sk7326

WMB is better defensively than Bogaerts. Indeed, Bogaerts has an amazing projections, but it is not for his offense. He'd be a better 3B than SS, but he has more value as a SS, and he should be adequate there. It's not a slam on Bogaerts ability - after all the Yankees have won 5-titles with only "adequate" defense from the SS position. I think what it comes down to is that Middlebrooks-Boegarts is a cheaper left side of the infield with a much higher ceiling than Bogaerts-Drew. We went with the latter in October because ceiling doesn't matter when you are trying to win a 3-week tournament.

A few things. 1. The Red Sox played 8 of their 16 games on the road ... Detroit is a ballpark with large dimensions ... Tampa and Saint Louis are longtime proven pitcher's parks. The Red Sox scored 45 runs in 8 games at home, 5.6 runs a game (which is actually a higher run rate than their season rate, which led the league). So ballparks did contribute some to this. Remember the Red Sox went 5-3 on the road too, so neither team was hitting. 2. We have good hitters - yeah the averages were bad this postseason, but these were also tiny samples. (to give you an idea - if you see a guy get 3 hits in 10 at-bats ... on that basis alone, you can only really narrow down that he is really a .000 to .644 sort of hitter - it takes a couple of SEASONS to really hone in on true ability) The timing was luck, but when you have a lot of good hitters - at some point something was going to happen. It's like having 3 scoring lines in hockey - you can take guys away for a while, but at some point something good is likely to happen. 3. Just because we hit did not mean that we did not get on base. Consider the one-hitter. Yeah only one hit, but there were a parade of baserunners. We lost 1-0, but we had plenty of chances to take the lead. It's not luck, but it is not clutchness either. It is just piling up opportunities, and our ability to generate baserunners even without hitting allowed us to have chances. Yeah we stranded a lot of guys, but remember, during the season we and Detroit led the league in LOBs. LOBs are is a good "bad" statistic.

None of what you described are personnel decisions. Beckett has a long, rich injury history - so the struggles were typical. The ALCS, Tampa was better - they were the best team in the majors that season (Angels got off to a huge start but were flawed as we discovered). Frankly the comeback is one of the proudest moments of this entire decade, though it goes under the radar since a title (or a pennant) did not come with it. The players and manager left it all out there. The sacrifice thing - that is just philosophy, and hard to reconcile. Francona, Farrell, Weaver ... the school of not sacrificing has a lot of students. Certainly it has been proven that giving up outs assures that multi-run innings are few and far between.

Bradley had 61 at-bats above single-A when he crushed spring training ... his progress is fine. There is little reason to think Bradley won't be Ellsbury's equal (or close) in terms of getting on-base.

Errors seem like less of a big deal because it is not really the primary focus of defense. After all, you can't make an error on a ball you cannot reach. I think with Middlebrooks, you have to look at some decisions they did make after his callup. He played 2B in a pinch - and did not embarass himself small sample size noted. In the Detroit series, he was brought in to pinch run for Bogaerts. So the athletic tools are there and valued. He had a rough defensive start to the season, probably due to his entire form going to seed at the plate. But he was good defensively a year ago, and clearly he is a high caliber athlete - this is not a 1B in hiding. As for the idea of a team for October and a team for the regular season - I strongly disagree. Baseball has not yet gone the way of hockey. 5 of 15 teams is a pretty elite group, especially in a division like the AL East where you don't get to coast. You have to build the team to qualify for the tournament - and then figure out the rest later, maybe the trade deadline, maybe later than that.

There are exceptions ... but the larger case is generally fairly true. This doesn't mean that free agency is a bad idea and we all have to turn into Tampa Bay ... clearly nobody is starving here. But you want a deal to encompass a good amount of "peak" ... since you are paying a premium to outbid somebody and the contract will have negative future value at some point most likely.

The free market sets value sort of ... but that neglects the winner's curse of the auction, which Bell described. The team that wins the auction by definition overpays compared to the market. Now, it's not my money - and if the owners want to pocket the money saved from not signing Ellsbury then bleep them, obviously. But this team's history financially has not been anything to worry about on that front. If you let Ells and Drew walk, you can source 3 of the 8 positions for less than $2M TOTAL. For that money, what can the team do? That is the key.

For me, the problem has always been approach. In the NPB, you have the 5 days of rest instead of 4, and the much higher pitch counts. It encourages the "away from contact" sort of approach Daisuke had. Now granted, Matsuzaka is an extreme example. But even Nomo was not pitch efficient, and tried to get hitters to chase stuff (hence the popularity of the splitter, a pitch which has really disappeared from view among the US). Darvish is the only example of a guy who has a true American approach - who works inside the strike zone and counts on his stuff for swing and miss. Yes, he throws a lot of pitches too and had walk issues last year - but you know what I mean.

