sk7326

Last year's fiasco was so out of character from the way the organization had operated until then, that is seems VERY unlikely that the GM was driving on a lot of it. I can't sit here and say Ben was not culpable. But this was arguably the best organization in baseball until essentially attention to non-baseball things threw stuff out of kilter. And even then, it was a bunch of injury-related historical "right end of the bell curve" hooey which drove it. Last year was an overreaction to 2011 - the work of a team which was listening to WEEI instead of actually paying attention to what their people were saying. Fortunately the embarassment was abject enough to essentially undo their mistakes and get back to the apparatus Epstein and company (Ben of course part of said company) put together before. Frankly we were lucky that the opportunity was possible to hire a manager who knew the operation, and that there was a trade to create some financial flexibility. And then that there was a suitor who would take the money. And then that the baseball people figured out how to make the deal a good baseball deal and not just a straight dump. This is not to bash the ownership per se. This is CLEARLY the best ownership the Sox have ever had - the proof is everywhere. But part of their best was hiring and delegating the baseball stuff to the brightest folks. That slipped last season with move after move right out of the Steinbrenner of the 1980s script. Crawford, Gonzalez did not work out - but they were all elite gets of their class, and mistakes that 29 other owners would have made given the chance. You generally do not expect a 29 year old 1B to turn into a pumpkin after one season - nor an elite athletic LF to forget how to play baseball. The good thing was last year's failure was bad enough that the ownership got right with going back to the formula which worked. Farrell has done a good job. He will win manager of the year because seasons like this guarantee that. It is hard to evaluate the "clubhouse" stuff a manager does (and that is a lot of the job) - but he handles the media well, and is not a lunatic fishing for a paycheck. Valentine was such a poor communicator with his coaching staff (let alone his players) that any sort of normal human being would have done well - and frankly this season has been a lot about just things that should work working. Ellsbury being a brilliant CF, Pedroia going back to being Petey, Lester finding his command and confidence, Lackey finding his quasi-Cy form from his Angel days. It has also been about a phenomenal stroke of luck in Victorino's season (driven by a rather fortunate injury which got him hitting from his stronger side full time) which his age:trend combination did not forecast. (even optimistically, "down-ballot MVP" was not in the cards) Farrell has done a good job managing the platoons, getting the right guys out there in the right spots - which is what a manager does more than anything else. His bullpen usage has been curious at times - and a little bit too "Tony LaRussa-ish" at times, but he has generally run the pitching staff well. Most importantly, the coaching staff is on the same page. The funny thing identified about Friedman and Huntington is that they have done it with no money, yes ... but a LOT of very high draft picks - which is also a big edge. It's not that these teams are not spending (or at least prior to the current CBA), it was that they decided to pour the money into the scouting and development and the draft. Duquette did not make the Chris Davis trade nor did he draft Manny Machado (though he does credit for aggressively promoting him). That fell into his lap (Koji Uehara giveth, Koji taketh away). The manager was already there even (and is one of the best at developing kids).

Cherington grade: A, this season ... and it can't be separated from the ownership for the first time in 2 or 3 years, focusing on letting the baseball ops work on their own time horizons.

You evaluate or guess on prospects - you'll miss ... a lot. It's a bug, not a feature. Butler is interesting - and with replacement level for catcher being "able to walk", it doesn't take much to be able to do this for a living.

I don't think it was that bitter ... it's not like he walked from the negotiations. And surely another suitor could have dug up a modest guarantee ... there was a job opening here, and a team with a ton of upside despite the 69-93.

All interesting, all major red flags ... 2009 Albert Pujols ain't walkin through that door. Doesn't really change the thesis - Napoli has been much better than Morales this season, though Morales has a 2 year age advantage. Abreu has the most upside but he's already as old as Cespedes, lacks the elite athleticism of Cespedes/Puig and has questions about bat speed. Napoli should be rewarded well, if not with job security at least a higher base salary for sure.

He can "want" anything. But the market probably won't go for it. That said, there is a ton of money out there chasing a relatively thin group of 1B (and he is the best of those) - there will be more money for Napoli than anybody thinks. In terms of years, he is probably not going to get a long deal. At the same time, could a team end up shattering what Boston would be willing to guarantee? That is definitely possible.

That is not an unreasonable argument ... but the walk rates are still a function of waiting for good pitches, a hitting personality. I mean Barry Bonds had remarkable plate discipline from 1990 onward - it was just how he was wired as a hitter. Vlad Guerrero, whose raw power was in the Sosa ballpark for sure - his walk rates were roughly the same his entire career (save for your usual blips). That is much more normal.

Ellsbury's soxprospects scouting report: http://www.soxprospects.com/players/ellsbury-jacoby.htm I think his homerun power did confound folks - but there was a meaningful change in approach (mostly doing the work to be able to get to inside pitches with intent). Really, he was projected more as a Lance Johnson or Lenny Dykstra type than any sort of true power threat. What you mention - and Ryan Sweeney is a great example - I think is the difference between what the scouting sorts call raw power vs power. Sweeney has always had a lot of batting practice power - but has not been able to get it into games. Encarnacion is rare - like Sammy Sosa ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also Encarnacion was still starting from a decent place ... after all his career lows in walks was still higher than anything Nomar put up. It is hard to say the growth has not been somewhat within his ability. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2151&position=3B http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=190&position=SS Compare it to - the ultimate example here - Sammy Sosa. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=302&position=OF ... the ability to really change your offensive personality is very, very difficult It is hard to get to something like 30 HRs without some rudimentary raw power. That said, Dustin Pedroia is certainly an example of a player who has confounded scouts with his power and consistency.

