Yeah, I've never heard anything but good things about him as a person -- just about everyone who ever dealt with him called him the nicest guy in baseball -- but even nice guys reach the ends of their careers. Even if he doesn't catch somewhere, he's had a pretty decent one -- 8 years in the majors, 4 of them as a league-average or somewhat better pitcher, and he earned somewhere around $30M. Lots of pretty good pitchers can't say as much. Good luck to him.crystalline said:Masterson is a good kid. I'll miss him and Nava and (soon) Breslow.
I like to root for underdogs.
soxhop411 said:“@jcmccaffrey: Farrell said they’ll add a bullpen arm for Masterson. So DFA of Masterson not the move for Mookie. Farrell said moves to come in 48 hours”
jscola85 said:Masterson is a nice guy, but he was and is cooked. The Red Sox gave him a longer leash year than he deserved, so it's high time they made this move.
One of Hembree, Layne or Aro should get the call. Frankly at this point all three should be up by early September to see what they can offer for 2016.
grimshaw said:My guess is Pat Light will get a good look now since it doesn't make sense they would bring up just another guy otherwise. Plus he isn't on the 40 man yet.
Light had a miserable start in AAA and has been extremely wild, but he's the closest thing they have to a closer in waiting.
Junichi Tazawa is the closest thing they have to a closer in waiting. It's worth looking at other options, but Taz would probably be a closer on a lot of teams already.grimshaw said:My guess is Pat Light will get a good look now since it doesn't make sense they would bring up just another guy otherwise. Plus he isn't on the 40 man yet.
Light had a miserable start in AAA and has been extremely wild, but he's the closest thing they have to a closer in waiting.
Because he isn't a kid (24), it's garbage time, and they are clearing a roster spot for someone. It's just a guess. Could also be something outside the organization.Red(s)HawksFan said:
If Light has "had a miserable start in AAA and has been extremely wild", why rush him to the big league roster now? Leave him where he is until he settles down, figures it out or whatever he needs to do. If he has the upside and future of a "closer in waiting", there's no need to start his service clock now if he hasn't shown himself to be ready.
They wouldn't have signed Koji or had guys like Hanrahan or freaking Mujica if that were the case. He's 29 and has 1 major league save, so he hasn't even been a second option either.iayork said:Junichi Tazawa is the closest thing they have to a closer in waiting. It's worth looking at other options, but Taz would probably be a closer on a lot of teams already.
grimshaw said:Because he isn't a kid (24), it's garbage time, and they are clearing a roster spot for someone. It's just a guess. Could also be something outside the organization.
Do you have some evidence of Baird doing this? I don't remember reading that anywhere.fineyoungarm said:Allard Baird recommended to Ben Cherington that the team spend almost 10 million dollars for sentimental reasons and because of the continued hubris of the organization that they can "fix" broken pitchers. Exactly how was his velocity to be reacquired?
What happened to the slider? He rolled it out somewhat effectively now and then. Not the last two appearances. Did somebody decide that he could not throw it for strikes. Who?
I thought I might hear from you about this one. No direct evidence, and I shall lighten up on the Baird thing. However, for the employee holding his title to be the one involved in the details and evaluation and then making a recommendation to his boss is likely. Mea culpa.absintheofmalaise said:Do you have some evidence of Baird doing this? I don't remember reading that anywhere.
If you thought you might hear from me, or one of the other mods, on it, then you shouldn't have posted it. Don't state opinions or assumptions as facts without evidence.fineyoungarm said:I thought I might hear from you about this one. No direct evidence, and I shall lighten up on the Baird thing. However, for the employee holding his title to be the one involved in the details and evaluation and then making a recommendation to his boss is likely. Mea culpa.
Rest assured that my "eephus pitch" has been retired.absintheofmalaise said:If you thought you might hear from me, or one of the other mods, on it, then you shouldn't have posted it. Don't state opinions or assumptions as facts without evidence.
Far be it from me to intervene here, but if the director of pro scouting didn't have a significant say in whether to spend $10 million on a reclamation project that's almost as concerning as if he recommended this particular craptasic move. I think there's plenty of reason to point at Baird here. He either made a bad recommendation or failed to have a big say in a major move. Neither covers him in glory.absintheofmalaise said:If you thought you might hear from me, or one of the other mods, on it, then you shouldn't have posted it. Don't state opinions or assumptions as facts without evidence.
Once again into the fray. Perhaps (I plan on using that word often) the issues really are:Smiling Joe Hesketh said:No they don't. It's a 1 year 9.5 million deal. For a 1 year deal no one should ever get fired. 1 year mitigates a ton of risk.
Now, the dude who talked the GM into signing Panda....
fineyoungarm said:Allard Baird recommended to Ben Cherington that the team spend almost 10 million dollars for sentimental reasons and because of the continued hubris of the organization that they can "fix" broken pitchers. Exactly how was his velocity to be reacquired?
What happened to the slider? He rolled it out somewhat effectively now and then. Not the last two appearances. Did somebody decide that he could not throw it for strikes. Who?
fineyoungarm said:Once again into the fray. Perhaps (I plan on using that word often) the issues really are:
1. Who saw what in Masterson that led to the contract (the amount of money being what raises some eyebrows, not the term)?
