Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Sixers Vs. Celtics: Countdown To Game Seven

What's to Dislike about Josh Beckett?

BOSTON - APRIL 04:  Josh Beckett #19 of the Boston Red Sox sends the ball to first to get Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees out on April 4, 2010 during Opening Night at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts.  (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)

Josh Beckett's 4-year contract extension provoked some interesting reactions. While most people were varying degrees of ecstatic, a small but vocal contingent were not. For some, it was more about personality than performance; but others aren't fully convinced of Beckett's worth to the team.

Let's face it - something isn't right about Beckett. For such a heralded pitcher, he became second fiddle to Jon Lester far too quickly. What follows are my five theories as to why Beckett's performance hasn't been the best on the team, and why he can be a frustrating player to root for.

1. The Regular Season

Beckett is ace-like in two contexts: the playoffs (when healthy), and the advanced stats: FIP, xFIP, tRA, what have you. The playoffs are a small sample size in which, despite lackluster series in '08 and '09, he has done extremely well (3.07 ERA, 0.940 WHIP overall). FIP and other stats love Beckett because he gets lots of strikeouts and doesn't walk people, both of which are good things. However, as others have noted, Beckett's actual regular season performance, as measured by ERA, has lagged his FIP repeatedly in recent years. In other words, he hasn't been as good as his peripherals (BB, Ks, HRs) would suggest. Some of this may be related to defense - the Sox had great defense in Beckett's superb 2007, but poor D last year. I think it's also related strongly to theory #2. In any event, Beckett has had some rather disappointing seasons in his Red Sox career.

[Click Continue Reading for more]

Star-divide

2. Tools

Josh basically has three pitches: fastball, curveball, and change.* His 95-mph heater sets up the other pitches, and he depends on the curveball to get strikes and throw off the balance. The rare changeup gives another look.  When all of his pitches are working, Beckett's pitching is a thing of beauty. But when he can't establish the fastball or throw the curve for strikes (as was the case Opening Game), Beckett becomes very vulnerable. Without the curve, players can sit fastball, and ignore the odd change (at the best of times rarely a strike). And without fastball command, he's either missing over the plate and serving up spicy meatballs to hitters, or missing the plate entirely.

Don't get me wrong, poor fastball command or losing a key pitch will hurt any pitcher. But someone with more good pitches has more weapons to turn to when the going gets tough. Lester, for example, has a power heater, a superb cut-fastball, and a strong curve, in addition to his change (and the fact he's lefthanded). Lester routinely gets strikes on three pitches, which is a big reason why he has become the Sox ace.

3. Perception

When you're a diligent fan, you watch every game you can. And because you're reading OTM, we know you're a diligent fan. When you watch a pitcher all season (or almost all season), you'll see a lot of bad starts. Strong negative emotions typically are remembered better than ordinary positive ones; the quality start gets forgotten, while the 5-run fourth inning often sticks with you. Likewise, when Sabathia or Halladay shuts the Sox down, the pain of that game is likely to stick in your mind, contributing to their aura of invincibility. The fans who are watching them all year will be treated to some spectacular blow-ups. It's easy to look at other players - Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay - and think the grass is greener, the Aces are Ace-lier on another team, especially when you don't see as much of them.

4. Potential

When Beckett carelessly hurls a flawless 95-mph fastball with great location by a hitter in a game where he's given up four runs, it's exasperating. He has the skills to wipe out World Series teams - why can't he hold down the Rays / Royals tonight? Call it Clay Buchholz syndrome - the anguish resulting from watching a player with spectacular stuff repeatedly fail to live up to their potential. A reality of baseball is that great pitchers have bad and mediocre days, but it doesn't make it any easier to sit through.

5. Recent Playoff History

Beckett's last two postseasons have been disappointing. In both years, the team was counting on him to produce, and he wasn't able to. The 2008 playoffs were due to injury - Beckett was clearly not himself, and given that his gutsy performance in game six of the ALDS actually bordered on heroics (5ip, just 2 runs, against a Rays team that was on fire). In 2009 he just didn't pitch all that well, and the Sox bats didn't pick him up. After two disappointing playoffs, his amazing 2007 season is starting to be forgotten.

