Monday, October 02, 2006

Change of subject and refocus....

First a quick note on the Pats - I have not read the paper yet, but I wonder what the reaction will be that the Pats TROUNCED a good team. Scoring 38 points in the process. Everyone (especially Borges) was so down on these guys.

But, back to the Sox. Did anyone read Edes piece on the rebuilding of the Sox. A few things jumped out at me. Particularly in this quote from Epstien:

"One, it revealed we had flaws on the team, weaknesses on the team, that were revealed some but not exposed in the first half. Two, everything that could go wrong did go wrong, to an extent that I've never seen before and probably was close to unprecedented in modern baseball."

I agree the team had flaws, but I think it is a bit self serving and naive to say that everything that could go wrong did go wrong to the extent that it was unprecedented in modern history. Huh? Perhpas there is hyperbole in there. And sure there were things that went wrong, but really what went wrong that none of could have foreseen (or been able to forsee)? Maybe Coco's finger? Or Wake's injury. Clement had been shaky since ASB 2005. Wells is old. Same with Timlin. Nixon is always hurt. Foulke has sucked since October 27, 2004. Lester was not even supposed to be in Boston, so that can't really count. Maybe someone could say Beckett was a disappointment, but he was inconsistent and he has been that his entire career - its usually just the result of injury instead. He did have career highs in Wins and Innings. So maybe Tek's injury was a surprise.

Now if we had looked back and say everything went wrong, we could have had a rookie 1b that did not adapt to everyday play. We could have had a new middle IF or two not adapt to the pressures of Boston (that certainly has happened before), Lowell could have continued his 2005 performance, Schilling could have remained a shell of his prior self, and Ortiz could have come back to earth a bit. So, Theo, after you stop feeling sorry for yourself, maybe you will see that EVERYTHING did not go poorly.

And yet he continued:

``Look, we knew that there were players being pushed into roles that we thought at this point in their careers would be fortunate to [succeed]. Go back and look at June, how well Lester was pitching right off the bat. That's rare for that stage. Not everyone has the same assimilation to the big leagues as Jonathan Papelbon. That happens about once a generation."

Okay, but who exactly is he talking about Hansen, Delcarmen, Lester? Not really. They were pushed into those positions because everyone else sucked. None of those guys were on the opening day roster, if I recall correctly. Go back and look at June? How about we look at April or January. That is when the team was built.

And then to suggest that what happened with Papelbon was soooo very outstanding? Are you kidding? I guess he forgot about Huston Street coming in the year before and being one of the top closers in the league as a rookie.

Okay, that is about all the venting I will do on Theo. I still believe. I just don't like anyone thinking we are all naive.

1 comment:

  1. I agree - note he didn't say it was unprecedented in team history; it was unprecedented in modern baseball history. Self-serving is right. I mean, they're smart enough to know that some things will go wrong and others will go right ("so maybe Clement will continue to suck, but at least one of the new guys will be great"), but as baseball guys they know it's all about probability. And there's a chance the good things you hope for, or even expect, won't pan out.