Power is a tool, as is plate discipline. The thing that makes it a tool is that you are scouting and projecting it - and that there is a natural physical ceiling for each player. Will Middlebrooks is/was never going to turn into Barry Bonds, no matter how much coaching or instruction he gets. He can improve that part of his life a little bit - be able to spoil the slider away more, but he ain't going to be a walk machine. Youkilis did not show his power in 2005, but his body had some projection and in the minors he had some success getting to it. The power was projectable at least, and once he learned how to crush his pitches, presto. Another example on the 2013 team is Bogaerts. He certainly is not a 30 HR slugger now - but his frame and age and how he swings the bat etc to date ... all of that seems to indicate he is going to grow into that power.

It's not really that sophisticated - Rob Neyer was writing about back in his ESPN days ... very few hitters improve walk rates during their careers. Certainly in scouting circles, plate discipline has been emphasized more in the post-moneyball era because it is not something that is going to just magically appear. I am not sure if it is necessarily driven by development backgrounds, although the anecdotal evidence is interesting. As much as it is tempting to say that the American system breeds this - all you need to do is listen to supposedly smart baseball folks like Dusty Baker or Joe Morgan to know that there is a LOT of defense of low-discipline living. You can get by in the league without plate discipline - and be really good even. But that means you have Nomar or Vlad Guerrero's (or Yasiel Puig) talent, and that's a pretty short list.

Oh we don't get to where we are this season without Dempster. Even at his worst, he has given starts which would have been taken up by incomparably worse pitchers - certainly we would have made the playoffs in 2011 if he was on the team. His numbers are a liability as a starter - but if you look at how he has done early in games, and his strikeout rate - he profiles as a serious bullpen asset for the postseason. The one run games are largely coin flips (Oakland who of course lost a series with home field advantage) ... Red Sox look pretty good in a bullpen v bullpen match with anybody. At the end of the day, the playoffs involve winning 11 games after having to slog through nearly 6 months of everyday baseball. Total crapshoot, and the best team often does not win. (heck it's been a decade since the NL has had the league's best team imo)

Plate discipline is born, not made - I agree and a lot of the statistics back it up. You get the occasional Sammy Sosa who truly transforms over time - but for the most part you are what you are and improvement can only help so much. Now, general approach can be learned a bit - although in a Middlebrooks case it is more like being able to spoil pitches that get him out and making more hard contact. Nava and Youk have the plate discipline part of the thing down. For Middlebrooks - the question is whether he can produce enough on-base to get to his power. What is true is that he is a very good athlete - and it is not a good idea to bet against a terrific athlete figuring this stuff out.

Well, all the teams hit a little better at home. But when you get to the postseason - home field has had very little bearing on outcomes. Wild Card teams have won playoff series - and do so frequently. Dempster was fine tonight - we know he is not going to make the postseason rotation, but he showed a lot of his value for the team in October.

The who's #1 argument is a bit moot ... none of our guys will be pitching 3 times - and with our depth, none should have to - in a best of seven. Really where the #1 matters is: who will pitch Game 5 of the Division Series. Lester is still the safe bet here - with some questions lingering about whether Buchholz can go 110 pitches back to back on 4 days rest (I think he can, but it hasn't happened yet).

Year 2 was a vesting option though right? His appearances this year triggered it no?

The Red Sox traded for Gonzalez - a 28 year old coming off of all-star/near MVP sort of seasons with the idea that they'd get 3 or 4 more of those seasons. That was a solid bet - but the problem is that since Gonzalez (like Abreu) is a big lumbering 1B who is not a great athlete and pretty slow (even if they can defend the heck out of 1B), is that any slippage offensively destroys his value very quickly. Abreu is younger but profiles very similarly too. There is a pretty strong downside - the scouting reports online indicate "average bat speed" (eek!) and he is already Cespedes' age without the athletic upside (let alone that of Puig), and neither of those guys just rolled out of bed and into the big leagues immediately - in some of the same sorts of ways. As far as I can tell, the clubhouse stuff is more writer-inspired fluff.

Yeah - a lot of it was that. Clearly Wednesday, Farrell was trying to steal that game in Tampa after he had none of the good relievers available. By my count - if we assume an 11 man staff (which I would given Farrell's preferences all season), you have: Lester/Buch/Peavy/Lackey in the rotation, Dempster as a swing man, Uehara/Tazawa/Breslow/Workman as relievers. That leaves 2 spots - I think Morales will get one of them ... he is clearly the best "high leverage" choice among him, De La Rosa and Thornton. The last spot I think depends a lot on their analysis of Doubront. If they just evaluate that his struggles of late are a result of him hitting an innings wall, he might just be a candidate for the DL and another reliever shows up. Farrell could also just stick with 10 pitches - which is my preference but would be counter to how Farrell has deployed his staff all season. That said, the postseason bullpen will have at least two legit 6-out options in Dempster and Workman. (you could add Morales there if you wanted) With more options for multi inning relief, I'd pounce on the chance to try to sneak Berry onto the active playoff roster for instance.

