The Greatest Red Sox Offseason Ever: Theo, One Last Move.
by SoxAcumen on Jan 22, 2011 5:48 PM EST
Email
Print
I am sure people with a better grasp on baseball and Red Sox history can tell us if this was in fact the best off season for the Red Sox, but I believe Theo has just one more move to make.
Sign Pedro Martinez to a one day contract and let him retire a Red Sox.
Ive never hidden the fact that Pedro is my favorite athlete of all time, even more that Ed "Stick" Cota from UNC glory days, so I am a little biased. But what a great way to end a decade of Red Sox glory by letting Pedro finish out in a Sox uniform. Sorry, I am a sucker for these type of symbolic gestures...
181 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Pedro's not a sure thing to retire.
Even though he didn’t play last year.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
The hell with that...
… sign him period.
I’d love to add him to our bullpen. I think someone should have pointed to Dennis Eckersley’s career arc, which granted… never had the success as a starter that Pedro had… and pointed out that for one inning a game, he could have been every bit as lights out.
I mean, we all know he cannot pitch 5 innings anymore… but convert him to a set up man or closer? I’d bet he could still dominate, much like Smoltz did when he was converted. Bring him back as our closer, and give Papelbon away at that point…
C’mon… I’d love to see the man back in a Sox uniform. I still have a tattered “45” hat, in that A&F knock off style from the 90s that is so faded my girlfriend thinks it’s brown… and even when it was Red Sox colors, I had a guy in Yankee Stadium look at me once and go… “Wait, that’s a Red Sox hat, isn’t it?”
I’m with you SoxAcumen… he has to be my favorite athlete of all times, and I have no caveats.
by AlohaSox on Jan 25, 2011 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Also, we'll probably face serious competition from the Expos...
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 22, 2011 7:43 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
tru dat. it is too soon to tell about this offseason
no matter what though, it probably won’t beat the off season we traded a bunch of bums (sanchez, hanley et. al) for beckett and lowell!!!!
It wasn’t the best off season...
We got a first baseman who should be stellar in the field and at the plate. We also signed a top rate outfielder, who isn’t the greatest bases on balls player. We also had a complete overhaul in the bullpen.
We also lost a good hitting catcher who was very good against lefties, in return we got a so so to unproven catcher. There are going to be kinks as Youklis and Gonzalez get used to their new positions and the foul territory at Fenway, (or lack of it)
We have the same starting pitching line up. We need three good starting pitchers to reach the wild card. We also can’t afford more blown saves by Papelbon. The Staff has to do something about its walks it cough up last season.
Overall, getting Gonzalez was a very smart move, we got him now rather than wait for his free agency. Revamping most of the bullpen was a smart move, even though Papelbon looks like he will be a liability than an asset in 2011.
As much as the line up looks good. The Sox need to their pitching more than ever in 2011. If their pitching is the same in 2011 as it was in 2010, we will probably end up in the same record.
The Sox off season compare to MFY off season, was a grand slam home run. Will it be the right combo for an AL East Division title in 2011? what is good on paper doesn’t always translate on to the field. I would say patience for April and the beginning of May, there are going to be some teething pains and adjustments..
I like this idea
It would be a nice gesture, but I think Pedro may give it one last go this year. At some point, this must be done though.
He should give it one last go as Boston's closer.
It gets Paps to wake up and opposing hitters get to piss themselves as the watch the greatest pitcher ever walk out to the mound in the 9th inning.
We could finally just tell the Yankees “Fuck Mariano, we’ve got Pedro.”
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 5:56 AM EST up reply actions
Pedro probably could have a whole 2nd career
as a closer
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
But what would his entrance music be?
If Trevor Hoffman gets “Hells Bells” and Mo gets “Enter Sandman” how could we possibly quantify Pedro’s awesomeness in song? What band could possibly have enough badassery to lend their music to Pedro? DKM is all fine and dandy when it’s Paps walking out of the bullpen, but Pedro deserves something on a whole other tier of bands. He needs at least twice the sheer excellence of “Enter Sandman” and perhaps one and a half times as incredible as “Hells Bells.”
A scan of my not-insignificant music library turns up no music that is even remotely close to Pedro-suitable.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 8:50 AM EST up reply actions
Megadeth
Symphony of Destruction…
Just my thought, but like the other two it is a classic from a hard core metal band… and the opening lines of the song:
You take a mortal man
And put him in control
Watch him become a god
Watch peoples heads a ’roll
A ’roll, a ’roll
C’mon… Pedro was never expected to be half the pitcher he was. Didn’t have the size, couldn’t take the strain of hurling a baseball over and over again, but I believe he will always be recognized as one of the best of all time (doing it in the steroids era, no less, when clearly his wirey frame was clean.) He was definitely a god with the Sox.
How do we get Theo to pull this off? I think his ego is too big to give up starting, but I agree… he could have a second career as THE best closer of all time.
Enemy by Disturbed
Or Down with the Sickness
Disturbed has no place in baseball.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
I think they might
but the history there may prevent them.
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 23, 2011 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Pedro might
they did try to have him arrested after all.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
After he threw down with Zimmer
the FO wanted to press charges. It’s in Torre’s book.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Greatest Offseason ever?
How about 08’ where we convinced Youk, Pedroia and Lester to sign ridiculous cheap extensions?
