sk7326

Correlation != causation ... What is funny (and has been beaten to death) is the nature of Ben's miscalculation. Essentially Cherington built a team with the intention of basically having Toronto's story arc this season. Alas.

I think it's just trying to identify the best alignment ... Bradley is a great CF

I don't know about that. When they dealt those guys is was to not pay them - and to answer fan anger for a horrible season. (as it has turned out Gonzalez is a good player - maybe not $27M a year good, but good). Cherington got a couple of decent prospects for them, but it was an ownership salary dump. I think the franchise wanted to go with shorter contracts, basically. As it turned out they won the World Series because of uncommonly good seasons by Victorino and Uehara, and their best players actually playing baseball games (which was sorely missing in 2012). I think the management has been unrealistic about prospects, I agree - to a point. The idea was that the strong veteran core could maintain while the kiddies learned on the job. That part largely failed - mostly because Victorino broke down, and everything they tried at 3B failed, and their catcher situation went from a good one to a dumpster fire. Getting Ramirez and Sandoval smelled a lot like PR again - the team was a bad offensive team, sign the top two position FAs and watch the magic happen. It was not a crazy plan, but neither has hit. In particular, I would have preferred them simply signing Ramirez to play 3B.

Masterson's the obvious no. Johnson, Barnes and Miley are all guys I could see dealt (let's say probability above 1/3) Owens could be dealt in a sexier move (let's say 20%) Kelly will turn into a pumpkin and really should be fit for relief. In real life, bullpens should have some guys capable of pitching 100 IP, although they don't, and Kelly would be idea for something like that. Wright stays because he is a very valuable extra guy to survive a marathon If the Red Sox signed one starter who was some flavor of good (a true ace would be awesome, but let's say a Top 25 pitcher of any sort), the rest of the guys actually would fall into place into something competitive. Of course I am assuming Porcello comes back as - at minimum - the guy his early 20s indicated he was. The last two starts are a tiny sample, but at least there is evidence that he is a decent pitcher who has a bad year as opposed to an actual bad pitcher.

It's Boston - you don't play the options game with somebody who is one your five best starters. Nobody is starving. Now if you suggest sitting Rodriguez (and Owens to a lesser extent) to sign the 1995 Braves, I'm all in. But the threshhold of the starting five for him to sit is very high.

It is funny when some talk about athletes as human beings in one context (such as clutchy mcclutcherson) and as automotons in another.

Indeed - although he actually provided (in market terms) $13M or so of value this year before he got hurt ... the thresshold for him to be worth his contract is so low that even 20 starts a year at his usual level would ring the bell.

Tazawa and Uehara ... last injury was a freak one, and Uehara is still really good, and since his effectiveness depends on movement and command, one is bullish. He is not the superhuman force he was in 2013, but he doesn't have to be. That was one of the great "1-inning closer" seasons of all time. Other guys are hard to evaluate because of the starting. But a "throw stuff at the wall" approach to relievers is a generally sound one.

You know ... there is something to be said about a guy who wanted to come to Boston and was willing to change positions for it to happen - and is willing to try it again. For as bad as his season has been, you compare it to the international diplomacy required for the Yankees to have Derek Jeter, trade for a better shortstop and still have to keep the inferior alignment to manage egos. As far as Hanley worrying about his body - well, he is a guy who has been injured a lot ... so a bit of sensitivity is fair.

I defended the Drew signing too - the Sizemore signing less so ... they gave him a starting CF job on one month in the spring despite no other evidence he could play ... was a waste of many people's times. It wasn't like signing a Chris Young or somebody who could actually play big league baseball as a decent starter. And it cuts what you've been telling the kids. I think it cost Bradley reps for no real good reason. It is a striking contrast to the org of 2007 who saw how horrible Dustin Pedroia looked in a significant look in 2006 and said "he's our guy" and let it happen.

