SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Discussion of 2014 and 2015 pitching rotations
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 9, 2014 18:58:18 GMT -5
Shields is older than the average free agent, and I doubt he gets five years. My guess earlier in the thread was 4/$90m. Don't want him at this price either....22.5/yr? No way. I'll stick to my guns and wait for the opportune time/place/person. He is a very good, not great, pitcher. Kershaw ok.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 9, 2014 20:17:33 GMT -5
If we miss out on Lester, shields and sherzer, do we make a run at Santana? To me he's not a guy you give up our 2nd or Oakland pick for. If the front office goes crazy and signs two other QO free agents that's different.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 9, 2014 21:32:04 GMT -5
Or put another way, what is it about Shields that makes people think he'll last to age 36 (age at the end of a 4 year deal) to merit this deal but don't believe Lester would do the same to age 36, which would be his age at the end of a 6 yr deal, which would be roughly at the same AAV (give or take $1M a year)? For one thing, I don't think there are many in this thread who would give four years to Shields but not six years to Lester. I've mentioned above that I'd slightly prefer Lester at 6/$144m over Shields at 4/$90m, though it's very close. But, and I've said this maybe a half-dozen times now, the idea is that it's easier to predict what happens three or four years from now than it is to predict what happens five or six years from now. We know Shields is healthy and productive at 32, so it's slightly easier to predict that he'll be healthy and productive from 33-36 than it is to predict that Lester will be healthy and productive from 33-36. It's still a considerable risk with Shields, but a slightly lesser one than it is with Lester that he'll be productive in his mid-thirties. I actually see it the opposite way - that with all the use on Shields' arm that he becomes more likely to become injured, especially with his type of build. He's been using his arm at a slightly higher volume for more years. But I agree, odds of breakdown for both are somewhat similar with, in my opinion, Shields odds being somewhat more likely at this point simply because of his age and the amount of pitches he's thrown 29,464p/1901i. He averaged about 1 less pitch and inning than Lester's 26,328/1,596i. However, during the last three years of his career Lester's threw122 fewer pitches overall than the same age years for Shields (incluing post-season). But during the last two years Shields' k/9 dropped nearly a full strikeout from the previous 3 years while his pitch counts increased by about a full pitch an inning. Still effective but working a bit harder to produce a bit less. He's further along, there's more wear and it's taking more effort. Barring some catistrophic injury, Lester will of course go through a similar decline with one difference - he is significantly more muscled and thicker framed than Shield. His build may bear the strains of pitching better over the same period than Shields as long as Lester stays in shape. Realistically, they could both blow up by April 15, 2015 (hey, they're pitchers), or they could both pitch within a 4.5-3.5 WAR range between now and when they reach age 36. At this moment in time I give the nod to Lester achieving this at a slightly higher probability than Shields because of Lester's build and because he threw fewer pitches from the beginning of his MLB career to the end of his age 30 season than Shields did over the same time span in his career. But really, without MRIs on their shoulders and elbows, it's an educated guess.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2014 4:01:58 GMT -5
I want to reiterate how little sense it makes to acquire two guys who have long-term commitments, especially because the second guy, as he ages, is very likely going to be a #3 type, not an ace.
Over the next 4, you'd have
Lester, Hamels or equivalent Shields or equivalent Buchholz (count on mid-rotation quality given the inconsistency, hope for more) Kelly
Now, what are the odds that you get two #3 types out of De La Rosa, Wright, Webster, Barnes, Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, and longshot Escobar? (I think Workman and Ranaudo have established a lower ceiling, but I can see Escobar recovering the stuff he had in 2013.) The first six guys at least have #3 ceilings (or better). I'd argue that Wright is already there, if they'd only give him a chance, and RDLR only seems to need stamina to get there. The marginal upgrade of a second FA signing over the second best of this group seems slight at best, quite possibly negative, and impossible to justify in terms of salary and acquisition cost.
