Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    After winning the championship in 07, we were never quite the same.  Instead of finding or trading for a catcher Tek could mentor, we waited and trusted his game calling ability to get us through, even though our lineup was no longer stacked with great offensive players.  By the time management saw the light "years later" we had lost Masterson for Martinez.  Victor gave us exactly what Theo wanted "offense" but like Tek he was more of a one dimensional catcher who struggled defensively.  Finally, last season after years of the same "weakness" we chose to bring in Salty, who still has a chance in my opinion to be more of the well rounded catcher like Tek years back.  It seemed to work for a bit but management still has yet to get things right.  Our position now should be to let Tek go and seek that guy who can do it all.  A guy like Y. Molina,  someone who can teach Salty or Lavarnway every aspect of the game and help offensively. 

    Wake, we have pretty much shown the same loyalty to.  As a sixth starter and for the price it looks like a great deal every year until hes forced to pitch every five days or used in the PS.  I think Wake has been a great assett to our team but "as we saw" this season he probably should retire. 

    JD, A signing that looked identical to "Trot Nixon" and thats what we got for years.  Good defense, injuries with some good moments but mostly inconsistent play.  I think playing JD at the end of the season had some merit but it still came down to loyalty and a couple good PS's previously.  Hopefully that changes now that his contract has expired.

    Cameron, I never understood it then and it was just a complete waste of time because Mikes best years were well behind him.  McDon, really looked good last season but not to address a RH bat sooner really hurt us this season. 

    Lackey
    , this turned out "in my opinion" to be the worst signing in Theo's time in Boston and we have seen a few.  I suggest a "Lackey Fund" with the primary contributors being Theo, Henry and Larry.  Once we reach "50mil" give it to John to leave town in favor of a solid number 4.

    Bullpen, I have always been amazed how other teams can find little known pitchers who can solidify their bullpen but we can't.  I also have to mention all our revolving SS's over the years but would like to give Scuter a lot of credit for his contribution this season.  Conditioning?  I don't have enough time to address it.  Crawford, I'm going to leave alone until I see him play out next season. 

    If we can finally begin to correct most or all of the above we may just get back on track.


    PS! and of course find a new manager!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    The Cards hold a very club friendly team option on Molina for $7M. Why exactly would they not use it?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    Wakefield ceremonial tour, alone, should be a pink slip for Epstein.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]The Cards hold a very club friendly team option on Molina for $7M. Why exactly would they not use it?
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I realized that shortly after katz thanks.  Maybe a trade for another veteran who can give us a little of everything involving Salty or Lavarnway "who knows" its still an issue unless we can address other areas to mask it better.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    OK - loyalty to Wake was a problem.  So who should have pitched instead?  Miller?  Weiland?

    The problem was pitching, but it wasn't Wakefield. 

    The Sox didn't have a lot of trade bait for other teams.  It was a toss up as what they needed most - BP help or a starting pitcher.  They certainly needed BP help after the AS break - all contenders do.  But with Wake in the rotation and Lackey Lackey pitching as poor as he was, the need for starting pitching was as great as BP help.  They had some sparks of hope with Miller and Aceves to help in the BP or in the rotation.  But then Buch went down, and the need for starting pitching became too great.  Miller wasn't getting it done so they went for starting pitching and came up with Bedard.

    Aceves could have been a starter, but I guess they decided that he could be the BP help they needed.

    The wheels truly did come off in September, but you can't blame the blown saves by Pap and Bard.  I figure that those guys should be expected to have a few bad outings each season.  In 2011, they all occurred in September.  they played out of thier minds in June abd July and the law of averages caught up to them in September.

    It was bad luck (Buch) combined with nutritional issues (lackey, beckett, Lester) that cost them the season, a manager and possibly a GM.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]OK - loyalty to Wake was a problem.  So who should have pitched instead?  Miller?  Weiland? The problem was pitching, but it wasn't Wakefield.  The Sox didn't have a lot of trade bait for other teams.  It was a toss up as what they needed most - BP help or a starting pitcher.  They certainly needed BP help after the AS break - all contenders do.  But with Wake in the rotation and Lackey Lackey pitching as poor as he was, the need for starting pitching was as great as BP help.  They had some sparks of hope with Miller and Aceves to help in the BP or in the rotation.  But then Buch went down, and the need for starting pitching became too great.  Miller wasn't getting it done so they went for starting pitching and came up with Bedard. Aceves could have been a starter, but I guess they decided that he could be the BP help they needed. The wheels truly did come off in September, but you can't blame the blown saves by Pap and Bard.  I figure that those guys should be expected to have a few bad outings each season.  In 2011, they all occurred in September.  they played out of thier minds in June abd July and the law of averages caught up to them in September. It was bad luck (Buch) combined with nutritional issues (lackey, beckett, Lester) that cost them the season, a manager and possibly a GM.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    DirtyWater,

    I don't blame Wake, he was forced into a role we all knew wasn't a good fit anymore due to his age and injuries to our starters.  A start here and there was Wakes strength, not every five days.  Weiland in my opinion pitching five crucial games down the stretch was a horrible management decision and sent the wrong message to those who could have done better.  Miller had some nice starts, Aceves could have gone or we could have brought up others who may have surprised a major league lineup once or twice.

