Q&A with the Globe's Tony Massarotti
The Boston Globe's Tony Massarotti was kind enough to answer some questions from us at Over The Monster regarding everything and anything Red Sox. Massarotti has been covering the Red Sox since 1994 when he was with the Boston Herald. In September, Massarotti made a move to the Globe where he has been covering the Red Sox ever since.

The Globe's Tony Massarotti.
1. There's been a lot of talk about the Red Sox making a deal with the Texas Rangers for a young catcher. A lot of hype surrounds Saltalamacchia, but he has yet to deliver on the promise. Teagarden seems like a more well-rounded player. Whom do you like more for the Red Sox, and who is the more likely target?
Teagarden seems like the more preferred choice given his defensive development to this stage, but the Red Sox love Saltalamacchia's upside and have for some time. (They tried to trade for him in 2007.) I think the club would do well to end up with either, though that could be difficult because Saltalamacchia could end up playing first base, too. Gerald Laird is a less desirable option, but one nonetheless.
2. If the Red Sox sign Teixeira, the conventional wisdom is that Youk will slide to 3B. Where does that put Mike Lowell?
On the trade market. Obviously, Lowell is coming off hip surgery, so he remains a great question. If the Red Sox have to hold onto him, Youkilis and Teixeira for a period of time, they would. But the shortage of third basemen in baseball would make Lowell quite tradeable if and when it comes to that. He is still a good player and signed for only two more years.
3. Do you think Clay Buchholz puts it back together this year and emerges as a more consistent major leaguer? Having thrown a no-no, he obviously has the talent.
Don't put much stock in the no-hitter. Most any pitcher can have a dominating game. (Joe Cowley, for example.) I still think Buchholz' greatest value is on the trade market. His performance last year was worrisome. If the Sox had dealt him last winter, they could have had the world for him.
4. Michael Bowden continues to be a highly rated Sox prospect, but you don't hear a lot about him. Is he destined for the Red Sox rotation, or is he more likely to be trade fodder?
Either. Of Buchholz and Bowden, I think the Sox are willing to trade one. Masterson seems like the best of the lot at the moment, and his versatility only increases his value. I'd be surprised only if BOTH Buchholz and Bowden are dealt.
5. Who is your 2009 minor league sleeper pick in the Red Sox organization?
Hmmm. Tough question. Not sure he qualifies as a sleeper, but Daniel Bard could be the next prospect to make his debut at Fenway. Also keep an eye on first baseman Lars Anderson, who is reaching a critical stage of his development. One other name: The Red Sox seem intrigued by catcher Luis Exposito, who played in low-A ball last year. Exposito is still a ways off, but he has overcome some personal problems and has good tools.
6. Dustin Pedroia has always been a line-drive hitter, but this year he showed some serious pop, hitting 17 dingers and 54 doubles. That's amazing for a guy who probably measures 5' 6" with his cleats off. How did his plate-approach change? Can we expect more of the same in '09?
I think Pedroia always has had power. One of the truly likeable things about him is that he doesn't use his size as an excuse. He swings to do damage - and frequently succeeds. I think we're looking at one of the best second basemen and best players in baseball here.
7. What happened to Jacoby Ellsbury's plate discipline? Will he rebound in '09?
I thought the hype surrounding Ellsbury was a little excessive to begin with because speed has a way of making jaws drop. At the end of the day, it's all about production. All in all, Ellsbury had a fine rookie year, complete with the struggles that many young players encounter. What happens from here is up to him, though I am a little worried about his ability to consistently handle the inside pitch.
8. What is the biggest organizational need, from top to bottom?
A relatively young power hitter, which is why I think the Sox are prepared to b reak the bank for Mark Teixeira. Do not underestimate the important of the TANDEM of Ortiz and Ramirez in the middle of the lineup over the last six years. Manny is now gone and Ortiz has two years left on his contract. Hitters like that are hard to find.
9. Do you think that the Rays will repeat their success and capture the AL East in '09? They have a ton of talent, but to have such a dramatic reversal in bullpen effectiveness from '07 to '08 is surprising.
I agree, but the Tampa system is deep. David Price will have a much bigger role in 2009 and players like B.J. Upton only will continue to get better. Will they win 97 games again? Hard to say as they had great health, particularly on the pitching staff. As we know, it takes a lot to win, from health to luck to talent. Typically, teams with smaller payrolls ebb and flow. Wouldn't be surprised if the Rays won the division again. Wouldn't be surprised if they won 85 games, either.
