A Realistic View at 2017 Part II

[moonslav59]

In the 2014 season, pretty much everyone, computers systems and baseball analysts, projected the Sox to finish in first place. The projections weren't quite as good in 2015, but the Sox were projected to be a contender. The teams each of those years were built to contend. What happens on the field is beyond the GMs control.

 

To a large extent, I agree, but just because projections saw players like Pablo doing better than they did, does not mean the GM bears no responsibility for not foreseeing a continued decline or injuries compounding. Maybe judging GMs on hindsight is not fair, but it is ultimately how they are evaluated.

 

GMs are praised when the find "gems", like Moreland, Napoli, Cody Ross, so it does seem, in some ways, fair to be critical when the players they get fail to perform to some preset idea of expectations.

 

It's funny, to me, how people bash Ben for tearing apart a great rotation, but he also got bashed (probably by some of the same fans) when Lester went 9-14 in 2012, Beckett 5-11 and no starter ends up with an ERA below 4.50 in 2012. Ben's a hero in 2013, because Lester suddenly learns how to pitch again and Lackey,

who was hated by just about everyone, gets healthy and becomes a stud. Buch goes 12-1, and now Ben's a great GM. Then just as suddenly as Ben is great, he sucks again, because somehow he was supposed to know that Napoli, Vic and the champions of 2013 were all going to crash and burn. Lester and Lackey were having good seasons on paper, but nobody else on the rotation was below 4.70. It was Ben's fault that Buch went from 12-1 with an ERA below 2.00 to 8-11 5.54. It was Ben's fault Doubront had an ERA over 6.00, and it was Ben's fault Peavy was 1-9 when we traded him and others away.

 

I know my post is sounding contradictory, but that's how it often goes when evaluating GMs and managers. I'm guilty myself of doing it.

 

GMs are judged by how the players do, and the expectations rarely factor in- rightly or wrongly. It's just what it is.

 

Most of us remember if we liked a deal made by a GM at the time, and we often cut them slack on those deals we felt were good when made. The same is true for deals we did not like: we tend to hold it firmly against the GM when those deals fail. That's natural, but I do notice a tendency for some posters to defend most moves made by GMs, but then when the team stinks, to blame the GM for building a failing roster. There are also some posters who defend or bash just about every move made by a GM regardless of what type of moves they are. I guess that's what makes these sites tick- many different angles and approaches to what we think about decisions made by our team's management.

[moonslav59]

Pretty good analysis Oldtimer.

 

I was not pleased with Hanley's at bats. He looks like he's swinging for the fences, and we know that hitters are usually not successful in doing that. I did read a funny tweet today about how Hanley is 5 for 6 against lefties since he found out he couldn't hit lefties.

 

The next two pitchers we face in Texas will be tougher than what we've faced in the past 4 or 5 games. It was important to win that first game.

 

Yes, oldtimer made some very keen observations.

 

On Hanley, I don't disagree with anything said, but this has always been Hanley's approach. It might not be textbook, but it has worked for him over his long career. I'm not sure if him trying a new approach would actually be a good idea. It could mess him up badly.

 

I'm not saying HRam has never or can never made adjustments, but he's always seemed to be a free and hard swinger who walks enough to keep pitchers honest.

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. It just looks bad wen it fails.

 

We heard the same about Adrian Beltre and his swinging at balls way outside the strike zone, but we all shut up when he had that monster year with us.

[moonslav59]

Sox OPS over the last 14 days:

 

1.108 Betts

1.087 HRam

.911 Pedey

.876 Beni

.862 JBJ

.857 Leon

.824 Lin

.728 Marrero

.728 Moreland

.725 Bogey

.652 Young

.563 Vaz

.410 Travis

 

Last 7 Days:

1.566 Betts

1.183 HRam

1.065 Marrero

1.052 Pedey

.969 JBJ

.902 Beni

.898 Lin

.657 Young

.481 Travis

.462 leon

.414 Bogey

.296 Moreland

.205 vaz

 

(Weird to have nobody between .657 and .898, but with 7 guys over .897, who cares?)

