Kimmi

He needs to put his cap on straight.

FTR, you guys are really depressing. LOL There are 116 games left to be played. Think positive!

Interestingly, to date, out of 237 batters who have at least 50 at bats: Hanley ranks 10th in batted ball velocity with an average velocity of 93.49 mph. Granted, his velocity has very likely declined since the shoulder injury, and most of this ranking is probably attributed to his strong April. Napoli ranks 30th at 91.96 mph. Ortiz ranks 36th at 91.73 mph. Betts ranks 40th at 91.40 mph. Sandoval is 83rd at 89.90 mph. Pedroia is 165th at 87.38 mph. Bogaerts is 223rd at 84.79 mph.

The pitching really hasn't been the problem recently though. It's been the offense.

Some fair points Pal, and fair enough if you were against this trade from the outset. I still think the rationale for making this trade is valid though. I disagree about the value that Kelly and Craig could provide the Sox over the length of their time with the Sox versus what Lackey could provide over a year and a half, and that's even if Kelly were moved to the BP. I also disagree that Kelly only has one pitch. IMO, his secondary pitches are decent. He just needs to learn how to locate better. Lastly, I would disagree with your description of Kelly and Craig as "low ceiling projects".

They were looking at both the short term and the long term with the Lackey trade. Kelly and Craig both have the potential to help the Sox in 2015 and for several years to come. The short term has not worked out to date, but short term planning was in involved in that trade. That said, I was surprised that the Sox spent as much money as they did, then did not go the extra step to acquire another starting pitcher. I really thought they would. But I also understand their rationale behind waiting 2 or 3 months into the season to see how things panned out.

I have to disagree with the idea that trading Lackey for Kelly and Craig was bad at the time that it happened. It looks bad as of this moment, but it wasn't a bad trade going in, and it might end up not being a bad trade in the end. 1. Ben was looking for major league ready players, not prospects. With both the Lester and Lackey trades, he wanted players that could help the team contend this year. 2. Too many people are looking at only the short term (this year) in this deal. Kelly is a cost-controlled player until 2018 and Craig is under contract until 2017, with an option for 2018. The deal was made not only with 2015 in mind, but also for the longer term. 3. Kelly was a 26 year old pitcher who can hit 97 mph. He has some upside, and he is cheap. He pitched fairly well with the Cardinals. 4. At the time of the trade, our outfield was a mess. We did not have Castillo. Victorino's health is always a concern. Betts had all of 10 games under his belt and wasn't hitting that well in that small sample. JBJ couldn't hit his way out of a paper bag. Sizemore was gone. Hanley wasn't signed yet. Holt was cooling off. The Sox needed some outfield depth. Craig was not just an excessive piece. And the fact that he can play 1B didn't hurt. 5. Before his injury, Craig was a very good hitter. He is not that old. It is not unrealistic to think that if he got healthy, he could rebound to close to what he was in 2012 or 2013. If he did rebound, his contract would be considered cheap. 6. The Sox have taken fliers on players like Craig before. Victorino, who played very well in 2013. Stephen Drew. Beltre. They worked out. Yes, the trade looks bad right now, but the rationale in making the trade at the time is very sound.

Threw in the towel on Craig because they signed Hanley? Maybe they saw an opportunity to sign a very good hitter at a decent price. Maybe they saw an opportunity to acquire some depth since that was one of the things lacking in last year's team. Maybe they saw an opportunity to give the team some more flexibility so that they could make some trades. Things don't always work out. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a good decision at the time. Maybe Craig bounces back with some everyday at bats in AAA.

I have said many times that I much prefer a strong pitching staff and mediocre offense over the reverse of that. However, I disagree that the team was horribly assembled. They are playing horribly right now, but they are better than what they have shown so far.

Fangraphs has the 2012 Rangers at a 4.02 ERA. Regardless, to you agree that our offense has been putrid, and that, despite that, the team has been able to stay in the race so far with a 4.48 (and now slightly higher) ERA? If the answer to that question is yes, then I don't understand why a better offense and a better team ERA can't be good enough to get it done, at least until July, when we can hope for reinforcements.

I don't think anyone is surprised that either Lester or Lackey are pitching well. The concern with Lester is not this year or even next, but what might happen towards the end of the contract. The Sox should have locked Lester up last spring, but once his price got as high as it did, the Sox were right to let him walk. In hindsight, the Lackey trade looks really bad right now. I completely understand the rationale behind it though. I also think we need to give the trade some more time before calling it a bust.

