Francona is not blameless -- even acknowledging how thin the team was in the pen, he made some curious decisions handling his relief corps, and his insistence on going back to Coco Crisp at leadoff even in the face of Kevin Youklis' success at the top of the order is nothing short of mystifying. But this is a team that has lost Manny, Ortiz, Wily Mo Pena, Nixon, Gonzalez, Foulke, Varitek, Wells, Wakefield, Delcarmen, Crisp and a number of other guys for various stretches of time this season, some for long stretches. That they are still technically in it is a testament to the fact that this team knows how to contend, but they did not have enough. Obviously I have not wholly lost faith in the possibility of a comeback, but this season feels like the 2001 Jimy Williams-Joe Kerrigan meltdown again, except that in 2001 the expectations were not as high.
Edit: For me being a moron.
8 comments:
"Rodriguez..."
Gonzalez? Odd slip there.
I agree with Cafardo that "Francona didn't get dumb this season." But neither did Epstein, whom Cafardo seems to blame here. Sometimes things don't work out, thanks to injuries and disappointing performances (Beckett, Crisp, Tavarez).
I thought this was funny: "Instead of writing in Damon's name, he puts down Coco Crisp, a player who can barely throw the ball back to the infield." Since when did Damon have a cannon for an arm?
The results might be like 2001, but I trust this FO more. Check out Jose Melendez's Keys to the Game at redsox.mostvaluablenetwork.com and scroll down a bit for his trip to the bad old days.
Yup -- dumb slipup.
And I LOVE Keys to the Game.
I think a lot of people are thinking that maybe Theo was never as smart as what he was built up to be-- which, to be fair, would be difficult. I'm not certain I agree with that, but some of the shine is off the diamond. We need a big offseason.
Thanks for checking in.
dcat
We need pitching. That's all it comes down to. The batting lineup has been decimated by injuries, but that's just making things go from bad to worse with this team. If they had pitching, the batting lineup, when healthy, is more than adequate. Given that Schill will likely retire in the next 2 years, the only pitcher on the Sox staff that I am comfortable with right now is Pap in the closer's role. Even all the highly touted prospects that Theo refuses to trade aren't overwhelming me. While I think Lester and Hansena and Delcarmen will be useful MLB pitchers, it's like we brought them up and got a Jared Weaver or Francisco Liriano out of them. The entire staff needs to be remade. Schilling and Waker are much closer to the end of their careers than the beginning, Wells is done, Clement is horrible. I think Beckett will come around eventually. But we need a serious shot in the arm in the pitching department next season.
Pitching is certainly a huge key. Ideally we'd be able to move Papelbon to the rotation to maximize his innings and his leverage, but we will not do that untiol we are in a position to place someone else in the closer's role, and it seems clear that hansen is not ready yet, though these things sometimes happen quickly.
The thing about prospects is that you need to use them, and sometimes you use them as trade bait. All of these guys will not pan out. And several of them present their best value to the Sox as potential parts of trades. I'd love to have them all end up as superstars, to have the rotation in 2007 look like that of Baltimore in 1971 or the mid-90s Braves. But the reality is, we have seen this before. Remember Frankie Rodriguez, Jeff Suppan and Carl Pavano? they were hyped and at one point untouchable. We let them go. Does anyone lament not holding on to them like the last breath of life?
But I hope we do not sit back and think the O is fine. We need another hitter or two. I know that lineups are overrated in terms of construction, but call me a traditionalist in that I'd still like another guy with pop to protect Manny. And if that is Wily Mo, great. But it may not be, and we need to be prepared for that.
Since I wrote my post the Sox lost yet another game in yet another desultory performance.
dcat
DCat--here's the question I ask--who was the last Sox prospect to be a superstar pitcher? Not even necessarily for the Sox, but including the guys they traded away. The list of guys that have been untouchable at one point is very, very long over the past 10-15 years. Hell, is Clemens the last one. There surely have been some productive major leaguers to come out of the Sox farm system, but no superstars.
Here's my view of the Sox prospects--like you said, they are almost more valuable to the Sox as trade bait than as future parts of the team. There was a big push when Theo got to the Sox to revive the farm system, but as far as I'm concerned, what they should do is stockpile pitchers in the minors and keep them until they become good enough that they show the potential to be superstars and then they should trade them for excellent major leaguers. Let's put it this way--I'd put money that at least two of the follow--John Lester, Manny Delcarmen and Craig Hansen-- that their trade value was the highest it will ever be right before this past July 31st. It's a 1 in a 100 shot that the untouchable pitcher you have is going to be an ace. I've come over to the side that if we can trade Lester, Delcarmen and Hansen for Oswalt as the rumor was at the deadline, that we should do it because in actuality you are probably trading a #3 starter, a useful bullpen guy and a bust for a #1/#2 starter. The previous Duquette regime undervalued their prospects trading them too early. This regime overvalues them and needs to be more willing to take the known quantity.
Thunderstick --
I agree. here is the thing about the Sox. It fits into my argument about "Moneyball Plus" that I've often made, which is that the Sox can appropriate the best things about Moneyball while at the same time having the budget to pursue superstars. And so while we'd love it if they could develop pitching, the fact remains that we do not have to -- we can compete in the free agent and trade markets to get guys who start to show that they have it. In a sense, that's fine with me. I hope that some among this crop pan out, but there is such thing as holding on to prospects too long. Yes, we will forever hear about Jeff Bagwell. But that is both a rare case and one that still made some sense at the time. For every Jeff bagwell we can each list ten guys who were supposedly the next great thing.
dcat
"...what they should do is stockpile pitchers in the minors and keep them until they become good enough that they show the potential to be superstars and then they should trade them for excellent major leaguers."
This is more or less what they did with the Beckett trade; Hanely was the key but Anibal was no throw-in.
Beckett hasn't worked out, of course, but I'm cautiously optimistic he'll rebound to at least a 4.5-ish ERA next year. Schilling may be good for another season.
Beyond that, there's basically nothing, and the list of FA starters looks better than the list of FA relievers. So I would suggest leaving Papelbon in the pen and signing the two best FA starters you can find. Expensive, sure, so the Sox will need to unload some payroll probably, but they do have some big contracts coming off the books in the next few years, and they have several guys locked in at low money.
David --
Over at Sons of Sam Horn they are having the "Papelbon as starter or reliever" discussion. I am of the belief that a good starter is worth as much as a great reliever and that a great starter is the most valuable commodity in the game. Put it this way -- would you rather have Roger Clemens at his peak or the greatest relief pitvher in the history of the game. OK -- Roger an unfair comparison? Would you rather have Ron Guidry, Luis Tiant, or bruce Hurst -- nice pitchers, not Hall of Famers -- for their careers or the greatest relief pitcher in the history of the game? OK -- what about these guys or the third best relief pitcher in the history of the game (I might see taking Rivera, but would not take whoever is next on the list over any of those three).
If Tito were not such a bullpen traditionalist, we might appreciate a situation in which Papelbon came in whenever he was needed most -- in the 7th with men on if necessary, in the 8th to start the inninmg, in the traditional closer's role, or whatever.
Despite the fiasco of 2003, I still think bullpen by committee really is the best approach if you have the personnel. traditionalists scoffed at the very idea in 2003 because we did not have the guys to pull it off. For what it is worth, Bill james generally agrees with me.
What I would love to see happen is for Foulke to come back and be effective, to close for a while until Hansen is ready to take over and to have Pappy in the rotation.
I'd also be a fan of us not sucking any day now.
Cheers --
dc
Post a Comment