dieters regain some or all of their former weight back within two years and two-thirds of once successful dieters end up heavier than they were before their initial weight loss, according to a study by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

 

Yo-Yo dieting is not only emotionally frustrating, it can also have serious consequences for a person’s physical well-being. “The more diets you’ve been on, the harder it becomes to lose weight,” said Dr. Kelly Brownwell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

 

Even on a sensible diet, your body is reluctant to let go of some of its mass. When you are dieting, it may perceive it as impending starvation and a threat to its survival. In cases of rapid weight loss (e.g. crash diets), a metabolic overcompensation can kick in, resulting in a slower metabolism and greater difficulty to lose additional weight.

 

Weight cycling can actually change your physiology, according to Dr. Brownwell. One of the reasons for this is that through dieting a hunger hormone called ghrelin increases, and a fullness hormone called leptin decreases, so you feel hungrier and less satiated every time around. Also, frequent yo-yo dieting lets you lose muscle mass and replaces it with fat as you regain weight. Because muscle burns many more calories than fat does, your metabolism slows down even further.

 

“Losing and regaining weight regularly takes a huge toll on your body,” said Dr. Keith Ayoob, professor at Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in New York, not just aesthetically by loss of skin elasticity but, more importantly, by the damage being done to the inner organs, the arteries and the skeletal system, and by a host of potentially life-threatening illnesses resulting from unhealthy weight gain like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and cancer.

- See more at: http://www.timigustafson.com/2012/why-is-gaining-weight-so-much-easier-than-losing-weight/#sthash.c2NVMIl0.dpuf

 

If you really read up on it, you will I am sure find that so called yo-yo dieting (even has a term) does eventually make it easier to gain after you lose. This is particularly true if you yo-yo on a one year cycle. Yo-Yoing on such short cycles can be an absolute death sentence. In all honesty, if the guy keels over from a heart attack this year, I will not be surprised.

Edited January 31, 2016 by jung

[Spudboy]

I guess your penis is larger than mine.

 

 

I'll pass this info onto the Doctors in my family.

[cp176]

I guess your penis is larger than mine.

 

 

I'll pass this info onto the Doctors in my family.

 

 

Oh boy oh boy- with just a little chuckle I am out of here for the night.

[jung]

To be honest Spud what somebody does with their own issues is his own business. What somebody knows or does not know is more often an issue of time and/or interest in particular subjects and does not suggest some sort of inner wisdom or kismet or whatever.

 

It is when people just won't accept as even plausible what their very eyes should be telling them regardless of what can or can't be proven in a court of law, which an opinion driven discussion forum is not....that is when I push the panic button and actually start to question whether posting or reading makes any sense at all.

 

As for yo-yo dieting, it is not a matter of dick length....just happens to be something I know something about...thats it....nothing earth shattering or even important.

[a700hitter]

The widespread underperformances and the degree of those underperformances was certainly bad luck.

 

Hanley and Pablo both playing below replacement level is bad luck in and of itself.

 

Masterson, Kelly, and Porcello underperformed by quite a bit. Pretty much every BP arm that Farrell threw out there besides Taz and Koji absolutely stunk.

 

We lost our #1 and #2 starting catchers. Pedroia was injured. Napoli underperformed.

 

I'd say the team had some pretty bad luck.

Hanley has been injury prone in recent years, so no surprise there. Masterson had lost about 4 -5 mph of his fastball and had an ERA approaching 6. No surprise or bad luck there either. Pedroia has been injury prone in recent year, so it is hard to day that was unexpected. Also, his power numbers were up from recent years, so he didn't underperform. Taz and Koji burning out was not bad luck but rather a function of a poorly constructed thin starting rotation. Napoli's bad performance was just a continuation of a slide that started in 2014. No bad luck there either. Bad luck is a bad excuse.