This year we decided to trade 3 of our best prospects for a 1 year rental 1B and had to move our aging 1B to 3B, where we have no clue how good he is. After that we decided to pay a platoon player 142M over 7 years. Then we thought its smart to pay our 1 WAR reliever 12M, while we still dont have a solid lefty in the pen so we spend 1.75M on a leftie specialist who almost has as bad lefty splits like our ROGGY! On Top of that we let our All Star Catcher go and now start a busted prospect, who accumulated a whooping 0.8 WAR in 250 games! Greatest Offseason yep…
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 23, 2011 6:07 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Isn't it football season
In Germany? I don’t think aGonz is a “rental” and I’m pretty damn sure that this line up is an upgrade over 2010.
by SoxStephen on Jan 23, 2011 6:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I rec'd this because I'm making fun of you.
!!!!! GONZO !!!!!
!!!!! CRAWFORD !!!!!
!!!!! LIVERPOOL !!!!!
And you do realize
that Youk came up as a 3rd baseman, right?
by SoxStephen on Jan 23, 2011 7:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
H'es not Miguel Cabrera, but he's certainly not Adrian Beltre
I have no expectations of him being a very good 3B, he’ll probably be about average. He’s of the shape and age of 3B that become 1B. Just search the site for “Youkilis” and “3B” and you’ll see several long arguments either way.
I’m of the opinion that we may be looking for a 3B in a year or two.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
I like GermanSoxFan
I’m just giving him a hard time. But, I do think in this example he is wrong.
!!!!! GONZO !!!!!
!!!!! CRAWFORD !!!!!
!!!!! LIVERPOOL !!!!!
One whose last name starts with an H
and hits deep fly balls that would be doubles off the Monster.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
By UZR, Beltre was the fourth best fielder at his position in all of baseball last year
He was second in the AL. There’s almost no chance Youk will be as good.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 25, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
i read something different
james rated him 7th for all 2010 3rd basers
but, youk will never be as good as beltre at 3rd
But Youk is the better hitter
By far…Beltre’s meager 0.919 OPS in his 2nd career year last year barely sniffs what Youk can put up consistently
yeah, as I posted in Youk's 40-in-40 thread
If Youk just plays average-or-better defense at 3B, but continues to put up his own personal ‘average’ offense, he’ll stand out as a stellar 3B in overall value. Could easily be our highest WAR player.
It would be awesome if Youk's switch to 3B ends up increasing his WAR
Thanks to the positional adjustment.
Trevor Hoffman came up as a shortstop
what’s your point?
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 23, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
I think it was in response to
“and had to move our aging 1B to 3B, where we have no clue how good he is.”
I.E. – 3B is not a new position for Youk. And we have at least some idea how good he is – after all, he played there for us for significant innings as recently as 2008 & 2009. He was way above average in 2008. Just average in 2009. Reality is probably in the middle.
I'll counter that with this:
The Red Sox are a team that can be projected to have 10 more WAR then any team since the Big Red Machine, and get the majority of that from a core that will be together for at least the next two years. We’re a team built to win now, and, quite frankly, for the foreseeable future, too. It’s only when you get 5-7 years down the line that things really get worrisome, and that’s not considering what we might see coming in from the farm system over the period.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 23, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions
Does any team
not look worrisome in 5-7 years? There are only a handful of contracts that even run that long.
That's what I'm saying.
We’ve always been able to survive having two or three bad contracts. You might say that $45 million is way too much to risk having to just eat, but when you consider the way contracts are getting larger and larger, that’ll look a lot more less bad in 5 year’s time, despite being the same amount as Lowell + Lackey + Beckett this year.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 24, 2011 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
5 - 7 years is what wall street calls the long term
and in the long term we will all be dead.
anything can happen
kudos for the sox organizational strategy
1 MLB star is better than 2 prospects in the bush
Come on guys!
I am disappointed. Nobody sniffed out that this was obviously a joke? I decided to not use “code” so i can get funnier reactions, sorry guys.
But back to the topic: Greatest offseason:
Gonzo – Love it! If you move Youk to 3B its for a quality player like him and not a one year stop gap, which might have likely been the alternative and I’m pretty sure an extension is a pure formality.
Crawford: Meh I’m not completly negative on that signing but I’m not positive about it either. If we are completly honest, he really is almost a platoon player, thats how bad he is against lefties. You obviously never dislike a player of that caliber, you just dislike the contract he is signed to. He just doesnt seem like a great fit for me: career numbers at fenway, leftie splits, diminished defensive value due to the monster, overrated skillset, high price tag. I have to say that just for ‘11 I’d rather have Vmart over Crawford and Start Ells, Cameron, Drew, Vmart instead of Crawford, Ells, Drew and Salty.
Jenks: Totally and absolutly love it. The only guy we are not overpaying!
Wheeler: Solid righty with a reasonable contract: 1y + option. Good signing
Papelbon: Still shocked we pay him 12M, much rather have Downs for 3/15. I’m just not convinced we get picks for him next year if he doesnt have a major bounceback, and i highly doubt that he will. Offering him arbitration after another disappointing season might be too risky.
Okajima: Call me extremly unimpressed by that signing. So the best guy in our pen against lefties will be Jenks?
It was definitely a good offseason, I just think that a great amount of guys overrate it also. We might the biggest favorite to win it all in ’11 but the main reason for that are the extremly cheap contracts for Youk, Pedroia and Lester.
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 24, 2011 1:57 AM EST up reply actions
Heh
It didn’t sound like your usual style, but it actually used punctuation, so that made it harder to tell from a troll joke, which I guess was your point.
I guess I would only say that Papelbon for 12 and one year is better than Downs for three just because Downs is older and not a lock to perform even at an above-average level, while Papelbon should continue to be a good, and hopefully excellent reliever.
Aree with just about everything you said
that contract really sucks.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 24, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Bad though he may be against lefties, Carl Crawford wwas a 6.9 WAR player last year.
