example1

They are definitely heavier on offense right now. They did draft a few pitchers who will probably help, but they aren't bursting at the seams with MLB ready talent. I think you're right about having to trade for them. Zack Stewart was possibly the beginning of that trend. It's an interesting point: the FO has been (I would say) very good at judging draftable talent. We are seeing the results of that (again) this year. They have been horrible with FA talent and, I would say, pretty good with trades. What does trading for pitching prospects count as? It's not quite draftable talent, but it's not quite a 'trade' in the traditional sense. It's not FA acquisition either. I think they would be capable of adding some good arms, but we can disagree there. I'm still of the belief that this team is much better than they have been. I know we disagree there. With health they should at least be a playoff contender for the next few seasons, and with the right acquisition here or there that could turn into something special. All is not lost, as far as I'm concerned. It's just that after 2014, if the Sox hold pat, nearly all of the impediments to a full-retooling will be out of the way. The question is, who would they get to replace them? Assuming they can't rebuild the entire rotation from prospects, who will be a FA going into 2015 who could anchor the rotation?

It's interesting that you think this. I don't see how it is true. Where is their lack of emphasis on defense? Obviously the right side of the infield is defense heavy. Crawford and Ellsbury are both very good defenders. Ross holds his own and Sweeney was acquired partially because he plays an above average RF. In the other positions (SS, C, 3B ) it is clear that they are tolerating the trade off between defense and offense, but its not like there are defensive wizards who could fill in adequately. Would you rather have Shoppach and Punto starting instead of Salty and Aviles? The addition of Lillibridge was almost entirely due to his defense and his speed. Speaking of speed, criticizing them for not having enough speed when Ellsbury and Crawford have been out seems a bit unfair. When healthy, Kalish, Ellsbury, Crawford, Aviles, Middlebrooks and Pedroia will have at least decent speed, and Ross has pretty good speed as well. Again, they just acquired Lillibridge for his speed too. Then there's the comment that there's not enough emphasis on pitching. Really? They rebuilt the entire bullpen and I'd be hard pressed to say they did a bad job, especially with Bailey and Bard out. As for the rotation, when you have a bloated payroll and a looming luxury tax penalty in two seasons, and you have 5 SP under payroll for significant money (Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Matsuzaka) you simply can't go and replace pitchers very easily. You certainly can't get rid of all the bad ones and replace them with good ones. It's just not how that works. I can't think of a single example of a team that has replaced their rotation like that. Can you?

