notin

I think there is a tendency for fans to insert themselves into these situations too many times and feel they know the answers or need to. There is an entire thread about the Price/Eck incident which was simply two grown men having a disagreement on a plane, something that might happen on 50% of all MLB flights for all we know. Yet somehow a large contingency felt this was a big newsworthy deal and we needed answers and public apologies, etc. And needed them NOW!! On the first page of that thread, you had a post that said "Just let it go. Man, this town is tough. Everyone and everything is under a million microscopes." One of the more accurate assessments of that incident...

Or maybe they saw him assuming the role he has had since he told Valentine to f*** off, and they aren't letting this one little incident mar that image? Or maybe they simply agree with him outright anyway? We have nothing but conjecture about how anyone feels about him and his leadership skills, so one time when people see something they can question, they assume the answers and proclaim him unfit. So again, would you base his hitting one on at-bat? does sample size apply? If you like magnitude, we can go that way to. If I asked you who was the best reliever you ever saw, who would you say? If I then asked you who was the only reliever in MLB history to blow a two run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the World Series and lose the game, who would you say? Would you agree this was a singular incident yet one with a lot of magnitude? Does it make you change your answer to the first question? My guess is you would name the same relief pitchers both times, assuming you think Mariano Rivera is the answer to the first question. (He is the answer to the second one.)

I'm sure there is a lot more to all of this than any of us know. If you were evaluating Pedroia as a hitter and he struck out in his first at-bat, would you think "Not MLB material"? If you watched him as a fielder and he booted his first ground ball, would you give up on him thinking "why is this guy even playing?" People are judging his leadership abilities based on one incident, which may or may not even be taken correctly. At what point do the same sample size arguments come in to other criteria? He's been with this team for 11 seasons. Is this the only sample we have? Do we hold leadership and personality to such high criteria that anything that can be taken as poor is more than enough to discredit his abilities and role with the team?

It doesn't have to be a good thing. It can also be completely irrelevant. The 1978-79 Yankees were reportedly a very dysfunctional bunch yet managed to win two World Series. How important is all this stuff?

They're not the problem per se. That they are among the best we have is the problem, and they are certainly not the solution...

Certainly possible. Although that they kept him when offered Puig does speak as to what they think of his value...

Brentz is a 29yo with 5 years in AAA and is a DFA candidate. Barfield is a 29yo minor league journeyman whose not even on the 40 man roster. If these are the best power hitting prospects we have, that is a big problem. (They aren't. Chavis is.)

Sure. I have no issues with his credibility. For as limited as his quotes were. Do you find it to be significant? How much did it all matter?

I wondered how normal or abnormal it was. Maybe it's just me but I imagine any time you get 25 adults and put them in a room, there is going to be some level of discord. So how much is normal and tolerable? Is it a matter of expectations and tolerance? It's the type of thing I find myself unable to really have any perspective on so I don't make issues out of it. And if it was an abnormality, was it really an issue? The team won 93 games and their second straight AL East title, all while being the weakest power-hitting team in the AL by a large amount. At what point does that become a factor? Given that the team was a success, why do you feel this is an issue?

Castillo is certainly the safest of the bunch, at l;east per the defensive metrics on his limited play. But the salary is a huge issue, otherwise he might be the fourth outfielder this year. The Dodgers could certainly use him, but would they insist on sending back Kemp? That could be a deal breaker for me...

That is possible, but certainly not immediate. By mid-season there could be several new faces on the roster

With the Klller B's, the Sox don't anticipate needing outfielders for a couple seasons. So it looks like most of their prospects are further down...

