Good News, Everybodyone!

The Boston Red Sox did not lose ground in the AL East last night.

81 comments… add one
  • Bad News, Everybody!
    kazmir is pitching tonight!
    and for some odd reason somebody hasn’t found a way for GAGne to be buried in southie in a spot nobody can find him……next to nancy drew

    TheTree1918 September 21, 2007, 10:43 am
  • Good news, everybody!
    Halladay is pitching tonight!

    yankeemonkey September 21, 2007, 10:44 am
  • Incidentally, I can’t say or read the phrase “Good news, everybody!” without doing it in the voice of the professor from Futurama.

    Paul SF September 21, 2007, 10:50 am
  • I keep wanting it to be “Good news, everyONE!” because of Futurama…
    Good news, everybody! Even though we face Kazmir, we counter with Beckett.

    Devine September 21, 2007, 10:53 am
  • Heh, Paul.

    Devine September 21, 2007, 10:53 am
  • Is it really “everyone”? Heh, I’ve always said “everybody” when doing my professor impersonation. Shows how well I pay attention.

    Paul SF September 21, 2007, 11:07 am
  • I just want to say I would not have rudely pointed this out (though I would have when I was younger)…I didn’t know you were referencing Futurama in the title when I first read it.

    Devine September 21, 2007, 11:14 am
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXc41hhPoM
    This confirms that I am an idiot.

    Paul SF September 21, 2007, 11:16 am
  • “Oh sure, smash the smart guy’s machine.”

    AndrewYF September 21, 2007, 11:21 am
  • Tonight should be fun. Halladay versus Wang, Kazmir versus Beckett. The Red Sox went through their buzzsaw of good pitching, and now the Yankees will go through theirs.
    Except the Sox end the series in Minnesota, so maybe there is a Johan waiting to strike.
    Because Direct TV isn’t an option for me, and MLB sucks, I will probably have to watch the condensed games on mlbTV.com. These are great, although often I miss the pitches they don’t show. They always show the last pitch of an at-bat, and although thats fantastic when seeing how no one can hit Joba’s slider when down 0-2, it makes you miss Mussina’s refined (and suddenly rediscovered) way of setting hitters up.
    But what mlbtv.com does allow is the ability to watch two big games in a 20 minute span. Tonight, I (hopefully) will watch the Red Sox version first, where I will cheer as each Kazmir keeps coming back inning by inning to baffle Red Sox hitters into harmless fly balls and swing and miss strikeouts. Then I will turn around and watch the Yankee game, where Wang will start the rat-at-tat rhythm of ground ball after ground ball while the Yankees muster a couple of runs against Halladay. And then, Joba will make an appearance, only 30 seconds long in the condensed version, where all i’ll see is unhittable.
    Btw, the Yankees playoff rotation should be Petitte, Clemens, Wang and Hughes/Mussina. That last part is hard, because the idea of Mussina coming in for long relief or to support Clemens and Hughes when either Clemens doesn’t have his start or Hughes hasn’t gotten settled in yet. I pick Hughes as the starter because although Moose can still pitch, Hughes stuff is more overpowering. But its a toss-up. And sure, Wang’s Road ERA is ungainly, but thats what home openers were made for.
    A more anxiety-producing question is 1st Base. Giambi’s bat or Mient’s defense? The last few wins have come about because of good pitching and good defense. I, off the top of my head, can think of 4 plays that Giambi could not have made that got us outs or saved runs. You can discount that. If Mientkiwicz keeps hitting those singles and occasional double (and a 3-run HR here and there will be nice), then Giambi has to be your DH. But then Matsui or Damon in left. The way Matsui is hitting, you need him int he lineup protecting A-Rod, but Damon is a good Leadoff guy. Maybe Melki’s hit last game is the sign of him getting out of his slump, because he could fill that.
    And Betemit, the guy can be a big time player (i think), how do we get him in? At some point, I wonder if we’d start giambi at first for two at-bats, pinchhit betemit and then put Mient at first, but I know believe that defense can help us build a lead in the early part of a game.
    Decisions decisions…but good ones to have. What was the last Yankee team with depth!?

    Carlos (YF) September 21, 2007, 11:37 am
  • Carlos, if we are playing Anaheim, I think we need Mientkiewicz at first. Every runner they get on seems to eventually score. Also, any game that Wang is starting should have him at first.
    And I’d be shocked if Wang is relegated to #3 status. He will almost ceratinly be Torre’s #1, though I would prefer Pettitte #1 vs. Anaheim.
    If Mussina has one more strong outing, there is no way Torre will put any rookie in front of him for the #4 slot.

    IronHorse (yf) September 21, 2007, 11:52 am
  • Forget his glove, Minky is swinging a hot bat, too!

