Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Right Field And Ryan Sweeney

Ryan Sweeney, formerly of the Oakland Athletics, catches a fly ball during the fourth inning at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington in Arlington, Texas. Oakland won 8-7. (Photo by Brandon Wade/Getty Images)

Until yesterday, we weren't entirely sure who the Red Sox' right fielder of the future was. In the past, it was though to be Ryan Kalish, but then 2011 happened: Kalish was injured most of the season, and Josh Reddick, previously below Kalish on the depth chart, had a successful campaign in Boston filling in for J.D. Drew. This complicated things for 2012, too, especially since Kalish wasn't ready for the bigs yet, and had lost a year of development.

That isn't an issue anymore, as Reddick has been dealt as part of the Andrew Bailey deal. But calling it, "The Andrew Bailey deal" does a disservice to the other Athletic the Red Sox received. Ryan Sweeney isn't the big name in this trade, but he is also more than a throw-in: he is the guy who can help bridge the gap to Kalish while he continues to develop in Pawtucket.

Star-divide

Sweeney, as an every day player, is not the answer in right field for most teams. The left-handed outfielder has one major weakness, and it's his inability to hit his fellow southpaws. This makes him a better fit as a fourth outfielder on a good team, but with the way the Red Sox' roster is built, Sweeney can actually account for somewhere around 75 percent of the playing time at the position, simply by using him against right-handed pitchers. Righties tend to throw roughly three-quarters of all innings, and Sweeney can hit righties.

In his career, Sweeney has a True Average (think of it like wOBA, except on a batting average scale, and adjusted for both park and league difficulty) of .280 against right-handers, and was at .279 in 2011. Those just happen to line up with the overall offensive production of right fielders in 2011. Sweeney has a better glove than your average right fielder, though, as he is capable of stepping in at all three outfield positions and holding his own. Right field in Fenway is tough, but Sweeney, as someone capable of playing center, should be able to range his way across its great expanse.

What to do against lefties, though? The Red Sox have two options at their disposal in Darnell McDonald and Mike Aviles. McDonald has clear weaknesses in his game that keep him from being an every day player, too, but he does one thing very well: hit lefties. McDonald is as good against southpaws as Sweeney is against righties, as his career TAv against lefties is .287, whereas he is at a replacement level .233 versus his fellow right-handers. He's a stretch defensively in center, even though the Red Sox had to use him there often in 2010 when Jacoby Ellsbury was out, but he is serviceable enough in the corner outfield spots.

Combine Sweeney's ability to hit righties with McDonald's lefty-mashing, and you've all of a sudden got yourself a well above-average, Voltron-inspired right fielder. It doesn't have to be McDonald every time, either, as Aviles has a .302 career TAv against lefties (but may be better served as the primary backup infielder with occasional time in the outfield). The point is, the Red Sox have options to make Ryan Sweeney: Starting Outfielder work out, as long as they adhere to a platoon. That platoon will come cheap, too, as Sweeney is expected to make roughly $2 million in his second year of arbitration, and McDonald even less than that in his first.

Sweeney's unadjusted career numbers are not a lot of help in determining what he will do with a full season at Fenway. His career line of .283/.342/.378 isn't impressive, but it's mostly due to a lack of homers and doubles. Normally, that would elicit a response of, "Doesn't the lack of an ability to hit for any power pose a problem?", but in Sweeney's case, it's not entirely his fault. The homers likely are, and Fenway isn't going to be much help in that capacity, but as for doubles, there is nowhere better to go.

Oakland is one of the more pitcher-friendly parks in the game, and Sweeney has been there for most of his career. According to Statcorner, Oakland's three-year park factor for doubles for left-handed batters was 88 (where 100 is average, and figures below 100 represent worse than average). Fenway, on the other hand, sits at 142 for lefty doubles. Sweeney is a guy with warning track power who sprays the ball to all fields, meaning he is set to take advantage of that park factor in his new home. If he's a perfect fit for the park in terms of an impending doubles explosion, as many have been in the past, he might end up outperforming his previous adjusted numbers, too.

