Red Sox Notes: Manager, Bard, Sizemore, Lamont

Boston's lengthy managerial search should be coming to an end this week, as the team is expected to hire either Bobby Valentine or Gene Lamont as its skipper within the next few days. As Joel Sherman of the New York Post writes, Valentine may not be the safe choice, but the club must determine whether or not he's the best choice.  Here's more on the Red Sox..

  • The Red Sox have yet to make an offer to Bobby Valentine, an industry source told Gordon Edes of
  • With perception being that ownership wants Valentine while Gene Lamont is championed by GM Ben Cherington, it would take quite a bit of fortitude from Cherington to go against the owners, tweets Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated.
  • Troy Renck of the Denver Post expects the Red Sox to hire Valentine.
  • Boston should convert Daniel Bard into a starter rather than a closer, argues Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald. Former Sox pitching coach Curt Young acknowledges that Bard "does have a starter's repertoire."
  • Within the same piece, Silverman adds that Grady Sizemore's agreement with the Indians caught the Red Sox and some other clubs by surprise, as they thought there would be more time to negotiate with the outfielder.
  • Bronson Arroyo believes that his former manager in PIttsburgh, Gene Lamont, could be a successful manager in Boston, writes Rob Bradford of  The pitcher added that Lamont has a similar managerial style to Terry Francona.

111 Responses to Red Sox Notes: Manager, Bard, Sizemore, Lamont Leave a Reply

  1. jjs91 4 years ago

    I remember it being a big deal when the yankees moved joba to the rotation why is not the case with every other team?

    • Tanak 4 years ago

      Because everything is just bigger in NY.

      • jjs91 4 years ago

         I also meant it as more of question as to whether joba brought more of an argument or if a i just see it that way as a new yorker.

      • Encarnacion's Parrot 4 years ago

        Sabathia and Colon both agree with this assessment.

      • Justin Lindsay 4 years ago

        Yeah like Sabathia

    • qbass187 4 years ago

      Because Bard as a starter is a media fabrication. The team hasn’t made any indication they’re even thinking about it never mind doing it…as NYY did.

      • El_Bobo 4 years ago

        I’m pretty sure they did mention it sometime last year. I think it was when the Sox signed Jenks.

    • Guest 4 years ago

      That is what happens when you have a well run, deep organization. Every move is amplified when there isn’t anything else to pick apart. Other then the Arod steroid scandal (which the media unfavorably singled him out) and AJ Burnett grabbing the occasional (stunk it up headline) there really hasn’t been much to pick apart about these Yankees in recent years. Some could argue the Jeter signing last season was a big deal, but I never saw it like that. It wasn’t as if he was a liability, nor was he going to another team. It can be said that the only reason why that was as amplified at time was because there was no other news, like a new GM or new manager, or someone with a massive contract severely underperforming (excluding Arod since we’ve all beaten that drum). There has not been multiple injuries to a particular area of the roster, there hasn’t been domestic issues with members of the team. Plus there is a heavy Red Sox bias in media (have never been able to figure out how and why).   

      I’m a big Joba fan by the way and I expect him to come back and really take this thing on now that he has had TJ surgery. I guess we’ll see, but if he comes back throwing 97/98 again, he even hit 100 before getting the surgery, I think the Yanks give it another round at the starting 5. May not be for 2012, but maybe 2013. He’ll still be just 26. 

      • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

        “the Arod steroid scandal (which the media unfavorably singled him out)”

        He holds the 2 largest contracts in major league history and will likely break the Bonds career home run record. I’d say it’s pretty fair to single him out.

        • jjs91 4 years ago

          SO because he gets paid more than ortiz he should be trashed for taking steriods while ortiz doesnt? Even though they have made the same mistake. 

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago


            the media ignores BOTH ortiz and arod for taking steroids
            it’s only the fans that rightfully rehash the issue 

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            The media wouldn’t ignore arod eating pocorn so I’m gonna have to disagree with you. The media was on him when the news broke for months. Especially since he got injured at around the same time.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

             Especially with selana roberts book being out there it was really talked about.

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            true.  arod/bonds/clemens did get more attention at the time, having to do with their celebrity status.  in the case of arod, his celebrity status originated from his ridiculous contract, making him a household name in all of sports.  very few non-sports fans even know who david ortiz is.

            however, as of now, the media considers ortiz/rodriguez involvement with peds a dead issue.

            i do agree with you on your last point.  this does not mean that arod does not get attention for whomever he is dating at the time, or anything else. 

