Orange Juiced

Here's what I hope will happen (and I'm trying to be somewhat realistic here): 1. Trade Salty - he has never had higher value because he can hit homers, but he will be due for a big raise soon and I don't think he's a good defensive catcher or game-caller. Whatever his issues are behind the plate, consistently over his career pitchers have had worse stats with him than with other catchers. There's a reason for that (though I don't know exactly what it is). May as well keep Shoppach around to be the backup...he's solid in that role. 2. Try to re-sign Ross to a 2-year deal (probably would cost the Sox around $10 mil per year). He's a really nice RH bat, perfect fit for this team. 3. Honestly, I'd stick with Beckett one more year. He's had a pretty established pattern of every-other-year good/bad, and next year he is scheduled for his "good" year. Plus, trading him now is at the nadir of his value. So I'd run with him to start next year and then trade him after next year. 4. Promote Morales to the rotation full-time. He's proven he can be pretty good there. And keep Doubront...cost-controlled LHP that has some ability. He's young, with some upside. Perfect 5th starter kind of guy. 5. Decide whether Iglesias is your future MLB shortstop or not. He'll almost certainly never be even an average MLB hitter (even for a SS), but he's ridiculously great with the glove. Can you live with a black hole in the lineup because of his defensive talents? If you can, then just go ahead and promote him. Enough with the Scutaros and the Aviles' of the world. Bring the kid up. But if you decide you can't, then trade him and make space for Bogaerts in 2014. Personally, I want Bogaerts to be the SS so I'd move Iglesias and let Ciriaco play SS for one year. He's also very good defensively (though not as good as Iglesias) and his minor league stats are far superior to Iglesias'. So we know he's a better hitter. 6. Decide what to do with Ellsbury. If you want to sign him to a mega, Boras deal, then fine. If you aren't going to do that, what to do with him then? Keep him for 2013 and then let him go as a FA? Or just trade him now? It's not an easy call and I can see arguments for all three options. Personally, I try to move him. I think he still has a ton of value and you can get an awful lot for him. Trade him and let Kalish play CF regularly until the arrival of Jackie Bradley Jr in 2014. If you get a good pitcher then it may impact what the lineup below looks like, but probably you're talking about serious prospects instead. 7. Re-sign Papi to a 2-year, $30 million deal. At some point the wheels are just going to fall off Ortiz and it may happen in the blink of an eye so there's a real risk here. But geez, the guy is just still so good...worth the risk, IMO. So here's what I'm looking at: C - Lavarnway 1b - Gonzalez 2b - Pedroia 3b - Middlebrooks SS - Ciriaco LF - Crawford CF - Kalish RF - Ross DH - Ortiz Bench - Shoppach, Nava, other dudes Rotation - Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Doubront, Morales Bullpen - Miller, Hill, Bard, Bailey, Aceves, Melancon, Breslow Primary Lineup LF Crawford 2b Pedroia 1b Gonzalez 3b Middlebrooks DH Ortiz RF Ross C Lavarnway CF Kalish SS Ciriaco And then 2014 hopefully you have Bradley, Brentz, and maybe Barnes ready to come up.

There is no chance that we know more about the players than Red Sox management does. We might make a somewhat accurate prediction from time to time, but unless we know a certain player personally, there's no way we have more knowledge than the Red Sox do. For example, who really *knew* that Jon Lester would have a 6-10 record with a 5.20 era at this point in the season? Who *knew* that Jacoby Ellsbury would miss half the season with an injury caused by a shortstop landing on his shoulder as he tried to break up a double play? Who *knew* that Dustin Pedroia would put up a sub-100 ops+? I'm pretty sure that no Red Sox fan that exists would have even guessed at those three things happening, never mind "knew".

Not if you're objective it isn't. Why? Because luck is a part of the game...everybody knows that. The 2001 Patriots had a TON of luck on their side. The tuck play, beating the Steelers with two special teams TDs (one on a blocked FG...how often does *that* happen?). Yes, the Giants played well, obviously. But pretty much everything went right for them in both Super Bowls (about the only thing that didn't was Eli's interception in SB 42, which was a deflected pass). And that's ok...that's why they play the games, and it's one reason (among many) that the favorite doesn't always win. It's not an "entitled" perspective I have. I recognize that the Pats got very lucky on several key plays during their 3 Super Bowl seasons. It's really okay for a Giants fan to admit the same. Really. It is. EDIT: And as a PS, it doesn't dull the pain at all. It makes it worse. I'd rather have had the Giants simply be the better team, plain and simple. You get beat you get beat.

