Dojji

Before he got hurt, Napoli was an excellent catcher. Adequate defensively and the stick was as good as it always was, only at a premium defensive position. He moved off the catching position because of a degenerative hip condition no one knew about at the time, not because he didn't have good catching skills. I wish he'd been healthy enough to do part time catching duties, if only because that would have increased his value, but that's clearly never going to happen again, and since we're so sick with great catching prospects that we can't even give our low tier guys a decent look (like Lavarnway and Butler) it's not a great need. Very satisfied with Napoli's performance as our starting 1B, just like everyone else. We got like 80% of my hopeful scenario with the guy, very pleased about that.

Why don't you go ahead. Get it out of your system. The only guy I'm really ashamed of is Lars Anderson, and at the time, everyone else was excited about him too.

Potseason isn't just any SSS. There are guys that can maintain a high level of production in the postseason, and the fact that Shields did the exact opposite is something teams with playoff ambitions would pay attention to. When you're paying ace money for a guy and you already have a fair chance to make the postseason anyway, that lack of ability to rise above himself on the big stage is something teams will pay a disproportionate amount of attention to.

And I think that's why the industry is whiffing on a lot of these kids. There's still no way to scout the head tool. Until there is, I'll keep looking for prospects who don't grab the national spotlight but have been quietly getting the job done. That's one of the things Billy Beane got famous for in the first place. Incidentally, could we stow the futility talk when half of my "guys" never even get the chance to test the waters one way or another? Poor Dan Butler still has the makings of a very solid big league backup if he can win through on the Nats. A lot of the guys I pull for wind up like that, maybe they could have done something, maybe not, but the team won't even give them a look. Coyle could easily wind up like that as well, stuck behind better players, but I think that if the stars line up and he gets a decent chance he has the ability to impress someone.

What I disagree with is the overall focus on tools and projectability when the real need in prospect analysis is to figure out who's going to reach their ceiling and who isn't. Having a toolsy prospect who doesn't have that extra gear in his head is like owning billions of dollars worth of mineral rights on the Moon. It's nice on paper, but has no real value to anyone.

Not sure I buy that. Shields isn't particularly home run prone, and his K rate is within his historic range. He's still striking out about as many as he did in his age 26 and 27 season. And since he's literally never missed a scheduled start I can't imagine that durability is a factor here. And I do suspect that the fact that he came up very small at the biggest moment of his life last year played a big role in explaining the level of (dis)interest shown by the big market playoff hopeful teams. If James Shields had had a single average game of the starts he made in the Series, not even an ace type game, just don't get *skinned alive* in the World Series, his team would have WON. The man pitched 9 world series innings and gave up 7 runs. He coughed up a World Series win for the team that was paying him 8 digits. I don't think it's sane to beleive that big market teams wouldn't pay attention to that. You just don't spend that much money on a postseason maybe. Don't make a mistake, I wanted Shields if the team and Shields could come together on a decent price. His durability makes him an asset, he's put together two borderline ace type seasons in a row in KC, and I don't think this is The Year for us regardless of what Shields does or doesn't do. Just my $.02 on why signing with the Padres rather than the Sox or Yanks makes sense to me.

Yes I read it. I just disagree with it. Tools alone aren't everything, if you scout without an eye on a player's ability to think, learn, and improve and focus just on the athletics, you're going to get a lot of bigtime busts. I'll take a guy who's learning to produce well with less in the toolbox over yet another Will Middlebrooks or Wily Mo Pena.

James Shields is 3 wins, 6 losses, with a 5.46 ERA in the postseason. That's why he signed with the Padres, who are happy when they get to the postseason and have no postseason demands, much less expectations, and not with a team that has pretty solid confidence in making the postseason with other assets but needs something to put them over the top in October -- because James Shields is literally the exact opposite of that guy. The only reason half these people wanted the guy is he was the last probable chance for the team to Do Something Interesting this offseason (IE, spend/waste tens of millions on a player they don't want, may not need, and lock down on their roster for years and years, just to mollify fans that want offseason action).

You mean 20-80 guys like Will Middlebrooks and Josh Reddick? yeah those guys ended well for us. I'll take a guy with enough present talent to produce at a starter level plus the polish to actually see some of that production quickly, over a guy who's so talented he gets away with all his bad habits in the minors. Sometimes those guys are the ones that really learned how to compete and improve their game, while the heirs apparent with all the 80 ratings by the scouts were more interested in impressing scouts with their ridiculous toolkits to put a toolbox around them. learning how to work hard and earn your way is more important than raw talent as long as a player has enough talent to work with. Coyle is a prospect worth keeping an eye on due to the fact that he's using a limited toolset to compete at a very high level as a middle infielder in the Boston system. That ability is a tool of its own I believe.

