After rebuilding the Red Sox in time for their 2013 championship season, GM Ben Cherington has to remake the team yet again, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe writes. One item on Cherington’s plate as the Red Sox finish their season is sorting through a number of young players, particularly in the rotation. “Right now we’re going to use the next several weeks to find out about the guys we have,” says Cherington. “We have 8-10 young starting pitchers who are here, at Triple A, and Double A. … In the offseason I’m sure we’ll look at starting pitching alternatives, whether it’s free agents or trades, and see what’s available to us. But we need guys in the organization to step up.” With the trades of Jon Lester, John Lackey and Jake Peavy, the Red Sox’ rotation now includes less experienced players in Brandon Workman, Allen Webster, Rubby De La Rosa and Joe Kelly. The Red Sox also have a high waiver priority due to their record, which makes them a team to watch as August progresses. Here are more notes from around the AL East.
- Allen Craig, who was acquired in the Lackey deal, has already landed on the disabled list with an ankle injury, but the Red Sox are not worried about him in the long term, Alex Speier of WEEI.com writes. “There’s no concern about whether he’s going to be OK to play and feel good and be completely healthy,” says Cherington. “It’s just a question of making sure that we’re not putting him in a position where he’s compromised and maybe is at risk of doing something else by making up for what’s going on in his foot.”
- The Orioles will not pursue Cuban outfielder Rusney Castillo, Roch Kubatko of MASNsports.com writes. They’ve scouted him and they like his talent, but they think he’ll be too expensive to sign.
- The list of potential Yankees September call-ups includes 2014 second-round pick Jacob Lindgren, Brendan Kuty of NJ.com writes. The reliever dominated the low minors, striking out 17 batters in 7 1/3 innings at Class A+ Tampa, and he’s currently with Double-A Trenton.
- Yankees assistant GM Billy Eppler isn’t bitter about missing out on the Padres GM job, Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News writes. The job ultimately went to A.J. Preller of the Rangers. “Oddly, I’m not upset,” says Eppler. “Maybe if I did something and had a misstep, I would be disappointed in myself. I think the baseball gods didn’t feel like it was my time to leave the Yankees.”
I wonder if Cashman will be promoted in some capacity after this year and Eppler will be named the new Yankees GM. I wonder how so many of us Yankee fans will blame Cash after that. Oh and Lindgren please, kthnxbai
The Sox will probably look to trade some of their starting depth for useful pieces in the offseason. They’ll sign at least one proven starter, probably two.
Craig’s DL visit isn’t a huge concern, but it’s certainly frustrating.
I think Craig’s trip to the DL is a lot more to do with getting him a mental break than the ankle, and I think that’s a smart move by the Red Sox. He was obviously very frustrated the last month+ in St. Louis. Put him on the DL for three weeks and let him get his mind and body right. Then start fresh.
I agree, but I still don’t want him on the team.
Craig’s DL visit only vindicates my disdain for the deadline trades even more. Prediction: Allen Craig will be effectively useless for the remainder of his contract.
I really want to know what went on behind closed doors between Lackey’s agents and the front office. There has to be more to this story.
Only way anything makes sense is if Lackey straight-up told the Sox he’d retire if they didn’t trade him, but it really doesn’t seem like him.
I suspect if that’s true and it probably is, then we’ll hear about it sooner or later.
I am a little disappointed that the O’s couldn’t give Castillo a swing here.
However, if we can get Nate the Great from the Cubbies, that would help unfray the nerves! =P
It’s tough having more rings in the twenty-first century than any other team.
wanna buy a ring ?
Of all the teams in baseball you’re worried about the Boston Red Sox….hmmmm. Not sure I’m buying what you’re selling.
No HOF’s in the recent past??? Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, and if it were not for the steroids Manny Ramirez, are all HOF’ers. Some could even argue Curt Schilling. And the whole leaving the team with disdain…along Millar you can add the following names to the list; Jason Varitek, Tim Wakefield, Mike Lowell, Trot Nixon, Mike Timlin all left with smiles including Pedro who is always around the team and was a spring training were with young pitchers.
