A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]I also said at the time of the AGon trade, that moving Youk to 3B was not wise. I suggested trading him and was soundly bashed (led by softy). Now, that his trade value is near zero, nearly everyone wants him dealt (including softy).
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]I remember you saying that moon because I agreed with you. As a matter of fact I floated the idea of trading Youk and was roundly thrashed by the forum. Now we have to trade him. If I were Ben C. I would get on the phone to Walt Jocketty and see if he would trade Tony Cingrani, Daniel Corcino and Billy Hamilton for Youk and Beckett if we're still buried by the all star break. I just don't see a blockbuster deal to be made that the Red Sox need to make. So I say load up on all the high A and AA talent we can get for guys we're probably going to lose anyway and get ready to run with the kids. The Red Sox really have some exciting looking prospects in the minors right now IMNSHO.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II : I remember you saying that moon because I agreed with you. As a matter of fact I floated the idea of trading Youk and was roundly thrashed by the forum. Now we have to trade him. If I were Ben C. I would get on the phone to Walt Jocketty and see if he would trade Tony Cingrani, Daniel Corcino and Billy Hamilton for Youk and Beckett if we're still buried by the all star break. I just don't see a blockbuster deal to be made that the Red Sox need to make. So I say load up on all the high A and AA talent we can get for guys we're probably going to lose anyway and get ready to run with the kids. The Red Sox really have some exciting looking prospects in the minors right now IMNSHO.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]
    I do recall that both Moon and Carnie balked at shifting Youkilis back to third base. I might not have said so at the time, but I certainly agreed with them, as, I believe, did Boom.  ( I also think that Boom and I spoke in favor of trying to retain Beltre. Decent-hitting first basemen are a lot easier to come by than are gold-glove third basemen with sock. ) It should have been obvious as soon as Gonzalez was obtained that there was no long-term future for Youkilis in Boston. People at his age go from third to first but not the other way around.
    Ben is probably looking around for a deal, but Youk's trade value has declined.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I would fault Valentine/McClure for not talking to Bard after the first walk if I thought that the "talk" would have involved an iron fist in a velvet glove. But it looks to me these days that the velvet glove not only does not contain an iron fist but is in fact empty. ( Though BV did chew on Doubront a little when the kid was distracted by the ump's calls. ) These players will survive the "embarrassment" of a public spanking. If they can't, they shouldn't be in the majors. ( That goes for Youk too. After all, he's always grumpy publicly himself -- about Ellsbury, about umpires, about Ortiz trying to keep him sane, etc. ) Mind you, I'm not in favor of managers routinely airing their grievances with players in the press or having fits in the dugout or on the field. ( BV has so far been remarkably restrained. ) They should pick their spots in order to make the iron fist special and therefore all the more effective.
    IMO, the other night was one of those spots. Bard climbed the mound in the 8th and continued to display great stuff. ( Max has recounted what he did to bats in the 7th. ) But he misplaced his brain. At that point, time out. "Listen, kid, I put you out here because I have confidence that you have at least another good inning in your arm. But you're not paying attention...." Followed by words guaranteed to get his attention. Not a lot of words. Just a few carefully chosen ones. Fisk would have been on that mound in a heartbeat. Ditto Bench and Yogi and.... If not Yogi, then Casey himself. And so on. No words would have been minced.
    I think the Sox bench ( and Shoppach ) missed "a teaching moment" when it could have done the most good. Maybe it will stay with Bard anyway. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    But is Salty "light years" away from where Varitek WAS at this stage of his career? 

    I'm not sure, because I wasn't keen on the CERA philosophy back then.

    It's hard to compare VTek with Salty at age 27. Salty has 313 games as a catcher and 39 as a 1Bman in MLB spread over 6 seasons (from age 22-27), overlapped with 358 games as catcher in minorleagues from age 18.

    Salty's CERA-related skillset has been discussed at length for close to 2 years now. Recently, he has looked better, but overall his numbers are scary (even this year as a whole). 