___

These reasons, some specific to Beckett, some true of any player, are among those why Beckett is taking a little flak right now. There's a whole thread full of arguments in his defense, but for me, the most convincing is money. From 2007-2009, Josh provided us with around $73.1 million in value, according to Fangraphs; an average of $21 million a year. Even if he suffers some age-related decline, it's still likely over the course of the contract he'd be worth more than the $17 million he's making annually.  In any event, we'll have plenty of time to discuss the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Beckett's extension over the next four years.



*You could break his FB down further into the straight 4-seamers and the sinking 2-seamers, however, he relies on the 4-seamer.

Poll
How do you really feel about Josh Beckett's career with the Sox?
Completely and totally satisfied. He's given us a World Series, and plenty of value.
169 votes
Mixed. On the one hand, he's had moments of greatness; on the other, he's occasionally been very disappointing.
207 votes
Frustrated or angry. I expected so much more, and he hasn't delivered.
20 votes
I think he should cut down the tallest tree in the forest wiiiith... a HERRING!
22 votes

418 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 54 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

You forgot the Hanley effect

At least for me. I’m likely the only one, but the thought of a Hanley to Pedroia to Youkilis double play still haunts me every time Beckett takes the mound. It wouldn’t have tainted Beckett as much if he hadn’t been atrocious in ‘06 and seemed indifferent to adapting (i.e. yes they have destroyed my fastball so far this game, so I’m going to confuse them by still throwing my fastball).

Hanley to Pedroia to Youkilis and $60m in the bank.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 12:44 AM EDT reply actions  

You can't blame Beckett for being traded.

Well, you can, but there’s no real substance to the accusation.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Apr 7, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

At the time it was a no brainer though.

Hanley was a bad fielding SS who just came off a full season in AA where he went 271/.335/.385 with 6 HR. Beckett was a 25 year old flamethrower with an established track record of success in MLB. You gotta make that trade every time man.

Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

by CasanovaWong on Apr 7, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

It wasn't a no-brainer at all.

Beckett was going to cost a lot more, and Hanley was very much a top prospect. They also had to take on a big contract in Mike Lowell which seemed as much an albatross then as it does now.

In fact, there’s every indication that, had Theo not quit for those few short months, Hanley Ramirez would be at short for the Red Sox today. He was pretty pissed when he got back, IIRC.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Apr 7, 2010 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

OK, maybe it wasn’t a “no brainer” per se. At the time though there was a lot less risk on the Sox side than Marlins. Eh, just my opinion though. There’s a reason I’m joe blow on the computer.

Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.

by CasanovaWong on Apr 7, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree Casanova

And if we didnt do the trade, would we have won a WS in 04 and 07? To trade a prospect for a “ACE” thats 25 yrs old with Becketts career at the time is a no brainer. You dont know what a prospect is actually going to do and you do know what you were going to get out of Beckett. Add in the fact he was 25 at the time, how couldnt you do that deal? And it worked, we have 2 World Series!!!!!!!! You do remember not winning one of those in your life right?

Would it be nice to have Hanley now? ABSOLUTELY but at least we can stop saying “Wait till next year” every FN offseason.

by Jason A on Apr 8, 2010 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sean O - just imagine if this deal included Lester like the Marlin's wanted

The marlins were originally asking for Ramirez & Lester as part of the Beckett deal, that would have been supremely tragic.

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

What exactly

Was the context of the decision to pursue Josh?

-Either the Pedro negotiations had fallen through or were not going well, and pitching was very much going to be a public scrutiny.

-We had an aging Schilling and Wake

-Matsuzaka wasn’t until the next offseason

-What was Lester’s medical situation/projected arrival at the time?

-Josh was what, 24? Both he and Hanley were young, and both had promise.

-To see a young pitcher dismantle the division rival in the WS and then have a chance at acquiring him is tempting at the very least

-How was anyone to know that a SS would become a rarer commodity that plutonium?

-We’re also not comparing apples to apples (pitching in AL East v. batting NL East)

-The Marlins had been making a cottage industry of scouting and developing players, and then turning them loose when they became too expensive in their eyes.

It was a calculated risk. Who else would have taken Josh’s spot- Bronson Arroyo? D-Lowe? Overpay Pedro?

