Options
Red Sox sign Mike Timlin to a one-year contract
Barndog
Posts: 20,458 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Why? Why? Why? Anyone have more faith than me and can explain how this is a good move?
0
Barndog
Posts: 20,458 ✭✭✭✭✭
Barndog
Posts: 20,458 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
or Foulke
or Hansen
or DelCarmen
or...
The shortage of pitching availability is not an excuse to re-sign a pitcher who is completely ineffective at this point in his career. Once that K/9 rate dips sharply for middle relievers, they have lost most of their value to the team. Timlin managed only 11 stirkeouts in 25.2 innings (3.85 K/9 versus career 6.62) during the final 2 months of the year, while giving up 19 runs on 39 hits to go along with it.
If Epstein doesn't make some significant moves this offseason and get the overall attitude changed on that team, I have little doubt they will be competing with Baltimore and Tampa Bay next year moreso than NY or Toronto.
<< <i>Timlin was like a corpse out there last season by August and September.
The shortage of pitching availability is not an excuse to re-sign a pitcher who is completely ineffective at this point in his career. Once that K/9 rate dips sharply for middle relievers, they have lost most of their value to the team. Timlin managed only 11 stirkeouts in 25.2 innings (3.85 K/9 versus career 6.62) during the final 2 months of the year, while giving up 19 runs on 39 hits to go along with it.
If Epstein doesn't make some significant moves this offseason and get the overall attitude changed on that team, I have little doubt they will be competing with Baltimore and Tampa Bay next year moreso than NY or Toronto. >>
I am inclined to agree with you, unfortunately
I love having Timlin in the bullpen, just not for 2.5
Arthur
<< <i> should have won in 2003 (HGH Giambi's HR's were the difference), >>
This coming just days after Jerry stated that having Gary Sheffield (HGH) on the Red SOx sounded pretty good. Oh the hypocracy
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
For decades the Red Sox as an organization have operated under the mantra "sacrifice the future for right now" and it never worked out. I like the idea of building towards a solid string of contending years and am willing to take a few lumps along the way. The overwhelming need to win this instant in Boston is gone (to an extent) and they're trying to take the organization in a direction the Yankees were in mid- to late-90s. I don't see them blowing up the team or trotting a group of players out there that aren't capable of winning games and at the same time they're progressively trying to make the team younger and better for the long haul.
Arthur
<< <i>For decades the Red Sox as an organization have operated under the mantra "sacrifice the future for right now" and it never worked out. I like the idea of building towards a solid string of contending years and am willing to take a few lumps along the way. The overwhelming need to win this instant in Boston is gone (to an extent) and they're trying to take the organization in a direction the Yankees were in mid- to late-90s. I don't see them blowing up the team or trotting a group of players out there that aren't capable of winning games and at the same time they're progressively trying to make the team younger and better for the long haul. >>
Josh Bard, Cla Meredith for Doug Mirabelli.
Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett.
<< <i>
<< <i>For decades the Red Sox as an organization have operated under the mantra "sacrifice the future for right now" and it never worked out. I like the idea of building towards a solid string of contending years and am willing to take a few lumps along the way. The overwhelming need to win this instant in Boston is gone (to an extent) and they're trying to take the organization in a direction the Yankees were in mid- to late-90s. I don't see them blowing up the team or trotting a group of players out there that aren't capable of winning games and at the same time they're progressively trying to make the team younger and better for the long haul. >>
Josh Bard, Cla Meredith for Doug Mirabelli.
Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez for Josh Beckett. >>
Unfortunately, we don't know about all the trades that weren't made. If you remember correctly, we were in a ridiculously tight bind and we needed a catcher. Do you remember watching Wakefield pitch without Varitek or Mirabelli? It was like Russian roulet. Every fifth pitch either got by the catcher, nearly got by the catcher or got swatted down by the catcher. It was like watching an NHL goalie getting peppered in his own end. I defy you to show me one person that thought Meredith was going to come up to the majors that quick and perform the way he did. What did you think of the trade when it happened? I bet you were just relieved to get somebody that could handle Wakefield's knuckler.
As for the Beckett deal, I think it's far from being in a position where you can determine who made out on that end. Beckett is still VERY young. But this trade, in some weird way, actually helps solidify my original point. The Sox had made a concerted effort to stick with the young arms they had brought up through the minors. With names like Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen, Hansen and a few others there simply wasn't room at the MLB level for that many pitchers who haven't proved themselves yet. At some point an organization has to prioritize their prospects, keeping the ones they think will pan out and dealing the ones they think won't when you can get good value for them.
How would you have felt if in 2005 they dealt Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen and Hansen for older players on their way out in order to increase their odds of winning JUST THAT YEAR? And if they didn't win? You'd be up in arms over how they traded away all these young players and never even won.
If you want to criticize an organization for past moves you have to include the moves that they didn't make and how much worse it could've been had they acted on the information they had AT THE TIME.
Prospects are always a roll of the dice. Some "can't miss" prospects can't maintain a level of play that even remotely resembles decent MLB. Some appear out of nowhere to have HOF careers. You think SF would have traded Francisco Liriano if they knew how good he was going to turn out? These things happen all the time. My point is that we're in a position to win NOW and we're putting ourselves in a positiono to win in the FUTURE.
Arthur
I had no problem with dealing Bard, Meredith was my concern. I had no problem with dealing Sanchez, I really wanted them to keep H. Ramirez. Despair over "today" has hurt them in the past (Bagwell, Lyle are notable ones in the distant past) and I saw some of that this past year and really didn't like it.
I always thought that the Sox make a mistake in not having Varitek catch Wakefield. I would hope they'll correct that problem in 07 and have catcher #2 work with someone else every fifth day.
<< <i>I reserve the right as a lifelong Sox fan to criticize them even when they win
You wouldn't be a Sox if you didn't.
Arthur