10. Have you heard anything from the clubhouse or front office regarding Tim Wakefield's health? There is a rumor that his shoulder has been bothering him, and that he is seriously considering retirement.
Wakefield has had some shoulder issues over the last few years, but he's already signed for 2009. He'll be back for another year at least. Clearly, his age (and shoulder issues) have stripped him of some versatility, preventing him from pitching between starts, on short rest, etc. But he's still a terrific fourth or fifth starter.
11. What Web sites or blogs, if any, do you read that cover the Red Sox?
In all honesty, not many outside of the major local newspapers. My wife and I have two small boys, so we're in the midst of years that require a commitment to our children. When our kids are both in school, I'm sure I'll have time to surf the web, etc. At the moment, I'm just not at the stage of life where I can give up that time, which means I've had to sacrifice some knowledge, etc.
12. And finally, what's been the hardest transition for you personally going from the Herald to the Globe?
Honestly, I've been startled at how seamless it has been. The job is really the same and I knew most of the writers/reporters anyway, so there really hasn't been much of a change. Obviously, I'm developing relationships with new bosses and editors, and those will take time. (There is no substitute for that.) The Herald was great to me and I miss many of the people there on a personal level, though I still keep in touch with some. The Globe obviously is a bigger operation that allows all writers/reporters a great platform for our work, which is nice.
2 recs |
59 comments
Comments
Great.
Dig the Q&A. Thanks Tony.
I was surprised by these sentiments:
I still think Buchholz’ greatest value is on the trade market. His performance last year was worrisome. If the Sox had dealt him last winter, they could have had the world for him… Masterson seems like the best of the lot at the moment, and his versatility only increases his value. I’d be surprised only if BOTH Buchholz and Bowden are dealt.
That’s the lowest assessment I’ve heard of Buch from anyone who gets paid to think about baseball. I don’t necessarily agree – I still think he’ll rebound. (Though maybe it’s irrational on my part…)
Of the three, I think Masterson has the lowest ceiling, but the highest probability of reaching it.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 6, 2008 6:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
beating a dead horse
honestly, I do not get it
did you watch the games last year?
Masterson’s ball moves all over hell
and he does not freak out under pressure
Masterson is a hell of a pitcher
on the other hand, Bucholz’s fastball is straight. good velocity on it, and great curve
but a straight fastball is death in the AL
someone said something about Masterson’s mechanics and longevity. I know nothing about that
but I watch a LOT of game (100+), and Masterson is just behind Lester on the wow meter for young Sox pitchers
by Frank Malzone on Dec 7, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Are you reading the WOW meter right?
The only pitcher on the WOW meter should be Curt Schilling, unless he deleted his account, or it was hacked. He PWNS the rest of the Sox, lolz, n00b.
If we’re talking about people I’d rather have in a tight situation, when the game is on the line, that list is:
-Beckett
-Matsuzaka
-Papelbon
-Okajima
-Lester
Ahead of Masterson.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Dec 7, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I would switch lester and oki in my book, but agree fully
by drabidea on Dec 7, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How many outs are we talkin' here?
6 or fewer outs and my first choice is Papelbon, followed by Beckett, Lester, Dice-K, Oki-Dokie, and Masterson.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hell yes I watched the games
40 walks in 80 innings is approaching Dice-K territory. And a .248 BABIP is highly unsustainable. He’s a good young pitcher, but don’t start getting crazy here.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 7, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One point of agreement
A straight fastball IS death in the AL.
Unless Buch’s command improves, he could fizzle. I’m optimistic.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 7, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dont quite understand..
how he can say the most glaring need is a young power hitter. Isn’t Lars going to fill that void? Yeah, he may be a little more then a year away, but still, that will fill the need. Atleast in my eyes..
Don’t see how he cant say the biggest need is anything but a young catcher.
by Charged on Dec 6, 2008 6:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lars is still a prospect.
