The conversations were starting to spread on this topic. So, let's keep them here.

Vote on how you feel about the deal for Gagne and tell us why?

I can't even figure out why there should be an argument on this one........

I'm way on board with this deal. To me the Sox had one glaring weakness at the deadline and that was in the pen. Papelbon obviously can't be counted on to be ready for multiple games in a row as he was last season. Okajima was a worry because it appeared he was heading for way too many innings before September even arrived. Timlin is banged up and aging. And there are two kids (Delcarmen and Lopez) who haven't had any real experience in a MLB post-season race.

Getting Gagne gives the Sox a veteran with big game experience and can also step into the closers role when Paps isn't available. He isn't the Gagne of a few years ago, but he still has good solid stuff that can touch greatness on occassion. He provides the Sox with a setup man that should prevent Okajima from being overused and allow him to be used more often in matchup roles. He keeps Delcarmen in position to pitch less stressful innings to get his feet under him. Overall that gives the Red Sox some much needed depth in the pen and makes the game more manageable.

The other benefit of this deal involves the starting pitching and lineup. Don't think for a moment that Gagne doesn't give both a boost. For the starting pitchers, they have a little more comfort with the understanding that the pen should not be taxed. They can just rock and fire knowing that the pen should be ready to take over when they start to tire. The lineup should also have a different level of comfort. They shouldn't be pressing to score 10 runs a game. They just need to try and get a lead heading into the seventh inning with the understanding that the pen will nail the game down more often than not.

Some people have mentioned that the Sox beat out the Yankees and prevented Gagne from making them better. That's right, but there were more than a few contenders looking for Gagne to bolster their pens. The Sox got the best pen arm available. And I'm estatic about that.

Feel good, after feeling really bad when I first heard the news. As all the pundits are saying, good relief for both Okie and Paps. I know Paps is a scary thing this year. If he gets through this year with no fatigue(minimal) or re-injury,I will feel a lot better in 2008. I think Okie is going to be OK, based on his history in Japan, but Tito does have a fondness of riding a horse until it stumbles, and maybe falls. So some relief for him can't hurt. I just hope that Tito doesn't take every close game and go: 7th - Okie, 8th - Gagne, and 9th - Paps. This will defeat the whole purpose of "rest". I am afraid we are going to have more close games than not, with the bats as silent as they are. :wtf: :wtf: This line up was supposed to be marginally less than the MFY, and have they awaken.
Worry is similar to Paps, how long is that arm (and back) going to last after the touble he has had the last couple of years. That is why I did not vote "Great".

Time will tell the story; would have liked to have more confidence in Lester and Schilling before making the move but Gagne offers some qualities that are exceedingly desirable and potentially crucial ..

Well, as I have expressed, adding Gagne gives the Sox the ability to turn games into 6 inning affairs.

The supposed late game rotation at this point is:

7th- Okajima
8th- Gagne
9th- Paps

Now, obviously this will vary from game to game. But, when you consider that this also means that you can mix and match your way through the 6th with the likes of Snyder, Lopez, and MDC, you could almost make the argument that this turns games into 5 inning contests.

There's no lose here. This may be, in all likelihood, the best staff the Sox have ever had. I've been following for 33 years now, and I don't ever remember a better one. :confused:

Getting Gagne is a real difference making move, not tinkering for tinkering's sake (like, say, 2005). Like PASOX, I'm way on board with this deal.

although i would have like to see them get a bat so we could get a legit #5 hitter, i am happy they made this move, our BP is now lights out from the 7th inning and we can now control the innings of oki and paps better so they stay fresh for the stretch run and we were able to hang on to all of our top chips, kason was going to be the odd man out when shill came back and since tex was in need of pitching he will get a chance to pitch every 5th day

I am soooooo "on board" w/ Gagne that I can be Captain Stubing. It gives flexibility to Paps, Oki and MDC. We need the "extra arm" especially with Timlin achy breaky shoulder and Donnelly obviously isn't making an encore this season.
It doesn't bother me that he is a rental, Personally, I find that to be a plus.. so if he does pull a Nancy- we arent stuck for several more years

with the sox weirdly sometimes enemic offense this extra very good arm is critical,another high octane bat would have been great ,but this will likely do the job.way on board

I can't see any reseaonable argument against the move. You didn't give up any high prospects, you get the best avalible BP arm and when he leaves for free agency you get 2 picks.
Still worried about the offense, I think they still will make a move through a waiver trade to help tweak it.
You have to give the FO high marks for not making a panic move and not giving away the farm.

