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.
Acquiring an Ace: FA or Trade?
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 7, 2015 10:17:44 GMT -5
/quote] The Sox had about 6 pitchers that led there staff at one time or another making you at least a #1. Regarding the 2013 Sox starting pitching and ERA+, they had Clay with a mind blowing 237 Lackey @ 117, Lester @ 110 and Peavy @ 102. They had 4 guys make 27 starts or more which bode well for the regular season. Several pitchers did step up in the playoffs and they had pedigrees to suggest they could such as Lester (Career playoff -2.57 ERA) and Lackey (Career playoff -3.08 ERA) both of those guys had won world series in their past. To your first point-you're basically saying that, if a pitcher was once his team's best starter, he's a #1 for life. No, no he's not. There are also starters (Grienke, for example) who pitch like legitimate #1s but are stuck behind other pitchers. RJ/Schilling, Halladay/Lee, etc. That doesn't make them #2-quality starters. If you want to use the semantic argument based solely on rotation position for all 30 teams, that's fine...but you're saying Clay Buchholz is a #1 while Zack Grienke is a #2. And it's true, in a literal sense. But it's a useless point when it comes to using rotation position assignment paradigms to discuss statistics and performance. As for your second point, after Clay's half-season (which basically was averaged out with Peavy's...since both pitched half-seasons with the Sox), you've got a couple of 2/3 quality starters there (exactly what I said), and you didn't even bother to mention Doubront and Dempster, who combined pitched about 80% as many innings as Lester/Lackey...because they were mediocre to awful. You listed four pitchers, the first and last of whom pitched half-seasons. So really, you listed the equivalent of 60% of the rotation, but it looks like you tried to pawn it off as the top 4 starters. So tell me again how that rotation was "stacked"?? I contend that the current rotation borders on similar capability as the 2013 version. Rodriguez is primed to do his best Lester impression, and Porcello certainly has the ability to match Lackey's 2013. 2013 Doubront and Dempster-level performances shouldn't be hard to come by (Miley and Kelly did about as much this year). So basically, this team would be OK if they could get someone to repeat the combo of Clay-Peavy, or a high-2s/low-3s ERA, 190-220 IP, etc. if they can trade from excess (without tapping into Espinoza, Moncada, Devers, Benintendi or Margot) and get a SP who's #2 caliber (Raisel Iglesias is intriguing to me, given Cincy's many needs, previous drafting of Marrero, and bandbox ballpark), I'm all for it. If they can stretch for a 1a/future 1, or get a cheap deal on a rental like Strasburg, even better. Or sign a FA if the price isn't prohibitive (though it very well may be). The only route I don't like is emptying the farm for a legitimate #1, because the cost/benefit there is too high. It's just not worth it, given how this team played from August 1st on.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Oct 7, 2015 11:57:33 GMT -5
This may sound weird, but if we sign a pitcher like Leake, Iwakuma, or Wei-Yin Chen it would allow us to put more money towards the Sox bullpen. Having our starters to not pitch as many innings should help them rest their arms some. The starters may be able to have an uptick with their stuff, if they do not have to pitch as deep into starts. We do need a pitcher like Miley, but with a three E.R.A..
I really do not want to trade any of our starting pitchers, because we need depth.
If we do get an ace I want to go threw free agency. My top three choices are Price, Grienke, and Zimmerman. If Cueto is completely healthy I would sign him to a shorter-term contract.
