sk7326

If a guy produced all of his WAR against righties ... would you penalize him for being useless against lefties ... of course you would. How the manager used him shielded him from places where he could cause trouble. That the manager has to work around his limitations is not exactly an endorsement Now I do agree that you have to shift the measurement a little for a pure DH ... that WAR won't tell the full story. But a specialist should have a higher bar to clear than a non-specialist.

He is off to a good start.

That most of the announcers at the national level do not seem to like current players is a real problem.

It's always good sense to add pitching - attrition being what it is. Bullpen arms, a high ceiling starter or two.

What is funny is that early ARod was very likeable on TV. (like he really likes baseball) But this year he was not nearly as good with more exposure.

For players it's about the money to a point ... if the offers are close that is one thing. If somebody offers a LOT more that is a different kettle of fish.

Who says it is all about WAR? I am realistic - it's a starting point not an end of the discussion. Now WAR is good for isolating individual contribution - and keeps me from falling into the trap of grading teammates. Now I am not penalizing a DH. I am noting that someone who has one job should be really good at it, better than someone who has other jobs. It's the flipside to why nobody cares whether a pitcher can hit or not. So there is a higher bar for a pure DH than a position player - it's self evident to me. Martinez had an extraordinary season - but there were more valuable ones. No shame in that. I'd also point out that this year has a number of guys in the AL who would have been MVP in many, many other seasons. Trout and Betts were just spectacular ...

It's not a definitively separable skill from "hitting".

One issue with runners left on base ... AS A TEAM - who had the fewest baserunners left on base per game ... Baltimore The Dodgers were 5th, Cleveland 6th, Atlanta 7th, Boston 8th The teams that leave a lot of baserunners - generate a lot of baserunners. I mean last year - where we lamented the Red Sox inability to produce runs, the Red Sox were still 5th in the ML in RISP batting average.

Here is the thing with Harper - on the surface he had a not great walk year ... but it was good. (135 RC+). The lower war was from a bad defensive year. Now I would not sign him because the Red Sox have plenty of options in the outfield. But I expect a deal to be crazy. You just don't get 26 year olds getting to UFA status that often. The Nats have real strong alternatives - which is amazing when you think of it.

He had to play a lot of CF - and that is not optimal. RF he is probably fine - and has a cannon. Now I think this is all moot. I don't think Boston is in on any of those top top guys.

Never say never - though I'd be surprised if the Sox really were going to do that.

3 ain't happening - not without a team option. If the Red Sox are going to pay the tax anyway, might as well offer 1 yr and 7-8 and see what happens.

I would not be surprised. JD signed late enough in the FA period that the Red Sox signed contingencies - there was just not really a job opening at 1B, and I am not sure how much chance they had to work with him at all. That is a non-issue this year.

I doesn't preclude him from working for the club necessarily ... he was doing studio work the last 2 postseasons ... not much to see here.

Crawford had solid OBPs most of his career - he did not walk a ton but made a ton of contact. He was not a bad OBP guy. If you look at the moves Theo made in 2010/11 - he was shifting away from the early 2000s Moneyball valuation (basically a glorified slo-pitch team) to one where defensive value was premium. Mike Cameron and Carl Crawford were two attempts to address that.

It definitely behooves Epstein to say that.

His OPS vs lefties in 2009 and 2010 was .696 and .704. Not very good, but not disastrously bad considering what else he did. There was reason to bet on him - obviously it didn't work out.

They are way cheaper than going into the FA pool and have a chance to be better. Heck, the Yankees could very well sign Machado and move Andujar to 1B and solve things that way.

I wouldn't want to Peter principle Pearce like that. He has been a part timer his whole career - and it would be hard to justify assuming he can be more at his age.

it does - and I don't mind that it should (the offensive bar should be higher for a specialist) ...

I would not be surprised if the Sox look at this seriously this spring.

Heyward was an interesting calculated risk - getting him cheap-ish with a short opt out period. Unfortunately Heyward has been a one way player largely. Darvish has been terrible in a predictable way - that was always a risky signing.

Pearce will be interesting. Jacko is right that this is his last chance for a big payday - and he wants a full time ride. At the same time he has always been a platoon bat. I'd put it at 50-50 he comes back. The Sox should be able to make him a 1 year deal to come back as a platoon guy. Maybe somebody will offer more, but I am not sure there are many full time rides for him.

Lucchino was in baseball for a billion years - and was super experienced building a front office. He clearly was well heeled in EVERY aspect of the baseball business. Remember, Lucchino was Epstein's mentor - he discovered him, and helped pay for Theo to go to law school. I think at a certain point Lucchino could not let go - he was the president, he wanted his say on moves. This was not an unreasonable belief - and so it resulted in some moves which there might not be 100% agreement on. This obviously also applied to Cherington, who also came up the same way. Now Epstein has every incentive to spin his side of the story - it's easy to say ex post that "hey, I would have taken a different approach". But - he was part of a collaborative process, and some of those moves didn't work. Also, I'll submit that all of the moves were not ex ante bad moves. I mean the Red Sox ended up in one offseason signing the top rated pitcher and the top rated position player. And then they made a trade for one of the best power hitters in the league squarely in his prime. Basically injuries (and the ability of the players to deal with them) caused all three moves to be sub-optimal, but all of them made sense. Crawford's failure was obviously more than that (specifically that one of the league's best defensive players went straight into the tank on THAT end). The one thing Dombrowski did (and Henry allowed) was that he is clearly where the buck stops in the front office. Given how accomplished a baseball guy he is, that is not a bad thing. And - by all accounts - he did not just willy nilly destroy the business processes that were already here. (a front office which was the envy of the league) After all, on paper he should NOT have been attracted to Cora - or anybody from the Astros shop - but there you go.