Orange Juiced

You are ripping Cherington for not acquiring Mark Reynolds? Are you serious? He can only play 3b or 1b. And they filled 3b with Middlebrooks, who has done well since his recall. So that leaves 1b. Let's compare 2013 numbers: 2013 Overall Napoli: 411 ab, .246/.337/.438/.775, 109 ops+, 15 hr, 69 rbi Reynolds: 335 ab, .215/.309/.383/.693, 96 ops+, 15 hr, 48 rbi 2013 vs. LHP Napoli: .246/.343/.418/.761 Reynolds: .232/.344/.446/.790 I mean, Napoli has been better overall this year, and Reynolds has been marginally better over a very small sample size (131 pa for Reynolds, 140 pa for Napoli) against left-handed pitchers. So that's not an upgrade at all, and it's not worth replacing either Middlebrooks or Napoli with Reynolds.

After last night's gem, here are his last six starts: 6.1 ip, 7 h, 2 r, 2 er, 0 bb, 8 k 7.0 ip, 4 h, 0 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 8 k 4.1 ip, 11 h, 6 r, 6 er, 0 bb, 6 k 7.0 ip, 5 h, 3 r, 1 er, 2 bb, 4 k 6.1 ip, 6 h, 3 r, 2 er, 2 bb, 3 k 8.1 ip, 6 h, 0 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 3 k TOT: 39.1 ip, 37 h, 14 r, 11 er, 8 bb, 32 k, 2.52 era, 1.14 whip, 7.3 k/9 Of the six games, one was horrid, two were absolutely stellar, and three were very solid. I'd happily take this Jon Lester the rest of the way. What is your sense, talksox? Is this what we're getting for the remainder of 2013? Is the "real" Jon Lester back?

I don't understand why the appeal process takes so long. If MLB had sufficient evidence to nail him (and they appear to have just that), how long can the appeal process really take? And what, exactly, are his grounds for appeal?

Ok I'll do my best.

That works for me.

25-35 homers? Put the flask down, man. He should retain his speed pretty well into his 30's, and he should be a good fielder, but become a consistent 25-35 homer guy? That's lunacy.

Well that's the real problem. Everyone knows the dude was doing PEDs. There is just gobs of evidence for this. And yet he's allowed to play in the meanwhile? And possibly have a huge impact on the pennant race? It makes no sense.

On July 24, the Sox won that aforementioned game 11-10. Did it spark them? Well, here's what happened over the next 10 games: W vs. NY 9-6 W vs. Bal 12-5 (so far so good, right? big spark?) L vs. Bal 4-1 W vs. Min 8-2 (3-1 so far...sweet) L vs. Min 5-4 L vs. Min 4-3 (uh-oh....3-3) W vs. TB 6-3 W vs. TB 5-2 L vs. TB 5-4 L vs. Det 4-3 So they had a winning percentage, after that 11-10 game, of .546. Then, in the 10 games that followed that brawl, they went 5-5. In other words, they played to a WORSE winning percentage than they had played up to that point in the season. And they did it against teams that had the following final W-L records: NY: 101-61 Bal: 78-84 Min: 92-70 TB: 70-91 Det: 72-90 So just 4 of those 10 games were against teams with a winning record and they still went just 5-5. So did that fight spark the Red Sox? If so, it was a delayed spark. Conclusion: It is mythology.

The answer, without any sense of the contract parameters, is impossible to give. For a 4/60 contract? Obviously the answer is yes. For a 6/132 contract? Obviously the answer is no. Since neither of those is likely and the real contract is going to be something in-between, and because we have no idea what it will actually look like, we can't really answer the question. The closer it is to 4/60 I'd say there is a better shot at it; the closer it is to 6/132 I'd say there is a better shot against it. But where that number actually settles down to I have no idea. My gut tells me he's definitely gone. I think Boras will get him something like 6/120 and that's way too rich for my taste, especially given the potential of his in-house replacement, JBJ.

I agree. A National League contender that would only have to pay him $7-8 million would be happy with that. I think he would still be a pretty useful pitcher for someone. But I hope it's not for the Red Sox.

I always thought a great way to drill a guy would be this: he gets on base (single, walk, error). They you lob a throw over to first. He gets back. Then you snap a throw over. He dives back, and you drill him in the ribs as he's diving. It'll hurt more (that's part of the intent, right?), but nobody would see it as a beanball....it's just a bad throw. So there's plausible deniability. But oh man, you could create some pain that way, with the ribcage exposed as he dives. Probably harder hitting a moving target, and there's a good chance for an error, but theoretically you'd only likely do it in a situation where the game isn't in the balance anyway.