|
|
|
Post by jackstarr on Oct 7, 2015 12:23:40 GMT -5
I am an old guy (became a fan Ted Williams' rookie year (think about it), who fully expected to die without ever seeing the Red Sox win a World Series. I won't try to expound on how the game has changed - probably you could all explain it better - but you will all agree that pitchers go all out with more of their pitches than the "old days". Obviously, it takes a toll, and number of games, number of pitches per game, etc. have all decreased over the years. In my opinion, this trend is going to continue. No matter how you train or build up or whatever, throwing harder and harder is going to break you down sooner. I have gone through all this because I believe that it is finally time for six starters vs five. This would work even better with Boston than many other teams. Line them up, and see who would thrive or not in such an arrangement; Buchholz (might even survive a whole season), Kelly(might avoid DL), Rich Hill (who looks great but obviously has never lasted long, let alone a season), Porcello (who was on the DL also of course), the two kid lefthanders Rodriguez and Owens (whose innings should be watched a bit as they mature). Pick Six! Also, you can convince yourself that more than one of them could be the Number 1 (or maybe 1 1/2, I will agree), especially Rodriguez and Buchholz that you all seem to think we need going forth. Comments? Do I have my head up my whatever?
|
|
|
Post by jackstarr on Oct 7, 2015 12:23:56 GMT -5
Forgot Miley, who might not benefit from a six day rotation.
|
|
|
Post by jackstarr on Oct 7, 2015 12:25:03 GMT -5
Al Nipper, just read your post. Sounds to me like you are sliding in my direction a bit: less innings per pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 7, 2015 12:28:10 GMT -5
It's amazing how bad the Yankees are against lefty's.....but if you load up on lefty's for them, then you have Toronto with all their right handed power......I do think we need to add a RH SP to balance out our LH SP's....Grienke would cost less than Price, at least length of contract.....
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 7, 2015 12:32:51 GMT -5
Joe Kelly should have options left and has not racked up the five years of service time it takes to refuse being optioned. Between that and the possibility that he gets converted to the bullpen, I don't think he's much of a roadblock to opening a rotation spot for a top-of-the-rotation guy. No, but demoting Joe Kelly or putting him in the bullpen will not create enough space in the payroll to sign a free agent, whereas trading Miley or especially Buchholz just might. I would also argue that Joe Kelly at $2-$3 million has significant upside in 2016, while the ceiling on the value you get from Miley and Buchholz is less so. Kelly is young enough and showed enough improvement in 2015 that he might be legitimately ready to make the leap into stardom. Those are the kind of players a championship team close to its max budget (or so I assume) needs to be taking chances on.
|
|
|
Post by mandelbro on Oct 7, 2015 16:23:01 GMT -5
It seems that a sliding scale of sorts emerging.
1) Trading valuable young position players (say, Betts, Swihart) for young AND impactful pitching (say, Harvey or Carrasco), and throwing $$$ at a position in the field. An approach with great upside, that is financially safe, but is also reckless in terms of sending out a ton of future value and cost controlled talent. One TJS and its over.
2) Trading position players with second-tier value or mediocre veterans (say, Margot or Miley) for less impactful pitching (say, Tyson Ross or Jose Quintana). An approach that is financially conservative, and conservative with prospects, but with lower/unsexier potential payoff.
3) Throwing $$$ at older but impactful pitching (say, Price). An approach that is very conservative with prospects, with great/sexy payoff, but extremely imprudent financially.
If there were an easy way out everyone would do it. Any one of these tacks will come with disadvantages. To some extent, the above looks like a pick 2 out of 3 situation.
