sk7326

Could be Mookie Betts, but more data collection is needed. Right now the current guys have struggled, but Bradley and Victorino clearly have the nods from here since the gloves still work (and in Victorino's case that is dependent on the hammies working)

Farrell is probably not as good a manager as Tito. At the same time, he clearly did well enough to win the World Series, and the next day an organization can truly hit the reset button on a mistake (like the Sox did with their entire front office philosophy in 2012) will be the first. Be happy the team was smart enough to go back to the pre-2011 way. What are the manager's most important jobs? Setting the lineup and managing the pitching staff. Farrell has been excellent in the former all through his tenure - the latter less so, although at the end of last season he improved a lot there. He handles the media well. The rest of it is not that big a deal - and the players have to pick up some of the slack here.

A bleak state that is 7 games back in a very very tight division. There is a lot that can turn around here. But personally: 1. Thank Sizemore for playing, but he has no business in a big league lineup. Promote Nava. We know he can hit righties and give some platoon choices for Farrell. 2. Make a sell or hold decision on Bradley. He has been outstanding defensively, and deficient offensively. I'd still hold, but if you think Mookie Betts has been too good to ignore and Bradley has not made some progress by June (and Betts shows he won't embarass himself in CF), I get it. 3. Promote Vasquez. He can not get on base as well as Pierzynski, and he has elite defensive skills.

Move is OK, but it doesn't actually solve much. XB has been more or less everything we should have expected so far. The only reason he has "underperformed" in any way would be ridiculous hype. That said, in the short term - this is a cleaner way of upgrading 3B than any other alternative. The team has had offensive issues - some of it bad luck, some of it basic regression.

Buchholz is at a low point value-wise. Trading him makes sense, but he has to actually get well first. That said, his history points to him figuring this out ... he has generally never been "in between" performancewise.

It seems true because of Salty's reputation and strikeouts - but largely unfounded. But the contractual issues are big, enough to make a 1-year hitch with him palatable ... but it'd look a lot better if a guy like Vasquez got ready for the show.

The bullpen has been just fine - no real need to get too fired up about the 5th and 6th inning guys sucking (if they do). Every team's is generally not good - and it is more of an indictment of the starters anyway.

He can put the ball in play that a fielder catches ... he's not very good. A downgrade from last year - but a contractually sensible one.

It's not because he's a big game pitcher - it's because he is an every start pitcher. I think it is the one thing the "Lester is overvalued" commenters on the board totally miss - the value of his ability to take the ball 30-35 times a year without having to worry about him. A guy like that can make your entire pitching staff better.

Oh they believe it - their 1996-2001 run was built on homegrown talent. The financial advantage lets you keep the team together. Yes, they bought the 2009 champion - but the odds of a guy of Sabathia's caliber entering the FA market now is lower than it used to be. The Yanks, like the Sox and Dodgers, have some edges - but you do seem to misstate how the Yankees have used the leverage in the past.

Schilling's health was an issue - but the Sox had solid rotation edges in Games 3 and 4. The Cards lineup was good - but the Sox was one of the best of recent times. Sox played two of their worst games in that entire postseason and won both games and then sparkled in the other two. In a sense, the "a few things and it'd be different" applies to any set of games. IMO, that difference is more the difference between a sweep and a 6 game series than something too directional. Sox win that series most of times it is played (this being baseball after all, that means something like 2 out of 3) - and it is more a statement on the 2004 team's quality than the Cards. (although that was a poor NL and remained that way for a while)

2004 Cards were the best NL team at the apex of the "AL was miles better than the NL" part of the decade. Without Chris Carpenter, that series was a mismatch. The Rays were doing their thing in an insanely difficult AL East, tougher than either version of the AL West Anaheim won (and the 2004 West was not bad at all). You can also make a case the 2004 Sox were the best team of the decade - with the 2007 Sox being a solid contender. Both times they had a life and death series with the 2nd best team in the entire league in the LCS round.

LOL - to be fair, Sox never faced an elimination game and were only behind twice in any series. It was not a blitz, but it was a lot less stressful than 2007 and 2004. That said in 2013, the Sox ALDS and WS opponents were a LOT better than the 2004 and 2007 opponents.

A .377 OBP is pretty good at the top of the order ... for him, it's just getting reps

Someone has been looking up the 2011 scouting reports. The leap he made to uber-prospect was related to his ability to play SS in the medium term at least. Yeah the ceiling is more of average to above average than plus - basically a Troy Tulowitzki level (which would be an MVP candidate btw). Nothing that has gone wrong with him can't be fixed by just him getting reps. That he's putting in a .377 OBP while ironing stuff out is extremely encouraging.

True - although one constant in his career so far has been the ability to adapt to these levels where he is young. I am excited to see him figure this out.

