Red Sox 2012/2013 Offseason Thread

[a700hitter]

As for the discussion about whether or not the FO has changed philosophy, I have to throw some cold water on that one. Whether the FO needs to change philosophy to change the fortunes of this team is just a bunch of hooey. Philosophy hasn't been the problem of this team. Organizations with differing philsophies have been successful so long as the philosophy is well implemented. Philosophy has not been the Red Sox problem. Their problem has been poor implementation -- numerous and repeated poor personnel decisions. They don't need to change philosophy. They need to stop sucking. When your organization sucks, you don't cure it by changing your philosophy. You cure it by changing your personnel. They let Theo walk, but they replaced him with his protege and waterboy. They needed to clean house in the FO right up to, and possibly including Larry L. They did not and we are looking at a 2013 roster that will not be exciting and that has little chance of being competitive. There has been a change of philosophy since 2008. We went from a philosophy of success to a philosophy of suck.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

With the start of Spring Training only about 2 weeks away, it is probably a safe bet that our roster is set and there will be no further acquisitions. As presently constituted, the talent level is roughly the same as it was at the beginning of last year on both sides of the ball, maybe slightly lower than last year. IMO, they are at best a 4th place team with a good likelihood of finishing last unless one of the other division rivals implode. I'll wait until the official start of spring training to make my predictions, but this is how I see things shaping up.

If the assumption is that we will sustain the same amount (MLB record setting) injuries and underperformance, then I agree.

But personally, I would not project a season based on the performance of a roster filled with more AAA players than Opening Day players.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by SoxFanForsyth

If the assumption is that we will sustain the same amount (MLB record setting) injuries and underperformance, then I agree.

But personally, I would not project a season based on the performance of a roster filled with more AAA players than Opening Day players.

The team directly ahead of us vastly improved their team. We did not. The other teams were ahead of us by 20+ games in the standings. If we avoid injuries altogether we will not eliminate that 20 game gap. We just didn't improve in areas where we needed to improve.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

The team directly ahead of us vastly improved their team. We did not. The other teams were ahead of us by 20+ games in the standings. If we avoid injuries altogether we will not eliminate that 20 game gap. We just didn't improve in areas where we needed to improve.

They were actually about 10 games ahead of us. Like I said before, the record was not at all an indication of the team. Besides injuries and underperformance, we had a team go 9-27 in their last 36 because of the massive trade that just sucked all life and talent off the team.

They were much closer to a 78-80 win team last year. Get rid of the underperformance, injuries, toxic clubhouse, and horrid manager, and you've got an 88-90 win team.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by SoxFanForsyth

They were actually about 10 games ahead of us. Like I said before, the record was not at all an indication of the team. Besides injuries and underperformance, we had a team go 9-27 in their last 36 because of the massive trade that just sucked all life and talent off the team.

They were much closer to a 78-80 win team last year. Get rid of the underperformance, injuries, toxic clubhouse, and horrid manager, and you've got an 88-90 win team.

No, they were not a 78-80 win team and the massive trade didn't really affect the performance that much. At the time of the trade, they were 13 games behind the Yankees and 10 game (loss column) behind the others. On August 1st, the Sox were 53-52. By the time of the big trade, the had slipped to 60-67. They had gone 7-15 from August 1st until the trade on August 25th-- a .318 winning percentage-- and they were falling fast. If they had not made the trade and continued playing at the blistering pace of .318 that they were playing at in August before the trade, we' d have lost 90 instead of 93 games. We have not improved enough to make up a 15-20 game deficit IMO.

[BSN07]

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

The sox have had a change of philosophy. It started in August with the mega trade. They brought Bill James back in. They have a very highly rated farm system and they havent spend the entire winter trading it away for guys who likely wont work in the Bean. They did go out and sign 3 guys to high money contracts who likely were overpaid a little (until Napoli's hip crumbled during the physical) to bridge the team to when the rest of the crop comes up. It should be enough to keep the team interesting, but won't be enough to keep them in contention. That being said, another season like last with the team languishing in last place from the ASB on would be horrendous for business, so it made sense to give sox fans some hope. But their major change of philosophy has been to avoid signing guys with draft pick comp, avoid major deals involving prospects who are highly likely to contribute at the big league level, and avoid the seriously long contracts for players with questionable capacity to handle Boston. The change wont be felt completely until 2014, IMO, when Doubront, Barnes, Webster, and De la Rosa will all be seriously contending for major spots on the sox team out of ST and guys like Bogaerts and Bradley will be sliding into starting gigs on the offensive side. I see the sox bridging 2013, growing in 2014 and contending in 2015. If they hit like they did during the 00's with their prospects, the sox could be on a sustained championship run come the second half of this decade

That's a good and fair opinion on the situation. Nice post.