2. Is there an in house hubris (or some less fancy word) that has the team believing it is especially adept at reclamation projects?
3. Did "emotions" get the better of the team - probably we never should have traded him, but in any event he's a great guy and we'd love to have him back - we know him and can get him on track.
The answer to #1 will remain under wraps by the FO. As for #2, Masterson is hardly the first veteran signed by the Sox seemingly out of the belief that he has something left and they know how to get it (go back to Tom Seaver). Any moreso than other teams? I do not have the data.
#3 - Despite the occasional post indicating to the contrary, I am no mind reader. However, boy, it sure makes sense at least to me. It could even fairly be described as human nature. Had Masterson originally moved from the Angels to the Indians, would he have been in Red Sox uniform this season for almost an 8 figure salary? To me - doubtful.
Flynn4ever said:We had him before his prime, we had him after his prime, we missed his prime. This makes me appreciate the 2013 lightning in a bottle so much more, teams don't get that kind of lucky very often.
dcmissle said:It's a tough business, but he will get his money, and that's good.
Poster boy for the pitching farce generally, and the starting pitching fiasco in particular. But in fairness, lots of people here were drinking that Kool Aid -- "give us a Masterson and a Shields and we'll be fine."
Of course, we don't run the team.
fineyoungarm said:Rest assured that my "eephus pitch" has been retired.
fineyoungarm said:Once again into the fray. Perhaps (I plan on using that word often) the issues really are:
1. Who saw what in Masterson that led to the contract (the amount of money being what raises some eyebrows, not the term)?
2. Is there an in house hubris (or some less fancy word) that has the team believing it is especially adept at reclamation projects?
3. Did "emotions" get the better of the team - probably we never should have traded him, but in any event he's a great guy and we'd love to have him back - we know him and can get him on track.
The answer to #1 will remain under wraps by the FO. As for #2, Masterson is hardly the first veteran signed by the Sox seemingly out of the belief that he has something left and they know how to get it (go back to Tom Seaver). Any moreso than other teams? I do not have the data.
#3 - Despite the occasional post indicating to the contrary, I am no mind reader. However, boy, it sure makes sense at least to me. It could even fairly be described as human nature. Had Masterson originally moved from the Angels to the Indians, would he have been in Red Sox uniform this season for almost an 8 figure salary? To me - doubtful.
This was my fastball.soxfan121 said:
You didn't even make it 12 hours. You could have waited forever, as this post is chock full of worthless.
ETA: Thank god Masterson is gone. Nice guy who will be pitching in Nashua for an independent league team this time next year.
Average Reds said:
Masterson came up with the Sox and the FO was intimately familiar with the player and his makeup. They took a gamble that their knowledge of the player was such that they would be able to fix his mechanics. They were obviously wrong about that, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of incomprehensible, illogical flaw.
Criticize their talent evaluation or player analysis all you want, because (obviously) they failed in this regard. But to continually characterize the signing as a move driven by sentiment or emotion is utter, complete nonsense and you know it.
fineyoungarm said:
I did not write that the signing was driven solely by emotion - and you know that. I do not understand why the idea of "we really like this guy as a person and think we have the skills to improve his performance" is so incomprehensible.
Allard Baird recommended to Ben Cherington that the team spend almost 10 million dollars for sentimental reasons ...
Already retracted and said "mea culpa" for that one, Red. Last night.Average Reds said:
Go ahead and re-read my post very carefully. Stop when you find the word "solely." I'll wait.
And your characterization here is hilarious. You didn't originally state that the FO signed Masterson because "we really like this guy as a person and think we have the skills to improve his performance." you said the following:
If you can't figure out the difference, I can't help you.
My advice is to put down the shovel and stop digging.
fineyoungarm said:
I did not write that the signing was driven solely by emotion - and you know that. I do not understand why the idea of "we really like this guy as a person and think we have the skills to improve his performance" is so incomprehensible.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Because it makes no sense whatsoever. Do you remember that other "reclamation" projects by the Sox have worked out very well? Adrian Beltre was coming off some MISERABLE years in Seattle, and the Sox signed him to a 1 year, $10 million deal. It was entirely possible he could have sucked, that his long tenure in Seattle was who he was going to be going forward. Instead he had a terrific year. And Beltre had a ton of questions about his "character" or whatever loaded term people like to use to denigrate guys they don't like for some reason.
fineyoungarm said:
I do not believe that the Boston Red Sox would have signed Justin Masterson to a one year 9.5 million dollar contract, if he was not admired as a person throughout the organization by virtue of his history with the team, and a belief that, if he knee healed, the coaching staff could return him to some semblence of 2013 form. Without the prior history with the team, such a move would surprise me.
(Perhaps that the Cards appear to have expressed little or no interest in him at the end of the season should have been seen as a red flag.)
However, having poked some fun at myself and conceded to hyperbole, I leave the field of battle.
(Do we think they can "fix" Kelly?)