The Red Sox Must Rebuild, But After 2010
Baseball October 12th. 2009, 1:00pm
The Red Sox-Angels series came to a “shocking conclusion” yesterday afternoon. It was shocking, if you blindly assumed the Red Sox would use their mystical prowess to pummel the Angels indefinitely.
Baseball’s best team wins about 60 percent of the time. There were three games over four days. The Angels pitched well. The Red Sox didn’t. Series over. It’s easy to be hysterical and obsess over a small sample size (I certainly did afterward), but there’s little to read from it.
Teams don’t build to win the World Series. They build to get the opportunity. The Red Sox won 95 games, they made the playoffs and were a plausible World Series candidate. It’s impressive, especially when you play by country club rules. You prepare and you hope the bad hops happen to the other team.
As much as writers love to inject drama, the loss was no watershed. The Red Sox have weaknesses, but, at least for next season, those are cosmetic.
Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Matsuzaka and Wakefield/Other is a playoff caliber rotation. The bullpen should be solid. Boston does not have a half-decent shortstop, but they haven’t since 2004. They also must platoon Lowell and Youkilis at third (as they did this season), and hope the second-half Ortiz returns next year. These solutions are stopgaps, but better than anything available in free agency.
Jason Bay is a free agent, but the market should be dire. Last winter, teams were anticipating economic trouble. This winter, they have been in the midst of it for a year. The Giants, Mariners, Mets and White Sox are lightening their payroll, but that doesn’t mean they will keep spending as they did before.
If the Red Sox want Bay and put up the money (four-years $60m), they’ll keep him. If not, they could replace his bat with an Adrian Gonzalez-type by absorbing another team’s salary dump.
Watch for Boston to trade Papelbon. The Sox have not agreed to a long-term contract. The tension was palpable all season, and that was before his invincibility-shattering five-run fiasco yesterday. He was fastball-reliant this season and, though effective, walked 24 batters, more than he did in 2007 and 2008 combined. His appearances seemed nervy, as though he was no longer overpowering hitters. From absolutely stupendous, Papelbon fell to mere excellence, but that could see him irish jigging elsewhere while he still has value.
The Boston Red Sox need a substantial rebuild, but probably after the 2010 season.
76 Responses to “The Red Sox Must Rebuild, But After 2010”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
i live near LA, and people are surprised that they actually swept boston. (angles are not actually in LA, though their names misleads you into thinking so.)
October 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
and the biggest rationalization i have heard all day. that would work if you lamenting about the Twins, Marlins, or Rockies. not here buddy.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
As a fan I would welcome a rebuild. It would drive out some of the bandwagoners, and hopefully I’ll be able to get tickets for the first time in 4 years.
If they can get someone to overpay for him, I’d jump at the offer. His WHIP has steadily increased the past 2 years. This year, he didn’t allow a walk or hit in only 24 out of 66 appearances. That’s hardly overpowering.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
What? The RED SOX aren’t built for a WS? The Red Sox aren’t a small market team just trying to keep up.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
couldn’t have happened to a bigger jackass. awesome.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
what’s tough about baseball “trades” is that they are very rare. I’d love to hear some Papelbon trade options … but what does a guy like that fetch? Right out of the gate you have to eliminate half the league because they can’t afford him, right?
The Phillies jump out because of their farm system and Lidge’s issues … what about other teams with suspect pens, like the Cubs?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
And eliminate the entire AL.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
TBL, it would have to be a good team that’s figured to contend, otherwise picking up a closer by giving up a lot of prospects doesn’t make sense. Temas that need closers that contend are:
Phillies
Brewers
Rays
Cubs
maybe Braves?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This season just never felt right for the Sox, from my perspective. Schilling retires, Dice-K is basically lost for the year in April, Lowell was constantly hurt, Papelbon lost his invincibility (at least at times this year).