I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 7, 2015 16:23:25 GMT -5
Joe Kelly should have options left and has not racked up the five years of service time it takes to refuse being optioned. Between that and the possibility that he gets converted to the bullpen, I don't think he's much of a roadblock to opening a rotation spot for a top-of-the-rotation guy. No, but demoting Joe Kelly or putting him in the bullpen will not create enough space in the payroll to sign a free agent, whereas trading Miley or especially Buchholz just might. I would also argue that Joe Kelly at $2-$3 million has significant upside in 2016, while the ceiling on the value you get from Miley and Buchholz is less so. Kelly is young enough and showed enough improvement in 2015 that he might be legitimately ready to make the leap into stardom. Those are the kind of players a championship team close to its max budget (or so I assume) needs to be taking chances on. It's a fair point, but I'm skeptical that they'll stay under the luxury tax threshold. Henry has mentioned how the benefits of doing so were overstated, and after two non-competitive seasons, I think he'll be willing to pay into the luxury tax to field a competitive team. If they were particularly concerned about it, they probably would have tried harder to move salary at the trade deadline this year to get under the $189m limit. If they run a ~$200m payroll next year, they should have $30-40m to play with (per this Speier article and taking into account the trade of Nava and the likely non-tender of Ogando), which should be enough to add a top-end starter, a reliever or two, and maybe a fourth outfielder. If they do end up needing to move salary, the leading candidates are probably Hanigan ($3.6m), Miley ($6.9m), Buchholz ($11.7m), Castillo ($10.4m), and salary dumps of Ramirez ($22m), Sandoval ($19m), and maybe Uehara ($9m) or Porcello ($20.6m).
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 7, 2015 21:03:47 GMT -5
Or one could also observe that:
(a) The starting pitching was in fact quite good the last half of the season (with an OF of Betts, Bradley and Castillo).
(b) This is still a very young team and everyone except Bogaerts is controlled through 2020 (and he is controlled through 2019).
(c) Thiis is already a 30 WAR or better team (and probably a 40 WAR team) meaning that with any growth from young players and regression from veterans it is a wild card team.
(d) Toronto out scored its opponents by over 220 runs, and the Red Sox could easily add two starters and still not compete for a division championship.
ETA for this team is still 2018. I wouldn't trade too much of the future to upgrade a team that is probably already a wild card and is unlikely to be a division winner even with aggressive upgrades.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,519
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 7, 2015 21:55:45 GMT -5
Or one could also observe that: (a) The starting pitching was in fact quite good the last half of the season (with an OF of Betts, Bradley and Castillo). (b) This is still a very young team and everyone except Bogaerts is controlled through 2020 (and he is controlled through 2019). (c) Thiis is already a 30 WAR or better team (and probably a 40 WAR team) meaning that with any growth from young players and regression from veterans it is a wild card team. (d) Toronto out scored its opponents by over 220 runs, and the Red Sox could easily add two starters and still not compete for a division championship. ETA for this team is still 2018. I wouldn't trade too much of the future to upgrade a team that is probably already a wild card and is unlikely to be a division winner even with aggressive upgrades. I would also add, in keeping with your point, that the names Swihart and Margot (and even Owens) are being tossed around in deals. We don't know how good Vazquez will be post-surgery. JBJ had one month of torrid hitting and has been completely lost at the plate the rest of the time he's been there. He has yet to completely prove that he's the long-term answer. I'm hopeful he is, but I'm not quite convinced yet that he's a better long-term answer than Margot in CF. I'm convinced he's a better short-term option, but I'm not overly anxious to deal Margot. And the things to consider with Owens, Margot, and Swihart is how very young they are. There is so much room for growth with those guys. Owens may never gain the command he needs, but I'm not convinced of that. Tall lefties sometimes require time to get their mechanics straightened out. I think Owens is one of those guys. Not saying he'll be a dominating pitcher like Andrew Miller or Randy Johnson, but if he commands his pitches a lot more consistently, he's going to be tough to hit. Margot is only 20 and held his own in AA. I have questions about his plate