 

[Nick]

To a large extent, I agree, but just because projections saw players like Pablo doing better than they did, does not mean the GM bears no responsibility for not foreseeing a continued decline or injuries compounding. Maybe judging GMs on hindsight is not fair, but it is ultimately how they are evaluated.

 

GMs are praised when the find "gems", like Moreland, Napoli, Cody Ross, so it does seem, in some ways, fair to be critical when the players they get fail to perform to some preset idea of expectations.

 

It's funny, to me, how people bash Ben for tearing apart a great rotation, but he also got bashed (probably by some of the same fans) when Lester went 9-14 in 2012, Beckett 5-11 and no starter ends up with an ERA below 4.50 in 2012. Ben's a hero in 2013, because Lester suddenly learns how to pitch again and Lackey,

who was hated by just about everyone, gets healthy and becomes a stud. Buch goes 12-1, and now Ben's a great GM. Then just as suddenly as Ben is great, he sucks again, because somehow he was supposed to know that Napoli, Vic and the champions of 2013 were all going to crash and burn. Lester and Lackey were having good seasons on paper, but nobody else on the rotation was below 4.70. It was Ben's fault that Buch went from 12-1 with an ERA below 2.00 to 8-11 5.54. It was Ben's fault Doubront had an ERA over 6.00, and it was Ben's fault Peavy was 1-9 when we traded him and others away.

 

I know my post is sounding contradictory, but that's how it often goes when evaluating GMs and managers. I'm guilty myself of doing it.

 

GMs are judged by how the players do, and the expectations rarely factor in- rightly or wrongly. It's just what it is.

 

Most of us remember if we liked a deal made by a GM at the time, and we often cut them slack on those deals we felt were good when made. The same is true for deals we did not like: we tend to hold it firmly against the GM when those deals fail. That's natural, but I do notice a tendency for some posters to defend most moves made by GMs, but then when the team stinks, to blame the GM for building a failing roster. There are also some posters who defend or bash just about every move made by a GM regardless of what type of moves they are. I guess that's what makes these sites tick- many different angles and approaches to what we think about decisions made by our team's management.

 

For me, it's about a GM making a deal when they didn't have to and it turns out costly. Crawford and Pablo deals were such deals because they were head scratchers for me.

 

Price's performance is on him. But that was a FA signing I thought we had to make. I've rehashed this several times. Did we overpay? Probably but under the circumstances, DD had every right to make that move.

[oldtimer]

Pretty good analysis Oldtimer.

 

I was not pleased with Hanley's at bats. He looks like he's swinging for the fences, and we know that hitters are usually not successful in doing that. I did read a funny tweet today about how Hanley is 5 for 6 against lefties since he found out he couldn't hit lefties.

 

The next two pitchers we face in Texas will be tougher than what we've faced in the past 4 or 5 games. It was important to win that first game.

 

Yes and the approach tonight should be to grind out every AB and make Darish work hard in the heat. If we get to the Rangers BP, they cannot match us. I don't know if Bogey will make the lineup and feel good enough to get good AB's but I hope so. We need all the quality experienced guys in the game we can muster tonight. I don't expect a lot of Sox hitting but hope to see them battle. We also need Price to pitch well tonight and he has been coming along well so there is a chance of that. I will watch with great interest.

[Kimmi]

To a large extent, I agree, but just because projections saw players like Pablo doing better than they did, does not mean the GM bears no responsibility for not foreseeing a continued decline or injuries compounding. Maybe judging GMs on hindsight is not fair, but it is ultimately how they are evaluated.

 

GMs are praised when the find "gems", like Moreland, Napoli, Cody Ross, so it does seem, in some ways, fair to be critical when the players they get fail to perform to some preset idea of expectations.