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            I only meant the breaking of the story the media hasnt brought it up and really besides rangers fans no one talks about it that much.

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            well they have a lot to be bitter about

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            Like 3 MVp like seasons.

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            or just being a ranger fan

          • Phillies_Aces35 4 years ago

            Ortiz has a personality and most people generally like him. There’s a lot of dislike out there for Arod, and let’s be honest, he’s kind of a dbag.

            I don’t remember a lot of people having an issue with Andy Pettitte taking HGH with his boy Roger Clemens. So its all about the player. HGH is a lot bigger than whatever Ortiz was injecting himself with.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            Bs their personality are fabricated by the media youbor me know next to nothing about either player I find a rod a lot more like able than Ortiz. Hes funnier. A rod is also charitable and works out with his younger teammates and shows more emotion than anyone when they reach milestones or get the big hit.

        • umm no?

        • Guest 4 years ago

          Sorry buddy, not sure I can support that rational. A lot of people are guilty and it was very unfair for everyone to have made him the face of the steroid scandal. In fact, the argument could probably be made that he took them for a smaller period of time than many other players. 

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            I would make the argument that since ortiz and arod were young when they took it it led to less of an impact because they had that energy anyway and as far as staying on the field 20 yr olds wouldn’t benefit from it as much as older guys.  But that’s really not the point.

          • Phillies_Aces35 4 years ago

            Bonds and Clemens are the “face” of the steroid scandal. ARod got scrutinized for a few months.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            “it was very unfair for everyone to have made him the face of the steroid scandal.”

            Except that never happened. People harped on it for a month or two and now it’s basically the exact same remarks that Ortiz gets (Namely jokes on internet message boards and that’s about it). Bonds was very clearly the face of the steroid scandal.

            If you want to argue unfairness in regards to the steroid scandal with your fan loyalty (And let’s be honest, historically with you, everything is always about the Yankees), you could make the argument that the Yankees are unfairly portrayed as far as the team face of steroids with a lot of fans (When really, some of the biggest names in the scandal like McGwire, Canseco and Giambi were big there), but claiming anyone ever considered A-Rod the face of the steroid scandal is ridiculous.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            No he still gets it worse than ortiz which isnt saying uch as the media quickly bought ortiz’s vitamins story. Arod still gets steroids chanted at him in different ballparks. Something i dont think happens to ortiz.

        • I guess you could call him great, but he cant filed and he poped roids the reason he cant play anymore is because he quit

      • It’s always such a treat to read the delusional nonsense that myopic spankees fans convince themselves of.

    • Redsoxn8tion 4 years ago

      If Lamont has a similar coaching style to Francona, then please hire Valentine.

  2. Being a Yankees fan I would agree that I could see Bard as a starter.  However, what would happen to their bullpen?  No Pap, no Bard, no chance.  They would need to find a solid closer and setup man this off season.  Just don’t see it happening but I could be wrong.

    • Karkat 4 years ago

      If they were committed to moving Bard, they’d probably grad a “high profile” closer like Bell as well as someone like Dotel (personally, I like Dotel more anyway) who they figure they can get for less to solidify the 8th and 9th.  They’d have some cash to spare since that’d mean they likely wouldn’t be in on any of the big FA starters like Wilson or Buehrle.  This is very much against what I want them to do, but that’d probably be the plan in a Bard-to-rotation situation.

      • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

        they already have jenks for the 8th. not having to surrender a draft pick will probably make them willing to sign a name closer. i wouldn’t really be happy with that, but it may be better than overspending for a starter

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          I’m still torn about this.  I think I’ve gone back and forth 5 or 6 times since the end of the season with my opinion on Bard in the rotation.

          As a fan of baseball I would be super interested in seeing it happen; as a fan of the Red Sox (and Bard) I’m afraid of it not working and potentially screwing Bard up like it seemed to do to Joba, and by extension screwing the Sox up.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            Look at joba’s fip, xfip and numbers in general over the last 2 years no one screwed him up. 

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            It didn’t screw him up permanently (not that I ever said it did), but it definitely screwed him up at the time (a FIP of almost 5.00, a K/9 of about 7.5, and a BB/9 of about 4.5).

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            When where does his numbers he was doing fine as a starter before his madotory 3 inning stints

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            Those are his overall numbers from ’09 (the only full year he spent as a starter).