Sweeney isn't what immediately comes to mind when considering answers for right field, but in the Red Sox' current situation, his presence plus that of players like McDonald gives the Sox their replacement for the departed J.D. Drew. Kalish can sit in Pawtucket until he has finished developing -- and he still needs that seasoning -- and without the Sox giving anything away at the major league level. This deal has made the Red Sox better in the short-term without sacrificing their financial flexibility or Kalish's future -- all in all, it looks like a successful move.

Comment 117 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Why can't everyone see it from this perspective?

It’s not like the Sox are not exploring all avenues for starting pitching. If they find a back end starter which is not out of the question, Bard could be back in the bullpen. Ace+ Doubront, Miller, Tazawa, Wilson /acquisition could hold down the back end until Dice-k returns. Prior to this trade IF the Sox acquired a starter and it came out that they could’ve obtained Bailey but didn’t, wouldn’t most of us be upset and bash the FO and Cherrington? I don’t think this trade cements anything with Bard, the FO is just dotting their "i"s and crossing their "t"s.

by royredd87 on Dec 29, 2011 10:33 AM EST reply actions  

But don't you know

that they’re doing this INSTEAD of finding a back-end starter? That finding a back-end starter is their number one top highest priority and that if they make an excellent move to shore up another weakness or two it must by nature preclude them from getting a back-end starter?

by abbreviatedman on Dec 29, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Not necessarily.

It makes them weaker on the trade front, but FA wise it really hasn’t affected them. If they have a hard cap, then yes they are weak in terms of going out and signing a SP through FA, but as they have said they’ll do anything to make this team better, which means they probably don’t have a hard cap, but they won’t be going crazy (like going up to $200 million level in terms of total team salary) so adding one starter at a high price won’t kill them.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 29, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Hmm.

I thought my sarcasm was obvious by my ridiculous language.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 29, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

It indeed was not.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Sarcasm doesn't come across the internet very well.

So I appologize if I didn’t know you were being sarcastic

by aubatron2011 on Dec 29, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I got it.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Because you're sharp

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 29, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks, buddy!

Wait....sarcasm font....

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2011 9:32 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think this trade cements anything with Bard

That’s the thing, it very much does. Considering the budget, we just spent $4.5M more (including Sweeney as part of the deal) on a closer. If Bard was still penciled in as a reliever rather than a starter and we had Melancon, would this be an appropriate trade to make? I don’t think so. If Bard was closing and we still had 2 big holes in the rotation, would you rather have another $4.5M go to the bullpen, or to the rotation?

I tried to explain my feelings on this last night, I just can’t support moves that are built on the foundation of Bard to the rotation.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Well.

We paid $4.5MM not for a reliever, but for the ability to trade a more minor prospect package by taking on Sweeney’s salary. The choice was between getting a reliever at $8MM+ for multiple years, or $4.5MM and some minor prospects.

The choice certainly isn’t keeping Bard as a reliever and then spendimng money on the bullpen or the rotation. Obviously, if you’re doing that, you’re going to want to spend on the rotation. But it’s going to cost you a LOT more than $4.5MM and some minor prospects to do so.

I can understand if you don’t like the Bard experiment. I don’t agree with you, but that’s fine. But if you keep Bard in the bullpen, then you’re going to have to spend a LOT more in prospects and/or salary to sign an additional starter. Relievers are significantly cheaper than starters, and the Sox only have so many resources.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 29, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

the fact that the A's chose to tender Sweeney a contract

heavily implies that his value in the trade was at least zero- as in it wouldn’t have cost more prospects if he were not included. If the A’s viewed him as being less value than he’ll make, they just wouldn’t have tendered him a contract. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying in the first part there

by wolf9309 on Dec 29, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I like the idea of platooning those two

With a very strong lineup, they can afford a slightly weaker spot.

