sk7326

Football is an easier commitment. I remember on the old Sports Huddle (for the wayback machine) Mark Witkin comparing baseball to marriage and football to an affair - the best description of the two fandoms I can think of. I will say the Red Sox being bad seriously harms my ability to manage my rotoball team - because I have trouble digging into the other 29 teams when the Red Sox fall out.

Here is the funny thing - they were among the league's best in 2013 and 2014. And Bogaerts was the CLEAR weak link in the 2014 alignment. And that has improved signficantly. Really, their defensive uh-ness is driven by exactly two positions. Fixing it is not difficult.

The Royals starters are not good - but they have an excellent bullpen and their defense provides a lot of help. Interestingly, the same is true of the Giants largely. (Bumgarner the obvious exception) Both also are built for giant run-sucking ballparks. So the Red Sox formula should be more offense-centric, just plays to the natural assets. The bullpen is also interesting in that it points to - I noted this elsewhere - a measure of risk taking in acquisition that the Red Sox could benefit from. I do think on the pitching side, the Red Sox have a bit of the same quandry Beane and Ricciardi (in TOR) ran into - if you keep taking college guys because of lower risk, you are punting on the kids who are far more likely to become stars (and far more likely to go boom - if you are not drafting high, you have to live with that).

The team was 3rd in the majors defensively a year ago - the leakage this year is almost entirely to two players. Zobrist was one of the best players in the league - but he's 34, his defense fell off at least this year, and probably will get overpaid. It's not a terrible idea, but price needs to be right.

Or if you simply like it when our team outscores theirs - and the players are fun. I wish there was a banner behind it, but whatever at this point. Beats the 2012 tankapalooza.

Of course it is fair. I think a lot of it has to do with the draft. The draft is not a crapshoot - Price went #2, Kershaw went #7, Grienke went #6, Strasburg went #1, Beckett went #2. Hell, Andrew Miller went #2. Premium arms don't show up often and get gobbled up. The Red Sox have clearly tended towards lower risk strategies with earlier picks - position players up the middle (in other words, high caliber athletes) and college arms (who have a solid amount of probability). Prep arms are historically very risky, but alas it is also where you are going to find the star material. I think the risk aversion in the draft is fair game. Now it has allowed the Red Sox to have a remarkable stockpile of middle of the field talent - which is nearly as hard to amass as pitching. Cubs operated more or less the same way - their stockpile is in position talent ... I think just because of the shortage of arms. Their big coup was straightening out Jake Arrieta, along with landing a quality #2 like Lester clearly. What the Red Sox have done wrong with pitching imo has been not to be as aggressive converting starters at the farm level (which is really the best way to find bullpen talent). It was clear as day that Webster was really a potential bullpen weapon but too much time was spent thinking he could be a quality starter. Ranaudo and Barnes as starters are a little different - less wipeout stuff. Barnes will be a perfect fine starter for somebody - not amazing, but a capable workhorse sort. The development has been ok, but I do think there is question on the ceiling they have gotten in on that.

1. This year Bogaerts has been better by measurables than Jeter was in virtually any of his seasons defensively. Jeter's main contribution (which was considerable) was offensive, full stop. Now it is true that teams are smarter now about positioning fielders, but the Royals are the league's best team at that too. 2. Your logic here basically is blaming Bogaerts for A) not being Ozzie Smith out there and having a crappy 3B next to him, neither which is remotely fair to evaluating him. Now if we moved him to 3B and signed 1985 Ozzie Smith, the defense would be unbelievable - well duh. It would be a deeply suboptimal use of limited lineup spots, especially if the shortstop can't hit enough to justify it. Basically, Bogaerts has been the best SS in the American League, by a considerable margin - but somehow you are blaming him for his third baseman (in 2015) being among the worst.

easy there - taxes still a major issue

Jays have been the sleeping giant here. Largest city in Canada, and a fanbase that will go if the team doesn't suck.

I think they might add seventy pitchers given the fan outcry ... but adding one plus some natural regression from Porcello and what you'd expect a 22 year old with 100 big league innings to do as a 23 year old ... investing in one might help the other stuff fall into place. I don't disagree that two would help more. But of course looking at the pitching strictly in terms of starting is also pretty simplistic. A starters ERA of 4.00 does not mean the pitching staff is necessarily bad (2007 would be a strong datapoint there).

I wasn't defending him - but noting that if somebody had won one title in four years, and left the cupboard frankly sort of bursting - it would look like an amazing tenure. The last place finishes put a damper on it, and make his ouster reasonable. The same way that, say someone with a 3.41 ERA and an 8-13 record looks like he's been a meh starter when he's been one of the best in the league.

now that is entitlement

I would think a ___, Buccholz, Porcello, Rodriguez, Miley or Kelly are your 5. There is more reason to believe in Miley's certainty than Kelly - but more reasons to hope on Kelly. It will be interesting how it gets navigated.

It's more the contract. I have a feeling the hamstring would have cured itself faster if circumstances required it.

They won 89 games in 2010 and were alive until the final week ... despite the crazy amount of injuries. That was a season which should have gone in the toilet. Tito did a remarkable job with that team. This team's run has been marked by some stunning comebacks (2013 the exception). 2004 is obvious, but 2007 was almost as good (the wins were more lopsided, but coming from 3-1 down with Game 5 on the road against the clear 2nd best team in the league). 2008 for me was the forgotten almost one - they were in some ways more comatose than they were in 2004, given how far behind they were in Game 5.

Swihart is going to be a monster. I totally respect the Vasquez camp, and it's a good problem to have. But it's funny what simple reps can do.

Sox system is loaded. It is one of the weird things about the Cherington record. If you did not know the Red Sox finished last in 3 of his 4 seasons (say, all you knew is that they missed the playoffs) ... you'd see what he left and think he did a uniformly amazing job.

Makes sense. He is too young for the Arizona Fall League - Gulf Coast season is over. Sox want him to pitch more.

They can't move Benintendi except as a Player To Be Named Later this offseason. Espinosa is moveable - for the right deal - just because of how young he is and how far from the bigs he is, and the risk associated with pitchers generally. Anybody below AA is moveable for the right deal, but I agree with you that those 4 all have some real promise - although Benintendi is currently conquering competition that was better than what he saw in the SEC.

I don't know - and if you think in terms of 5 men for 162 games, there is a lot of hoping. Basically Miley can deliver a slightly better version of what Ryan Dempster produced - or for that matter Tim Wakefield. That means he probably should not be starting in a World Series game - but he can be invaluable for managing the marathon. As you noted he is a trade asset because he is priced very well.

Not a surprise - what you'd expect (the season AFTER the title is where the bump happens). What is funny is that alternating 1st and last place is probably the most profitable route. If you maintain a level, it becomes passe - see how unfondly seasons like 2008 and 2010 are remembered, for very little reason - aside from not winning a title.

Miley might be a strong bet too ... durable, can miss bats - for a back end, can do a lot worse

If they sign Price, it will have nothing to do with Greinke - separate decisions.

I think Greinke stays in LA. Cueto's elbow is scary. Zimmermann makes sense if the expectations are reasonable. The team could use an ace, but so could everybody else. A Zimmermann sort would help the rest of the rotation fall into place.

It was a decent acquisition. Not well priced, but 3B was so bad that a decent one was a huge improvement. The issue (if there one) was that the upside was not that great. Ramirez as a 3B had (and still has) a lot more ceiling.