2020-2021 Offseason Thread

[notin]

The bullpen was not a strength. But the first place finishes suggest that was not a big issue.

 

And when trying to show it was what cost them titles, using that one pitch by Benoit is fun, but not really fact-based.

 

The bullpen was clearly the weakest area of the team. And in 4 seasons, he only tried to repair this once at the deadline...

[notin]

The bullpen was not a strength. But the first place finishes suggest that was not a big issue.

 

And when trying to show it was what cost them titles, using that one pitch by Benoit is fun, but not really fact-based.

 

But the bullpen performance does show it was an issue. Your argument is essentially "they won anyway, so no problem."

[Bellhorn04]

But the bullpen performance does show it was an issue. Your argument is essentially "they won anyway, so no problem."

 

When it's 4 years in a row, I think it's a fair argument, yes.

 

But if we want to turn this into a playoffs/crapshoot discussion, that's kind of a different thing.

[moonslav59]

Eovaldi and Sale make $47 combined. I just wouldn't have extended them and kept Betts.

 

Their years total about the same, combined.

 

In hindsight, I agree, but I really liked the sale extension, so I can't really, now say we shoulda-coulda...

Edited March 5, 2021 by moonslav59

[notin]

When it's 4 years in a row, I think it's a fair argument, yes.

 

But if we want to turn this into a playoffs/crapshoot discussion, that's kind of a different thing.

 

Not. It's an argument that they were the best of five teams in one division. It doesn't mean they did not have bullpen issues. They clearly did...

[notin]

Their years total about the same, combined.

 

In hindsight, I agree, but I really liked the sale extension, so I can't really, now say we shoulda-coulda...

 

Price and Eovaldi too. And those are the two I complained about the most.

 

However, an argument can be made that without Price, there is no title...

[Bellhorn04]

Not. It's an argument that they were the best of five teams in one division. It doesn't mean they did not have bullpen issues. They clearly did...

 

Every team has issues of some sort unless they're the 1998 Yankees or one of the other juggernauts.

 

The pertinent question with DD's Tigers is whether it was the bullpen that prevented them from winning titles between 2011 and 2014.

 

Anyone who subscribes to the playoffs are a crapshoot theory to any degree would have to answer no.

[notin]

Every team has issues of some sort unless they're the 1998 Yankees or one of the other juggernauts.

 

The pertinent question with DD's Tigers is whether it was the bullpen that prevented them from winning titles between 2011 and 2014.

 

Anyone who subscribes to the playoffs are a crapshoot theory to any degree would have to answer no.

 

Maybe but the bottom line is that facet of his team consistently underperformed. Now DD did not completely ignore it, acquiring relievers in the off-season. (Of course, at one point his "answer" was 39yo Joe Nathan. Sure he did get a reliever, but let;s get real. Nathan was far from his best days.) But he also did not make changes when those same flaws kept arising.

 

It's funny - here in Boston fans complained in the post-Nomar years that the team just could not find a SS they liked. As the team went through Cabrera and Renteria and Gonzalez and Lugo and Scutaro, etc. And that team also made the post-season every year but one.

 

If you want definitive proof that his weak bullpen was not the factor in winning a title, fine. But are you going to stand by the "good enough" argument to justify it being ignored year after year while the window was open for the Tigers as their team came up just short despite having three surefire Hall of Famers on the roster?

[moonslav59]

Price and Eovaldi too. And those are the two I complained about the most.

 

However, an argument can be made that without Price, there is no title...

 

Certainly, I'd rather have Betts than Price, but since I thought the Price signing was needed, I feel like I'd be hypocritical to say, "We should not have signed Price, so we could keep Betts," and probably just not having his contract would have made it much more doable.

 

There is a chance, however, that even if we hadn't signed any combination of Price, Eovaldi, JD, Sale or Bogey, we still may have just deemed Betts's demands as just too much to agree to.