Check out my blog at http://conor-soxrox.blogspot.com

by Conor Duffy on Dec 29, 2011 10:33 AM EST reply actions  

Sweeney/Aviles

just on their 2011 splits alone – outhit Reddick

by BobZupcic on Dec 29, 2011 10:42 AM EST reply actions  

Did they out-field?

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 12:55 PM EST up reply actions  

well, keep in mind a complete platoon is impractical

just because a manager isn’t going to want to pull a player every time there is a relief pitcher change. So Aviles will face some righties (which is OK) and Sweeney will face some lefties (which is less OK). Aviles is also presumably going to be used in the infield at some point in the year.

by wolf9309 on Dec 29, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm okay with Sweeney/DMac

I’d rather keep Aviles in the infield.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2011 11:22 AM EST reply actions  

The problem with this

is we’d have to keep DMac on the team.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 11:23 AM EST reply actions  

That's an issue why, exactly?

If Valentine isn’t as liberal with his PA opportunities as Francona was, and limits him to facing lefties, he has value. In the same sense Wheeler would have been better last year if Francona wasn’t just using him in mop-up where lefties could hammer him instead of just letting him mow down righties.

by Marc Normandin on Dec 29, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 29, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

If he plays serviceable RF

and can hit lefties, why is that a problem?

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Because he can't play a serviceable RF

And I’m not convinced he can hit lefties. As Ben said in the other trade thread, he got a lot of junk last year.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Most feel he can play serviceable RF

and his ability to hit lefties is, admittedly, up in the air. But he had a decent 2010 and was also decent against lefties in 2011. “Got a lot of junk” sounds a lot like that “eyeball test” that sabermatricians supposedly hate.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 29, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Bench of

Aviles, Shoppach, Punto, McDonald

by BobZupcic on Dec 29, 2011 11:34 AM EST reply actions  

They could just give him a full year to work on defense, or at least until September

or someone gets hurt. Or even trade Salty or Shoppach if Lavarnway is looking that good. I will say that if Lavarnway is good enough to catch in the majors, Shoppach makes a hell of a lot more sense as a piece for the team than Salty does.

by wolf9309 on Dec 29, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Sort of

I’m kind of split between them, Shoppach is “better” defensively, but Salty knows the pitching staff.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Lavarnway

Will be in Pawtucket to get everyday at bats, something he can’t do in the MLB. If he tears it up and shows his defense has improved than I would suspect they’ll look to trade Shoppach or Salty mid-year.

Lavarnway isn’t going to get DH at-bats this year, so it makes sense to leave him at AAA.

by The Name is Dalton on Dec 29, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

if he proves that he can catch and is mashing AAA then you make a move or just DFA Shoppach

by BobZupcic on Dec 29, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Shoppach is a catcher

If he’s performing well I’d assume we could find someone who wants to trade for him.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

The overall production

from LF-RF last year can only go up. So they got that going for them. That should offset some the slight degradation I expect from DH-CF.

by Dale Sams on Dec 29, 2011 11:37 AM EST reply actions  

well Buchholz is 27 and by all accounts felt fine by the end of the year

and could’ve pitched then if they’d had time to ramp him up. Youk is 5.5 years older, has missed significant time from injury the last few years (and admitted that playing third is harder on his body), and had surgery after the season ended. It’s certainly possible that Youk can stay healthy, but I wouldn’t say I’d assume it.

by wolf9309 on Dec 29, 2011 5:44 PM EST up reply actions  

He also plays in a manner that encourages injury at third.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

great article

I would just add, I believe Aviles hits lefties much better than DMac.

by dennet on Dec 29, 2011 11:54 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

But D-Mac can play outfield better

Check out my blog at http://conor-soxrox.blogspot.com

by Conor Duffy on Dec 29, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Can he? Or is he just "versatile."