Miley, Porcello, Buchholz, Kelly, Masterson. WHether you like these guys or not there's not a lot of room for another starter, and when (not if) Buchholz falters, we've got Owens in the wings.

I think we all agree it's a good problem to have. Personally though if you're going to throw the game open for the younger catchers, I'd make an effort to stash some aging veteran in AAA in case both kids lose. EDIT: Ahh, I see the Red Sox sighed Humberto Quintero while I wasn't looking. Very wise.

One guy not mentioned in this list that I'm going to be keeping an eye on is Sean Coyle. I'm honestly not sure why this kid doesn't get more attention. The big knocks on him right now are plate discipline (k/bb is not where it needs to be) and the fact that we have so much depth at his major position (coyle is a 2B) so they're trying him at third base which is also obviously now overloaded. But a guy athletic enough to play second and practiced at third means Coyle could play a lot of positions -- the ones he plays now, plus potentially first and both corner OF slots. So if it came to finding a way to get his bat into the lineup once said bat is ready, I'm sure the team could figure it out. And his hitting numbers in Portland last year were impressive. 16 HR's and a 11 SB with a .883 OPS at age 22 in Portland, which I think is actually on the young side IIRC for AA, while playing mostly second base, is a player worth paying attention to. He's going to be 23 in Pawtucket next year, if he keeps his hitting up we could see him. Keep an eye on Coyle .

I'm perfectly content to have the ultimate end game be, let the two young catchers fight it out and prove who between them should be the #1 going forward. Swihart has a lot of potential sure but we've heard that song and dance before, I'm attracted to Vazquez's high floor nearly as much as to Swihart's high ceiling.

Truck Day in 2 weeks. Two weeks people

Not against signing shields, but I'm definitely in favor of testing the waters on Pedroia as well as Napoli. Quite frankly, this team isn't close enough to being a contender that we should be afraid to shake things up.

yeah. Nothing is sacred in baseball and there's more than a few warning signs with Pedroia. I know people don't necessarily want to see them but they're right there anyway.

Well there's two questions to be asked here. First and humbler question, are you satisfied with the rotation, and I could see why someone might be satisfied. Second and more ambitious, is, are you excited by the rotation and... no? I can't comment on that poll until I know exactly which of those two questions got asked.

That's a nice goal, we should have that goal along with the zero other teams that manage to achieve it. We can put together runs, we can sustain runs, and we can spend a lot of money, but we are *not* going to contend *every* year. Personally I don't hate our chances this year, some things have to fall right but it's definitely in the realm of possibility, but nothing we can do will guarantee that we will always contend. That's an impossible standard in a sport like baseball here random chance and the kind of events that can happen across a season can play a far bigger role in the fate of the season than the offseason plan.

Depends on what they can turn Zobrist around for at the deadline. We all know it's coming. Personally I hope boston's in on the guy. He's not the best player ever but he's one of the most versatile guys in the league, since he can play both middle infield positions as well as corner OF, and he switch hits. That's a useful guy to have around. To be honest I wanted the guy. His splits would be useful for us and we could easily find places for him to play.

I mean for all we know this is the year Clay Buchholz finally puts it all together, and stays healthy, both in the same year, and he's our #1. You can't depend on it, but if you put yourself in a position to get lucky in enough different ways something ought to come through for you.

He had a very large role in why the Royals lost the world Series too. He was 0-2 with an ERA of 7 in a series that went 7 and was lost by one run. He pitches like anything other than undiluted black water, and his team wins. I've cooled on Shields significantly since I started really digging into the numbers. I'd still be glad to have him, that durability and solid quality in the regular season is not to be sneered at, but if our definition of a #1 is the guy who'll carry us in the postseason, that guy is not James Shields.

Honestly I don't think that that guy is objectively out there. Every remaining "top starter" has serious flaws. Shields for example is the guy I want because of his near legendary durability, but he has been crap in the postseason. Just because we want and need "a top starter* does not mean that the guy we need is out there, nor does it mean that he's out there at a price that the Red Sox FO should be paying. There's a lot of arithmatic that goes into being a good GM and not all of it lends itself to satisfying fans with an overwhelming need to see a splashy move made in the offseason. Personally I suspect our "new #1" is going to be Henry Owens.