Well I certainly wouldn't bet against what you say here. Makes a ton of sense.

A couple of flies in the ointment on that: (1) Drew, since July 31, is actually hitting quite well: .319/.395/.464/.859, 2 hr, 11 rbi. Yes, his last 6 games have been a struggle, but not his last 18. (2) Drew's season splits vs. RHP are pretty solid: .272/.367/.461/.827. And the 3 SP for San Fran will all be righties. So sitting him here seems to make the least tactical sense. That said, I still want to see Bogaerts....

I know. I was being sarcastic because of this post here: Which was a response to our discussion prior to the trade deadline where we discussed the rumors of the Sox trading for Cliff Lee. I was making a joke because obviously the Sox aren't going to trade for him now.

Yes......

I agree with you. Trading for Cliff Lee before the trade deadline this season is definitely not going to happen.

It might be. But the Dodgers have to cool off at some point. They aren't the greatest team of all time, and we've seen lesser teams beat the Red Sox 2 of 3, so it's entirely possible the Sox win that series. Here are the pitching match ups for the Dodgers series: G1: Lackey vs. Nolasco G2: Dempster vs. Ryu G3: Lester vs. Capuano I am fine with those match ups. I think we have advantages in two of them. But who knows....

Small sample size and all, but here is Middlebrooks' line since returning to the Red Sox on August 10: 8 g, 31 pa, 26 ab, 4 r, 12 h, 3 2b, 1 hr, 4 rbi, 4 bb, 6 k, .462/.548/.692/1.241 Clearly that's not sustainable. But his approach looks better and he's hitting some rockets. He has a hit in every game since being recalled. Boy it would be huge if he could be a threat offensively the rest of the way, unlike what the Sox have had basically all year long at the position.

Bump due to the Bogaerts addition.

So pumped. My new binkie has arrived!!!!

A playoff roster should have just 10 pitchers on it, IMO. You're only going to use 4 starters at most, and that leaves 6 bullpen guys, which should be plenty for a short series. You can change the roster, I believe, in between each series, so if you burn a reliever you can replace him before the next round. That leaves lots of position players available - 25. So right now, here's how I would construct the playoff roster (with a huge qualifier that I expect these guys to be healthy at the time): C - Salty 1b - Napoli 2b - Pedroia 3b - Middlebrooks SS - Drew LF - Gomes CF - Ellsbury RF - Victorino DH - Ortiz Bench - Lavarnway (RH power off the bench), Ross (late-inning defensive catcher), Bogaerts (RH power), Holt (can play multiple IF positions), Nava (OF, switch hitter), Bradley (excellent OF defense, can get on base, good speed) SP - Buchholz, Peavy, Lackey, Lester RP - Doubront (long relief, can start if one of the other four guys isn't right), Uehara (closer), Tazawa (setup), Breslow (lefty), Workman (good in short or long stints), Miller (if healthy; if not, then Thornton) If you wanted 11 pitchers (to give you an extra relief arm), I'd bump Lavarnway and add a RP, but I'm not sure who it would be. Maybe if Miller is healthy add Thornton as well, but that would give them four lefties. Maybe Dempster, who does have significant relief experience (was a closer at one point). As a postscript, I really, really wish that Daniel Bard was the old, 2010 Bard. Alas........ EDIT: I forgot about Carp, who gives them excellent LH power. Hmmm....where to put him? Maybe get rid of Holt and hope that Bogaerts is all you need for an extra IF?

I got it from itunes...only costs a few bucks. Well worth the price!

6-innings vs. Cleveland. ;-) And yes, I actually have that 17 k Pedro gem saved on my iPad and I watch it from time to time. He had the full arsenal going that night - high 90's fastball, nasty curve that buckled batters' knees, and the deadly change that just flopped away from lefties. Utterly dominant that day against the eventual WS Champs - so he wasn't doing it against some crummy team.

And the guy who hits a medium depth fly ball that scores a runner from 3rd is trying to hit a medium depth fly ball for an out instead of getting a hit? Nobody, BTW, is arguing against you on the whole, it's better to not trade the out thing. My beef here is with the inconsistency in the rules of scoring that credit a sac fly but not a ground out that scores the same runner.

Well grounding to the right side of the IF when you have a runner on 2nd and nobody out is something that players sometimes try to do. So it's a productive out but they don't get credit for a "sacrifice". So I don't understand why the scoring rules are the way they are with some of these things.