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 29, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

I have no Problem with DMAC

platooning only agains lefties, as long as on those days he’s kept out of the middle of the gyatdang lineup unlike last year.

by AverageJoeEveryman on Dec 29, 2011 12:31 PM EST reply actions  

I like a platoon of Sweeney/DMac or Aviles

but I do think that Kalish deserves his shot sometime this coming year. Because he has options and because he played so little last season, he will need to bounce back and forth, which makes this move a great stop gap option, but in the end, I hope we are seeing Kalish most of time around August and September.

The other thing that I really like about this trade where Sweeney is concerned is the possibility that we pump up his value some and then trade him. If he does in fact benefit from hitting in Fenway (and the Yankee Stadium launching pad and the Rogers Centre) then we can ship him off for good value this year or next if Kalish takes the position over. An NL team would love a cost controlled slick fielding OF with doubles power and he might bring in the 2012 deadline 5th starter or bullpen arm.

- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com

by Mattsullivan on Dec 29, 2011 1:57 PM EST reply actions  

SeanO will get a laugh out of this:

Kalish revealed he had a torn labrum and had Dr. Yocum perform surgery on it in early November, he does not expect to be ready for ST or the start of the season.

Linkydinkydoo

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 3:17 PM EST reply actions  

No laugh there

It is heartbreaking. I saw him since Lowell and it is tragic that he’ll never be anything.

by Sean O on Dec 29, 2011 4:29 PM EST via Android app up reply actions  

He was 24, already has 53 games of major league experience

I think he was closer to being a part of our plan than many think.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 5:52 PM EST up reply actions  

will be 24 that is.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 5:52 PM EST up reply actions  

well he had the surgery in early November

so it’s not like the Sox just found out about it today

by wolf9309 on Dec 29, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Well of course

But even last season, I don’t think he was long for AAA when he got hurt.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 29, 2011 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Sweeney's 2009

Looking back at Sweeney’s 2009 season where he managed 534 PAs playing CF/RF for the A’s at the young age of 24 there are some encouraging things. First, he posted a 4.2 WAR behind an incredible UZR season and managed to post a 0.330 wOBA with the bat. Looking at his splits that year he posted a 0.842 OPS in 286 Road PAs for a 130 OPS+.

He’ll only be 27 in 2012 and while he most likely will not set the world on fire he could be a solid regular.

by BobZupcic on Dec 29, 2011 10:11 PM EST reply actions  

The major need in RF remains defense

in the absence of JD. Reddick offered that. So does Sweeney, and between the Monster and his age 27 maturation and getting alot of AB’s as the primary RF, at least for a while, his power #’s could be a pleasant surprise. This platoon, and I read that Valentine likes to platoon, could be a winner for DMac, Sweeney, and the team.

by GerryT on Dec 30, 2011 3:21 AM EST reply actions  

Marc-I totally agree.

First-can people please stop crying about losing Josh Reddick? Ryan Sweeney alone is likely close to Josh Reddick for the next few years. Consider:
A)Sweeney has already had a full year of 4.2 WAR as a player.
B)Sweeney was a much higher level prospect.
C)Sweeney is a good on base guy who had to suffer both on base wise and power wise by playing in Oakland.
D)Sweeney is barely older than Reddick.

I think the difference between these guys is in the noise. You may cite Sweeney’s complete lack of power. But note:
A)Sweeney is still relatively young and had to play in a huge park.
B)Showed better power in the minors and will be playing in a park that really suits his skills.

If you want to argue that Reddick is or will be better, that is fine. But a logical case may be made that at best the difference is minor and at worse Sweeney may actually be a better player, even moving forward.

Now as Marc says-consider that McDonald is a career wOBA ~0.350 guy against LHP while Sweeney is a career ~0.335 wOBA guy against RHP (in a pure pitchers park) and you are looking at a hybrid RF who is a 0.350 wOBA hitter with decent defense. Should we care that Josh is gone?