 

It's funny, to me, how people bash Ben for tearing apart a great rotation, but he also got bashed (probably by some of the same fans) when Lester went 9-14 in 2012, Beckett 5-11 and no starter ends up with an ERA below 4.50 in 2012. Ben's a hero in 2013, because Lester suddenly learns how to pitch again and Lackey,

who was hated by just about everyone, gets healthy and becomes a stud. Buch goes 12-1, and now Ben's a great GM. Then just as suddenly as Ben is great, he sucks again, because somehow he was supposed to know that Napoli, Vic and the champions of 2013 were all going to crash and burn. Lester and Lackey were having good seasons on paper, but nobody else on the rotation was below 4.70. It was Ben's fault that Buch went from 12-1 with an ERA below 2.00 to 8-11 5.54. It was Ben's fault Doubront had an ERA over 6.00, and it was Ben's fault Peavy was 1-9 when we traded him and others away.

 

I know my post is sounding contradictory, but that's how it often goes when evaluating GMs and managers. I'm guilty myself of doing it.

 

GMs are judged by how the players do, and the expectations rarely factor in- rightly or wrongly. It's just what it is.

 

Most of us remember if we liked a deal made by a GM at the time, and we often cut them slack on those deals we felt were good when made. The same is true for deals we did not like: we tend to hold it firmly against the GM when those deals fail. That's natural, but I do notice a tendency for some posters to defend most moves made by GMs, but then when the team stinks, to blame the GM for building a failing roster. There are also some posters who defend or bash just about every move made by a GM regardless of what type of moves they are. I guess that's what makes these sites tick- many different angles and approaches to what we think about decisions made by our team's management.

 

I'm not saying that GMs don't make mistakes. They all have their share of bad moves. Pablo was certainly not a good move, but I still maintain that while expecting some decline was reasonable, anticipating him falling off as much as he did was not. Despite it being a bad contract, almost everyone expected the team to be good enough to make the playoffs.

 

I didn't like the Price contract, but I have not criticized Dombrowski for Price's performance to date. Price was about as sure a bet to uphold the value of his contract through at least the first 3 years as any pitcher could be. If Price stinks for the next 2 years, that is not Dombrowski's fault. The last 3 years of his contract are a different story.

 

My point is that we may or may not like some signings, but if the consensus is that the team is the division favorite, then the GM has done his job for that season. If we fail to make the postseason this year, that will not be Dombrowski's fault, regardless of the fact that I am not a fan of his overall philosophy.

[Kimmi]

For me, it's about a GM making a deal when they didn't have to and it turns out costly. Crawford and Pablo deals were such deals because they were head scratchers for me.

 

Price's performance is on him. But that was a FA signing I thought we had to make. I've rehashed this several times. Did we overpay? Probably but under the circumstances, DD had every right to make that move.

 

The Pablo and Crawford deals may have been head scratchers and terrible contracts, but if the player is projected and expected to be a 4 WAR player (and I'm not talking about any player in particular) but then plays at replacement level, that is not the GMs fault.

 

Price's performance is on him, but Pablo's and Crawford's performances are also on them.

[Kimmi]

Yes and the approach tonight should be to grind out every AB and make Darish work hard in the heat. If we get to the Rangers BP, they cannot match us. I don't know if Bogey will make the lineup and feel good enough to get good AB's but I hope so. We need all the quality experienced guys in the game we can muster tonight. I don't expect a lot of Sox hitting but hope to see them battle. We also need Price to pitch well tonight and he has been coming along well so there is a chance of that. I will watch with great interest.

 

If Price can do what Porcello did last night and keep the team in the game, then we can win this. Hopefully, the offense has their hitting shoes on.

[dgalehouse]

Looks to me that the Sox are now starting to put it into high gear. Win tonight and the lead is four games. Maybe up five or six at the break. Then sweep the Yanks at Fenway and it is all over but the shouting.