And it’s really a shame that this seems to be the only suitable answer by most of the fans and while entirely failing to understand how flawed that logic is. It’s a horrible way to run a billion dollar business. Nah, it’s much easier to admire organizations like the Yankees, Cardinals, Giants, Tigers, Angels, A’s, Dodgers, who are perennial winners, regardless of winning a ring.
It’s amazing to me how easily fans of a team that so disdained the ‘count da ringz!’ nature of some Yankee fans so quickly turns into them when they finally have a little bit of success. And it’s not even like it’s back-to-back champion, dynasty-levels of success, just a pretty good run with some balls finally bouncing the right way. I guess you gotta crow about something after nearly a century of (oftentimes embarrassing) failure. But it’s okay. We forgive you.
It’s well-known that every championship Red Sox team of the modern era were volunteers, playing solely for the love of the game.
No, it’s hardly the only suitable answer. Look at the Red Sox’ playoff performances over the past twenty years compared to most of those teams you just mentioned. Then come back and talk to me about flawed logic.
Every team you mentioned has went through some terrible years. You are proving nothing.
“perennial winners, regardless of winning a ring.”
Huh?
I love it how so many fans can have short-term memories on today’s winning clubs.
We’re all in the habit of citing, say, the Yankees as a perrenial winner, due to recent runs. But I remember there were at least a decade-plus through the 80s and early 90s where those Yanks squads were horribly mediocre, similar or worse than this year’s club. The Red Sox has had their share too. The As were abysmal through the 90s. The Tigers too. They weren’t blips either. They were awful clubs mired in losing and mediocrity. Etc. Every club has had its share of downturns.
I mean, we’ve made the playoffs plenty of times over the past 20 years, which the poster I replied to apparently wants to ignore.
We were bad for awhile. No one forgets that. But this nonsense about HOF candidates and “can’t miss prospects” is a load of hogwash. We’ve been a consistently well run organization for a while now.
I don’t think I would classify this team as “well run” not when they have Yankee money and operate like the Royals and field multiple below 70 win teams over a period of 3 years. WS aside, this team has been all over the place the last 4-5 years. They are having a massive identity crisis and can’t seem to pick a direction.
Oh, sure. But try to understand that whole ‘3 ringz in 10 years’ is not as impressive as you think it is. It’s evidence the franchise was at least somewhat well-run, yes, but that doesn’t mean we can hand-wave away the complete and utter failure of 2 of the past 3 years. That is not a well-run organization, and it’s time people start holding the Red Sox to the same bar as the rest of the league, rather than fawning over a team that will have twice finished under .500 with $170M+ payrolls (and missed the playoffs in the year (EDIT: initially said two years) prior). Say what you like about the Yankees and their inefficiency, but at least they’ve never done *that*. The Red Sox had a good run, but they are not ground-breaking, they are not exactly legendary or historic or ‘all-time’ anything. They’re a team that finally had some balls bounce the right way over a decent period of time.
Multiple 70 win teams over a 3 year period? Why not just say two since that’s the only number that actually works in your cherry picking sample size? What a joke.
Multiple is actually the correct terminology – it shows that the level of failure is not a fluke, but recurring.
I didn’t say it wasn’t the correct terminology. I point out that two is the only number that works. Three is not a sample size worthy of that number. Hence, cherry picking.
This is indeed correct.
Are you really trying to throw a sample-size argument into *seasons of baseball played*? Yikes.
Nah c’mon bro, Sox have had losing seasons in 2 of their last 3! And 2 of their last 10. And 2 of their last SEVENTEEN.
No one is hating on the Red Sox “because they’re the Red Sox” its just that a few of us have chosen to really question their direction and quality of upper management.
Yep. It comes with the territory and I’m sure you’re used to it by now. Fans of other teams invent things to hate about teams that have success.