    Mark (YF) September 21, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • IH, I think it comes down to home and away. I don’t think folks want to get mussed up over who is #1 or #2. If we are playing a Game 1 on the road, then Petitte is the man. Hell, I think he might be bio-engineered to pitch playoff games on the road. Wang’s road numbers indicate to me that you put him at home. Obviously, if we have home-field and play Game 1 at home, then Wang is the starter and let Petitte pitch in the Road opener.
    I started to wonder after posting about Game 2. Hughes or Clemens? I think you’d want Clemens for a game seven, so pitching him in 2 allows him to be available later in the series.
    You are right about Doug and Anaheim. In a series thats going to be won, more than not, on the ground, you’ll want him there to be the vacuum that he is.
    In the end, it doesn’t really matter who “plays best”, but who “fits best.” Defense and speed against Anaheim, slug-fest against the Indians. Again, it speaks to NY’s depth that we can fit our team to match the needs of the moment.
    I think you are right about Moose, his stuff has been fantastic and veterans earn the right, but I’d let Hughes now that if Moose labors through three innings, and that knuckle-curve starts to flatten out, then Hughes is going in quick.
    My worst Yankee fan moment is also my first Yankee moment. I had watched before, but didn’t care until I was 15 and it was 1995. Showalter pitched Cone in Game 5 against the Mariners and late in the game, on what felt like his 300th pitch (but was really somewhere around 120), Cone bounced a pitch way before home play. Of course, now I know that it was a split and was designed to be low, but at the time, i thought that Cone was too tired to get a pitch to home plate. He was dying out there, but Showalter trusted his veterans, and let him die out there. I don’t want that to happen here. We have a couple of pitchers who seem to have limits; the season has shown that. We have Kennedy, Hughes and even Bruney out there that can provide us with 2-3 innings of good work…I hope Torre’s loyalty doesn’t bite us.

    Carlos (YF) September 21, 2007, 12:09 pm
  • I’m excited for this weekend because it will be a great test for the Yankees. Three quality pitchers in a row. I’m anxious to see if A Rod can get going!
    My take on first base is Mientkiewicz, no question. His glove is too good to take a chance on Giambi. Maybe Giambi will hit a HR once in awhile but he is a liability in the field as well as on the basepaths in October…

    krueg September 21, 2007, 12:14 pm
  • I don’t think a decision on that level from Torre will be loyalty based as much as it would be instinct based.

    lp September 21, 2007, 12:17 pm
  • I’d agree, though since Torre’s instinct tends to always lead him to “guys who have been there and done that before”, it feels a lot like loyalty, except in cases where he has no choice, a la Joba this year.

    IronHorse (yf) September 21, 2007, 12:23 pm
  • The Futurama reference went right over my head, I never really got into that show.
    Oddly enough, I was hearing it in the voice of the Simpsons’ Dr. Nick – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__NtTcLeY9c

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 12:35 pm
  • I feel obliged to post the following, given all the heat I received about the Sox giving up “nothing” for Gagne:
    http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/264877.html
    Engel Beltre – the #2 prospect in the AZL Rookie league.
    I’m going to throw up.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 1:43 pm
  • Pete, you do realize the AZL Rookie League contains the prospects of just nine of the 30 MLB teams, don’t you? And that I would say the majority of those teams are considered to have pretty weak farm systems? And that the rookie leagues are first-level leagues where the best prospects largely don’t even play?
    Calm down a bit.

    Paul SF September 21, 2007, 1:58 pm
  • When Gagne leaves, the Red Sox are going to get an A pick for him anyhow, so there is still the chance they end up with what they gave away anyhow.

    Brad September 21, 2007, 2:03 pm
  • attackgerbil September 21, 2007, 2:57 pm
  • I was going to post this very post last night.

    John September 21, 2007, 2:58 pm
  • Wasn’t Eric Duncan the MVP of the Arizona League a couple of years ago? That should tell you everything you need to know right there…
    Not that I don’t hope that Mr. Beltre grows up to be a freakish combo of Pujols and Mattingly!

    yankeemonkey September 21, 2007, 3:08 pm
  • I really hope Gagne doesn’t ever leave. That’s the mistake that just keeps on giving.

    lp September 21, 2007, 3:59 pm
  • Didn’t realize there were so many Futurama fans here! Must be excited that they’re actually releasing new stuff next year! Can’t wait!

    Lar September 21, 2007, 4:19 pm
  • We’re using the internet; we HAVE to be Futurama fans!
    Speaking of Futurama, I blame the Red Sox fortunes on a sort of quantum jinx – we changed the outcome by measuring it prematurely! Gah!

    FenSheaParkway September 21, 2007, 4:42 pm
  • Few points:
    1) AZL Rookie does not equal AZL Fall. They’re completely different. The former is for professional rookies, the latter is not.
    2) Beltre is 17 years old. Seventeen year olds only play in the rookie leagues (they’re rookies). They’re too young otherwise.
    3) Beltre was ranked #2 in his league. Combined with the GCL, that means he’s one the the very best 17 year olds in all of baseball.
    4) Based on his recent performance, there’s no guarantee the Sox get a compensation pick for Gagne. I have no idea how the numbers of this play out and where he needs to rank. But I’ll say if he gets much worse, it ain’t happening with out a decent 2006 to help skew the numbers from his fantastic 110 ERA+ this year.
    And Paul, easy for you to say “Calm down”. You’re one of the folks who think the deal was a no-brainer and anyone who believes otherwise “is wrong”. Let’s see you change your tune when Beltre is popping bombs for a A+ team next year. Would you even concede then? Or do we have to wait until Beltre is a major leaguer?
    No, no, I’m afraid GAGne has a whole new meaning in Sox lore, up there there with Buckner.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 4:47 pm
  • Sigh, did you really have to bring this up again Pete? Really?

