Jenks did struggle in his last season with the White Sox, and while he did get worse that could have been because of the injuries. In other news it only took a day for CC to resign.
[url=http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7220927/jonathan-papelbon-philadelphia-phillies-agree-4-year-50-million-deal-source-says]Jonathan Papelbon, Philadelphia Phillies agree to 4-year, $50 million deal, source says - ESPN[/url]
Sweet! Thank God.
It would have been rough on a year to year at $12 million, but the Phillies have just overpaid for a choke artist.
The guy can pitch, but not at those prices.
Big game pitcher? Yes, back four years ago. Today? No. He has ended the Sox season in two of the last three years because he didn't have it. He could not close the deal.
So, use him all season. Just don't put him in a place where the season is on the line.
p.s. He can't take the Dropkick Murphys' "I'm Shipping Up to Boston" with him. It doesn't work anymore.
I don't understand why teams pay so much for relief pitchers. It doesn't matter who they are, don't pay them a ridiculous amount because they are a dime a dozen.
[QUOTE=TheFeedMachi;287187]I don't understand why teams pay so much for relief pitchers. It doesn't matter who they are, don't pay them a ridiculous amount because they are a dime a dozen.[/QUOTE]
I agree, unless you're Mariano Rivera. He deserves every penny paid.
[url=http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2011/11/18/astros_sold_and_headed_to_al/]Astros sold, and headed to AL[/url]
This is great news. It was always weird having a short division in the AL with a plus division in the NL. I think having interleague play ongoing year round is also a good idea.
The best part is this instantly creates a new division rivalry (Rangers/Astros) which will add excitement to the AL West.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the expanded wildcard - but in the end I guess it helps the Sox so I shouldn't complain.
Interesting stat I saw on the MLB Channel:
[B]AVG Wins Per Season of Division Winner[/B]
AL East 95.6
NL East 92.6
AL West 92.4
NL Central 91.1
NL West 90.8
AL Central 89.6
[QUOTE=Bacchus;288092][url=http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2011/11/18/astros_sold_and_headed_to_al/]Astros sold, and headed to AL[/url]
This is great news. It was always weird having a short division in the AL with a plus division in the NL. I think having interleague play ongoing year round is also a good idea.
The best part is this instantly creates a new division rivalry (Rangers/Astros) which will add excitement to the AL West.
[B]I'm still not sure how I feel about the expanded wildcard - but in the end I guess it helps the Sox so I shouldn't complain.
[/B]
Interesting stat I saw on the MLB Channel:
[B]AVG Wins Per Season of Division Winner[/B]
AL East 95.6
NL East 92.6
AL West 92.4
NL Central 91.1
NL West 90.8
AL Central 89.6[/QUOTE]
I was a bit skeptical of the added wild card teams. In any pro sport, I think the fewer teams in the post season make it more exciting and also better baseball to watch. Now 1/3 of teams in baseball will make the playoffs. That said, a year like last year where the two wild card teams would have been the Red Sox and Braves would be fine with me because it would be two legitimate teams taking the wild card spots.
What will annoy me is when two mediocre teams slide in and then potentially ruin some good match ups in the post season. It feels like almost every year teams that are supposed to win in the playoffs don't, and then we get left with a Cardinals Rangers World Series. There is a better chance we get left with a ****** world series with the added wild card teams.
[QUOTE=MF41590;288101]I was a bit skeptical of the added wild card teams. In any pro sport, I think the fewer teams in the post season make it more exciting and also better baseball to watch. Now 1/3 of teams in baseball will make the playoffs. That said, a year like last year where the two wild card teams would have been the Red Sox and Braves would be fine with me because it would be two legitimate teams taking the wild card spots.
What will annoy me is when two mediocre teams slide in and then potentially ruin some good match ups in the post season. It feels like almost every year teams that are supposed to win in the playoffs don't, and then we get left with a Cardinals Rangers World Series. There is a better chance we get left with a ****** world series with the added wild card teams.[/QUOTE]
You could also have a mediocre team like the Angels or Giants from last year slide into the playoffs and make it much more exciting. Those were both teams that had teams built to go deep into the playoffs and would have been great to watch in playoff baseball. Both of those teams would have made for better television than the Red Sox and Braves who were tanking in glorious fashion.