It looks like we needed both a pitcher and a SS at the time, and we guessed incorrectly that the SS position would have been more difficult to fill. Thankfully, our team has enough resources to try to buy stopgap after stopgap until we can create a long-term solution.

by Christopher B on Apr 7, 2010 2:50 AM EDT reply actions  

The calculate risk

was Luchhino knowing everyone in Boston wanted to kill him and he had to make a big trade to distract from running Theo out of town.

by alskor on Apr 7, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm sorry, if put The Knights Who Say Nee in as a poll option?

I choose it.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 8:37 AM EDT reply actions  

Bloggy, if only you had a shrubery.... :)

"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko

by sox-inda-south on Apr 7, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't understand why Theo keeps saying he never would have made this deal

I really think it’s a PR play to save face given all the issues he has had @ SS.

I mean the ’05 pitching staff was a complete mess. Matt Clement, Schilling, Wake, Arroyo, the great Wade Miller experiment – old and average. To say starting pitching was a need that off season, would be an understatement.

By contrast the Manny/Papi show was in full effect in and the offense was strong. Looking further at the offense, Theo had just signed Renteria 1 yr earlier – so Hanley was locked by a guy Theo had signed as a SS solution.

I just don’t see a guy like Theo passing on this deal.
As he’s evaluating FAs and in conversations with GMs about SP, he’s got to realize his best prospect is blocked by ‘his guy’ at SS for at least another 2 yrs because there is no way Theo could move Renteria 1 yr after he signed him, he’d get killed in the press and in market.

So if he’s doing his diligence and he gets the chance to get a 24 yr old WS MVP, potential ace…and can use a prospect who’s hit blocked in his organization (for better or worse) I don’t buy that he wouldn’t do the deal.

Now perhaps the details would be different, where it would be closer to a straight up deal or something like that…but there is no way he doesn’t trade for pitching that off season.

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 9:23 AM EDT reply actions  

The farm system

Had Lester (still recovering, but highly present), Papelbon (wasn’t yet a closer, so he was a promising starter), Buchholz (had pitched well in the NYPL since the draft) and a few other lower prospects coming up for pitching. We had nobody at all coming up for 3b or SS. Pedroia at that point had effectively transitioned to 2B.

There are at the very least 150 MLB-level starters, not counting relievers who could start or anyone in the farm system/Japan/other. There are maybe 20-25 shortstops that are above replacement level enough to be noteworthy.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

to clarify

At this point, Lester hadn’t been diagnosed, so he was a top prospect ready to break onto the club, which he did on June 10th. Papelbon had already debuted as a starter earlier on, and was also highly touted. Buchholz was still far away, but still doing very well so far. Then we had Kason Gabbard (who I liked; he was good in 2006) and Devern Hansack (who everyone seemed to think just needed a chance, though he was never going to be great).

Once again, we had nobody capable of being decently above replacement at short.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't disagree here - but prospects wouldn't have been enough for the Sox

They needed proven starting pitching. Paps, Lester, Gabbard these are good prospect who’d fill out the bottom of your rotation at best in year 1.

That’s a good growth staff, but Schilling & Wake as your 1 and 2 is not strong

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

TY jonny

Imagine what we (fans and media) would have said if we called up 3 prospects to man the rotation!!!! To suggest that the Red Sox could ever do that and get away with it is ridiculous!!!!

Think about how spoiled of a fan base we have. Presently our 7th hitter has a OPS of 800+ every year, our 8th hitter has averaged 20+ homers the last 6 years, and our #9 scored over 100 runs last year and makes about 8 million dollars. But Im sure we will go into a season without a real ace and call up 3 prospects to man the rotation LOL

by Jason A on Apr 8, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

The farm system?

Useless to us for the ‘06 and ’07 seasons. Lester is coming into his own now, but not then. Buchholz is STILL not there entirely. Paps? Paps has a closer mentality and there’s no real guarantee he’d have been an effective starter.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Look at it at the time, though.

It must have seemed like we were about ready to introduce three new solid SP to solidify the rotation. You assume Schilling and Wakefield have rotation spots, throw in Arroyo, and hope 2 of the 3 can do well enough. There was always FA too, since Lowell and Beckett cost the team $13 million in 2006, and more after.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Apr 7, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Don't forget that we still had Wells

And that he didn’t have injury issues until he got plugged in the knee with the liner in late May. So none of these were long-term solutions, but perfectly fine for Right Now. And since we’ve been playing that game with SS for 6 freaking seasons now, I think it would’ve been acceptable.