Pretty much. But the Giants were the definition of lucky (and good...I'm not forgetting that). Consider this: During the Giants' playoff run, there were 10 fumbles (not counting the one nullified by the Pats' penalty). 3 Giant fumbles and 7 opponent fumbles. Creating fumbles is a skill; recovering them, as statisticians will tell you, is essentially a 50/50 proposition. You can be in perfect position to recover it but, because of the shape of the ball, it could bounce totally away from you. So getting a fumble is mostly luck. Anyway, of these 10 fumbles, the Giants recovered *8* of them. All of the fumbles in the Super Bowl were recovered by the Giants. Any one of them goes the other way and it's almost certainly the ballgame. In the two Super Bowls between the two teams, there were 5 fumbles (4 by the Giants, 1 by the Patriots), and *ALL FIVE* were recovered by the Giants. In the last 3 games between the two teams, there have been 9 fumbles (6 by NY, 3 by NE), and *8* of the 9 were recovered by the Giants. Again, forcing fumbles is a skill (and NE forced more Giant fumbles than NY forced Patriot fumbles). Recovering them is mostly luck, and those numbers I just cited are so far out of whack with what is statistically normal it boggles the mind. Let's look more closely at the 2011 season. First, regular season #'s: Giants - NY fumbles: 21 (1.3 per game) - NY recoveries of NY fumbles: 13 (61.9%) - Opp recoveries of NY fumbles: 8 (38.1%) - Opp fumbles: 28 (1.8 per game) - NY recoveries of Opp fumbles: 16 (57.1%) - Opp recoveries of Opp fumbles: 12 (42.9%) Yet look at the Giants during the playoffs: Giants - NY fumbles: 3 (0.8 per game) - NY recoveries of NY fumbles: 3 (100.0%) - Opp recoveries of NY fumbles: 0 (0.0%) - Opp fumbles: 7 (1.8 per game) - NY recoveries of Opp fumbles: 5 (71.4%) - Opp recoveries of Opp fumbles: 2 (28.6%) So here's what the data tells us: (1) The Giants did a better job protecting the ball during the playoffs than they did during the regular season. Credit to them, that's nice work. (2) The Giants did not cause fumbles at any higher rate during the playoffs than they did during the regular season. (3) The Giants recovered fumbles - both their own and their opponents' - at a MUCH higher rate during the playoffs than they did during the regular season (59% recovery rate during the season vs. 80% recovery rate during the playoffs). That isn't skill. That's luck. It's just the way the ball bounces. Here's one example. In the SB, the Pats were leading 17-12, and the Giants had the ball. On 2nd and 9 from the NE 47, Eli hits Nicks for a 17-yard gain down to the Pats 30, obviously a nice gain. But Nicks is stripped of the ball. There are *SIX* Patriots around him, and not a single Giant player within 5-7 yards. Not even in the picture. And yet, where does the ball just happen to bounce? Right between two Patriots into the hands of a Giant player trailing the play. Here's a picture: http://thesportsswami.blogspot.com/2012/03/nicks-fumble.html (not sure why that picture may not be showing up...if it doesn't, click here: http://thesportsswami.blogspot.com/2012/03/nicks-fumble.html) I mean, you can't make this up. The Pats' D causes a crucial fumble, but the ball goes *directly* to the one Giant that happens to be semi-near the play, instead of bouncing towards any one of the *six* Patriot players that are swarming around the ball. That ended up being a huge play in the game b/c the Giants kicked a field goal on that drive and it gave them big momentum and made it so that a field goal wins it (which came into play on that last drive the Giants had). So yes, hats off to the Giants for playing well. They had a tremendous run through the playoffs. But holy cow they had a gigantic horseshoe up their collective butts. EDIT: But we should probably either end this or move it to a different forum...what this has to do with the miserable Red Sox I don't really know)

Yes, it definitely is whining, absolutely. In every close game you can point to a few key plays. But be honest....the Tyree thing was absurd...preposterous...once-in-a-lifetime (not for the player, but for us fans...we'll never see anything like that again in our lives) event. And I already said the key play in the regular season game was the Ballard catch in-between two Pats' defenders, an over-the-shoulder play down the seam. As he made the catch I think it was Aikman who said, "That was the greatest catch of his life." Yep....against the Pats....figures. If the teams were reversed, given the golden horseshoe the Giants had, the Giants would have somehow come up with that hail mary at the end of this past SB. (hey, isn't it nice to talk about something else besides the dreadful Red Sox?)

Well, so far through this huge 14-game stretch, here's how the Sox have fared (the faint-at-heart may want to avert their eyes): 4 vs. Min - 1-3 3 vs. Tex - 1-2 4 at Cle - 1-2 (so far) That's 3-7, folks. Against one really good team (Texas), and two teams currently sitting in the bottom 4 in the American League. So much for my 10-4 prediction. And now Middlebrooks is out. Papi doesn't look like he's returning anytime soon. Morales may be hitting a wall. The bullpen is not performing as well as it was earlier in the year. Good grief.......