discipline and power, but there is so much time for those to develop, particularly the power. As he could be a 15 homer, 40 steal, excellent glove kind of player, a Carlos Gomez (during his best years) type perhaps. And Swihart is hardly a finished product. I think he has more power and might hit 15 - 20 homers and I think as he gains more experience, the walks might go up a bit as well, and I do think he'll improve his defense. I was impressed with the strides he made during a year he wasn't even supposed to be in the majors. I think he has more learning to do and I have confidence in him that he will do that and improve. I'm not saying the Red Sox can't or shouldn't deal these players for an ace, but I just think these guys have a reasonably good shot at reaching the top end of their ceilings, and with that much young and cheap talent, I do think a free agent starter is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 7, 2015 23:33:44 GMT -5
Or one could also observe that: (a) The starting pitching was in fact quite good the last half of the season (with an OF of Betts, Bradley and Castillo). (b) This is still a very young team and everyone except Bogaerts is controlled through 2020 (and he is controlled through 2019). (c) Thiis is already a 30 WAR or better team (and probably a 40 WAR team) meaning that with any growth from young players and regression from veterans it is a wild card team. (d) Toronto out scored its opponents by over 220 runs, and the Red Sox could easily add two starters and still not compete for a division championship. ETA for this team is still 2018. I wouldn't trade too much of the future to upgrade a team that is probably already a wild card and is unlikely to be a division winner even with aggressive upgrades. Yes, except for two considerations: The Jays are losing Price, and traded away Norris to get him. Yes, they get Stroman back, but they've hurt their long-term pitching, and it could show up as early as next year. The Jays also have an injury-prone Tulo at short, and two aging sluggers in Encarnacion and Bautista. Donaldson probably has a few more prime years left, though. Still, I think they'll be hard-pressed to continue their offensive output, at least to the extent that they have. Of course, Papi shows both that the aging process can be slowed, but he's also going to slow down soon. Your point is well-taken, though. I think it's a mistake to mortgage the future by trading any of the MLB-present prime young talent, or any of the elite prospects. A FA acquisition, although costly in dollar terms, might actually save money down the road when young players are producing even just 1.5-2.5 WAR, for salaries in the 500k-$3M range. When an average #3/4 starter is getting 4/50 as a FA, and injury fliers $8-10M on one-year deals, getting similar performance (or better) and saving $15-20M on those two spots means the $26-30M/ year on an elite SP is a lot more palatable. The problem arises when you **don't** have the young talent, and you're forced to drop the $20M+ a year to fill out the back end of your rotation (or, sign aging players whose fit on the team is dubious for $18-22M a year...each). An elite FA starter who puts up 5 WAR for 2016 basically replaces a replacement-level rotation spot (Masterson+filler). A retooled bullpen that's worth 2-3 WAR (MLB average) nets about 4 WAR over this year's bunch. A full season of Rodriguez, if he pitches marginally better, nets another win. Improved OF defense probably gets them 2-3 more wins (considering the swing in LF is Hanley's -19 DRS to, say, 0 to +10 DRS). Add small, incremental improvements by B&B, with a full season of Swihart, and Vazquez's return, and it's maybe 1-2 more. Then, the team is in mid-40s territory, and that's without, say, Pablo and Hanley improving, or Shaw sticking at first and providing more value than Napoli, or Kelly, Miley, or Porcello having better seasons. I'd prefer to see them plug the major holes at the top of the rotation and back end of the bullpen with FA signings **and/or** dealing from prospect "excess" rather than make a big trade of high-level players for a single cost-controlled TOR pitcher who's gone in 3-4 years. Keeping their prospects would actually probably provide a lot more value, and flexibility, in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 7, 2015 23:39:07 GMT -5