[Kimmi]

Hanley has been injury prone in recent years, so no surprise there. Masterson had lost about 4 -5 mph of his fastball and had an ERA approaching 6. No surprise or bad luck there either. Pedroia has been injury prone in recent year, so it is hard to day that was unexpected. Also, his power numbers were up from recent years, so he didn't underperform. Taz and Koji burning out was not bad luck but rather a function of a poorly constructed thin starting rotation. Napoli's bad performance was just a continuation of a slide that started in 2014. No bad luck there either. Bad luck is a bad excuse.

 

First off, if you take any individual player's underperformance or injury, it may not be unexpected. The fact that pretty much everything went wrong is bad luck.

 

1. Hanley getting injured may not be a surprise. His awful hitting and his -2 WAR was very unexpected.

 

2. Masterson stinking is no surprise, but there was good reason to believe that he could rebound coming off an injury. Either way, it's the fact that he, Porcello, and Kelly all stunk to the extent that they did.

 

3. I didn't say Pedroia underperformed, I said that he was injured. Any player getting injured is bad luck.

 

4. I didn't mention anything about Taz or Koji burning out. I said that everyone in our BP stunk besides them. When you throw out reliever after reliever into games, you'd expect at least one of them to perform well. It's the philosophy of acquiring as many arms as you can and see what sticks. Somebody should have stuck. The fact that none of them did, and the extent to which they stunk, is bad luck.

 

5. And yet, when Napoli went to the Rangers, his batting line went from .207/.307/.386 to .295/.396/.513. Where was that when he was with the Sox? Bad luck.

 

When pretty much everything breaks against your favor, that is bad luck.

[Kimmi]

It's interesting that at one point the Bailey deal was used ( somewhat ) as a baseline or guide to what Lester would be worth and now we use his contract to justify the Porcello deal.

 

Just a casual observation, not a dig at you.

 

I don't think the Bailey comparison was used to determine what Lester would be worth. I think the Bailey comparison was used because Lester had supposedly said he would accept a contract similar to Bailey's, had the Sox offered him that rather than the ridiculous offer they gave him.

[Kimmi]

Absolute truth!!! There are some very bright people here but probably one of the reasons I do like DD is that he will not suffer from the classic "paralysis via analysis" that seems to be the theme of the day.

 

You may be baffled by what I post, but I guarantee you it's not BS.

[Bellhorn04]

First off, if you take any individual player's underperformance or injury, it may not be unexpected. The fact that pretty much everything went wrong is bad luck.

 

1. Hanley getting injured may not be a surprise. His awful hitting and his -2 WAR was very unexpected.

 

2. Masterson stinking is no surprise, but there was good reason to believe that he could rebound coming off an injury. Either way, it's the fact that he, Porcello, and Kelly all stunk to the extent that they did.

 

3. I didn't say Pedroia underperformed, I said that he was injured. Any player getting injured is bad luck.

 

4. I didn't mention anything about Taz or Koji burning out. I said that everyone in our BP stunk besides them. When you throw out reliever after reliever into games, you'd expect at least one of them to perform well. It's the philosophy of acquiring as many arms as you can and see what sticks. Somebody should have stuck. The fact that none of them did, and the extent to which they stunk, is bad luck.

 

5. And yet, when Napoli went to the Rangers, his batting line went from .207/.307/.386 to .295/.396/.513. Where was that when he was with the Sox? Bad luck.

 

When pretty much everything breaks against your favor, that is bad luck.

 

These are all plausible arguments. But when a team has one of the top payrolls in the game and wins 71 games and then 78 games, there is something very wrong somewhere that goes beyond luck.

 

I hate to bring the Evil Ones into it, but they haven't finished under .500 since 1992. And they've had their share of issues in recent years.

 

Maybe it's the managers, maybe Girardi is much better than Farrell, I don't know.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

3. I didn't say Pedroia underperformed, I said that he was injured. Any player getting injured is bad luck.

 

This is a very debatable point. Some players have a history of having trouble staying healthy, like Buchholz, Kelly, and Hanley.

 

I'm not saying this is what the Red Sox did, but if you fill your team with old guys and guys with major injury histories and/or known health issues, you can hardly say that having a lot of injuries will be just bad luck.

