Orange Juiced

No problem. I don't think I made that clear. I just want as many people to be able to participate as possible. If the spots aren't filled in a day, go ahead and submit another one.

You only get to pick one for now so others can fill in. Which of these three do you want to go with?

Ok, good idea. Is there a time frame that limits me to editing though? Usually you can only edit a post for a couple of hours after you post it, but I don't know how it works here. I'll give it a go.

Ok so we have two roster spots filled in. Starters: C 1b 2b 3b SS LF - Ted Williams, 1941, .406/.553/.735/1.287, 235 OPS+, 37 hr, 120 rbi CF RF Subs: C CIF MIF OF OF U SP - Pedro Martinez, 2000, 18-6, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 284 k, 0.74 whip, 11.8 k/9 SP SP SP SP RP RP RP RP RP RP Manager

Ok here's the game, probably one that's been played here before. But take the best season for individual Red Sox players at each position - so the best season by a Sox' catcher, first baseman, second baseman, etc. And each player can only be used once. So you can't use a season for Yaz at LF and then again at 1b, or two Roger Clemens' seasons, etc. Here are the positions. I'm editing this as people plug in their choices. Starters: C - Carlton Fisk, 1977, .315/.402/.521/.922, 138 ops+, 26 hr, 102 rbi 1b - Jimmie Foxx, 1938, .349/.462/.704/1.166, 182 ops+, 50 hr, 175 rbi 2b - Bobby Doerr, 1944, .325/.399/.528/.927, 165 ops+, 15 hr, 81 rbi 3b - Wade Boggs, 1987, .363/.461/.588/1.049, 174 ops+, 24 hr, 89 rbi SS - Nomar Garciaparra, 1999, .357/.418/.603/1.022, 153 ops+, 27 hr, 104 rbi, 14 sb LF - Ted Williams, 1941, .406/.553/.735/1.287, 235 ops+, 37 hr, 120 rbi CF - Tris Speaker, 1912, .383/.464/.567/1.031, 188 ops+, 10 hr, 90 rbi, 52 sb RF - Dwight Evans, 1984, .295/.388/.532/.920, 147 ops+, 32 hr, 104 rbi, 121 r Subs: C CIF MIF - Rico Petrocelli, 1969, .297/.403/.589/.992, 168 ops+, 40 hr, 97 rbi OF - Carl Yastrzemski, 1967, .326/.418/.622/1.040, 193 ops+, 44 hr, 121 rbi, 10 sb OF - Babe Ruth, 1919, .322/.456/.657/1.114, 217 ops+, 29 hr, 114 rbi U - David Ortiz, 2006, .287/.413/.636/1.049, 161 ops+, 54 hr, 137 rbi SP - Pedro Martinez, 2000, 18-6, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 284 k, 0.74 whip, 11.8 k/9 SP - Roger Clemens, 1986, 24-4, 2.48 era, 169 era+, 238 k, 0.96 whip, 8.4 k/9 SP - Smoky Joe Wood, 1912, 34-5, 1.91 era, 179 era+, 258 k, 1.02 whip, 6.8 k/9 SP - Cy Young, 1901, 33-10, 1.62 era, 219 era+, 158 k, 0.97 whip, 3.8 k/9 SP RP - Dick Radatz, 1964, 16-9, 2.29 era, 170 era+, 181 k, 1.03 whip, 10.4 k/9 RP - Jonathan Papelbon, 2006, 4-2, 0.92 era, 517 era+, 75 k, 0.78 whip, 9.9 k/9, 35 sv RP - Keith Foulke, 2004, 5-3, 2.17 era, 223 era+, 79 k, 0.94 whip, 8.6 k/9, 32 sv RP - Derek Lowe, 2000, 4-4, 2.56 era, 199 era+, 82 k, 1.23 whip, 7.8 k/9, 42 sv RP RP Manager - Terry Francona, 2004 - 98-64, won the World Series Since I came up with the thread, I get to fill the first slot. I'll go with my favorite all-time Red Sox player, Pedro Martinez, from the year 2000. Lots of incredible seasons to choose from, but it came down to 2000 and 1999 for me. Pretty equivalent seasons. 1999 featured more K's and a better W/L record, but 2000 had a better era, era+, and an unfathomably great whip. So 2000 it is. PS - There's no DH, but you can have Ortiz be the CIF or U spot if you want.

Let's say Pedroia is finished by age 37, and accumulates the following career numbers: 1200 r, 2400 h, 150 hr, 900 rbi, 200 sb, .300/.360/.450/.810, 115 ops+ With, say, two WS titles, one WS MVP, one regular season MVP, a ROY award, and 6 all-star appearances. Is that enough to be voted into the HOF?

