A Bridge Year too Far?
by Scoop1981 on Dec 30, 2009 11:33 AM EST
Email
Print
This is all becoming clearer now after the Sox passed on Jason Bay and all the discussion of prospects, usually in relation to Adrian Gonzalez.
Theo got bashed when he talked about the dreaded "bridge year" in 2010, but now I see the plan - the Sox believe they will contend very well in 2010, and they probably will, but they don't want tie up positions with long term contracts unless they get good value and the player fits a long-term need. This problem was evident last season when they clearly needed some lineup help but most positions were locked in. For example, all OF positions were locked in and they could not to out and grab an Adam Dunn because he was a direct replacement for Ortiz , and what would they do with Papi? They were smart to go after the weakest performer, Varitek, and "replace" him with Victor Martinez. Also, very Little help was available from the minor leagues in 2009.
Now what about 2010?
A few facts are apparent. For one thing the free agent class is marginal at best, and they obviously don't see great value out there, including Jason Bay and Matt Holliday. Beltre? Nice player, but do they want to lock him into that position for 4 years at big money? I don't think so. Theo and the team value flexibility. They went out surprised everybody with the Lackey move, but they obviously see good value (I tend to agree), and remember - "You can never have enough pitching" (ugh). Also, this is some insurance against Beckett leaving after 2010.
What about help from the minors? Not much coming in the near term. They have some highly rated players in Kelly, Westmorland, Reddick, Inglesias, etc., but they are all likely a year or more away. Hey, is Bowden not a good prospect any more? Nobody mentions him anymore.
Looking down the road, I believe Theo and the team want to maintain flexibility as they establish a solid bridge between the homegrown talent coming, and the more enticing 2010 free agent class. With Cameron and Scutaro on two year plans, they can easily ditch them or send them to the bench as early as the 2011 season if they have better options available from within or from free agency. Also, they could opt to send the prospects packing if they see an nice trade oppotunity ,like Adrian Gozalez, availible.
Does this mean they are giving up 2010? Certainly not, but they won't put themselves into a position that may gum up the works for seasons to come. I guess I see the plan; don't know if I like it, but we should all get ready for an unexciting, and possibly very mediorcre 2010. Let's hope for some surprises.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
if buchholz has a breakout year
then this year will be very exciting.
Well we may well see if
GREAT/GOOD PITCHING BEATS GOOD/GREAT HITTING EVERY TIME!
Can anyone think of a world champion team that had mediocre to poor hitting, but won just the same because of great pitching throughout the year? Can this be done?
To say nothing of the fact that this isn't a mediocre to poor lineup.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
In fact, if healthy, the Sox should still have one of the better offenses in the AL next year.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
2007
Didn’t the 2007 lineup score less runs than last years? I’d say we won it all then with fantastic pitching and great defense. That’s not saying 2007’s lineup was mediocre.
We had all three in 2007
but yeah, the big difference between 2007 and the surrounding years when we DIDN’T win it, was pitching and defense.
They lost the World Series 4-3
but how about these guys?
Maybe the best front four in history, at least for that season.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Yeah - THAT was an awesome rotation.
And pretty stout names in the batting order as well – Robinson, Buford, Powell, Johnson – all had stud years.
But truly a fantastic starting rotation. Cuellar, Palmer, McNally, Dobson! Aah… the days of the 4-man rotation! Each guy started at least 30 games! A total of 143 games started by those 4 guys – and they COMPLETED 70 of them!!!! That’s the kind of thing that used to only happen back in the golden age of baseball, not the modern age.
They just ran into a streaking, lucky, team of destiny in the Pirates. You can’t begrudge Roberto Clemente his WS ring.
The O's were very good back then
They won the WS in 1966 and 1970 and lost the WS in 1969 and 1971. That’s a pretty good run.
From 1969 to 1983, Baltimore went to 4 WS and won 2 championships. They won the AL East 7 times and finished 2nd 6 times in 15 seasons. That’s damn good.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 31, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
"The Golden Age of Baseball"
When teams used strategies that are obviously less effective!
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Yeah, but Earl Weaver was pretty sound.
He wanted guys to get on base and then pound 3 run shots to bring ’em home.
‘Disdained ’small ball’. ’Loved hitters who could get walks. ’Hated when his pitchers gave up walks. Sounds like a pretty modern strategy.
