JoeC

No one is taking this one set up on a tee for you all??

Cancel today's game so we don't have to see Lynn. See if things somehow improve tomorrow.

No worries and no need to apologize. Again, it's been one of the more thought-provoking discussions I've had in awhile.

Definitely has been a really good conversation, and I appreciate your challenging my thoughts.

I agree with everything you say as well, especially the bolded two paragraphs. That's essentially a way more simple and elegant way of expressing what i was trying to describe with roving instructors, etc. As for your question on alignment between the Ryan and Maddux examples, the alignment happens between the coaches at the different levels. Your third paragraph is exactly spot on to my thinking, only the specific items that each player would have the opportunity to maximize / develop at each level would likely change based on competition, coaching, physical maturity, etc., and that's where the serious thinking has to happen within the org. Again, my key point is in alignment and buy-in at the org / coaching level. Having a "type" of pitcher that your organization specializes in helps to simplify the coaches' jobs, but at the end of the day, it's up to the farm system to maximize any assets.

and get a HBP-induced injury to boot.

Again, it just comes down to the organization having a clear alignment on each player's path toward maximizing their potential, which means alignment and buy-in by each coach at each affiliate on a) what to develop to maximize; b) how to get the most out of the player. Right now, the Sox seem to have zero of that, and Fulmer's quotes, while it can be taken as comments from a bitter "failed" prospect, seem to agree with my abovementioned hypothesis.

I don't know enough on the specifics of coaching baseball (I'm a hockey guy when it comes to coaching). That said, I would assume that there are certain fundamentals that are common to all pitchers (like the mental game). If I had to guess though - I'd say: 1. All else being equal, you'd draft one type of pitcher. Unless a guy is a true can't-miss prospect, you favor the guy you know your pipeline can maximize. --or-- 2. Your strategy is, especially in the lower minors where you can have somewhat-overlapping teams, you'd steer your "power" guys more toward one affiliate and your "control" guys more toward another affiliate. At the higher levels, you'd just work on reinforcing the message or having pitching coaches cede overall responsibilities to organizational coaches (roving pitching coaches) who are more specialized in dealing with certain guys. When it comes to player development (again, this is based on my experience in hockey, so baseball may be wildly different), there's a good amount of alignment and communication between various levels, which CAN include "ok - I don't know how to develop this kid. What are the 3 things I should look out for, and can you lay down that groundwork for me to work with him?" I've done this at the youth levels, and I know it's done at the professional levels (NHL / AHL / ECHL) Again, just my amateur opinion and idealistic oversimplification....

Depending on your perspective (perspectives on this board vary wildly), that may be seen as good or bad.

Yeah - at the end of the day, the off-the-field care (like billet families) is really nice, but if you don't have a good plan for direct baseball activities.... you end up with players who are well-adjusted who suck.

If you bring someone in like Katz, you bring in the person (or people) who best fit the mold of the pitchers they'll be inheriting. This is likely why you often see multiple hitting / pitching coaches at the big league level. As for the vertical integration being a magic bullet... of course, the coaches, players, and scouts all have to be good enough. If you have s%*# scouts bringing in supremely talented players that don't fit any sort of development mold, that's going to overwhelm the coaching staff and confuse the players. If you have the greatest coaching staff that's perfectly aligned with the scouts, but the players suck... you can't make chicken soup out of chicken s%*#. If you have scouts bringing in the "right" players who are supremely talented into a pipeline of shitty coaches, there's no way to maximize the return on your player capital investment. Anyways, that's my arm chair quarterbacking. Clearly there's a reason I'm posting on Soxtalk and not working in professional sports, but my views are derived from what I've gathered about how winning organizations operate... and hell - even how effective corporations operate.

This part of your post is where I want to take things a step further. In the scenario where you're selling the farm for a "win now" season, teams like the Dodgers and Rays (and Guardians and others) appear to have some sort of steady pipeline they've developed that can consistently produce assets to the big league club - whether in the form of players who are ready to contribute to the club directly, or whether they are valuable as tradeable assets for big league contributors. The Sox stocked their farm system by grabbing the best minor league talent that big league talent can buy, but they've done NOTHING to develop a development pipeline. That's why Project Birmingham piqued my interest (what a month that was...), and that's where I will continue to be most critical of this organization's baseball operations.

Basically exactly what @The Kids Can Play said below: The quote(s) by Fulmer indicate that at each stop up the minor league ladder, there was a different coach with a different philosophy or "idea" who would try to make his mark on Fulmer. By the time Fulmer got to the big leagues, the physical traits and talent that made him successful at Vanderbilt had been coached out. To me, that's two different things. There's the "what to teach" part of it (mechanics, skills, approach to the game, etc.), and then there's the "how to teach it" part of it. What I've been ranting about is the "what to teach," and that's largely what I interpret Fulmer's complaints to be about. The "how to teach it" is what you're talking about - how to get the players to buy in, how to motivate players, how to make the light bulb turn on. Ultimately, that part of the coaching jobs is too nuanced and hands-on to ever be obsolete... if you can teach people to give a s%*# and be humble enough to realize their coaches might know a thing or two... and if you CAN actually teach the skills, then you're bound to be a damn good minor league coach.

Sure, but the Sox need to: 1. Identify coachable players (with talent and upside) 2. Develop and align on a vision of where the player ought to end up, what type of pitcher the player the organization sees in the future 3. Coach consistently across all levels of the minors (and big leagues) to give a continuity of instruction Yeah, coaching starts in high school (or before), but that's not really something the Sox can control other than to assess its impact on the player at the time of acquisition.

How could he forget? look at his numbers against us. Pretty sure he’s got us marked on his calendar.

I would hope at that point it would be Sosa.... but never say never

I'd like to propose updating some "reactions" to include: -Something conveying a "I agree with this, but it makes me want to cry" sentiment -Hahn

100% agree.

Yeah, not really disputing that - just stating that you DO have to give Hahn credit for the 2016 rebuild, including maximizing player value in the years leading up to 2016. No more, no less.

In other words, unless guys live up to their potential?

This is the type of team that you DO hire Ozzie for. I would basically only hire Ozzie in a "break glass in case of emergency" situation. If anyone can do something to turn a ship like this around, it's Ozzie. If he fails, it'll be entertaining as hell.

San Diego seems like they'd overpay, but I'm not sure I trust Hahn trading with them in a deal involving pitchers and prospects.

Not to defend Hahn, but who signed them to those deals, thus maximizing trade valuation? He's fallen completely flat on his face in the "win now" mode, but he did do some good things before.

Shouldn't prevent us from thinking of the worst-case scenario so we can have reality suck a little less in comparison later.

Cynical prediction: Hahn pulls off a trade for Ohtani. Pro: we get a half season of Ohtani. Con: what we get from Ohtani doesn't matter, as the team is so far out of it anyways. We give up any remaining valuable assets that we have left, and Ohtani leaves at the end of the season with no compensation in return, thus leaving us even further barren.