I’m not gonna lose sleep over it.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
anyone else having issues with the site?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
TJ
the current poll on espn.com is about whether or not rush Limbaugh should be allowed to own part of a team. unsurprisingly the states break up like a presidential election
end tj
October 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
i really don’t want that jig dancing bitch on the phils
October 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The only thing better than the Red Sox getting swept is thePeter Gammons Theme song
October 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Wakefield/Other
never heard of Other
October 12th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Yeah, not only is it taking forever to load, but the newest post will randomly disappear, along with any comments. After I typed my comment above, when I refreshed, this whole post disappeared and the “newest” post was the Ted Thompson one.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
eh, papelbon will be traded at somepoint.
it’s not crazy to think they would sign bay and trade for Adrian Gonzalez, essentially putting Ortiz in a bench/occasional DH role along with Varitek. Trade Lowell, slide Youk to 3rd, keep Martinez at Catcher, Gonzalez at 1st and someone at SS.
/wishful thinking.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Comments are disappearing too. I didn’t know AOLPress was still in existence, let alone being used.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Great Sunday for a Boston hater.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Who do they replace Papelbon with? Closers, while they can be found in odd places at times, don’t exactly grow on trees. What’s Boston’s farm situation look like in terms of pitching?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
hello?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Deadspin has a pretty outstanding collection of twitter overreactions to “black sunday” up right now.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
absolutely NSFW, but if you’re at home …
(californication scene)
http://www.wwtdd.com/2009/10/oh-hell-yes-4/
October 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I had a comment post and then it disappeared. what the hell is going on today?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
maybe the monday after a pretty busy sports sunday isnt the best time to tinker with site tbl. just sayin.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I’m guessing it’s something with how the caching works with the way the site is coded and it’s conflicting with soft refreshes. F5 makes it work right, but I’m not even remotely dedicated enough to hit that every time.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
If they can get a decent package for him, they have Bard, Delcarmen, and even Billy Wagner (!!!) for the closer role. Even if they don’t have a definitive closer, that’s the whole idea of rebuilding.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I can’t remember if the Cards signed him to a long term deal or not, but if they did, why not Pappelbon for Holliday?
October 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Yeah. Maybe wait until tomorrow following the J E T S JETS JETS JETS getting waxed by the Fins.
/builds a fire and throws on some gasoline
October 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
If the Cards give up Holliday (which they can’t cause they don’t have him signed to a long term deal) for a reliever that’s a terrible deal.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
the current poll on espn.com is about whether or not rush Limbaugh should be allowed to own part of a team. unsurprisingly the states break up like a presidential election
I hate Rush Limbaugh, but the idea that people don’t think he should own a team because of his politics is a scary thought (and a slippery slope)
/just sayin’
//i’m out until about 4-5, so this is not a political fight
October 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
They could pick up one of the fifteen or so best offensive players in the game on a straight salary dump? That would be a pretty smart plan, they should probably do that.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
even Billy Wagner (!!!) for the closer role.
Not sure I’d want to rely on Wagner as my option for closer. He’s coming off of Tommy John surgery and he’s getting up there in years. I can see using him in a setup role though.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The Post reported this morning that many Rams players who were only willing to speak off the record didn’t want him not because of his politics but because they felt he’d shown racist attitudes. Take that for what it’s worth, but apparently that’s how people really feel. Also he’d definitely be a limited minority owner, which I hadn’t heard confirmed before.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
because that would be an idiotic thing to do.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
by the way, Gonzalez wouldn’t be a salary dump. He has a pretty team friendly deal
October 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Don’t let the noise seep in. If say Mitch McConnell wants to buy a team, nobody is going to give a shit and he’s head of the Senate Republicans, not a big fan of liberals and obviuosly stands against Democrats. African-Americans, in particular, dislike for Rush has nothing to do with politics, but has to do with his loooooooonnng record of saying alot of racist shit.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Herb Kohl owns the Bucks, and no one seems to care. Maybe that’s because Kohl is hardly ever on CSPAN and no one really knows what he thinks other than video games are too violent.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Duffy is totally right about this naysayers. Go Duffy.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
What? Baseball trades are probably the easiest of all sports because there is NO salary cap and there is a minor league system. Not sure where you get that they are ‘rare’ from.
Also the Red Sox can pay someone to take Papelbon if they want so cost is not an issue, or they can trade him for another high priced payer saying the trading team money.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Anybody have any details of the Fantasy Football girl on the main page? Who is that?