George,

I'm going to continue this over here instead of the Schilling thread since it has everything to do with the Gagne trade.

QUOTE George

A good presence in the bottom of the rotation is what separates a good starting staff from a great one. Our offense is average, and our bullpen is solid, so we need a great rotation to get them a lead.

Funny, I would have said that the Yankees' inability to find and stick with a dependable 5th starter is the difference between their record and ours, their overtaxed pen and our rested one. And the quality of our replacements had been a big advantage for us but now with only 2 subs that the FO would definitely use I'm not sure that's true anymore.

I disagree. There hasn't been a contending or championship winning team in recent history that has had a fifth starter that has made a significant difference in a team's fortunes. The vast majority of fifth starters on a regular basis are skipped over a few times during the season for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason being that they don't have the kind of ability that makes managers believe that they need to get as many starts as possible out of them. Some do in fact have a stretch or two during the season in which they perform well, but they can't sustain it over the course of an entire season. Otherwise, they wouldn't occupy the fifth spot in the rotation. I'm sure at some point through the years you can isolate a fifth starter that had a hell of a season that played a significant role in a team's success, but it would be far, far from the norm.

Look at most of the fifth starters over the past few years george. Some have decent W/L records, but their raw numbers suggest they are either average or below average. They gain a lot of wins because they either recieve a lot of run support or that the bullpen has been able to carry the lead and make it stand up for the last three or four innings of games. And they certainly are not making or breaking a team's success.

QUOTE George

The only individual closer on a contending team with fewer blown saves than the entire Red Sox bullpen is Seattle's J. J. Putz. That includes saves blown in "getting to the closer," as well as the 2 saves blown by Jonathan Papelbon.

We already had a shutdown bullpen if you bear in mind that no bullpen is going to have an ERA of 0. Gagne just makes a ridiculous pen even more ridiculous -- at some point as you upgrade a facet of your team you run into diminishing returns. Part of my reservations on this Gagne deal have to do with my belief that we've passed that point as pertains to the pen.

If you had asked me before the deadline I would have said the Tigers had a ton more to gain from picking up Gagne and they would have bowled the Sox over. I was shocked that they didn't try to package one of their young arms for such a solid pen option and I was even more shocked that they would rather stick with Jones as their closer than move decisively for Gagne.

Why the mention of Seattle? The problem with Seattle isn't their pen. It's the fact that they can't get any consistent run production and their starting rotation is subpar. Except of course when they play the Sox. :wtf:
But I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I disagree. The Red Sox did not have a shutdown pen. They had a pen that has been able to compensate for a real lack of depth. But it's highly unlikely that they could have sustained that over the last two months of the season. They are obviously still concerned with Paps, Timlin is hurt and Donnelly is shelved. Do you really think Okajima and Delcarmen could have carried an even bigger load down the stretch? Or better yet, why would you be willing to take that gamble with a post-season berth on the line? It just doesn't make sense on any level to take that gamle.

QUOTE George

I agree with your optimism regarding Schilling, but frankly it's naive to say that with a single-digit lead the 5th spot in the rotation isn't going to feature. If Lester does better than I expect he will (meaning he finishes with a good record and an ERA south of 4.5) that takes pressure off the top of the rotation guys and allows them to just go out there and play their game even if the lead we're standing on starts to get a bit melty around the edges. I know we're all going to be gladder when August is behind us and we still have a lead, and a full rotation of reliable starters will help us get there. I hope Lester can solidify that rotation but I think we're counting on him for too much in a recovery year.

Who's really naive here? You're making the assumption that no other team has similar issues with their fifth starter. And that's not the case at all. And that being the case... why do you think most teams ignored that fact and didn't go out and address it at the trade deadline? Well, I guess it's because no team is putting that much stock into who their fifth starter is.