I also like the Astros moving to the AL West. They get a rival with the Rangers when both teams needed a true rival. I understand why they would oppose it though because being in the Central Time Zone and having games start at 9 local time on weeknights is bad for TV numbers.
If 5 teams can make the playoffs, then they need to get rid of winning a division and just make it so that the top 5 teams make it. It's not fair if the 2nd best team in the league comes in 2nd in the division and has to win a sudden death game to make it, when they deserve it more than the other 3 teams.
Oh but it's "To make winning the division more meaningful." Ok so you're telling me that if the Yankees finish with 100 wins and the Red Sox finish with 99 wins, the Red Sox don't deserve to be in the playoffs without winning one more game against a team that probably has 10 less wins than they do? It's ridiculous.
[url=http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7250162/chicago-cubs-introduce-dale-sveum-manager]Chicago Cubs introduce Dale Sveum as manager - ESPN Chicago[/url]
Not sure how I feel about this. I was expecting a much more experienced/big name manager since Theo was pretty adamant about finding a "very experienced" manager. I'm not sure i'd consider a handful of games as interim manager to be experience..
Theo was the best general manager in Red Sox history to inherit a stocked ball club. You should trust him. Oh, wait. The Cubs are not stocked. Yikes.
At the very least Theo will get the Cubs a handful of pricey long term contracts. I hear JD Drew still wants to play.
[QUOTE=Bacchus;288200]Theo was the best general manager in Red Sox history to inherit a stocked ball club. You should trust him. Oh, wait. The Cubs are not stocked. Yikes.
At the very least Theo will get the Cubs a handful of pricey long term contracts. I hear JD Drew still wants to play.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the Cubbies are not stocked, but they do have some prospects that could pan out in the next couple of years. And Starlin Castro and Matt Garza are only going to get better IMO. Obviously we are probably 4-5 years away from realistically contending, but I think we are definitely on the right track.
According to Olney "Rule that a team cannot play another club from same division in Division Series will most likely be eliminated in new playoff format.". Pretty big deal.
[QUOTE=MF41590;288337]Bacchus, do you think Ellsbury is taking home the ALMVP?[/QUOTE]
It's hard to say with the late season Sox collapse taking away his key advantage over Bautista, which was being part of a winning, playoff bound organization.
That said, I'm holding out hope. I don't think a pitcher should win MVP (at least not with Verlander's numbers) and with Granderson September slide, I don't see him to in the mix.
Sorry bout your luck B...
[url=http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7265534/cy-young-winner-justin-verlander-detroit-tigers-wins-al-mvp]Cy Young winner Justin Verlander of Detroit Tigers also wins AL MVP - ESPN[/url]
How can a player that is only on the field 6 or 7 innings (maybe 8) once every 5 days even be in the running?
What's next, an outfielder going out to burn up innings in a lopsided game winning the Cy Young? Or maybe a bat boy winning silver slugger and a 3rd base ball girl winning a gold glove? ;)
BTW: Here are the MVP rules as listed on the original 1931 ballot:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, [B]strength of offense[/B] and defense.
[B]2. Number of games played.
[/B]
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
My final thought on this subject: If Pedro didn't win the AL MVP in 1999 - no pitcher EVER should.
[QUOTE]
Thirteen years later [after 1986 Clemens MVP] the magnificent Pedro Martinez submitted Year 1 of a historic two-year pitching Picasso, getting robbed of the 1999 Cy Young/MVP combo because two *****-- er, voters left him off their ballots entirely. Pedro pitched 31 times, won 23 and crushed every other AL pitcher statistically to the point that -- when you throw in the Steroids Era (in its full backzit-ian glory), advanced metrics (which most fans didn't understand in 1999), Boston's season (94 wins and the wild card), the talent on hand (the rest of Boston's starting pitching was even worse than Detroit's starting pitching this year)4 and the designated hitter -- it's one of the greatest pitching seasons that ever happened.