I almost posted something like this last night. It is interesting to look into the future in an attempt to see what the Sox might be thinking about. Going into 2013: * The Sox have approximately $39m coming off the books. * Most of that (63.85%) is from Ortiz and Matsuzaka. The other players are Aaron Cook, Bobby Jenks (already released), Vicente Padilla, Scott Podsednik, Cody Ross and Kelly Shoppach * They have a big group of significant players who are going into their 2nd or 3rd arb years. Guys like Aceves, Saltalamacchia, Ellsbury, and Aviles should all be getting raises. * The team will be aiming to get below the LT threshold by 2014. Going into 2014: * The team will be losing the following players (assuming no contracts): Matt Albers, Jacoby Ellsbury, Rich Hill, Nick Punto, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Ryan Sweeney * That group is making $15.6m in 2012, probably considerably more as 5 of them will be in Arb3 year. Things really get interesting after 2014: * After the 2014 Season the following player's contracts expire: Aceves, Alfredo Aviles, Mike Bailey, Andrew Beckett, Josh Lackey, John Lester, Jon Miller, Andrew Morales, Franklin * not even counting arbitration that's at least $54m coming off the books. Beckett and Lackey will account for $32.95m of it, but Lester will also be making 13m in 2014. * Beckett, Lackey and Lester will all be gone. By then, the Sox will essentially have needed to turn over the top of its rotation. What should the 2013 team look like? Here's a possible roster, based on attempting to reduce total payroll and clearing space for rookies who are ready to produce at the MLB level: C: Saltalamacchia 1B: Gonzalez 2B: Pedroia 3B: Middlebrooks SS: Aviles LF: Crawford CF: Ellsbury RF: Kalish DH: Lavarnway Seems pretty logical. Ortiz can see if he can get more money elsewhere, or he can come back for a reasonable amount. The bigger point, is that the Sox probably have more flexibility to trade some of their prospects than many think they do, particularly so they can revamp their starting pitching. Here's that list again, with players who are either stuck here or who won't be replaced. Prospects who sit behind them might be eligible for trade: C: Saltalamacchia 1B: Gonzalez 2B: Pedroia 3B: Middlebrooks SS: Aviles LF: Crawford CF: Ellsbury RF: Kalish DH: Lavarnway Offensively, at least, it is safe to say that the Sox have a lot of their positions covered for quite awhile. Let's look at the positions who are likely to have some turnover during the next couple of years, and how the Sox stack up with prospects: Saltalamacchia: He's available after 2013, but the Sox will probably work to resign him if he keeps hitting like he has been. A few years ago the Sox made a concerted effort at stacking up on catching prospects, but none of them (aside from Lavarnway) panned out. Few options here, especially with Lavarnway's potential at the DH spot and his questionable defense. Aviles: If anyone is wondering why the Sox keep going after shortstops, perhaps its because they have an obvious hole coming up here when Aviles becomes a FA after 2014. Iglesias, Bogaerts, Marrero and Lin will all compete for that spot, and I suspect one of them will be able to stick. Ellsbury: Jackie Bradley Jr will be the CF after 2013. Jackie Bradley could potentially be the CF after 2012. Ellsbury might be the best opportunity the Sox have to bring back some good prospects or another legitimate SP. Bradley is the real deal and his defense is major league ready already. Aside from the prospects mentioned here, I would think that virtually any offensive prospect could be available in a trade for the right pieces. Brentz, Swihart, Cecchini, Jacobs, Coyle, etc., could all be dealt and represent high-upside prospects that would be attractive to other teams. I've read people saying that the Sox should stand pat and save their prospects. Whereas I usually agree, I think the list above shows that many of these positions are blocked, some of them for quite awhile. Given that, I suspect the Sox can be more aggressive than they might otherwise be to make some fairly significant changes to the team. I focused specifically on offense here because the Sox have so much money invested in their SP right now that guys like Beckett, Lester, Buchholz and probably Lackey will all be pitching for the club moving forward. Not a lot to be changed there. A direction the Sox will probably look to go is to bolster the young pitching they have in the system. Zach Stewart might be the start of that kind of movement, but the goal would be to have as many good SP prospects as possible when 2014 comes around. Right now the only reasonable SP options who might be ready by then are Matt Barnes and, possibly Drake Britton. Anyway, I realize this is a fairly directionless post, but I like the thread and am interested to see what others think about the future direction of the club, given their current composition. If you're in the "BLOW IT UP" crowd, this is your place to talk about what that might look like by, say 2013 or 2014.

Do you think this was his call? I'm hopeful that his elbow has improved from its original state from earlier in the season. If it is the same, then I'm completely with you.

Thanks for finding that. Good work. Earlier you turned the question on its head (appropriately so) and asked whether low-scoring, close games ultimately belong to pitchers or hitters, implying that they belong to pitchers. I guess I would just say that, as a rule of thumb, if pitchers could hold a team to 4 runs or less every single game, many teams would do pretty well. That's why I pick 4 runs as the standard. As for the cherry picking comment earlier, I wasn't cherry picking intentionally. I was just pointing out that as things have fallen into place with a new manager and new GM and coaches, new pitchers in new roles, etc., the ERA has dropped and the team has looked better pitching-wise. Wasn't trying to cherry pick. My intent was to show that, perhaps, Bobby V figured out what he had to work with and started working with it better than he did at the beginning of the season. No intellectual dishonesty intended. It occurred to me tonight as I was watching the game: the fact that you and I are arguing over whether it is the pitching or offense that has been the problem is really indicative of the larger problem that this team isn't where it should be right now. They have a long way to go if they are going to compete for anything this season or next. It may all be in their head, but if that's the case they have a lot of headway to go to get where they should.