Palmer used to drive him nuts because (like our current Dice-K) he was a nibbler. Wouldn’t give in and on occasion would walk a few.
If I’m remembering correctly, Palmer never gave up a grand slam. Always preferred to nibble / walk the guy, giving up one and starting with a fresh count on the next guy.
Not mediocre on the face of it.........
But not great either, espicially considering the competition. If Papi sucks, we’re done.
Aside from the MFY, name an AL offense that will be better
The Sox were the 3rd best AL team by runs scored per game last year, behind LA and the MFY. The Angels have replaced Vladdy and Figgins with Matsui. The MFY have replaced Matsui and Damon with Granderson (and had plus offensive years from nearly everyone on the roster last year). The only other teams to score 800+ runs last year were Tampa and Minnesota. As Buzzy posted, the Sox haven’t lost much offensively this off-season. If the team is healthy, they should be one of the top AL offenses next year.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
and arguably they are offensively better outright
they lose by replacing Bay’s bat with Cameron’s. But its not like Cameron is chopped liver. He’ll be a solid .340 ish OBP guy who will pop 20-25 HRs out (maybe more at Fenway).
But a year of VMart and Scutaro over what they had last year at Catcher and SS will be a huge upgrade.
Even if Papi continues his slow deline, I have to believe he won’t pull the same kind of slump that created such a vaccum at the start of last year. Assuming he has more normal consistency, his total production should be better than last year, even if his rate isn’t as good as his last 3-4 months of last year.
A lot then depends on what happens at corner infield. Youk/Kotchman is Ok. Beltre/Youk would be a huge upgrade. Youk/A-Gon would be …. ‘studly’. :-D
Offensively, Kotchman is at least equal and probably better than Beltre.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
just disagree with that
he’s only had one season where he’s been ok offensively. Beltre’s posted better numbers despite being terrible at safeco
The James predictions have them almost exactly the same. Obviously we have to take those projections lightly, but if you think Beltre will better it cannot be by too much.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
yeah but
the James projections don’t include him moving to Fenway. Kotchman would be helped much less by playing consistently at Fenway that Beltre would vs. being at Safeco. The park makes such a huge difference that when players are moving to drastically different teams, you really just have to throw them out.
yeah, the home/road split differences here are just gigantic
you really have to take Beltre’s Safeco (& Dodger Stadium) numbers with a big grain of salt.
He’s got a big enough sample of road plate appearances (actually slightly MORE road PAs than home PAs) there is no reason not to think of them as a valid picture of what kind of hitter he has been.
Tampa and NY offense
OK, we may now have TWO teams in our division with much better offense than the Sox, that is not good since the Sox have to play them 32 times a year.
Tampa's offense is nothing fantastic
Their huge success was mostly great pitching and defense- in 2008 they scored 70 runs less than the Sox. Now their pitching is more in question again than it was then.
Sox offense is definitely still stronger than TB’s- with the right finish to the offseason, our defense can be looking better too.
Offense is one half of the game.
Obviously we’d prefer to have better run scoring and prevention. But that’s not really easy to do.
USG
Agreed
Also, Tampa scored 69 fewer runs that the Sox last year. A swap of Bay for Cameron is not a net loss of 69 runs scored. Even if the Rays improve, the odds are they won’t be MUCH better than the Sox offensively next year. LA, the number three run-scoring team in the AL will have to make up for the loss of Figgins. Minnesota was fourth. Even if Morneau is healthier next year, will Mauer have another year like last year?
The point some us are trying to make is even if the Sox’ offense is somewhat diminished next year, it won’t be as much as the doubters seem to think. More importantly, the upgraded pitching and defense should more than off-set the loss of Bay’s offense. Boston should still be a top-5 AL offense. If you couple that with very good defense and pitching, you have a recipe for a winning team. The Sox have a pretty good chance to be better in 2010 than they were in 2009.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 4, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Also Agreed
But the Gorilla in the room nobody want to talk about is Papi. If he sucks, the Sox will have a difficlult time scoring runs when he can’t hit a decent fastball.
BTW – why can’t Mauer have another good year? It wasn’t his first good year.