Add to that that we improved the pen with Bailey and now don’t really need to worry about relief pitching, and I think this was a solid move. I don’t understand the bitching just like I never understood the Reddick-love. Now if we could just add 2 decent starters…

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 10:28 AM EST reply actions  

I don’t understand the bitching just like I never understood the Reddick-love. Now if we could just add 2 decent starters…

I think some of the bitching is because they used him to bring back a reliever instead of a starting pitcher. My guess is that if Reddick had been part of a trade package to bring in a number 4 starter then it would be a different reaction. But, the team just didn’t think they could (or knew they couldn’t) bring in a good starting pitcher using him as trade bait and had to settle for getting a nice upgrade to the bullpen.

I think Sweeney will be fine replacing Reddick until someone else is ready to come up, personally. And Melancon/Bailey are capable of replacing the Bard/Papelbon combo at the end of the game.

by The Name is Dalton on Dec 30, 2011 12:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I am surprised Reddick netted what he did

so I have a hard time believing he would be the centerpiece in a trade for a decent starter…

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Although to be clear, I wasn’t trying to say that people were hoping the same package that went to Oakland would get a decent starter. It would’ve had to have been Reddick + better prospects…and even then, it might not have been enough.

by The Name is Dalton on Dec 30, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Looking at what Oakland got for Gonzalez and Cahill...

probably not. Maybe we could have gotten Anderson and prayed he got healthy.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe McCarthy although he isn't as established as Cahill/Gio

But I also didn’t mean just from Oakland. At any rate, my point was that alot of people thought Reddick could’ve been a decent piece in a deal to get a starting pitcher from somewhere, whether it be Floyd like you mentioned, or an Oakland guy, etc. Whether it was wishful thinking on the fanbases fault or not is hard to tell without knowing the conversations that other clubs had internally regarding Reddick.

But, I assume that is where some people didn’t like the trade. Not because Reddick was traded but for what position he was traded for.

by The Name is Dalton on Dec 30, 2011 1:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

the fact that we traded for a reliever on a pedestal, pushing our younger, cheaper, potentially better reliever on a pedestal to the rotation pisses me off.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Because of your disdain for relievers,

I figured you would be applauding Bards move to the rotation. Why waste a talent like that in the bullpen? The worst case scenario(outside of injury), is that he fails as a starter, and simply goes back to the pen.

"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
2011 Varitek League Champion

by Lloyd Christmas on Dec 30, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

The reason I don't want Bard moved to the rotation

is that he’s an awesome fireman, but gets fatigued easily. He wouldn’t be throwing 100 if he moved to the rotation, he’d be throwing 93-95. He’d probably only give us 120-140 innings, and the last time he started, the Sox had to tinker with his mechanics because they didn’t think his current pitching style could translate to starting in the majors. The could have picked literally anyone else in the bullpen and I would have said “I don’t like it, but whatever.” I think Bard has something like, a 10% chance to succeed as a starter, and even if he does succeed, I think he’s got a much higher chance of injury.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Your point about fatigue is why I have been thinking that

they’re having him prepare as Starter during the winter because starters prepare differently than relievers to get their arms and legs ready for somewhere around 200 innings. He might have been one the players that they weren’t happy with his conditioning, and this way he can come into ST better conditioned, so when he fails as a SP in ST, and is moved back into the bullpen, he’s ready for the amount of innings he’s going to have log.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 12:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Would that leave him still throwing as hard as he has been?

I’d prefer 65 appearances of 2011 Bard to 75 appearances of starter-Bard if it means he’s not throwing 100 anymore.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2011 12:12 AM EST up reply actions  

How hard he throws is a choice

if he’s a starter and not throwing as hard, it’ll be a conscious decision so that he can last more innings. Preparing as a starter wouldn’t affect his velocity.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2011 1:37 AM EST up reply actions  

It sounds nice

But if that was the magic cure to making relievers not be fatigued anymore (which a lot of relievers go through every year), don’t you think teams would just make every pitcher do that so they’re all prepared for the vigors of the season?