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

No, they were not a 78-80 win team and the massive trade didn't really affect the performance that much. At the time of the trade, they were 13 games behind the Yankees and 10 game (loss column) behind the others. On August 1st, the Sox were 53-52. By the time of the big trade, the had slipped to 60-67. They had gone 7-15 from August 1st until the trade on August 25th-- a .318 winning percentage-- and they were falling fast. If they had not made the trade and continued playing at the blistering pace of .318 that they were playing at in August before the trade, we' d have lost 90 instead of 93 games. We have not improved enough to make up a 15-20 game deficit IMO.

You're missing some key events here.

August 9th-- Doubront hits the DL. 55-58.
August 10th- Middlebrooks goes down. 56-58.
August 16th, Shoppach jettisoned. 58-61.
August 19th, Crawford goes down. 59-63.
August 24th, Ortiz's last game of the season. 60-66.

The losing streak wasn't because of a lack of talent-- it was because of a lack of depth to replace their talent.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

No, they were not a 78-80 win team and the massive trade didn't really affect the performance that much. At the time of the trade, they were 13 games behind the Yankees and 10 game (loss column) behind the others. On August 1st, the Sox were 53-52. By the time of the big trade, the had slipped to 60-67. They had gone 7-15 from August 1st until the trade on August 25th-- a .318 winning percentage-- and they were falling fast. If they had not made the trade and continued playing at the blistering pace of .318 that they were playing at in August before the trade, we' d have lost 90 instead of 93 games. We have not improved enough to make up a 15-20 game deficit IMO.

At the time of the trade, the Sox were 59-66 (.472 W%). That is good for 77 wins (76.5 to be exact) wins on the season. I said 78-80, so whatever, a discrepancy of 1-3 wins.

The point is, they were much better than 69 wins. And to say they have to make up 20+ games is misleading because they were much better than a 69 win team last year.

Losing Middlebrooks and Ortiz crushed this team last year. Not to mention the 21 losses accumulated by the bullpen. Hell, I can think of 3 games alone where the pen absolutely imploded (DET, NYY, LAA) and lost the game by giving up more than 5 runs, which won't happen with this bullpen, maybe once. Again, if this team stays healthy and players actually perform to their career norms, they are around a 90 win team. I'd sig bet with you but I'm already in with Jackso.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by SoxFanForsyth

At the time of the trade, the Sox were 59-66 (.472 W%). That is good for 77 wins (76.5 to be exact) wins on the season. I said 78-80, so whatever, a discrepancy of 1-3 wins.

The point is, they were much better than 69 wins. And to say they have to make up 20+ games is misleading because they were much better than a 69 win team last year.

At the time of the trade they were not playing .472 ball, so it is unrealistic to think that they would have played at that percentage until the end of the season. As I pointed out in my previous post, they were 7-15 (a .318 percentage) for the month of August prior to the trade. That was much more indicative of what they were and the direction of the team than their overall record. They were a 90 loss team without the trade instead of a 93 loss team. They were circling the drain at the time of the trade and they were giving up.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Palodios

You're missing some key events here.

August 9th-- Doubront hits the DL. 55-58.
August 10th- Middlebrooks goes down. 56-58.
August 16th, Shoppach jettisoned. 58-61.
August 19th, Crawford goes down. 59-63.
August 24th, Ortiz's last game of the season. 60-66.

The losing streak wasn't because of a lack of talent-- it was because of a lack of depth to replace their talent.

None of this had anything to do with the trade. SFF, said that they went into the tank because of the trade. I think the trade had very little to do with their swoon as they were in that tailspin for the entire month of August before the trade.

Did injuries affect the team? Certainly. But better health is not going to close a 20+ game deficit with the Yankees, Rays and O's. Plus, the Jays have massively improved their talent level.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

None of this had anything to do with the trade. SFF, said that they went into the tank because of the trade. I think the trade had very little to do with their swoon as they were in that tailspin for the entire month of August before the trade.

Did injuries affect the team? Certainly. But better health is not going to close a 20+ game deficit with the Yankees, Rays and O's. Plus, the Jays have massively improved their talent level.

Well the trade 100% put them over the edge. Was it a combination of events? Certainly.

My whole point was that 9-27 was not indicative of the team that they had last year. You can't just choose 23 games and forget the other 100 games. If Lester throws to a 2.08 ERA in August, is he going to throw to a 2.08 ERA the rest of the year? No. You can't just put an arbitrary endpoint on something to prove your point.

And regardless, like Pal pointed out, they were missing heaps of players. The whole trade was more of a timestamp than anything. The team they put out there from August 23rd to the end of the season was not anything like the team that we had out there the majority of the season, when they played .472 baseball. That's my whole point. With so many players gone and/or on the shelf, you can't say "Oh we have to make up 20+ games" because it's not even close to the same team that represented 20% of the season.

[seabeachfred]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I don't want to put an ultimatum on anything, but I feel a lot of things this year will depend on how the team begins the season - particularly in the first couple of weeks of the season. If you look at the Sox record through the first 14 of games of the season, which is roughly 10% of the season, here's where they've stood the past 3 seasons:

2010: 5-9
2011: 4-10
2012: 4-10

Compare that to the season average from 2003 - 2009 of 9-5 (worst start being 8-6).