Closer to 16m Ben, since we wouldn’t have signed Gonzo if we went with Hanley as starter. Would’ve been Pedroia/Cora all over again, just a year earlier.

Then there’s the totally unfair hindsight dream scenario of a world without Lowell, where we kept Carlos Pena going into 2007 with Youk as our 3b.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

I like Pena a lot

that would’ve been nice. But that part’s all just hindsight, there was no reason to believe he would become what he has at the time.

by wolf9309 on Apr 7, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

Isn't it great when hindsight is 20/20 and reality is a WS trophy?

That having Pena hit 5th behind Manny with Papi in front is silly to think about given where he ended up. Adding Youk 6th, drew 7th….it would be nasty.

I was never sure why the Sox didn’t give him a longer look.

Not sure where pitching would have ended up but that offense could have carried a lot.

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

"Hope 2 of 3 can do well enough??"

Eeeee. Don’t like that thought process much, and I have to doubt that you do, either.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Agree - I don't think that rotation remedies what happened at the end of '05

I think pitching, specifically starting pitching was too much of an issue going into the season to rely on what was already on the team.

I don’t remember that FA market thought, was this the Burnett/Zito/Meche year of crazy contracts?

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well

We’ve hoped for a SS to be functional for 6 seasons now, and have had zero success. Nobody’s happy about that situation either. Let’s not forget that Beckett sucked in ‘06, and Arroyo almost definitely would’ve been a big improvement.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well...
We’ve hoped for a SS to be functional for 6 seasons now, and have had zero success.

Something that would have been better served by holding on to Cabrera rather than going after Eggar Rentaria.

Let’s not forget that Beckett sucked in ‘06, and Arroyo almost definitely would’ve been a big improvement.

Hoo-boy, I don’t know about that. I don’t remember Arroyo lighting shit up for the Reds, although he performed admirably (All Star Game, woot!). Seems to me that he fell off in the second half, though.

In fact, I remember the same of Beckett. I remember him doing quite well in the first part of the year, and then dropping off as the season went on. I know that I don’t have any logarithms to back that up, but I remember he and Schilling going win for win at the beginning of the season, and then him dropping off.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Arroyo had a 3.29 ERA

In an extreme hitter’s park. The AL beast is definitely harder, but 3.29 and 5.01 are worlds apart.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Indeed.

I always liked Arroyo. :( Would he have performed that well in the AL East? Hard to say.

Still and the same, I still remember Beckett’s issues being largely second half (or a little more), issues he corrected the next year (World Series) and subsequently.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who cares what each pitcher did in 2006

Even if Bronson was worth 2 more wins than Beckett in ‘06, the Sox still would have missed the playoffs. Arroyo’s 2006 season was a fluke. Even in the MUCH weaker NL Central, he has been pretty bad from 2007 to 2009. Beckett has been head-and-shoulders better since then, even though he has pitched in a very tough division in a tougher league.

Arroyo’s vast array of hanging curves loses effectiveness after hitters see his (lack of) stuff. He would have gotten his brains bashed in in the AL East had he stayed. He’s barely league average pitching in the weakest division in a weak league.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Apr 7, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

We're not talking about Arroyo vs. Beckett objectively

We’re talking about Arroyo at worst as a one-year stopgap until any of our 3 top pitching prospects came up. Meanwhile, we’re talking about having an actual solution to our SS carousel, which in turns mean we don’t set fire to $36m with Lugo. And having the 2nd best player in the NL still on our team.