October 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
The Red Sox’ goal is to win the World Series. It is (technically) for every team. But, you build a team to win 95 games out of 162 and hope you’re playing well and get a little luck in October, so the idea that those three games would spell out some major weakness is idiotic.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Anybody have any details of the Fantasy Football girl on the main page? Who is that?
Her name is Sara. She has huge bewbs. She reads the things she says from cue cards, but is a little farsighted. Whoever writes it doesn’t know anything about fantasy football. And she has huge bewbs.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
this.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I think the idea of Rush Limbaugh being constantly referred to as a “minority owner” is enough for me to get behind the idea. (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)
I can see both sides here: if he’s got the money and is willing to spend, then go ahead and let him be part of the ownership group.
But on the flip side of the coin, he makes his money as a controversial commentator and says some things that divide and isolate folks, he’s a lightning rod.
This just strikes me as a case of “yeah, I suppose you CAN do it, but you probably SHOULDN’T.”
October 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Baseball people are obsessed with closers. If the Red Sox decide to trade him, someone will bite with a good package. Cleveland signed Kerry Wood last year for two-years $20 million. Mets gave K-Rod an outrageous deal. A potential contender trying to upgrade the bullpen…Cubs, Phillies possibly others would look at Papelbon.
As for the Red Sox missing Papelbon. They made the playoffs 2003 to 2005 with three different closers. Two of the years, the position was a trainwreck. If you have Mariano Rivera, that’s one thing. But, I don’t think there’s much difference between a good closer and a good setup guy.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
i would agree with those saying its not a politics thing. hes just mostly considered an asshole, misogynist, and a racist.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Please explain how building a team to win 95 games is any different than building a team to win the WS? THEY ARE THE SAME especially for the big spenders, that is the bottom line. Unless somehow you can trade for little luck in october (wink Halladay wink wink C Lee wink)
October 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
just like MLB, the NFL has final say over who owns the teams. Can’t really see Goodell giving the thumbs up to a guy who makes such outlandish public comments that would reflect poorly on the league.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The playoffs are a crap shoot. That’s all they are. You build a team to get you to October so you have the opportunity to win the World Series. You’re not building a team FOR the World Series, you’re building it so you are one of the lucky eight that has the chance to get a few breaks and win it all. Baseball isn’t football or basketball where the better team actually wins a large amount of the time. Even the best baseball teams only win 60-65 percent of their games.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
They are not a crapshoot. Sometimes statistically anomalies happen but that is true in every sport see Arizona Cardinals.
Also, I am pretty sure you 60-65 number would be different if you extrapolated only using players on the playoff roster (granted in playoffs you will play better competition). But the point is that you build a team to Win the most games possible.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Baseball people are obsessed with closers. If the Red Sox decide to trade him, someone will bite with a good package.
Closers, I agree, can be overrated (just as the Save is probably the most overrated statistic in all sports), but it’s difficult to deny the value of a fresh pitcher with a good 95+ fastball and a killer breaking ball coming into a close game and keeping the lid on.
They made the playoffs 2003 to 2005 with three different closers.
While I see your point, it bears mentioning the Keith Foulke had a monster year in 2004, especially in the playoffs. He undoubtedly contributed much to Sox winning the Series that year.
But, I don’t think there’s much difference between a good closer and a good setup guy.
Remember when they tried ‘closing by committee’ before Francona was there? How did that work out? You are right though, the difference between quality setup man and closer is a very slight one.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
this is strictly semantics. if your goal is to win a world series, you do everything possible to arm yourselves with a team to win the world series.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Yes they are.
Just because it went poorly one time, doesn’t mean it would go poorly every other time. Closer by committee might not be the right way to go about things, but having your best reliever only pitch in the 9th is absolutely not the right way to go about things, that much is certain.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Closer by committee might not be the right way to go about things, but having your best reliever only pitch in the 9th is absolutely not the right way to go about things, that much is certain.
Oh I agree, which is why I said that the Save is a worthless statistic and managers use closers to get ‘Saves’ rather than pitch in what is actually the most pivotal point of the game, which can sometimes actually be in the 7th or 8th innings. This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
they are such a crapshoot that the Yankees have one won once every 5 years over the last 100 years. they are just really lucky.
