2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I agree that some players injuries are not as surprising as others. Injury history or not, having a player get injured is still bad luck. Having several players get injured, along with the underperformances, is bad luck. I don't think anyone can realistically and honestly say that the team did not have more than it's fair share of bad breaks.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

Or you might have been talking about me. It's hard to know when you make general statements like that. I'm just setting the record straight, that I don't post BS.

 

I'm guessing that you are not going to consider the posts that you agree with to be BS. That narrows it down pretty well.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Put it this way. There were a lot of question marks on the team going into the season. There were equally a lot of question marks on the Yankees going into the season. Our question marks all went against us. Most of the Yankees questions marks broke in their favor. The Sox had more than their share of bad breaks, not only last year but in 2014 as well.

[cp176]

Or you might have been talking about me. It's hard to know when you make general statements like that. I'm just setting the record straight, that I don't post BS.

 

I'm guessing that you are not going to consider the posts that you agree with to be BS. That narrows it down pretty well.

 

First of all let me set the record straight for you. I am full of BS and not afraid to admit it. I value all of the opinions that are clearly stated that I read here. Some I value more than others. Your statements and opinions seem quite definitive and I am just not that way. Even if I do not agree with some of what you say, I do not consider what you say to be bullhshit. I think that it takes all types of opinions in order to come up with an educated approach to anything. I tend to get a little nervous when people lean heavily in one direction or another. Doesn't mean that I consider what they say BS. No one individual has all of the answers any more than one"s opinion normally is either right or wrong.

[Northern Star]

The Sporting News is picking the Red Sox to win it all. Sorry, no. Not with that starting 2-5 behind Price.

[User Name]

2-3 will be fine with E-Rod and Porcello. But they lack depth because they didn't get another starter, and lack of SP depth has killed them in recent seasons.

[Northern Star]

2-3 will be fine with E-Rod and Porcello. But they lack depth because they didn't get another starter, and lack of SP depth has killed them in recent seasons.

 

There's still question marks about those two imo.

[User Name]

There's still question marks about those two imo.

 

Those two? Those two will be fine. Fatty and the linebacker are the real question marks.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

I'd rather Pedey hit the DL and get healthy than try and grind through something. A 100% Brock Holt is far better than a 50% Pedroia.

[mvp 78]

2-3 will be fine with E-Rod and Porcello. But they lack depth because they didn't get another starter, and lack of SP depth has killed them in recent seasons.

 

If Vasquez (sp?) comes back at 100%, I would be less concerned about the rotation.

 

I think 1b will figure itself out (Hanley/Shaw/trade). Panda should be better than last year.

[Kimmi]

First of all let me set the record straight for you. I am full of BS and not afraid to admit it. I value all of the opinions that are clearly stated that I read here. Some I value more than others. Your statements and opinions seem quite definitive and I am just not that way. Even if I do not agree with some of what you say, I do not consider what you say to be bullhshit. I think that it takes all types of opinions in order to come up with an educated approach to anything. I tend to get a little nervous when people lean heavily in one direction or another. Doesn't mean that I consider what they say BS. No one individual has all of the answers any more than one"s opinion normally is either right or wrong.

 

When it comes to baseball, I am very confident in my opinions, because they are usually very well-informed opinions. When they aren't, like my opinion on Pete Rose's reinstatement, I will state so.

 

Also, many of my "opinions" are not opinions, but rather facts. For instance, your best hitter should not be batting 3rd. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[Kimmi]

If Vasquez (sp?) comes back at 100%, I would be less concerned about the rotation.

 

I think 1b will figure itself out (Hanley/Shaw/trade). Panda should be better than last year.

 

What is this? Optimism?

[cp176]

When it comes to baseball, I am very confident in my opinions, because they are usually very well-informed opinions. When they aren't, like my opinion on Pete Rose's reinstatement, I will state so.

 

Also, many of my "opinions" are not opinions, but rather facts. For instance, your best hitter should not be batting 3rd. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

Just a question - How about if your best hitter also is your best power hitter as well as your best run producer?

[User Name]

That usually doesn't happen, but if it does, you hit him 4th imo. Remember when we had Manny/Ortiz? Manny hit cleanup, and he was really a better overall hitter than Ortiz. No platoon issues, better ability to take the ball the other way with authority.

[cp176]

That usually doesn't happen, but if it does, you hit him 4th imo. Remember when we had Manny/Ortiz? Manny hit cleanup, and he was really a better overall hitter than Ortiz. No platoon issues, better ability to take the ball the other way with authority.

 

You're absolutely right which means that in most situations with respect to good teams saying that a player slots into a specific place in a batting order really gets dictated by what a team needs. If 10 people are asked what makes a team's best hitter, I would guess that you are going to get a few different answers.

[Spudboy]

Where did Poulhous (SP ) hit when he was at his best? He was a great hitter with power.

 

Just curious.

[cp176]

Where did Poulhous (SP ) hit when he was at his best? He was a great hitter with power.

 

Just curious.

 

I don't have the facts but I bet he hit somewhere close to where Ted, Carl, and Jim Ed hit in their primes.

[User Name]

Mostly hit 3rd, but they batted him cleanup on occasion. A lot of the time it was because they had that three-headed animal of him, Edmonds and Rolen, and hit them R,L,R in that order. Then again, they usually had good contact/OBP guys in the one and two hole.