Take away half his defensive value for the monster (an overstatement), and that’s still 6 WAR.
I don’t see how you can love AGon’s deal when it costs prospects + more money for a guy whose had only one year over 6 WAR and be neutral-at-best towards Crawford’s. He was the fourth best offensive outfielder in the game last year, and plays top-of-the-line defense, even if not at the most valuable position.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 24, 2011 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Also, just had an amusing thought...
If the wall were in right, could the Red Sox essentially utilize him as an infielder-outfielder, ala in the shift?
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 24, 2011 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
All I know is
Crawford will play 81 games in other parks than Fenway, and none more important than MFY Stadium, with it’s giant LF.
He'll play 9 games in Yankee Stadium
another twelve in Safeco, Comerica, Oakland, and Target Field. That’s 21 games in large ballparks, compared to 81 at Fenway. You also have to consider three games at the Cell (small stadium) as well as three in Arlington. If we assume the rest of the parks are neutral (I don’t know if they are or not) then you have 21 games in large parks vs 87 in small parks. There is no doubt about this, his defensive value is going to be hurt a lot, people who talk about the fact that he’s going to be playing games in large parks are kind of ignoring that ratio. When you add in his numbers at Fenway (not insignificant when you consider how long he’s played in the AL East) I sort of have to wonder if he puts up even 5 WAR again. Certainly he’s capable of it in Tampa Bay, but in Boston he has a lot working against him.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 24, 2011 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
He could cover the ground that Ellsbury
would be running too, once Ellsbury figured out he should run there…..
This is what was going with the Twinkies when Tori Hunter was Centerfielder...
The corner outfielders were hugging the foul lines much more because of Hunter’s ranger.
Ideally, having Coco Crisp in Centerfield, with Crawford in left and Drew in right would probably be the best defensive outfield in the majors.. I always thought Crisps was robbed of a gold glove for the 2007 season.
As long as we're dreaming about center fielders with great defense and poor bats
I want Franklin Gutierrez.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 12:56 AM EST up reply actions
Does UZR work that way?
I mean if he covers the ground in LF at Fenway, (Which should not be a problem obviously) does he get hurt through UZR just by playing 81 games at Fenway??
I believe it's park adjusted, yes.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 24, 2011 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
I never understood this logic
“So and so sucked in Fenway…now that he’s on the Red Sox, he’ll continue to blow!”
Um, no, isn’t this nearly useless? The one constant in former Red Sox foes is…the Red Sox! Crawford will never face Lester or Buchh or Beckett or anyone else. Lackey never will face Youk and Ortiz and such. The only worthwhile data is what people did with Gonzo, looking at his spray charts. And I don’t think people have been doing that for Crawford.
The average rotation he will face in Fenway
as a member of the Red Sox is prolly somewhat worse than the Red Sox rotation form ’11 goin forward, that is true. I just dont know how much of a difference it is. Our pitching staff was below average last year, right?
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 25, 2011 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
5 WAR? That's beyond unrealistic.
1) In Fenway, Crawford has faced the Red Sox pitchers
2) Crawford’s career fenway numbers are based on a career .781 OPS, not his recent improved hitting.
3) Again, this is changing some 72 games of Crawford’s from Tropicana to Fenway. A significant number, but UZR does not suddenly go from supremely positive to supremely negative because of a park. It’s just limited in its positive effect. As I said, even if we accept that this half of his game’s value is reduced to an absolute 0, then he’s still a 6 WAR player last year.
4) Fenway goes from a more difficult road environment to a better home environment. 3-year splits show Crawford is about 60 points of OPS better at home compared to on the road.
Are Crawford’s splits a good fit in Fenway? No, they’re not particularly. He doesn’t get much power opposite field, and for a lefty, that means he’s going to be pull-hitting into Fenway’s big right field. But if Crawford loses a couple homers out there and gains four or so doubles off the wall, then he’s still a 6 WAR player.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 24, 2011 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Well you cite the Fangraphs WAR
lets look at the Baseballreference WAR which is not that high on Crawfords defense.
’10: WAR 4.8 – 4.7 oWAR and 0.1 dWAR (offense and defense)
’09: WAR 4.4 – 3.2 oWAR and 1.2 dWAR
Since you critiqued if i like the Gonzo deal (assuming somthing like 7/154) lets just look at his bWAR:
’10: WAR 6.3 – 5.7 oWAR and 0.6 dWAR
’09: WAR 7.0 – 5.7 oWAR and 1.3 dWAR
I believe BR uses Dewans plus minus system, but i could be wrong. Atleast we have a second WAR valuation next to fangraphs, which shows a quite different picture.
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 25, 2011 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
Actually, I believe they use the Total Zone system
Which helps grade people from the past, but is noticeably less accurate for the present day than things like +/- and UZR, both of which grade Crawford as being tremendously good at defense. This compares well to the general perception from pretty much everyone, including the people who actually are specifically interested in looking beyond the diving plays, that Crawford is a plus defender.
In fact, Sean Smith even says he considers UZR to be the best system, and mentions Dewan’s numbers favorably too in introducing his TZ system. My guess on the discrepancy is just a matter of the batted ball data. UZR, for instance, considers if it’s a hard liner or more of a fliner. I don’t think TZ does differentiate, and thus it’s prone to large swings based on a liner switching to a fly ball instead of going from one of three kinds of line drives to another.
It’s also worth noting that B-R’s war just plain sets a higher replacement level, thus artificially deflating many ratings compared to Fangraphs’ WAR.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 25, 2011 4:19 AM EST up reply actions
fwiw
Crawfords line in Fenway in ’10 (9 games, so SSS warning):
(.324 / .350 /.432/.782 with a .400 BABIP) is much better than his careeer line in Fenway:
(.275/.301/.406/.708 with a .327 BABIP) in 338 PA.
