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.
Poll: Who Should Be in Next Year's Rotation? VOTE FOR FIVE!
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 6, 2015 15:13:26 GMT -5
Assume that a trade for an elite young starter involves Swihart or someone as attractive. Guerra would obviously be another guy to include. If you choose that option, feel free to list the guys you would and wouldn't deal.
I initially was going to just include an item for Wright, Johnson, or Owens, TBD, but since we've seen much more of Wright, and some folks still don't like him at all, I thought I'd also give folks to vote for him exclusively, or to reject him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Aug 6, 2015 15:40:59 GMT -5
Great poll, we needed something like this. The dialogue on this board with this topic should be outstanding. I still hope we go after Cueto, he would be great in a Red Sox uniform.
|
|
|
Post by thegoo13 on Aug 6, 2015 15:51:15 GMT -5
Thanks for putting together. IMO Owens should be an option by himself.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2015 15:51:28 GMT -5
My vote is to bring in a Cueto/Price type and leave the rotation in tact for the most part. If someone isn't willing to bite on Joe Kelly then I would put him in the pen.
Porcello I'm hoping will have a major bounce-back year.
In 2004 Derek Lowe had an ERA of 5.42 ERA in 182.2 IP. The following few years in LAD were much, much better. My hope is that Porcello can follow that same trajectory.
So my starting 5 would like like: Cueto, Buchholz, Porcello, Rodriguez, Miley with Owens/Johnson competing in AAA for the next call up.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 6, 2015 16:03:13 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? At a straight $$/WAR level his production warrants the amount he gets paid. But from a team-building standpoint, it is hard to have a starting pitcher who is definitely in your top five but isn't to be counted on for more than 120 innings. It puts a strain on your depth and, in turn, makes it hard to try out another, younger high-risk option who has a better chance to end up a 180-200 inning type. Like, I'm guessing Buchholz will be slightly better than Owens next year, but I think for the long-term health of the organization it makes sense to have Owens in a starting role and it won't take a huge dent out of the current value.
I liked the Porcello trade at the time and I'm not ready to give up on him. Not sure exactly what has gone on with him this year, but for someone to spend his early 20's improving graduatlly and notably and then to just bottom out at 26 means to me that something went seriously wrong.
|
|
|
Post by beantown on Aug 6, 2015 16:09:53 GMT -5
"A good (#2 / #3) young trade aquistion"
Carrasco just threw a one-hit, complete game shutout vs. Angels. I wonder if a package centered around Swihart and Guerra, plus smaller pieces would be enough to snag him from cleveland? In my view, this is a solid #2 to feature behind any of the prototypical aces ready to hit the market (Cueto/Price being the most appealing of those).
#1 Cueto/Price #2 Carrasco #3 Buch (if healthy) #4 Porcello (if he bounces back) #5 Erod
Waiting in the wings if needed for one or both of Buch/Porcello disaster scenarios: Owens/Johnson/Wright.
Trade Miley.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 6, 2015 16:09:49 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? At a straight $$/WAR level his production warrants the amount he gets paid. But from a team-building standpoint, it is hard to have a starting pitcher who is definitely in your top five but isn't to be counted on for more than 120 innings. It puts a strain on your depth and, in turn, makes it hard to try out another, younger high-risk option who has a better chance to end up a 180-200 inning type. Like, I'm guessing Buchholz will be slightly better than Owens next year, but I think for the long-term health of the organization it makes sense to have Owens in a starting role and it won't take a huge dent out of the current value. I liked the Porcello trade at the time and I'm not ready to give up on him. Not sure exactly what has gone on with him this year, but for someone to spend his early 20's improving graduatlly and notably and then to just bottom out at 26 means to me that something went seriously wrong. I'd say because you have both Johnson and Owens that you can afford to have Buccholz upside in your rotation as they will soften the blow when he goes down and gives them ample opportunity to be eased into a starting role.