I don’t think we can count on him to anchor our lineup quite yet. He certainly has the potential, but I think Tony’s right that this year will be huge for him. If he continues to develop, great. But there’s lots of Andy Marte-types who were supposed to be perennial 30-40 homer guys but who fizzled in the higher levels of the minors.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Dec 6, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the Wily Mo Pena types
or the Jeff Francoeur types, or the Melky Cabrera types. I especially like the last one – Yankee prospects who people think will turn into power hitters because they are young and in pinstripes, the rest of the baseball world be damned.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Dec 6, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My opinion of "Mazz" is unchanged...
he’s an old-school baseball type who gets his info from talking to people inside the organization, with their obvious biases and conflicts of interest, and he lacks a high “ceiling” (to use baseball terminology) for insightful and independent analysis. He occasionally offers bits of wisdom amidst a sea of conjecture and fanboy gut-reactions. Not that I don’t read his articles of blogs, but I wouldn’t take any of the comments he made with any kind of seriousness. No one outside the FO can answer most of the questions that Randy posed.
Essentially, his guess is as good as ours.
(Shameless plug coming) And regarding buchholz, I direct interested readers to my blog, where I look into why he seemed to perform so poorly last year. http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
Straight outta HP. Go MDC!!!
http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
by alfonzo on Dec 6, 2008 6:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
His guess is as good as ours? I doubt that. This man has been covering the Sox since 1994. Let’s give him some credit over the average fan…
by Randy Booth on Dec 6, 2008 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess what I mean is that no one outside the organization really knows the answers to many of your questions (which is exactly what makes them so engaging). Is his opinion more well-informed than ours due to his history covering the club? Perhaps. But you could also make the case that club officials are feeding him disinformation off-the-record, to help spread rumors that will eventually benefit our transactions. That’s the whole problem/fun with speculation.
Straight outta HP. Go MDC!!!
http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
by alfonzo on Dec 6, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and congrats getting the interview. Interviews like these certainly help elevate the website’s exposure among the less-obsessed masses, which is always a positive.
Straight outta HP. Go MDC!!!
http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
by alfonzo on Dec 6, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Dec 6, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mazz tends to agree with me
so, obviously, I view him as a freaking genius
:)
Anyway, one great player is worth 10 good ones
so I agree on selling out for Tex
by Frank Malzone on Dec 7, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"I still think Buchholz' greatest value is on the trade market."
Dang, was this ever stupid. When Mazz is not talking about pitching, great Q&A.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 6, 2008 8:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with his statements completely
Buchholz has a great chance at being a massive bust. While the Sox could of moved him for Johan Santana, Dan Haren, maybe even someone like a Jake Peavy or Matt Cain.
Masterson is the gem of the three pitchers mainly bc he has proven, at least for this past year, that he is a major league arm. Buchholz has not proven that yet.
Prospects are just that, prospects.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 6, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Prospects are just that, prospects", ok, fair, but regarding Buch the more appropriate would be
Best pitching prospect since Clemens is just that, best pitching prospect since Clemens.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 6, 2008 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not get carried away
Papelbon drew the Clemens comparison too, and while he is a beast, he’s no roger- with or without roids.
by Schulz on Dec 7, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
It doesn’t surprise me that you agree with Mazz, who is almost always wrong (eg, Sox should trade for Matt Holliday, etc). It would be interesting to see what would happen if you and Mazz were a GM team for the Sox. As has been gone over and over here, Masterson is NOT proven, his stats last year point to regression, and he has the worst stuff of the Sox pitching prospects. Callis, Law, Theo and anyone with sense markedly disagree with you.
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How can you say his stats point to regression when there’s nothing to base that on?….
by Randy Booth on Dec 7, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's reasonable.
Masterson had a large discrepancy between his FIP (4.69) and ERA (3.16). His DER was high at .757 (team’s was .699) and his BABIP against was .244. His LOB% was 83.3%, and it could also fall. The high walk rate and HR/9 rate are also worrisome.
Masterson could actually pitch with better peripherals next year, but end up with worse stats because of worse luck / defense. We’ll see, but I agree with the assessment that his performances won’t be as good.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Dec 7, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think any somewhat successful rookie can head to regression because people figure out his stuff. But regression after pitching 88 innings? I don’t know…
by Randy Booth on Dec 7, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe regression isn't the right term
But Masterson’s numbers suggest he was worse than his traditional stats indicate. As Ecoli suggests, if Masterson pitches just as well next year his numbers could be a lot worse.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Announcing the new NG nervousness index!