Interesting article by Tom Verducci here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130604/dustin-ackley-eric-wedge-sabermetrics/?sct=hp_t11_a6&eref=sihp Worth a read. I'd love people's thoughts on this.

Tidbit on Cliff Lee from rotoworld (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/3565/cliff-lee): "FOX Sports' Jon Paul Morosi reports that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rangers are among the 20 teams on Cliff Lee's no-trade list. Lee reset the list of clubs before this season and most of them are projected as trade deadline "buyers." Of course, that a team is on the no-trade list doesn't rule out the possibility of a deal getting done, but it gives the southpaw more leverage. With the Phillies under .500, he should be a hot topic leading up to the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline. Lee is owed $25 million over the next two seasons while his contract includes a $27.5 million club option or a $12.5 million buyout. The option becomes guaranteed if Lee is not on the disabled list at end of 2015 season with injury to left elbow or left shoulder and has 200 innings in 2015 or 400 innings combined between 2014-15." No-trade lists don't really mean the player won't be traded there. It's usually just a ploy to get more from the team trading for them. So Lee would almost certainly go to Boston, but it'll cost the Sox even more in order to get Lee to agree to it.

Lester: 1st 9 games: 59.2 ip, 6-0, 2.72 era, .576 ops, 1.00 whip, 7.5 k/9 last 3 games: 19.1 ip, 0-2, 6.05 era, .808 ops, 1.60 whip, 7.0 k/9 So yeah, a little slide for sure. I think he'll right the ship and be just fine.

Who were the key players in the Red Sox' 2004 championship? - Pedro Martinez - acquired by trading away prospects - Curt Schilling - acquired by trading away prospects - Keith Foulke - free agent signing - David Ortiz - acquired by trade - Manny Ramirez - free agent signing - Jason Varitek - acquired by trade - Bill Mueller - free agent signing Etc. In other words, they didn't exactly develop that team from "within". They used many of their prospects to acquire top talent like Pedro and Schilling. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Just have to use your resources wisely. They traded away Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez and got back Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell...two guys without whom they wouldn't have won the 2007 World Series. Would we want those two guys back now? Absolutely. But they got a ring out of it. I'm not saying empty the farm. I love seeing prospects come up through the system and do well with the Sox. But I also know they are a valuable commodity that can be used to acquire other pieces that can help even more. Cliff Lee's contract and age are concerns, but there's zero question that he is one of the finest pitchers in all of baseball, and right now, he'd help this team immensely.

I would agree that "mortgaging the future" would be a bad idea. However, if their farm system truly is top 5, then they have a LOT of assets available, so they should be able to make this kind of a trade *without* mortgaging the future.

I'm intrigued with the Cliff Lee talk. In the last 6 seasons, all he's done is this: 77-44 2.85 era 144 era+ 1.09 whip 7.9 k/9 Dude has been ridiculously good. Contract is very steep, though, and that could be a problem. But the Sox would have him under control through 2016 for just over $100 million the rest of the way. I don't know whether it would be good or bad to have him under control at that cost for that length of time. But wow, if he could give you a few more years at the level he's given the past few, he would give the Sox just an unbelievably good rotation: Lee, Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, and Lackey. That's tremendous, and the top 3 would be excellent for the post season. I don't love the idea of giving up Webster, but Cliff Lee is a guy you'd want to go get if you had a serious chance at the title. Which they probably would with him on the team.

To your point, here are his career numbers by spot in the lineup: 1st - 354 pa, .253/.318/.375/.693 2nd - 2768 pa, .305/.374/.463/.837 3rd - 529 pa, .315/.380/.463/.843 4th - 139 pa, .397/.442/.675/1.117 5th - 4 pa, .250/.250/.500/.750 6th - 0 pa (amazing!) 7th - 8 pa, .143/.250/.143/.393 8th - 44 pa, .237/.326/.316/.641 9th - 153 pa, .304/.382/.430/.811 Too few PAs to judge his long-term effectiveness in the 4-hole, so from this it looks like 2nd or 3rd is clearly the ideal spot for him in the lineup.

Maybe not. But when we start evaluating what may be going wrong with a team, it can be helpful to look at numbers like this. In the hypotheticals I gave, in one scenario the offense stayed pretty steady but the pitching/defense went south, and vice-versa in the other. Those were obvious scenarios meant to illustrate the point, that sometimes numbers can really help show you where the problem lies. This season, though, it's not just one thing. When the team has gone bad, it's gone bad all over. The starting pitching has been bad during this streak, and the hitting has struggled, and even defensively they've made errors they weren't making early in the year. So I know this thread is about the lineup and that's fine - there are real problems there. But it's everything right now pretty much outside of Lester, Buchholz, Pedey, and Papi.