But I guess what bothers me most is that you are ignoring the fact that almost every contending team in the American League has some type of hole in their pen. And every one of those teams were falling all over themselves to find some help. Yet the only team that got that much needed help was the Sox. So, how does losing Kason Gabbard and replacing him with a pitcher who has a ton more talent than him somehow make this deal a question mark? And since Lester has been receiving clean bills of health all season and getting stronger by the week I don't see how he can't do as well or better than Gabbard down the stretch.

I actually would support the idea of having a good number 5 (duh! everybody does) in the sense that I do agree w/ George that the back end of a rotation can be the difference in succesful teams and not.
Take a look at those late 90's Yankees and Red Sox teams. Offenses were about equal... top 3 starters were about equal. The Red Sox were consistently throwing out detritus like Pete Schourek while the Yankees were countering with guys like El Duque. Big Dif!!!!!

That said... the difference between Gabbard and Lester as the "no. 5" man is neglible if in fact there is any. Lester is already a better pitcher- I guess to everybody in the world but George now- and his long term projections are WAY ahead of Gabbard. This trade was a no-brainer...... if you could trade Gabbard for Lester, you'd do it without a seconds hesistation- unless you were a softie and enjoyed shooting yourself in the foot.

Ahhh, sorry Trot. You recollection of the mid and late 90's Yankees is fading away. The Yankees actually had a merry-go-round of fifth starters. And they were not what you would call world beaters. El Duque may have been a fifth for one year, but he moved up that rotation quickly. You better brace yourself, but those fifth starters included Hideki Irabu, Dwight Gooden, Ramiro Mendoza and a couple others. But that pen and lineup made all the difference.

Trot, I've already given you a whole bushel basketful of numbers that proved that Gabbard is the better pitcher based on performance. What standard are you relying on to say Lester's a better pitcher? You can't hide behind the lymphoma forever.

Lester is the better thrower. Considering that Gabbard is getting better results with what I'm sure you're going to cheerfully admit is inferior stuff (by which I assume you mean a lesser fastball, though even that's debatable considering that Kason's fastball is a two-seamer and Lester throws a 4 seam), that would make Kason the better pitcher.

I'm really interested in what standard you're using to determine otherwise.

What?????
that's a blatant lie. Show me a link that says that. Texas has been asking for Lester for a while now and Theo simply put him on his "untouchable" list.

Hiding behind the lymphoma? Are you serious? I won't even bother responding :rofl:

Better numbers? Don't bother. Like I've said... Lester was on FO mandated pitch counts and "missions" while in the mL's this season. Gabbard wasn't. Numbers are irrelevant there, and should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Oklahoma when looking at most pitching prospects numbers anyhow.

Lester is a better pitcher. Have your opinion and continue all you want.

I. AM. DONE. :thumbup:

Either way. Any of those guys were far superior to the pitchers the Sox were throwing out. During the offseason I posted Yankees starting pitching numbers between 97 and 99 and Red Sox pitchers between 97 and 99 and the top three were very close in both ERA and W's.
As soon as you dropped down to the 4,5 spots.... the Yankees SP's were out performing the Sox significantly- 10 W's+ differential.

If team A can throw out 3 Pedro Martinez' and 2 Bret Saberhagens... you'd really have to think they will beat a team B that throws out 3 Pedro Martinez' and 2 Pete Schoureks, no? huh

Alright, alright... Wait a minute. And you are basing this on what? Are you really going to try and sell this "Gabbard is better than Lester" based on 7 starts this season to Lester's two? Please tell me this isn't the case George. Please! And please don't use early minor league stats that are otherwise skewed based on the fact that the big clubs in many cases dictate what plan of attack a pitcher is focusing on. Otherwise you are swimming upstream and losing ground.

And... You do realize the Rangers were hunting after much bigger fish than Gabbard, right. I mean this deal boiled down to the Red Sox having the best offer they could get. Gabbard wasn't a prime target.

I'm basing this on the total of both of their work in the majors, which amounts to 90 innings for Lester and 60 for Gabbard, or so. I'm not using minor league numbers because franly neither of them were the pitchers they were when they put those numbers up.

