Orange Juiced

I still think the Sox haven't yet had a starter give up more than 3 runs. That's pretty amazing.

Not playing catcher should help Napoli immensely from an offensive standpoint, as he doesn't have to suffer the grueling effort it takes to catch day-in and day-out.

I understand everything you guys are saying about revenue, intensity, etc. I just find it weird that we use the label "market size" to describe that. It should be some other term. I mean, take Pittsburgh. The city (and its surrounding metropolitan area) is what it is. And yet look at how the team supports its baseball and football and hockey teams. Vastly different from sport to sport. It would be considered a major market in football (sellouts every game, huge national fan base, etc.), but a very small market for baseball. Why? Because the passion is there for football, but not for baseball. So some other term besides "big market" or "small market" should probably be used. But since it isn't likely to change, I guess I'll have to go along with you guys on this.

I guess if that's the term you want to apply to the level of intensity that respective fan bases have for their baseball teams, then fine. I come from a background of journalism, and when we talk about market size, we are talking about population. Number of people your message can reach. What it really means is that Boston - a relatively small city - has a *GREAT* baseball fan base.

LA is a much bigger market than Boston. Population of the two cities' metropolitan areas (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas): LA: 13.1 million Bos: 4.6 million (New England in its entirety has 14.4 million people in it, while according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area), LA has 18.1 million people in it....so different sources have the numbers a little different, but you get the point.) LA may be more laid-back and their fans less intense and their media less troublesome, and that may be what you mean by Boston being a bigger market, but LA is a vastly bigger market than Boston is. By, like, a lot.

The last few seasons, the Red Sox have gotten off to disastrous starts. 2009: 2-6 2010: 4-9 2011: 0-6 (and 2-10) 2012: 4-10 (and 12-19) This year, they're 9-4, in first place, with the 4th best run differential in the majors. Their starting pitching has been off the charts great, compiling a 6-2 record, 2.09 era, 10.6 k/9, and 1.15 whip. Their top two starters, Lester and Buchholz, have been insanely dominant. They haven't gotten a bad start yet this year. And except for one hiccup from Hanrahan (who should have been out of that inning but a bad non-call on a third strike kept it alive), the bullpen has been tremendous as well. The offense has gotten off to a slow start, so it's not like everything is clicking. But just as the pitching will regress to the mean, so should the hitting. The one real bonus - if you can think of it this way - is that the JBJ situation has worked out pretty much perfectly. He provided a very early spark and energy but as Papi has gotten close to returning, JBJ's performance has been such that there's no doubt that sending him down to the minors is the right move. So they got something useful out of him in Papi's absence, but they won't have to worry about, geez, should we send him down if he's hitting .285 with 4 homers. Sending him down is a no-brainer, so they should be able to get that extra year of control over him down the road in 2019. So even that has worked out pretty well. So all is good. Farrell seems to be doing a good job. This is a fun team to watch. The pitching has been lights-out, and the defense has been nearly flawless. After the past four seasons of awful starts, this is, shall we say, very refreshing.

I got ripped by some (well, really, one person in particular) in the offseason for saying some nice things about Clay Mortensen. I pointed out that, despite the fact that he can't really throw harder than about 87 mph, he's become a pretty effective pitcher on the major league level. After a rough start to his career, he's really become solid. 2009-10: 36.2 ip, 7.12 era, 1.72 whip, 4.9 k/9 2011-12: 100.1 ip, 3.59 era, 1.29 whip, 6.4 k/9 And now, this year: 2013: 7.2 ip, 2.35 era, 0.91 whip, 8.2 k/9 I'm not saying he's the next great American pitcher, but he's really useful and gives the Sox some real flexibility out of the pen.

Buchholz is a very talented pitcher who has the ability to be a Cy Young Award contender. He needs to demonstrate durability and consistency, and if he does, then yes, he'll rightly be considered an "ace". His ceiling is very much in the upper tier of MLB starters. Will he reach that ceiling? Only time will tell.

Kind of depressing, but here it is (yes, I know it's very early): Adrian Gonzalez: .396/.473/.604/1.077 Carl Crawford: .396/.442/.563/1.005 Kevin Youkilis: .333/.404/.571/.976 Nick Punto: .545/.615/.545/1.161 (just 11 ab, but still) Jed Lowrie: .385/.458/.673/1.131 Josh Beckett: 3.26 era, 1.09 whip, 7.9 k/9 And yet...... I'm happy because the Sox are 8-4 and in first place. Weird.

I just want to point out that, as of this moment, as I type, the 4-5-6-7-8-9 hitters in the Red Sox lineup have the following batting lines: Napoli: .208/.224/.396 Saltalamacchia: .241/.333/.448 Middlebrooks: .227/.255/.545 Drew: .071/.235/.071 Gomes: .167/.348/.222 Bradley: .103/.278/.138 That, my friends, is almost unfathomably bad. I know it's early and all, but still. Holy smokes.

I think there are more open dates in April because of potential rain outs.

If these four things happen the staff will be *significantly* improved. In other words, I really hope you're right about these things.

Geez, I check in after a few days and you guys have brought out the knives against each other. Over what?? (and no, I didn't read the whole thread to find out) Let's get to some baseball!

Home grown players out of today's starting 10: Ellsbury Pedroia Middlebrooks Bradley Jr. Iglesias Lester I really like that.