Building Fenway from the ground up - Virtual Fenway

by Sean O on Apr 7, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Understandable

and I too would rather have Hanley than Beckett moving forward. You may have been against the deal from the outset, but it was not an illogical move. Factoring in risk (Hanley as an AA prospect coming off of a bad year with a bad glove and attitude rep) and the fact that Beckett had only just turned 26. Part of the undiscussed issue in trade value is the “risk” associated with valuing guys in the minors as everyday position players in the majors. Hanley in AA was indeed worth less than Hanley in the majors. That is a fact. My own take on it is simply that the trade indeed probably made the difference in 07 between a ring and not, but that future rings would be easier to come by with Hanley than Beckett/Lowell. As a GM you sometmes takes risks to attempt to improve your team. This one did not work out, and that is a shame, but it is hardly a Sizemore, Phillips, and Lee for Colon deal.

by Buzzy on Apr 7, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

3 Top Prospects
We’re talking about Arroyo at worst as a one-year stopgap until any of our 3 top pitching prospects came up.

Which they didn’t.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Or, more correctly:

Couldn’t have.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess my issue is

is Sean’s view that one should NEVER trade their top prospects under any circumstances? There is logic to that viewpoint, and it that is the case, then it is hard to argue that things would have worked out at all badly for the Sox during the period 2004-now if they adopted this viewpoint. On the otherhand if this is not the way that Sean feels, then this is total Monday morning QBing because you can’t know how things work out in advance. There is too much chance involved for anyone to believe that you can always get that “right.”

by Buzzy on Apr 7, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sean O has a good position here, it's just slightly jaded

He can speak for himself better then I but the overall point is that Hanley is better for the Sox the Beckett.

That you were trading a bit on future’s with each and while Beckett has got the benefit of some outstanding post season performances his overall performance since the deal is average at best to Sean.

By contract Hanley has established himself as one of the best hitters in MLB and plays a position that’s been a black hole for the Sox.

Had they kept Hanley, it would have been easier to solve for pitcher later, then it has been to solve for SS…which they are still working on.

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

From my own end, hard to look back and regret any deal that netted you a WS

especially when two of the players you acquired were extremely relevant to that series victory.

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

There is that, yes

But I don’t want to be so results oriented… I can admit we had a very good chance to win one with Hanley, too.

by alskor on Apr 7, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

Why would you not want to be "results oriented"?

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Focusing on results leads to bad decisions

Better to focus on process. We DID win one with Beckett, but we would have had a very good chance of winning one with a 7 win SS, too.

Process vs. Results – For instance, lets say Tito pinch hits Varitek for Youkilis… if Tek hits a HR that doesn’t mean he made a good decision. If he continues to use that process it will lead to poor results. Same as bettting a longshot in craps.

Consequently, I’m willing to listen to arguments we would have been better off with Hanley than Beckett… I don’t want to dismiss it by saying we won a World Series. Too many people do that… there is obviously some truth to it, but we all know that far too many variables are involved in winning a title to pin it on one guy or one thing.

by alskor on Apr 7, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

but that is my whole point

This disucssion really only makes sense before the deal. If the results were indeed different (eg Hanley sucked balls, or Beckett blew his arm out in 06) then I strongly suspect the calculus of this after-the-fact debate would look a whole lot different today on OTM.

by Buzzy on Apr 7, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

At the end of the day, results are what matter.

I absolutely get what you’re saying. The process is important. And so I don’t think that you should always trade your top prospect for a high-end pitcher and a throw-in position player and absorb that contract.

But it was considered, discussed, and then executed in this case. And it worked.

What happened to Hanley after the fact is all well and good for the Marlins. Maybe he benefited in his development by not having the Beantown pressure on him. Who knows?

Would we benefit by having someone of Hanley’s calibre on our team? Abso-@#$%ing-lutely. But maybe floating a contract Orlando Cabrera’s way and Jed Lowrie not being made of rice cakes woulda been awesome, too.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Very happy with how it turned out

You absolutely can’t give them credit for the Beckett decision and then condemn them for letting OCab walk. Letting OCab walked was a solid baseball decision at the time. He had never hit that well in his career, was out partying a lot and wanted a ton of money. Renteria WAS a better choice and would have looked like it clearly if he hadn’t had a bad back the year he was in Boston.

In retrospect, if you can go back and sign either Renteria or OCab to the deals they got, you definitely sign Renteria. He had some excellent seasons in Atlanta and a good one in Detroit. The only bad year of that deal was with us in 05.

by alskor on Apr 7, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying that Rent-a-wreck was a bad decision

I mean, obviously it didn’t work out, but if you looked at everything objectively at that time, I can see picking up Eggar.