    VTek started in the minors at age 23. He played about 300 games in the minors over 3 seasons, which is about the same amoung as Salty, but at much different ages and at a more concentrated rate. He played about a half a season in the bigs at age 26 in 1998, then pretty much became a FT MLB catcher at age 27 (1999)- pretty close to Salty's age last year and this year.

    Looking at just the early numbers, and not remembering much anecdotally, it looks like he started off much better than Salty in terms of how he compared to the other catcher on the team, but since we don't really know how Hatteberg in 1998-1999 compares to VTek in 2011 and Shoppach in 2012, it's hard to know exactly what the numbers mean. While they are about the same ages, the experience levels are different. Here they are:

    Remember team CERA is not an accurate reflection of what the comparison really is. It is better to take pitchers one by one and compare how each did with them, since one catcher might catch a particularly good or bad pitcher much more than the other.

    1998:
    Hatteberg (904 IP)  4.10
    J Varitek  (516 IP)  4.29

    Pitcher's PA/OPS against:
                   Hatt          VTek 
    Pedro (724) .568  (227) .808
    Wake (467) .741  (472) .760
    Saber (445) .758  (280) .661
    Wasd (339) .807    (81) .807 
    Lowe (319) .678  (190) .709

    1999: (Warning: unbalanced sample sizes)
    Hatteberg (158 IP)  3.13
    J Varitek (1153 IP)  3.98

    OPS against:
                    Hatt         VTek
    Rapp   (139) .721  (432)  .745       
    Portug (106) .715  (381)  .876
    Pedro   (73)  .664  (762) .524 
    Ramon (62)  .560    (22) .789
    Wasdin(53)  .605   (216) .706
    Wake   (43)  .539  (579) .803

    2000:

    Hatteberg  (377)  5.02
    J Varitek  (1076)  3.96

    OPS against (Unbal totals- Hatteberg was Schourek's personal cady):
                         Hatt           VTek
    Schourek (423) .782    (41) .957
    Wake       (211) .827  (495) .843
    Fassero    (207) .849  (370) .787

    It's pretty unconclusive with such unbalanced individual pitcher totals, but it appears by 2000/2001 VTek becomes much better than his co-team catcher.

    2001:
    VTek (427)  3.00
    Hatt   (582)  4.60
    Mira  (389)  4.75

    2002 (Unbal):
    VTek  (1064)  3.74
    Mira   (378)   3.83

    2003 (Unbal):
    VTek (1075)  4.49
    Mira  (387)    4.46 (almost exclusively Wake's personal cady)

    Salty's calling looks good to me -- and apparently also to the pen. Or does CERA only count for starters? Are you tracking pitches. Salty has been setting up a nice rhythm for pitchers. Too bad they don't always dance well to it.

    Harness and I did a complete breakdown pitcher by pitcher, including relief pitchers between VTek and Salty and VTek and VMart. The ones that should matter the most are ones where the sample sizes are close to equal, and the larger the better, meaning starters carry more weight, but combining relief pitchers who tend to see each catcher more evenly since the personal cady philodphy of Tito did not extend to relief pitchers- only starters. The vast majority of starters and releivers who had somewhat comparable sample sizes even if smaller relief sample size showed about 70% of all pitchers did better with Vtek than VMart or Salty. I haven't checked the numbers recently, and the sample sizes are too small fo judge right now, but I think about 60-70% of our pitchers are doing better (in CERA) with Shoppach than Salty, but I think the gap is closing of late. (Just a hunch)  I will do another check after 40 games.

    I have been watching pitches more closely as you asked. I do not think I am able to see all that you see, since I am not as experienced in this area, and have only been a knuckleball softball pitcher- never baseball.

    I must say that I was a little surprised when Shoppach did NOT call for breaking stuff or a straight change to Butler. He is known to chase bad breaking balls.

    I am not impressed with Shoppach. I expected better from an experienced catcher who has had decent CERA comparative numbers in the past (harness had done a study on VMart vs Shopp).