Hypothetical Scenario A: In Sox' wins: - Sox score 4.5 runs per game - Sox allow 3.7 runs per game In Sox' losses: - Sox score 4.3 runs per game - Sox allow 7.5 runs per game Just from this simple data, what inference would you draw regarding the general cause of the Sox' losses? Hypothetical Scenario B: In Sox' wins: - Sox score 6.5 runs per game - Sox allow 4.2 runs per game In Sox' losses: - Sox score 2.1 runs per game - Sox allow 4.4 runs per game Just from this simple data, what inference would you draw regarding the general cause of the Sox' losses?

Lots going wrong for the Sox right now. Injuries, offense, pitching, you name it. Total Runs Per Game: - Sox: 4.64 - Opp: 4.13 - Net: +0.51 Total Runs Per Game in Sox' Wins: - Sox: 6.23 - Opp: 2.41 - Net: +3.82 Total Runs Per Game in Sox' Losses: - Sox: 2.59 - Opp: 6.35 - Net: -3.76 So their losses are almost an identical flip of their wins. The very things that helped them win are letting them down in their losses.

Hanrahan had TWO good years as a closer, 2011 and 2012. Rafael Soriano, who you cite as a "proven closer" ™, had two and a half good years as a closer. I'm hoping you're not suggesting that that extra half year makes your case for you. And as I've already explained, Nathan came with serious risks. That he's worked out doesn't change the fact that, at the time, they were still major risks.

This is exactly right. Hanrahan was a "proven" closer. Bailey was a "proven" closer. There was no more reason, really, to think that a 37-year old Joe Nathan, who missed major time in two straight seasons and who posted the worst numbers in his career, was any better of a bet than Bailey or Hanrahan. None.

Well it turned out to be a good gamble. But it was an expensive and risky move nonetheless. Remember, Nathan didn't just have to "adjust" after TJ surgery... He missed a month in the middle of 2011 due to injury. So that made two years in a row that he missed significant time from injury. At his age (37) that made him a big, big risk. Sometimes gambles pay off. Other times (Bailey, Hanrahan), they don't. It happens.

I thought you were referring to Soriano after he was TB's closer. My bad. I think he would have been a good get, but the reason he opted out of his Yankee contract was because he was expecting HUGE dollars. The Sox weren't going to go there, that's for sure. As for Nathan, I'll just repost what I said a little while ago here (http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/17323-hanrahans-injury-6.html#post838818): Nathan would have been a massive risk. He missed the entire 2010 season with an injury. He missed over a month in 2011 with an injury and compiled an era of 4.84 and the worst k/9 number (8.7) of his career. He signed for $7 million a year in the offseason between 2011 and 2012. Please tell me you weren't advocating that the Sox sign a 37-year old pitcher coming off two major injuries and a season where he put up the worst numbers of his career to a $7 million a year contract to be the team's closer in 2012-13.

Again, Nathan was a massive risk at the time. Soriano would have been, in all likelihood, a good signing. But he got, what, $10 million from the Yankees? If 700 is right, the Sox simply didn't have the money to sign Papelbon, so they probably couldn't have afforded Soriano either. So neither of those guys were realistic options.

Oh ok. So they couldn't have signed him. Well then, maybe that's why they didn't TRY to sign him. He certainly is earning his money. Dude has been great his whole career. Top-shelf closer by any measure. But oh well. We're crying over spilled milk here. Just see what can be done *now* to fix the problem. Looks like Hanrahan isn't the solution. Maybe (MAYBE!) a healthy Bailey is. I think Tazawa could be the answer, but as you pointed out, the proof is in the pudding.

Good points. So ok, though, I'm curious. How much would you have been willing to sign Paps for?

Nathan would have been a massive risk. He missed the entire 2010 season with an injury. He missed over a month in 2011 with an injury and compiled an era of 4.84 and the worst k/9 number (8.7) of his career. He signed for $7 million a year in the offseason between 2011 and 2012. Please tell me you weren't advocating that the Sox sign a 37-year old pitcher coming off two major injuries and a season where he put up the worst numbers of his career to a $7 million a year contract to be the team's closer in 2012-13.

As far as I recall (I grant that my memory could be faulty here), Papelbon didn't even give the Sox a chance to match Philly's offer. It seemed like he wanted out pretty bad. But whatever, what's done is done. Paps is long gone and he's not coming back here (I don't think anyway). The starting pitching imploded in September of 2011, the entire team basically sucked in 2012, and we have what we have. There is a very nice potential solution for this in-house in Tazawa. Hopefully Bailey comes back soon and is healthy the rest of the way, but I have confidence in Tazawa to get the job done.