None of those guys are products of the Red Sox. Pedro is probably the only and closest example that is allowed to be considered and likely the only one of the bunch that will make the HOF. Shilling has a chance and might, but its debatable with the D’Backs or Sox. Ortiz isn’t a HOF candidate, especially when at some point, its inevitable that PEDS will be called in to question. Its never be stated in the media that he has used them, but long rumored that he did. Who knows.
Pedro and Wake are still closely tied to the team. Ortiz may not get in but he’s a candidate
Exactly. The Yankees are the only team with less losing seasons in that seventeen year period.
Ortiz’ performance last October solidified his HOF candidacy, but keep seeing what you want to see.
Technically Schilling was a product of the Sox. He was originally drafted by them and sent to the Orioles in a trade. I personally believe he should be in the HOF based on his postseason credentials, the fact that he holds the modern K/BB record, and the simple fact that he was one of the more dominant pitchers of his era. But that’s another debate.
Yeah, it just amuses me nowadays xD
Wouldn’t every team love to win three championships in ten years? I’m not sure how any rational thought can dismiss it as not impressive.
Jeff Bagwell was also drafted by the Red Sox, although he was involved in a pretty poor trade.
So I guess David Freese is a 1st ballot HoF too
Ortiz has a couple of barriers he needs to get over. The first is the DH issue, which is a real one. Edgar Martinez is in 20’s in HOF votes, and Edgar is better. The second clearly is the possibly alleged and possibly real steroids issue. Ortiz is not better than Bonds, McGwire, etc.
When the number in question was 3, yea. When you say multiple when referring to a sample size of 3, you are cherry picking.
I can’t tell if people like you intentionally misunderstand or what. He was saying that Ortiz’s playoff performance is the icing on the cake, not that one good playoff run makes a HoF candidate. Is being reasonable that hard?
Does David Freese have 3 world series rings and a career that resembles Papis?
Probably. What do you think about Ortiz’ chances? I’ve seen a lot of commentators come around to the idea over the past few months.
Barring additional, serious PED allegations, I’d say he’s all but guaranteed
I disagree. The DH hurdle is going to be a tough one for him add to that PED allegations are having an effect on players who haven’t even been accused of PED use. My guess is Ortiz lingers on the ballot the whole 10 years.
What’s “the DH hurdle”? He’d be compared to other designated hitters of his time (and throughout the DH era), and it will be found that he’s been the best designated who’s played the game to this point. I don’t see why being primarily a DH should hurt him, honestly. it should just frame his evaluation.
Edgar Martinez is far better if you use WAR. It’s not even close. I’m not saying Ortiz shouldn’t make the HOF if he is able to add to his stats, and stays clear of the juice, but he’s no sure thing.
Well, they’re not steroid issues. We don’t know why he was on that list. I don’t think an overwhelming majority of the electorate cares.
Ortiz beats Martinez in plenty of categories. Then there’s his postseason dominance, which eclipses all but a few players. Those aren’t real significant barriers.
Better than McGwire because Ortiz is a class act. I have no opinion on his HOF odds till he is done playing.
I read your postings with a great deal of interest, because I think you write and think clearly. I disagree here. The Martinez comparison I supposed is a matter of taste and personal preference. Martinez bests him in WAR by a wide margin. Ortiz has more power. Ortiz is .285/.379/.546, Martinez .312/418/.515. Edgar’s OPS+ is 147, Ortiz is 139. If Ortiz goes in, Edgar has to be there. On the steroids, he was named. He’s denied it. For his sake, I hope that’s the end of it, but I do think HOF voters will take it into account.
Thank you for the compliment and I agree that the comparisons are a matter of taste. There’s plenty in each player’s favor. Ortiz’ postseason prowess is very important and I’d imagine that many HOF voters don’t take WAR into account as much as we do.
He was not named for steroids. He was on a sealed list testing positive for a banned substance. We don’t know anything beyond that.
By your logic Dwight Evans should be in because his stats are almost identical to Jim Rice’s
I think you just answered you own question.