    I will keep watching, and am keeping an open mind. I do think i have seen some improvement from Salty.

    One question for you, ex: have you noticed we hardly ever throw "purpose pitches" anymore? I think Tek really got the pitchers to use the inside of the plate more than anyone I have ever noticed on the Sox. Your thoughts?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    This is getting sick.

    I've always been one to keep the hope alive, but I'm getting real close to "blow-it-all-up" mode and just get what we can for Youk, Beckett, Salty, Byrd, Albers, and anyone who is going to be a FA this winter.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Yes, TB lost tonight, but they are 20-12 and put this line-up out there tonight:

    1) Zobrist       .208
    2) Rodriguez  .228
    3) Upton         .288
    4) Keppinger .309
    5) B Guyer     .000
    6) C Pena       .235
    7) E Johnson .209
    8) C Gimenez .244
    9) W Rhymes .241

    They scored 3 runs.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I would move out Beckett, Youk, and Salty right now. Salty is a team guy who works his tail off but he never really seems to win the job does he?

    We need to sign Montero in the off-season!

    The team already knows if it plans on over-paying Elles and if they do not want to do that I would get him healthy and trade him asap. He is the only one of the group that can bring a real return.

    2013 the Sox will sign Hamilton, Montero, and one key pitcher whom I have yet to identify. The payroll will go up not down.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    exactly

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon, even a catcher with a feel for the job normally takes two or three years of preparation and experience to learn to handle a staff expertly. Timetables can vary because a lot of factors are involved, but in general the normal course of events seems to take that much time. There's a lot to learn.
    I won't go back to our disagreement about whether Salty was "horrible" earlier in the year. How much earlier can we go without running out of time, since it's still early?  To my eye, he's been looking good back there long enough to draw notice.
    Drysdale, Pedro, Gibson, Clemens, all were "purpose" pitchers. So was Early Wynn. And others. ( After Drysdale drilled Mantle, he said he'd be glad to sign the bruise. I don't think that was funny. ) Umpires were once more tolerant of chin music than today. They let the players work it out. ( Even in college ball, the brush back did not raise eyebrows, but then we all had to bat. ) It's probably better that purpose pitching is more closely monitored, but it does inhibit some pitchers from going inside.  Pitchers DO NEED to back guys off the plate to open up the outside corner. Schilling did it to set up his favorite pitch:
    the FB up and away. I see nothing wrong with pitching very tight in the hip area. Batters will move off. Beckett could have used some of that tonight -- but not if he went right back to throwing cookies. Wow. In the end, you have to count on the judgment of the umpires. 
    That said, if you're asking whether I'd like to see more purpose pitches from the Sox, my answer is yes. Starting with Buchholz tomorrow. But not true chin music. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I would move out Beckett, Youk, and Salty right now. Salty is a team guy who works his tail off but he never really seems to won the job does he?

    We need to sign Montero in the off-season!

    I don't disagree.

    The team already knows if it plans on over-paying Elles and if they do not want to do that I would get him healthy and trade him asap. He is the only one of the group that can bring a real return.

    I really think that even if we "overpay", Ellsbury will go somewhere else. Can you blame him?

    2013 the Sox will sign Hamilton, Montero, and one key pitcher whom I have yet to identify. The payroll will go up not down.

    Maybe, maybe not. If we lose the $30M in payroll coming off the books, and add Papi's $15M, that would pay for these two guys and then some. Use Lava at DH/3rd C, Middlebrooks at 3B, and maybe Iggy at SS with Aviles at utility. Lackey becomes the #5 and Bard returns to the pen to join a healthy Bailey, Aceves, Morales, and others.

    There is hope with 2-3 key signings that we can compete in 2013 and stay close to the luxury tax level. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Did you see Montero's throw out ratio, two years straight over 40%.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Moon, even a catcher with a feel for the job normally takes two or three years of preparation and experience to learn to handle a staff expertly. Timetables can vary because a lot of factors are involved, but in general the normal course of events seems to take that much time. There's a lot to learn.