No doubt about that... I think what you are missing is that the ERA in the first half was due to an incredibly bad April. Here's the average number of runs allowed per-game, by month: April: 5.64 May: 4.34 June: 3.63 July: 3.25 Over that time, we have seen Buchholz go from being shelled to pitching decently, Bard being replaced by Cook/Morales, both of whom have pitched more than admirably, we have seen Beckett return to form, Doubront continue pitching decently (maybe even get worse), and continued disappointment from Lester. We have also seen a bullpen that has gone from completely hapless to one of the best in baseball after the horrible April. I don't think you are stupid a700, I just think that the conventional wisdom looks at runs scored and thinks that the offense can't possibly be the problem. I think that peeling back a layer shows that the issue is more complex than that. As far as Gonzalez being disappointment, that's a huge understatement. He and Pedroia could have provided a few wins for the club as well. I just don't think it's an issue of depth. I think that Cherington has actually put together a team with plenty of depth, whether it is in the bullpen (without Bailey and Bard all season), the outfield (without Crawford and Ellsbury) or in the rotation (without Dice-K and Lackey, with Morales and Cook). Their depth seems so much better than last year, to me, that it doesn't seem like a legitimate criticism. No team is going to have a replacement option for a s***** 1-3 starter. Look at Philly. They don't have some hot-shot option ready to replace Cliff Lee. They just have to tolerate it.

I completely see A700s point. It's easy to see. He thinks pitching has been the problem. I'm saying that in May and June the Sox were either middle of the pack or at the top in overall pitching. 10 of their last 13 losses have involved giving up 4 or fewer runs. I looked at every game this year and filtered specifically for the losses. If the Sox allowed 4 runs or fewer in a loss then I blame that loss on the offense, if they allowed 5 or more runs, I blame the loss on pitching. Of their 40 losses, here's how it broke out: Who is to blame overall: Offense: 19 losses with 4 or fewer runs scored (47.5%) Pitching: 21 losses with 5 or more runs allowed (52.5%) Who is to blame in April: Offense: 4 (36%) Pitching: 7 (64%) Who is to blame in May: Offense: 5 (36%) Pitching: 9 (64%) Who is to blame in June: Offense: 8 (67%) Pitching: 4 (33%) So far in July: Offense: 2 (67%) Pitching: 1 (33%) For the whole season, the pitching has been partially more responsible for the losses than the offense, with this fairly basic way of looking at it. However, since May 17th (game #37 of 82) Offense: 13 (62%) Pitching: 8 (38%) In other words, in their last 21 losses, 13 of them have been due to the offense not being able to score more than 4 runs. In their first 19 losses, 13 of them were due to pitchers not being able to win with at least 5 runs of support. The pitching staff has been much, much better since mid-May, especially the bullpen. The offense has been failing more often than not in the losses since then.

Did you know that in May the Red Sox were 13th in ERA and had a 1.32 WHIP, while the Yankees were ranked 14th in ERA and had a 1.35 WHIP? Did you know that in June the Red Sox were 3rd in ERA and had a 1.08 WHIP (best in baseball)? The Yankees were 2nd in ERA and had a 1.18 WHIP. With numbers like those, it is MUCH too simple to just say that starting pitching has been the problem. If the pitching staff can allow 4 or fewer runs in a game, the Sox should win, yet I showed in post #156 of this form yesterday that the Sox have been absolutely pathetic in low-scoring, close games. I'll repost it now: The Sox have scored 4 or fewer runs in 50% of their games this year, and in those games they are 7-35. Those games aren't universally blow-outs either. Many of them are close, one or two run losses. Yes, having Ellsbury and Crawford and Middlebrooks and Pedroia (uninjured) would help this team be more successful. I suspect with those guys healthy they would be playing closer to their pythag record, and would be second in the league, ahead of Baltimore and Tampa, with roughly the same record as the Angels. At that point it would be legitimate to blame the SP for the couple of games they trailed the Yankees, but a much bigger chunk can be explained by their inability to score runs when it matters or to win close, low-scoring games.

