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.
|
Post by kman22 on Nov 8, 2015 18:25:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure we can sign all those guys If you are going to sacrifice your top pick, you might as well sign them all.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 8, 2015 18:48:31 GMT -5
This brings up another point in that I don't believe the stats used to judge relief pitchers are all that great. A relief pitcher that gives up 8 runs in one game with 7 scoreless games is a lot better than a relief pitcher that gives up 1 run in each of 8 games. You need some new stats to judge relief pitchers IMO. You could do this for starters as well actually. This is a good point and something I've noticed too. Everyone assumes these things even out but why? For example I noticed that when Porcello was bad he was real bad which increased his overall high ERA but the majority of the time he gave the team a legitimate chance to win.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 8, 2015 18:54:26 GMT -5
The idea of trading Owens or Margot for Chapman or Kimbrel is insane. The former is a rental while the latter is signed to an expensive contract for a reliever.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2015 21:08:32 GMT -5
The idea of trading Owens or Margot for Chapman or Kimbrel is insane. The former is a rental while the latter is signed to an expensive contract for a reliever. I wouldn't do it, but you're not getting Kimbrel or Chapman for a Marrero and a Bryce Brentz type. It's going to take more than that. The Red Sox would be competing with many other teams for their services which in a trade market would probably put the Sox in an uncomfortable position of having to offer more than they'd want to, so they probably won't.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 9, 2015 0:08:59 GMT -5
This brings up another point in that I don't believe the stats used to judge relief pitchers are all that great. A relief pitcher that gives up 8 runs in one game with 7 scoreless games is a lot better than a relief pitcher that gives up 1 run in each of 8 games. You need some new stats to judge relief pitchers IMO. You could do this for starters as well actually. This is a good point and something I've noticed too. Everyone assumes these things even out but why? For example I noticed that when Porcello was bad he was real bad which increased his overall high ERA but the majority of the time he gave the team a legitimate chance to win. Win Probability Added. Use that and bWAR to evaluate how valuable relievers have been. Use SIERA and, when there's enough of a career, career SIERA minus career ERA to evaluate how good they are likely to be. (And SIERA for NL pitchers needs to be multiplied by about 1.03 -- 1.028 last time I ran the numbers).
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 9, 2015 8:24:10 GMT -5
The idea of trading Owens or Margot for Chapman or Kimbrel is insane. The former is a rental while the latter is signed to an expensive contract for a reliever. I wouldn't do it, but you're not getting Kimbrel or Chapman for a Marrero and a Bryce Brentz type. It's going to take more than that. The Red Sox would be competing with many other teams for their services which in a trade market would probably put the Sox in an uncomfortable position of having to offer more than they'd want to, so they probably won't. Not trying to be rude, but I know that. The thing about bullpen construction is that you don't need to make splashy signings or make big trades to improve it dramatically, as they usually backfire due to the volatility of relievers or injuries. For example, trading for a subsidized Papelbon and adding an under-the-radar quality middle-reliever would go a long way into making the Red Sox bullpen an above-average one (considering Tazawa and Uehara are still good). Those moves wouldn't require a lot of money or parting with top prospects. Something that needs to be consider is that Dombrowski has been bad at building bullpens, so he might go for a guy with less uncertainty, like Chapman or Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 9:10:44 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing.
Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 9, 2015 10:23:56 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing. Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time. Agree on the Barnes thing, He has the entire offseason to prepare physically & especially mentally to be in the pen. Between flipping back & forth from Bos to Paw & the pen & SP, had to be tough. Melancon was/is good in Houston & Pittsburgh, but terrible in Boston, like Crawford terrible. Doesn't appear to be a large market guy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2015 11:46:24 GMT -5
Melancon was/is good in Houston & Pittsburgh, but terrible in Boston, like Crawford terrible. Doesn't appear to be a large market guy. This is the wrong lesson to take away from the Melancon saga. It seems difficult to me to argue that being the closer for a playoff-contending Pittsburgh team is more stressful than being a setup man/middle reliever for a last-place Red Sox team. That's not to mention that Melancon's peripherals (3.15 SIERA) were pretty great in his one Boston season. His post-Boston breakout had a few other drivers (namely his increasing reliance on his cutter rather than his four-seamer; he threw the cutter 26.5% of the time in his Boston season but 50%+ of the time in Pittsburgh), but it was mostly just good old fashioned regression, and I'm very skeptical that anything related to his makeup or lack thereof had anything to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 9, 2015 11:52:52 GMT -5
Melancon also pitched perfectly fine from his recall in June until the end of the season. Basically his April was a disaster and he didn't get enough innings to overcome it statistically.