And there's another reason to avoid this. A year from now, we ought to have a mouth-watering trade chip in either Swihart or (to teams who value pitch framing) Vazquez, and we'll have one more year of knowledge about all the aforementioned pitchers. And every actual young ace pitcher who might not be signable by his team will be a year closer to free agency. It's always going to be hard to trade for a true ace, but we have a chance of doing so; if we don't deal for Stanton and/or Heyward, we may well be in a position to overwhelm someone with a Godfather offer. If we fill a rotation spot with an ace, now you simply have to have one guy from the group of 6 to 8 who's as good as the hypothetical second addition (with probably two of the others going in trade for the ace -- the ideal target would be the ace of a very thin rotation).
If you acquire two pitchers this winter, that means you're essentially saying there's long-term rotation room for only one of our bevy of prospects, and if you trade that guy for an ace, room for no one else. Does anyone foresee that? And if what you see is a bunch of guys actually being better than Kelly and Buchholz, then I think it makes even less sense. Now you'd have to project the second acquisition as significantly better than Buchholz or Kelly. The former has at times been the best pitcher in baseball, and the second is a talent they valued enough to trade Lackey for.
Now, acquiring a guy who is in his walk year might make some sense, although I personally don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 10, 2014 5:29:56 GMT -5
There are lots of quality pitchers in their walk year which essentially gives our three big lefties another year to grow. I'm a proponent of one long contract Lester/Hammels type and 1 walk year pitcher.
We also have considerable money coming off the books at the end of 2015 which allows The Sox to be more 'cautious'.
If the concern is leaving only one slot open for our cluster of prospects, Kelly's cost controlled contract would have to be appealing to teams like the Reds who have a lot of walk year pitchers like Cueto & Latos. (They also need a left fielder) and will be playing to win in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 10, 2014 8:36:25 GMT -5
I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're facetious. In what way is Kelly comparable to Wright? Kelly has the potential to be a border-line 2 and has the floor to be at the worst a back of the rotation starter. At a very young cost-controlled age, Potential to be a border-line 2: I think Wright's ceiling is a bit higher but sounds about right. At the worst a back of the rotation starter: Check. Very young: Check (for a knuckleballer). Cost controlled: Check - and for longer than Kelly. As for Lackey perhaps not being willing to play for the Sox, geez, just give him a 2 year deal, what's the big problem? You make it sound like Lackey was worthless but the opposite is true, he was extremely valuable. Joe Kelly is 26 who had a 2.69 ERA over the course of an entire ML season last year. Granted he had a 4.01 FIP so maybe that was a fluky season. Wright is a 30 year old knuckler who is fighting to find a spot on an ML roster. Maybe he has a Tim Wakefield type of career, but he has to earn a spot on a 25-man roster before even thinking of having the potential to be a border-line 1/solid 2. Lackey would have to agree to a two-year deal. I could see him either playing out his last season at the minimum and going to FA or just retiring. He really wasn't that much of a fan of playing here and I doubt the Sox would have been able to retain him. A one-year deal for an aging pitcher, even if it's the league minimal, isn't going to fetch you much on the open market. I mean, I feel as though the Red Sox acquired more for Lackey than the Rays for Price who is in a similar contractual situation (also had a year and a half left).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 10, 2014 8:44:08 GMT -5
KC Star: "Boston has emerged as the early favorite for [James Shields'] services".. "Rival execs expect 5yr $80-$110" t.co/dnQ8KwKiOt
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 10, 2014 9:12:30 GMT -5
If you think Wright might be a 1 or a 2, I have some ocean front property in Colorado you may be interested in
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 10, 2014 10:19:24 GMT -5
Some numbers on Webster, for his last four games - all caught by Vazquez. This is taken from BR with a few columns modified to show the actual counts instead of percentages: IP | H | R | ER | BB
| K | HR | HBP | ERA | BA | OBP | SLG | BABIP | Str | StL | StS | GB | FB | LD | PU | GDP | 24 | 24 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 15 | 2
| 2 | 2.63 | .261 | .313 | .348 | .293 | 63% | 62 | 42 | 36 | 41 | 21% | 10% | 1 |
