So Long, Farewell …

Continuing with news of the biggest non-story ever, J.D. Drew’s name was finally added to the 40-man roster. Sadly, it came at great cost.

Legendary Lenny DiNardo, whose minor-league stats were adequate but whose Major League career was shorted by arm troubles — and an inability to strike out hitters, limit walks, keep batters from reaching base or keep the ball in the park — was claimed off waivers by the Oakland Athletics.

It always seemed DiNardo was about to put it together. He was perpetually a season away, a start away from using his left-handed sidearm delivery and becoming a serviceable fifth starter/long reliever. The only thing he served up, however, was baserunners and home runs.

We’ll miss him and his 19 baserunners per nine innings. Or not.

17 comments… add one
  • Nah, you won’t miss DiNardo, but you will miss the guy that Drew really replaced, the original dirt-dog, Trot Nixon.

    Whatever February 14, 2007, 8:37 pm
  • Really? Because I don’t think we’ve talked enough about how we’re gonna miss Trot…we should probably go over it again.
    This is actually fairly irritating…DiNardo shouldn’t have been off the 40-man. Rotoworld mentions Boston’s Rule 5 pick, a 23-year-old pitcher named Nick DeBarr, who still hasn’t been above A-ball. They left him on instead. DiNardo’s not great, but this was a stupid move.

    desturbd1 February 14, 2007, 9:04 pm
  • Well desturbd1, since Paul stated that the addition of Drew resulted in the loss of DiNardo, when actually, it was Trot Drew replaced, my point about the Sox missing Trot has relevance at this point in time, whether or not you and all the Sox fans here were crying on each others shoulders about losing Nixon at some earlier point or not.

    Whatever February 14, 2007, 9:27 pm
  • Not sure the rlevance of Trot. If you mean we’ll miss his going half a season without a home run or spending time on the DL, then, yes, we’ll miss him. He was a great player, with a great personality, and I loved having him on the Sox, but the time had come to part ways. He wasn’t even a fourth outfielder on the current team. So I’m guessing that no, we won’t miss Trot this season. But who knows? Maybe he’ll rally back with something to prove. I doubt it though.
    Anyway, d1 makes a good point. I was half-joking — it’s sad when a young guy who shows some promise winds up as essentially a failure in your uniform. You always root for someone on your team to succeed, of course, but it seems like it’s even more gratifying when it’s someone from your farm system. On the other hand, DiNardo showe pretty clearly last season he was a AAAA player. Maybe his injury had something to do with that. So I’m not sorry to see him go — though d1 is right. Why did the Sox even pick Nick DeBarr if they weren’t going to trade him? Do they think he has a chance this spring training? Just return him now and save the space for someone who actually has a semirelistic shot at the majors.

    Paul SF February 14, 2007, 9:33 pm
  • I know it had relevance w/r to the position, I’m just tired of hearing about it. Not a big deal…
    I don’t know anything about DeBarr, but if there’s something useful there I sure can’t see it. He was a 14th round draft pick from Princeton in 2002, and struggled mightily his first 2 seasons as a starter. Gotta wonder though…he missed 2005 after Tommy John surgery, and then improved a ton as a reliever in 06. Maybe he’s one of those guys who comes back a whole new pitcher, with an extra couple mph on his fastball. But I’m really just sitting here trying to rationalize something that makes very little sense.

    desturbd1 February 14, 2007, 9:43 pm
  • …trot was a big part of the sox teams that competed with the yanks head to head over the last 10 years or so, and the team that won a ws… i know his departure had its day on this site paul, but to dismiss him so cavalierly in these latest comments, is bogus…

    dc February 14, 2007, 10:04 pm
  • same goes for you d-1

    dc February 14, 2007, 10:05 pm
  • So we’re supposed to ignore the fact that Trot is now an aging, injury-prone outfielder with horrible splits and mediocre power for his position because he was a big part of the 2004 club? How is it bogus to say his time had come, and that we aren’t going to miss another year like he gave us last season? Frankly, last season was awful for Trot and the Red Sox, and he’s shown no indications that he’s about to improve. Again, to say that we’ll miss him for more than his personality or the memories he broght us is what’s bogus here, not the statement of what kind of a player Trot has become.

    Paul SF February 14, 2007, 10:23 pm
  • Right…what’s the proper grieving period for a Right Fielder? Please, enlighten me, maybe I’m just too damn insensitive.
    I’m not dismissing Nixon, I just don’t need someone to point out to me that he’s gone every time Drew, right field, Lenny DiNardo, horses, Jesus, injuries, or pine tar come up in conversation. The story was about Drew officially joining the 40-man, at the expense of one Lenny DiNardo, who was subsequently lost to the A’s. We’re well aware that Drew was actually replacing Nixon in terms of his position on the field and that it sucks to have to see him go, and we don’t need to be reminded that we’re going to miss him. (Though, we won’t miss what he did on the field the last few years…) I wasn’t particularly upset by Trot’s name coming up, but quit questioning whether or not we pay him the respect he deserves…it’s preachy and somewhat insulting.

    desturbd1 February 14, 2007, 10:26 pm
  • Beane raids Theo! Love It.

    YF February 14, 2007, 10:40 pm
  • Beane raids Theo! Love It.

    YF February 14, 2007, 11:18 pm
  • Personally I find it a little irritating that Drew will be #7. Love Trot, the whole Dirt Dog thing, etc., but he hasn’t been really good since 2003.

    tommy February 15, 2007, 1:19 am
  • I agree, tommy. I understand letting Trot go, and I know Drew wore 7 in LA — not a major thing, but it is “a little irritating.”
    It’s certainly interesting to see Lenny’s blip of solid work in ’05, and to imagine what might have been (or could still be?). He could go either way.

    pastorsteve February 15, 2007, 7:41 am
  • I did find it interesting that Beane, who prizes undervalued players, took DiNardo from the Sox, whose philosophy is to prize undervalued players. I fear that this could end up looking bad for the Sox, but it’s not a wholly realistic fear.

    Paul SF February 15, 2007, 10:40 am
  • I’m really not sure how bad it will end up biting us. I think we left the wrong player “unprotected” so to speak, but at the end of the day, Lenny provided depth and poor numbers last season. I’m not sure he’s any more than a AAAA pitcher, and I have more faith in Kason Gabbard or David Pauley or Devern Hansack or even Julian Tavarez as 7th/8th/9th/10th starters.

    QuoSF February 15, 2007, 10:45 am
  • Come on, it’ LENNY DINARDO. Even if he ends up being a useful player for the A’s, he’s 27, he was given decent opportunities in the Sox system, and he was originally a Rule V player, meaning he didn’t cut it with a lesser Mets team in a lesser league before getting his shot in Boston. Getting any kind of bent over losing DiNardo on waivers is energy not well spent.

    SF February 15, 2007, 4:34 pm
  • I have to agree. He was a nice guy, but that’s where it stops, really. He had every opportunity in the world to improve and never did. Letting go of anyone still in the minors would have been silly; that’s definitely something that could come back to bite you. Dinardo, not so much.

    Brad February 15, 2007, 5:05 pm

Leave a Comment

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