    Atheose September 21, 2007, 4:59 pm
  • Whoa Pete, that was quick and deadly. I don’t disagree that Gagne may never be bullpen bulwark that he used to be, but I have to at least try to defend the RedSox move. Because “at the time”, it was the best move available.
    The Yanks were having pitching issues; we needed someone to get to Mariano. An argument could be made that we had our solution right under our noses, but thats hindsight. At the time, the Yanks wanted and needed Gagne to make our bullpen legitimate.
    Maybe the Red Sox guessed that Okajima would tire, but I don’t think they felt they needed Gagne. He was a luxury and signing Gagne was a no-lose proposition. Its only money. Either he’s makes the pen unstoppable, or he fails and the RedSox remain business as usual with Oki and Beckett and Timlin for the lefties. Taking him had the added benefit of keeping him from the Yankees, who again, at that point in the season was starting to miss Tanyon Sturtze. *sigh*
    All these things are happening at the same time and one thing does not always cause the other. But even if Gagne ends up a bust in the long run, it served the short term purpose: keep the yankee bullpen thin.
    Hindsight says that Okajima would tire and the yankees would solve their bullpen issue internally. But at the time, the RedSox took a risk at a player that they didn’t really need but who hurt their opposition. At the time, thats the smart move, if you have money laying around.
    And even if you go back and say “you know what? I know we have an unstoppable bullpen right now, but in 2 months we are going to really need bullpen help,” and actively try to fill that predicted need, who else but Gagne do you sign? He was the best reliever available.
    At the time when the Red Sox were rolling, taking Gagne was a good choice: no glaring need, no loss, big possible gain, big short-term yankee c**kblock.

    Carlos (YF) September 21, 2007, 5:12 pm
  • Uh, Pete, yeah, actually, I am going to wait until he’s a Major Leaguer to determine whether the Sox actually gave up anything of real value. Hope that’s OK with you.

    Paul SF September 21, 2007, 5:51 pm
  • Ortiz in the lineup tonight.
    If these games really don’t matter, why have him play when his health is questionable?

    AndrewYF September 21, 2007, 6:46 pm
  • he asked to play, Andrew

    Brad September 21, 2007, 6:55 pm
  • Good question, Andrew.

    Andrews September 21, 2007, 6:58 pm
  • “he asked to play”
    Tito: ” David, thanks, but you’re hurting. We need you close to 100 percent for the postseason – take the night off – we’ll let the chips fall where they may. The important thing now is the postseason. Take the night off.”
    Wouldn’t that be the responsible answer, based on the “plan”?

    Andrews September 21, 2007, 7:48 pm
  • Or, Tito could say, “OK, we’ll let you play now because I know what a competitor you are. But once Manny is healthy enough to play, we’re gonna let him DH and give you a breather so you’re 100% for the playoffs.”
    Sounds responsible enough, eh?

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 8:20 pm
  • “Once Manny is healthy enough….”?
    There is a timetable on this now?
    Though good point, if Manny comes back early next week. Ortiz is killing himself, whats a few more games? While Manny gets his timing back (over 20-30 at bats), Ortiz can rest his hurt everything.
    We do not know Tito’s mind. Maybe Manny is a game away, maybe Ortiz is really really persuasive. For me? I sit hurt guys when the games “don’t matter.”

    Carlos (YF) September 21, 2007, 8:33 pm
  • Carlos –
    Since you’re new around here, here’s my take:
    1) Sox didn’t need Gagne (as you note).
    2) Sox gave up too much for Gagne, especially considering #1. The comparison I make is the Yanks giving up Karstens, and Tabata (and Andrew, now that Beltre is top-ranked for his age, that Tabata to Beltre comp is legit).
    3) Sox in acquiring Gagne spoiled any chance to see what they had in Delcarmen or Buchholz and ruined their bullpen chemistry.
    4) When Gagne gagged, because of #3, they did’t know what to do except to keep throwing him out there.
    5) Buchholz has pretty much wasted his innings in 3 starts (because they had no other decent tarter – they traded Gabbard!) than in 10-20 high leverage relief situations (a la Joba).
    6) It was a terrible trade and I felt so at the time. They gave up way too much for a middling middle reliever.
    Meanwhile, Paul, I doubt I’ll be posting here in three years, but when Beltre makes his major league debut (at the age of 20), I’m pleased that you’ll be thinking of me and how “wrong” you were.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 9:12 pm
  • I’m the guy who initially brought up the “if the games don’t matter, why isn’t Papi resting” meme (it’s in the “Why” thread), so you know I’m pretty skeptical of the “rationalize everything away” mode of thinking. But I’m also in awe of Papi’s competitive fire. Look at his game log – he hasn’t had more than one day off in a row since July 21-24. That’s pretty remarkable for a guy with a torn meniscus and a bum shoulder, even if he’s “just” a DH. The guy is a lion.
    That said, Tito should have him get a little rest before the playoffs. Hopefully Manny comes back after the weekend and Tito gives Manny a break.