The entire Melancon fiasco was a pretty big indictment of Cherington as a GM. He bought high, sent him to the minors undercutting his ability to rebuild value, then sold low. Really awful stuff.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 9, 2015 12:28:28 GMT -5
Melancon also pitched perfectly fine from his recall in June until the end of the season. Basically his April was a disaster and he didn't get enough innings to overcome it statistically. The entire Melancon fiasco was a pretty big indictment of Cherington as a GM. He bought high, sent him to the minors undercutting his ability to rebuild value, then sold low. Really awful stuff. Fair enough, plus DDom wasn't here to witness that ordeal. It's a clean slate to him. Though in the back of his mind, he know's what Melancon did here a few years ago, & him being a "feel" guy, not sure he makes that deal, unless it's a clear win for him, if that's the case Pitt doesn't bite.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 12:38:55 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing. Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time. There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 12:53:42 GMT -5
Barnes figuring it out in the bullpen could be a big key to turning the bullpen around. That he is showing up to ST knowing how to prepare and not getting bounced back and forth between starting and relieving is a good thing. Mark Melancon is entering his 3rd arb year. I wonder if the Red Sox would be interested in trading for him a 2nd time. There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him. They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:06:29 GMT -5
There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him. They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas. Holy crap you guys. No. Just no. Matt Barnes has NO value right now. He got lit up in relief. Pirates aren't salary dumping an elite closer who recorded 51 saves in an arbitration year. No one salary dumps 1 year deals! Repeat after me everyone, WE ARENT GETTING ELITE TALENT FOR OUR GARBAGE. WE ARENT GETTING ELITE TALENT FOR OUR GARBAGE.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 9, 2015 13:12:04 GMT -5
There's no logical reason as to why the Pirates would trade him. They contended last year, will again this year. Relief market isn't strong enough to warrant trading him and signing someone else to replace him. They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas. Their opening day payroll in 2015 was $90M. For next year, they have $50,625,000 in pre-arb obligations (Liriano, McCutchen, Morse, Morton, Harrison, Marte, Kang), then another $45M in projected arbitration salaries. So maybe there could be something to that. That said, I'd say the $8.1M projected for Pedro Alvarez seems a likelier cost-cutting target. Jordy Mercer's $1.8M might make him a target if Kang is healthy. But yeah, the $16.8M in projected salaries for Melancon (10m), Watson (4.6M), and Hughes (2.2M) seem a bit steep for 3 relievers on a 490M payroll, especially with Caminero there too. It'd be worth looking into.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:18:56 GMT -5
They are a small market team and might not want to dedicate that much to bullpen arms. Hell, maybe Barnes would be a decent matchup. They could take the $10 million that Melancon is projected to get and spend it in other areas. Their opening day payroll in 2015 was $90M. For next year, they have $50,625,000 in pre-arb obligations (Liriano, McCutchen, Morse, Morton, Harrison, Marte, Kang), then another $45M in projected arbitration salaries. So maybe there could be something to that. That said, I'd say the $8.1M projected for Pedro Alvarez seems a likelier cost-cutting target. Jordy Mercer's $1.8M might make him a target if Kang is healthy. But yeah, the $16.8M in projected salaries for Melancon (10m), Watson (4.6M), and Hughes (2.2M) seem a bit steep for 3 relievers on a 490M payroll, especially with Caminero there too. It'd be worth looking into. They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 13:26:32 GMT -5
Their opening day payroll in 2015 was $90M. For next year, they have $50,625,000 in pre-arb obligations (Liriano, McCutchen, Morse, Morton, Harrison, Marte, Kang), then another $45M in projected arbitration salaries. So maybe there could be something to that. That said, I'd say the $8.1M projected for Pedro Alvarez seems a likelier cost-cutting target. Jordy Mercer's $1.8M might make him a target if Kang is healthy. But yeah, the $16.8M in projected salaries for Melancon (10m), Watson (4.6M), and Hughes (2.2M) seem a bit steep for 3 relievers on a 490M payroll, especially with Caminero there too. It'd be worth looking into. They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes Do you remember when small market teams trade expensive players in the last year of their control? Oh yeah, it happens all the damn time. You are overvaluing relief pitchers on a 1 year $10 million contract. You don't have to be an *** to have a conversation with me.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 9, 2015 13:37:23 GMT -5