I mean, how dumb would it be if there was this magical preparation that kept you strong all year and you DIDN’T use it? Really, freaking dumb.

I think I may have just justified steroids.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 1:13 AM EST up reply actions  

it might just be they think it'll work for him

which doesn’t necessarily mean it will or that, if it does, it would work for him. You also can’t have every pitcher on your staff (and about a dozen more) throwing 4 innings/game in spring training in march.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2011 1:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly. They might just experimented.

Everybody said Aceves seem to have a rubber arm because of how much he was used last year, but maybe he had prepared himself as Starter during winter and maybe the Sox think that if Bard prepares like that it could help him when he goes back into the bullpen.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions  

So two experiments in one!

This is such a great thing to do with Bard

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

If it works, and his conditioning improves.

And he doesn’t break down like he has the last two seasons, it is because the Sox would be a better team.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

But if it doesn't, which seems likely

we break Bard.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

which seems likely based on what, exactly?

I’m no fan of Bard in the rotation, I’m just curious

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

The Red Sox changed his mechanics so that he could stick as a starter in the Majors

that says to me that they saw something in the way he currently pitches that says “I will not be a good starter in the majors.” He also gets fatigued easily, and would have to lay off the heat on his fastball, leading to more hittable pitches and a lower k/9

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions  

how does any of that equal Bard getting injured?

being a bad starter, I understand, but if anything, having the 5 day routine would probably be less likely to hurt him.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

So if he fails in the rotation,

and is put back into the bullpen with improved conditioning, how would we break him exactly? He probably won’t be throwing more innings that he has in the past.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Because by then he'd already have a lot of innings on his arm

and would be set in a rhythm in the rotation, throwing off his ability to go out and pitch in the bullpen.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 31, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

The innings in ST aren't stressful innings.

So his arm wouldn’t be that fatigued, and it’s easier to go from the rotation to the bullpen than vice versa. I don’t think he’ll stick in the rotation, but I’m happier they are floating this idea out there now, than say mid-May.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

A pitch is a pitch is a pitch

There may not be much mentally behind it, but it doesn’t really take less energy and strength to throw a pitch at 95 in ST as it does in May, it’s the same body action. ST velocity also doesn’t vary much from regular season velocities, so they’re still throwing just as hard. There is no denying that they’re putting more mileage on his arm by having him start in ST.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

A pitch in a stressful situation, like the 8th inning tied game a man on third

and two outs when the pitcher has to dig deep to put a little extra on the pitch is more stressful on his arm than a pitch in ST. In fact, most starters use ST to work on other pitches outside their repitore. I just don’t think him throwing a few more innings in ST, after winter when he’s conditioned himself as starter, through cardio and strength training, hurts if he has to go back to the bullpen.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 4:16 PM EST up reply actions  

As I've said

If the workout, cardio and strength training was any different between starters and relievers (setting aside ST innings) and if having a reliever do this apparently different starter work out makes them less fatigued at the end of the year, why wouldn’t every team make every pitcher do that work out so they won’t ever have to worry about bullpen fatigue ever again?

Taking away a couple instances of “digging deep” doesn’t chance that he’s going to be expected to pitch up to 18 more innings than he would as a reliever. For a guy that pitches 80 max (ST plus regular season), an extra 18 is A LOT of innings if it doesn’t work out and this “starters workout” is crap like I suspect it is.

There are a lot of ways in which this does not benefit Bard in anyway. Again, only if it actually works, an idea I am hugely skeptical of.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 4:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know why they don't do it.

But the “Starters workout” is not crap. They have to workout harder than relievers because they are doing two to three times more work than relievers.

by aubatron2011 on Dec 31, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions  

If there is a difference

There is also probably a reason why they don’t, and the reason is likely negative. I don’t think this is a sunny old “win-win” for Bard whether he ends up as a starter or reliever.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

There is a difference.