I assume you were replying to me
Look, the Sox should still have one of the top offenses in the AL. Their defense, especially if Cameron is in CF and Ells in LF, will be vastly improved. Boston’s pitching is among the best in baseball. You don’t just have to mash in order to win. Run-prevention is also very important. Look at it this way, even if the Sox’ offense is somewhat diminished from last year (I’m not sure it will be), with improved pitching and defense they could win even more games next year. If you couple an 800+ run offense with good run-prevention, you should have a winning team.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, replying to you
Sure, it may work out and I hope it does, but the team has lost a signicant power bat in Bay and replaced him with a JAG (just another guy) player in Cameron.
Cameron is a decent hitter. Scutaro will give us way more consistent production out of the SS position and a whole year of VMart instead of VTek is also a large upgrade. If Papi can pick up where he left off this year then I would say that this offense will be at just about the same level as the one last year. Not to mention our better pitching and defense.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Cameron is not 'just another guy'
He is average for OBP (career .342) but he has pop and he has consistently put out 20-25 HRs the last four years. Arguably, he stands to really benefit from hitting in Fenway and his slugging percentage should get a significant bump playing there. Yes, he will strike out a lot. So did Bay. They have almost exactly the same SO rate per 162 games (159 for Cameron, 157 for Bay).
But his defensive value is WAY better than Bay’s – especially if we do the right thing and put him in CF and move Ells to LF.
We need a bat
People can say all they want about how a full year of Victor Martinez over Varitek will improve the offense for this team next year. I agree whole-heartedly with that assumption. But, what happens in October when you’ve lost that power bat in Bay? The improved pitching and defense will help, but you’ve got to have it all if you want to be the Champs.
I just don’t see how this set of guys can go up against the likes of CC Sabathia, Jake Peavy or Matt Garza or any elite arm in October and win. Hell, the offense that the Sox had last year couldn’t do it. What makes you think that the addition of Scutaro over Nick Green/ Jed Lowrie will prove to be a difference maker?
I’d HATE to see the Sox waste a year of Pedroia, Youkilis and Lester in their primes just because they want to avoid the luxury tax.
By the way, say the Sox were to sign Matt Holliday for an annual average of 17 MM per year, the luxury tax fee would be less that two million dollars or about 1, 876,000 according to the payroll breakdown. There is no excuse not to go out and to get another bat. None.
"Why not us?"
you don't seem to fully understand the way the 'luxury tax' works.
If the go over the threshold this year, its not just a penalty on this year’s excess. It also raises the rate for any excess next year – and next year is when they WANT to go over because of all the top quality free agents that will be available – including Beckett.
In other words, going over the limit by even $1 this year makes signing Beckett next year a LOT more expensive.
Please see this article by Wolfie:
http://www.overthemonster.com/2009/12/22/1212797/lets-talk-about-luxury-tax
That said, they may still end up going over this year. But they have very good reasons to avoid it if at all possible.
Hmm.
Thank you for the additional information on hte luxury tax…it makes more sense now.
But if the Sox are planning on breaking the bank next offseason, who would they break it for? Outside of Mauer, I can’t see the Red Sox spending a ton of money even with the potential re-signings of Beckett and Martinez.
If they sign Holliday, Crawford isn’t necessary. Although it is a great free agent class, it looks to be pitching loaded and the Sox are pretty set for the next few years as far as starting pitching goes.
If the rumored price on Holliday is to be true (120-140 million), then the Sox shouldn’t make an effort. But if he is in the 100 million range, why shouldn’t they attempt to sign him?
"Why not us?"
by reversecursing on Dec 30, 2009 6:28 PM EST up reply actions
Well, it depends on the definition of "breaking the bank".
If we’re going for 200 million, I can see a scenario where our team is fantasy baseballesque. Dunn at DH, Aramis Ramirez at 3B, and Mauer at catcher. All the better if someone like Anderson, Kelly, or Tazawa are looking like good pieces of a ML team come 2011.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
Well, to stay with the 'spend next year' plan, they WON'T sign Holliday
so Crawford would definitely be a possibility.
The will need money to extend Victor Martinez, if they decide to do that OR pursue Mauer if they don’t.
They may try to resign Beckett or find a replacement (which may come from within).
They will need a new DH unless they resign Papi – which I don’t expect. Dunn will be available – he’ll cost a bit.
If they don’t sign Beltre this year, they’ll still be looking for a 3B replacement.
So there will definitely be some big expenditures to make.
Crawford
although his name is brought up all the time the red sox dont really maximize Crawfords value, he will get market value and should be worth more to almost all 29 other mlb teams. He doesnt have the arm to play RF and his top defense is somewhat wasted in Fenway. So the Sox can prolly spend that money more efficient on someone else.