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 6, 2015 16:27:27 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? At a straight $$/WAR level his production warrants the amount he gets paid. But from a team-building standpoint, it is hard to have a starting pitcher who is definitely in your top five but isn't to be counted on for more than 120 innings. It puts a strain on your depth and, in turn, makes it hard to try out another, younger high-risk option who has a better chance to end up a 180-200 inning type. Like, I'm guessing Buchholz will be slightly better than Owens next year, but I think for the long-term health of the organization it makes sense to have Owens in a starting role and it won't take a huge dent out of the current value. I liked the Porcello trade at the time and I'm not ready to give up on him. Not sure exactly what has gone on with him this year, but for someone to spend his early 20's improving graduatlly and notably and then to just bottom out at 26 means to me that something went seriously wrong. I'd say because you have both Johnson and Owens that you can afford to have Buccholz upside in your rotation as they will soften the blow when he goes down and gives them ample opportunity to be eased into a starting role. This. It's almost a situation where Buchholz' likely annual DL stint becomes a feature rather than a bug. You can have Owens and Johnson hone their craft for another year in AAA while also being more confident than usual that there will be MLB opportunities for them. I believe that Buchholz on the staff works as long as you have two of Wright, Johnson, and Owens in reserve. The projected multi-headed starter is a #2 or #3 guy, at #3 / #4 prices. Note that this poll will remain open until the season's end, and folks are encouraged to change their votes as we get a better look at everybody.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 6, 2015 16:40:46 GMT -5
One thing that happens every year is that people underestimate the importance of a team's 6th-8th starters. I didn't vote for any of them, but I like Wright, Owens, and Johnson a lot as the Red Sox' 6th-8th starters.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2015 16:50:48 GMT -5
I agree with the last few posts, but wanted to note that Wright is out of options next year, so if he's to be a depth starter option, you'll have to be confident that he can stretch out quickly if he starts the season as the long man in the bullpen. He's a knuckleballer, so that's probably easier for him than most, but something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Aug 6, 2015 17:16:52 GMT -5
I cant believe Buch went down , It would be interesting to know what they were offered for him. All it takes is one of these teams who are going for it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 6, 2015 17:18:23 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? At a straight $$/WAR level his production warrants the amount he gets paid. But from a team-building standpoint, it is hard to have a starting pitcher who is definitely in your top five but isn't to be counted on for more than 120 innings. It puts a strain on your depth and, in turn, makes it hard to try out another, younger high-risk option who has a better chance to end up a 180-200 inning type. Like, I'm guessing Buchholz will be slightly better than Owens next year, but I think for the long-term health of the organization it makes sense to have Owens in a starting role and it won't take a huge dent out of the current value. I liked the Porcello trade at the time and I'm not ready to give up on him. Not sure exactly what has gone on with him this year, but for someone to spend his early 20's improving graduatlly and notably and then to just bottom out at 26 means to me that something went seriously wrong. I would only decline Buchholz' option if he needs TJS. If he does, he wouldn't pitch at all next year and then the following year he'd have to learn how to pitch again in 2017. At that point, they're basically paying $26 million for a year which would predictably be one of the down seasons.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 6, 2015 17:36:15 GMT -5
Buchholz has a reasonable option and, if healthy (big IF), has the talent to remain in the top of the rotation. I wouldn't be opposed, however, to acquiring Cueto as a free agent providing the years are not excessive; let's say five. There's no QO to worry about as it was this past offseason when the Sox lost a high second and third pick by signing Ramirez and Pablo. Rodriguez is an automatic. The rest of the rotation should be left up to a competition. I thought that Wright would continue to be inconsistent, but his last two starts have me warming up to him. It's just so frustrating, though, when he doesn't have complete control of his knuckled, to keep watching passed balls and wild pitches.
Kelly is an enigma and I'm losing patience with him. He has to earn his spot whether in the rotation or the pen. Miley is ok as a #4 or #5.
BTW Alex Speier has an excellent analysis in the Globe yesterday of the entire pitching staff, citing contracts and future prospects. It falls under the headline " Bullpen needs an overhaul".
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Aug 6, 2015 17:48:41 GMT -5
Very fluid situation. There's a multiple routes I could see it going.
I don't see point of declining Buchs option. I think picking it up and trading him would be worth more than the comp pick. Also if he accepts QO we lose an option year on him.
My votes would be an unpopular one, I picked top fa (Price isn't happening, so Cueto or Zimmerman) Miley, Porcello, E-Rod, and Owens...Buch I would try to trade for a back end of bullpen type and and minor league pitching depth. That leaves us with a high risk rotation, but if we add a good bull pen piece to Tazawa and Uehara and develop another (Light hopefully, Kelly maybe) we could have a set up like the Royals/Yankees do, which seems to be the way MLB is trending. I didn't check it because I don't know if it's fair, but if Swihart and Carrasco are close in value I'd make that trade also, but I wouldn't do it if I had to add Owens or Johnson.