A700, what threshold of injuries would a team have to sustain in order for you to acknowledge that it had an impact? I get the sense that you draw the line fairly arbitrarily, and mostly don't believe in there being a line at all. In other words, if the entire starting team of the Red Sox were to go down in a plane crash, and the Sox had to replace the entire lineup and rotation with AAA guys, would that be a time where saying that injuries caused the team to not be as good? If you would acknowledge that losing the whole team would be an understandable reason for the team to not do as well, how far do you have to roll that back to have regular injuries be understandable? 10% of all starting players? 5%? 20%? Where would you draw the line? If, by chance, the Sox entire team crashed (or, perhaps more humanely, were all injured in some other fashion beyond their control) and the Yankees had two players go down with TJ surgery, would you then say "Well the Sox did lose their entire team, but the Yankees had injuries too..." I get your point: don't use injuries as an excuse. I just think you jump off the deep end when you say that it is never an excuse. There's a line where a team cannot be expected to sustain success in spite of those injuries, and most people agree that the Sox have crossed that line.

Yep, shut him down, have him do Arizona Fall league or something, and keep fingers crossed. Not sure there are other examples of players like this... Charlie Sheen in Major League. Ankiel is probably only case I remember recently. They need to have him spend the off season with bob tewksbury. Maybe go to the woods and throw stones, pine cones, etc working his way back slowly. Fortunately there is time with him.

Football is definitely #1, but baseball has an on-going popularity that is actually pretty impressive. People don't watch it nationally as they once did, but locally teams do pretty well. In other words, if my team is in the playoffs many people in my area will watch. Also, what Ortiz is doing isn't really new. It's pretty well established that some players are just selfish and insensitive about the financial aspects of the game. It just hurts when it is a hero for so many. I would not be disappointed at ALL if MLB were forced into a payment structure more akin to the NFL or NBA. Yes, the NBA is absurdly confusing, but non-guaranteed contracts would still be nice. I like the 6 years until FA thing, and the general structure of the arbitration system, but I hate it that teams can get roped into a $140m contract without escape. Players have too much power, in my opinion.

Because the Red Sox couldn't afford to lose Pedroia weeks ago, Pedroia likely knew it and continued playing through pain. Seems likely to me.

If I were another team I would LOVE for the Sox to send me Bard. Somewhat cost-controlled, power arm, recent mlb dominance, currently struggling due to mechanical issues that could be predicted by a radical change to his role? Sox should try to deal him.

Oh, you didn't get the notice? You didn't read the posts above? It has already not happened. It's all over the message board. Bard has already not come back to where he might one day come back to, so he will never do it. Also, the bird is the word.

Welcome to the world of baseball David. He makes considerably more than DHs and acknowledged that the Sox spent more to keep him for one season than they would have on a multi year deal. The reason he went to arb is that nobody else would pay him more than his arb value. Maybe they will next year but he ain't going to get paid like Crawford or Gonzalez. Bradford on WEEI noted that it is actually a player like JD Drew who has Papi pissed off. In any case I'm not going to cry for him. I like him but his timing sucks.

Aviles was traded. Didn't we move Yamico Navarro for him?

For those of you offended by my post, answer this question: (and I'm asking in all seriousness and with an open mind): In this age post-steroid-testing, how is an intelligent fan supposed to protect himself emotionally or intellectually from the possibility that our favorite players might juice for personal gain? I'm not one to lay blame on the blameless, but for any of these guys, how do we protect our discussions from the possibility that it is still happening or still playing a role? I don't see a clear answer, and only two possibilities: 1) assume nobody is doing it anymore 2) assume that players might be doing it and remain skeptical The first approach makes you seem naive--especially if the player gets caught a second time--the second like a judgmental *******. Neither of those unenviable positions is my fault or your fault, it is the players' fault for doing it in the first. I'm willing to take s*** from people for stating what probably half the board is already thinking. That's fine. Just realize that a simple question is "if a guy can hit 35 HR and 100 RBI without juicing, why would they do it in the first place?" I don't like it about myself that I have to be suspicious, but I don't feel intellectually honest if I ignore my suspicions and I wouldn't blame personnel in the Sox FO if they were hesitant about putting too much faith in the guy too, especially when being so conscious about getting out from bad contracts. As an old poster from this site used to say, YMMV-your mileage may vary.

