Kimmi

I expect Porcello to pitch close to his contract level next season. Miley is good for a back end guy. Kelly could throw a wrinkle into things if he has finally learned how to pitch. He stuff is certainly good enough.

My preference would be bringing in two pitchers as well, but I think we could have a solid rotation if we at least get that #1. At $13 mil, I just think re-signing Buchholz is a no brainer, provided that he is healthy.

Coward is putting it nicely. Here's a funny tweet I read earlier: "Better ideas than getting rid of Don Orsillo: Signing Hanley, playing him in left field."

I understand how bad he's been. Believe me, I much prefer an OF of Betts, JBJ, and Castillo. That wasn't the point of my post. It looks like Dombrowski is leaning towards Hanley playing 1B next season. Personally, I think it's a mistake, but Dombrowski knows baseball far better than I do, so I'll defer to his judgment. If by some miracle Hanley can play the position competently, that sure would solve a lot of our issues.

That is not the point. The point is that there is some good rationale behind why the Sox signed him. Here is a good read on the subject by Lindbergh, if you're so inclined. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-hanley-ramirez-left-field-defense-boston-red-sox/

The money was not invested on Hanley being a great defensive left fielder. He could stink as much as he does and still be a positive contributor to the team if his offense were at the same level it was at last year. This point has been made many times. He has always been a poor defender, but his bat has always been good enough to overcome that. That is what the FO invested in.

You stated that both pitchers (Bard and Beckett) faced 12 batters and allowed 9 baserunners. First of all, what am I missing here - some DPs? That aside, Bard got 5 outs in doing so and Beckett only got 4 outs. So even pointing to the getting batters out versus putting them on base criteria, Beckett was worse.

I have defended Hanley on the "attitude" and "laziness" issues, mainly because we really haven't heard any reports verifying that either is the case. That said, if what Cafardo states is true, then I can no longer defend him. It is one thing to be a lousy fielder. It's a completely different thing to not give the effort or have the desire to improve. As I said before, intent does matter.

First off, Dombrowski has to bring in a top line starter, so that Porcello, Buccholz, or anyone else we currently have does not have to be counted on to be our ace. I am not counting on Kelly being in the rotation, but rather being in the pen, though he is making a case for himself as a starter. Our rotation would then be #1 guy, Porcello, Buchholz, Rodriguez, and Miley. Owens is excellent insurance so that we don't have to "count on" Porcello and Buchholz.

Personally, I think Beckett's start was worse. He lasted 1/3 less inning and gave up 2 more runs. IMO, if a pitcher is not getting hitters out, it doesn't really matter whether the batters are getting on via a walk or a hit. It's impossible to define "worst" anyway. That is such a subjective term. Bard's outing was horrendous. Saying it was the worst since 1910 is a bit of a hyperbole.

That's what I'm thinking. Maar sounds like a real jerk. I will miss Orsillo.

I am not a fan of huge, long term contracts, typically anything over 4 years, though I understand the need to sometimes do that. If people prefer signing the Ellsburys and the Scherzers for these 7 year deals (I don't), then I can understand that too. What I don't like is that when these deals inevitably go south, we hear all the criticism, from the same people who are advocating such deals, of how stupid the FO was to sign such a long term deal. I prefer the shorter term, higher dollar deals. If they go bad, they are easier to overcome.

It looks really bad in hindsight, but at the time, it was a good risk to take. It might still work out to be a good move.

We've discussed this before, and though it might not be fair, IMO, Owens has to start the season in AAA. I would not even be upset if both Owens and Rodriguez started in AAA. For one, relying on 2 youngsters in the starting rotation from the beginning of the season is almost always a recipe for disaster. For two, you have to give the team as many viable options as possible. Getting rid of some starters because you have a young pitcher who looks good over 2 months would not be a wise decision. I know it would make a lot of people happy to see Porcello traded and Owens put in the rotation. That might work out best for a couple of months, but inevitably, a move like that comes back to bite you. What do you do when a starter goes down? What do you do when the 2nd starter goes down? The best teams are often the ones who have the depth to not miss a beat when a starting player gets injured. We would have have with Owens in AAA. We would likely not have that with him in the starting rotation to begin the season.

No one is claiming that he is a Gold Glover. But he is not nearly as bad as we've seen him play this season. Recently (2nd half) he looks more like the defensive player we should have seen all along. He has always been average to slightly above average. He made some really nice plays yesterday. Perhaps any competent 3rd baseman would have made them, perhaps not. Either way, he has played at a "competent" level recently, which is the point. He has always been a competent 3rd baseman, especially for one who plays in so closely where he has less reaction time.

I agree about the bonehead plays. Hopefully, that will improve as well.

What some people keep forgetting is length of contract. There is a big difference in signing someone to a 4 year deal versus a 7 year deal, especially when you consider the ages at which Porcello and Ells were at the time of the signings.

We will have to wait until the end of all of those contracts to see how they play out. We might not have been worse off this year and last with Ellbury's contract, but we might be a lot worse off in the next 5 years if we had re-signed him. It's typically the back end of those contracts that hurt.

Cherington's plan was the same plan as Theo's. Build the team around a strong farm system and fill the holes through free agency, while avoiding the huge long term contracts as much as possible. In 2013 it worked. In 2014 and 2015, it didn't.

It seems like Jackie has us saying "WOW!" in every game he plays in. What's even more amazing is that he's done it from all 3 outfield positions, which is no simple task.

I agree. There is nothing like watching excellent defense. He's obviously not going to continue this torrid pace, but he should be able to hit well enough to stick.

Yes, but only because Sunday afternoons are closer to Monday mornings.

Disappointing loss, but it always eases the pain when the Yankees lose.

He should probably not be the closer, but in fairness to him, he had been very good up until the past couple of weeks. It's possible that he is just spent.

He looked bad the first half, but his second half defense has been much better. For all the flack he has gotten, he makes some really good plays.