[mvp 78]

What is this? Optimism?

 

Seems to be.

[cp176]

Mostly hit 3rd, but they batted him cleanup on occasion. A lot of the time it was because they had that three-headed animal of him, Edmonds and Rolen, and hit them R,L,R in that order. Then again, they usually had good contact/OBP guys in the one and two hole.

 

And that is the way it is supposed to be. If those two guys up top had a little speed, all the better. if they had good bat control and could hit behind runners even better.

[Station 13]

With Owens, Johnson, Elias, Wright, that's good depth. This rotation just need Price, Porcello each to toss 200 innings. E-Rod close to that. Kelly/Buccholz at least 250+ total. I think Dombrowski put together a solid rotation first by signing an ace, keeping Kelly and trade Miley for a bullpen weapon. Miley is an inning eater, but he won't ever able to dominate the way Kelly could potentially one day. Edited February 1, 2016 by Station 13

[Dojji]

I don't think 200 innings from Eddie is reasonable. 180 quality innings is my hope for the kid.

 

This is still a player who's learning, he threw 170 innings last year, only about 120 of those in the bigs. It's not completely impossible for a guy like him with great stuff and right on the edge of getting it to do 200, but I think we shouldn't count on it just yet, I'm not sure the season long consistency for 200 is going to be there in a 23 year old. Be great if it was.

 

In fact I'm a little skittish about Eddie if I'm honest due to some of the other pitchers of his caliber experiencing sophomore slumps before they really settle down and produce. I think it's dangerous to jump the gun here and put Eddie under an ace's expectations. He may well do it anyway, but I think we shouldn't put it on him until he shows he's ready.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Dojji

[Station 13]

E-Rod will pitch in the playoff if we get there. They will need to map out when to skip his starts to accommodate that. But I think we're talking about 3-4 at most. He doesn't really need to be baby. His final start of 2015 was September 28. Hopefully his final start of 2016 is a month later this year.

[Dojji]

Oh I'm not saying baby him. 23 isn't that young. Just remember that he's still a bit inexperienced and don't expect the moon and stars. I think he might have to have a couple corrections before he really comes into his own and we should be prepared not to be too disappointed when they happen.

[Kimmi]

Just a question - How about if your best hitter also is your best power hitter as well as your best run producer?

 

He should bat 4th. For the leadoff guy, OBP is king.

[Kimmi]

And that is the way it is supposed to be. If those two guys up top had a little speed, all the better. if they had good bat control and could hit behind runners even better.

 

What do you mean by that is the way it is supposed to be?

 

As far as speedy guys go, it is more advantageous to put them in front of your singles and doubles hitters rather than at the top of the lineup. They would probably serve a better purpose batting 6th or 7th than they would batting 1st or 2nd, unless they are also high OBP guys.

 

One of the most errant slots in the batting order is the #2 guy. Here's a quote from Mitchel Lichtman on the topic:

 

"Probably the worst lineup offense that managers commit is putting a scrappy, speedy, bunt-happy, bat-control, but poor overall offensive player in the two hole."

 

As a side note, pretty much any article by Lichtman is great reading. You all should peruse his website when you get a chance.

[a700hitter]

One of the most errant slots in the batting order is the #2 guy. Here's a quote from Mitchel Lichtman on the topic:

 

"Probably the worst lineup offense that managers commit is putting a scrappy, speedy, bunt-happy, bat-control, but poor overall offensive player in the two hole."

 

 

I agree with that. I think that is a huge mistake that managers make.

[jung]

Not sure what anybody is talking about here. Bunters go to the bottom of the lineup or the bench. Bat-control is one characteristic of a good hitter but not a power hitter. Everybody can't be a power hitter. In fact there are few of them anymore. Scrappy is not actually something one would often ascribe to a hitter. Most teams have a beast in the 2 hole if they have one. Look at the guys the Cards have had in the 2. We have had Mueller, Pedrois, Vic....not exactly chop liver. Free swinging, power hitting pull hitters are feast or famine......Not exactly what you want there. We have had Holt there on occasion but Farrell does not appear to know a batting order from a Mack Truck and we have not had the strongest lineups of late in the first place. If XB had been using his new inside out swing from 2014 on, he might have been a perfect 2.

 

The 3 is what worries me because Pedroia has had a hard time staying on the field of late and I have a suspicion that Farrell is going to try to stick Hanley there especially if he has some misgivings about Pedroia. Hanley in the 3 which would be just plain bad IMO. The "noise" coming out of Fenway about Hanley worries me and I don't trust either Hanley to be effective nor Farrell who might reach and throw his confidence behind him.

[Dojji]

What do you mean by that is the way it is supposed to be?

 

As far as speedy guys go, it is more advantageous to put them in front of your singles and doubles hitters rather than at the top of the lineup.

 

Except that for the most part your best hitters, period, are usually your best singles and doubles hitters. What having fast guys in the 1-2 slots does is feed the #3 and #4, who should be your top hitters in most categories, a few extra runs as they can take that extra base. You put them there because your 3-4 hitters are usually among your better hitters for average as well as power. The all or nothing guys need to be hitting lower in the order than 3 or 4 if you want to have a strong balanced lineup

[User Name]

If the fast guys can get on base, otherwise it's an exercise in futility, with weird ass exceptions like Alcides Escobar noted.