Read on guys like Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Curt Schilling and other startes and their off season workouts.

by aubatron2011 on Jan 1, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I frequently don’t trust the front office to make the right moves and such, but I trust there is a reason why most relievers aren’t doing to the Roger Clemens workout.

Maybe because it’s only really effective if you’re a starter, if you end up in relief maybe it just fatigues the arm further. But there IS a reason why they don’t do it, I’d imagine that is why it is NOT a magical fix for arm fatigue or many many more would do it and it wouldn’t even be notable.

Again, not a win-win.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Jan 1, 2012 5:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe other teams should make their pitchers do it.

But a lot of these organizations as of lately have coordinated the players off-season workouts with their players, and maybe it’s the players objections to doing the workouts. But to say there’s no difference in workouts between starters and relievers is not actually true.

by aubatron2011 on Jan 1, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

in Bard's words

he’s not really doing anything different this offseason than usual other than mental preparation. He said he’d probably start throwing a week or so earlier but that’s it.

by wolf9309 on Jan 1, 2012 6:57 PM EST up reply actions  

The bitching

Is because this move pretty much cements Bard to the rotation, which means we’ll likely only add 1 starter. If Bard was closer, this move wouldn’t have been necessary and we know we’d be getting two solid pitching additions. Now we’re probably getting 1 pitcher and filling the other spot with an experiment that a lot of people don’t believe in.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 30, 2011 1:06 PM EST up reply actions  

"two solid pitching additions"

Please define solid

"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
2011 Varitek League Champion

by Lloyd Christmas on Dec 30, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Well my ideal would be Kuroda for one

Which is a “more than solid” choice I think.

The other would be someone in the Maholm (who could thrive under a good defense) to Saunders (who has value in eatting innings and would justify the bullpen spending) range.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 30, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

On Kuroda

Do we really want to spend upwards of 12-13 million per year, over 2-3 years on a 37 year old pitcher whose success has come in the NL, in a pitchers park?

In regards to Saunders, he is looking for a 2-3 year deal @ 8-10 million per. I would prefer him to Kuroda, but only if his asking price comes down significantly.

Of the three you mentioned, Maholm interests me the most. He doesn’t have great stuff, but he keeps the ball on the ground. I haven’t seen what his contract requests have been, but if the price is right, I would love to see him in a Sox uniform.

"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
2011 Varitek League Champion

by Lloyd Christmas on Dec 30, 2011 5:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm fairly certain we could get Kuroda for one year.

If we can’t, I’d be ecstatic for Oswalt/Maholm.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

If we get too critical, we're going to end up with 3 starters and junk.

I think Kuroda could get done on a one year deal, I’d be willing to pay those numbers for him if we have the money. He’s a good pitcher and even if there is a negative adjustment, he’s at least starting from a very good spot. For Saunders, I can’t imagine a world where he gets a multi-year deal at those numbers.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 30, 2011 6:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I think your estimates of what both will get is way off

Kuroda I don’t think is even looking for multi-years

Saunders got non-tendered when his estimated salary was under $8 million. There’s no chance he’ll get an average salary over that.

by wolf9309 on Dec 30, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's what I got.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/yankees-unlikely-to-make-an-offer-to-kuroda.html

Just because Arizona didn’t want to pay Saunders 16 million over two years, doesn’t mean he won’t get it elsewhere.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/NickPiecoro/151318

"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
2011 Varitek League Champion

by Lloyd Christmas on Dec 30, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think he will, Saunders is OK, but I don’t think anyone is going to take the risk of the contract he’s asking for. And remember, that’s his starting point. We started with Garza in the Theo talks and are now down to… well nothing really at this point. I can’t imagine a world where he gets 2-3 years at any more than $6M per. I think he’s looking more at $8M/1 to prove he can pitch outside of the NL West.