        • Karkat 4 years ago

          See, I don’t really like Jenks in the 8th either 😛

          My two biggest offseason targets for the Sox have been and still are Buehrle and Dotel. I’ve liked Dotel for a while now, and putting him and Bard in some order in the 8th and the 9th is probably the best plan.  I’d rather see them offer 3 years or so for Buehrle than do some crazy experiment with Bard.  If they REALLY want to, let Bard compete with Aceves and a cheap signing for a rotaton spot and put the others in the pen with Dotel (or whoever) closing.

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            Can’t really blame you for that opinion (it’s a really common one), but Jenks seems to be almost criminally underrated.

    • BoSoxSam 4 years ago

      It’s generally cheaper to throw together a bag of balls for a bullpen than it is to find a couple reliable starters. If they can sign one pricey guy to close, and get 4-5 cheap relief arms and throw them plus the arms we already have into a pot, there’s a decent chance something usable comes out. Won’t be the best, but might not be terrible. Then again, I really don’t want to see Bard come out of the bullpen unless they’re really really confident he can excel. Taking one of the best setup arms in baseball and making him a 4-5 starter doesn’t seem like a great plan to me.

    • Tampa has proven that you can rebuild a bullpen and still be successful. The Red Sox would have better starting pieces (ex. Jenks) and more money to work with. They could do it if they wanted.

      • jjs91 4 years ago

        The rays pen was average at best last year, and had a much better staff protecting them.

        • 0bsessions 4 years ago

          You basically just made his point. If Bard can perform as a starter, you’re better off using him there and getting a bunch of retreads for the bullpen. People overrate the need for a stellar bullpen. You can get by with a couple reliable guys, a few guys who can mostly handle themselves and a couple of swing men who can pitch two or three innings at a time if you have a reliable starting staff and if converting Bard proved successful, that’s a 1-4 of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz and Bard which, while not the Rays’ rotation, is a sight better than most teams can claim.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            I’m not going to argue the value of that 1-4 especially since bard has never started in the big leagues. But even if those 1-4 put up the same numbers as the rays did stats wise i.e fip xfip, era, whip, they would all have to pitch a lot more innings than they did last year. Shields throwing 250 innings helped save that pen, everyone in that pen could rest when he started and the same goes for when price started even hellickson got 189 innings. Now obviosly beckett and lester can throw 200. But bard wont get those number for obvious reasons and bucholz has yet to do it as well. I think jeff neimman was the only rays starter to pitch under 170 innings, which is impressive.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            That’s my point, though, they don’t have to be better than the Rays at pitching, their offense is substantially better, they just have to be good enough for the offense to overcome lower pitching capabilities.

            Going into this year, on paper, the Giants and Phillies had the two best rotations in the game. One got knocked out of the first round and the other missed the playoffs entirely.

            Pitching wins ballgames and all that, but an “acceptable” 1-3 will beat a “elite 1-3″ oftentimes as long as they have a great offense. Look at the ’09 Yankees. Sabathia was the only elite pitcher in that rotation.

      • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

        Rays pitching and Bosux pitching don’t even compare 

  3. Karkat 4 years ago

    Two things:

    1. Even I’m getting tired of the Red Sox managerial search being in the news every day. Can we just pick somebody (Lamont????) already?

    2. How does Bard have a “starter’s repertoire”? Obviously his fastball is his out pitch, but he couldn’t throw as hard as a starter. I know he’s got a good slider and (I think?) a decent change-up, but that’s mostly because of the disparity from his fastball speed (which, as stated, he’d have to dial back). I really can’t see him finding much success at all in a starter’s role.

    (Disclaimer: I am terrible at remembering a pitcher’s pitch selection, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, especially if it’s an optimistic correction.)

    • johnsilver 4 years ago

      My worry is that slurve of his just kind of rolls over the plate and is effective, only because he throws his FB 97-100mphand batters looking FB. When he is tired, as he was in Sept and hitting 95 or so with his FB that Slurve is not nearly as nasty a pitch, as it seems hitters just still sit back and look FB and have time to adjust.

      he can most of the time throw that slurve for a strike, but that rolling over the plate scares me as a starter and the changeup he has not thrown a lot since being moved to the BP.

      • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

        bard’s slider has the same velocity as pineda’s with better movement and his fastball is at least as effective. few are worried about michael

        alexi ogando also has less horizontal movement on his slider (though a bit more depth), and actually throws his slower

        if bard fails to execute his pitches as a starter, that’s one thing. any pitcher will flop if he can’t execute. but there shouldn’t be much concern about the caliber of bard’s stuff

        • jjs91 4 years ago

          I think people are worried about ogando though.  This has nothing to do with my feelings about bard starting though.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            sure. and to be fair, i think both pineda and ogando are seriously overrated. but again, bard won’t necessarily be dependent on that model. the point is just that it’s a viable one if he were

        • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

          bard’s slider does have better movement than pineda’s. however, and more importantly, bard’s fastball only has average movement, while pineda’s has excellent movement and natural sink.  you are probably going to have a great deal of success if your sinker travels 96.  personally, i think bard should draw more comparisons to bobby parnell than billy wagner, even with his slider and change. 

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            what are you basing that on? pineda’s and bard’s respective pitchFx charts do not reflect a significant difference in fastball movement

            conditioning, execution, the bullpen – these are valid concerns for me. overall i’m just not that worried about bard’s stuff

            link to

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            google their scouting reports

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            When you’re talking about movement on pitches it makes a lot more sense to look at the info gained from tracking actual pitches thrown (you know, what actually happened) than to read the opinion of a scout about their pitches.

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            i think it’s important to look at both

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            In general yes, but when you are talking specifically about the amount of movement a pitch has, and there is hard data showing you exactly how much it moves, I don’t think what the scouts have to say about how much it moves makes a lot of difference.

            If scouts agree with the data then great, but if a scout (or scouts) say that it doesn’t have much movement and there is actual data showing that that simply isn’t the case, then what they say doesn’t change the actual facts.

          • xhausted_grad 4 years ago

            that may be one of the nastiest pitches i have ever seen versus a left handed hitter.

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            99 MPH and 14 inches of horizontal movement. (also 4 inches of vertical movement which isn’t shown on the graph)

            Pitch #3

    • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

      when you’re pitching one inning at a time, you stick to your best and most effective pitches because you don’t need much else. pineda and ogando have comparable fastball/slider combinations and showed just last year that it can be effective on its own

      having said that, bard came out of UNC with 5 pitches. he converted his curveball into a power slider when he moved to the bullpen and stuck with it because he was dominating. curt young’s awareness of these other pitchers suggests that bard still throws them – and that’s not entirely surprising given that bard was the first one to raise the idea of his becoming a starter

      there are good reasons to oppose the idea, but his repertoire isn’t one of them

      • towney007 4 years ago

        Pineda and Ogando (and Duscherer, Felix, Wilson etc. ) are not comparables. They were brought through the minor league system to be starting pitchers, not relievers. Bard was made a reliever because he wasn’t just a bad starting pitcher. He was absolutely, unquestionably AWFUL. He’s been built to be a reliever since day-1.

        Because you’ve thrown pitches as a starter in a past life does not, in fact, make him starting material or even remotely suggest that he has said pitches. Anytime after 25 IP, his numbers drop off the freaking table and the closer he gets to 80IP every season, the more he bottoms out. There’s just nothing in his history at all that would suggest he’s a starting pitcher. To me it’s a media creation based on the trendiness of the Rangers taking stuff out of their bullpen and making starters and that becoming a cool thing now. 

        Worse yet, he’s always had mechanical struggles here and there and for all the praise heaped on his easy delivery, he has lost his arm slot three times in two years. He’s not going to get away with that as a starter. 

        Again – there’s just nothing about his history that would suggest he could do it other than pipe dream, ‘imagine if..’ scenarios. If Papelbon wasn’t out the door, then it wouldn’t seem AS RIDICULOUS to talk about, but with the lack of a closer, a terrible closer’s market that’s almost over-inflated to the point of insanity and gaping holes already within Boston’s staff, I don’t know why anyone would entertain the idea given the current state of things. 

        • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

          first of all, pineda and ogando were compared on the basis of repertoire (the subject of the comment in this post that started the conversation) not the history of their development. nonetheless, alexi ogando came up as a reliever, not a starter. he appeared in 59 minor league games. 3 of them were starts

          second, bard’s 75 innings in his first pro season out of college couldn’t have less to do with projecting his performance in 2012. he made substantive changes to his delivery and primary off-speed pitch after 2007 and dominated as a reliever thereafter. we cannot project him to be as dominant as a starter as he’s been as a reliever, but neither can we say anything at all about his future as a starter based on that first year. it’s perfectly meaningless

          in fact, i’d love to see any of you take a minute to try to spell out the an argument against him starting in 2012 based strictly on what happened in 2007. instead of just weakly referencing the numbers from that year and blithely implying they mean something (much like a sports writer would), actually articulate the connection you think exists between those numbers and the present. it can’t competently be done because there isn’t one

          durability is a real concern and so is the bullpen; there are good reasons to oppose bard’s conversion. but the viability of bard’s repertoire and his first year performance are total non-issues

          • towney007 4 years ago

            1) He doesn’t have the pitch selection. He has two effective pitches;
            fastball and slider. His changeup scores below average. If a pitch
            isn’t effective, then a pitcher doesn’t “have” it. Bard doesn’t throw
            the other pitches that he is technically capable of delivering because
            they aren’t effective. If they were, he would still throw them, even as
            a reliever.

            2) Mechanics/delivery/frame – People are putting WAY too much weight on this
            components. Good mechanics/delivery/frame don’t get you to the majors
            as a starter. Good starters make it to the majors in spite of
            mechanics/delivery/frame (see: Lincecum). These factors were part of
            the reason why he was drafted to be a starter, but once it was
            determined that he couldn’t cut it, they moved him.

            3) In his A ball opportunities, he wasn’t good. He never got a chance
            above A ball for a reason. That he didn’t pitch bad as a starter above A
            ball because he didn’t get an opportunity is not case for him, though
            you’ve tried to make it one. A lack of something isn’t proof of
            something else.

            4) His struggles as his PC climbs are worse than other pitchers of his caliber.

            5) 3 years running, his K% and BB% drop in Sept/Oct as he approaches 80 IP.

            6) Moving him to rotation, even if successful severely cuts his value
            for at least this year, if not continuing into next year. Having him
            throw more than 100 IP next year would put him at enough risk. That’s
            between 15-20 starts before he get’s shutdown. Only in 2013 could they
            hope to push him over 20. Or they could have a top 10, maybe 5,
            reliever the entirety of both seasons under team control.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            you aren’t even reading the replies, are you? you just see something has been written to you and take the opportunity to restate everything you’ve already said

            1 – the “pitch selection” you are describing perfectly describes ogando and pineda. this has already been covered and is a moot point. even if he had no other pitches (and he does), bard’s repertoire would be viable

            2 – the altered mechanics played a large role in his becoming an effective pitcher after 2007. they don’t say anything about his viability as a starter, they are just another reason to ignore his 2007 results. you couldn’t project bard’s performance as a submariner in 2017 from his performance as an overhand reliever in 2011 either

            3 – i haven’t tried to make anything from the fact that he didn’t continue to start in the minors; you’re just lying now. what i have made something from is the fact that he’s a successful major league pitcher with a repertoire that has been proven viable for a starter. people like you have said “well yeah, but 2007!” when challenged to make the actual argument connecting 2007 to 2012, you wrote 1000 words but avoided that issue entirely. that’s because despite all of the weak references to it, there is no real connection. 2007 is irrelevant

            4/5 – where durability is concerned, starting is preferable to pitching out of the bullpen. there is much more wear & tear pitching as a reliever, where one must be ready to throw almost every day and one does throw every few days. as a starter, bard would be stretched out and would throw on a schedule with at least 4 days of rest in between. if anything, the fact that he wears down later in the season is a reason to make him a starter

            6 – this is a real concern. though they’re unlikely to depend on him as a starter in the playoffs and might even dare to put him in the bullpen, the status of the bullpen during the season would be more questionable without him than it would be with him

          • towney007 4 years ago

            I’m not avoiding anything. You’re doing the avoiding.

            1.) Because two other guys can do it, doesn’t mean Bard can. And no – if he’s not throwing those pitches at the major league level, then chances are they’re not effective. If they were, then he’d throw them. He doesn’t, so again – pipe dream point.

            2.) I addressed this point already. You’re running away from it. They altered his mechanics in 2007 to make him more starter-friendly. It didn’t work. His walk rate was sky-high. He switched back to the way he was used to pitching and tried to fit it in with the framework of being a reliever and it worked. They tinkered with his delivery once more in AAA because of concerns on how he was pitching from the stretch. And depite that, he’s lost his arm slot three times in two years and has had stretches of being terrible largely because he can’t control it enough to warrant being used outside of relief work. So no – his mechanics don’t suggest he could start. This isn’t about connecting one season to another. It’s about his inability to overcome a persistent problem outside of a certain threshold.