It seems that a sliding scale of sorts emerging. 1) Trading valuable young position players (say, Betts, Swihart) for young AND impactful pitching (say, Harvey or Carrasco), and throwing $$$ at a position in the field. An approach with great upside, that is financially safe, but is also reckless in terms of sending out a ton of future value and cost controlled talent. One TJS and its over. 2) Trading position players with second-tier value or mediocre veterans (say, Margot or Miley) for less impactful pitching (say, Tyson Ross or Jose Quintana). An approach that is financially conservative, and conservative with prospects, but with lower/unsexier potential payoff. 3) Throwing $$$ at older but impactful pitching (say, Price). An approach that is very conservative with prospects, with great/sexy payoff, but extremely imprudent financially. If there were an easy way out everyone would do it. Any one of these tacks will come with disadvantages. To some extent, the above looks like a pick 2 out of 3 situation. I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right. The "rotation of 3s" worked for the Yankees, albeit with a much better bullpen. But, yeah, if the defense had been better, and the theoretical rotation of 3s had worked, it could very well have been the Sox vs. Astros.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 3:02:33 GMT -5
I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right. The "rotation of 3s" worked for the Yankees, albeit with a much better bullpen. But, yeah, if the defense had been better, and the theoretical rotation of 3s had worked, it could very well have been the Sox vs. Astros. It's not rocket science. You want to reach the playoffs? Observe the arms pitching for the teams that actually do make the playoffs. If you don't want to spend the dollars or trade the prospects necessary to acquire similar arms, then don't expect to make the playoffs. It's that simple. Now, in contrast, look at the arms we started the season with: (1) Rick Porcello - Detroit let this guy pitch all of 1 1/3 postseason innings during their entire playoff runs of 2012 and 2013 - A span during which Detroit played 24 playoff games. Think about that one for a minute. (2) Wade Miley - What should reasonably be expected of a National League pitcher coming over to the American League East? Now, make that guy a left handed pitcher coming to Boston? Bob Ojeda in reverse - That's what you expect. (3) Clay Buchholz - Coming into the 2015 season, Clay had already ripped a page from the Josh Beckett playbook - Averaging less than 95 innings pitched per year in alternating years 2009, 2011 and 2013. (4) Joe Kelly - A square peg forced into a round hole - A solid reliever, possibly a closer, put into a situation every five days where he's far less likely to succeed. (5) Justin Masterson - A reclamation project who, even when healthy, wasn't ever able to get out left handed bats. Again, it's not rocket science. Sign Greinke. Deal Owens and any prospect not named Moncada for Chris Sale. Money and prospects. We've got both. Let's stop screwing around and use them.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 8, 2015 5:24:17 GMT -5
It seems that a sliding scale of sorts emerging. 1) Trading valuable young position players (say, Betts, Swihart) for young AND impactful pitching (say, Harvey or Carrasco), and throwing $$$ at a position in the field. An approach with great upside, that is financially safe, but is also reckless in terms of sending out a ton of future value and cost controlled talent. One TJS and its over. 2) Trading position players with second-tier value or mediocre veterans (say, Margot or Miley) for less impactful pitching (say, Tyson Ross or Jose Quintana). An approach that is financially conservative, and conservative with prospects, but with lower/unsexier potential payoff. 3) Throwing $$$ at older but impactful pitching (say, Price). An approach that is very conservative with prospects, with great/sexy payoff, but extremely imprudent financially. If there were an easy way out everyone would do it. Any one of these tacks will come with disadvantages. To some extent, the above looks like a pick 2 out of 3 situation. I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right. The "rotation of 3s" worked for the Yankees, albeit with a much better bullpen. But, yeah, if the defense had been better, and the theoretical rotation of 3s had worked, it could very well have been the Sox vs. Astros. And for the Cardinals. And for the Royals (Cueto hasn't been an ace for them). I think bad defense was a large part of the early season bad pitching.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 8, 2015 9:05:45 GMT -5