The pitching market isn’t really all that in demand anyway, prices will start coming down soon. Players are going to look at Madson who just lost his best shot, and say ‘shit’ I might as well take what I can get before this player signs.’

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 31, 2011 1:22 AM EST up reply actions  

The Kuroda one says nothing about two years

If anyone was willing to pay Saunders $8 million or more for two years, they would have attempted to trade for him before the non-tender deadline and only have to commit one year to him. He can look for a 5 year $20 million-per deal if he wants.

by wolf9309 on Dec 31, 2011 1:42 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't see how this has anything to do with Bard.

We got another relief pitcher for a guy who was not going to net a starter of quality (nor be the centerpiece of such a deal). Bard could still be a high leverage pen arm or not.

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 4:42 PM EST up reply actions  

And my bitching has relatively little to do with Reddick

It’s the $4.5M more we just added to a budget that by all accounts is tight.

Can you justify that spending after acquiring Melancon if Bard fails?

I’m not confident in Bard in the least, I can’t look to Wilson or Lowe as confidence since I know they are different, they were brought along as starters. I felt we needed to make moves for two solid pitchers, and I feel that we still need to do that and now we have $4.5M less to do so (because I do believe there is a hard cap). I fear we’re only going to get 1 starter and hope that someone we have, currently Bard, will just work out, which isn’t really a good of a plan I think as if they had just left Bard as closer, stocked our youth in the pen and built the rotation with all the money we had after Ortiz decided to come back.

A bullpen can only be as good as the rotation it backs up and we have no idea what the plan is for the 4 and 5 spots. Presumably they’re going to get someone, but I’m thinking less and less it’s going to be two someones and we once had the ability to do that, but with all the moves they are making, I think we’re losing that chance.

Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"

by Rogue Nine on Dec 30, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions  

No argument here.

(BTW Wainright was a reliever who was NOT brought along and did just fine after the jump, even pitching 202 innings. However he was predominantly a starter in the minors and only had a short stint as a reliever). I think one has to separate the issues here. We all agree that 2 inning-eating decent starters+Bard in the pen >> than Bailey+Bard in the rotation+?. However there may not be much out there that convinces the Sox, given quality +price, that the can actually do much in the way of acquiring a starter. I myself would scour the scrap heap, but to me that is independent of Reddick. You may feel that since Bailey is a closer than they are thinking that Bard will be tried in the rotation, but my point is that need not be and is independent of stockpiling pen arms or Reddick.

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions  

You can add

P. Hughes and F. Carmona to that list as well. I’d rather the Sox take a chance on Bard in the rotation than to bring in expensive 4-5 starters that are looking for multi-year deals.

"Man you are one pathetic loser. No offense." - Lloyd Christmas
2011 Varitek League Champion

by Lloyd Christmas on Dec 30, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Get a room

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2011 6:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree completely

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2011 6:15 PM EST up reply actions  

"Now if we could just add 2 decent starters…"

That’s where my bitching originates.

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 30, 2011 11:42 AM EST reply actions  

Reply fail

Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.

@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven

by Bloggy on Dec 30, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Agree'd, if Reddick had been used to get, say, Gavin Floyd, I'd be giddy with excitement

But he was used to get a reliever on a pedestal, so, if you assume that Sweeny is already Reddick, we traded three years of his cost-controlledness for another Bard, but less years of Bard than the Bard we had already.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

The only way Reddick was going to bring back Floyd

is if Kenny Williams is a fool. Oh, wait…maybe :-).

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you could get Floyd for Reddick

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

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 30, 2011 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Reddick wouldn't have gotten Floyd by himself

But as part of a package he might have.

You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash

by TheLoneDavid on Dec 30, 2011 6:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Not as the centerpeice

he would be more of a throw in. And then you are talking about giving up pieces that are bound to be more controversial.

by Buzzy on Dec 30, 2011 6:56 PM EST up 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

010_small
OTM Simpson Analogues
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

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Skinner_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