    Yes, our pitching killed us but so did management by not being more creative.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Time4Theo2Go. Show Time4Theo2Go's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]Wakefield ceremonial tour, alone, should be a pink slip for Epstein.
    Posted by 1958lesspaul[/QUOTE]

    I've been saying this about Theo EVERY year that Epstein brought Wakefield back.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    Management more creative?  Weiland wasn't ready for the show but he was more ready than anyone else.  Miller pitched well against bad teams when the Sox were playing well.

    Ok, so start Aceves.  He goes 6.  Who pitches the 7th?  Who pitches the 7th the next day when Beckett goes 6 and when Lester goes 6 and when lackey goes 5?

    You can't have 40% of the rotation go down, have 20% of the rotation sh1t the bed and the other 40% of the rotation get fat and lazy during the season and expect to win without picking up more than Bedard and gambling with Miller.  Can't be done.

    Every year the Sox seem to pick a bunch of broken starting pitchers and hope that 1) none of the starters goes down for any length of time and 2) if they do, one of the reclimation projects pans out.  Even in the rare occasion that a reclimation project works out, they end up with 2 starters going down.

    When they traded for Agon, that put them very, very thin at starting pitching in AAA.  Add to that their pitching coach leaving and relying on the reclimation projects, its not really a surprise that they didn't make the post season.

    The team fell victim to injuries and a really bad signing.  Lackey killed the team.  Injuries happen but Lackey was man made - he did it to himself.  And even then, had Buch not gotten hurt, they were OK for the Post Season.  Lester and Beckett were pitching too bad for the team to do much damage in the post season.

    I can imagine the front office and owners sitting at a table talking about Agon.  They discuss how thin they will be at SP in AAA and if anyone goes down for any length of time, they could be in trouble.  They all knew the risks of going into the season thin at SP.  I guess they were surprised by Buch's injury and the the negative influence Lackey had on Beckett and Lester.

    There's not a doubt in my mind that Lackey caused the down fall of this team. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]Management more creative?  Weiland wasn't ready for the show but he was more ready than anyone else.  Miller pitched well against bad teams when the Sox were playing well. Ok, so start Aceves.  He goes 6.  Who pitches the 7th?  Who pitches the 7th the next day when Beckett goes 6 and when Lester goes 6 and when lackey goes 5? You can't have 40% of the rotation go down, have 20% of the rotation sh1t the bed and the other 40% of the rotation get fat and lazy during the season and expect to win without picking up more than Bedard and gambling with Miller.  Can't be done. Every year the Sox seem to pick a bunch of broken starting pitchers and hope that 1) none of the starters goes down for any length of time and 2) if they do, one of the reclimation projects pans out.  Even in the rare occasion that a reclimation project works out, they end up with 2 starters going down. When they traded for Agon, that put them very, very thin at starting pitching in AAA.  Add to that their pitching coach leaving and relying on the reclimation projects, its not really a surprise that they didn't make the post season. The team fell victim to injuries and a really bad signing.  Lackey killed the team.  Injuries happen but Lackey was man made - he did it to himself.  And even then, had Buch not gotten hurt, they were OK for the Post Season.  Lester and Beckett were pitching too bad for the team to do much damage in the post season. I can imagine the front office and owners sitting at a table talking about Agon.  They discuss how thin they will be at SP in AAA and if anyone goes down for any length of time, they could be in trouble.  They all knew the risks of going into the season thin at SP.  I guess they were surprised by Buch's injury and the the negative influence Lackey had on Beckett and Lester. There's not a doubt in my mind that Lackey caused the down fall of this team. 
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    I think management had "three surprises" on the staff.  One good surprise in "Beckett" recovering from 2010.  The three unexpected but predictable to many of us was Clay and Dice K going down all year and Lackey doing even worse.  Like someone said "I believe moon" we looked pretty well stocked at the start but had nothing to back us up went things went south.