You want to reach the playoffs? Observe the arms pitching for the teams that actually do make the playoffs. If you actually do, I'm not quite sure that it makes the point you're trying to make. - Toronto's rotation consists of a guy they got at the deadline (Price), a guy who was hurt all year, Marco Estrada, and R.A. Dickey. - Texas's rotation is Yo Gallardo, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Hamels), Colby Lewis, and Derek Holland (and Gallardo barely made the rotation). - KC's rotation is Yordano Ventura, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Cueto), Edinson Volquez, ... and pray for rain (Kris Medlen - who was hurt most of the year? Chris Young?). - Houston's rotation is Keuchel, McHugh, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Kazmir), and I dunno, trade acquisition Mike Fiers? Lance McCullers? So in the AL, which of those rotations is clearly better when you don't include guys who weren't on the team in the middle of July? Can you fault the Red Sox for not going and getting a guy in late July when that looked crazy at the time? I don't know you can point to, say, Toronto's rotation when their two best pitchers weren't pitching for them for 2/3 of the season. The pitching in the NL is generally better, but I think this shows there's more than one way to build a contender.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2015 9:09:10 GMT -5
You want to reach the playoffs? Observe the arms pitching for the teams that actually do make the playoffs. If you actually do, I'm not quite sure that it makes the point you're trying to make. - Toronto's rotation consists of a guy they got at the deadline (Price), a guy who was hurt all year, Marco Estrada, and R.A. Dickey. - Texas's rotation is Yo Gallardo, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Hamels), Colby Lewis, and Derek Holland (and Gallardo barely made the rotation). - KC's rotation is Yordano Ventura, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Cueto), Edinson Volquez, ... and pray for rain (Kris Medlen - who was hurt most of the year? Chris Young?). - Houston's rotation is Keuchel, McHugh, a guy they traded for at the deadline (Kazmir), and I dunno, trade acquisition Mike Fiers? Lance McCullers? So in the AL, which of those rotations is clearly better when you don't include guys who weren't on the team in the middle of July? Can you fault the Red Sox for not going and getting a guy in late July when that looked crazy at the time? I don't know you can point to, say, Toronto's rotation when their two best pitchers weren't pitching for them for 2/3 of the season. The pitching in the NL is generally better, but I think this shows there's more than one way to build a contender. And you better not give up much from the future, given the 98 win Pirates just lost a 1 game playoff. It's pretty dumb to go for broke. The goal is to barely make the playoffs every year now.
|
|
|
Post by auger1 on Oct 8, 2015 9:36:34 GMT -5
If theres one thing that the trading deadline and all the pieces written about baseball recently have showed me its that young controllable talent is more valuable than ever. The Sox have that in spades. It seems like there are 3 clear needs on the roster. An "ace", a closer and another top set up guy. I don't think anyone would argue it's prudent to trade elite prospects for bullpen pieces so I am going to focus on the ace..(also because that's what this thread is about in the first place) Given their roster construction and prospect depth it seems like the Sox have the ability to deal 3 top 75 prospects without truly effecting their future. Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, and Henry Owens/Brian Johnson. (They also have a few lower prospects that would be good 4th/5th players in a big deal. Wendell Rijo, Mauricio Dubon, etc.) Now the problem with most of the teams and pitchers that Eric suggested are that they are on teams that are either contending right now or will be contending shortly. I doubt these teams will want to take a step back for more prospects. However, these prospects obviously have considerable value in a vacuum and are definitely worth a 1 or 2. So, the best possible option for the Sox here is to introduce a 3rd team into the mix, give them the prospects and have Team X trade an established player to Team Y for the Sox prospects. How about something like AJ Pollock to the Mets, Harvey to the Sox, Margot/Owens/Guerra/Marrero/Rijo to the D'Backs? Not saying that this is the exact framework for a deal but if DD wants to get a pitcher worth the value of these prospects he is going to have to get creative and introduce some more teams into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 8, 2015 12:02:30 GMT -5
The "rotation of 3s" worked for the Yankees, albeit with a much better bullpen. But, yeah, if the defense had been better, and the theoretical rotation of 3s had worked, it could very well have been the Sox vs. Astros. It's not rocket science. Again, it's not rocket science. Sign Greinke. Deal Owens and any prospect not named Moncada for Chris Sale. Money and prospects. We've got both. Let's stop screwing around and use them. If it's not rocket science, then why propose monumentally ridiculous ideas like that?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 8, 2015 13:22:49 GMT -5