I hereby announce the creation of the new NG nervousness index. This index is a totally subjective index based on how nervous NG felt (while watching just about every Sox game last year) when certain relievers were brought into a tight game. It is based mainly on whether NG felt that the reliever had the better than average capacity to get the job done in the Sox favor. The lower the nervousness number, the better the reliever.
The uncontested lowest nervousness numbers go to Papelbon
Second lowest nervousness numbers went to Masterson
Third lowest nervousness numbers went to Lopez
Fourth lowest nervousness numbers went to Delcarmen
Fifth to Okajima
Anyway, you get my message!
by NG on Dec 7, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he'll even out?
Masterson could also improve, and I expect he will. Balance that against a regression of of “luck” to the mean (BABIP, LOB), and you may see similar numbers with better peripherals.
I expect the Red Sox will work diligently with Justin to reduce his BB/9.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes-
was just in the process of posting the same. Randy-also look at his log as a starter, even ignoring the unsustainable bapip and other peripherals. He got progressively worse, and never logged 7 innings. I would argue that even with the luck, he was not all that suscessful as a starter.
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Slow on the reply-
my agreement is with ecoli. 88 innings is plenty to see that he should have had standard stat measures that would look much less attractive. If your point is that 88 innings are not enough, look at his minor league numbers then guess how he will look next year.
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t believe you can look at someone’s MiL numbers and predict regression in the majors. I’m not defending him because I’m a huge Masterson fan (because I’m not), but I think there are variables that can change a player. I think Masterson struggled in the playoffs, but it also hardened him. I think in ‘09 he’ll benefit from that but also struggle a bit because hitters know him.
by Randy Booth on Dec 7, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can...
…do the following:
1)Look at the numbers in the minors to project his overall success in the majors
2)Look at his totally unsustainable peripherals combined with his high walk and HR rate in the majors.
3)Look at the fact that he already WAS regressing as a starter as the league got a longer look at him.
What points to an even static level of suscess next year? His great “makeup” that came with the playoffs? Do you recall that he got himself into great trouble in about half of his playoff spots?
I really do like Masterson, but I simply can’t see him as a sucessful starter. He is too easy for lefties to hit, for one thing. I see him as being a quality relief pitcher, clearly a valuable pitcher, and more so if he can learn to pitch to lefties.
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Straight outta HP. Go MDC!!!
http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
by alfonzo on Dec 9, 2008 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Ill just ignore the personal insult, but thanks for the comments Buzzy.
Masterson is not proven? which playoff appearance suggests that Masterson is not proven. If we use your logic, neither is Jed Lowrie or Jacoby Ellsbury or Lars Anderson.
Worst stuff out of the pitching prospects? Which pitch dont you like? the 93 mph sinker with a foot tail/break? the 95 4 seam fastball he can throw to get out of trouble or the mid 80s slider that busts lefties inside? Obviously you have very little experience scouting pitching prospects. And compare his pitches to Buchholz: below average fastball he cannot get over for strikes. A decent change and a 12/6 curve he must throw in almost every big situation bc he has no confidence in his other pitches. Sorry, not buying it.
Callis, Law and Theo and anyone with sense markedly disagree with you? Is Terry Francona on this list, bc it seems from watching any Sox game post Aug. Masterson was the #2 option outside of Papelbon. T. Francona seems to favor Masterson in big game situations. So I guess he is always wrong as well with 2 WS rings?
Buchholz’s trade value will never be higher. Masterson has been able to handle playing in the MLB, can you really say that Buchholz has done a better job or even anything close to what Masterson has shown the Red Sox in 08’?
I didnt think so. So, if you want Salty or Teagarden, then Buchholz goes. Seems very simple to me. But I understand when you have a crush on someone its tough to be rational and neutral.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 7, 2008 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not to reply to my reply
sorry for the double post.
But one other thing is different between Masterson and Buchholz. Their work ethic. Its no secret Buchholz parties like a rock star, this has been documented. He just started to figure out how he must work to get where he wants.
Masterson seems to be more focused and ill take players who are professionals over talent any day.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 7, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there are so many silly things in this post that it is probably not not worth it.
1)Your “scouting” knowledge and understanding are laughable. Masterson cannot throw 95 when he starts. If his sinker is so great, why was his FB/GB ratio not reflective of it? Why the 10 or so HRs?