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 9:12 pm
  • Er, “gives Papi a break.”
    Pete, if Gagne was throwing rocks – which is what EVERYBODY expected he’d be doing right about now – you’d have no ground to stand on. When the deal was made, it looked like Theo had just made the WS a certainty. Sure, in hindsight, it hasn’t worked out that way, but given the opportunity to acquire a stud releiver a #6 outfielder, a #7 starter, and a prospect who in four years may or may not be pretty good, you make that deal every time.
    If you yourself aren’t willing to take risks to win it all, well, then, I thank God you aren’t in Theo’s shoes.
    Just out of curiosity, what’d you think when you leanred we’d flipped Nomar anf Murton for Cabrera, Roberts and Malphabet?

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 9:21 pm
  • Sorry, Tyrel EVERYBODY didn’t think he’d be throwing rocks.
    I know I didn’t. And others looked at his velocity and knew he wasn’t going to be throwing rocks. To be fair, I don’t think anyone expected him to be this bad.
    That said, it’s complete homerism (and a bow-legged cliche) to say otherwise I would have had “no leg to stand on”. At the time, I thought they gave up too much (given the need as stated above and knowing the performance variability of relief pitching). And specifically, I thought Beltre was the worst throw in you’d ever imagine – of Bagwellian proportions. I’m disgusted to say my gut knew when to puke.
    Worse, a WS is NEVER a certainty. And there are risks (like Clemens – that was only money) and stupid risks (like Drew and Lugo and, worse, Arroyo then Pena 2x and Gagne. Gagne was a stupid risk (for all the reasons stated ad nauseum).
    Nomar I was fine with. He had long past his prime and they needed a shake up.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 9:40 pm
  • Um, no. I’ve read your hindsight evaluations of this deal over the past week, and you’ve repeatedly stated that at the time you thought Gagne was overkill – that we didn’t need another quality reliever. You were wrong. And no one knew he’d be a bust at the time, including you. If you want to sit back today and claim that you knew he would cost us 5 games, then whatever, have it your way.
    And yes, if he hadn’t cost us 5 games and today we were up 6.5 instead of 1.5, then the cliche would be entirely appropriate, and you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
    Bagwell was in AAA when he was traded, and was a major league ready third baseman. Of course, we had a pretty good third baseman blocking his path. And Larry Anderson was no Gagne.

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 9:55 pm
  • Pete, I see your point about the chemistry. I can imagine throwing in a big arm in a bullpen thats working just fine is a risk to that chemistry.
    I’d still argue that he was the prize of the trade deadline and although a prognosis of his worth may have been cautious, he did nothing at Texas but succeed. He had sixteen saves with only one blown save. Average close to a K an inning. Thats a good reliever is it not?
    Its a gamble obviously as most things are, but when you throw in his potential plus the chance to not have the Yankees realize that potential, i still think the move is defensible. It is shocking that he’s pitched this poorly. I can imagine that this was a risk, but the reward justify it. I say this as someone who wished the Yankees had gotten him and rolled the dice. (Granted we were bad then and so maybe more likely to take risks than the frontrunner.)
    I guess the Sox did it half-right. In the days of old, the Yankees would snatch up the available talent and sit them on the bench so as to not mess up the product on the field.

    Carlos (YF) September 21, 2007, 10:03 pm
  • I see Paul has his followers around here and his “special” way of arguing.
    Um, no. They needed another quality reliever (because they were abusing Oki in 4 run games) except they already had at least one on the big club (Delcarmen) and one in the system (Buck). Instead, we’ll watch them use Delcarmen in the 6th inning of games and Buck will soon be shut down for the season. Gagne WAS overkill.
    And shows how well you know history. Andersen was actually better than Gagne at the same point (1.95 ERA – 74 IP – with Houston – almost two runs better than league average), with no history of recent injuries (1.54 ERA – 88 IP – again almost two runs better than league average in 1989). But yeah – that’s a terrible comparison:
    1) Andersen actually produced when he came over – 1.23 ERA over 22 IP.
    2) The Sox only gave up 1 legit prospect (versus three).
    3) The 1990 Sox actually needed Andersen – he promptly became the second best arm in the pen behind Reardon. Next best was the immortal Dennis Lamp.
    4) The Sox don’t make the post-season without Andersen (won by two games over Toronto). They were coasting to the post-season without Gagne.
    Meanwhile, Bagwell never played AAA. He jumped right from AA.
    Nice job getting your facts right though.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 10:15 pm
  • Carlos –
    Your last point about the Yankees of old is exactly one I made a few days ago. I thought the Sox were supposed to be smarter in their management – you know hiring THE Bill James and all.
    Instead I’ve watched them refuse to acquire Abreu or Clemens (with short contracts) so they can happily sign Drew and Lugo to overpriced lengthy contracts. Then they trade Arroyo for Pena, watch as he produced, then cut his playing time and trade him for a prospect that isn’t ready yet, a worse hitter, and even worse defensively. Then the cherry on top is over working Oki and vastly overpaying for Gagne. And that’s instead of making use of Buchholz in high-leverage situations even as he was obviously on an innings limit.
    The Sox are doing things the old Yankees way while the Yankees have become “smart”.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 10:22 pm
  • “almost two runs better than league average” – Gagne’s ERA, as of The Trade – 2.16. AL ERA as of today (too lazy to find league avg ERA as of 7/31) – 4.50
    “Anderson produced” – again, hindsight.
    “1 legit prospect (versus three)” – Again, Murphy would be our #6 OF, Gabbard would be our #7 starter.
    “The 1990 Sox actually needed Andersen” – as we needed/need another reliever. MDC is excellent, I agree, but he’s never been relied on as a primary set-up guy. Buck was and is an unknown as a reliever. Oki was already nearing his career high in innings pitched. We needed someone – Gagne is a former CY and was the best available guy on the market.
    “They were coasting to the post-season without Gagne” – and again, hindsight.
    “AA” – whatever, point stands Bagwell was 5 years older, and a lot closer to being ML ready than Beltre – and thus more projectable – and that we had a HOF blocking him at 3b. And we had a 1b in the system that we had drafted the same year as Bagwell who was projecting to be more of a power hitter (Bagwell wasn’t thought of as a HR hitter at the time) and who turned out to be pretty good.
    “Nice job” – ahem.

