sk7326

Regardless of where this leads - they are playing better ... and the kids are settling in. There is no way to improve the pitching enough during the season to cover for the everyday lineup not doing its job. For any other changes to be justifiable, the guys in the clubhouse need to play to their abilities.

only one is in the bigs, only two are above single A. These things iron themselves out.

Not sure if Sandoval is bad - as much as I don't like it. The Lester move is also debateable, although Porcello has not been a good flag bearer so far. The Redick deal was bad although one can argue Jed Lowrie for Melancon was worse. At the same time, Reddick seemed to bottom out in Boston - Oakland might have been able to tolerate his flaws (basically, zero approach) for the good stuff I tend to give Cherington the thumbs up in a very very difficult job. The +/- with major league moves is plus and the stocking up of the org at large has been very strong.

Nice thing is that the defensive results show - nobody will confuse him with Ozzie Smith, but he has actually been pretty solid.

Doubles and triples so far, fewer HRs ... in the same breath he's tracking to be a 4 win player this year, which is a pretty good place. I think the comfort level has improved markedly.

The line and the age have to matter too ... Guerra .818 OPS as a 19 year old SS, Devers .306/.336./449 as an 18 year old. What they are doing at ages when you don't expect guys to be in full-season leagues is very encouraging. Margot in Portland as a 20 year old even moreso.

4 strikeouts on 26 AAA batters faced tempers my enthusiasm ... he should go in the pen, where I'd expect him to be quite good.

That he is hitting is great, but I think it also has to do with scouting and coaching outcomes. Has his approach changed? Is he still trying to do a Mike Napoli impression? How has he adjusted to the pitches he was getting retired on? Just those sorts of milestones.

1. I'll believe it when I see it 2. All three contracts are much more moveable than the older three.

Oh certainly - although the process looks to have produced 3 quality starters going forward already - and a trade landed a potential ace. That cannot be discounted.

Ellsbury was a plus defender by the end of his time in Boston. We value Mookie for being darn close to the guy Ellsbury is while being 9 f'in years younger.

Swihart the raw stuff is obvious, and Betts is going to be a star. Bogaerts is interesting - fangraphs wrote about it - he has gotten very smart about dealing with the off-speed stuff and the stuff down and away. But he is walking less. He has made a contact for power choice which you can't blame him for - but it has kept him potentially from unleashing the power he shows from time to time more regularly. Of course he's leading the AL SSs in fWAR now, so ...

What is true is that the last week and change they are playing better baseball, and their kids are starting to pull more weight. It's not a hot streak, but it's at least progress.

You should get graded on the results and the process. If you drafted Bryce Harper and then Bryce Harper got hit by a bus, did the draft pick become a bust?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1975.shtml ... other mitigating factors like ballparks (all those cookie cutter astro turf parks), opposition, defense had a lot of impact. fWAR is less kind since it directly addresses the idea that the staff did not strike out a lot of guys - leaned on a good defense.

Is this trolling? I'll type it slowly ... Betts ... is ... 22 .... years ... old

Those were for the staff as a whole .... Anderson had a very quick hook, partially to make sure the staff did not screw up what arguably the best everyday lineup ever fielded did.

Gullett was good. The Reds were 14th in fWAR in 1975, 6th in 1976, which was their most productive staff in the Big Red Machine era. The pitching was "enough" - when the position players hold up their end of the deal. Teams win with weaknesses all the time - 100 games a season.

You mean you lived through the 1910s??

Flood lost his case in 1969. Messersmith and McNally were 1976, which is really where it starts. An under-rated book was Gammons "Beyond the Sixth Game" which talked about the industry ability to adjust to the players suddenly having rights. Not as good as Halberstam's "Breaks of the Game", but similar flavor.

This front office ... has won ... A LOT. The idea that these guys don't want a taste again after having the tastes in the past is ludicrous. Going to work as a Red Sox svengali is the best gig in the world if the team is good. (granted there is the cottage industry of Sox fan unhappiness, but that is a different issue)

Except that none of that stuff about the talent is true ... The GM signed the two top position players on the FA market knowing they would both provide below replacement level contribution for almost half the season The GM traded for a 26 year old who had improved for 3 straight years with the assumption that he would regress as a 27 year old The GM traded for a decent innings horse assuming ... well Miley has actually been roughly what was expected, a couple of flammable starts notwithstanding Any reasonable projection of this rotation was to be something in the middle - not awful, not the 1995 Braves, just some guys (like the 1975 Reds) nobody will remember who won't kill you. And since the guys he acquired were young you can at least cross your fingers on more. The talent part was not the issue - it has been the execution therein. I know Cherington is not perfect and do not absolve him for how it has gone, but his failing - if anything - has not been at the player level. Look at the Pawtucket and Greenville rosters for proof there.

What is interesting is that most of the organizational markers are fairly strong - the books are not tied up horribly, the team is not especially old, the farm system is not barren. What has happened this year has been a really simple matter - the parts of the team that were supposed to be strengths have largely not been. Every other diagnosis puts the blame in the wrong place (although yes the part of the team that was not supposed to be too hot has lived down to that). I tend to be more inclined to blame Farrell than the front office because there has not actually been that much concrete evidence that the players are not talented - or that they lack character (there are a lot of rings out there). It has been a consistent team wide under performance. The roster has flaws (duh), but there is a lot of evidence that this coaching staff has not maximized their output at all.

NESN ratings were down, the team lacked sexiness. Fans are spoiled. The 2010 team had no business winning 89 games. It's the paradox of winning a lot - fans don't miss it until it's gone.

They have been slow to adapt the way the game has changed so fundamentally since 2013.