The Rangers are another team that made the playoffs with an ERA over 4 in 2012, and there have been a couple of other teams with ERA in the high 3s with weaker offenses that have made the playoffs, but I get your point. I have always been a proponent of the "pitching and defense" philosophy over the "mash your way to the playoffs" philosophy. That said, with the current team ERA being 4.48 and the offense being as putrid as it's been, the team has stayed in the race. If the offense hits to their level of expectation, we should be able to stay in the race for the remainder of the year, with the assumption that more pitching will be acquired by the deadline, and also with the possibility of getting help from one or more of our youngsters. If the offense had been hitting up to expectations to date, there is a very good chance we'd be leading the division. In short, the staff can be good enough if the offense does its job.

I don't think it's a smart vs $$$ choice, but rather a smart $$$ versus stupid $$$ choice. I think too many fans want to see the Sox sign the top free agents, regardless of the amount and length of the contract. The Carl Crawford type contracts are gone. The Justin Masterson type contracts are in. And the bottom line is still that the strategic planning starts with the farm system and the cost-controlled players.

And they do have a big payroll. They had no problem going over the luxury tax limit this season. They are going to spend money. They are just not typically going to spend it on the superstars who command those big contracts. They are going to go with locking up their younger players as they did with Miley and Porcello, and go with contracts that are for fewer years at more AAV.

Thanks Spitball. Solid post. I have never been a fan of big contracts. I like the change too.

That certainly makes sense SK. Switch hitters do tend to have better splits batting from their weak side than lefties or righties do batting against the same handed pitcher, but if a particular pitcher has bad splits against LH hitters, it would make sense to bat LH against him rather than switching to the weak side. I'm guessing, however, that for a switch hitter who is used to seeing the ball come out of a pitcher's hand a certain way, that is still easier said than done.

Joe Kelly sportin' the sexy specs. 'Nuff said. Go Sox!!!

There is no TOOTBLAN calculated as a percentage. However, Fangraphs has UBR, Ultimate Base Running, which calculates how many runs teams have gained or lost due to baserunning. It penalizes teams for getting thrown out trying to advance an extra base, getting picked off, etc., and awards points for taking an extra base on a single, scoring on a shallow sac fly, etc. The Sox rank 23rd in baserunning with a UBR of -2.4 runs. That should make you happy.

LOL It's good stuff to have in your back pocket, just in case.

The team has remained in the hunt with the 5+ ERA and the offense doing practically nothing. If the offense performs like it should, I think an ERA in the lower to mid 4 range would be enough to compete. I would then fully expect the FO to obtain another starter before the deadline.

And I can understand that line of thinking too.

Back to the topic of switch hitting, it's interesting to note that Panda batted left handed today against a left handed pitcher, and got a hit. My understanding is that he batted left handed today because he is still experiencing soreness in his left leg, but since he experienced success (albeit in only one at bat), he might decide to continue doing so.

Well, that makes sense. I just think it's hard to say I'm not going to be a fan anymore. I guess some people can do it, but I can understand why people would continue to support the team no matter how bad it got.

Well, I personally would not stop watching the Sox, nor going to their games, nor buying their merchandise, so I understand why fans continue to do so. We can't help it. As I mentioned in one of the game threads, I get so frustrated with this team sometimes that I vow to quit baseball many times throughout the season. But there I am again, watching the next night. That said, fans come in all varieties. Some are negative, some are positive. Some will stop watching games if the team is not doing well, some will watch no matter what. Some will give up hope if the team is 5 back in July, some will still have hope if the team is 5 back with 5 games to play. Some are "eye test" fans, some are stat geeks. While I disagree with some others' views, and often don't understand the negative views, I don't question the fandom of anyone on this site. I don't think you have to pledge your undying loyalty to prove that you're a fan.

I've also heard complaints that they are cheap because they aren't willing to spend above their self-imposed limit on a player like Lester, for instance. As far as Ben being fired if the team finishes last again, he very well could be, but I don't necessarily think he deserves to be. I have a hard time holding Ben accountable for all the players underperforming. He can't control what happens on the field. IMO, he did his job this offseason.