sk7326

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.

Cherington will win Executive of the Year - in the AL it is a good field, but still they fielded the best team in the league from wire to wire and he has to get a lot of credit. Farrell will win Manager of the Year - this turnaround (and remember the votes take place before the playoffs) is the sort of thing that almost always guarantees such an honor. Tito, Bob Melvin, Joe Maddon will all get some love, and deservedly ... but it will be a surprise if Farrell is not the choice.

You have to take the good with the bad with ownership in this case. After all the previous owners were the driving force behind the Jimmy Fund while simultaneously displaying a hideous record in terms of integrating African-American players into the team. Folks are complicated. These guys - just by the results in all the measurable ways - have been the best ownership this team has had. But certainly it has not been perfect - they clearly see the Red Sox as essentially a ballpark, and a TV channel, with the team sort of coming along with it. But that said, they could have run this cheaply like Jeffrey Loria does. The money has largely been in the product, and with the exception of one season, the results have been hard to argue with. After all, the Red Sox are the only 3-time champion in the bigs during their ownership run, and only the Cardinals have won more pennants. The mistakes they have made have been consistent with folks who run a TV property - too much attention to flash instead of recognizing that winning is the best of the cures (and if there is flash - that is have some heft behind it, like 1999 Pedro), an overreaction to minute by minute fluctuations (the bloodletting after the 2011 season). Remarkably, because of the Dodgers, and because of the availability of a lot of pieces of the old regime - they were able to put the toothpaste back into the tube. An amazing story all around.

The return to Farrell and Cherington had a role ... But so did: 29 extra starts of John Lackey, the 2009ish version 60 extra games of Jacoby Ellsbury at an All-Star level 19 extra games of Dustin Pedroia at his normal level 47 extra games of David Ortiz at his revamped level 50 fewer games started by guys named Aaron Cook, fresh from TJ Daisuke Matuzaka, Franklin Morales, Zach Stewart and Daniel Bard Lester, Buchholz, Peavy, Lackey, Dempster and Doubront combined for 144 of their 162 starts. So for basically 7 of 8 days, we were wheeling out somebody who was more or less, somebody that was in our planned rotation A lot is made of the new guys, and they all had contributions. But a lot of the title came from the stalwarts just being able to play.

Cherington had a terrific offseason - but this severely discounts the comical level of injury problems that plagued this team between 2010 and 2012. You look at the games Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ortiz, Lackey did not miss ... Jonah Keri in his Grantland wrap up covered a lot of this - this franchise had a 2 year run of incredibly s***** luck, much which resulted in fielding a team with a lot of replacement level chum - and on the mound far worse than that. This year, the guys they were counting on all along were actually able to play and contribute ... empowering the assistant GM and assistant coach from the good old days of 2007 or so was a part of it - but this team finally had a couple of breaks go their way, and were able to avoid the infirmary.

Peavy was a 200 inning guy as recently as 2012. He has his chest injury this year, but that does not qualify as chronic. He struggled in the playoffs - but he has a lot of track record to suggest he will be solid next season. Buchholz is more fragile - but hopefully he figures out something - there is risk there certainly. Pitching depth will always be a concern, but you also think Allen Webster is in a better position to contribute than he was in year 1, and maybe Anthony Ranaudo is as well or De La Rosa. I think KC exercised their option on Shields so he won't be going anywhere - that said he would have been a dangerous signing for Boston. Dempster could be gone, but I'm not selling him off either, 1 year, $12M for what he provides (durability basically) is a going rate in the marketplace, and the Red Sox should get a real asset for him. I'd be comfortable with a true ace sort ... but who wouldn't. But a rotation of #2/#3 starters can win a World Series. Hell, it just did.

The Giants were able to exploit a bad divison a couple of times ... but you also look at Tim Lincecum becoming a replacement-level pitcher (and the Giants giving him $18M a year ANYWAY). They were an ordinary offensive team who never fixed it. I am not sure underperforming is a fair term. Scutaro is nothing special ... Posey slipped some from MVP level, but Sandoval was still roughly the same. The problem with holding is that the other teams will be improving, and there are more candidates for non-peak than peak on the roster right now.

Tanaka could be a tough bid - there is some cross racial comparison obviously with Darvish ... and the posting fee could be nuts. But by many scouting accounts, he is more Kuroda than Darvish. Kuroda is a damn good pitcher, but Yu Darvish is another level ... and I would not want to post $50M for Hiroki Kuroda. Matsuzaka has #1 caliber stuff, but his approach was generally awful ... but the bid made sense. Salty is a good offensive catcher, and has worked to improve to average level behind the plate. Blocking is pretty good, throwing not so much. His big weakness is that he punts away 1/3 of his at-bats by pretending he is a right handed hitter. He fixed that and he could be very good. As is, he managed to be a 3-win player which is a lot better than I expected. McCann (for one) has a longer track record, but an older body and contract demands that might force you to picture him as a DH in 2-3 years - frankly the FA investment between him and Salty is not at all a slam dunk. Lavarnway has a history of a DH/1B who is trying to catch for positional value - Mike Napoli of old basically. I think there is a very strong chance he just can't hack it as a full time catcher, and he has (in his tours, usual sample caveats apply) shown evidence that the job might be too big for him. (catching and hitting at the same time)

Maybe - although ALL of those starts being given to Tim Wakefield's corpse, Kyle Weiland, Andrew Miller, Eric Bedard ... take that and whatever 50% of Lackey's true level ... you had substandard pitching for 76 of their 162 games. In retrospect, winning 90 games in spite of the garbage being shoveled on the mound on a nightly basis was something. Lackey shouldn't have pitched so long hurt - but the team had literally no options. His frustrations personally clearly bled in also. I disliked it too at the time and do not second guess myself. But in retrospect I do respect what a warrior he was that year too ... a cranky warrior to be sure

I totally get it - and I do agree. That said, you have to wonder in retrospect how hurt he was while he was doing that.