They are struggling because of some injuries and because it's a 14 game sample. Schedule will get easier - and guys may or may not return. The latter is the key. All of the other hooey is just stuff to give fans something to talk about. The Sox had tons of guys hurt by the end of 2011 and all of 2012. They were very lucky last year on that front. So far, not so much.

Defense was always the uphill battle with him - the assumption is that the bat would make it ok. It's work in progress.

********* A few silly things to respond to here. 1. First, $20M for 200 IP of #3 pitcher in 2017 dollars is not at all overpaid. When you look at the comps, to say so is ridiculous. 2. 4/70, if that is the number is an absurd offer. Comparing it to you or my meager means of living means jack squat. I can make a terrific living out of $100,000 a year. But if the revenue I am producing tracks to $20M a year (for instance), my wonderful salary is still insulting and woefully inadequate compared to the production. 3. There are maybe a half a dozen franchise pitchers. If you think the option is to swap Lester with one of those (Kershaw, Darvish, King Felix, Scherzer maybe, Jose Fernandez maybe, David Price maybe, just going off the top of my head), then there is a conversation to be had. If it is swapping Lester with a James Shields - you are paying more money (because he will cost more) for less pitcher (more consistent by a little, lower ceiling by a lot). Otherwise, you are going to insource Lester's production - which is cool, but none of the guys on the farm will be able to produce the innings. To supplement this, you need either more filler (which you'd be paying either Lester prices or asking for Ryan Dempster) or more middle relief (which is generally a land of crappy pitchers by comparison). 4. You seem to have a very very cockeyed idea of the economics of the pitching market. Even if Lester is not an ace - and is more a 2/3 starter (which is a fair assertion), the extremely high probability that he can crank out 900-1000 innings over the next 5 years at more or less that production level gives him a HUGE leg up as a commodity over people with sexier ERA stats. Daisuke Matsuzaka was much less hittable than Lester in 2008, but when you cannot actually take your team into the 7th inning during most of the 30-35 times a year you are scheduled to go - who cares? You don't need a staff ace to win a title or dominate a season - the 2013 Red Sox proved that. What you do need is the ability to continually get into the late innings with your starters. The stat which correlates the best with winning big is how few number of starters a team needs to get through the marathon. Jon Lester is the sort of guy who is essential to that goal. 5. And this is not one of your points, but an earlier commenter. The Red Sox do not live in the market that NY and LA do - boo hoo. But they live in a phenomenal revenue market. Markets differ in both size and fan interest - and the Red Sox play in a city where wins bring in extra money. I hate the $/WAR calculation because that ignores the realities of markets - for Boston, that number is HIGH ... for Tampa that number is low ... for most other teams that number fluctuates. Lester's production is more valuable to John Henry's bottom line than it is to the Rays owner.

That last sentence is the words of somebody who has never listened to a second of WEEI or The Hub. BTW: I do enjoy that you are pleased with the idea of running the team like a Wal-Mart while they charge you and me prices which are quite nicely in line with the commitments Yankees ask from their Nation.

I am not sentimental either. But I also know what the market is like, and is not going to ooze respect for the Sox pinching pennies. I am not looking for them to be wildly irresponsible, but they have financial edges - and to put it into Luis Suarez' pockets is not something I am too keen on. I can see the concerns you speak of in isolation - but nothing about Lester's mechanics or past provide much fear that he won't still be a pretty useful guy as he descends from peak level. In 3 years, $20M is pretty much the going rate for an innings eating #3/4. It sounds like a lot of money - because it is - but not within the context of spigot of national TV money coming as well as the gold mines the Red Sox have long had at the local level. Henry Owens could be potentially as good as Lester - but there is almost no chance he can carry the innings load Lester can over the next 3 years. If you look carefully, there are zero teams who are putting that much on kiddie starting pitcher's shoulders.

Long season - Lester could have been more standoffish but hasn't been. My inference is that there is a deal to be had here. Sox have to know how hard it is to find good durable help.

I think Cherington was unsentimental. But he will also be unsentimental if Pedroia had to go out for a couple of months. Bringing Drew back is easily the cleanest answer (and none of the answers are perfect) available. I don't think Farrell is being sentimental with Nava/Gomes/Carp. If you haven't noticed, Sizemore has the knees of a 52 year old man, and was slipping defensively before he destroyed them - Farrell needs those guys around just to be able to manage Sizemore's reps.

Right now, the problem has been injuries. The on-base has not been that bad all things considered - this will get better. If Pedroia is out - my first call is to Stephen Drew to see if he is up for something interesting. Failing that, you basically throw short term options at it until something sticks. One thing we have seen is that the Sox have worked Middlebrooks out at 2B. So if they really wanted to keep the bats there, signing Drew and moving Will to 2B is something that is at least possible.

I don't think Bradley's speed prevents him from doing that as well as playing one hell of a centerfield.