Kimmi

It's possible that they might have learned something from watching him throw. It's also possible that they would not have been able to conclude anything more than what they already knew. It's also possible that they did in fact watch him throw. At the very least, there was a scouting report from watching video that showed a clear change in mechanics (something about the push off leg) pre and post injury. This change in mechanics was due to the injury, and it was the likely cause of Masterson's loss in velocity. The Sox felt that Masterson would regain his velocity now that he was healthy and could revert to his pre-injury mechanics.

Yes, there were definitely some question marks going in. But remember, the pitching staff was only supposed to be mediocre. They were not supposed to be the strength of the team.

Perhaps $9.5 mil was a little steep. But again, the idea is that it was for one year. If he reverted back to 2013 form, he would have been a bargain. If he stinks, it's easy enough to cut ties with him.

Sometimes, but not always. Players with options many times start the season in AAA for the mere fact that they can be stashed there without the risk of losing them. It may not be right, but it's a fact of baseball.

My biggest concern with your previous statement was with starting the year with two rookies in the rotation. I do not think that that is a good idea. Outside of that, I can live with what you're saying, though my preference would be to acquire both a #1 and a #2/3. I do think it's a no brainer to pick up Clay's option, but I don't want the team depending on him as our top of the rotation guy.

Well of course you're going to disagree. My arguments don't support your opinion. When a pitcher rebounds from injury, it's not illogical to expect him to regain velocity, whether they saw him pitch or not. It might also not have done any good to see him pitch during the offseason because his velocity could have returned at a later date. Either way, it's not a bad risk to take on a one year deal. The Alex Gordon analogy has nothing to do with whether he was already on the team or not. The point of the analogy is that it is quite reasonable to take a below average defender at a tough position and make him a better defender at an easier position, especially if that player has the athleticism, which Hanley does.

I have no issues with who creates the thread or when it is created. I actually prefer that it be created early rather than at the last minute. Honestly, I forgot that today was Monday (happens when you're off all summer) and that the Sox had an off day. I thought you had the date wrong on the game thread, hence the acid comment. Perhaps I need to lay off of whatever it is I'm on. LOL

Agree completely. I do not like large contracts for relief pitchers. That money can be spent much more wisely in another area.

JBJ is channeling his inner Pedroia.

The plan worked in 2013. The competitive part failed miserably the other 3 seasons. However, I think that we do have a nice core of young players for years to come. A couple of key pitching acquistions this offseason and the team can be competitive next year.

Absolutely. I posted before that I would give these players until at least midseason next season before thinking that they might not work out. Personally, I think that Pablo, Hanley, and Porcello will all perform at levels closer to expectations next season.

The decision on Hanley was not made in the dark. Talent evaluators made an educated decision that he should be no worse off playing LF than he was playing SS based on Hanley's athleticism and some common sense. The idea that moving a player to an easier position would result in some improvement is not a difficult one to understand, nor is it unreasonable. Exhibit A: Alex Gordon How do you know that the Sox didn't watch Masterson throw before signing him? It's also possible for a pitcher's velocity to return as the pitcher gets stronger, so his lack of velocity in the offseason does not necessarily mean that his velocity would not return once the season started. Either way, the gamble the Sox took on him was not insane, nor was it negligence. The key here is that it was a one year deal. Seriously, the idea that the FO is sitting around twiddling their thumbs, then making moves just out of the blue with no research into the move is ludicrous. It's a fair opinion to think that this FO stinks. It's not a fair opinion to think that their moves are made in the dark. The FO has a team of analytics guys and scouts who put countless hours into every decision the FO makes.

As things stand, Rodriguez for sure. I'm not trying to diss on him by saying that he should start the season at AAA. I would be perfectly okay if he were the only rookie in our starting rotation to start the season. My reasoning for having him start at AAA is depth. If/when one of the starters gets injured or underperforms, how nice would it be to have someone like Rodriguez be able to step up and take his place, and have the rotation not miss a beat? It may or may not be fair, but he has options, and having a young arm like him in AAA is the best way to have quality depth.