/quote] The Sox had about 6 pitchers that led there staff at one time or another making you at least a #1. Regarding the 2013 Sox starting pitching and ERA+, they had Clay with a mind blowing 237 Lackey @ 117, Lester @ 110 and Peavy @ 102. They had 4 guys make 27 starts or more which bode well for the regular season. Several pitchers did step up in the playoffs and they had pedigrees to suggest they could such as Lester (Career playoff -2.57 ERA) and Lackey (Career playoff -3.08 ERA) both of those guys had won world series in their past. To your first point-you're basically saying that, if a pitcher was once his team's best starter, he's a #1 for life. No, no he's not. There are also starters (Grienke, for example) who pitch like legitimate #1s but are stuck behind other pitchers. RJ/Schilling, Halladay/Lee, etc. That doesn't make them #2-quality starters. If you want to use the semantic argument based solely on rotation position for all 30 teams, that's fine...but you're saying Clay Buchholz is a #1 while Zack Grienke is a #2. And it's true, in a literal sense. But it's a useless point when it comes to using rotation position assignment paradigms to discuss statistics and performance. As for your second point, after Clay's half-season (which basically was averaged out with Peavy's...since both pitched half-seasons with the Sox), you've got a couple of 2/3 quality starters there (exactly what I said), and you didn't even bother to mention Doubront and Dempster, who combined pitched about 80% as many innings as Lester/Lackey...because they were mediocre to awful. You listed four pitchers, the first and last of whom pitched half-seasons. So really, you listed the equivalent of 60% of the rotation, but it looks like you tried to pawn it off as the top 4 starters. So tell me again how that rotation was "stacked"?? I contend that the current rotation borders on similar capability as the 2013 version. Rodriguez is primed to do his best Lester impression, and Porcello certainly has the ability to match Lackey's 2013. 2013 Doubront and Dempster-level performances shouldn't be hard to come by (Miley and Kelly did about as much this year). So basically, this team would be OK if they could get someone to repeat the combo of Clay-Peavy, or a high-2s/low-3s ERA, 190-220 IP, etc. if they can trade from excess (without tapping into Espinoza, Moncada, Devers, Benintendi or Margot) and get a SP who's #2 caliber (Raisel Iglesias is intriguing to me, given Cincy's many needs, previous drafting of Marrero, and bandbox ballpark), I'm all for it. If they can stretch for a 1a/future 1, or get a cheap deal on a rental like Strasburg, even better. Or sign a FA if the price isn't prohibitive (though it very well may be). The only route I don't like is emptying the farm for a legitimate #1, because the cost/benefit there is too high. It's just not worth it, given how this team played from August 1st on. Obviously being a one time ace does not make you an ace for life. Obviously it's posible to have 2 on a staff, Pedro and Schilling.You read what I write and reach absurd conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 8, 2015 13:35:59 GMT -5
It seems that a sliding scale of sorts emerging. 1) Trading valuable young position players (say, Betts, Swihart) for young AND impactful pitching (say, Harvey or Carrasco), and throwing $$$ at a position in the field. An approach with great upside, that is financially safe, but is also reckless in terms of sending out a ton of future value and cost controlled talent. One TJS and its over. 2) Trading position players with second-tier value or mediocre veterans (say, Margot or Miley) for less impactful pitching (say, Tyson Ross or Jose Quintana). An approach that is financially conservative, and conservative with prospects, but with lower/unsexier potential payoff. 3) Throwing $$$ at older but impactful pitching (say, Price). An approach that is very conservative with prospects, with great/sexy payoff, but extremely imprudent financially. If there were an easy way out everyone would do it. Any one of these tacks will come with disadvantages. To some extent, the above looks like a pick 2 out of 3 situation. I like the second one the most personally. People have gotten on the Red Sox for foolishly trying to build a "rotation of 3s" - but the problem was that they ended up for most of the first half with a rotation of 5s plus Clay. Thad they really had a rotation of "number three pitchers" in terms of percentile rank among the league's starters they would have been fine. I'm okay with adding some pitching that is better-but-not-drastically-so, and gunning for a rotation whose strength is depth for a second straight year. The issue isn't the strategy - the issue is getting it right. The idea is valid but has more inherent risk. I think they were assuming that some of the pitchers would become more than a #3 and that may still happen. The reason aces receive the big money is because you can ink in their performances where everyone else is penciled in.