2)Who says Buch’s change is average? It is plus to plus plus. Read the scouting reports please.
3)Do you look at or value pitching statistics other than ERA/WHIP? As has been posted here by sensible people, Masterson “should” have had an ERA of +1 point or so.
4)You seem to confuse Masterson as a starter with Masterson as a reliever. Francona’s desire to use him as a bridge to Paps is a statement about relief pitching.
5)I can’t comment on Fancona’s beliefs re the value of Buch vs Masterson as a starter, can you? Also, do you think people actually involved in the scouting (and those who have been mentioned before) are just too dumb to share your views?
I can’t comments on work ethic, and you may be correct, but that is not really the point. Lastly,
The “LOL” and tone was taken directly from your post reply to Drug’s on the same topic a few days back; in fact i purposely titled my post LOL as a nod to you.
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way, does anyone here have a subscription to Baseball America? Jim Callis has an article up right now arguing in favor of buchholz and phil hughes, but it’s for members only, and I’m not willing to pay up for more online baseball analysis… still, I’m curious if he has any unique insight from the AFL or scouting reports
Straight outta HP. Go MDC!!!
http://soxcentury.blogspot.com
by alfonzo on Dec 6, 2008 9:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Callis just knows what he is talking about, and both Hughes and Buch have tremendous upside. Hughes is extremely young. After a rough start in the AFL he was unhittable. He ended up with a low ERA/WHIP and a high K/9. In his last start he gave up 2 hits and Ked 10 in 5 innings, and perhaps only Hanson was more impressive at the end. Buch was also strong, but started stronger than he finished. Scouts say he looked sharp.
The problem with fans is that they will run out of town talents like Hughes and Buch before they have time to develop. Hughes may have just turned 23, or he may be younger. Many top pitchers take time to develop. Santana, and Halliday are two classic examples. It is true that prospects like Hughes and Buch are not at all sure things, but at this age/stage of work it is better to go by there body of work in the minors and their stuff. That is why Buch>>Masterson as a prospect (and yes Masterson is still a prospect, he has not even thrown 100 innings in the majors).
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Highes will be 23 next June.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Masterson
pitched in two playoff games, not to mention the battles with Tampa Bay at the end of the season. Masterson will be on the 09 starting roster unless he gets injured. Masterson is no longer a prospect, just like Lowrie is the starting SS in 09.
Prospects do not have vital roles on MLB teams.
Buchholz has no rotation spot and will start in AA or AAA next season so he is a prospect.
Wow, the anti-Masterson crowd baffles me, he did pitch in almost every big situation in the playoffs as did Okie. Masterson made more appearances than MDC in the playoffs. Seriously, think about it.
by SoxAcumen on Dec 7, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one here is anti-Masterson
we all like and value him. You seem so emotional about this. It would be great to hold on to him, but the point is that while Buch is a “sell low” proposition at this point, Masterson is a “sell high.” Furthermore, regardless of this, it is widely understood that Buch is more valuable, despite your rants. You disagree? If so, why is Texas asking for Buch OR Masterson+Bowden as separate packages for same catching value?
by Buzzy on Dec 7, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed (with Buzzy)
I don’t think anyone here is anti-Masterson. The argument seems to be who has the most value Masterson, Buchholz, or Bowden? Bowden and Masterson seem to have similar ceilings, mid-rotation starters (although Masterson seems like a better bet to be a reliever). In contrast, Buchholz could be a #1 or #2. Bowden and Buchholz had better minor league numbers than Masterson. Minor league numbers are often a better indicator of how good a player is than a small major league sample taken when a player is trying to make the big league roster.
As Buzzy noted, opposing teams value Buchholz higher than Masterson or Bowden. If Theo wanted to trade Buchholz to Texas for a catcher, I think that would have happened already. Buchholz has a ton of talent, and I believe the Sox will give him every chance to make the team. Boston is in very good shape. Aside from their bench (and catcher), they really don’t have to make any significant roster moves. This means they can hold onto good prospects like Buchholz, Bowden, Bard, Anderson, and Masterson (88 innings doesn’t make him a “sure thing”).