    I agree, but with Salty, he has been in the bigs a long time. He has been in the AL for years, and has had time to learn the opposing hitters. I agree, it takes time to "learn" your own staff. I have said I think Salty is still young enough to improve. My point has been that the 2012 Sox appeared to be a contender this spring, and I didn't think that was a situation to use "on-the-job-training" at such a valuable position. It's not the same as throwing Pedey out there and sticking with him as he struggled. At least Pedey fielded well and ran well enough as he had a rough start. I'm not rer=ally blaming Salty for this. He has tried hard. I hope he continues to grow as he has appeared to do recently.

    I won't go back to our disagreement about whether Salty was "horrible" earlier in the year. How much earlier can we go without running out of time, since it's still early?  To my eye, he's been looking good back there long enough to draw notice.

    The sample size is growing, but I tend to want to see more, especially since the whole CERA thing has  so many variables involved to truly know how much of the improvement is Salty or just the staff getting on track on their own. I'm not taking anything away from salty by saying that. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt recently. I will continue to watch closer.

    Drysdale, Pedro, Gibson, Clemens, all were "purpose" pitchers. So was Early Wynn. And others. ( After Drysdale drilled Mantle, he said he'd be glad to sign the bruise. I don't think that was funny. ) Umpires were once more tolerant of chin music than today. They let the players work it out. ( Even in college ball, the brush back did not raise eyebrows, but then we all had to bat. ) It's probably better that purpose pitching is more closely monitored, but it does inhibit some pitchers from going inside.  Pitchers DO NEED to back guys off the plate to open up the outside corner. Schilling did it to set up his favorite pitch:
    the FB up and away. I see nothing wrong with pitching very tight in the hip area. Batters will move off. Beckett could have used some of that tonight -- but not if he went right back to throwing cookies. Wow. In the end, you have to count on the judgment of the umpires. 
    That said, if you're asking whether I'd like to see more purpose pitches from the Sox, my answer is yes. Starting with Buchholz tomorrow. But not true chin music. 

    Well put. My question is, will Salty call for one?