 

While Price's contract was about one-sixth of our player budget, it was for 7 years not 10-12.

 

Personally, I think the Dodgers made out on the signing, but paying him that much and giving up Verdugo, Downs and Wong seems like an overpay.

[notin]

Certainly, I'd rather have Betts than Price, but since I thought the Price signing was needed, I feel like I'd be hypocritical to say, "We should not have signed Price, so we could keep Betts," and probably just not having his contract would have made it much more doable.

 

There is a chance, however, that even if we hadn't signed any combination of Price, Eovaldi, JD, Sale or Bogey, we still may have just deemed Betts's demands as just too much to agree to.

 

While Price's contract was about one-sixth of our player budget, it was for 7 years not 10-12.

 

Personally, I think the Dodgers made out on the signing, but paying him that much and giving up Verdugo, Downs and Wong seems like an overpay.

 

They took on about $73mill in salary and gave up a good young player and a top prospect. It really was about the best the Sox could hope for...

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe but the bottom line is that facet of his team consistently underperformed. Now DD did not completely ignore it, acquiring relievers in the off-season. (Of course, at one point his "answer" was 39yo Joe Nathan. Sure he did get a reliever, but let;s get real. Nathan was far from his best days.) But he also did not make changes when those same flaws kept arising.

 

It's funny - here in Boston fans complained in the post-Nomar years that the team just could not find a SS they liked. As the team went through Cabrera and Renteria and Gonzalez and Lugo and Scutaro, etc. And that team also made the post-season every year but one.

 

If you want definitive proof that his weak bullpen was not the factor in winning a title, fine. But are you going to stand by the "good enough" argument to justify it being ignored year after year while the window was open for the Tigers as their team came up just short despite having three surefire Hall of Famers on the roster?

 

He didn't do a very job with their bullpen, I can't argue with that.

[Bellhorn04]

Personally, I think the Dodgers made out on the signing, but paying him that much and giving up Verdugo, Downs and Wong seems like an overpay.

 

I think you have to give Friedman his due. I believe that when he made this trade he figured he had a shot at signing Mookie to an extension, and that was an integral part of why he did it.

[moonslav59]

They took on about $73mill in salary and gave up a good young player and a top prospect. It really was about the best the Sox could hope for...

 

I agree.

 

(I had hoped we got Verdugo and Maeda, but we did well.)

[notin]

I think you have to give Friedman his due. I believe that when he made this trade he figured he had a shot at signing Mookie to an extension, and that was an integral part of why he did it.

 

He probably suspected it, but he had know way of knowing as that would have been tampering...

[notin]

He didn't do a very job with their bullpen, I can't argue with that.

 

That was my point...

[Bellhorn04]

That was my point...

 

But you also attributed their loss to us in 2013 to their bullpen.

[notin]

But you also attributed their loss to us in 2013 to their bullpen.

 

No. I used Ortiz’ shot as an example of their woeful bullpen...

[Bellhorn04]

No. I used Ortiz’ shot as an example of their woeful bullpen...

 

I only disagreed with that example because Benoit wasn't one of the woeful ones.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Bellhorn04

[notin]

Odorizzi to Astros.

 

This one looked obvious once Framber Valdez went down.

 

Next up - Rick Porcello...

[notin]

I only disagreed with that example because Benoit wasn't one of the woeful ones.

 

... which was immaterial, the especially since the rest of the bullpen put the other three on base. Benoit was the fourth reliever in that inning...

[Bellhorn04]

... which was immaterial, the especially since the rest of the bullpen put the other three on base. Benoit was the fourth reliever in that inning...

 

Nope, not immaterial.

[a700hitter]

Odorizzi to Astros.

 

This one looked obvious once Framber Valdez went down.

 

Next up - Rick Porcello...

i am reminded of Ben saying, “I am happy with our pitching.”