[moonslav59]

For me, it's about a GM making a deal when they didn't have to and it turns out costly. Crawford and Pablo deals were such deals because they were head scratchers for me.

 

Price's performance is on him. But that was a FA signing I thought we had to make. I've rehashed this several times. Did we overpay? Probably but under the circumstances, DD had every right to make that move.

 

You said it much shorter than I could.

 

I agree 100%.

 

I guess there can be debate over when a GM needs to make a deal or not, as well as what other options were available instead of the deal being made. Most of us are not privy to much of this sort of information.

[Nick]

The Pablo and Crawford deals may have been head scratchers and terrible contracts, but if the player is projected and expected to be a 4 WAR player (and I'm not talking about any player in particular) but then plays at replacement level, that is not the GMs fault.

 

Price's performance is on him, but Pablo's and Crawford's performances are also on them.

 

But my point was especially in case of Crawford, that was a poker hand we should not have ever played.

[moonslav59]

But my point was especially in case of Crawford, that was a poker hand we should not have ever played.

 

I'm not sure about this website, but the one I was on when CC was signed was almost totally on board with the CC signing. The majority loved it. Many others knew it was an overpay, but they still liked it.

 

Only a few of us saw it for what it was: a gross overpay for a player about to decline who had numbers that fit the profile of a platoon player on a team like the Sox. Nobody expected an immediate cliff dive, but we were so lucky to find a fool of a GM to take him and others off our hands. (BTW, I just read AGon may be thinking of retiring due to re-occuring back troubles.)

 

[Kimmi]

But my point was especially in case of Crawford, that was a poker hand we should not have ever played.

 

I can agree with that statement.

[moonslav59]

We are now 9th in runs scored. We are just...

 

2 runs from 8th (MIL)

 

4 runs from 7th (TEX)

 

10 runs from 6th (COL)

 

We are 18 runs from 5th. I'm back believing we can finish top 5 in scoring this year. I had given up hope earlier.

 

Heck, even the 2 runs needed to catch the Yanks for 3rd seems doable at this pace!

 

(My apologies to Kimmi for jumping off the bandwagon of two so early.)

 

[moonslav59]

We are 4th in OBP (.344) just .001 from 3rd and .002 from 2nd. The Astros are .007 ahead of us.

 

We hvae made the top tier in SLG % at #14 (.425). We are .002 from 12th place and .007 from top 10.

 

We are 10th in OPS.

 

 

We are 3rd in pitching WAR, 3rd in ERA- at 83 and 6th in WHIP at 1.25 (just 0.03 from 2nd). We are #1 in K/BB at 3.63. Only 5 other teams are over 2.95.

 

 

[Emp9]

I'm not sure about this website, but the one I was on when CC was signed was almost totally on board with the CC signing. The majority loved it. Many others knew it was an overpay, but they still liked it.

 

Only a few of us saw it for what it was: a gross overpay for a player about to decline who had numbers that fit the profile of a platoon player on a team like the Sox. Nobody expected an immediate cliff dive, but we were so lucky to find a fool of a GM to take him and others off our hands. (BTW, I just read AGon may be thinking of retiring due to re-occuring back troubles.)

 

 

I thought the Crawford signing was indeed a huge overpay, but for a good to great player that killed us every time we played against him and now he was on OUR team. He was 29, so he wasn't past his prime, so I didn't think he would decline anytime soon. So, a gross overpay for a very good player that we didn't have to face 20 times a season anymore. People forget as well is that the Red Sox DIDN'T "set the market" that off-season, Washington did w/ Werth days before.

 

These FA big splashes never really work out it seems.

 

I think we've also been screwd over by the market itself in recent years. Whenever we've had a need, that need is either in high demand or very scarce at the time of that particular need. Be it SP, RP, or 3B at the time.