Papi bitches about the contracts they have handed out, but seems not to notice they ones they haven't. Where are Pedro, Damon, Lowe, Beltre and Papelbon now? They will occasionally pay big money to add a piece to the team, but they rarely pay big money to keep a piece on the team. I hate to even bring it up, but would anyone be shocked if it turned out Ortiz had been juicing this whole time? Yes, they do testing, but they generally just catch people for masking agents, not the drugs themselves... which implies to me that the masking agents probably work. Why else would people use them? It sure looked like his career had come to a grinding halt about 2 years ago, and suddenly he's hitting comparably to the best players in the league--in multiple contract years. He's getting upset that the Red Sox apparently aren't falling for the bait, and I wouldn't be shocked if the FO is waiting for the other shoe to drop: Ortiz gets contract, Ortiz stops enhancing his performance, Ortiz becomes the player who was a continuation of 2009 and who is in his late 30s. I really like Papi, but once you get caught once it really opens the door to speculation around performance and contracts. What would you do for a $14m, multi-year contract?

The problem with this team's offense is fairly obvious. They are simply inconsistent, certainly compared to the Yankees. The Sox have had 34 games where they score 3 or fewer runs. The Yankees have had 27. The Sox have had 32 games where they score between 4 and 7 runs. The Yankees have had 44. What does that mean as a percentage? Games between 0 and 3 runs *Sox 41% *Yankees 33% Games between 4 and 7 runs: *Sox 39% *Yankees 54% I think the notion that the Sox offense is 'okay' and the pitching is the problem are a bit decieving. The Sox offense is okay, sometimes. They score 8 or more runs in nearly 20% of their games, but they score 4 or fewer runs in half their games, and in those games they are 7-35. They are 24 and 8 in games where they score between 4 and 7 runs, or winning at a 75%. Here's their W% by runs scored: RS 4: 37.5% (3-5) 5: 100% (5-0) 6: 70% (7-3) 7: 100% (9-0) I don't know how to build a team that consistently scores 4 runs or more a game, but I know that one run here or there can really help and the Sox haven't done well in close games. In their 12 one-run losses they have scored 3 or fewer in 11 of them. Those are games they could be winning but aren't. To me, there's no doubt that adding potent offensive pieces to the lineup will help with that, and their consistency would be improved considerably if Pedroia and Gonzalez were producing at some reasonable level. When you look at the actual results (in pivot table form) the differnce between the teams in close games could not be more stark, and it appears that the Sox offense just dies if the game is close. It's really quite pathetic. Easy to blame the pitching, though the Sox as a staff had the best WHIP in all of baseball in the month of June, so I can't say that they have been an abject failure.

Interestingly, in this case, the game is played on the field, not in your head or in the team stats table of baseball reference. I know you want to declare the results before the game has been played, but I'm not read to go that far.

A buzzsaw is a bit of an overstatement if you ask me. Although the Yankees look pretty good right now, they just aren't that great of a team. Obviously I could be wrong and the weekend will tell, but there's not much there that really impresses me. As for the Sox, they have shown one thing over the past few years: they are streaky. Their losses in this roadtrip are just as likely to lead to a sustained period of success. That's one of the things that makes the team so damn frustrating. If they were merely a .500 team and won a game, then lost a game, then won one, it would be more tolerable. This team rattles off victories, then rattles off losses like they are two different clubs. It's weak sauce.

General disappointment. Befuddlement. A very talented team, very inconsistent. Over performing AAA players, underperforming established stars. Losses in close games, poor execution, injuries, injuries, injuries.

As a "for instance" would you be willing to part with Daniel Bard for Hamels? The Phillies could potentially move forward with the tandem of Bard and Papelbon if Bard is given the time to work out his issues. A few years of Bard for a few months of Hamels isn't a bad deal for Philly, given his makeup. That's the type of deal I could see the Sox making, were they the ones to have Hamels and look to get something for him at the end of the season. Others may disagree.

I'm firmly supportive of holding onto their best prospects, but I also think that this team might be missing a certain character type and could certainly benefit from adding someone who is at the top of his game. They probably don't have the money for Hamels though.