|
|
|
Post by SlugLife on Oct 8, 2015 13:37:27 GMT -5
Again, it's not rocket science. Sign Greinke. Deal Owens and any prospect not named Moncada for Chris Sale. Money and prospects. We've got both. Let's stop screwing around and use them. I think Chris Sale's name should go in the bin with Giancarlo Stanton's and Felix Hernandez's. Not happening, unless you want to give the White Sox so much talent they would be stupid to say no. I bet they would trade Sale for ERod, Moncada, Mookie, Xander, and Swihart - deal or no deal?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2015 13:53:13 GMT -5
I think DDo will be looking for potential aces that haven't become them yet more than paying full price for a free agent or controlled ace. Paying full price for anything is the fool's game here. Full price on aces is a huge overpay, relative to # of wins received and given up.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 8, 2015 14:31:16 GMT -5
I think DDo will be looking for potential aces that haven't become them yet more than paying full price for a free agent or controlled ace. Paying full price for anything is the fool's game here. Full price on aces is a huge overpay, relative to # of wins received and given up. Agree. Then again, if you have an advantage over other teams - in this case extensive financial resources - this may be one way to use them. I was all in on Scherzer last year. Price is the only guy I think I'd consider giving a 7 year deal this year but I'm not as sold on him as I was on Max. Price has thrown almost 2,000 more pitches (and counting) than Scherzer did when he hit the market at approximately the same age. He's also going to get even more money. But if I was going to buy the pitching instead of sell the prospects it would take to get an elite/near elite guy, he'd be it this year, period. I am leaning that way because, hey, it's just money, but not as confident as I was with Scherzer. ADDED: With Dombrowski now in charge I think this will be the most fascinating off-season in 10 years. I have no idea what he will do, who he will deal and how he views the optimum construction of this team. Getting the popcorn ready for the Winter Meetings, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2015 14:55:23 GMT -5
I think DDo will be looking for potential aces that haven't become them yet more than paying full price for a free agent or controlled ace. Paying full price for anything is the fool's game here. Full price on aces is a huge overpay, relative to # of wins received and given up. Agree. Then again, if you have an advantage over other teams - in this case extensive financial resources - this may be one way to use them. I was all in on Scherzer last year. Price is the only guy I think I'd consider giving a 7 year deal this year but I'm not as sold on him as I was on Max. Price has thrown almost 2,000 more pitches (and counting) than Scherzer did when he hit the market at approximately the same age. He's also going to get even more money. But if I was going to buy the pitching instead of sell the prospects it would take to get an elite/near elite guy, he'd be it this year, period. I am leaning that way because, hey, it's just money, but not as confident as I was with Scherzer. ADDED: With Dombrowski now in charge I think this will be the most fascinating off-season in 10 years. I have no idea what he will do, who he will deal and how he views the optimum construction of this team. Getting the popcorn ready for the Winter Meetings, that's for sure. I can see them going after Price, though they're probably going to have competition from the Dodgers and maybe Yankees. And after Price, all the other guys are way riskier for me. I just don't see them going after someone like Sale or some of the other names mentioned. Why are any of these teams willing to move these guys with the exception of a huge overpay? I guess you just never know what Billy Beane will do, so Gray could be possible if he doesn't ask for a huge overpay. But I find it unlikely that the Mets trade any of their studs. I even doubt they trade Harvey. Gotta find the next Jake Arrieta, not gut the farm for Sale. Hard to believe the Orioles traded Rodriguez and Arrieta and wound up with nothing to show for it at all.
|
|
|