This was probably the best stretch from his two stints with the Sox in 2013-14. The K rate is still low, but the swinging strikes (42) are there. That may be because the pitch he gets those strikes with - the changeup - is not what he uses most of the time. That's the fastball, which has good sink when it's working. More on that below. Best of all, his K/BB rate improved to 3. The BABIP isn't out of line, and while the H/9 is right at 1, some of that may be due to grounders finding their way through the infield. The HRs aren't great if you just project it out to, say 175 innings, and this highlights an interesting twist. The third Sep game had him with 6 ground outs to 14 fly ball outs which greatly biases the overall numbers for the 4 games. That ratio does go into reverse in the final game with 13 ground outs to 9 fly ball outs. This is a small sample of course, and there are not many conclusions to be drawn. Some of the variation is probably just statistical fluctuation, some of it may be game planning for the lineups he was facing. My take on Webster is that if he were to gain command of his pitches, his Ks would increase as he learns to set hitters up and knock them down. His slider which he's started using more can fool some hitters badly. I also think that the better the infield D, the better he'll look. No knowing if the increase in fly balls over a short stretch was part of a plan to have him tweaking the velocity to better that command, but it's a possibility. He was getting in and out of innings much more quickly thanks to better control. That alone made it easier watching. At his best he was finishing off hitters even when they got into 3-2 counts, something he wasn't doing earlier in the year. I think he's a viable bottom of the rotation guy next year. We'll find out what the team thinks in spring training.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Oct 10, 2014 10:30:19 GMT -5
KC Star: "Boston has emerged as the early favorite for [James Shields'] services".. "Rival execs expect 5yr $80-$110" t.co/dnQ8KwKiOtI really wouldn't want to go more then 4 years, 85 million for Shields. He has thrown a lot of innings and pitches in his career. That concerns me.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 10, 2014 10:37:28 GMT -5
Don't have to look any further than down the road to NY to get an idea of what that can mean. Tanaka is probably going to need surgery, and Sabathia is largely unavailable and ineffective when he is around. A lot of the salary for both may end up being nothing more than sunk cost. That's a cautionary note. All that said, there will be enormous pressure in the Boston media to make those expensive commitments. There's always the chance they work out of course, but that probability decreases in proportion to the wear and tear on a pitcher's arm. This isn't easy stuff to work your way through. I guess that's why the GM is where he is.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Oct 10, 2014 10:50:51 GMT -5
If you think Wright might be a 1 or a 2, I have some ocean front property in Colorado you may be interested in I'm not interested at all in any property in the USA, but if you think Joe Kelly's outperformance of his FIP is a real skill, then I have some ocean front property in Switzerland you may be interested in.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 10, 2014 11:52:07 GMT -5
I generally agree with Eric's last post in that signing 2 top guys makes little sense but if we get an opportunity of a Lester with no QO and if a Liriano/Santana is available with no QO at a reasonable price we may want top look at that. In so doing, we can keep our picks maybe and trade some of those starter prospects especially from the top AAA tier of more mlb ready guys. Trade one or more of RDLR, Ranaudo or Webster. Of that group Ranaudo is the most likely to go in my eyes. Keep RDLR and Webster as starter depth. Maybe slot Workman and Barnes in the pen (by year end for Barnes). That would help fill some other needs beyond starting pitching and put our money where i think it helps the most (starting pitching ). Ranaudo would land a pretty decent reserve catcher.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 10, 2014 12:13:05 GMT -5