            3.) Reread the statement. You clearly misinterpreted it.

            4.) I’ve never heard of making the case for someone to start on the basis of not being able to get through an inning and a half of work in their pro career, but sure.

            5.) I agree. With the closers market being where it’s at, I don’t see it as a viable move right now.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            1) actually the fact that those two did it with identical pitches does mean bard can do it. it doesn’t mean he will do it, but it proves wrong any objection based on repertoire

            2) you aren’t disagreeing about mechanics being changed, you’re simply suggesting it was a change back from a previous change. that’s not important. what’s important is that it wasn’t strictly pitching for one inning that turned him from a curveball-throwing walk machine into a slider-throwing dominant pitcher. pitching only for one inning may well have made the difference from success to dominance, i’d buy that. but it was primarily the mechanical tweaks and the move to a slider instead of the curveball that cured his control problems

            3) third dodge of the 2007 challenge. i accept your concession =D

            4) that was a cute and subtle man of straw. i appreciate your technique, but i still have to call you out on it

            i didn’t claim that pitchers who can’t “get through an inning and a half” would benefit from becoming starters. i claimed that where there is a durability issue related to wear and tear over the course of a season, pitching as a starter is preferable to pitching as a reliever because it is less taxing. this is common knowledge. pitchers don’t get moved to the bullpen because it’s easier on their arms

            5) after all this yammering, i might end up agreeing in the end that bard shouldn’t be converted. we’re just gonna disagree forever on some of the reasons for that conclusion

  4. Saying Lamont has a similar managerial style to Francona might be the death blow to Lamont’s prospects as a manager of the Red Sox.  It’s clear the organization is trying to go in a different direction from Francona since Francona lost the control of the clubhouse towards the ends of the season.

  5. Sniderlover 4 years ago

    lol Bard got destroyed in A ball as a starter. He couldn’t get strikeouts and had a 9.4 BB/9 in his 75 IP as a starter. I can’t imagine it going well the second time.  

    • leberquesgue 4 years ago

      Good grief. You would seriously nix the possibility based on his first year out of college?

      • stl_cards16 4 years ago

        You know it’s a credible source when a comment starts with “lol”.

      • Sniderlover 4 years ago

        Considering that’s the only time he has started that’s all I can go on. It wasn’t even he had some success but not good enough, he was flat out terrible and immediately found great success as a reliever.

        Maybe he could have success but I’m very skeptical because as a starter, we won’t see him consistently throw 99, and that will bring down his effectiveness. Trying to go 6-7 innings can also cause problems for his arm.

        But hey, who knows, it worked for Ogando so maybe it will too for Bard but with that track record, I don’t see it.

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          I think it would make more sense to completely throw out his starting experience in the minors and just say we have no idea what will happen seeing as how it was a very limited sample size, it was a long time ago (and the very beginning of his career), and he has made fairly major changes since then (to the point where he’s almost a completely different pitcher).

  6. Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

    LoL..Sox don’t have a closer they don’t have Papi..they don’t have Terry..They dont have pitching..Sox are going to suck unless they get the biggest F/A’s..All they have is offense and 2011 showed that offense for the Sox wasnt going to give them a ticket to the playoff’s..Good luck Bosux!

    • Minorityfanbasewannabe 4 years ago

      Yep only Beckett, Lester, And buchholz. Doomed. Well better pony up 120 million for C.J. or else. 

      • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

        To quote stl_cards16: “You know it’s a credible source when a comment starts with “lol”.”

      • jjs91 4 years ago

        Probably a good idea considering those guys were there last year and the pitching was pretty bad. and hasnt clay been getting hurt a lot over the past few years. 

        • commenter3346 4 years ago

          The pitching was terrible — in September. Beckett & Lester were fine before that. 

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          He was hurt last year, but I wouldn’t really call that “getting hurt a lot over the past few years.”

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            O ok I thought he was injured the yr before

          • MaineSox 4 years ago

            Nope, other than last year he hasn’t had any issues that have caused him to miss more than a start or two.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            O ok fine i was thinking of his hamstring injury that obviously wasnt serious. 

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            Yeah, he only missed a couple of starts, last year was a back injury. If they were related, I’d be concerned, but as it stands it’s fair to assume he should be fine going forward as our number three starter.