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 25, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions
Yet
In 2009 in 9 games he was
0.342/0.350/0.500 with a 0.394 BABIP
His career numbers fair or unfair include 2002/2003 when he was playing as a 20/21 year old in the majors. I’d be inclined to forgive him those years and say his norm should be closer to his recent numbers.
Speed is not the only part of defense.
Fast guys are not necessarily great defenders. Crawford is a great defender not just because he’s got speed (which would be reduced in value in Fenway LF, not eliminated) but ALSO because he has good fielding instincts, a decent arm and a very good glove (NONE Of which are reduced or eliminated in Fenway). In fact because Fenway LF has increased opportunity for 2nd base assists, a good arm is probably more valuable in Fenway LF than in some other parks (I admit I haven’t checked stats on that so don’t bash me if that isn’t true. It just seems likely.).
Just because Crawford is playing in Fenway’s LF, doesn’t mean his defensive advantages disappear into thin air. Fenway’s LF does have its own pecularities that a good defender will handle well and a poor defender will frack – up.
As a way-above-average defensive OF, the fact is that Crawford is still likely to provide above average defensive value even in Fenway. The magnitude may be diminished, but it is not likely to be eliminated.
And as Ben tried to very clearly point out – even if we DID drop his defensive value above replacement to zero just because he is playing home games in Fenway instead of the Trop (which is silly), he’s still likely to be around a 6 WAR player.
I was not on the “Let’s get Crawford” bandwagon prior to the signing because (as my posting history will show) I didn’t want to overpay when we still had other decent OF options available for much cheaper. But let’s be real. Overpriced or not, Crawford’s a great ballplayer.
I didn't say he wasn't a good ballplayer
but he’s been put in possibly the worst situation he could realistically be in. Yes, Fenway has it’s quirks, but it’s still tiny, especially with zero foul territory.
And yeah, he doesn’t have to face Buch or Lester, or Beckett. But he now has to face Price and Shields and Hellickson and all of the good young starters on the Rays staff.
Dropping his defensive value to zero doesn’t leave him a six war player. Defense is still valued in the WAR calculation, just look at Chase Headley who had a terrible slash line last year and still produced nearly 5 WAR.
And we’ve all missed the biggest factor, yes, he covers for Ells, but why should he have to. If you move Ells into left and Crawford into center the defenive value of the Sox outfield skyrockets. Crawford immediately becomes a 6 or even 7 WAR player, and Ells gets to play back in Left where his defensive numbers are much better. I know Crawford doesn’t want to play center, but if he was willing to hit leadoff he should be willing to play where he provides the most value.
By moving Crawford to center you eliminate two problems, Fenway cramping Crawford’s defensive value, and Ellsbury’s failure to get reads in center. It also negates Ells’s relatively weak arm because, like you said, there is more opportunity for 2nd base assists, and he’ll be closer to home plate.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 12:55 AM EST up reply actions
The point is that he only has to face Price, Shields, and Hellickson for 9 games in Fenway.
To counter the “Crawford sucks in Fenway” argument. There is no argument that Crawford is a bad offensive outfielder, at least not based on 2010. He was 4th best in the league.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 25, 2011 4:26 AM EST up reply actions
Too bad he doesn't want to play the position
And, the number seem to indicate that he isn’t very good in CF (small sample).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 25, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
He's being paid 20 million a year
he needs to at least start there. If he sucks worse than Ells does then he can move back.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
He's an elite LF with dubious CF skills
Why tinker?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 25, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Because Ells is a poor LF with possibly elite LF skills.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
CF, LF
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Crawford doesn't want to play the position
He isn’t comfortable there. If Ells can’t play CF, the Sox should play Cameron there.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 25, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
You are arguing for the ideal defensive positional arrangement.
And I am not disagreeing with that – I’d rather have Ells in LF, too.
But we are not likely to get it.
And my point is, even if it is not ideal, it is not a disaster. Again, you are over-emphasizing speed (range) when you emphasize that Fenway’s LF is tiny. Even in a tiny zone, a superior defender will out play an inferior defender. Again, yes the magnitude of that is reduced, but not eliminated.
If you want the’ideal’ arrangement, then you actually want to move guys around when on the road – always put your best ‘range’ defender in the biggest part of the field – of course you also have to keep in mind how folks read the ball and whether they can throw. You could do it. You could try to squeeze every bit of defensive value out. But it is not likely to actually happen.
This is like arguing over the ideal batting order. Yes there are real predictable differences in overal value from one arrangement to another. But in reality the difference in theoretical runs produced by ‘optimized’ lineups and the typical ’manager’s lineups is rather small.
I suspect that while it may not be optimal to have Crawford in LF, our OF defense will still be above average.
You missed the point about dropping his defensive value to zero. The point isn’t that defense doesn’t have value. Just that even if you ignore it, Crawford’s offensive value should still be extremely high. Diminishing his defensive value by putting him in Fenway’s LF (for home games) only becomes a problem if you think that results in significant negative defensive value.
are you kidding german red sox fan?
you have to be kidding. 1 year rental 1b ???? they havent signed him yet but calling him a 1 year rental is a stretch? aging 1b ?? everyone is aging but 31 isnt exactly ancient. and we have a clue how good he is he came up as a 3b and has played over 200 games at 3b in majors. and now the biggest crock u said since when is carl crawford a platoon player? that is a ridiculous statement.
sorry you got me i didnt continue to read
before i posted. you got me !!
well you were atleast the only one who had a hunch
that i was just jokin.