I said this before, but I'd move Kelly to the bullpen for the remainder of the year. If it doesn't work out he can't fight to be a starter in ST.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 6, 2015 17:52:57 GMT -5
Good topic
I think Erod and Owens could out perform Miley out of the back end spots leaving Miley out there as a trade chip on a reasonable deal. Buch and Porcelo are 2/3 by default so it comes down to the top.
Do we open the check book for a Cueto or hope the A's, Indians, SD or Mets want to trade a top starter. I don't think the A's or Mets will and I'm not crazy about Tyson Ross leading a rotation. It's still debatable if the Tribe were serious about Carasco but I'd be willing to take back Bourn but not willing to include Moncado or Devers. I'm leaning to signing Cueto if he is around Lester money.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 6, 2015 18:25:56 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? Are you sure this is allowed?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 6, 2015 18:30:36 GMT -5
At what point is it worth it to think about declining Buchholz's option and extending him a qualifying offer? Are you sure this is allowed? Apparently, yes. Man, this system is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 6, 2015 19:08:18 GMT -5
It's hard for me to trust an article that called Masterson an "attractive free agent" and a "quality starting pitcher".
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 6, 2015 19:38:24 GMT -5
My perspective...
Locks: Buchholz, Porcello, Wright.
All of these guys have more actual value than trade value. And yes, we have the depth to be able to afford Buchholz in our rotation, at least moreso than other teams do. Selling low on Porcello would be particularly egregious.
Locks unless traded: Rodriguez
And when I say "traded" I don't mean given away like RDLR ... still think the Sox will come to regret that ... I mean flipped as part of a larger package for a pitcher entering or closer to arbitration like Sonny Gray.
Likely: Miley
Miley could theoretically be optioned as the 6th starter, which would be quite a luxury, or flipped as part of a package for a better pitcher, but I think the most likely scenario is that he is the 5th starter.
And as it happens, that's already 5. Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the "you must have an ACE" faction and place the blame for this season squarely on the underperformance of the offense.
Depth Starters: 6. Joe Kelly 7. Brian Johnson 8. Henry Owens
I still find Kelly's potential tantalizing and would keep him starting for as long as possible. There are other ways to fill out the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2015 21:51:47 GMT -5
For 2016 I would like a rotation of:
1) Cueto (the Red Sox need to get a top notch pitcher and he's their best bet) 2) #2/#3 Type acquisition short term rental 3) Buchholz (another possibility is signing another lesser FA and letting Clay go) 4) Rodriguez 5) Porcello (because we're stuck with him)
Having Porcello and/or Buchholz and Wright's options situation puts Wright in the pen, but most likely the first man in as soon as Buchholz gets hurt or if Porcello continues to pitch horribly.
Miley is out of the equation as I hope he's part of a deal, along with minor league surplus (not Owens) and/or perhaps Kelly to acquire a short-term upgrade to the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2015 21:54:54 GMT -5
My perspective... Locks: Buchholz, Porcello, Wright. All of these guys have more actual value than trade value. And yes, we have the depth to be able to afford Buchholz in our rotation, at least moreso than other teams do. Selling low on Porcello would be particularly egregious. Locks unless traded: Rodriguez And when I say "traded" I don't mean given away like RDLR ... still think the Sox will come to regret that ... I mean flipped as part of a larger package for a pitcher entering or closer to arbitration like Sonny Gray. Likely: Miley Miley could theoretically be optioned as the 6th starter, which would be quite a luxury, or flipped as part of a package for a better pitcher, but I think the most likely scenario is that he is the 5th starter. And as it happens, that's already 5. Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the "you must have an ACE" faction and place the blame for this season squarely on the underperformance of the offense.Depth Starters: 6. Joe Kelly 7. Brian Johnson 8. Henry Owens I still find Kelly's potential tantalizing and would keep him starting for as long as possible. There are other ways to fill out the bullpen. Then you have a total blind spot re: the pitching staff. No doubt the defense was a culprit in helping the pitching to stink, and the offense was mediocre to be charitable, but you can't pretend that the Sox weren't near the bottom in giving up the most runs scored against. A staff filled with back end starters won't get you far during the season unless you have the 1999 Cleveland Indians offense, and even that's not enough.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 6, 2015 22:09:55 GMT -5
Then you have a total blind spot re: the pitching staff. No doubt the defense was a culprit in helping the pitching to stink, and the offense was mediocre to be charitable, but you can't pretend that the Sox weren't near the bottom in giving up the most runs scored against. Nope, the blind spot is yours if you don't understand that the Sox starters actually pitched at nearly a league-average level and only gave up so many runs due to horrible clustering luck (and below-average BABIP luck).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 6, 2015 22:30:41 GMT -5
