Fire Bloom .

[iortiz]

So, Sale's deal was a great one due to what he did before the contract?

 

Sale's case is different. He hasn't even pitched for whatever reason, so his contract is horrible too. At the time it made sense. It didn't pan out though.

 

Sale's pedigree was way better than Porcello's before wearing RS uniform. It's not even close and unfair the comparison.

[moonslav59]

Sale's case is different. He hasn't even pitched for whatever reason, so his contract is horrible too. At the time it made sense. It didn't pan out though.

 

Sale's pedigree was way better than Porcello's before wearing RS uniform. It's not even close and unfair the comparison.

 

My point was, you are counting a season before the contract for Porcello.

Edited September 1, 2022 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

My point was, you are counting a season before the contract for Porcello.

Again, under his contract (2016-2019/ 4-Y contract) he had 2 bad (5.52 and 4.62), 1 mediocre (4.28) and one great (3.15)

 

For you, good is 4.23 and oks 4.62. You bar is so low.

 

To put it in context, our pitching staff has a 4.55 ERA. Our pitching staff is one of the worst in baseball FYI

[moonslav59]

Again, under his contract (2016-2019/ 4-Y contract) he had 2 bad (5.52 and 4.62), 1 mediocre (4.28) and one great (3.15)

 

For you, good is 4.23 and oks 4.62. You bar is so low.

 

To put it in context, our pitching staff has a 4.55 ERA. Our pitching staff is one of the worst in baseball FYI

 

OK, you kept listing the 5th year,

 

105 ERA+ gives perspective.

 

Nate's is under 94. Did he suck?

[iortiz]

OK, you kept listing the 5th year,

 

105 ERA+ gives perspective.

 

Nate's is under 94. Did he suck?

 

I'm considering 4 years, when he made 20 M/Y. 2016 (3.15, great), 2017 (4.65, horrible), 2018 (4.28, mediocre), 2019 (5.52, horrible)

I'm taking away his also awful 2015 (4.92)

 

BL he was most of the times horrible in Boston uniform. It doesn't matter how you slice it.

[moonslav59]

I'm considering 4 years, when he made 20 M/Y. 2016 (3.15, great), 2017 (4.65, horrible), 2018 (4.28, mediocre), 2019 (5.52, horrible)

I'm taking away his also awful 2015 (4.92)

 

BL he was most of the times horrible in Boston uniform. It doesn't matter how you slice it.

 

Yes, finally you focused on the 4 years.

 

I disagree on him being mostly bad. Having a 105 ERA+ over 4 years and eating those innings can never be bad.

Edited September 1, 2022 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

Yes, finally you focused on the 4 years.

 

I disagree on him being motly bad. Having a 105 ERA+ over 4 years and eating those innings can never be bad.

 

No, Check the posts. I don't think you read well. Focus.

 

Two of those four years his ERA+ were under 100 and 1 barley above 100. Again his only one great year was when he surprisingly won the CY.

 

Agian, it doesn't matter how you slice it, he sucked.

 

BTW a 4.65 ERA clip can't be called "Oks" as you try to present. Simply no way.

[moonslav59]

Well he was horrible in 2 years, bad in one, mediocre in 1 and great in 1.

 

Put it in my mixer and it is a bad tenure all-in-all.

 

2+1=1=1 = 5

 

I read fine

[iortiz]

2+1=1=1 = 5

 

I read fine

No you didn't.

 

In my 3905, 3903, 3900 posts I was already talking about a 4 year period. Again, go figure.

[moonslav59]

No, Check the posts. I don't think you read well. Focus.

 

Two of those four years his ERA+ were under 100 and 1 barley above 100. Again his only one great year was when he surprisingly won the CY.

 

Agian, it doesn't matter how you slice it, he sucked.

 

BTW a 4.65 ERA clip can't be called "Oks" as you try to present. Simply no way.

 

"Bad most of the time."

 

2016: Quality starts 79% (led team) He only let up more than 4 runs in a game once out of 33 starts and that was just 5 runs in 6IP. ! 3 of the 5 starts with 4 ERS allowed he pitched 6+ innings.

 

2017 58% QS (3rd on the team) 7 out of 33 starts with more than 5 ERs allowed (all over 5 IP)

 

2018: 48% QS (3rd on team) and only 5 of 33 starts over 4 runs (3 of then 5 ERs in 5.1, 6.0 and 7.0 IP) Only 2 real bad games.

 

2019 was horrible, but 41% QS was still 3rd on the team. 9 out of 32 starts were over 4 ERs (3 were 5, 6 were 6.)

\

Clearly, he was good in the vast majority of his games.

[moonslav59]

No you didn't.

 

In my 3905, 3903, 3900 posts I was already talking about a 4 year period. Again, go figure.

 

Yes, and I said, "finally you are counting just 4." I saw that.

[iortiz]

"Bad most of the time."

 

2016: Quality starts 79% (led team) He only let up more than 4 runs in a game once out of 33 starts and that was just 5 runs in 6IP. ! 3 of the 5 starts with 4 ERS allowed he pitched 6+ innings.