I know they'll be getting some guys back from injury as time goes on, but holy smokes, I never thought I'd see that crappy a lineup put out there by the Yankees. If that was Boston's lineup, we'd all be completely depressed. (that said, watch them put up 7 runs on Lester......)

Bingo. Personally, I'm very bullish on a lot of Red Sox' prospects, and I cannot wait until they are up with the big club. Middlebrooks last year, Bradley this year, and I hope the flow goes from a trickle to a stream throughout this and next seasons. (meaning, of course, that I hope they're ready and not just being pulled up because the Sox are dealing with a ridiculous number of injuries)

Well, I forgot to mention the payroll implications. From 2008-12, here's what the players cost each team: Lester: 18.5 million Jacoby: 11.8 million - - - - - Santana: 101.6 million And Santana will cost the Mets $25 mil a year for 2013 and 2014. Meanwhile, the Sox are on the hook for $9 million in 2013 for Ellsbury, and then $24.6 million in 2013-14 for Lester. Thus, the total $$ figures come to: Lester: 43.1 million Jacoby: 20.8 million TOT: 63.9 million - - - - - Santana: 151.6 million Holy smokes.

In the offseason after the 2007 season, the Sox and Twins were discussing Johan Santana for Jon Lester + Jacoby Ellsbury. That is, if I recall, what the Twins were looking for. At the time, Santana was easily one of the best pitchers in baseball, just 28 years old, lefty (well, he's still lefty, obviously), winner of 2 Cy Young Awards in the previous 4 seasons. Meanwhile, Lester and Ellsbury were just prospects, really, not having done much in the majors. Each had played for the 2007 WS winning team, but neither played very much during the course of the season. We all saw potential in those two guys, but it was just that - potential. Just focusing on Lester and Santana, here's what each guy did from 2008-12: TOTALS Lester: 161 g, 74-46 (.617), 1018.2 ip, 3.63 era, 123 era+, 1.27 whip, 8.4 k/9 Santana: 109 g, 46-34 (.575), 717.0 ip, 3.18 era, 127 era+, 1.20 whip, 7.6 k/9 AVERAGE SEASON Lester: 32 g, 15-9, 3.63 era, 204.0 ip, 123 era+, 1.27 whip, 8.4 k/9 Santana: 22 g, 9-7, 143.4 ip, 3.18 era, 127 era+, 1.20 whip, 7.6 k/9 And now Santana is out for the year, and who knows if he'll ever pitch again. Meanwhile, Lester enters his age 29 season, as the #1 starter for the Red Sox. I loved Santana and really wanted him to pitch for the Red Sox, but that turned out to be a great non-trade for them. Obviously adding in the fact that Ellsbury is a heck of a bonus, the non-trade was even better for Boston.

True, but it's no longer 2012, is it?

Hey Sean, great to have you around! I've been a Red Sox fan since the early-to-mid 70's, so I missed the amazing 1967 season. There are plenty of people here that are much older than me and have endured a lot more Red Sox heartache than I have. But I experienced enough, let me tell you! And when they finally won the World Series in 2004, it was amazing. My wife asked me after it was over, whether it was everything I thought and dreamed it would be. I took a deep breath, sighed, and said, yeah, it really is. Because it was. We Sox fans waited SO long for this...it was incredible. It was a lovable bunch of players (Pedro Martinez is my all-time favorite player) that did something amazing. I'll never, ever forget it. I can't believe it's been 9 years already though!

The Red Sox are rich in shortstop prospects. Iglesias, if his bat can be even close to mediocre, will be a true major league weapon given his superlative defense. Bogaerts, given his terrific bat, is a star in the making. But beyond those two, they also have Devin Marrero, Jose Vinicio, Brock Holt, and Tzu-Wei Lin. See this article for more information on their riches at the position: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/25620/soxprospects-stacked-up-the-middle

American League East: Tampa Bay Central: Detroit West: Los Angeles WC: Boston, New York National League East: Washington Central: St. Louis West: Los Angeles WC: Cincinnati, Atlanta

Nope. I think he has the potential to be a #2 though, but the problem is that the financial cost involved in him getting there probably is prohibitive. Though, consider Lester. He became a front-end starter at age 24. Porcello might be able to be that this year, yes, I think that's possible. But that's an expensive risk because if he doesn't get there, he's going to cost a lot. But I think the Sox should do some homework on him.

And that's the problem.

IMO, Porcello is exactly the kind of guy the Sox should be interested in. Pretty high ceiling, young, and, as jacksonianmarch pointed out, instead of learning his craft in the comfort of the minor leagues, he's had to do it in the majors. For comparison's sake, at ages 20-23, Jon Lester was in rookie ball, A ball, A+ ball, AA, AAA, and pitched a few games (27 total, at ages 22 and 23) in the majors. Porcello spent ages 20-23 in the majors. At age 24, Jon Lester got his first full-time shot in the bigs, pitching 33 games for the Red Sox. He went 16-6 with a 3.21 era. Porcello is 24 this season. I'm not saying he's going to be as good as Lester. No way to know that. But we can take his major league numbers so far and take them with a HUGE grain of salt, because he was learning against the very best when most pitchers are blowing away minor leaguers. Put Porcello in AA right now and he's putting up silly numbers, and we'd all be pumped about this can't-miss kid. The sticking point with Porcello is the cost. We bring up Webster and it costs them nearly nothing. Porcello won't be that cheap, and he'll get expensive much faster than a typical rookie callup.