Also at this point at least some of it's for honor's sake since Trotty won't give me an out.

I really don't want to get into this, but my memory of the Yankees and Sox in those years was much different than yours. I remember some god awful Red Sox rotations in those years. And some awful pens. And I really can't ever remember that the difference between those two teams was a fourth and fifth starter.

Were just going to have to agree to disagre and drop it.

We are definitely in a rare place right now as Sox fans with the pitching we've got. I can't remember a time when the bullpen, in particular, was better than it is now -- I'll give Gagne this much credit, he puts the bullpen well beyond doubt.

George, for what it is worth, let me share my point of view, Lester vs Gabbard, based entirely on actual on hand observations of performance. Throw the stats aside for now...
Between Lesters outings in 2005 and Gabbard in 2005 and early 2006, there is no comparrison in my opinion. I would guess ( estimate) my obseravtion is based on about 8 starts by each pitcher. Lesters only down side was that he struggled in the first couple innings of some games. There would be nights when it looked like he would not go deep and the next thing you know its the 7th or 8th and he set down 15-16 guys in a row and struck out 8-10. He can get hitters out by challengeing and overpowering the,. He was the Eastern Leaugue pitcher of teh year in 2005. He was flat out dominating.

Gabbard on the other hand, while sucessful, had to rely more on savy and driving hitters crazy with his softer stuff just off the plate. Simply did not over power hitters and relied ( not sayin this is a bad thing) on his mates to make the plays vs him outdueling the hitters. Different styles for sure.

As far as potential, I will take the guy who's stuff can strike hitters out and control the game in that manner, over the nibler every single time. Look at the pitchers who have had long term sucess and the profile is more like Lesters. It is rare that a guy with a style similar to Gabbard's is a long term sucess ( Jamie Moyer and Randy Jones come to mind). I am thrilled with the young guys coming up through now, but don't believe for a minute that Lester could not emerge as the #1 guy out of the bunch.

Stats do not tell the whole story George and I'm not going to battle in that area. We are talking potential greatness with Lester, plain and simple!!!

Anyway, to stay thread relevant, I am very pleased with the deal. We obtained a top shelf bullpen arm, one that has a lot to benifit personnally from helping us down the stretch. We gave up 2nd tier talent in Gabbard and Murph. I believe both will succeed in Texas and wish them well, but neither will be ALL Stars. As far as the young OF ( can't remember is name). He's 17 and can just as easily be a bust as a boom. Remember when we signed the younger Guerrerro brother a few years ago and expected greatness? Where is he now?

Okay....
Here's the Yankees "no. 1's-no. 5's" circa 98,99,00: ranked by innings pitched
'98
Andy Pettite 16-11 4.24ERA
David Cone 20-7 3.55ERA
David Wells 18-4 3.49ERA
----------------------------------
Irabu 13-9 4.06ERA
Duque 12-4 3.13ERA

Starters 1-3 combined 54-22 3.76ERA
Starters 4,5 combined 25-13 3.60ERA


'99
Duque 17-9 4.12ERA
Cone 12-9 3.44ERA
Pettite 14-11 4.70ERA
-----------------------------------
Clemens 14-10 4.60ERA
Irabu 11-7 4.74ERA

Starters 1-3 43-29 4.08ERA
Starters 4,5 25-17 4.67ERA


'00
Clemens 13-8 3.70ERA
Pettite 19-9 4.30ERA
Cone 4-14 6.91ERA
---------------------------------------
Duque 13-12 4.50ERA
Neagle/Mendoza 14-11 4.95 combined and split

Starters 1-3 36-31 4.95ERA
Starters 4,5 27-23 4.75ERA


The Red Sox
98'
Pedro 19-7 2.89ERA
Wake 17-8 4.58ERA
Saber 15-8 3.98ERA
------------------------------
Steve Avery 10-7 5.03ERA
Rose/Schourek 2-7 5.62ERA combined and split

Starters 1-3 51-24 3.85ERA
Starters 4,5 12-14 5.34ERA


'99
Pedro Martinez (comically didn't win the MVP) 23-4 2.07ERA
Pat Rapp 6-7 4.12ERA
Saber 10-6 2.95ERA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The legendary Mark Portugal 7-12 5.51ERA
Rose/Mercker/Ho Cho 11-9 5.67ERA combined and split