 

2017 58% QS (3rd on the team) 7 out of 33 starts with more than 5 ERs allowed (all over 5 IP)

 

2018: 48% QS (3rd on team) and only 5 of 33 starts over 4 runs (3 of then 5 ERs in 5.1, 6.0 and 7.0 IP) Only 2 real bad games.

 

2019 was horrible, but 41% QS was still 3rd on the team. 9 out of 32 starts were over 4 ERs (3 were 5, 6 were 6.)

\

Clearly, he was good in the vast majority of his games.

LOL you are trying to throw s*** to wall expecting some stick. It won't happen mate. A 4.65 & 5.52 ERA are horrible ERAs. It represents 50% of his tenure under that contract. Also a 4.28 is an ERA of a No. 4 pitcher. Mediocre.

 

If you want to pay 20 M/Y for those ERAs, be my guest, but nobody would, even in today's market. His contract was a mistake from day 1.

 

Now, If you add his 2015 numbers, his tenure in Boston is lamentable.

 

.... and if you add his final days with the NYM, you just confirm the kind of pitcher he was. HORRIBLE.

[moonslav59]

LOL you are trying to throw s*** to wall expecting some stick. It won't happen mate. A 4.65 & 5.52 ERA are horrible ERAs. It represents 50% of his tenure under that contract. Also a 4.28 is an ERA of a No. 4 pitcher. Mediocre.

 

If you want to pay 20 M/Y for those ERAs, be my guest, but nobody would, even in today's market. His contract was a mistake from day 1.

 

Now, If you add his 2015 numbers, his tenure in Boston is lamentable.

 

.... and if you add his final days with the NYM, you just confirm the kind of pitcher he was. HORRIBLE.

 

I'm only talking about the 4 year contract, but you keep wanting to change the subject.

 

Pitching in Fenway affects your ERA. ERA+ or ERA- are better comparative stats to use and he was not only far from bad, he was pretty good.

 

His contract was not horrible.

 

You talk about his last year with the Mets and don't even mention 6 years with DET where he started 27-33 games, every year. He was average for 6 years w DET and sucked for 1 with the Mets, and you say I'm throwing crap against the wall.

 

Only 22 out of 131 GS'd did Porcello let up more than 4 runs in a game, the vast majority of those were only 5 ERs in 5+ IP.

 

It wasn't me who said, he was b ad most of his time here; it was you. Game by game, he had 74 QS in 131 GS. That's 56.5% GS rate, which is way abover average, let alone "horrible."

 

Looking deeper, in his 57 starts that were not QSs, he had these games...

 

15 were games with 5+ IP and only 4 ER

11 of those 15 were 6 or more IP and only 4 ER.

 

He was not horrible or even bad.

 

As for being worth $20M a year, I have never come close to defending that.

 

[iortiz]

I'm only talking about the 4 year contract, but you keep wanting to change the subject.

 

Pitching in Fenway affects your ERA. ERA+ or ERA- are better comparative stats to use and he was not only far from bad, he was pretty good.

 

His contract was not horrible.

 

You talk about his last year with the Mets and don't even mention 6 years with DET where he started 27-33 games, every year. He was average for 6 years w DET and sucked for 1 with the Mets, and you say I'm throwing crap against the wall.

 

Only 22 out of 131 GS'd did Porcello let up more than 4 runs in a game, the vast majority of those were only 5 ERs in 5+ IP.

 

It wasn't me who said, he was b ad most of his time here; it was you. Game by game, he had 74 QS in 131 GS. That's 56.5% GS rate, which is way abover average, let alone "horrible."

 

Looking deeper, in his 57 starts that were not QSs, he had these games...

 

15 were games with 5+ IP and only 4 ER

11 of those 15 were 6 or more IP and only 4 ER.

 

He was not horrible or even bad.

 

As for being worth $20M a year, I have never come close to defending that.

 

I just added further information to the fact that he was horrible under that contract.

 

There's a reason he had to retire while he was still kind of young. He sucked.

 

Regarding his tenure in Det, He was nothing close to good. 3 of those 6 years were bad (50 %). 2 mediocre, and 1 just good.

 

Porcello was a horrible pitcher but who won a CY. Pretty rare I would say. One of a kind if you ask me. He had 7 bad years out of 12 in his career and some were really really bad.

[Old Red]

After 400 pitches, or so the Red Sox pulled out a victory last night. Out of the big three 500, Div, and Wild Card the Red Sox moved up in 1.

 

4 games from being 500

 

7 games back in the L column for last place in the Div.

 

9 games back in the L column for the last Wild Card spot…

[moonslav59]

I just added further information to the fact that he was horrible under that contract.

 

There's a reason he had to retire while he was still kind of young. He sucked.

 

Regarding his tenure in Det, He was nothing close to good. 3 of those 6 years were bad (50 %). 2 mediocre, and 1 just good.

 

Porcello was a horrible pitcher but who won a CY. Pretty rare I would say. One of a kind if you ask me. He had 7 bad years out of 12 in his career and some were really really bad.