[a700hitter]

Nats released Jeremy Jeffress for personal reasons. He’d be worth a bullpen spot. Edited March 7, 2021 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Edwin Encarnacion remains unsigned, but we have Marvin Gonzalez.

[dgalehouse]

Hats released Jeremy Jeffress for personal reasons. He’d be worth a bullpen spot.

 

Kind of strange that they released him so quickly. I always thought of him as a good reliever. Why not give him a try ?

[a700hitter]

Kind of strange that they released him so quickly. I always thought of him as a good reliever. Why not give him a try ?

He was on a minor league deal. Maybe he just wants to pursue a major league spot. It sounds like he requested the release.

[mvp 78]

https://www.mlb.com/press-release/dr-sheffields-named-official-toothpaste-of-the-red-sox

 

DR. SHEFFIELD'S NAMED OFFICIAL TOOTHPASTE OF THE BOSTON RED SOX

Two Iconic New England Brands Join Forces for a Winning Season

 

 

New London, Connecticut-based Dr. Sheffield's Certified Natural Toothpaste has been named the “Official Toothpaste of the Boston Red Sox” for the 2021 baseball season, it was announced today. The Dr. Sheffield’s-Red Sox sponsorship package includes exclusive naming rights, fixed Fenway Park Center Field signage for the 2021 season, Home Plate signage for select home games, digital and email marketing, as well as in-stadium promotional and sampling opportunities (subject to current health and safety guidelines).

 

“We can’t think of a more perfect fit for Dr. Sheffield’s than the Red Sox; two authentic New England brands that were firsts in their field,” said Jeffrey Davis, President & Chief Executive Officer at Sheffield Pharmaceuticals. “Dr. Sheffield’s is the originator of toothpaste and was the first to put it in a tube, and the Red Sox were one of the 8 original baseball teams in the American League. We look forward to pairing with this iconic brand this season to bring smiles to fans everywhere, ” Davis added.

 

“We are excited to welcome Dr. Sheffield’s to the Red Sox family,” said Red Sox Executive Vice President Troup Parkinson. “We love to partner with New England brands who share our connection to the region and look forward to working with Dr. Sheffield’s throughout the 2021 season.”

 

The full line of nine flavors of Dr. Sheffield’s Certified Natural Toothpastes are certified according to the strict standards of the Natural Products Association and contain no fluoride, GMOs, synthetic detergents or foaming agents, and no artificial colors, flavors or sweeteners. Dr. Sheffield’s Naturals is also certified cruelty-free by Leaping Bunny, signifying no animal testing at any stage of product development.

 

About Dr. Sheffield’s Certified Natural Toothpaste

 

Dr. Sheffield’s Naturals is a new line of toothpaste made from an age-old recipe reminiscent of simpler times. In the mid-1870s, Dr. Washington W. Sheffield, a respected dentist from New London, Connecticut, invented a ‘creme dentrifice’ for his patients, replacing the unsavory powders of the time. He put it in a tube, and the rest is history. Over 160 years later, Sheffield is back and harsh synthetics are out. Sheffield’s timeless formulas are still free of fluoride, synthetic detergents and foaming agents, GMOs and artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners - and actually taste good!

 

Dr. Sheffield’s Naturals can be found at CVS, Amazon.com, Rite Aid, Walgreens and Bed, Bath & Beyond stores throughout New England. For more information, visit http://www.drsheffieldsnaturals.com or follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

[notin]

Edwin Encarnacion remains unsigned, but we have Marvin Gonzalez.

 

I don’t think Encarnacion would be able to fill the same role as Marwin, and I am far from a Marwin supporter...

[mvp 78]

@ChrisCotillo

I expect the Red Sox to be involved with some relievers who are opting out of deals this week. Hector Rondon, Tommy Hunter and others among guys back on the FA market.

Quote Tweet

 

More work to be done, Chaim!

[a700hitter]

And Edwin Encarnacion and Rick Porcello just sit as free agents without a team.