    Tyrel SF September 21, 2007, 10:39 pm
  • Sure, conveniently leave out the fact that Andersen had no injury history. He was a work horse. And the Sox gave up less to get him.
    I don’t see how Murphy was the 6th OF. He’d be playing ahead of Kielty and Moss right now (like Pena). Indeed, here are his numbers in Texas at age 25:
    .361 .411 .578 (83 AB).
    Nah, he’s a 6th OF.
    And what part of Gabbard available making Buck a reliever don’t you understand? Just cause the Sox didn’t have the collective nutsack to try it?
    By the way, Beltre will reach AA when he’s 19, if not next year. His inclusion on top of Gabbard and Murphy made the trade absolutely disgusting in my book at the time it was made. I’m glad you too will think of me when he reaches the majors while reflecting on how “wrong” you were.

    Pete September 21, 2007, 10:50 pm
  • “Beltre will reach AA…”
    Maybe so, maybe not. He’s got a decent chance at being a ML. Who knows, maybe he turns into Miguel Cabrera. Thems the breaks.
    As far as gut punches go, I felt the Hanley and Anibal trade far more than the Beltre trade. But I recognize that you have to give to get. Theo looked at Gagne as the chip to put us over the top. Most reputable people agreed with him. So he sacked up and traded “three legit prospects” (your assesment, not mine) for the best guy on the market.
    Beckett and Lowell worked out. Gagne hasn’t. Had he worked out, I doubt you’d be here bitching about it. You seem to assert otherwise.
    Trust me, if and when Beltre ever makes the ML, I won’t be thinking about you.

    Tyrel SF September 22, 2007, 1:35 am
  • Theo’s take –
    “When I look at the process of that deal, I think it’s extremely sound. We anticipated the need for another reliever, because we expected [Hideki] Okajima to either falter or fatigue or both the rest of the way just because we were asking him to do things he’s never done before and he was ridden extremely hard, justifiably, in the first four months of the season. …
    “[Gagne] still runs his fastball up there 93-94, still has a really good changeup, and the ability to flip a curveball for a strike and was healthy and we scouted him extensively and had good uniformity in our reports from a variety of scouts, probably a half a dozen guys, had seen him and written up the same thing…
    “I think what’s happened is that it’s been a really difficult adjustment. Gagne’s had a difficult adjustment from a lot of different standpoints, probably trying to do too much, probably trying to overthrow, the adjustment to the eighth inning has been bigger than we had anticipated. And it’s been hard to adjust to him too. He’s a guy whose calling card is a swing-and-miss changeup. And we haven’t been in position to really get the most out of that pitch because he’s falling behind in counts, it’s kind of taken us a while to get to know him as a pitcher, and that’s our issue.

    Tyrel SF September 22, 2007, 1:56 am
  • I can understand now why Sox fans and baseball fans really think so poorly of Yankee fans sometimes. I was just driving home from the hotel to let the workers in the house (having some work done) and I hear this call on WFAN. The guy says Hi I am bla bla, I am a Yankee fan. He says last nights loss was very depressing, heartbreaking. They can’t lose games like that. Sir, they are 12-3 over the last 15, they scored 4 runs in the bottom on the 9th AND they can’t fantastic performances by Mo, Joba (in front of his Pops) and Viz. Also even though Bruney gave up the HR, he struck out the side. Finally the MOST important point of all this Doc Halladay was dealing for 8 2/3, come on get real. I want them to win everyday too, but to call that loss depressing and heartbreaking…UGHH.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 8:26 am
  • Should be they got.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 8:27 am
  • Uh…
    1) As I’ve stated numerous I was bitching about the trade – at the time it was made. And yet folks around here keep saying “no one” had a problem with it and if they did they were “wrong”.
    2) Theo is exactly the guy you shouldn’t be quoting given his recent history of quotes for Abreu, Arroyo, Pena x2, Okajima’s (mis)use, and now Gagne.
    Meanwhile, let’s breakdown what Theo is saying:
    “anticipated the need for another reliever”
    But yet didn’t want to try out anyone already in the system first? Not Delcarmen, huh? Not, Buchholz?
    “because we expected [Hideki] Okajima to either falter or fatigue or both the rest of the way just because we were asking him to do things he’s never done before and he was ridden extremely hard, justifiably, in the first four months of the season. …”
    Justifiably, huh? Like running him out there in games of 4 runs or more when you consistently had a ten game lead in the division?
    “[Gagne] still runs his fastball up there 93-94”.
    Let’s see, last night he didn’t hit 93 once according to Gameday (which uses the most advanced system not only recording speed but also break and trajectory). And his last four appearances (over 20 batters) before the trade, he hit 93 on exactly seven pitches (four balls, two hits, and one strike). If anything, he was sitting at 91-92, as he still is.
    “difficult adjustment”
    What? Did he come from a different league or a different country?
    “get to know him as a pitcher”
    What, the “scout[ing] him extensively and [had] good uniformity in [their] reports from a variety of scouts, probably a half a dozen guys, [having] seen him and written up the same thing” wasn’t enough?
    Please.
    Next he’s going to say they traded Pena because they already had a solid RF in Drew. Or they let Cabrera go because they wanted an offensive upgrade.
    Bill James, where are you?