You really have to stop putting so much emphasis on a player's full career when trying to project what he might become. Yes, career numbers are valid to a point. However, considering age and how players typically improve or decline as they age, early years of someone's career does not offer much in the way of projections. Looking at the last 2-3 years would be more prudent. There is no valid reason to think that Porcello would not at least maintain the level that he pitched at last season.

^^This

The speculation that the Sox were hoping Porcello could become a better pitcher by improving his strikeouts was hinted at by Gammons. The way the story goes, this was actually started in Detroit, and the Sox hoped to build upon that. It is speculation, but it could just as easily be true. Regardless of whether the Sox tampered with Porcello's approach or he did it on his own, it clearly has not worked. It is the coaching staff's job to correct these things, is it not? It's the same thing with Pablo playing so shallow at 3B. I think you have to question the coaching staff when there has been such widespread underperformance.

Solid post SK, but I have to agree with a700 about having 2 kids in the rotation. Aside from the fact that they often have innings limitations attached to them, it is far too risky to start the season relying on two rookies in your rotation. Additionally, if the Sox decide to start the season with Rodriguez and Owens in the rotation, that leaves almost no depth on the pitching front for the inevitable injury/underperformance. I would like to see the Sox add, at minimum, a #1 pitcher. I agree that Porcello will bounce back. A rotation of a #1 acquisition, Buchholz, Porcello, Miley, and Rodriguez doesn't look so bad, though I would prefer the Sox also add a #2/3, and start Rodriguez in AAA to give the team more depth. Wright has to factor in there somewhere as well. I believe he is out of options. Overall, I agree that the team is not that far away from being a contender next season.

I would only take Shields' contract in a trade that involves moving Pablo's contract back to SD, a swap of "bad contracts", if you will. SD was interested in Pablo last offseason, so they might be willing to make that deal. Hanley could move to 3B, where I would prefer him to be over 1B, and that opens up the OF for Betts, Castillo, and Bradley, if the latter two can play up to expectations.

If you're talking about relying on him for next year, I agree. However, I don't see why it's stupid to call him up and see what he can do the remainder of the season. If nothing else, he may improve his trade value, even if only slightly.

RSFFL says, "Not in my house!" Go Sox!!!

I think MVP is on another acid trip.

As others have said, great day for JBJ, and hopefully this is the start of something good for him, not just a one time thing. There is nothing better than watching some fine defense. He and Castillo need to be playing everyday. It will be rather difficult with Betts coming back.

I agree that it would not take much to make this team a contender for next season. I agree with you that we need at minimum 6 starters at the start of the season, but I would not put Eduardo in the pen. I would let him start the season in AAA. I think trading Pablo to SD for Shields in some capacity has some merit. SD was all in on Pablo last offseason, so it's something they might be interested in. This move would allow Hanley to move to 3B and it would fill one of our SP slots, without adding much payroll (depending on the specifics of the trade). The Sox could then spend big on a #1 in free agency if they wanted to. As far as 1B goes, I don't see the Sox spending that kind of money on Davis.

I will add that they were not guesses in the dark. They were guesses, as pretty much everything in baseball is, but they were not made in the dark.

I do agree that the FO screwed up big time in not re-signing Lester last spring. As far as Craig and Masterson go, both players were injured last year. Is it so unreasonable to think that players can return to form once they become healthy? You said yourself that players who look like they are done can come back and have great seasons. Look at Teixeira's season. Neither Craig nor Masterson are that old. Also, it is so unreasonable to move an athlete from a difficult defensive position to an easier defensive postion and think he can improve? Teams do it all the time. At the very least, you wouldn't expect him to get significantly worse. Yes, there were some risks involved. However, none of the moves were insane or even bad, pre-hindsight. While it was reasonable to think that one of them might not work out, it was not unreasonable to think any of those things could have worked out. The fact that none of the moves have worked and they have all failed to the degree that they have is uncanny. There's really no other way to put it.