SoxAcumen rightly mentioned the one thing that could sidetrack Buchholz: his perceived lack of a work ethic (his partying). Quite a few very good MLB players were thought to have questionable work ethics when they were young. Curt Schilling and Hanley Ramirez are two players that come to mind. Obviously, the Sox don’t seem worried about Buchholz right now or he would be gone.
Masterson was valuable last year. But Masterson was no more valuable in 2008 than Jacoby Ellsbury was in 2007. And Tacoby was much better in the ’07 post-season than Masterson was in ’08. In the ALDS v. Orange County, Masterson was incredibly lucky. The Angels hit .400 AVG/.500 OBP/.600 SLG against him (thank God for base-running mistakes!). Masterson was significantly better against Tampa. Overall, he had a 1.55 post-season WHIP, which means he put an awful lot of runners on base. Also, his 4.65 BB/9 in the playoffs was not very good.
Masterson may struggle next year, like Ellsbury did this year. As others here have noted, Masterson’s numbers last year were somewhat deceiving. That, coupled with the fact that he may end up as a reliever, makes him less valuable than prospects projected as starters like Buchholz.
Some pitchers struggle initially, like Buchholz last season. Let’s not forget, many Sox fans would have been happy to see Jon Lester moved last off-season. No one is advocating trading Masterson. But, in my opinion, if one young pitcher has to be moved to bring back a good young catcher, I’d move Masterson before Buchholz. But that seems unlikely, as most teams would rather have Buchholz.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with everything you said, except one thing
Bowden’s ceiling is as a #2 starter, or a great #3. A rotation of Beckett, Dice-K, Lester, Buch and Bowden in about 2 years is just too nasty.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 7, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A very thoughtful reply
Good comment, DD. I think you established a good perspective on the issues.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have to think about it in terms of the value of their prospective roles...
SoxAcumen obviously believes that Masterson will continue to perform as he did last year. If we take that as a given (personally I think the numbers pretty clearly show that he overperformed), then I think Clay is still more valuable. Unless you think Masterson can start, he just doesn’t have the value of a potential ace in Clay. Even if Clay turns out to be only a league average starter, he is still more valuable than a non-closer bullpen guy. Is Masterson much more valuable than Ramon Ramirez? The point is that Justin Masterson, as a reliever, is much more replaceable than a starter, especially a potentially great starter.
by BTLove on Dec 7, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 7, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad that Tony got back to us.
I like his writing, and it’s interesting to get a quasi-behind the scenes look at the sports journalism profession.
Over the next year, I suggest we try to interview Amalie Benjamin and Rob Bradford.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Dec 7, 2008 12:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I e-mailed Amalie a month or so ago. Never got a response….
However, Tony was great. He seemed really happy to answer the questions and had no problem taking time out of his busy schedule.
by Randy Booth on Dec 7, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Tony!
I thoroughly enjoyed getting his take on our questions. I don’t agree with everything he said, but that’s baseball!
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a big fan of Rob Bradford.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also like Bradford.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 8, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't Believe My Ears
It was this time last year that Tony Massarotti was dead set against trading Buchholz and Ellsbury for Santana. He called Jacoby Ellsbury a future hall of famer on the “Big Show” and my jaw dropped! Not because Ellsbury doesn’t have great potential but because he had 116 career at bats at the time. Now he’s suggesting that the Red Sox should have traded Buch and that he was never that high on Ellsbury. It’s a shame that this complete fraud has any influence whatsoever. I would be ashamed to have him represent me or my team at any capacity.
I see things you don't see.
by LouieTheLip on Dec 8, 2008 1:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’s a good thing that NY has such fair-minded, non-sensational sports journalism.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Dec 8, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are You Serious
You must be guessing that it’s the same wherever you go. It’s not. It’s a completely different dynamic and most of the guys on the radio in aren’t and obvious fans of the NY teams. NY has multiple teams a much more diverse fan base and much more diversity on the airwaves BY FAR. In New England 97% of the population all root for the same 4 teams. I don’t know 2 people in NY who root for the same 4 teams. It’s not even close to the same. Before I left NY it was Mike and Mike that I would listen to in the AM and then Mike and the Mad Dog on the drive home. That’s 4 guys and only ONE Yankee fan amugnst them. Big difference from listening to homers all day.
I see things you don't see.
by LouieTheLip on Dec 11, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