    Pete September 22, 2007, 8:35 am
  • What does that have to do with this thread, John? Shouldn’t that be in the Yankees’ gamer, seeing as all it relates to the Yankee game and all?
    Meanwhile, I have yet to hear your commentary on how Beltre isn’t a legit prospect after being rated as one of the very best 17 year olds in all of baseball.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 8:38 am
  • First off, yes I posted in the wrong thread you all have my apologies. I have been stuck in a hotel room with my wife, dog and toddler for 2 days, so I was a little disoreineted.
    Secondly, I never said Beltre wasn’t a “Legit” prospect. All I said was he is 17, talk to me 5 years from now. Dude let it go are you Beltre’s agent? You come on here and talk about the same thing over and over and over and over. The Sox made a trade that they thought was best for their team right NOW. Who knows where this team will be by the time Beltre is ready to contribute.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 9:36 am
  • His numbers in the minors this season:
    Combined 3 leagues/teams.
    .243 Avg
    247 AB’s
    65 Games
    42 Runs
    60 Hits
    6 Doubles
    7 Triples
    9 HR’s
    29 RBI’s
    75 K’s
    11 SB’s
    6 CS
    .329 OBP
    .433 SLG
    .762 OPS
    “Beltre is the player in the Eric Gagne deal most likely to make the trade look bad for Boston 10 years from now. Of course, he’s also the player most likely to make no contribution in the majors at all. The 17-year-old was hitting .215/.314/.413 in 121 AB for the Rookie GCL Red Sox. The Red Sox thought the left-handed hitter had star potential when they signed him a year ago. It’ll likely be a couple of more years before anyone knows for sure.”
    -From Rotoworld.com

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 9:45 am
  • Sorry, to hear you’re stuck in a hotel room. I hope it isn’t anything serious.
    And me, all I’m doing is countering the prevailing notion around here that the Sox gave up “nothing” for an “obvious” upgrade. You supported that notion, especially with regard to Beltre by citing only his GCL numbers. By contrast, the experts now say he’s far from “nothing”. And you won’t have to wait five years. In three years you’ll see the Sox gave up three major leaguers for three months of Gagne’s best suckitude, and worse when they didn’t need it. That’s a terrible trade, especially considering they were supposed to be smarter.
    Calling Mr. James, Mr. Bill James…

    Pete September 22, 2007, 9:46 am
  • And uh, did I mention he’s 17 years old? And just ranked, by the experts who actually scout players for a living (not like Rotworld) among the best young players in all of baseball.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 9:49 am
  • Here’s my point and then I have to bow out.
    The Sox have pretty much been the best team in the game all season. At the trade deadline they were set up to run away with the division. They also had the best bullpen (statistically) in the game. Theo had a chance to do two things, bolster his pen with a DOMINANT relief pitcher (at the time) and keep him away from the Yankees/any other contender in the American League. They gave up Gabbard who long term is nothing more then a #5 at best. They also gave up Murphy who may be a 4th OF longterm and finally they gave up a 17 year old kid with a high ceiling. I am all for keeping your farm system stocked, I love prospects, but they had a chance to get a guy who could (have/still) potentially made/make them untouchable come playoff time. Sure in hindsight this seems to be a mistake right now, but Theo made the best possible trade for this team for 2007. Big market teams can’t worry about 2012 in 2007. (To a certain extent, you can’t empty your farm system either, I am not saying that.)

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 10:00 am
  • I will tell you this Pete, I coach 17 year old kids, as well as scout a ton of young talent as well. (Got to coach against 2 players drafted in this year’s draft, one of which was drafted by the Red Sox and the other being the best pitcher in the draft) It’s a long time off before we know how good this kid will be, he is 17 and sometimes that’s not an advantage. They are kids, you don’t know what will happen between NOW and when they are ready to contribute in the bigs. Lots of high ceiling guys have never met those ceilings.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 10:07 am
  • Problem is, John:
    1) They never got smart about Oki’s innings. That alone could have negated any “need” for Gagne.
    2) They never tried Delcarmen in the the role.
    3) Knowing Buck needed his innings limited, they never gave him a shot at a relief role. And now it’s either too late or even more dumb given the risk of injury without any preparation.
    And while you may coach 17 year olds, I highly doubt you’ve ever coached one who was not only ready for professional baseball at that age but also ranked as one the the very best 17 year olds in all of professional baseball. It’s true that you can never be sure, but then that’s exactly the type of guy you don’t give up for a three months of a relief pitcher, esp because they were running away with the division.
    That’s what killed me most at the time of the deal. Had the Sox traded “just” Gabbard and Murphy, I know I would have been much less jaded – then and now.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 10:40 am
  • Wow, what hindsight warriors!
    a) Bagwell had no place in Boston because he could not play 3rd for a lick and displayed the power of Cora. I’m sure moving a poor fielding (34 errors in 133 games), light hitting (6 total HR’s in minor league career) IF’er to first and bumping Moo Vaughn to the bench would have worked well!
    The trade was a noted steal at the time. It remained so while Anderson became the SOX primary setup guy leading into the playoffs.
    b) Gagne, the best reliever in baseball three years ago, was absolutely lights out in Texas, in a stadium where most pitchers go to die. The SOX gave up Gabbard who was never going to pass Buch and Lester on the SOX depth chart because of limited upside. They also gave up a 4th OF’er and some 17 year old who will be a crapshoot until he isn’t.
    In return, besides the aforementioned best reliever available, the SOX picked up what they believed were 2 1st round sandwich picks, making the trade, no matter how Gagne performed, a wash.
    Hindsight warriors suck.
    Thanks, IH
    Gotta go