    Even pitching more inside without "purpose" seems to scare a lot of young catchers (and pitchers). I think we don't call for enough pitches 1 inch off the plate to the inside enough for fear the pitcher misses the spot and gets rocked.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    I do not see Hamilton here, that is just wishful on my part.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Moon, even a catcher with a feel for the job normally takes two or three years of preparation and experience to learn to handle a staff expertly. Timetables can vary because a lot of factors are involved, but in general the normal course of events seems to take that much time. There's a lot to learn. I agree, but with Salty, he has been in the bigs a long time. He has been in the AL for years, and has had time to learn the opposing hitters. I agree, it takes time to "learn" your own staff. I have said I think Salty is still young enough to improve. My point has been that the 2012 Sox appeared to be a contender this spring, and I didn't think that was a situation to use "on-the-job-training" at such a valuable position. It's not the same as throwing Pedey out there and sticking with him as he struggled. At least Pedey fielded well and ran well enough as he had a rough start. I'm not rer=ally blaming Salty for this. He has tried hard. I hope he continues to grow as he has appeared to do recently. I won't go back to our disagreement about whether Salty was "horrible" earlier in the year. How much earlier can we go without running out of time, since it's still early?  To my eye, he's been looking good back there long enough to draw notice. The sample size is growing, but I tend to want to see more, especially since the whole CERA thing has  so many variables involved to truly know how much of the improvement is Salty or just the staff getting on track on their own. I'm not taking anything away from salty by saying that. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt recently. I will continue to watch closer. Drysdale, Pedro, Gibson, Clemens, all were "purpose" pitchers. So was Early Wynn. And others. ( After Drysdale drilled Mantle, he said he'd be glad to sign the bruise. I don't think that was funny. ) Umpires were once more tolerant of chin music than today. They let the players work it out. ( Even in college ball, the brush back did not raise eyebrows, but then we all had to bat. ) It's probably better that purpose pitching is more closely monitored, but it does inhibit some pitchers from going inside.  Pitchers DO NEED to back guys off the plate to open up the outside corner. Schilling did it to set up his favorite pitch: the FB up and away. I see nothing wrong with pitching very tight in the hip area. Batters will move off. Beckett could have used some of that tonight -- but not if he went right back to throwing cookies. Wow. In the end, you have to count on the judgment of the umpires.  That said, if you're asking whether I'd like to see more purpose pitches from the Sox, my answer is yes. Starting with Buchholz tomorrow. But not true chin music.  Well put. My question is, will Salty call for one? Even pitching more inside without "purpose" seems to scare a lot of young catchers (and pitchers). I think we don't call for enough pitches 1 inch off the plate to the inside enough for fear the pitcher misses the spot and gets rocked.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    Salty has been in the league and then out of the league, and not until last year was he installed as the starting catcher and left there. He's in his second season as a FT player. 
    When you talk about CERA, keep in mind what you said about "variables," which, IMO, as you know, is a BIG DEAL, even when the numbers as such appear to point in one direction or another, sample size notwithstanding. Thus my skepticism about the concept itself. Right now, I'm checking the pitch-calling as it happens.
    One inch is too small a margin of error -- unless Greg Maddux is throwing. Yup, if the ball sails into the inner third belt high, you get a belt. If you want to back a batter off to open up the outside corner, you have to go really inside. A good cutter or FB with a tail three or four inches inside will induce jam shots or foul balls. The FB in a few inches above the letters can induce a pulled foul. It's a good pitch with one strike -- if you know the batter has trouble resisting it. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Salty has been in the league and then out of the league, and not until last year was he installed as the starting catcher and left there. He's in his second season as a FT player. 
    When you talk about CERA, keep in mind what you said about "variables," which, IMO, as you know, is a BIG DEAL, even when the numbers as such appear to point in one direction or another, sample size notwithstanding. Thus my skepticism about the concept itself. 

    That is one reason I have never attributed the full CERA differential to the catcher. I know there are tons of vaiables involved in every stat. I know that the larger the sample size the better. I know that a lot of small sample sizes combined is not definitive. I still have hope for Salty, and am trying to watch more closely pitch by pitch. (I have never posted a judgement after one pitch or one game, unlike some who want to ignore CERA and jump at every good or bad game with a particular catcher... not you, ex.)
     
    Right now, I'm checking the pitch-calling as it happens.

    I value your opinion more than my own on this area, but I am watching.

    One inch is too small a margin of error -- unless Greg Maddux is throwing. Yup, if the ball sails into the inner third belt high, you get a belt. If you want to back a batter off to open up the outside corner, you have to go really inside. A good cutter or FB with a tail three or four inches inside will induce jam shots or foul balls. The FB in a few inches above the letters can induce a pulled foul. It's a good pitch with one strike -- if you know the batter has trouble resisting it. 

    I agree, but I also think pitchers need to use the inside part of the plate besides just for "purpose pitches".  I know it is dangerous, but never throwing inside is just allowing batters to guess the location much easier.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    On the subject of Ellsbury, I do think he will walk from Boston assuming there is equal or greater money to had elsewhere. Right now how many guys on this roster wouldn't?

    The fan-base and the media (or vice-a-versa) has turned on most of the team and if the kid has rabbit ears at all (which I think he does) they turned on him big time in 2010. The tax rate in MA is high (where he collects 81 of his checks), the weather is no plus 3 months of the 6 month season and the clubhouse is physically one of the smallest facilities in the sport.

    I am a huge fan of his but unless the RS have a legit shot of going deep into the post season in the two seasons, I see no reason not to trade Ellsbury at the deadline this year if he is putting up the kind of numbers (even 80% of the SLG) that he was last season.