That's absurd. No small number of closers have made more money than Papelbon.

you're forgetting something cp. Pedro had an "I'm done" ritual when he thought his work was finished and it was time for him to come out of the game, where he points to the sky as he walks off. Lot of starters have tells like that when they finish an inning and think they're done. Schill I know used to point to Tek (or whoever was the catcher, but it was usually Tek) and say "good job Tek!" or something along those lines Plenty of other examples. Pedro performed that ritual "tell" going to the dugout after the bottom of the 7th inning. That's his sign that he thinks he's done and it's the pen's job to take it from there. Gump had no excuse not to know that, all the fans did. That's how we're so sure it was Gump leaving him in rather than just Pedro getting tired. Pedro had given his "tell," he was tired and thought he was not going to be asked to pitch the 8th, and Gump either didn't notice, or thought he knew better.

The reason nobody seriously ducks the 7th-setup-closer system, is because no one has done so successfully in a very, very long time. One of the characteristics of the teams that win, and usually the teams that qualify for, the World Series, is that they tend to have closers who are among the best at what they do, at least at the time. I don't even know the last team to actually win the World Series without at least a competent closer, playing a closer type role. And I do know a few teams that have been hurt badly in a playoff run by their distinct lack of one -- 2003 Red Sox, 2006 Tigers, 2007 Guardians spring to mind quickly. All three of those teams lost big games in late innings in key postseason situations due to the lack of a shutdown back end of the pen, and all three of those teams spend a lot of time in the season in question playing without a "true" closer and attempting to find other ways to get the job done in late innings. Put it this way: If Grady little had had a closer he could trust -- really, really trust -- and players in the setup role that he could count on to get him to that guy, would he ever have left Pedro in Game 7? I doubt it. *THAT WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF OLD SCHOOL MOVE YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT*. Screw the pitch counts, screw everything else, Pedro is dealing, he stays in. Starter finishes the game. And if he had finished the game you guys would have been singing "Gump's" praises all these years. Instead, he *GOT TIRED,* flagged, and began pitching worse. Even ignoring the potential for injury and increased wear on the arm (Look at the stats, Pedro wasn't even close to himself ever again after 2003 game 7. Coincidence?) it was still a bad idea. Pedro knew he was done, but manager knows best. Starter finishes the game. Said "starter" wound up making the mistakes that tied the game because they left him in against a good lineup for long enough for that lineup to take a measure of him. What the older set don't understand is that pitching has *GOTTEN HARDER* in the last half decade. Prior to the 1960's not every player even trained regularly in the offseason. Some took winter jobs even. With free agency comes higher professional standards for all professional ballplayers. The standard of athleticism and professionalism for hitters *HAS GONE UP* in the last 50 years and that means that it is harder to pitch effectively and successfully than it was in the good olden days of yore. You can't make the appeal to history when history says that over the last 20-30 years, no one has managed to successfully challenge the Eckersleyan type closer and also win a World Series at the same time, even if a few teams have come close. That relief specialist structure was a gradual response to increased hitter effectiveness and an increased focus on pitch counts *by hitters." including a focus on OBP and on working the count. These are good habits that a lot of hitters displayed prior to 1960, especially the good ones, but every hitter is trained from the proverbial cradle to do them now, and that certainly wasn't true of an era where your 7 8 9 hitters were usually automatic outs, even when one of them wasn't a pitcher. Trying to go against that trend for the sake of doing so is now an act of throwing away tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of player investment, especially if you try to do it with a player who has a multiyear big dollar commitment to your team and it blows his arm out the way it happened to Gil Meche. Maybe that shouldn't be the primary concern from purely a baseball standpoint, but when you combine that with the fact that there was a will to buck the closer role in the height of the Moneyball insanity a decade ago and despite at least half a dozen teams, including several big market teams, trying the new relief-ace model, *NO ONE WAS EVER ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OUTCOMPETE THE ECKERSLEYAN FORMAT,* even in the name of the faddish "relief ace" model (to say nothing of a multi-inning model that was based on a kind of big league ballplayer that *WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE AAA TODAY*) and the whole idea is just as dead as model A's, sandwich boards and the phonograph, and for the same reason -- smart people just came up with a better way to do it and history proved them right.