    BostonRAW September 22, 2007, 10:42 am
  • “And while you may coach 17 year olds, I highly doubt you’ve ever coached one who was not only ready for professional baseball at that age but also ranked as one the the very best 17 year olds in all of professional baseball.”
    I have had 2 players drafted during my tenure. Neither of them were as highly touted as Beltre, but what does that have to do with my ability to judge talent? I coached against Rick Porcello last season and got to see him 3 total times last year, just because I didn’t coach him doesn’t mean I don’t know how good he will be. Bottom line is these are KIDS and you just don’t know what they will do in 3, 4, 5 years down the road. You can only hope for the best and trust your evaluation.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 10:48 am
  • Go thing they have a great set-up guy now! Where’s Larry Andersen when you need him?
    Honk! Honk!

    Pete September 22, 2007, 10:52 am
  • John –
    You’re missing my point. That’s exactly why you don’t trade those guys (or guys like Pena either) – exactly because you don’t know what you’ll get. If Beltre “only” proves to be a league average CF for six years that’s worth a ton more than three months of Gagne. And worse, that’s exactly what Murphy looks like he’ll be.
    Meanwhile, you’re telling you would have included Porcello in a trade for Gagne?

    Pete September 22, 2007, 10:55 am
  • Not a chance in hell, those are your words not mine.

    John - YF (Trisk) September 22, 2007, 11:04 am
  • Well, you’re justifying trading youngsters based on the uncertainty of not knowing what they’ll become.
    What’s the difference between Porcello and Beltre, besides Beltre being more advanced at a younger age?

    Pete September 22, 2007, 11:16 am
  • And unfortunately, you can’t come back and point to Beltre’s numbers again. Cause by that logic if Porcello gets off to a rough start next year in his first professional season then he’s eligible to be traded for Trevor Hoffman in July along with two other prospects.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 11:19 am
  • q: who the hell is beltre?
    a: he’s no babe ruth
    q: who the hell is porcello?
    a: who cares?
    deadline trades are a crapshoot made by teams in contention at the time…they don’t necessarily “overpay” if the trading partner is trying to dump a player or salary…not the case here, texas was just trying to get something for a guy that would have walked anyway…prospects are a dime a dozen…major league ready players, now that’s another story…the gagne trade was a good one regardless of the results…unless he’s got crystal balls, he couldn’t have seen gagne’s troubles coming…there’s no reason to think gag can’t get it together, and tito’s stubborn insistence on running him out there may pay off in the playoffs…i don’t think any less of theo for having made the trade…
    by the way, i like to grill porcello mushrooms when i have a steak…damn good

    dc September 22, 2007, 11:47 am
  • Yes, yes, ignorance is your salvation, dc. Enjoy nirvana. Let me know when you’re ready to re-enter the real world of facts and stats.
    And I hope Gagne gets it together for my team. But that still won’t make it a good trade in my book nor if he had performed as expected.
    They overpaid for a relief pitcher and they’ll continue to pay for many years to come.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • Hey Pete,
    Ever thought of starting a blog? Like ihateericgagneandiwishwekeptengelbeltre.com?
    Beltre’s a toolsy 17-year old. That means he’s a good athlete, who may or may not turn into a good basebabll player.
    You don’t talk much much about the 1st round pick(s?) that we’re going to get when Gagne leaves. That means we’re going to get at least one of the top 30 amateur ballplayers in all of baseball next spring.
    There’s so much to rebut you on, I don’t know where to start. But whatever, I’m over it. You’re either totally obsessed with this or you’re a really dedicated concern troll. Either way, I’m out.

    Tyrel SF September 22, 2007, 12:35 pm
  • Read the thread, Tyrel. Those picks are no longer a sure thing because Gagne has sucked so bad and has no 2006 stats to help even things out. If the Sox are lucky they get one pick. Two picks are out of the question for a league average reliever (110 ERA+). What’s hilarious is the Yankees could wind up getting two picks for Luis Vizcaino (see his 133 ERA+ in 2006).
    “A team that loses a free agent that is ranked as a Type A, B, or C player will receive a draft choice as compensation. Determining which ‘Type’ a free agent is based on a statistical system created by the Elias Sports Bureau that uses statistics based on a 2-year average for each of the positions. Salary Arbitration has to be offered to the player by the team before he signs elsewhere if they wish to receive compensation.
    Type A Players: Ranks in the upper 30% of his respective position group
    Type B Players: Ranks in the upper 50%, but not in the upper 30%, of his respective position group
    Type C Players: Ranks in the upper 60%, but not in the upper 50%, of his respective position group”
    Meanwhile, you want the Sox offering Gagne arbitration? So he accepts a 8-10 million/year deal?
    And you have to love the “it’s so easy” logic. By all means give it a shot. But I’m proven you “have no leg to stand on” (with apologies to all amputees and paraplegics in this world).