        • 0bsessions 4 years ago

          As noted, Lester and Beckett were fantastic for most of the season. It was September where they really fell apart which is unlikely to repeat. They have a viable 1-3 and their starting pitching right now, without any changes, is still better on paper than what the Yankees had going into 2011. We’re in much better shape than people want to believe.

          • jjs91 4 years ago

            But people trashed the Yankees rotation before the season and even after they performed well people questioned it. The red sox oration numbers weren’t just ruined by one bad month they had a superb august but a poor A poor April and one other month. As a whole as a red sox fan I wouldn’t worry about the rotation they a fine 1-3.

            As far as the bullpen goes it can be masked by a decent rotation and the ffense can carry it but it should still strive to improve itself. Wheeler who never gets mentioned, aceves and jerks are enough of a foundation where they can succeed. The only reason I brought up the rays pen is because they didn’t get better, their flaws were hidden in the same way the sox can hide theirs if Jon had used the diamondbacks as an example I wouldn’t of even commented. Fixing a pen is very possible look at where the Yankees got Corey wade, or even aceves that’s not a problem for me. If they believe bard can start that’s what they should do even if limits them for a season in the long run it be for the best.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            “The red sox oration numbers weren’t just ruined by one bad month they had a superb august but a poor A poor April and one other month.”

            Our problem wasn’t a bad month or two here or there (Beckett’s only bad month was September, Lester was rough in May and September), the problem was lack of consistency in the back end and eventually middle of the bullpen. Buchholz performed well in May and June before going down, but once he went down, Lackey became our third starter and it all went downhill from there. Pretty much everything that could conceivably have gone wrong went wrong (As a separate example, 2006 was when everything that could go wrong, even beyond the conceivable, went wrong).

            “As a whole as a red sox fan I wouldn’t worry about the rotation they a fine 1-3. ”

            Nor would I. If Buchholz comes back healthy and pitches to his 2010/2011 peripherals and Beckett and Lester perform to their usual standards, we’ll be fine as long as we can get an innings eater who’ll keep his ERA under 4.50 for the fourth spot.

            “If they believe bard can start that’s what they should do even if limits them for a season in the long run it be for the best. ”

            I’m not sure one way or the other. Considering there’s absolutely no litmus test for how Bard will perform as a starter at this point and I like having that one shutdown guy in the bullpen. I’m of the mind that we don’t need to use Bard as the closer, I think I am of the mind that we’re better served with him in the bullpen and getting a guy who can pitch 200 innings for next year.

      • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

        3 guys in the pitching system..Really thats all they got? there pen sucks and 4,5 suck..With bard maybe being moved pen looks weak..And i never said they needed Cj..they need the big names out there not big money..They can waste all they want..they still gona choke if all they have is offense

  7. commenter3346 4 years ago

    I still hate the Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena trade. 

    • El_Bobo 4 years ago

      I still hate the Victor Martinez trade, even though we needed him at te time

      • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

        ~6 WAR + matt barnes + henry owens for justin masterson and nick hagadone? it’d be nice to have justin back, but i’m pretty alright with it overall

        • towney007 4 years ago

          The Indians are within contention. Why would they trade their best starting pitcher?

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            who said they were going to trade him? i don’t even

            did you really think that first line was a trade proposal? you think i suggested we somehow trade “~6 WAR” in a package of just-drafted players that are ineligible for trade? suddenly i realize you will probably not understand this comment either…

          • towney007 4 years ago

            Yes I did think it was a proposal lol. My apologies. I went back and re-read it.

            I think the Martinez deal was fine not just because of what we got from him, but also for him with the two comp. picks you pointed out.

  8. Bc would have some balls to go against lucchino and hire gene lamont.lamont is a joke.if we dont hire tony larussa or joe torre,i expect bobby v to be our coach.

  9. slider32 4 years ago

    The Sox front office has messed this one up, hiring Cherrington and then not letting him pick the manager. What a mess!

  10. EarlyMorningBoxscore 4 years ago

    When I first saw that Gene Lamont was getting an interview I thought he had no shot at becoming manager that it was a joke…now that he is a finalist I have no idea what to think. 