Then you have a total blind spot re: the pitching staff. No doubt the defense was a culprit in helping the pitching to stink, and the offense was mediocre to be charitable, but you can't pretend that the Sox weren't near the bottom in giving up the most runs scored against. Nope, the blind spot is yours if you don't understand that the Sox starters actually pitched at nearly a league-average level and only gave up so many runs due to horrible clustering luck (and below-average BABIP luck). The results are the results no matter how much you assign "luck" to it. FIP is a good indicator but it has its blind spots, too. The Sox pitching has gotten belted around. It's not all bleeders and seeing eye hits against the staff. They've comparatively have gotten knocked around. And clustering luck? I guess about a dozen other teams in the league have "better luck" in clustering their hits given up. That sounds pretty lame to me. If you told me that the defense was atrocious and it was a contributor to the pitching looking worse than it appears, I could buy a good portion of that as they get no help out of LF or 3b and RF has been in a state of flux all year and they've had a lot of inexperienced catching to deal with. That would make more sense then. See FIP, which does measure 3 important components and can be a useful indicator, but ignores how hard the ball has been hit, wall balls, line shots down the line, line drives that are more unlikely to be converted into an out by the defense, etc. is average. Therefore they're as good a pitching staff as anybody else. Meanwhile they're giving up more runs and not getting outs as consistently as just about every other staff in the league. But yeah, it's totally the hitting...the starters have done nothing to contribute to the 47-62 record the team is sporting. I guess the Sox can throw out the same pitching staff next year, get a hitter or two, and they should be good to go then. Boy, am I relieved.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 6, 2015 23:33:39 GMT -5
See FIP, which does measure 3 important components and can be a useful indicator, but ignores how hard the ball has been hit, wall balls, line shots down the line, line drives that are more unlikely to be converted into an out by the defense, etc. is average. Therefore they're as good a pitching staff as anybody else. Meanwhile they're giving up more runs and not getting outs as consistently as just about every other staff in the league. For what it's worth, based on the Baseball Info Solutions quality of contact stats, the Red Sox pitching staff has given up the 17th-highest rate of "Hard" contact, the 25th-highest rate of "Medium" contact, and the 8th-highest rate of "Soft" contact.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 7, 2015 0:54:05 GMT -5
I agree with the last few posts, but wanted to note that Wright is out of options next year, so if he's to be a depth starter option, you'll have to be confident that he can stretch out quickly if he starts the season as the long man in the bullpen. He's a knuckleballer, so that's probably easier for him than most, but something to keep in mind. I did not know that but was already considering him the perfect swing man for next yr. If needed he can spot start as well. I'd like the Sox to possibly break him into the rotation by 2017 as the fifth starter. He's still relatively young for a knuckle ball pitcher and his best is yet to come. I'd like the Sox to trade either Owens (higher ceiling) or Johnson (higher floor) by this off season or next, and plug the other one at the time of the trade into the rotation long term. That's the back of the rotation right there for several years. Miley I'd keep around for 1 more yr. before looking to trade him. Porcello like it or not is here for at least another yr, likely more to. He's owed to much to eat the contract and his value is way to low to consider moving him. Chances are the new deal got into his head as he attempted to be something he's not. He was, heading into this season, by all accounts a good young pitcher who was only getting better, several former teammates said he'd contend for the CY-Young this yr too. So we have to hope he rebounds strong and there is no real good reason to think he won't. E-rod is primed to develop into a good #2 possibly more and I think we should expect to see him continue on this path next season. This past off-season I said I'd trade Buchholz as soon as he put a few healthy months together, and then second guessed myself when he did. This time I'm sticking to my guns and I'd trade Buchholz during the season next year, perhaps combining him with Owens (possibly Johnson, and then I promote the one left in house) I think that package should land you a young #2 type pitcher with at least another yr. of arb. eligibilty into the 2018 season. The Sox should either try and sign an ace this off-season or next. With Porcello making $20M+ and any any ace signed would surely be more the rest of the staff will likely be on the cheap. And this is where I'll lose several here, I'd also consider packaging Pedroia with a prospect like Marrero for a young OF or SP. and move Betts back to second base. Chances are as bad as HRam has been in left he'll spend 1 more year there and next year will be Papi's last yr, then Hanley can go to DH where he belongs. Next year we'd have Hanley in LF, JBJ given a real shot in CF and Castillo in RF. in 2017 Margo can take over a OF spot (TBD) with Hanley going to DH.
|
|
|