    Pete September 22, 2007, 12:50 pm
  • By the way, since I got laughed at for mentioning his name, anyone notice how well our old friend JC Romero in Philly’s pennant race?
    1-2 45 G 30.7 IP 13 H 5 ER 23 BB 25 K 1.47 ERA 311 ERA+
    He, too, could bring a pick or two!
    Yeah, the Sox had no other choice but to acquire Gagne.

    Pete September 22, 2007, 12:58 pm
  • ignorance, nervana?
    gee pete, i didn’t think i said anything all that controversial, unless you don’t like mushrooms with your steak, which is perfectly understandable…seems you’re so hung up on disparaging the other participants here, that you’ve lost your focus for when a comeback is deserved and when it’s not, and for keeping those comments more measured…you’ll get the hang of it…in the meantime, you probably have the best hindsight of any poster i’ve ever seen here…everybody’s good at something i guess…

    dc September 23, 2007, 7:22 am
  • Yeah, you’re right, dc. It’s pure hindsight to say it was a mistake to trade Beltre. You know, cause highly rated 17 year olds are obviously not worth anything. Yup, the Sox gave up “nothing” and anyone who says otherwise “is wrong”.
    Maybe next year the Yankees will trade Tabata and Karstens and Gardner for Hoffman. Cause you always have to trade the uncertainty of youngsters for the testicular hugeness of veteran relief pitchers (especially ones with an injury history). How could anyone be so dumb to suggest otherwise?

    Pete September 23, 2007, 9:52 am
  • you’re missing the point pete…i’m not objecting to your opinion, just your lousy attitude…i think theo made the trade because he felt he had to…guys like you roundly criticized him last year for sitting on his hands at the deadline…maybe theo had the foresight to know his bullpen wouldn’t hold up…and gagne was the best option out there; and by the way, the yankees wanted him too…look, you’re entitled to your opinion that beltre is a can’t miss future hall of famer, just like the other guys like me who understand the sox are going to have to take a risk like that for an opportunity to win this year, are entitled to our opinions…so it hasn’t worked out so well, big deal…it’s easy to dissect a deal after you see how it works out…gm’s don’t have that luxury…

    dc September 23, 2007, 11:24 am
  • Uh, last year he didn’t trade nothing (and that really was nothing) for Abreu so he could drop 70 million on Drew – you know cause they didn’t want an uberteam or something like that. Yeah, we shouldn’t look back cause GM’s always tell the truth.
    And “obviously”, the Yankees needed Gagne more. That’s why they traded for him. Makes a ton of sense…
    And me, I had problem with the trade when it went down (and the Drew and Lugo signings, though I wasn’t along there) for exactly the reason that Beltre was included. How about you try reading before you post? This thread in particular, I posted how high Beltre was ranked and the reasons I did. It’s only when people keep pushing the same Sox BS party line (they “needed him” and traded “nothing”) that I feel obliged to push right back, thanks. And I’ll continue to do so, thanks.

    Pete September 23, 2007, 12:03 pm
  • Just a quick comment on style vs. substance –
    dc made a very reasonable argument – “you have your opinion, which i can see and understand, i have opinion, can’t we all just get along” – and you came back at him with nastiness and an argument against a strawman.
    “Obviously” and “nothing” in the context that you’re quoting them were never used here by anyone but you, which you’ve already done a few times upthread. There is no chorus line of YFSFs singing “obviously we gave up nothing…” It’s a nice strawman in that it constantly reframes your argument to a zero-sum game, but it’s not accurate.
    What’s happening is a downward spiral – you make your point, someone disagrees, you attack the strawman, nastiness ensues. Can’t we all just get along?

    Tyrel SF September 23, 2007, 1:10 pm
  • I’ve already said I’m venting on this subject. And once again, Tyrel, you’ve said nothing of substance and with no style either.

    Pete September 23, 2007, 1:16 pm
  • As long as we’re all clear that your not actually reading what anyone posts except to find fodder for your strawman.

    Tyrel SF September 23, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • Actually, we’re not clear on that. We’re not even close to clear on that. Not only do I read what others post, but it’s fun destroying it as having “no leg to stand on”.
    Did you have any points remaining? Cause, let’s see, everything you’ve said has been proven “wrong”. And you said you were giving up. Now you (and dc) insist on an ad hominem argument because you have nothing better to say.

    Pete September 23, 2007, 1:56 pm
  • Ad hominem – “wrong” “fanboy” “homerism” “bow legged cliche” “special” “ignorance” etc. “Obviously” “everyone” who talks to you is “wrong,” and “nothing” anyone can “prove” to you otherwise.
    Disengaging…

    Tyrel SF September 23, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • Hahaha – thought so.

    Pete September 23, 2007, 5:39 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.