a700hitter

There is about a month left to go before pitchers and catchers have to report. There isn't a lot of time left to finalize the roster and Ben has about 4 moves to makes. The starting pitcher is the most critical. If they are going after a pitcher of the caliber of Pat Maholm, Ben and the FO is taking a big risk on the season, and I think is unlikely that they will be in the post season in 2012. Too many things would have to break right for the team to make a run at the post season. Usually, not everything goes right.

The earliest he could be ready would be in the second half, but there are usually some setbacks. It's more likely that he will not throw a pitch for the Red Sox until September if at all.

I guess the Cubs will be ripping off SD for years, until he gets fired by SD and Theo hires him.

He's not as good now, because he has not been able to stay on the field throughout a whole season.

This is a great point. Those guys will not clog our future.

I didn't think that he was.

He also has been pitching in a ballpark that has about 12 acres of foul territory where the ball just does not carry at all at night. Also, he only throws 40 innings per year over the last 2 seasons. It's hard to compare that to Paps.

Theo hired the SD GM (the former Sox guy) to be the Cubs GM.

I hope he does, but if he has a Pap type year, he will gets Paps type money in arbitration. He's not the value acquisition that people think he is. He is a fair market value acquisition from this point on. If he remains cheaper than Paps on an annual basis, it will be because he hasn't performed as well as paps.

That's powerful, and my apologies to the FO defenders, but it is also affordable for the Red Sox. If they have a strong dominant team out of the box this season they will renew interest in this team. Combine the renewed interest with the lucrative 100 year anniversary promotions and the Sox should do very well financially in 2012 even if they blow the cap. I am harboring the hope that all this talk about cheap alternatives in the press is a clever misdirection play by the Sox FO to lower the expectations of the players agents. There is no reason that they need to act like a small market team. I realize that their expenses are out of control for 2012 thanks to Theo, but a lot of money will come off the payroll in 2013, plus the 100 year anniversary promotions should be lucrative. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet in the short term to maintain the value of the franchise. They have established a brand that has excellence as one of its hallmarks. That reputation of excellence is hanging in the balance just a bit after last season. They can spend a few extra buck and go steam rolling through the season as a powerhouse or they can go cheap and roll the dice that all of the "ifs" work out and there are no injuries. It's foolish to roll the dice for a few million when the reputation of a billion dollar enterprise is at stake.

Do you think they might be talking with Madson? Would they bring him in as a reliever or a starter?

Let me know when he is dickless. Then I will take him off ignore.

yes, Papelbon is in a very elite class. Everyone who argues against him say that he is not as good as Mo. Well, as you have pointed out, he he drives on the same highway as Mo and there are only 2 or 3 cars on that highway. That's elite. Mo is 42. Soon Papelbon will be on that highway by himself. Unfortunately, he'll be driving it for the Phillies.

Bailey is arbitration eligible and he is expected to get around $3.5 million in 2012. That is cheaper than Papelbon, but it is his full fair market value. He is a cheaper option but he is not a value acquisition.

This would never happen with Iglesias, because he can't hit anything.

That's a low bar that you are setting.

Some people continue to delude themselves that the 2011 team was a great team that had some horrible luck. Blaming luck is a loser's lament. I don't engage in excuses. Good luck and bad luck tend to even out over a 162 game season. Injuries are part of the game. The 2011 team didn't win for a wide variety of reasons and luck excuses none of them. The organization was dysfunctional from top to bottom-- from the owners to the GM to the managers, coaches, players and trainers. There's plenty of blame to go around. The 2011 Red Sox failure was not, as some people like to believe, a case of a great team that had some unlucky injuries and some players with bad attitudes that did not perform. It was a total organizational failure. To compare the 2011 team to the 2004 team diminishes the accomplishment of the 2004 team. The 2011 team had a lot of talent, but they were not a great team. They don't even compare favorably to the. 1972, 1977, 1978 or 1979 Red Sox teams.

Here's a portion of a poorly transcribed transcript of an interview with Merloni and McAdam. They mention that Farrell and Tito had a philosophy of discouraging the slide step. http://www.csnne.com/sportsnetNewEngland/search/v/38788028/sports-sunday-sox-angels-preview.htm Another negative remark about the slide step indicating Red Sox philosophy: http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2008/05/twins-7-red-sox-1.html#.TwdZIFaWmdE They hated the slide step. If pitchers used it, they tried to get them to stop.

I think it comes down to coaching in large part and after so many seasons of futility I am convinced that it was not a big priority for the coaching staff. The true slide step does compromise the quality of the pitch, but what it does is that it puts it in the head of the baserunner that he might have a lot less time in his attempt the steal. Opposing runners just need their 1st base coach to put the stop watch on our pitchers for a couple of pitches and he knows exactly how much time he has. I can't view those videos at work, but I would be surprised to see any slide step by any Sox pitcher. My recollection is that Remy has mentioned several times over the years that the Sox don't like using it. BTW: I was the one who brought up the issue of the coaches neglecting opposing runners. I didn't enter the discussion. I started it. I don't mind nit picky. However, even if you prove there is no formal philosophy of base runner neglect, you still come back to coaching inadequacy as the most likely explanation for consistent horrible performance in this aspect of the game. So, what are you winning in your argument... are you proving sloppiness and laziness over poor strategy as the reason? Either way, I want nothing to do with farrell as a future manager. He manages his current team's running game in reckless manner, and he has done nothing to impress me as being managerial timbre.

E1, I don't know what point you are trying to make. Let's assume that the Red Sox coaches and management flat out deny any philosophy to ignore the running game, how do you explain the fact that they are at or near the bottom of the league every year in controlling the running game? Is you your explanation to throw it off all on Wakefield, because I think we are still below average or near the bottom if Wakefield is taken out of the equation? Where does the blame lie? Are Sox pitchers and catchers just incapable of controlling the running game? Do we face faster runners than other teams face? You are arguing whether or not they have a formal philosophy to disregard the running game or whether a modified leg kick is a slidestep, but assume you are right about those things (and I am making no admission in this regard), what is your explanation of the consistently putrid results in controlling the running game? IMO it still comes back to the coaching.

I think you are right on that. The owners, players and fans I think appreciated his contribution to the building of the NFL.