Starters 1-3 39-17 3.05ERA!!!!!!
Starters 4,5 18-21 5.59ERA

'00
Pedro 18-6 1.74ERA
Jeff Fassero 10-8 4.70ERA
Ramon Martinez 10-8 6.13ERA
-----------------------------------------
Pete Schourek 3-10 5.11ERA
Arrojo/Ohka/Rose 11-13 4.85ERA

Starters 1-3 38-22 4.14ERA
Starters 4,5 14-23 4.98ERA

Shall I compare directly?
98 Yankees 1-3: 54-22 3.76ERA
98 Red Sox 1-3: 51-24 3.85ERA

98 Yankees 4,5: 25-13 3.60ERA
98 Red Sox 4,5: 12-14 5.34ERA

Shall I put that in your pipe?

Further:

99 Yankees 1-3 43-29 4.08ERA
99 Red Sox 1-3 39-17 3.05ERA

99 Yankees 4,5 25-17 4.67ERA
99 Red Sox 4,5 18-21 5.59ERA

Are you smoking the stuff I put in your pipe yet?

00 Yankees 1-3 36-31 4.95ERA
00 Red Sox 1-3 38-22 4.14ERA

00 Yankees 4,5 27-23 4.75ERA
00 Red Sox 4,5 14-23 4.98ERA

Feelin' it yet?

Great stuff, Trots. Wow.

My memory of the Sox' early-00's rotations is also that they were pretty horrid, though.

Not to dismiss that the Yankees had that great bullpen.

but the Sox bullpen during that stretch was actually pretty impressive too.
Beck, Guapo and Gordon... then Lowe.
I casually looked at the numbers and outside of the difference between Mo and the rest... the bullpens compare pretty nicely too.

It really had ALOT.... (obviously not everything) to do with the back end of the rotation.

Oh for love of.... Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me, outside of '98 with the likes of Pat Rapp, Jeff Fassaro, and Ramon Martinez making up some portion of 2 thru 3 in the years you bring up.. that the difference between these two teams was the 4 and 5 slots?

Nah, forget what I said. Please pass along whatever you want me to put in my pipe because I gotta experience the ridiculous high you're going through! I mean it! Anything that makes you believe Rapp was part of an effective first three has got to be the best shit anyone would ever smoke. :homage:

And by the way, the conversation began talking about the fifth spot in the rotation. Nice job adding the fourth spot to try and rally support for yourself. ;)

Is it really that ridiculous PASOX? The #4 and #5 guys pitch a little less than 40% of your baseball games. I'd rather not raise the white flag on a third of my baseball season if I was a GM. Most real GM's seem to agree.

Those bottom of the rotation slots are generally where the biggest market teams project their greatest advantage. They can afford to field a good lineup and pen and still put talented pitchers down in those slots which teams with weaker payrolls generally cannot do. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the Yankees dynasty teams could beat you 1 through 5 with pitching. It's just about the only way I can think of to actually build a dynasty because without a good rotation 1 through 5, reaching the playoffs is often a matter of pure dumb luck

All but the very worst teams in baseball have have a good #1 and most of them have a good #2. Even the Royals have Meche and Bannister and the Rays have Kazmir and Shields. It's what you put in the otner 3 slots that often determines which way the division goes.

We are having a whole different discussion here George. We are talking about a specific time period and two teams we are having a discussion about.

Don't mix up arguments on us here ;)

The point is that if you look at the IP's by the "top three" by both clubs they are strikingly similar. If you look at W/L record in the top three they also are strikingly similar.
If you look at ERA in the top three they're still strikingly similar.
As soon as you drop down to the 4,5... they Yankees gain 10 wins and more than a run of ERA immediately.

Was it manipulating the stats? Sure. But you can still create groups out of those 3 and realize that a major strength of the Yankees during that time was back end of the rotation depth. It wasn't for the Sox. But we had some nice no. 2 pitchers there that matched up with the Yankees, and some nice no. 3's that held their own also. I can't even say the same for our respective 4,5's.