[cp176]

You may be baffled by what I post, but I guarantee you it's not BS.

 

I might not have been talking about you. In my world, I get to determine what is and what is not BS. Once again, not all of my comments and observations are directed at you and your views.

[a700hitter]

First off, if you take any individual player's underperformance or injury, it may not be unexpected. The fact that pretty much everything went wrong is bad luck.

If a guy has been regularly missing time with injuries and it can be expected to continue it is hard to attribute that to bad luck. There was plenty of stink on last year's team. That is what bad teams do. It was not bad luck. It was just being bad and very poorly constructed. Plus, not everything went bad. Bogaerts raised the level of his game significantly. Betts developed ahead of schedule and ER was a big surprise. Holt did a great job and Bradley hit in the second half. There was a lot of good stuff, but it happened on a bad team.

 

1. Hanley getting injured may not be a surprise. His awful hitting and his -2 WAR was very unexpected.

It was a function of his being injured which has become a pattern. Not really bad luck. And the worst part of his game was his defense which had nothing to do with luck.

 

2. Masterson stinking is no surprise, but there was good reason to believe that he could rebound coming off an injury.

Did they go to see him throw to determine if he had regained his velocity? They did not. I can't attribute a lack of homework and due diligence to bad luck. I attribute it to bad management.

 

3. I didn't say Pedroia underperformed, I said that he was injured. Any player getting injured is bad luck.

He is getting older and his injuries have been a pattern in recent years. It was to be expected. IMO, he had a better season than I would have expected. If he plays a full and good season in 2016, that will be good luck imo, because he is staring down father time.

 

4. I didn't mention anything about Taz or Koji burning out. I said that everyone in our BP stunk besides them. When you throw out reliever after reliever into games, you'd expect at least one of them to perform well. It's the philosophy of acquiring as many arms as you can and see what sticks. Somebody should have stuck. The fact that none of them did, and the extent to which they stunk, is bad luck.

Too much pen was used due to a terribly built starting rotation. When you go to the pen too often, the lesser arms become exposed and get exploited and the good arms like Taz burn out. There was no bad luck in our pen last year. There was a lot of stink and fatigue.

 

5. And yet, when Napoli went to the Rangers, his batting line went from .207/.307/.386 to .295/.396/.513. Where was that when he was with the Sox? Bad luck.

Boo hoo. His overall numbers from the year were down from the year before right in line with his decline. A month means nothing.

 

When pretty much everything breaks against your favor, that is bad luck.

But that is not what happened. You are just sounding like the "H" word. At best it is a whiny excuse, playing right into the hands of Yankee fans who love to mock us for whining. Edited January 31, 2016 by a700hitter

[cp176]

This is a very debatable point. Some players have a history of having trouble staying healthy, like Buchholz, Kelly, and Hanley.

 

I'm not saying this is what the Red Sox did, but if you fill your team with old guys and guys with major injury histories and/or known health issues, you can hardly say that having a lot of injuries will be just bad luck.

 

In many instances, people create their own luck. In the case of the Red Sox signings - If you count on major contributions from people that have proven track records of being injured, you can't be surprised when one of them goes down again. You have to expect it and be prepared to deal with it. I would consider it very good and unexpected good luck if all of a sudden a player of this nature plays and stays healthy.

[Dojji]

In many instances, people create their own luck. In the case of the Red Sox signings - If you count on major contributions from people that have proven track records of being injured, you can't be surprised when one of them goes down again. You have to expect it and be prepared to deal with it. I would consider it very good and unexpected good luck if all of a sudden a player of this nature plays and stays healthy.

 

Agreed, although I note that we're failing to discuss the single greatest injury risk on the team at the moment, who happens to be our second baseman. I mean it's easy to point fingers at guys like Hanley and Sandoval who if they've ever performed at all, it wasn't for us, it's harder to point the same fingers at a guy who was once so reliable for us that we can no longer count on.