Heh. The Giants do seem to have the Pats' number, but geez... - SB 42: the most miraculous catch of all time by Tyree - regular season, 2011: an amazing catch by Ballard on the game-winning drive - SB 46: an incredible play by Manningham/Eli on the last drive, and Gronk is *thisclose* to catching the Hail Mary (watch the replay...dude on a broken ankle came within a half-yard of catching that ball) So yes, they have the Pats' number, but man, three plays is all we're talking about here. Still, credit to the Giants - and I mean that sincerely. Very tough team.

This Red Sox team is the least likable and most underperforming that I can ever remember. And I've been following them since 1975. It's not the worst team (the '92 team won only 73 games, for example, but that team had an up-and-coming Mo Vaughn and a still-great Roger Clemens - who was fun to root for at that point in time). I do have to admit that during spring training I had the least amount of interest and excitement of any Red Sox team I've ever followed. And, unfortunately, that sense of foreboding has come to fruition. What a colossal cluster**** this season has been, in almost every conceivable way.

You have nearly 35 *thousand* posts in this forum. It doesn't appear that you have much else to do.

So let me get this straight. You'd rather put a 39-year old pitcher who in his last 12 games put up an 8.80 era and 1.96 whip, and who was cut by a crappy team because he sucks so badly directly into the Red Sox' starting rotation, instead of trying to sign him to Pawtucket to see if they can straighten him out first? Holy crap.

jung, if it's common for teams to pass almost their whole roster through waivers, then putting Crawford on doesn't give any information away at all. It is what every team in baseball expects the Red Sox to do.

See the bolded line from: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/red-sox-trade-targets-remain-deadline-fan-141100007--mlb.html: "The Boston Red Sox could still be in the market to make trades, even though the Major League Baseball trade deadline passed on July 31. The team's recent hot streak, especially when paired with the struggles of the American League East Division leaders, the New York Yankees, might make it more likely that the Red Sox look for deals. Players can be traded at any time. But after July 31, they must first pass through waivers. It is common for teams to pass almost the entire roster through waivers in the early days of August. If another team makes a claim, the Red Sox could choose to pull the player back and keep them for the rest of the season, try to work out a trade with the claiming team, or just let the player go to whoever claimed them."

They'll almost certainly add a bunch more guys to the list. Maybe not Pedroia, who they have NO intention of moving whatsoever, but I wouldn't be shocked if they put Gonzalez on waivers. Again, pretty standard stuff....nothing to see here.

I know I'm the newbie in this forum and you have posted a lot, but I have to ask the question: how long have you followed baseball? After the trade deadline, every team essentially puts every player they have on waivers. If someone they actually want to keep gets claimed, they simply pull him back and keep him. If someone they want to drop gets claimed, sweet, they're off the hook for what's left on his contract. If someone they want to trade gets claimed, then they can pull him back and have a certain window of time to work out a trade, but at least you know you have a semi-interested party on the other end of the line. This is not news at all. All it tells us about the Red Sox' management is that they are doing the responsible thing putting their players on waivers, just like every other team will do. Keep in mind that the trade deadline is really just the "non-waiver" deadline. That is, you can still trade guys post-July 31, but those players had to have cleared waivers first (or been claimed by the team you're trying to trade with). So if any team wants the flexibility to make *ANY* trade from this point on, they have to have sent their players through waivers. Again, standard operating procedure...everybody does it. Robinson Cano will almost certainly be put on waivers. Josh Hamilton will be put on waivers. Roy Halladay will be put on waivers.

Derek Lowe's last 12 games: 60.1 ip, 91 h, 59 er, 27 bb, 26 k, 8.80 era, 1.96 whip, .351 baa Aaron Cook's 8 game line: 44.2 ip, 50 h, 26 er, 4 bb, 4 k, 5.24 era, 1.21 whip, .279 baa So yes, he could be MUCH, MUCH worse than Cook. In fact, he has been. I'm bummed about it, b/c I'd like to see him here if he would help the team, but the fact of the matter is that there is a significantly greater chance that he would be worse than Cook than that he would be an improvement. What I *would* do, however, is contact him and see if he'd do a minor league contract. Stash him in Pawtucket. Maybe there he gets things ironed out and he can help the team down the stretch. If so, great, he becomes a nice, cheap addition. If he can't, and if the Sox are for sure out of it, bring him up in late September for one last start so that the fans can give him a proper send off as one of the 25.

