Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
Had it figured out. But Nick now gave up back to backs, so that's 2 HRs. One more and his Quality Start stat is down the drain

 

The SOX score a lot of runs off RH's and Pivetta gives up a lot of HR's. Nothing surprising here.

Posted
Amazing how Pivetta can be sharp one game, and a dog the next. Others have said it, but his middle name is Inconsistent. He picked a good game to be part of.
Posted
Amazing how Pivetta can be sharp one game, and a dog the next. Others have said it, but his middle name is Inconsistent. He picked a good game to be part of.

 

I'm pretty sure Pivetta will never pitch for the Colorado Rockies.

Posted (edited)
He's trying hard and has been much improved. I do think the sore thumb gave him a lot of problem when he returned from IL.

 

Concerned that the same will be true for Casas for awhile when he returns. Dom Smith has been a serviceable replacement .

 

Dom has been like duct tape. It's not a perfect fix, but it's better than chewing gum.

Edited by SPLENDIDSPLINTER
Posted
I didn't realize he was in the doghouse. With most of the SOX pitching in the doghouse, there wouldn't be room for him anyway.

 

Didn't realize it?

Posted
Wingenter , and his 27.00 ERA, gets a second life in MLB due to the extreme shortage of Sox BP arms and gives up 3 runs in 1.1 innings. His body language displays the his style of pitching. He knows the Worcester Express bus is idling outside the locker room
Posted
Ya sound more like a Randy Mariner.

 

no I actually sound like a guy who was looking forward to watching a good game tonight and NOT one f***ED up by an incompetent umpire. after that inning i turned the set to Adam 12 repeats.

Posted (edited)
One could argue that the last good proven starter who was drafted by the SOX, developed in the SOX farm and pitched for the SOX was Clay Buchholz. Another claim to fame for Clay was most posters couldn't spell his last name correctly. Edited by SPLENDIDSPLINTER
Posted
One could argue that the last good proven starter who was drafted by the SOX, developed in the SOX farm and pitched for the SOX was Clay Buchholz. Another claim to fame for Clay was most posters couldn't spell his last name correctly.

 

Buchholz was so long ago, just the thought of your point made, here, should have been the impetus for some major changes.

 

I've been fine with drafting and signing IFA everyday players over pitchers, if they are the higher odds on players to add, but at some point, the idea should be to trade some for young and controllable pitchers.

 

I've been fine with overpaying for FA pitchers, despite the fact that many never seem to come very close to expectations, but we kept trying and trying. Since Price and Sale, I would not call it "trying."

 

Now, back to your point, for a while, this spring, it looked like Houck might end up taking the lead over Buch. Buch was a pretty awesome pitcher and had some incredible long stretches of great pitching. His ERA- of 42 in just over a 100 IP in 2013 was one of MLB's all time best. His issue was never going over 190 IP, going over 175 just once and over 150 IP just 3 times. Houck has yet to top 130, so he may never beat Buch in even his weak area.

 

Others that have been okay to good:

Crawford

Bello

and cricketts...

 

Who are our best hopes? (Yikes!)

 

E R-C?

Dobbins?

Early?

Portes?

Valera?

Mullins, Monegro, Paez, Wehunt, D Reyes?

 

Maybe a recent draftee?

 

 

 

Posted

Second straight quality start by a Sox starter. Bullpen continues to be the #1 problem of the Sox. Hitting not bad, if you like 14 runs.

 

Much needed win--thanks in part to SPLENDIDSPLINTER.

Posted
Buchholz was so long ago, just the thought of your point made, here, should have been the impetus for some major changes.

 

I've been fine with drafting and signing IFA everyday players over pitchers, if they are the higher odds on players to add, but at some point, the idea should be to trade some for young and controllable pitchers.

 

I've been fine with overpaying for FA pitchers, despite the fact that many never seem to come very close to expectations, but we kept trying and trying. Since Price and Sale, I would not call it "trying."

 

Now, back to your point, for a while, this spring, it looked like Houck might end up taking the lead over Buch. Buch was a pretty awesome pitcher and had some incredible long stretches of great pitching. His ERA- of 42 in just over a 100 IP in 2013 was one of MLB's all time best. His issue was never going over 190 IP, going over 175 just once and over 150 IP just 3 times. Houck has yet to top 130, so he may never beat Buch in even his weak area.

 

Others that have been okay to good:

Crawford

Bello

and cricketts...

 

Who are our best hopes? (Yikes!)

 

E R-C?

Dobbins?

Early?

Portes?

Valera?

Mullins, Monegro, Paez, Wehunt, D Reyes?

 

Maybe a recent draftee?

 

 

 

 

Thanks again, MOON, for your well researched posts. You the man.

Posted
One could argue that the last good proven starter who was drafted by the SOX, developed in the SOX farm and pitched for the SOX was Clay Buchholz. Another claim to fame for Clay was most posters couldn't spell his last name correctly.

 

When it comes to drafting future MLB pitchers, not even a Red Sox front office full of Ivy Leaguers has been able to make their own luck lately. That's mostly what it is, right? Or does system-wide research and development have more influence than assumed in the nurturing of prospects with talent and tools...