If you think Wright might be a 1 or a 2, I have some ocean front property in Colorado you may be interested in I'm not interested at all in any property in the USA, but if you think Joe Kelly's outperformance of his FIP is a real skill, then I have some ocean front property in Switzerland you may be interested in. Let's take a look into it this way, one guy has performed over a prolonged stretch in the majors. Even if his ERA was a 4.01, that is still a very valuable commodity to have in your rotation. As a 26 year old who throws hard there is a chance that he can hit a higher ceiling than what his current floor is at. Steven Wright is 30 years old and had his first real look at major league life. In 21 IP, he looked fantastic. In AAA he had an ERA of 3.42 which is about on par with what he did last year in AAA. His K/BB is pretty good and his K rate is decent but if I had to bet which player would have a better career moving forward or be more productive, I'm going to have to say that player is Joe Kelly. I would love to be wrong and have Wright be an ace or even a two, but I highly doubt either happens.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 10, 2014 13:14:57 GMT -5
I like Kelly a lot. He has some problems to fix, but he has all the material needed to be a top starter. I've only seen Wright once and it was brief, and he looked OK. The problem with him that I think causes management to hesitate is that he can get shelled. I think there is a tendency for teams to prefer pitchers who are more predictable, even if they may not be as good on many occasions. That always has been an issue with knuckleballers and I think there are teams that simply won't even try them for that reason.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2014 13:25:46 GMT -5
There are lots of quality pitchers in their walk year which essentially gives our three big lefties another year to grow. I'm a proponent of one long contract Lester/Hammels type and 1 walk year pitcher. I looked at the complete list and narrowed it down to just three viable, realistic, candidates: Mat Latos and Mike Leake, and Scott Kazmir. I could go for any of those if the price is "that's all it took to get him?" and have no interest if it's "geesh, I hate to see those guys go, but ...". In a vacuum, I'd rank them Latos (assuming that his medicals are OK and that there are scouting reports that back up his strong last 7 starts as being a real return to form), Kazmir, Leake. Kazmir has the smallest 3 & 4 versus 7 through 9 hitter career split of the trio. Jeff Samardzija is the best of the entire list, but I think Beane keeps him for another playoff run (whereas Kazmir strikes me as the sort of guy he thinks he can replace). Ian Kennedy is interesting, but pitched in a very weak division while having a very large career 3 & 4 versus 7 through 9 hitter split, so I don't think he's quite good enough to pursue. I don't think the Blue Jays would deal Mark Buehrle within the division for a reasonable price. Speaking of which, David Price, Jordan Zimmerman, Tim Hudson, Rick Porcello, Bud Norris, and Doug Fister are all pitching for more obvious contenders than the Reds. Speaking of which, Alfredo Simon isn't quite good enough, and Bartolo Colon, Kyle Lohse, Marco Estrada, Jhoulys Chacin, and Tim Lincecum (even if heavily subsidized) miss the mark by more; ditto for anyone whose 2016 option looks like it might not be picked up. The cautionary tale here remains trading Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan when the in-house option, Bronson Arroyo, turned out to be better, right then and there. I really don't want to trade anyone of significance when there's a chance that the guy coming here is not as good as Wright or Webster, and my willingness to grab a guy if the price is right is actually more about increasing MLB-ready depth than it is about improving the rotation per se.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 10, 2014 13:28:07 GMT -5
You missed Cueto, who has a 2015 team option.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 10, 2014 13:36:27 GMT -5
The cautionary tale here remains trading Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan when the in-house option, Bronson Arroyo, turned out to be better, right then and there. I really don't want to trade anyone of significance when there's a chance that the guy coming here is not as good as Wright or Webster, and my willingness to grab a guy if the price is right is actually more about increasing MLB-ready depth than it is about improving the rotation per se. This strikes me as far too cautious of a strategy. Sure, there's a chance that Webster is as good as Latos, but it's a teeny tiny chance, and not one that a big-market team that seriously wants to contend should rely on. This is especially true of starting pitchers, where the high injury attrition rate means that you'll need your sixth and seventh starters regardless.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2014 13:39:57 GMT -5
You missed Cueto, who has a 2015 team option. And 6 other guys with 2015 options! But at a first glance, only Cueto seems worth pursuing. Yovanni Gallardo was pretty much league-average and has a huge career batting order split. BTW, I'm not looking at guys who didn't pitch or barely pitched in 2014, like Josh Johnson.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2014 13:44:33 GMT -5