Barry Bonds in 2002 had a slash line of .471/.700/1.294 David Ortiz 2013 .688/.760/1.188 What is even CRAZIER about Ortiz' postseason was his slash lines in the previous 2 rounds: ALDS: .385/.556/.923 ALCS: .091/.200/.227 Basically, David Ortiz had two "Barry Bonds early 2000s" series while transforming in Pete Kozma in the middle.

He had a rough season - but 26 year old great athletes with good tools are guys you can bet on ... He has shown he can hang at the big league level - the verdict on him is not that clear. I was definitely among those worried about him having a job here in the future. But he has developed quickly and consistently for a guy who has spent only a few years concentrating on baseball full time. Patience with him is warranted.

1. QO's for Napoli and Ellsbury. No QO for Drew. Flip a coin on Saltalamacchia. Be ready for Bogaerts and Bradley to be manning full time gigs next season. 2. Do not get too hung up with who was on the field at the end of the World Series. You do what you have to do to win games tonight, but that does not mean that Middlebrooks or Salty are out of the picture for the future. Doesn't mean they are part of the future either - just that you don't make decisions on 3 weeks of baseball - even if they are the highest profile 3. 3. Relievers, relievers, relievers - the nature and history of the position, you have to expect Tazawa, Breslow and Uehara to turn into pumpkins next season. That doesn't mean Koji should not be the closer to start blah blah blah ... but you want to have a continuous supply of arms to throw at the bullpen and be ready to switch horses. None of the ALCS/NLCS participants ended up with the closer they broke camp with - that tells you all you need to know. 4. Look into left field. If we are left with Carp/Gomes/Nava, yes - that is good enough. But if you can get Carlos Beltran for a short hitch, or Shin Soo-Choo for a reasonable one (bidding might get very hot on Choo, for a guy who can't hit lefties), it is worth kicking the tires. 5. See if you can move Dempster. That said, his contract is very reasonable for what he offers - so don't eat salary unless you are actually getting a body with some upside coming back. 6. There are guys who can be serious difference makers who are not on the block but worth doing due diligence on (Felix Hernandez, Chris Sale) ... obviously keep with that. The Red Sox' prospect depth and ability to take on money can really make a difference here.

This season was a remarkable correction from the lapse that was 2012 - it is instructive that key assistants from the previous regime were the guys running the controls here. The management deserves credit for having enough humility to correct course when it turned out the old way was still pretty effective. Really this season was a case of a return to form for Jon Lester - a bullpen which found itself (and given the way relievers are year to year - it is a crapshoot every season) down the stretch and just a ton of the bad luck of the past reversing itself. You look at the serious amounts of time missed by our best players last year and the clown car full of starting pitchers who had to mop up the last year and change ... if the team could just have the injury bug nipped (or at least seriously reduced), it was going to go a long way towards moving us to respectability. 97 wins and a title was more than anybody could predict - but there was always a playoff contender here, the players were finally able to ply their trade.

At least by Game 2 evidence, the pitches (the fastball and change) are pretty straight pitches. He locates the fastball well, and the change up has tremendous deception (the arm action is excellent and for a straight change it has to be). I know our team won't be stupid fishing too much - but I think they will be ready to swing at the first pitch if it's a good one. If Wacha's curveball has more snap than it showed in Game 2, the equation changes a lot. That said, he threw so few (and none of them particularly good) in Game 2, it is hard to say he'll want to throw it in the highest leverage start possible.

This team is better than the 2007 team (similar lights out back of bullpen, better starting) ... not as good as 2004. (where the defending batting average champion batted 8th)

I mentioned this earlier in the other thread. I am expecting a shift to a much more aggressive approach with Wacha this time around, like they did with David Price in Game 2 of the ALDS. Look for the first good fastball you see and let it rip. His curve is useless except as a "show" pitch, so you only have to adjust for the changeup.

Box set is better. And I would not even throw out Game 3. Don't watch it for too long, but it helps to see just how ... dead ... we were. I remember Game 4, just hoping "let's get on the board here - I don't want a sweep" I remember Game 5, "I don't want to lose it in Boston" By Game 6, suddenly you were thinking "jeez, we steal one more, and ya never know" And then in Game 7, when Johnny Damon (who hadn't hit AT ALL all series) had his "Victorino slam" moment ... that was a particular fond memory for me because of 2003. In 2003 we also chased the starter early - but missed an enormous chance to blow open the game, partially leading to the Grady-driven meltdown ... would the Yankees dodge a bullet that size again? And then - it was suddenly 6-0 and the rout was on

What to do with Wacha the 2nd time around will be an interesting question ... to me, I could see an adjustment to the gameplan they used against David Price in Game 2 of the Tampa Series, dispense with the "deep count" approach and sit dead red for hittable fastballs, first pitch or otherwise. No reason for them to look for his curve - it's a hanger and he doesn't like throwing it. That reduces it to a two pitch concept.