The So haven't given up on Barfield because he was willing to sign a minor league deal for low money and because, with Benintendi, Betts and Bradley, the Sox do not anticipate the need for any new outfielders for a few years. So they can dedicate the upper minors to organizational fillers rather that player development at that position. If the Sox needed a corner OF and had a prospect working his way up, they would bench Barfield to play him in a second. He did hit 27 HR's at age 29 last year in a league where the average was was like 22 years old. He's not a power prospect. Or any type of prospect. He's not only not on the 40-man roster, it would take a score of injuries to get him there. At this point in his life, Jeremy Barfield is probably playing because he loves the game and, as he is from a baseball family (dad Jesse had a good career in Toronto and brother Josh reached the majors in SD), it's really what he knows best. Good for him. But his future is very limited, and he does know it (hence his joke on Twitter about the Sox not getting Otani not mattering, since they still had him)...

And Brentz and Barfield are probably more problem than solution in that department. The primary reason that they have struggled to develop power is the drafting strategy of taking "up the middle" players in the early rounds. You get more MLB players that way, but not necessarily the same level of impact. But no arguing that it did bring about a lot of success for the team...

No. The mistake is thinking one answer to one question and getting one perspective from one moment inside a clubhouse gives you anything remotely close to a complete picture. These kind of internal thinking is certainly not limited to you. For some reason, there is a lot of fans posting on various message boards for every team who seem to think they are getting accurate pictures of the workings and needs of MLB clubhouses and whether or not that picture fits into their static ideal of what is needed. Not sure why this is such an obsession. Even in his whole "leadership" discussion. How many people here really know how valuable leadership is in the clubhouse. Just because the Sox had it with Ortiz doesn't mean that's the only way things work. Has every successful team had a leader? It was like this with aces. Everyone said "you need an ace. you can't win without an ace." I would point "the Royals won without an ace" and the resposne was always the same. "That's differnt. They had a great bullpen." That's not different. That was the whole f***ing point - that there were alternatives. So the question now is - is it necessary to have a team leader and how much of a team leader is required? Jut because Team A or Team B had a leader doesn't make it necessary, as there could be alternatives. "Necessary" does mean "every team that won had one." And the answer really is "none of us knows."..

Really that is just how the press spins it. Apparently according to the candid Pierzynski, both winning and losing teams behave that way. And no one internal to the game seems to think it was a matter of discipline....

Despite the off/on nature of the typical April schedule, I think 12. 5 starters, with limited starts from Wright. And 7 relievers.

Guys like Brentz and Barfield can be found in any organization at any time. Both of these guys turn 30 during or right after the season. "Potential" is not really a good way to describe them any more. Brentz is only like 15 months younger than JD Martinez (and only a few days younger than Porcello). Barfield is less than a year younger than Martinez. They have reached the limits of their potential. Both guys made it all the way to AAA. That's no small accomplishment, despite it never being recognized as such. But that is probably about it for them, save maybe catching on as a bench player somewhere...

Fans are always at the disadvantage here. Most of us are operating with incomplete information and have no real sense of the standard happenings in an MLB clubhouse. Heck, even reporters seem to miss out on that last part, or they like to create controversy where there is none. for evidence, the chicken and beer fiasco was a big deal in the Boston press nd certainly on BDC. But AJ Pierzynski (then with the White Sox) summed it up the best "I've been on three different teams and seen that in all three clubhouses." So why was this apparently common behavior such a big deal in Boston?

The Sox have been running with a 4 man bench for a couple seasons now. If they do sign LoMo or JD, that puts Hanley on the bench. Leon grabs a second, as you said. The last two spots are from the cast of Brentz, Marrero, Holt, Heranadez, and Swihart. Now if the Sox do sign LoMo/JD, two players will have to be DFA'd or placed on the 60 day DL. Very likely Brentz and Marrero are those two players (or Hanley, but that seems lees likely and less wise). That leaves the last two bench spots to Swihart (out of options) and eith Holt or Hernandez, both of whom have options. I do expect Holt to be that last guy...

And how he's seen by people outside the whole situation can also be completely skewed...

But is he worth the gamble that hr is over them? We've all seen vertigo (Esasky) and concussions (Bay, Morneau) derail careers before. Sure some GM might want him, but for what?

And is also completely irrelevant in regards to the role.

But as he wasn't a free agent, that's not a fair comparison...

Not a terrible move. Just a terribly unimaginative one...