Pedro led the American League with 23 wins (nobody else had 18), ERA (the next highest guy was David Cone at 3.44), WHIP (0.923 for Pedro, 1.23 for the second-place guy), strikeouts (313, with Chuck Finley's 200 K's in second place), WAR (8.3, ahead of Manny Ramirez's 8.0) and adjusted ERA+ (243, the ninth-highest ever). And it went beyond numbers -- he owned the first six months of that season, selling out Fenway, striking out the first five batters in the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway (including Sosa and McGwire during their steroids apex), submitting what my father later called "the greatest pitching performance I've ever seen" (his 17-K one-hitter in Yankee Stadium over a team in the middle of a four-title binge), and forcing you to watch the first few innings of every start until Pedro gave up his first hit. The other Boston starters were so dreadful that season that, outside Fenway before games, scalpers charged twice as much for Pedro as for anyone else. It was like a Broadway play with Daniel Day-Lewis acting on Wednesdays and Alec Baldwin's brothers splitting the other six days.
It should have been commemorated with the rarest of pitching accomplishments -- an MVP and a Cy Young, something that's happened only five times since 1970 (twice by closers)5 -- and yet, Pudge Rodriguez (.332/.356/.558, 35 HR, 25 SB, 6.0 WAR) squeezed out the 1999 MVP in a vote that managed to be controversial in the moment and a retroactive sabermetric disaster.6 I was living in Boston when it happened -- everyone wanted to strangle LaVelle Neal and George King for omitting Pedro from their ballots. Then the moment faded away like these things always do.[/QUOTE]
[[URL="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6921420/passing-buck"]via[/URL]]
Of course on the upside, not winning MVP might cut down on Ellsbury's ginormous arbitration payday, just a little bit. ;)
I've never thought a pitcher should be able to win both awards. They have their own separate award to acknowledge their great play for their position. Why not spread the love and give it to another spectacular player? When this happens I look at it as a copout of the voters not wanting to pick between the other players and choosing the easy way out.
Verlander's stats are overrated. Yeah he won 25 games, but his ERA was only .01 above Weaver's and he only had about 20ish more strikeouts than CC, although Verlander pitched 14 more innings. Yeah he's got everything, but none of this stats are that ridiculous, especially when most of the teams he specifically played against were under .500
[QUOTE=Nightwolf;288406]Verlander's stats are overrated. Yeah he won 25 games, but his ERA was only .01 above Weaver's and he only had about 20ish more strikeouts than CC, although Verlander pitched 14 more innings. Yeah he's got everything, but none of this stats are that ridiculous, especially when most of the teams he specifically played against were under .500[/QUOTE]
A 0.92 WHIP in 250 innings is ridiculous, there's only a handfull of pitchers to do this in the last 70 years, all of whom are or will be in the hall. Stats go way beyond wins, ERA, and strikeouts.
[QUOTE=Malibufire;288427]A 0.92 WHIP in 250 innings is ridiculous, there's only a handfull of pitchers to do this in the last 70 years, all of whom are or will be in the hall. Stats go way beyond wins, ERA, and strikeouts.[/QUOTE]
if go even further verlander had a higher fip xfip and lower than cc. You can say his year was historic all you want but his numbers weren't that much better than weavers who wasnt close to a mvp candidate. Ellsbury was the right choice in my opinion.
[QUOTE=jbo29j;288491]if go even further verlander had a higher fip xfip and lower than cc. You can say his year was historic all you want but his numbers weren't that much better than weavers who wasnt close to a mvp candidate. Ellsbury was the right choice in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
its also not all about the numbers. did you watch any of verlanders games this year, he had a no-hitter going into the 6th like 7 or 8 times. im a life long die hard red sox fan, but ellsbury was not the MOST valuable player... then again i always root for the pitcher.
Couple good ideas in this new deal.
[url=http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7269300/major-league-baseball-players-owners-sign-new-labor-agreement]Major League Baseball players, owners sign new labor agreement - ESPN[/url]
I'm excited. I think this is the right short term move.
[url=http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/11/all_signs_point.html]Red Sox select Bobby Valentine as manager.[/url]
[QUOTE=Aereas;288956]Meh... he's not John Farrell. Hopefully he and his staff can do something about the pitching mess though.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you have not seen a Francoma press conference in some time. I think Bobby V is a good selection, just for the drama alone!
In the end, the majority of big decisions are made by people other than the head coach (e.g. Club President, GM) and all of the talent adjustments made by the hitting and pitching coaches.
So, I don't think Bobby can make it any worse and its not like the Red Sox are going to be the Astros next year. They will still have the most potent hitting lineup in baseball and just need to get more out of their starting pitching (along with picking up at least one front line starter.)
Pages