))<>((
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 25, 2011 1:22 AM EST up reply actions
Better off rooting for the...
BLANKEES!!!
by LETSGOREDSOX on Jan 26, 2011 8:12 AM EST up reply actions
I kinda like the 2002/2003 off-season
Theo signed David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, and Mike Timlin as FA. Purchased the contract of Kevin Millar from Florida, and gave up nothing in a trade for Todd Walker. Theo did all this and still managed to cut payroll.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
No, Theo was the GM for 2/3
He’s the guy who got Ortiz.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
Theo became GM on November 25, 2002.
December 12, 2002 – the Todd Walker trade
January 6, 2003 – Mike Timlin signed as FA
January 10, 2003 – Bill Mueller signed as FA
January 22, 2003 – David Ortiz signed as FA
February 4, 2003 – selected Bronson Arroyo off waivers from Pirates
February 15, 2003 – purchased Kevin Millar’s contract from the Marlins
2002 payroll – $108,366,060 (2nd in baseball)
2003 payroll – $99,946,500 (6th in baseball)
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 25, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking of Payroll
did anyone else see Cashman’s quote about Jeter moving to the outfield? I think he may actually be trying to get fired now.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 25, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Or perhaps build the best team?
It’s a good sign that those two ideas are so connected. The old Steinbrenner dictatorship can really sink a team in a hurry!
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 25, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
I put it up as a FanShot
That is an interesting theory though. I was floored when I saw him say he sees Jeter playing CF.
That's a thing of beauty, right there.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Okay...
I thought I was a serious Sox fan, with lots of historical knowledge. I remember Sam Horn (and Brady Anderson) and tons of other prospects that never panned out. I remember the Bagwell for Larry Anderson deal when it happened. (I know, I’m not exactly picking obscure references here…)
But I am at a total loss… who is Todd Walker?
greatest red sox 2nd baseman in october ever - until pedroia, of course
todd walker had quite an october in 2003 only to be replaced by the great mark belhorn in 2004.
todd was known as offense and weak defense.
belhorn was known as a wiff and an october error machine. in fact, he won the steel glove award in 2004 post season.
theo has had problems with getting long term 2nd basemen and shorters, until pedrioa, and, keep your fingers crossed, lowrie. bullpen has been kind of weak, too.
Seemed like he hit a homer every other game that postseason.
Crazy hot streak, that.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 25, 2011 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
That was Todd Walker?
Why did I think Mark Bellhorn was playing 2B that year?
I remember Mueller at 3B, Cabrera at SS, Millar at 1B… with Doug Matoomanyletters as the defensive replacement in late innings (and the whole squabble over who owned the ball from the final out).
Manny, Damon and Trot Nixon in the OF. Big Papi at DH. Curt Schilling, Pedro, Bronson, Derek Lowe in the rotation… Foulke closing…
And after writing all of this, I see that Walker was there in 2003… not 2004.
I think I permanently erased 2003 from the memory banks after Grady Little left Pedro in during Game 7. I have a friend who was working in baseball back then, so he had tickets for the games in Florida and had already asked me to meet him there… I vaguely, through the fog of a twelve-pack of Harp’s I finished between the 7th and whenever that Boone HR landed, recall Todd Walker. Vaguely…
Walker and Bellhorn wore the same uniform number
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
And have never been seen in the same room at the same time.....
o_O
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
So Bellhorn was what happened...
… when Todd Walker started taking steroids? (Or perhaps October 2003 was when he started, and he morphed into Bellhorn during the offseason?)
Kind of like the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde phenomenon?
Didn’t we get Bellhorn from the Chicago Cubs system, and Walker ended up signing there when he left Boston?
why does everyone have a problem with Little keeping Pedro in?
But nobody has a problem with him bringing in Wakefield in a sudden death away game. To me that was the problem.
Pedro was the best pitcher in baseball that year, you dont take him out in my opinion. And I might be wrong, but didnt Embree actually give up the winning or tying hit?
The pitch Pedro threw to Jeter was awesome, nasty, high 97 mph fastball that Jeter hit to the opposite field (JD Drew would have caught it lol). That was a great pitch, you just have to tip your hat to Jeter for somehow actually putting the bat on the ball.
Because the Red Sox didn't exactly have a strong pen.
Kim was injured, Timlin and Embree had already been used, Lyon had sucked since he got back, and Arroyo had spent most of the season in Triple-A. Wake had a very good year, and it was an extra innings game, so they didn’t know how long they would need any given reliever to stay in.
Leaving Pedro in was clearly stupid. It’s a 3-run game in the eighth. Your starter gives up a single and a double and then you head back to the dugout without him and let him give up two more doubles?
Come on, man.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 26, 2011 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly...
My memory has faded since 2003, and I will confess I think I’ve seriously blocked some of that evening out. So, I’m not sure the exact progression or which one Jeter was, but I’m guessing he was the 4th guy there, and the third straight double given up. And even if it was a great pitch, I think the single came on an 0-2 pitch, then the double was on an 0-2 pitch (or he got both batters into an 0-2 count before allowing the hit)… he just couldn’t put either guy away there.
I was watching games religiously that season, and Pedro was finished when he was finished. Great season or not, there was a moment when you knew he was done. And that moment, in my mind, was the single and the double. I was shocked Little didn’t pull him even BEFORE the next two doubles.
So, for me, I don’t crucify Wake for the pitch that lost it or Little’s decision to bring him in. At that point, it was the only choice left… but going to the pen to get out of the 8th inning was when it needed to be done.