/sarcasm
October 12th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Last year the Angels traded for Mark Teixera even though they were winning their division handily. Ostensibly this was so “they had a big bat for the playoffs”. You know how much Mark Teixera, a legitimately great player, improved their playoff odds according to Baseball Prospectus big brain computer programs? 2-3%. You just aren’t making moves in baseball for October (or you shouldn’t be). It is luck.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
If there had been the Wild card/multiple divisions for most of that hundred years this wouldn’t be the case.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
you mean like the 4 they won in 6 years? i count the diamondbacks series, because it was after that they started to break things up of that specific team.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
An incredible run of luck I knew you would bring up. That will never happen again. And Atlanta, at least, was a significantly better team than the Yankees in that first title. Yankees won though because in baseball the best team doesn’t always (perhaps even often) win it all.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
this must be the case in all sports. just because you were built to win it, and you didn’t, doesn’t mean that you weren’t built to win it. the red sox friggin failed. they played a shitty series, agree. but to say they weren’t built to win the world series is not accurate.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Please. I want to be the House than since they ALWAYS at an advantage to win.
Who did they give up for him? The traded for him because it was a good move to make on many levels, one of them helping to to win more games but also being able to be the first to negotiate with him (at a higher price too since it would not have cos draft pick)
October 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
this is so laughable. during this run, they had a team that a lot of people will argue that was the best team of all time, and they followed that team up with 2 more titles to help back it up. yep, luck. please, that is epic fail to suggest that team was just lucky.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Of course they were good. They were very good. They were also very lucky to win that many titles. Because WINNING TITLES IN THE WILD CARD ERA IS LUCKY.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
please, that is epic fail to suggest that team was just lucky.
sparty, if you’re suggesting the luck and chance have no part in the outcome of sporting contests, then I have some lovely mountain view property in east Texas I’m sure you’d enjoy.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
no no. the yanks weren’t very good. they were fucking great. fantastic. the best. they whooped teams in the playoffs. They went 16-3 in world series play. that is not luck.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
being very lucky and having some luck play into it is completely different. he said they were very lucky. that’s just not the case. they were just so much better than everyone.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
What’s the luck to talent ratio we are giving each win? Of course luck comes into play, and then to blame a three game series on pure luck is asinine.
Also, duffy, the red Sox are built to win the WS, not 95 games. Luck doesn’t magically take over at game 163.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
from now on, every time the yanks don’t win in october, it is because they are just unlucky.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The sample size is totally different. That is where luck does magically take over at game 163.
Playoff odds at the start of a series, even between the worst playoff team and the best according to the sabermetric sites, is never more than 65-35 (and I don’t think I’ve actually seen that large a difference ever in the five years I’ve been paying attention), which leaves a lot of wiggle room for luck.
Mr. Steinbrenner, please stop yelling at your television. It’s time for your meds.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
being very lucky and having some luck play into it is completely different. he said they were very lucky. that’s just not the case. they were just so much better than everyone.
They were much much better than most other teams, BUT, they also caught some lucky breaks. If you want to go through the season and playoffs and dissect every pivotal play and tell me that that was due entirely to skill, you can certainly try. But before you do that, let me drop this on your head: good teams are often more likely to have good luck because their skill sets put them in a better position to take advantage of a lucky happenstance: if a pitcher balks, a team that has the bases loaded is going to be able to take advantage of it much better than a team that sucks at getting on base. But saying that they are ‘lucky’ is not to diminish their talent level.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
tell your coworkers you aren’t sick…that it is just envy.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
It’s the old cliche luck is where preparation meets opportunity. It’s not pure luck if a team wins the World Series, but it is unpredictable.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I prefer to think of it as the Universe correcting itself.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
at times it is. but to suggest that a team is not built to win the world series is disingenuous.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I mean the yanks this year are about 25% chance to win. Stated another way it is very likely that the Best Team does not win the world series. That is what you would expect. Why are would you say that this is bad luck?
October 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The headline matches the final sentence, but neither are backed up by content in the body of the post.