Its not so much a matter of statistical significance but more so of mindset and morale. The organization can say all they want about it being a long season, etc, but the fact is the slow starts have had an ill effect on the final outcome in each of the past 3 seasons.

Getting off to a fast start this year would go a long way to making a positive influence on the organization from a number of fronts: instilling some level of credibility and confidence of the real owners of the team - the fanbase, deflecting negative criticism of the organization from sources like the media, the Francona book, etc, and, perhaps most importantly, giving the players a sense of unity and confidence that they in fact CAN get back to playing winning baseball.

Couldn't agree more Doc. Yes, we have a tough first four series this year but no matter what we have to stand tall and hold our own there. Slow starts have killed us the past three years and in one, 2011, we came out of ST having suffered 12 losses in a row in ST games, sometimes a harbinger of tough times ahead. Winning is important, sometimes even towards the end of Spring Training in order to throw off a losing culture and getting some credibility and confidence in themselves.

What we need early is an end to the underachieving and some real over-achieving, maybe playing a little out of our minds. I'm not completely sold on John Farrell except to say that he knows the players, the organization and is a breath of fresh air after what went down last season. Anyway, hope is supposed to spring eternal in the Spring and maybe this year we get pleasant surprises instead of a six pack of lumps of coals.

[seabeachfred]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

As for the discussion about whether or not the FO has changed philosophy, I have to throw some cold water on that one. Whether the FO needs to change philosophy to change the fortunes of this team is just a bunch of hooey. Philosophy hasn't been the problem of this team. Organizations with differing philsophies have been successful so long as the philosophy is well implemented. Philosophy has not been the Red Sox problem. Their problem has been poor implementation -- numerous and repeated poor personnel decisions. They don't need to change philosophy. They need to stop sucking. When your organization sucks, you don't cure it by changing your philosophy. You cure it by changing your personnel. They let Theo walk, but they replaced him with his protege and waterboy. They needed to clean house in the FO right up to, and possibly including Larry L. They did not and we are looking at a 2013 roster that will not be exciting and that has little chance of being competitive. There has been a change of philosophy since 2008. We went from a philosophy of success to a philosophy of suck.

It could be a mixed bag Ted. The Red Sox seem determined to keep their good young prospects like Bogey, Brentz, Cecchini and Bradley in their system as well as their young pitchers and we know that is a far cry from Larry the Lizard's insistence on star power at the expense of the farm system. OTOH, we still have a meddling front office where Epstein's former water boy, now in charge of the GM's spot, seems little more than a gofer for Lucchino while Prune Face is still basically AWOL, either worrying about his soccer team, his wheat futures or chasing his wife around the bed. Personally, I think how this season unfolds will tell all of us a lot about where our team is heading---hopefully in the right direction, but the jury is still very much out.

[Bellhorn04]

Originally Posted by SoxFanForsyth

At the time of the trade, the Sox were 59-66 (.472 W%). That is good for 77 wins (76.5 to be exact) wins on the season. I said 78-80, so whatever, a discrepancy of 1-3 wins.

The point is, they were much better than 69 wins. And to say they have to make up 20+ games is misleading because they were much better than a 69 win team last year.

Losing Middlebrooks and Ortiz crushed this team last year. Not to mention the 21 losses accumulated by the bullpen. Hell, I can think of 3 games alone where the pen absolutely imploded (DET, NYY, LAA) and lost the game by giving up more than 5 runs, which won't happen with this bullpen, maybe once. Again, if this team stays healthy and players actually perform to their career norms, they are around a 90 win team. I'd sig bet with you but I'm already in with Jackso.

The starting pitching was horrific last year and so was the back end of the bullpen. When your best starter has an ERA over 4.5 you are a very bad team.

[seabeachfred]

Originally Posted by Palodios

You're missing some key events here.

August 9th-- Doubront hits the DL. 55-58.
August 10th- Middlebrooks goes down. 56-58.
August 16th, Shoppach jettisoned. 58-61.
August 19th, Crawford goes down. 59-63.
August 24th, Ortiz's last game of the season. 60-66.

The losing streak wasn't because of a lack of talent-- it was because of a lack of depth to replace their talent.

Let me steal a page from your book Palodios. Look at the bottom of each of your posts.....notice DCNP? Well that's where it all comes to, our starting pitching. I can't see us having as many injuries as we had last year even though I said the same thing about this time last year and the year before that, but if that be true we should win more games on that alone. But how many more on that alone? Maybe four or five tops? No, it comes down to our rotation and especially Lester and Buchholz pitching up to their capabilities and giving us two stoppers. We certainly aren't going to get Dempster or Doubrant to be stoppers for us and we better pray that Lackey makes the comeback I think he will.

One thing seems certain now. It looks like our roster is set for the season. Unless we trade one of our catchers our team of this year is the one we currently have listed. It had better be enough for us to make a comeback this season.