Let's go back to Mortensen-Scutaro for a minute because you truly are baffling me here. If you're suggesting that Mortensen simply isn't a good pitcher, fine, whatever. His last two seasons he's been a really good pitcher when he's pitched in the major leagues. His statistics are a record of WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY DONE, not what his sub-90's fastball suggests he *should* do or *should* have done. If he went up there throwing shot puts but recorded 80+ innings of 3.10 era ball, all that means is that he has put up 80 innings of 3.10 ball The fact of the matter is, whether he ever amounts to anything more than a last-guy-in-a-major-league-bullpen kind of guy or not, what he's given the Red Sox this season is 23 innings of 1.17 era, 379 era+, 0.87 whip baseball. That's what he has ACTUALLY done on the field while playing at the major league level for the Boston Red Sox. That actual performance has been more valuable in the major leagues this year than what Marco Scutaro has ACTUALLY given his team this season, by a sizeable margin in fact. So if you're going to evaluate the trade on actual results instead of what you think *should* be the results, you have to say that at this point in time, the trade is a win for Boston. Just like if you're going to evaluate Reddick - Bailey on what has actually happened on the field this season, obviously you give the win to Reddick. But if you go based on how good a player each guy is, Bailey has been by FAR a better player than Reddick up to the start of this season. By a MILE. In Reddick's three seasons (albeit in limited playing time) leading up to 2012 he contributed +1.4 wins above replacement. In Bailey's three seasons leading up to 2012 he contributed +6.2 wins above replacement. Bailey was one of the best relief pitchers in baseball for three years running....Reddick was a minor leaguer who never hit more than 7 homers in a major league season up to that point. Not saying that Reddick didn't have talent, but if you go by what they had done in the majors up to that point, it's a no-brainer - Bailey destroyed Reddick. But - and here is my point, obviously - if you go by their actual performance on the field since the trade, of course he's outperformed Bailey, who hasn't even played an inning yet for the Red Sox. So are you going to be consistent? Are you going to hold each trade to the same standard and apply the same rubric for your evaluation? I didn't think a whole lot of Mortensen before the trade but the fact of the matter is, the dude has pitched extremely well for the Red Sox when given the chance. I don't care if he's done it with spitballs, gyroballs, sub-60 mph "fast"balls, whatever. He's been tremendous. He's been better than Scutaro has, period. No amount of mental gymnastics can demonstrate otherwise.

What hurts isn't losing Lowrie; it's having Punto here instead. Lowrie had never played in more than 88 games b/c of injuries. This year he has 80, surprisingly, but now he's hurt (not surprisingly). He's having a career year but don't forget, he was coming off an age-27 season where he put up a line of .252/.303/.382/.685 with an ops+ of just 85. Not exactly the next Ernie Banks. Meanwhile, as our replacement SS, Ciriaco has more than filled in adequately for Lowrie. .342/.351/.438/.790, with an ops+ of 109. The fact that Nick Punto was signed to a 2-year contract is just unbelievable. He really should probably not even be on the team. He is good defensively, but geez......

Trade Evaluator Scutaro for Mortensen: Win for the Red Sox, despite your protestations. Mortensen has been better this year than Scutaro, even if you think Mortensen in general is a big turd. Lowrie/Weiland for Melancon: Loss for the Red Sox. No other way to put it, even if Lowrie has really struggled and is now injured. Melancon has just been pretty bad. Youkilis for Lillibridge/Stewart: Loss for the Red Sox statistically. But it did appear that they needed to move Youks, and this was apparently the best offer they could get under those circumstances. Youks is slumping and is banged up again, so let's wait a while before evaluating this one for sure because they got a pretty decent pitching prospect back in Stewart, and it'll take time to see if that was a good move. Reddick for Bailey/Sweeney: Right now, a pretty big loss for the Red Sox, since Sweeney isn't very good and Bailey has been injured all year. Reddick's serious slump notwithstanding, he's had a really good year for Oakland. But if Bailey returns for the stretch run and provides them with a fresh, dominant bullpen arm, that could be huge. Breslow for Albers: Win for the Red Sox. Breslow is better and provides the Sox with more flexibility in the bullpen. Adding another lefty allows them to easily slide Morales into the rotation, which is an improvement there over Cook as well. So as of now, I see two wins and three losses for Cherington on his deals, but one of those losses is really a wait-and-see because there's a chance Stewart turns out to be pretty good.

Has anyone disagreed with you on this point? (please try not to take the "king" thing so seriously......goodness) Now, I think, after all is said and done, that we agree, if I understand your clarification right. This trade was a good one for the Red Sox, because they improved their pitching staff. It wasn't as big an improvement as they perhaps could have made (but who knows....), but nonetheless it was helpful. You may in fact have the last word, your highness.

2012 numbers Cook: 5.24 era, 84 era+, 1.21 whip, .787 ops against, .249 babip Lowe: 5.52 era, 70 era+, 1.69 whip, .819 ops against, .335 babip So, er, yes, Lowe could certainly be worse than Cook....who is terrible. When I first heard that Lowe had been DFA, I thought, definitely the Sox should grab him. Then I looked up his stats. The last 2 years he's been pretty awful. Sad to say, I don't think he'd be an upgrade over Cook. But hey, since he's one of the 25, I'd still prefer him over Cook....just not sure he'd be much help.