    But he will leave a hole. Watching the OF play of Ross-Byrd-Sweeny makes one realize what bad OF defense looks like...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Salty has been in the league and then out of the league, and not until last year was he installed as the starting catcher and left there. He's in his second season as a FT player.  When you talk about CERA, keep in mind what you said about "variables," which, IMO, as you know, is a BIG DEAL, even when the numbers as such appear to point in one direction or another, sample size notwithstanding. Thus my skepticism about the concept itself.  That is one reason I have never attributed the full CERA differential to the catcher. I know there are tons of vaiables involved in every stat. I know that the larger the sample size the better. I know that a lot of small sample sizes combined is not definitive. I still have hope for Salty, and am trying to watch more closely pitch by pitch. (I have never posted a judgement after one pitch or one game, unlike some who want to ignore CERA and jump at every good or bad game with a particular catcher... not you, ex.)   Right now, I'm checking the pitch-calling as it happens. I value your opinion more than my own on this area, but I am watching. One inch is too small a margin of error -- unless Greg Maddux is throwing. Yup, if the ball sails into the inner third belt high, you get a belt. If you want to back a batter off to open up the outside corner, you have to go really inside. A good cutter or FB with a tail three or four inches inside will induce jam shots or foul balls. The FB in a few inches above the letters can induce a pulled foul. It's a good pitch with one strike -- if you know the batter has trouble resisting it.  I agree, but I also think pitchers need to use the inside part of the plate besides just for "purpose pitches".  I know it is dangerous, but never throwing inside is just allowing batters to guess the location much easier.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    The one I talked about -- up and in on, say, 0 and 1 --  has the virtue that even if the batter does not bite and pop up or pull it foul it still backs him off the plate. Thus its first purpose if to get an out or a foul strike; failing that, it serves the other "purpose." But is has to be UP ( at or above the letters ) and IN ( three or four inches ). 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    The one I talked about -- up and in on, say, 0 and 1 --  has the virtue that even if the batter does not bite and pop up or pull it foul it still backs him off the plate. Thus its first purpose if to get an out or a foul strike; failing that, it serves the other "purpose." But is has to be UP ( at or above the letters ) and IN ( three or four inches ). 

    Exactly.

    My point was also that we need to throw some "non-purpose" inside pitches as well. Your point about 1 inch being to close is well taken.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    On the subject of Ellsbury, I do think he will walk from Boston assuming there is equal or greater money to had elsewhere. Right now how many guys on this roster wouldn't? 

    The fan-base and the media (or vice-a-versa) has turned on most of the team and if the kid has rabbit ears at all (which I think he does) they turned on him big time in 2010. The tax rate in MA is high (where he collects 81 of his checks), the weather is no plus 3 months of the 6 month season and the clubhouse is physically one of the smallest facilities in the sport. 

    I am a huge fan of his but unless the RS have a legit shot of going deep into the post season in the two seasons, I see no reason not to trade Ellsbury at the deadline this year if he is putting up the kind of numbers (even 80% of the SLG) that he was last season....

    I actually think it is even worse than this. I believe Ellsbury would sign for Seattle at $140M/7 over an offer from Boston at $147M/7. I think he hates it here.

    We could also trade him this winter, but it is my understanding that if we trade him during next season, the team getting him loses the comp picks if he walks. In this light, he should be traded between now and the start of next season.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Here's another look at how we could perhaps do a near complete overhaul of this team and set ourselves up pretty nicely for 2013 and beyond:

    Trade:
    Youkilis 12:$12M, 13:$13M club option ($1M buyout)
    Crawford 12:$19.5M, 13:$20M, 14:$20.25M, 15:$20.5M, 16:$20.75M,17:$21M
    (Red Sox pay $5M a year of CC's deal from '15-'17)
    For:
    B. Zito 12:$19M, 13:$20M,14:$18M club option ($7M buyout)
    S. Romo $1.575M (+2 arb years)