I'd even be willing to say Koji was a value play too ... he had a strong track record, but serious durability questions prevented him from getting, oh let's say "Proven Closer" sort of money. The Red Sox did not have to extend a large commitment to him - certainly nothing they'd regret if he flamed out. Koji of course has worked out beyond anyone's wildest expectations - in terms of working back to back days, and being able to negotiate the occasional >3 out save. In fact, he has been so good this year - that even if he sucks next year with his money guaranteed or whatever, his contribution would STILL be a net win for the Red Sox.

Gonzalez wasn't a cancer - he did not invent Kyle Weiland out of thin air. He just declined in ability in 2012 - and we can call it a legit decline because in LA it has not returned. Basically he went from an MVP candidate to Mike Napoli at twice the price. Similarly Napoli's strikeouts aren't that important - they do look bad though.

I doubt Napoli can get 3/39 from the open market, especially with a 1st rounder. But he is pretty clearly the top domestic free agent 1B. (you could argue Kendrys Morales as possibly the only one close) While I agree there won't be teams lining up to give him $14/yr long term - he should not have that much trouble finding a team that will guarantee more than $14M of his contract, whatever the terms are. Would you pay $14M for 1 year of Napoli at a 2013 level? Without a doubt. Also, I think the Red Sox would be fine with him coming back to be their 1B - Abreu is interesting, but the Red Sox have laid out for a 1B in his "prime" before and it did not go amazingly. It's not a requirement for this team to be good.

Whole point of low risk, high reward is to throw a lot of bodies at an answer - Big Papi is obviously your wildest dream. That will almost never happen. But Hideki Okajima for one particularly important season before he turned into a pumpkin? Flags fly forever, and so thus you go fishing again. The question about "how many low risk high reward guys worked out" is really funny - that is the whole point, that not many will work out. But with something like relief pitching, where guys are wildly inconsistent across the board, throwing stuff at the wall is the percentage play.

If Drew turns down a QO, then it means that he becomes a free agent + your first round pick. That severely narrows the market for him. Basically it's a team like the Mariners who won't have to cede a pick. Given the gambles he and Boras saw Bourn and Lohse lose out on this offseason - he'll almost certainly take the deal and the Red Sox would then have a $14M block of Bogaerts (or a $14M utility player). Napoli has no such problem. He turns down the QO, he is betting he can find someone to guarantee him something like 2/20 and not worry as much about the pick. That is not wildly unlikely. He takes the QO, the Red Sox have their starting 1B then - on a perfect deal, and he's not blocking anybody.

Napoli's QO is a no-brainer ... Drew's QO I think is a no-go ... and Salty I could argue both sides though I'd prefer not to

I did. Sticking with Fangraphs, just because I am too lazy to check out Baseball Reference: Gomes, 0.7 fWAR, .332 wOBA, .230/.340/.418 ... 347 PAs Carp, 1.2 fWAR, .395 wOBA, .306/.372/.549 ... 218 PAs Nava, 1.9 fWAR, .370 wOBA, .306/.392/.452 ... 493 PAs Napoli 3.5 fWAR, .366 wOBA, .262/.357/.485 ... 546 PAs Effectively Napoli has been twice as effective as the Carp-Gomes combination (add up plate appearances and they are roughly comparable). Nava and Napoli are more comparable, though Napoli's ability to slug makes up for Nava's better on base ability. And relative to their positions, defensively this year has been no comparison - Napoli has been a downright above average 1B, while Nava has been a poor corner outfielder. Of course Napoli is better than 2 role players ... in a land with finite roster spots, why use two guys for one guy's job? Even if Gomes/Carp were equal together to Napoli at 1B, why would you split the job if you don't have to? Now, I advocate splitting the job if you can't find a full time stud. But if you can't and Napoli does it for a very fair price, and no long term commitment, so much the better. I think it is clear Napoli's 2010 is one giant flashing neon "fluke". What he is this year is probably who he is - basically the best beer league softball player you've ever seen. But that is a valuable guy - and I think with guys like him, fans see all those strikeouts and confuse it with him not being good. I call it the Bellhorn Syndrome jokingly. We're so conditioned by little league and silly things managers said in the 1980s that strikeouts are this horrible travesty when they are just outs.

Here is thing about the QO decision ... Step 1: If he took it, would it f-up your plans? ... Step 2: Would there be a significant chance he would decline it? (which of course depends on his evaluation of the market for his services with the pick penalty) For Napoli, Step 1 is basically no - you get a guy who'd you'd be happy to start on an exactly fair price. Step 2: Also a yes, because he can probably get multiple years from somebody (with at least that money in terms of reachable upside) So to me the Red Sox can give him a QO without losing any sleep. Would it affect the Abreu pursuit? Not really - at the end of the day they can afford to lose a bidding war for a 1B.