 

Maybe Boston needs a better balance upstairs with some baseball lifers like Haywood Sullivan and Eddie Kasko, who were in charge as GM and Scouting Director back in the early-80s, when the Sox drafted and/or signed Clemens, Boyd and Ojeda... or predecessors Dick O'Connell and Ed Kenney in the 70s, who drafted and/or signed Stanley, Hurst and Tudor.

 

Also important: their old bird dog scouts actually offered live eyes in ballparks, beyond just thumbs scrolling on phones (even more vital: those guys never cause traffic jams reading texts, because they can't even see them unless they wear specs).

Posted
When it comes to drafting future MLB pitchers, not even a Red Sox front office full of Ivy Leaguers has been able to make their own luck lately. That's mostly what it is, right? Or does system-wide research and development have more influence than assumed in the nurturing of prospects with talent and tools...

 

Maybe Boston needs a better balance upstairs with some baseball lifers like Haywood Sullivan and Eddie Kasko, who were in charge as GM and Scouting Director back in the early-80s, when the Sox drafted and/or signed Clemens, Boyd and Ojeda... or predecessors Dick O'Connell and Ed Kenney in the 70s, who drafted and/or signed Stanley, Hurst and Tudor.

 

Also important: their old bird dog scouts actually offered live eyes in ballparks, beyond just thumbs scrolling on phones (even more vital: those guys never cause traffic jams reading texts, because they can't even see them unless they wear specs).

 

I totally agree. Advancing metrics has a place in decision-making, but so does the human element.

 

We have made some (slow) changes, at the top and in the area of talent discovery, acquisition and development. It might take years to see a change to the good.

 

Perhaps we already are seeing it, our recent meltdown, notwithstanding.

 

The one are I'd like to see us move towards is dealing from strength (everyday players) for pitching. I think it is easier to evaluate pitchers on the farm and in MLB than those in college, high school or in other countries. This makes even more sense, under the idea that JH is stingy with large and long FA pitcher signings.

 

Pedro

Schilling

Beckett

Sale

Porcello

ERod

Nate

Peavy

 

Beats...

Price

Lackey

Giolito

(Add Richards to Kluber)

Posted

Pedro

Schilling

Beckett

Sale

Porcello

ERod

Nate

Peavy

 

 

The thing to note about that list is nearly all those big trades were swung by giving up what were (considered at the time) top pitching prospects: Pedro, Schill, Sale, Porcello (for Cespedes, for Lester), ERod, Nate...

 

... this is why I can't see us landing Skubal or Crochet.

Community Moderator
Posted
The thing to note about that list is nearly all those big trades were swung by giving up what were (considered at the time) top pitching prospects: Pedro, Schill, Sale, Porcello (for Cespedes, for Lester), ERod, Nate...

 

... this is why I can't see us landing Skubal or Crochet.

 

No, not with Perales being injured for sure.

Posted
The thing to note about that list is nearly all those big trades were swung by giving up what were (considered at the time) top pitching prospects: Pedro, Schill, Sale, Porcello (for Cespedes, for Lester), ERod, Nate...

 

... this is why I can't see us landing Skubal or Crochet.

 

The Pedro deal, yes, but Cespedes for Porcello was not. Casey Fossum and Beeks may have been somewhat highly ranked in the Sox system, but that's not saying hey were real promising. Kopech was highly regarded. Montas and Iggy for Peavy, maybe.

 

Miller for ERod, yes.

 

Anibal Sanchez for Beckett was much more about HRam.

 

We can include Fitts, Sandlin or Mata in a deal for an ace, if you want. Hell, give all 3.

 

Posted (edited)
When it comes to drafting future MLB pitchers, not even a Red Sox front office full of Ivy Leaguers has been able to make their own luck lately. That's mostly what it is, right? Or does system-wide research and development have more influence than assumed in the nurturing of prospects with talent and tools...

 

Maybe Boston needs a better balance upstairs with some baseball lifers like Haywood Sullivan and Eddie Kasko, who were in charge as GM and Scouting Director back in the early-80s, when the Sox drafted and/or signed Clemens, Boyd and Ojeda... or predecessors Dick O'Connell and Ed Kenney in the 70s, who drafted and/or signed Stanley, Hurst and Tudor.

 

Also important: their old bird dog scouts actually offered live eyes in ballparks, beyond just thumbs scrolling on phones (even more vital: those guys never cause traffic jams reading texts, because they can't even see them unless they wear specs).

 

Ahem. Whoever built Sox teams before John Henry arrived and bought the Sox in 2002 is suspect--or does the 86 year drought mean nothing?

 

And whoever built the Sox teams during the JH era brought in 4 WS's. They are demonstrably not idiots.

 

What they mostly did was go out and buy established starters like Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, John Lackey, Rick Porcello, David Price, and Chris Sale. Thus did the Sox payroll stay among the top 3 in MLB.

 

This year it's 11th, so a different approach is needed, at least for now.

Edited by Maxbialystock

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...