Since the best way for a team coming off of a playoff berth (and maybe World Series win, since baseball works like that) - in a market of a large number of people (and an always passionate NL market who has been waiting quite some time) - will trade cheap controllable pitching the season after the bounce.

They were flawed, but flawed enough to not be above .500 when the trade shopping popped up? There was underachievement abound across all three phases.

I'll have to disagree a bit there ... panic signing of Stephen Drew last year, Grady Sizemore - that is wavering and pointlessly so. THAT was the brass' problem.

No. Although I think when folks throw around power vs contact - it is often more accurately strikeout vs contact. And clearly Owens can strike batters out. Fastball is only low 90s, but can play up because of that changeup and that deception.

What is really funny as it turns out - is that everything "folks" projected for our kids has turned out to be - well, not wrong. There have been no 1975 Fred Lynn's ... but it is hard not to watch Castillo, Betts, Swihart, Vasquez, Bradley, Bogaerts, Owens, Rodriguez and see at least plausible early evidence of good players, some uncommonly so. What management lacked was patience, and confidence in the fans' understanding of things. They wasted a lot of the time last year that XB or JBJ might have needed to log those "10,000 hours" Gladwell wrote about because they weren't MVP candidates right that f'in second. And yes, I know that SSS abound with all of this, and I am not putting anybody in Cooperstown. BUT, guys often come around, if they have a chance to.

Good: Owens has a wipeout pitch and gets swings and misses Good: Owens has strong mound character. The outing against Seattle, where he shook off a terrible start and turn things around to keep the Sox in the game - was evidence of a keeper Bad: His control has been wobbly at times For a guy's first handful of starts, it is clear that the good outweighs the bad, and the good is stuff that is hard to teach. Obviously the "right deal" caveat applies to anybody - but he surely looks like a #3 sort with a fringy 1/#2 upside. The comparative scouting reports between him and Rodriguez seem quite accurate (the latter has the higher ceiling, but Owens seems like the surer thing)

Jacko's first paragraph was right and then the other 7500 words could have gone in the wood chipper

Internet has made some things better, some worse. And sometimes it is hard to remember that this is a world of progress. As far as why males get maudlin at the end of the night? From my experience it is a species that wants to get laid, and almost certainly is not going to.

I think he will do what ownership tells him - if they want him to make that tradeoff he will. I am going to give him some leeway since he did not do that at Miami or (stepping into the wayback machine) Montreal.

ESPN already said his baseball workload will reduce ... maybe not eliminate mondays but probably rotate through. Channel 38 worked with McDonough to accomodate various national assignments in the past (I remember, particularly one year where they rotated analysts through, including for one week Dick Vitale - although Gary Thorne was the primary backup) , as well as others (Mike Breen with the Knicks, Ian Eagle with the Nets and many others).

Oh O'Brien will be fine and this stuff often blows over. But I think the issues are more about form (and no points for O'Brien for agreeing to a press release while the guy you're replacing is still working).

When I was a kid - it might have been Sports Final locally or the 90 minute Sportscenter on ESPN. But yeah the info is so pervasive now that it is a tougher slog. What I wish NESN or CSNNE did was a real "sicko sports fan" show, your equivalent of NFL Matchup on ESPN. Sure you can put it on at 2:30 in the morning and force me to DVR it, but I am sure there is a market. Hell, the league's own TV channels don't do it enough.

That is true - although I wonder how much of that comes from just the history with the old Sportschannel and FOX Sports. NESN - even going back to the 80s - almost never had any sort of reasonable "SportsCenter" type of show. Sportsdesk is not bad, but sort of passe these days with the interwebs and all.

He was termed unreliable because he was always hurt.

Monty Python a long time ago recognized that the subtleties of the British class system was ripe for great satire. They also recognized that a Roman centurion named after a male sex organ was funny too. No reason to deny either. You don't hear the announcers doing silly stuff when the game gets tense. For all the high minded finger wagging at the pizza incident or the boob grab, note that they did not actually miss calling any of the action.