So, I’m not condemning them for letting OCab walk. Simply saying that he very well could have been an answer for us at SS until Jed showed up if he wasn’t made of onion paper.

And that we have performed very admirably with the pieces we acquired by trading Hanley. And that it’s impossible to say that they way he developed in Florida is how he would have developed here.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

I have a five-tool player in my pants.

ACTUALLY, advanced metrics show that that wasn't "premature".

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard

by Bloggy on Apr 7, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you'd like to remove the fact of this conversation and have us deal in theory of shoulda and coulda beens?

You argument makes sense when discussing ABs like Tek for Youk, etc. in how focusing on results vs process though it’s entirely different when reviewing the process/results of a world series.

The goal of every MLB team is to try and win the WS every season right? For the Sox, in both instances last decade the process was to maintain your solid offensive core and go out and acquire a front line starting pitching, Schilling and Beckett.

In either case the Sox process was success short and long term, they didn’t mortgage their future, they one within 2 yrs of each deal.

Certainly with Beckett the cost was greater, but he is still contributing to the process and results for the Sox

by JonnyNYC on Apr 7, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure.

I’m just saying I dont think we can evaluate the process fairly if we stop it short with “We won a World Series with Beckett! End of Story!” I am 100% certain we shouldn’t take any lessons from how it turned out and apply them to the future.

I’m willing to admit we may have been better off with Hanley… certainly willing to listen to an argument to that end. I’m very happy with how things turned out, though.

by alskor on Apr 7, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

that is also always easy to say

in retrospect. It is not to say that Beckett detractors were one-time supporters of the deal, but in cases like Sean’s, it would be nice to know what the philosophy is BEFORE hand. I see no point is retroactively debating moves-we can all access after the fact. If one has a overriding philosophy (e.g. don’t deal prospects that you hold in high value) then fine, but it is a little hard to take the argument that you just simply have never been wrong about a move (and then prove it by discussing after the fact results).

by Buzzy on Apr 7, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

The only value I can see of hashing it out

is in assessing the performance of management. I.E. – how well they did in managing the talent pool.

But in this case, since Theo WASN’T here to make that deal, I just don’t see the point.

by mmmmm on Apr 7, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

It is impossible to be

100% becuse results do not always follow from logical process when there are so many complex factors. You can only ask if the process was, via risk/gain accessment, a logical one.

by Buzzy on Apr 7, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

I doubt it's P.R.

Because Theo has never come out and said it. It’s more a matter of looking at his track record, and a few statements from clubhouse sources that he was pissed. Theo has never actually said to anyone outside the organization that he wouldn’t have made that trade, but it’s telling that, having had that commodity for years, it was only dealt during the months he left—the one time since Theo first took over that a legitimate top prospect drafted by the Sox HAS been dealt.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Apr 7, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

yes

that would be a TERRIBLE p.r. move, to say that if he had he way, he wouldn’t have traded for Beckett. That would just showing no respect for his team.

by wolf9309 on Apr 7, 2010 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

man - i am bored with watching this same water go under the bridge

Can we argue about how many PAs against lefties should Papi get before Tito should finally start to pinch Lowell for him?

And what about after Lowell shows a little value and we finally trade him – who’s going to platoon with Papi then?

by mmmmm on Apr 7, 2010 11:18 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Over the Monster, an SB Nation community that delivers news and analysis while encouraging discussion regarding everything Boston Red Sox. OTM was founded Feb. 22, 2005.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 7
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 6

Recent FanPosts

Pedroialazers2_small
The possibility of trading Kevin Youkilis
Moar_bacon_small
PSA vs. OTM Fantasy Smackdown Update
Small
The Curious Case of Daniel Nava
Rsz_ashleyspade_small
Top Red Sox Prospects
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy: Week 5
Small
Mariano Rivera and TS Elliot and maybe Robert Frost
Small
Rivera has torn ACL
Einstein_small
OTM Fantasy Leagues Discussion

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Red_seat_small Ben Buchanan

Twitter_eb_2_small Marc Normandin

Authors

Lowrie__1234972975_0178-1_small lone1c

Jddrew_small gizmosandy

Pedoria1_small Mattsullivan

Baghead-1_small Matthew Kory

Photo__2__small BrendanOToole

Cee_small Cee Angi