    (Assuming The Youk and Zito's options are not taken, counting 1/3 of 2012's contracts, the money paid towards CC's deal, and the estimate of Sergio Romo's arb years, the total costs for each team would be 
    BOS: $43M/SF $89M (Sox save $46M)
    __________________________________________________

    Trade: 
    Josh Beckett 13:$15.75M, 14:$15.75M
    Saltalamacchia: $2.5M (+1 arb year) 
    For:
    Wandy Rodriguez 12:$10M, 13:$13M, 14:$13M club option ($2.5M buyout)
    Brett Myers 12:$11M, 13:$10M club option ($3M buyout)

    Total cost: (pro-rated 2012 to 1/3rd and est of Salty's arb)
    BOS: $43M (both options accepted) or $25M (buyouts)/HOU: $24M
    _____________________________________________

    Trade: 
    David Ortiz 12$14.575M
    Matsusaka 12:$10M
    Cody Ross 12:$3M
    Anthony Ranaudo (Pre-arb)
    For:
    Delmon Young $6.75M 
    Drew Smyly (Pre arb)
    J Benoit 12:$5.5M, 13:$5.5M

    Total Cost (pro-rated and arb est): BOS:$10M /DET: $10M
    __________________________________________________

    Winter:
    Trade: 
    J. Ellsbury: 12:$8.05M (+ 1 arb)
    N. Punto 12:$1.5M, 13:$1.5M
    G. Cecchini (pre-arb)
    For:
    Franklin Gutierez 12:$5.5M, 13:$7M, 14:$7.5M club option ($0.5M buyout)
    Jason Vargas 12:$5.5M (+ 1 arb)
    Jesus Montero (pre-arb)

    Total cost: BOS (no Gut. option) $20M until Montero hits arb: /SEA: $15M
    ____________________________________________

    2013 Red Sox
    C/DH  Lavarnway Montero 
    1B  AGon
    2B  Pedey
    3B  Middlebrooks
    SS  Iggy
    IF  Aviles
    LF   __FA__
    CF  Gutierez   Lin
    RF  Sweeney  Kalish

    S1  Lester
    S2  Rodriguez
    S3  Vargas
    S4  Zito
    S5  Smyly
    S6  Lackey (Doubront)

    R1  Myers
    R2  Bailey
    R3  Bard
    R4  Romo
    R5  Benoit
    R6  Morales
    R7  Doubront
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Ellsbury's problem has always been Youkilis, who often has called him out, and nevrer really defends him as a teammate. I don't think Ellsbury dislikes Boston at all, I think he thoroughly reveled last year as a MVP candidate. I also think his previous issues with the media and others are memories. He proved his worth last year, and unfortunately got a serious injury early on this season. I think the Sox should do whatever it takes to keep him in a Sox jersey. He's a catalyst, a basestealer, shows power, and plays a very good CF, even if he sometimes has trouble going back on a ball.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Ellsbury's problem has always been Youkilis, who often has called him out, and nevrer really defends him as a teammate. I don't think Ellsbury dislikes Boston at all, I think he thoroughly reveled last year as a MVP candidate. I also think his previous issues with the media and others are memories. He proved his worth last year, and unfortunately got a serious injury early on this season. I think the Sox should do whatever it takes to keep him in a Sox jersey. He's a catalyst, a basestealer, shows power, and plays a very good CF, even if he sometimes has trouble going back on a ball.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]Frankly Danny I think the problem runs deeper than one player with Ellsbury and that problem is the market and that probably runs deeper than Ellsbury. Papelbon had NO interest in staying in Boston. It is a nasty market for all but a very few guys. The kid has been bit hard, felt the team did not have his back in 2010 and may feel they did not even have his best interests in mind. Youk won't even be here next year, it isn't about one player IMO. 