 

He was so far from "horrible." No he was not worth close to that contract, and I'm okay, barely, with saying it was a horrible contract, but he was not Horrible. No stats show he is in the bottom 3rd in any major category. He's in the top 3rd in a few.

 

Let's just agree to disagree on this one and get over it.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

He was so far from "horrible." No he was not worth close to that contract, and I'm okay, barely, with saying it was a horrible contract, but he was not Horrible. No stats show he is in the bottom 3rd in any major category. He's in the top 3rd in a few.

 

Let's just agree to disagree on this one and get over it.

 

Horrible as an adjective is a personal choice, but there are probably posters who would list many Red Sox pitchers ahead of Porcello for that category.

[moonslav59]

Horrible as an adjective is a personal choice, but there are probably posters who would list many Red Sox pitchers ahead of Porcello for that category.

 

I just called Porcello okay, along with Lackey and Nate, who both had worse numbers in many areas.

 

Had we won a ring in Porcello's Cy Young year, I think the mood would have been different.

[dgalehouse]

After all of the talking points have been given again and again , here is what we have: The Sox are in last place , 16 games behind the first place Yankees and 7 games behind the fourth place Orioles . Should the head of baseball operations job be in jeopardy?

[Bellhorn04]

After all of the talking points have been given again and again , here is what we have: The Sox are in last place , 16 games behind the first place Yankees and 7 games behind the fourth place Orioles . Should the head of baseball operations job be in jeopardy?

 

So what's the point of asking the same question again?

 

We all know how each other feels by now, I would think.

 

It's all just shooting the breeze between games anyway.

[dgalehouse]

So what's the point of asking the same question again?

 

We all know how each other feels by now, I would think.

 

It's all just shooting the breeze between games anyway.

 

What is the title of this thread? We keep hearing the same talking points here , as well as a debate on Rick Porcello , but it's not okay to ask if Bloom's job should be in jeopardy as the season winds down? It seems to me that is also part of shooting the breeze.

[moonslav59]

What is the title of this thread? We keep hearing the same talking points here , as well as a debate on Rick Porcello , but it's not okay to ask if Bloom's job should be in jeopardy as the season winds down? It seems to me that is also part of shooting the breeze.

 

True, and it's not the first topic everyone's views are thoroughly known, yet still repeated over and over.

[Bellhorn04]

What is the title of this thread? We keep hearing the same talking points here , as well as a debate on Rick Porcello , but it's not okay to ask if Bloom's job should be in jeopardy as the season winds down? It seems to me that is also part of shooting the breeze.

 

Of course. But surely you don't think anyone's answer has changed since last week. We all tend to dig in deep on our positions.

 

You and Old Red and a bunch of others still think he should go. Me and moon and a bunch of others still don't.

[notin]

After all of the talking points have been given again and again , here is what we have: The Sox are in last place , 16 games behind the first place Yankees and 7 games behind the fourth place Orioles . Should the head of baseball operations job be in jeopardy?

 

That depends.

 

Was Bloom brought in to build a winner immediately or to build a sustainable winning organization?

 

The question does not pertain to what we want, but rather the reason Henry hired him…

Edited September 2, 2022 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

That depends.

 

Was Bloom brought in to build a winner immediately or to build a sustainable winning organization?

 

The quest does not pertain to what we want, but rather the reason Henry hired him…

 

According to the Sox FO as represented by Sam Kennedy, Bloom's mission is to build a sustainable winner while also competing each year until we get there.

 

Critics can certainly argue that he crapped out on the second part this year.

[notin]

According to the Sox FO as represented by Sam Kennedy, Bloom's mission is to build a sustainable winner while also competing each year until we get there.

 

Critics can certainly argue that he crapped out on the second part this year.

 

There’s no doubt this year failed the second part. But is progress being made towards the first?

 

It comes down to which part upper management feels is the greater priority.

 

And if it’s the first part about building a sustainable organization, the massive off-season spending spree many are hoping for might not be reality…

[moonslav59]

There’s no doubt this year failed the second part. But is progress being made towards the first?

 

It comes down to which part upper management feels is the greater priority.

 

And if it’s the first part about building a sustainable organization, the massive off-season spending spree many are hoping for might not be reality…

 

In terms of not resetting the tax for near future advantages, yes, but signing a good young player to 4-6 years should ot hurt a longer term strategy, per se.

[notin]

I just called Porcello okay, along with Lackey and Nate, who both had worse numbers in many areas.

 

Had we won a ring in Porcello's Cy Young year, I think the mood would have been different.

 

They might have won a ring if not for those cheatin’ Astros!

[notin]

In terms of not resetting the tax for near future advantages, yes, but signing a good young player to 4-6 years should ot hurt a longer term strategy, per se.

 

 

Certainly that can be done with some internal options that are willing, like Devers and maybe Verdugo. But you can’t always count on others reaching free agency. And certainly anyone that does will have a QO, which becomes a factor at some point…

[dgalehouse]

Assuming Bloom is doing what ownership wants him to do , his job is safe. Kennedy said as much. But from a fan's perspective , the part about "staying competitive " is what is missing.