[moonslav59]

I thought the Crawford signing was indeed a huge overpay, but for a good to great player that killed us every time we played against him and now he was on OUR team. He was 29, so he wasn't past his prime, so I didn't think he would decline anytime soon. So, a gross overpay for a very good player that we didn't have to face 20 times a season anymore. People forget as well is that the Red Sox DIDN'T "set the market" that off-season, Washington did w/ Werth days before.

 

These FA big splashes never really work out it seems.

 

I think we've also been screwd over by the market itself in recent years. Whenever we've had a need, that need is either in high demand or very scarce at the time of that particular need. Be it SP, RP, or 3B at the time.

 

Crawford had horrible splits with TB, splits that would qualify as a platoon player with a hitting team like Sox.

 

When we signed him, I called him a "glorified platoon player...that woulkd cripple our team's budget for 7 years..."

 

His splits vs LHPs in 9 years with the Rays were...

 

.315/.382/.697 (88 wRC+ and .308 wOBA)

(He had the 18th best wRC+ out of 19 Rays'players with 230+ PAs in tha time period.)

 

Yes, he had just had his highest OPS season before coming here at .351, but in the 9 seasons with the Rays, he only had an OPS over .800 four times.

 

There was no reason to think that would change.

 

He had speed. His defense appeared good with the Rays. I'm not saying I foresaw the steep decline he had with us, but there were extreme warning signs.

[a700hitter]

Crawford had horrible splits with TB, splits that would qualify as a platoon player with a hitting team like Sox.

 

When we signed him, I called him a "glorified platoon player...that woulkd cripple our team's budget for 7 years..."

 

His splits vs LHPs in 9 years with the Rays were...

 

.315/.382/.697 (88 wRC+ and .308 wOBA)

(He had the 18th best wRC+ out of 19 Rays'players with 230+ PAs in tha time period.)

 

Yes, he had just had his highest OPS season before coming here at .351, but in the 9 seasons with the Rays, he only had an OPS over .800 four times.

 

There was no reason to think that would change.

 

He had speed. His defense appeared good with the Rays. I'm not saying I foresaw the steep decline he had with us, but there were extreme warning signs.

A very poor decision by Theo.

[moonslav59]

A very poor decision by Theo.

 

He had made a few in that time frame. One could argue that after the Nomar trade, most of his big trades and signings failed to meet expectations. The farm remained pretty strong though throughout his tenure, but even that was at its best from 2003 to 2006.

[Spudboy]

A very poor decision by Theo.

 

At the time the consensus on Talksox was that we should have gotten Werth instead.

 

I always liked Crawford while on the Rays. He was always making plays against the Sox.

 

But he was the wrong move.

[Emp9]

At the time the consensus on Talksox was that we should have gotten Werth instead.

 

I always liked Crawford while on the Rays. He was always making plays against the Sox.

 

But he was the wrong move.

 

It was definitely the wrong move. But I can see why they were interested in him. Now, the contract I can't explain. Nor defend, in any way. Stupid stupid stupid money. And on top of all of that... he slowly turned into douche.

[moonslav59]

At the time the consensus on Talksox was that we should have gotten Werth instead.

 

I always liked Crawford while on the Rays. He was always making plays against the Sox.

 

But he was the wrong move.

 

I liked Werth more, but I felt the overpay for him was way too much as well.

 

Other FA signings that winter besides CC's $142M/7:

 

Not many reached expectations (no surprise, since that happens every year)

 

$126M/7 Werth

 

$120M/5 C Lee

 

$80M/5 Beltre

 

$56M A Dunn

 

$50M/4 VMart

 

$38M/3 Konerko

 

$35M/3 R Soriano

 

$33M/3 T Lily

 

$21M/3 Uribe

 

(We could have gotten Beltre and VMart for less than CC.)

 

[Kimmi]

At the time the consensus on Talksox was that we should have gotten Werth instead.

 

I always liked Crawford while on the Rays. He was always making plays against the Sox.

 

But he was the wrong move.

 

I obviously did not like the contract, but I really liked the idea of having Crawford on our team. In terms of the player, I thought he was a good pick up. Sadly, it's not the first time I've been terribly wrong.