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 2, 2010 4:48 AM EST up reply actions
How can they go up against those guys and win?
Because they’ll only need to score 2 or 3 runs all game.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Like Game 7 of the 2008 ALCS?
Or even the series last year against the Angels. The Sox starters weren’t giving up loads of runs; Beckett and Lester kept us in the game but our offense struggled against elite starting pitchers.
The goal for this team should not be to make the playoffs, but to win in the playoffs. This team, currently constructed, cannot hit good starting pitching for whatever reason.
I’d hate to see us become the Giants…
"Why not us?"
by reversecursing on Dec 30, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
The 2008 ALCS
was all Kotsay’s fault. And Lowell’s for getting hurt opening up a starting job for Kotsay.
Trade Beckett !!!
In this post:
3 games
You just based big-picture decisions off 3 games.
That’s what awful GMs do.
Here, I’m gonna base my decisions off one series too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_World_Series
We do not have a weak lineup. We can hit good starting pitching. We might not kill it, but nobody will. We’ll score 3 or 4 runs and hold them to 2 or 3.
You know how the Phillies could seemingly dial up guaranteed wins every time Cole Hamels/Cliff Lee stepped up to the mound in 2008/2009? With a great defense behind them, Lester, Beckett, and even Lackey could all end up being that guy. If Clay progresses further, so could he. Winning in the playoffs is the same as winning in the postseason: Scoring more runs than they do. You can do that in either of 2 ways: Making sure you score a lot, or making sure they don’t.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
quote of the day:
Winning in the playoffs is the same as winning in the postseason:
:D
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 31, 2009 5:41 AM EST up reply actions
You could be OTM's very own John Madden
“If you can’t score, you can’t win the football game.”
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Struggled against elite starting pitchers??
Oh no!
I wonder how they got the title elite?
…
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
Thats my favorite idiotic knock on players
“Cant hit good pitching”
Well no shit sherlock, how many players can? Umm yeah they’re elite hitters and you’re not going to find many in the game. The other one that gets me is when stupid people rank OF defenders worth by their arm strength while ignoring the more important factor, range.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Dec 31, 2009 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously
Sure, if good hitters could hit good pitching, then the pitching is not all that good. But some hitters/lineups seem to pull it off better than others. See the Yankees vs. Pedro a few years ago, or the Yankees vs. just about anybody now. If you load your team with good, patient tough out hitters, they will get to that good pitching, espicially if the opposing lineup is not doing as an effective a job the other half of the inning.
The offense for the Sox in 2010, as presently constituted, comes down to a few keys –
1. What will they get from Papi? If he is more like April/May 2009, the Sox are toast.
2. Will the new guys (Scutaro/Cameron) be tough outs and produce decently?
3. Will Ellsbury continue to improve and lock down the leadoff spot once and for all?
I can't stress this enough
no magic
Myth or magic had nothing to do with it, just great hitters. BTW – they are crazy not to bring back Damon. Making the same mistake Sox did, undervaluing his contribution as a good hitter and tough out at the top of the lineup. Oh wait…he is sure to get hurt any day now and his UZR probably warrants jail time.
Right
Gonna hold the Yankees to 1-2 runs a game….sure one team, but a team you need to beat to get to the WS.
Yes, let's.
Why not? We’ve seen it done by our guys before. The Yankees play baseball the same as anyone else does, and they’re vulnerable to great pitching and defense the same that any other team is.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 30, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
As said by others, this is hardly a bridge year
To me, we’re better than last year.
Far improved defense, offense gets a slight downgrade (to what, 2007 levels? not bad whatsoever) and is still one of the tops in the AL, better pitching. I don’t see how this is a bridge year whatsoever.
Bridge Year does not equal bad or rebuilding year
I believe Theo is trying to build a “bridge” to the young crop of players coming and the better free agency class of 2010. The evidence is the interim nature of the two positional FA’s they signed, Scutaro and Cameron, to two year deals.
Yup.
This is what everyone seems to be missing. He meant there is a gap between minor league players who are ready to contribute.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
An offensive bridge, perhaps.
But I like our team better than last year. Great depth, at the moment.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
- Man uses cap to save baby from foul ball (VIDEO)
- David Wright and Terry Collins argue in dugout after Mets manager moves to protect his star