Little was an awful manager
Unfortunately I was in the Bronx for that game. To answer your question, Petey gave up 5 runs. Embree came in after the game was tied. He faced only one hitter.
The point is, everyone knew Pedro was done—everybody but Grady, that is. The Sox’ pen was lights out in that series: (counting the series-winning run) 3 ER in 18 IP. Timlin had only allowed 1 hit in 5 appearances!! In a deciding game it should be all hands on deck—especially with a starter who faded around 100 pitches. I love Pedro. He’s one of my all-time favorite players. But there’s no way you let him throw 123 pitches in that situation.
Little was lucky to win the ALDS in 2003. He used Scott Williamson in every game. Game 4 really stands out in my mind. He tried to squeeze an extra inning out of John Burkett who barely made it through 5 innings. Burkett was hit hard in every inning, yet Little brought him out in the 6th to protect a 1-run lead. Williamson threw 2 innings (28 pitches) to close it out, and then Little went to him again in Game 5 the next day (after flying from Boston to Oakland!).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
I know Petey threw a lot of pitches
before knowing the outcome this is how I look at it. In a deciding game I would take Pedro with over 100 pitches thrown (still hitting 96 97 on the radar) over anybody that the Sox had in the bullpen. No matter how hot they were (outside of Timlin). Embree had a 4+ ERA that season.
In regards to Wakefield, the Yankees already used Rivera for 2+ innings I feel that was the time to use Williamson and anyone else first and then the knuckleballer if it was still in extra innings. To bring in a knuckleballer into a game where one run costs you your season is wrong in my opinion.
Also Posada’s “double” was a pop fly 5 feet past 2b. I still dont understand how that wasnt caught.
Incorrect
Everyone, and I mean everyone, knew what happened to Pedro from pitch 100 on. Here’s BR to back me up:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=martipe02&year=2003&t=p#pitco
BABIP isn't always luck
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
WOW funny how that changes to suit a certain argument
I have seen A LOT of people use a mid .300’s BAbip to show a pitcher being unlucky and a turnaround but a .452 BAbip isnt being unlucky?
Posada’s double 5 feet past second base must have been good placement lol
First off,
finishing any argument with lol automatically invalidates it.
Secondly, the same holds true in 2002 and 2001. 100+ pitches and his OPS goes up at least 100 points. And it’s not all BABIP; in 2002 he had a lower BABIP after 100+ and he was still (comparatively) lit up.
Thirdly, BABIP depends on the quality of the hits. When the quality of the pitcher goes down, and you start hanging pitches, you get pounded. I wish we could see the exBABIP, but we can’t on BR.
sorry about that
I have been texting too much lately.
Exactly
Sure Posada’s hit was lucky. But everything else that inning was tagged, and Petey was lucky on Matsui’s GR double. If the ball doesn’t go into the stands, a run easily scores.
Also, the probability that the MFY score with runners on second and third, one out, and a tired pitcher are pretty good (even if Posada got lucky).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Yep- once the runners were on 2nd & 3rd with less than 2 out
you can’t rely on suddenly getting a low BAbip – because you don’t want to risk a BIP at all unless its a DP!
Far better to bring in someone who has a better chance of getting a K in that situation.
I.E. someone who hasn’t thrown over 100 pitches and is so obviously gassed.
100+ pitches he was giving up a .340 SLG
its not like people were tattooing him. He K’ed 30% of the batters he faced, and had a 4 to 1 K/BB ratio.
The difference between his BAbip to actual BA against for the rest of the games is somewhere between 50 to 100 points for after 100+ pitches its 150 points with a .340 SLG against (which is slightly better that pitches 50-100) and that doesnt represent bad luck?
with men on 2nd & 3rd with only 1out
its not the SLG that kills you. They don’t need a XBH to score those runs.
You can’t even risk a ball in play in that situation, unless its a DP or a lineout.
And he got a pop up 10 feet behind 2nd base
that somehow turned into a double. That should have been caught and then there would still be 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs.
that would be ... a ball in play
in that situation you have to go for you best SO matchup out of your pen for that batter.
As Sean said, it's the quality of the hits
I don’t know a site that has this information, but I’m willing to bet that if you looked up the specific hits that came off of him after 100 pitches, there would be a disproportionately large amount of line drives.
The real best way to use BABIP is not to just look at if it’s high or low and say it’s unlucky, but to look at the contact people are making- batter get the highest (by a long shot) BABIP off of line drives. There’s a few different ways to figure out an expected BABIP- the simplest (and probably least accurate) is to take the LD% (as a percentage, so 17.1% LD% would be .151) and add 120, so that pitcher’s expected BABIP would be about .321.
There are exceptions to this rule, but where it comes in most useful is if, for example, a pitcher’s LD% drops or stays the same as it has for most of the career but the BABIP rises dramatically, you can pretty effectively say that pitcher is getting unlucky. It’s not really a number that tells you much of anything by itself, only in comparison to other numbers.
Yup
And sample size matters too.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Lets say Pedro's LD% went up from his normal numbers
Considering that his numbers were absolutely outstanding, could it be conceivable that even though the LD% went up (still not absolutely sure) that they could still be better than anyone in their bullpen?
well the main point is
his numbers as he tires are and were very Pedro-like. Tired Pedro is not better than “insert name of mediocre reliever here”
Exactly
Also, the radar gun does not tell the story. Pitchers don’t always lose velocity as they tire. They generally lose movement and command.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 26, 2011 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Well I remember the fastball he through to jeter
and it was a nasty fastball about chin high with movement. Jeter just hit it good.