[moonslav59]

I obviously did not like the contract, but I really liked the idea of having Crawford on our team. In terms of the player, I thought he was a good pick up. Sadly, it's not the first time I've been terribly wrong.

 

CC is from the Houston area. He always had a legendary workout regime year round. He was in tremendous shape- all the time.

 

This, however, has nothing to do with hitting lefties. Sadly, he also lost his ability to hit righties quickly while with us.

 

His OBP was never consistently high enough to be viewed as a lead off hitter for a big hitting team like the Sox. His power was never good enough to bat 3rd either.

 

I remember many who disliked the trade did so because they felt signing CC meant we'd lose Elsbury to free agency later. That didn't concern me, because I was never for re-signing JE at anywhere neaar what he was expected to make.

[S5Dewey]

I can remember when I heard that we'd signed CC. My attitude about it then was, meh.. ok.. but I don't understand why. There were only two reasons I could think of for signing him and they were both bad ones.

 

The first was because they didn't expect to be able to re-sign Ellsbury and they saw CC as his replacement and they felt they had to sign him when he was available.

 

There was also a lot of chatter at that time that the Yankees were interested in him and I thought then - and still do think - that one of the underlying reasons for signing him was to keep him away from the Y's.

 

Like I said.. two bad reasons, but they did it anyway.

[moonslav59]

I can remember when I heard that we'd signed CC. My attitude about it then was, meh.. ok.. but I don't understand why. There were only two reasons I could think of for signing him and they were both bad ones.

 

The first was because they didn't expect to be able to re-sign Ellsbury and they saw CC as his replacement and they felt they had to sign him when he was available.

 

There was also a lot of chatter at that time that the Yankees were interested in him and I thought then - and still do think - that one of the underlying reasons for signing him was to keep him away from the Y's.

 

Like I said.. two bad reasons, but they did it anyway.

 

Imagine if the Yanks had gotten CC AND JE!

 

I'd have been thrilled--and not just in hindsight.

[Kimmi]

CC is from the Houston area. He always had a legendary workout regime year round. He was in tremendous shape- all the time.

 

This, however, has nothing to do with hitting lefties. Sadly, he also lost his ability to hit righties quickly while with us.

 

His OBP was never consistently high enough to be viewed as a lead off hitter for a big hitting team like the Sox. His power was never good enough to bat 3rd either.

 

I remember many who disliked the trade did so because they felt signing CC meant we'd lose Elsbury to free agency later. That didn't concern me, because I was never for re-signing JE at anywhere neaar what he was expected to make.

 

Despite his splits, Crawford had WARs of 5.9 and 7.7 the two years prior to signing with us. Much like with Price, I didn't like the contract, but I thought he would help the team and was happy to have him.

[moonslav59]

Despite his splits, Crawford had WARs of 5.9 and 7.7 the two years prior to signing with us. Much like with Price, I didn't like the contract, but I thought he would help the team and was happy to have him.

 

Not me.

 

His splits vs LHPs was frightening.

 

His WAR was largely fueled by his defense that would be minimized in Fenway Park. (Nobody expected his defense to suddenly suck, however.)

 

He was not better than our current lead off hitter at the time.

 

He was not better than our #3 hitter at the time.

 

He was a platoon hitter with no clear role on the team.

 

I didn't expect an implosion of that magnitude, but at that kind of money, a big positive impact should be expected, at least for the first 2-4 years of the 7 year deal. I never expected high impact.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

For what it's worth I was cool with the Crawford signing too. One of the good things about rooting for a team with a big budget is knowing after his 4-5 performance against the Sox that he could be ours the next season. You always overpay in free agency and without a salary cap I thought why not?

[Bellhorn04]

I was nonplussed by the Crawford signing, just as I was by the Pablo and Hanley signings. I wasn't unhappy, but the moves seemed odd to me.