    As far as Weiland and Aceves?  I would have started Aceves, then relieve him with others like Weiland, Wheeler, Albers and others.  Weiland didn't have any more experience than our other youngsters on the farm he just happened to have a better record.  We could have and should have tried something different than bringing Weiland back five times.  Not having any other arms is an excuse and slap in the face to others who would have liked the same opportunity "just once" not even five times.  The bottom line is Theo chose the wrong people for our pen and to pitch if this happened.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hambonawilliams. Show hambonawilliams's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    wake svcks, tek svcks, FAT PAPI svcks, lackey (king of the drunkin sots) svcks....what else can be said?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    "After winning the championship in 07, we were never quite the same.  Instead of finding or trading for a catcher Tek could mentor".

    Forget foresight.....even in hindsight, which catchers have moved teams since 2007 that Tek could have mentored?

    Please name names.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    I blame Theo but not for the pen.  BP help is available during the season if you have something to trade with.  But, they only had enough to make one trade and SP was deemed more important that RP.

    When Buch went down, they had to get a starter.  They were short a starter before Buch went down. 

    They went into the season with Miller and Wakefield as their only 2 options for SP help if someone went down.  They depleted the farm to get Agon and it hurt them.

    Beckett was a suprise at the start of the season, but he was no better than Lackey by the end of the season.

    Still, had Lackey not been so terrible the sox would have been OK.  It's hard to plan for a player being paid $16 mil to have as bad a year as Lackey.

    In my opinion, Lackey is 90% responsible for the collapse in 2011. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]"After winning the championship in 07, we were never quite the same.  Instead of finding or trading for a catcher Tek could mentor". Forget foresight.....even in hindsight, which catchers have moved teams since 2007 that Tek could have mentored? Please name names.
    Posted by SonicsMonksLyresVicars[/QUOTE]

    Thats a question you need to rethink.  We could have replaced Tek out right through trade or found any number of prospects/youngsters to mentor.  We had 3 to 4 years to find someone are you kidding?  Guys like Napoli and Montero were also there for the taking for very little but Theo decided against it.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]I blame Theo but not for the pen.  BP help is available during the season if you have something to trade with.  But, they only had enough to make one trade and SP was deemed more important that RP. When Buch went down, they had to get a starter.  They were short a starter before Buch went down.  They went into the season with Miller and Wakefield as their only 2 options for SP help if someone went down.  They depleted the farm to get Agon and it hurt them. Beckett was a suprise at the start of the season, but he was no better than Lackey by the end of the season. Still, had Lackey not been so terrible the sox would have been OK.  It's hard to plan for a player being paid $16 mil to have as bad a year as Lackey. In my opinion, Lackey is 90% responsible for the collapse in 2011. 
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    I agree Lackey is a cancer on this team that needs to be addressed before we improve.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings : Thats a question you need to rethink.  We could have replaced Tek out right through trade or found any number of prospects/youngsters to mentor.  We had 3 to 4 years to find someone are you kidding?   Guys like Napoli and Montero were also there for the taking for very little but Theo decided against it.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Napoli?  "There for the taking"?  How could we know?  All we know is that he was traded in January 2011 with 1 year before free agency.  And that he wasn't exactly Johnny Bench before that.

    Montero?  You mean Miguel Montero?  Again, how could we know if he was available?  He has been with the 'backs since 2006.  How often are decent catchers traded?

    Your thoughtful and polite response is appreciated, and your ideas more than reasonable.   But if either had been traded from 2007-2010 (but not just one year before FA) they would be powerful arguments.  But that's not the case.







     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings : Napoli?  "There for the taking"?  How could we know?  All we know is that he was traded in January 2011 with 1 year before free agency.  And that he wasn't exactly Johnny Bench before that. Montero?  You mean Miguel Montero?  Again, how could we know if he was available?  He has been with the 'backs since 2006.  How often are decent catchers traded? Your thoughtful and polite response is appreciated, and your ideas more than reasonable.   But if either had been traded from 2007-2010 (but not just one year before FA) they would be powerful arguments.  But that's not the case.
    Posted by SonicsMonksLyresVicars[/QUOTE]

    Sonic, you havn't been following baseball long have you?  No disrespect intended but Theo had a trade in the works that was reasonable "I forget the players" involved and the Angels not only make Napoli available a year or two back they also put him on waivers.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]The Cards hold a very club friendly team option on Molina for $7M. Why exactly would they not use it?
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Because we want him and there are alot of very nice people in St. Louis...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings

    In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Team fell victim to loyalty and bad sigings : Sonic, you havn't been following baseball long have you?  No disrespect intended but Theo had a trade in the works that was reasonable "I forget the players" involved and the Angels not only make Napoli available a year or two back they also put him on waivers.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    Not to mention there was a strong rumor two years ago that the Sox offered Bard for Montero, but Arizona refused, and asked for Bowden instead.

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/03/red-sox-still-looking-for-a-catcher.html
     

Share