There is also future durability and what not ... Pedroia will stay on 2nd much longer than Ellsbury can be expected to hold down CF at a very high level. I am not discounting that Ells could still be a good base stealer and evolve into a future roving leadoff hitter as he shifts to more of a LF sort for hire like Kenny Lofton's later years, but I wouldn't pay 20 million per for em.

It is ... BUT, the size of a QO has been known most of the season (just project up from the 2013 amount - we were even kicking around 14 million on this board as an estimate). If the Sox did not think they could sign him, they could source the catcher position for a LOT less money. Given the extremely inflated market, the draft pick probably would not dissuade somebody from taking him on - there is just a lot of money chasing a relatively small amount of quality.

Indeed - and he is making 2/3 of the likely contract and has had a far better track record of actually being able to play at a 5 win level ...

I am curious too - I have seen some of the fawning reports. At the same time I have seen skeptics who wonder if Tanaka is really more like a pitcher like Kuroda (darn good still) but riding the Darvish hype to end up overvalued.

I suspect if Salty is getting a QO, that means he and the Sox are at least in the ballpark for a multi-year agreement.

He had a devastating shoulder injury ... and then hurt his chest this season. He made all his starts in 2012 and then missed a bunch for a non-recurring reason this year. That ain't Buchholz. Peavy has a track record as a hoss (the giant shoulder asterisk noted) ... Buchholz has never gotten that. Team could use some help in the rotation - spending 100 million on a #3 Japanese starter ain't it - but pitcher health is sort of the variable every team faces. And if one is afraid of missing starts - that's what Dempster is for.

Well Bobby V did have a good run with the Mets and has won a lot in a lot of places, usually with ragtag sort of outfits. Definitely played mindgames and such - like your Billy Martins or whatnot. I actually did not mind the hiring - certainly if you are going to run off Tito, bringing in an anti-Tito is the only sane thing to do. If you wanted to change the culture of a coaching staff built on making the clubhouse seem like a normal place to function, then bring in a guy who does the opposite and keeps people on high alert. I was expecting the players to be knocked off kilter - but I did not expect him to be so unprepared. I don't think he put that much effort into the gig this time around. I was not sure there was a master plan. Certainly his coaches did not understand it. At the same time, Bobby does have a right to note that his team was obliterated by injuries and "aging", especially Youk and Beckett. Basically, the team's best hitter and arguable best pitcher turned into replacement level chum overnight. He was dealt an awful hand, which he proceeded to play very very badly. I am not sure whether the leadership on a club (since this is a job like anybody else's) is as simple as Pedroia not having standing - a former MVP always has standing. And professionals have a knowledge of which guys are locker room lawyers and which actually deserve respect (often the guy playing through injuries for one), and adjust accordingly. It is hard to picture a pro like Adrian Gonzalez turning a bunch of championship tested pros into five year olds. The problems were probably much more mundane than that. The no-win dynamics seem more related to the guys who couldn't play more than anything that methaphysical. I tend to look at chemistry as a trailer, not a leader. It's like any workplace - getting along with your co-workers is important, but secondary to actually being good at the job. The chemistry comes with demonstrated success. If the Red Sox did not get early results with the 2013 changes (and results might be more than W/L), I suspect that the same rumblings you got in 2012 would have come. In a lot of ways the Farrell hiring and results mirror what happened when Boston hired Grady in 2002. In both of those cases, you had the franchise hiring former assistants to settle some disruptive circumstances. Farrell I think was able to foster credibility because the senior members of the team knew him already. Lester, Papi, Pedroia knew and respected him. Beyeler and Lovullo were both former PawSox managers. It was the opposite of an "adjustment" - it was just going back to a work environment they were already familiar with. And when the stalwarts have bought in, the new guys tend to fall into line.

I think they want to. But I would not deal him as a pure salary dump - the contract is not nearly enough of an albatross to tell a team "just take him please". I'd want some actual value coming back if a team wants us to eat some of his salary.

Boras is doing his job - he's the best agent around for a reason. The Red Sox are in a very easy position here. Make the QO, see what happens. Even if there is no amazing extension, they either have a sandwich pick or Ellsbury back for another season. And Bradley is a quality Plan B. I doubt the decision keeps Cherington up at night. I think there is a non-zero chance he will come back to Boston with an extension, but there is a lot of money chasing very few players. The CBA has taken a lot of the spending alternatives away from mid-level teams. There are large piles of money for teams and chasing veterans as the only real way to spend them. All it takes is a team to swoop in and offer Ellsbury 6 years or more and suddenly it is easier to shake his hand and wish him luck.