The cautionary tale here remains trading Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan when the in-house option, Bronson Arroyo, turned out to be better, right then and there. I really don't want to trade anyone of significance when there's a chance that the guy coming here is not as good as Wright or Webster, and my willingness to grab a guy if the price is right is actually more about increasing MLB-ready depth than it is about improving the rotation per se. This strikes me as far too cautious of a strategy. Sure, there's a chance that Webster is as good as Latos, but it's a teeny tiny chance, and not one that a big-market team that seriously wants to contend should rely on. This is especially true of starting pitchers, where the high injury attrition rate means that you'll need your sixth and seventh starters regardless. We're on the exact same wavelength with my last point and your last sentence. Because I actually think there's a good chance that Wright is as good as Latos. But if there's one injury to your front five, then you're back to your Webster comparison; and Wright will be an asset as the long man in the pen if he's not the fifth starter. I don't want to waste a top prospect on the chance that somebody gets hurt, but I'd love to get Latos or Kazmir or even Leake at a price that strikes us all as welcome, to cover us for that eventuality. Edit: Cuueto, OTOH, may well be worth one of the better pitching prospects plus others, and that might make sense for both clubs ... I'll have to look into that later.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Oct 10, 2014 14:37:14 GMT -5
Is it wrong of me to be scared of Shields as FA if say he pitches twice this series and goes on to the World Series to pitch twice more?
Has there been a lot of research put forth about starters pitching big innings during the year and going deep into the post season?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Oct 10, 2014 19:07:53 GMT -5
Is it wrong of me to be scared of Shields as FA if say he pitches twice this series and goes on to the World Series to pitch twice more? Has there been a lot of research put forth about starters pitching big innings during the year and going deep into the post season? Lester managed to hang in there this year. I'm not convinced that it matters really.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 10, 2014 20:21:38 GMT -5
The cautionary tale here remains trading Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan when the in-house option, Bronson Arroyo, turned out to be better, right then and there. I really don't want to trade anyone of significance when there's a chance that the guy coming here is not as good as Wright or Webster, and my willingness to grab a guy if the price is right is actually more about increasing MLB-ready depth than it is about improving the rotation per se. This strikes me as far too cautious of a strategy. Sure, there's a chance that Webster is as good as Latos, but it's a teeny tiny chance, and not one that a big-market team that seriously wants to contend should rely on. This is especially true of starting pitchers, where the high injury attrition rate means that you'll need your sixth and seventh starters regardless. I wonder if Latos wouldn't be the cheapest of the 3 Cincy SP potentiality FA after 2015 to acquire via a trade. Not so sure his weight is that big of a deal for a SP, not as if it's that big of a deal, or as if he has to be sliding around the rubber like an IF/OF. Guys like Wilbur Wood, Brad Penny, Bartolo Colon and Mark Buehrle have been pitching with an innertube around them forever.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 10, 2014 21:00:42 GMT -5
The cautionary tale here remains trading Freddy Sanchez for Jeff Suppan when the in-house option, Bronson Arroyo, turned out to be better, right then and there. I really don't want to trade anyone of significance when there's a chance that the guy coming here is not as good as Wright or Webster, and my willingness to grab a guy if the price is right is actually more about increasing MLB-ready depth than it is about improving the rotation per se. This strikes me as far too cautious of a strategy. Sure, there's a chance that Webster is as good as Latos, but it's a teeny tiny chance, and not one that a big-market team that seriously wants to contend should rely on. This is especially true of starting pitchers, where the high injury attrition rate means that you'll need your sixth and seventh starters regardless. Is there more than a teeny tiny chance that none of the young pitchers are better than Latos?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 10, 2014 21:26:29 GMT -5
You missed Cueto, who has a 2015 team option. And Lackey? *rimshot*
|
|
|