If they would have taken Pedro out before the start of that inning and the bullpen blew the game everybody would say “You dont take the best pitcher in baseball out in the most important game of the season.”
I say lose with your best, you dont put the game into Embree, Timlin, and Wake’s hands. But I guess thats just me.
Well, to be clear...
I do agree that Pedro had to start the 8th. I was a little surprised he did, but he had been very, very good to that point.
However, the key here is as soon as he gets in trouble, you have to go to the bullpen. This is Game 7 of the ALCS. You don’t wait for the tying run to get on base before you pull your starter.
Fine… start him in the 8th, but once two men are on – in scoring position – and the tying run is at the plate, he has to come out.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have started the 8th, I’m saying Little should have pulled him after the first two hits, not after 4.
no way, pedro was done after 7
even pedro thought he was done after 7 he did his little pat point to the sky walking off the mound. he was acting in the dugout like a pitcher that was done for the day. pedro had no business starting the 8th inning his numbers dropped big time after 100 pitches grady knew that and he should of went to the bullpen.
You may be right...
… like I said, I blocked portions of that game from my memory.
But… and I haven’t gone to look this up… didn’t he record two outs in the 8th before the wheels came off?
No
One out, then double, single, double, double.
Over the Monster -- SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Site
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 27, 2011 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, right...
Well, I think I was shocked he came out for the 8th, but if they had pulled him after the single, and before the back to back doubles that swung the momentum…
… well, I guess we’ll never know.
So glad we won it all in 2004, and didn’t have to relive that decision for 18 years like that grounder to Buckner… or longer…
That 2003 team had a crazy offensive season
961 Runs
Every positional starter had double digit homers
6 player hit 20+ HR
8 of the starters had 30+ doubles!
The team OBP was 0.360
I think this is why
… the fans over at HH call us the Roid Sux.
I was reading over there and getting a very twisted view of how the Red Sox are viewed by other fans… the idea that “Soth” (help… why is that his nickname? Who has the lisp?) was screwed because he drew the Roid Sux in three division series…
I had to come back to reality, and OTM.
HH is not playing with a full deck
I think the general reason for Red Sox dislike is:
A) High Budget
B) Noisy fans who “invade” their teams’ hope stadiums (stadiae?)
C) High percentage of bandwagoning since 2004/2007
In general, though, I think a lot of SB Nation is meaner than the general population, so maybe it’s not representative =P
There was a very strong current of Roid Rage there too...
I know Manny got busted with the Dodgers, Big Papi’s name came up with no idea what substance he was linked to, and Gagne was the only Sox player on the Mitchell Report, if I get that detail right (and, frankly, the ‘roids weren’t helping him help the Sox win).
However, while it’s easy to be suspicious of anyone playing baseball between the Bash Brothers and Bonds’ retirement (and that includes a whole host of Angels players too, in 2002 no less), I don’t know that the Sox have a particular ’roid taint to point to like the Yankees or Giants…
Yeah HH definitely thinks roids
Plus umpire interference, secret Sox operatives in their front office, and solar flares…
But in general, if I ever see roid stuff directed at the Sox, it’s with Manny and Papi. And frankly, it is troubling with Manny, because he was possibly doing it his whole Sox career, who knows?
With Manny...
… I would like to believe he started doing them with the Dodgers. Maybe that’s the Sox fan in me, but Manny always seemed like the last person to be doing steroids (as phenomenal a hitter as he was, and as hard as he worked… it never quite seemed like he cared enough to cheat, if that makes sense?).
However, before we traded him in 2008, he couldn’t catch up to the elite fastball anymore. He started complaining about his phantom knee injury whenever a fireballer, like King Felix, was scheduled.
And in my mind, his renaissance with the Dodgers that September suddenly reversed that trend… perhaps the change of scenery was enough to explain that away, but with the positive test the next spring…
So I like to think that when he couldn’t catch up to that fastball anymore, he started taking steroids to prolong his career and probably that September with the Dodgers. It earned him a couple more $20 million pay days, and a 50 game suspension.
I don’t know about you, but somehow that doesn’t really feel like much of a deterrent.
So, maybe it’s just my rose colored glasses, but I’d like to believe Manny didn’t do steroids in Boston, much like I don’t think Barry Bonds ever did them with the Pirates.
Whats it matter
I think 70% of players are on HGH right now
Interesting stat you just pulled out of your ass.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
But that's only true
50% of the time.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
one thing
steroids don’t make muscles big by themselves, they give you the ability to work out your muscles more than you usually can (among a few other things). He probably was using steroids for a while (wasn’t he also outed as being on the government list?)
The government list tested for a whole host of things...
… I think, for instance, amphetamines were tested for and they used to be in the club house like candy, once upon a time. So, either being outed as being on that list, without telling what they tested positive for, doesn’t actually tell us anything.
Was pot on their testing? I don’t think it’s a performance enhancer, but could have come up as a positive test for a banned substance, right? It is tested for in other sports… see Ricky Williams suspension in the NFL… so I think it’s reasonable to think it might have been part of that testing process too.
For me, that’s the thing about Big Papi and Manny that you don’t see a change in body size/type like you did with Bonds, McGwire, et al. Which also refutes Jason A’s point above… if 70% of the players were on HGH now, you’d see the same type of body changes we all saw in Bonds.
In addition to building muscles, steroids helps with recovery time and, I think this is key in baseball, confidence. Baseball is such a mental game that you can almost see the difference when Big Papi is tentative and struggling early in the season, and suddenly strings a few big hits together. I think there is an impact of steroids simply on the mindset of the hitter.