Ross is a career backup - that he had a good week does not change that. The Red Sox value him for being able to catch 50 games or so and provide some solid stability, but he is not somebody you want to give 110 starts to, never has been. Salty had a good season - and was a decent defensive catcher (poor at stopping the run game, pretty good at blocking). There is a lot of narrative associated with him that follows from since they dealt for him but does not really square with 2013 reality. If Swihart were a next year guy, that is blocking. Lavarnway has had a lot of chances to take the job and has not been able to - and he is legitimately bad defensively. Dempster I expect will be shopped. But that he is a healthy, durable starter who does miss bats gives him intrinsic value. He's not someone you want near a playoff game, but it is hard for championship teams to get through the marathon without guys like him. He doesn't have a knuckleball, but a lot of what folks like to laud Wakefield for applies here. His contract is also extremely movable now. 1 year, 12 million ... considering what Tim Lincecum makes now (yes, he has more "fan appeal"), Dempster's salary does not actually look crazy at all

He had an awful slump. He has a bat though - right there among the good SS bats. That he strikes out a lot should not obscure that he is a pretty good offensive player by today's shortstop standard.

A starting pitcher can change an individual game more. A hitter can change a season more. The Sox DO believe in Moneyball principles, and moneyball does not mean "OBP, OBP, OBP". Middlebrooks is never going to be a high OBP guy - that is obvious. But there is a lot of talent there, and the OBP only has to be high enough to allow the rest of his game to fluorish. When you see what a valuable player Josh Reddick was in 2012, you can see that the threshold for OBP for a guy with some real talent and ability in the rest of the game, is not actually that unreachable.

A Drew/Bogaerts infield would be better this month for sure. And there are questions about Bogaerts' defense at SS. He should be able to make all the normal plays, but yes there will be a dropoff from Drew. At the same time, the analysis short shrifts Middlebrooks. He is too young and his tools are too good to give up on. You substitute him with Bogaerts in the postseason because he was slumping and the Sox had a decent option (and the one time to have short term thinking is the playoffs). But he still has a solid above average 3B sort of future in him - his mechanics improved with his tour in the minors, enough to respect his credentials for being the 3B next season. Guys with his athletic ability are good candidates to "get it".

I think he thought that the Red Sox could contend in the division. I did too - but I thought they could finish last because everybody was going to be so bunched up ... Toronto was the sexy pick, and it was sexy to doom NYY and Boston to the dustbin, but in reality the teams were all very close together, with the Orioles as only real negative regression pick. Of course the Orioles ended up getting better (and missing the playoffs anyway, such is baseball) and Toronto had the problems that come with a team of older players. My guess is Cherington thought this team was a 2010 sort of arc ... 85ish wins, some version of contention, they'd at least get us to the last month of the season before petering out. I doubt anybody saw the wire-to-wire best team in baseball. That said, the pieces were there - they had just been largely injured in the last couple of seasons.

You certainly cannot be sentimental. We can all sniff about not completing the alleged Myers deal - but a top 5 prospect with an all star ceiling for Lester is nothing to sneeze at. That Myers was not a superstar out of the box does not affect his projection at all. Obviously I am glad we had Lester today, but that doesn't mean it was a crazy deal. If someone blows us away with an offer for Lester you have to look at it. That is part of being a good GM. That said, Lester is one of the surest things in the league. I don't like extending 30+ starters - but his durability and effectiveness have been one of the general constants for this franchise - he had a crappy 2012, granted. But workhorses are hard to find, and he has a true track record of not missing starts - he is not a guy I'd feel bad about giving a 4-5 year extension to.

Oh I agree there - the owners did not suddenly make the players healthy. They did not restore character, integrity whatever. But they did figure out that they (more or less) had tried to fix something which wasn't really broken. They were lucky that somebody intimately familiar with what had worked was still in the front office. And they were lucky that the GM's most preferred manager was available too. As far as where the character and chemistry come from? I attribute that to the incumbents - it was hard to really buy fully the idea that a team that still had Ortiz, Lester, Pedroia on it, were a bunch of crybabies, or that Adrian Gonzalez turned the former into bowls of mush. After all, if you think Petey set the tone this year, then he must have in 2011-12 as well. There was a lot of "been there" on this roster, and it couldn't have hurt. I think you add to that a good start, and the group can develop that mutual trust that they can do this. Winning begets winning in that way.

Lovullo, Butterfield strong candidates to be hired. The contracts are what they are, but as standard practice they do not prohibit a coach from going for a promotion. And it's not a death sentence if they move on. Epstein always did a good job with the pipeline, and you'd expect Cherington to do the same. The coaching staff for Tito turned over quite a bit between 2004 and 2007 - it's ok.