 

I think the steady deterioration of Pedrioa is a bigger problem to this team at this time than a guy like Sandoval or Hanley who you can easily set aside if they simply don't perform.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Dojji

[jung]

Would be nice if Pedroia learned how to preserve himself a little. While you could make the case that he would then not be Pedroia, there has to be a happier medium for a guy that important, especially to the middle of the infield. It would be especially useful in this year filled with not more than hopes in some cases and really big ?'s in others.

[cp176]

Agreed, although I note that we're failing to discuss the single greatest injury risk on the team at the moment, who happens to be our second baseman. I mean it's easy to point fingers at guys like Hanley and Sandoval who if they've ever performed at all, it wasn't for us, it's harder to point the same fingers at a guy who was once so reliable for us that we can no longer count on.

 

I think the steady deterioration of Pedrioa is a bigger problem to this team at this time than a guy like Sandoval or Hanley who you can easily set aside if they simply don't perform.

 

I think that Pedroia's health could be a very real issue for us this year and beyond. I'm trying not to just give him a pass because I like him and am sincerely pulling for him. That is probably one of the reasons why I am not sold on the idea of Betts being a full time outfielder. Other than Holt or possibly Marrero I guess, I don't see a clear long term backup plan for him if he goes down. i think that Sandoval and Ramirez get covered easier than Pedroia does. Moncada could be ready to help as soon as the late stages of this year but not as a second baseman. Benintendi - who knows- he has been one of the best if not the best player at every level he has played at. He will be in our outfield (I hope not someone else's) sooner than people think. I might be giving DD too much credit but I think that he has a pretty clear understanding of how things work and that he won't hesitate to make moves that people might not necessarily agree with if they are in what he thinks are the best interest of his team. In the mean time, heres hoping for Pedroia's good health.

[mvp 78]

This is a very debatable point. Some players have a history of having trouble staying healthy, like Buchholz, Kelly, and Hanley.

 

I'm not saying this is what the Red Sox did, but if you fill your team with old guys and guys with major injury histories and/or known health issues, you can hardly say that having a lot of injuries will be just bad luck.

You know who else has a history of injuries? Pedroia. Instead of hitting the DL, he just grinds through it and his all around game suffers.

[jung]

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, Pedroia at some diminished capability has been a better option than anybody else we could put out there.

 

Now they could I guess put Mookie out there...but I would not. Holt can play there for a bit. But unless Pedroia really can't go, until one of the younger guys comes up from the system Pedroia toughing it out is probably still the best option. I don't think DD is going to trade any of the top prospects unless somebody makes him an offer he just can't refuse. So some relief for Pedroia can't be that far off. His numbers do suffer especially in these years when he is playing with one hand.

[cp176]

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, Pedroia at some diminished capability has been a better option than anybody else we could put out there.

 

Now they could I guess put Mookie out there...but I would not. Holt can play there for a bit. But unless Pedroia really can't go, until one of the younger guys comes up from the system Pedroia toughing it out is probably still the best option. I don't think DD is going to trade any of the top prospects unless somebody makes him an offer he just can't refuse. So some relief for Pedroia can't be that far off. His numbers do suffer especially in these years when he is playing with one hand.

 

Everything that is being written leans toward it not being Moncada who ultimately replaces Pedroia. If they keep them both, they will ultimately want both Moncada and Benintendi out there. Benintendi will be in the outfield. Moving Betts back to second might not look bad at all if our young guys develop the way we hope they will. If someone else comes along and can replace Pedroia both in the field as well as at the plate, then of course you would want to keep Betts in the outfield. It is going to come down to using what you have as well as you can to put the best lineup that you can put out there on a daily basis. Moncada and Benintendi I'm betting will play their ways into our lineup sooner than people think they will.

[jung]

I can see moving Betts back as the permanent 2nd baseman at some point. I would not move him back to spell Pedroia. I think Mookie would have to spend time at 2nd to turn into a top flight ML 2nd baseman. He is now a darned good CFer. I am not sure moving Betts to RF in Fenway makes much sense. But I guess we are going to see more of Mookie there this year.