On the fatigue factor, if your muscles are less tired (playing 162 games wears guys out) due to steroid use (which is why relief pitchers suddenly started getting busted when no one thought it was helpful for pitchers), you swing the bat better and more confidently as well.
And as you age, recovery takes longer… so again, why I want to believe that Manny started doing them late in his career to prolong it for another few $20 million pay days.
If Papi was using steroids
He followed injections by sitting on the couch eating pie. He is a huge man, but steroids don’t give you a gut.
I blame Scott Boras.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
You dont automatically become a muscle man because you are on steroids or hgh
Manny Alexander was one of the first players with a failed test and he wasnt a big guy at all. From what I understand (and i could be wrong) HGH doesnt necessarily produce muscle mass. It helps the muscle recuperate faster, which in turn makes it easier to work out harder.
Players were taking HGH before there was testing and steroids was still an option. Now they test for steroids but not HGH. Do any of you really believe the game is clean now?
The players can afford it, there is no test, and there’s only one way to get caught, which is getting caught buying it. They all have motive to do it too (bigger salaries).
I personally dont really care if they are. I dont blame them if they are too.
there were more red sox then gagne on the mitchell report
vaughn offerman and some other scrubs that played for the sox.
um Jose Guillen much?
The Angels are pure as driven snow on PEDs as the Sox or the MFY.
If I had to pin one team with some pretty awful PED abuse, it was the mid to late 90s Orioles with Grady Anderson, Albert Belle and others.
Well, maybe not started...
… but rather exploded. Those two crushing the ball made the A’s a juggernaut for a few years.
Although... while we're on the crazy offensive season...
Hmmmm…
If 2003 was that exceptional, what will 2011 look like?
961 Runs? Sure… we can do that.
8 of the starters with 30+ doubles… sounds reasonable.
Team OBP at .360? Why not?
You want six players with 20+ HRs? I’ll list them for you…
Gonzalez
Youkilis
Big Papi
Drew
Pedroia (I think he was on pace in 2010, right?
Crawford (let’s say just 20)
Lowrie over a full season?? Maybe we get 7??
Of course, once I have to start adding in the other two guys to get at least 10 (for the “Every positional starter had double digit homers”), I’m at a loss to predict that from Ellsbury/Saltalamacchia.
Lowrie's probably ot a better shot at it than Pedey or Crawford do.
He did hit 10 in only two months.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 26, 2011 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
Except that...
Crawford hit 19 in 2010, so he’s nearly done it already, and Pedroia hit 17 in 600+ at bats, and had 12 in 320 ABs last year.
I’ve got Jed down for 9 in 171 last year, which is a better pace, but I think the other two have been close already over a full season and we don’t yet know how well Lowrie’s swing will hold up over a full season’s grind.
So, in my mind, Pedroia and Crawford got the edge.
This may be the most exciting offseason of all time
but I doubt it’s the greatest.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
You mean
the guy who just got surgery and may not even start the season? ;)
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
He's gotta get on the field first.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 27, 2011 4:45 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think there's been any indication anywhere that he might not start the year
what I heard ages ago was absolute worst case he won’t swing until March 1 (which would give him plenty of time to be ready for April). What I’ve heard more recently is he’s ahead of schedule.
But the point is he isn't ready yet.
I’m not going to put him up for 60 home runs until I actually see him take a swing that looks the same way it did in San Diego.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 27, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
I was also pretty sure
Bautista would never hit more than 20.
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 27, 2011 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
yes but
that is hardly an argument that Gonzalez will hit 60. I’m also fairly sure that David Eckstein will never hit 347 home runs in a season.
Indeed.
My point was that Marisa tends to end all conversations about the offseason with “Gonzalez”, like nothing else matters…in this offseason or any other.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Ah, I'm just having fun with you
but for real, you have to dig to complain about the offseason.
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 27, 2011 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
You don't have to dig that deep.
We did sign Okajima, claim and then non-tender both Miller and Buchholz, then let Buch go to the Mets.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 27, 2011 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
...and?
I am pretty happy with the pen, I doubt Buchholz would have made the team.
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 27, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
So you at least put him through waivers to put him in the minors.
And there were at least 10 available pitchers whom the Sox could have had who were better than Okajima, several of whom will be waiting in the minors now, and another who we non-tendered and then let go to the Mets.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 27, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
what would that accomplish?
if another team signed him, that means they’d be willing to just pick him up on waivers.
Not the offseason
but the year of 1997 was good to Boston. Tek and Lowe in July, then Pedro during the offseason.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Official Baker of Red Sox Nation
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 24, 2011 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Although…depending on the results of the season, I may have to change my mind. :)
"There's no place like it, and it's ours." - Stephen King on Fenway Park
by 808BostonSportsFan on Jan 25, 2011 5:47 AM EST up reply actions
OT:
That blazers game on Sunday was the worst sporting event I had ever attended. No team should play back to back games, because the results were horrific. I was just praying that a team, any team, would score in the first minute of OT so I could stop watching.
Makes me not want to go this Friday.
I enjoyed myself
then again, I get to talk to Blazers players, so no complanits here! :)
I thought the game was fun, but I am an avid lacrosse fan and I do root for the Blazers, but I just want to see the sport grow.
Saturday I have a blogtalk radio show at 5pm for the NLL with live callers if you want to listen.
And I hate back-to-backs to.
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 26, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Man We Sure Went OT
Back on topic. Vote for Pedro.
And have him be the closer. I think he could do that cause he’s got that changeup of doom.
"Common sense is quite rare." - Voltaire
The Artist Formerly Known as PacoL250
Resident Psychologist and Tech Support at Over the Monster: SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Web Site
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
Related FanShots on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