  11. Sounds to me like an ongoing epidemic with the Cherington regime. Once again they get caught flat footed because they were too slow to move and not ready to make an offer. This is like the third or fourth time we’ve heard this same line… they said the same thing when Papelbon went to Philly (“We weren’t ready to spend money this early”) then when Sveum went to the Cubs they weren’t quite ready to make an offer. Sizemore threw them off because they thought there would be more time. For Christ’s sakes, this is getting old. After all this was a front office that waited until after the team missed the playoffs to finally address clubhouse issues. How long must we wait and be behind the curve to the point where every other team beats us out on everything. Lamont and Valentine are both retreads whom I have little hope for (I would have rather had Alomar to be honest).

    I can’t wait until Ortiz signs somewhere else and we hear Cherington’s “We weren’t ready to make an offer” line trotted out once more. Somehow nobody in the media has connected the dots about how this front office trying to be deliberate has cost them with free agents and managerial candidates alike.

    As a Sox fan I want us to go for (both) Oswalt and Buehrle and possibly someone of value in the middle of the bullpen. I am fine with Jenks (if he stays healthy) and Bard but there are some real questions with whether or not Doubront or Bowden are going to stick and aside from Aceves there are still a few more questions than answers there. I wouldn’t mind Dotel as long the money spent there wouldn’t deter from solidifying the rotation with 1-2 top of the line starters. Partially because I don’t know if Beckett can hold up for a full season and partially because we don’t know that Buchholz will be back to form for sure. I’d rather have a year with Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Buehrle and Oswalt for a full year. That way if one or two guys goes down, we’re not worrying about calling the Royals for Bruce Chen to start a potential one game playoff.

    • 0bsessions 4 years ago

      “We weren’t ready to spend money this early”

      Which is exactly what just about every other team in the MLB was saying and the Phillies have caught a lot of flak for moving too early on Papelbon when waiting may have prevented them from losing a draft pick.

      “Sizemore threw them off because they thought there would be more time.”

      Again, look at the story, wasn’t just the Red Sox here. Very few people expected Sizemore to sign this quickly and it certainly wouldn’t have happened so quickly if it were anyone but the Indians. They’d probably discussed this with him when they declined his option and when he saw the offers on the open market weren’t going to be any better, he stuck with Cleveland.

      “I don’t know if Beckett can hold up for a full season”

      Yet you want to sign Oswalt who started seven less games than Beckett last year, is almost three years older than Beckett, has had multiple back issues the last few years and was talking about potentially retiring last year due to said back issues?

      • towney007 4 years ago

        Oh c’mon 0bsessions, the Red Sox sinking like the Titanic, EVILLARRY~! and PUPPETBEN~! makes for much sexier reading. The only thing I’ve learned through this last month or so is that a shocking amount of people have little to no clue how businesses and their leadership make decisions and about the processes by which those decisions are made. UNDERLINGS4LIFE~!

  12. nestleraisinets 4 years ago

    wow bard will meltdown in like the 1st inning. His main weakness is his control, not good for starting…

    • notsureifsrs 4 years ago


      daniel bard

      2009 – 4.01
      2010 – 3.62
      2011 – 2.96

      jon lester

      2009 – 2.83
      2010 – 3.52
      2011 – 3.59

      • towney007 4 years ago

        The closer Bard gets to 80IP, his numbers fall off a cliff. Whenever gets even near 25 IP the wheels fly off on his control. His mechanics were changed BECAUSE of his control issues and even then, he still struggled until he reverted back and made his skill set fit within the framework of being a reliever.

        Again, lots of conjecture and Pipe Dream ‘why not’ stuff here, but there’s nothing about his numbers or make up that suggest he’d be a good starter. Especially considering the bigger picture of the bullpen needing help and other players (Aceves) being in a better position to be moved into the rotation. Cute idea and hey – if we were the Royals maybe it’d be a fun experiment, but no.

  13. “The pitcher added that Lamont has a similar managerial style to Terry Francona.”
    …no thanks

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      Yeah, ’cause we know how bad Francona was in a Red Sox uniform…

      • I’m not saying that Terry was/is a bad manager… As a matter of fact I feel like I’m part of the lessening population that still likes him. I’m just saying that after last season’s debacle the Sox need a personality change from the manager, and I’m not sure that Lamont provides that. 

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          Sure, but passing on him simply because he has a similar personality to Francona seems a little presumptuous.

  14. EarlyMorningBoxscore 4 years ago

    no you don’t. 

  15. JacksTigers 4 years ago

    And Tiger Nation. Seriously, he could be a great manager. But is a terrible third base coach. You get a good manager, we get rid of a bad third base coach, everybody wins.

  16. rickjimbo 4 years ago

    two x’s?

Leave a Reply