    The RS really can't keep Ellsbury any way. They set the price point with the Crawford contract and they just won't have the money and stay under the CBT in 2014. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    well, then, 5, as usual the Sox will have banked money to keep the wrong guys or the guys who least produce, while the guys who actually do produce or do well in a Sox jersey are deemed "out of their price range." Then when the Sox have money again after Ellsbury leaves, they undoubtedly will spend it all on one guy, a pitcher, and then we will all cringe when we learn the pitcher has arm trouble and is age 31.
     I'm going to take this time to say I'm sick and tired of the mantra that the Sox are always out of the bidding on their own players. It's pretty weak, and right now, pretty pathetic.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    Ellsbury's problem has always been Youkilis, who often has called him out, and nevrer really defends him as a teammate. I don't think Ellsbury dislikes Boston at all, I think he thoroughly reveled last year as a MVP candidate. I also think his previous issues with the media and others are memories. He proved his worth last year, and unfortunately got a serious injury early on this season. I think the Sox should do whatever it takes to keep him in a Sox jersey. He's a catalyst, a basestealer, shows power, and plays a very good CF, even if he sometimes has trouble going back on a ball. -danny

    Frankly Danny I think the problem runs deeper than one player with Ellsbury and that problem is the market and that probably runs deeper than Ellsbury. Papelbon had NO interest in staying in Boston. It is a nasty market for all but a very few guys. The kid has been bit hard, felt the team did not have his back in 2010 and may feel they did not even have his best interests in mind. Youk won't even be here next year, it isn't about one player IMO.  

    The RS really can't keep Ellsbury any way. They set the price point with the Crawford contract and they just won't have the money and stay under the CBT in 2014. -fivekatz

    I agree with katz in that Ellsbury will not want to stay here. I think we'd have to way overpay him to keep him around.

    On the money: we can afford to pay him $20M+/yr and stay under the cap, but we will have precious little to spend elsewhere. 

    This winter we lose $22M of luxury tax cost without really needing to replace any of them: Dice ($8.7), Jenks (6), Ross (3), Cook (1.5), Padilla (1.5), Shopp (1.3).

    We can then choose to let Youk go at $1M buyout ($10.3M-1= $9.3M saved)
    We can choose to let Papi walk and save $14.575.
    We can choose to not offer arb to a few players to save money. Here are a few candidates:
    Albers $1.075M
    Miller  $1.04
    Atch    $510K
    DMac  $506K

    The total will be between $22M and $50M.
    Youk's spot could be filled by Middlebrooks (and Aviles).
    Papi's spot could be filled (at a projected loss) by Lavarnway (and Youk or a cheap FA).

    We could spend some of this money on 1 year deals, so there would be cap space after 2013.

    After 2013, we lose a little more salary:
    (Papi and Youk, if not lost after 2012)
    Ellsbury arb?
    Punto $1.5M
    Albers $arb?
    RHill  $arb?
    Repko $arb?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II:
    [QUOTE]The one I talked about -- up and in on, say, 0 and 1 --  has the virtue that even if the batter does not bite and pop up or pull it foul it still backs him off the plate. Thus its first purpose if to get an out or a foul strike; failing that, it serves the other "purpose." But is has to be UP ( at or above the letters ) and IN ( three or four inches ).  Exactly. My point was also that we need to throw some "non-purpose" inside pitches as well. Your point about 1 inch being to close is well taken.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    A few times tonight, Sox pitchers did get a second strike from a foul from a high and tight pitch. They ought to do more of it. But they give away the 1 and 2 pitch too often. That should be the killer pitch. Though Jiminez did not pitch well, he used the circle change effectively against lefties when he was ahead in the count. It fades and sinks. IMO, Buchholz would do well to learn that pitch. Ditto Bard. It would make them more effective against lefties, because it gives them one more pitch to worry about. Sometimes it's a good idea to show it on a first pitch to a lefty. That gets in his head.
    Salty had a fine night behind the plate. He scooped every pitch in the dirt. He denied the plate to Hannahan. And he called a good game. His pitchers did not have good enough control to benefit consistently from how he set up batters. The kept missing on the out pitch.
    We won't speak about his bat. What bat, you say?

     

Share