They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes Do you remember when small market teams trade expensive players in the last year of their control? Oh yeah, it happens all the damn time. You are overvaluing relief pitchers on a 1 year $10 million contract. You don't have to be an ass to have a conversation with me. I could see Melancon being dealt eventually but I'd think that another team can beat Matt Barnes for return value - unless of course, Barnes takes a dramatic step upward. I'm not a huge believer in him, but the Sox need to find out what they have in him, so I would think we'll see plenty of him. I didn't think Melancon was that bad with the Sox. He was awful at the start of the season, giving up homer after homer and Bobby V immediately lost any and all faith in him. He probably had the worst start to a season for a reliever since Bill Campbell in 1977 (disclaimer - being facetious here - don't know the worst start to a season by a reliever), when Soup was 0-3 with an ERA over 9 and rebounded to have a stellar year before his arm gave out. Melancon started pitching much better when he came back and I was disappointed to see him go in the Hanrahan deal. The whole Melancon thing felt like a lost opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 13:39:56 GMT -5
They're not cutting the head off their bullpen for savings on a 1 year deal. They WANT to go to the playoffs again. It's not happening, and it's especially not happening for Matt freakin' Barnes Do you remember when small market teams trade expensive players in the last year of their control? Oh yeah, it happens all the damn time. You are overvaluing relief pitchers on a 1 year $10 million contract. You don't have to be an ass to have a conversation with me. I'm not overvaluing anything. We just saw the Royals win a WS with their lockdown pen. We just saw the Red Sox hemorrhage away runs in the 6-9 innings with no pen. Pirates are coming off a post-season berth, they want to contend. A contending team doesn't salary dump a 51 save closer. If you want to trade for Mark Melancon, be ready to give up something valuable and cost-controlled. Matt Barnes doesn't move that needle even slightly, and I'm sorry you're offended, but you're wildly off in more ways than one. With how thin this relief market is, to think the best deal the Pirates would get offered is Barnes, is ludicrous in it's own right.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 9, 2015 13:55:14 GMT -5
Missed the part about Barnes. Agreed he's definitely not close to enough for Melancon.
As for "cutting the head" off of their bullpen, go look at what the rest of their bullpen did this year. This wasn't some crap bullpen that had a dominant closer bailing them out every game. Watson-Caminero-Hughes is a decently little top 3 for them to build a bullpen around, if they're trying to save a little money there.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 14:08:24 GMT -5
Missed the part about Barnes. Agreed he's definitely not close to enough for Melancon. As for "cutting the head" off of their bullpen, go look at what the rest of their bullpen did this year. This wasn't some crap bullpen that had a dominant closer bailing them out every game. Watson-Caminero-Hughes is a decently little top 3 for them to build a bullpen around, if they're trying to save a little money there. Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 9, 2015 14:27:10 GMT -5
Missed the part about Barnes. Agreed he's definitely not close to enough for Melancon. As for "cutting the head" off of their bullpen, go look at what the rest of their bullpen did this year. This wasn't some crap bullpen that had a dominant closer bailing them out every game. Watson-Caminero-Hughes is a decently little top 3 for them to build a bullpen around, if they're trying to save a little money there. Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money. Does Melancon compare to Kimbrel or Chapman, or are those 2 available because they are on bad teams. If all 3 were avail, which would you target? I know we're getting way out of the box here, but just curious.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2015 14:28:00 GMT -5
Missed the part about Barnes. Agreed he's definitely not close to enough for Melancon. As for "cutting the head" off of their bullpen, go look at what the rest of their bullpen did this year. This wasn't some crap bullpen that had a dominant closer bailing them out every game. Watson-Caminero-Hughes is a decently little top 3 for them to build a bullpen around, if they're trying to save a little money there. Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money. Miller had 1 save before this year. No one cares about how many saves anyone has. Money is always prohibitive for small market teams. And interestingly enough, I just read Heyman saying that Miller could be traded this winter.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Nov 9, 2015 14:50:59 GMT -5
Their pen is a huge asset. And that trio of guys combined for 1 save in 2015. 7 in their careers. Melancon was AUTOMATIC last year. Money is rarely prohibitive when a player is ELITE. If they weren't looking like contenders, sure he'd be gone. It just makes no sense. With only 1 year left on his contract, his value isn't drastically different than it will be at the deadline. Hell it might be more at the deadline, and then they have a better idea of how Watson could handle the closing role. If Melancon goes this offseason, it's for something GOOD. Not for money. Miller had 1 save before this year. No one cares about how many saves anyone has. Money is always prohibitive for small market teams. And interestingly enough, I just read Heyman saying that Miller could be traded this winter. Lol. Let's look at context here: Miller got the job because Betances struggled in spring and his velo dropped. Yankees are ONLY making Miller available because they'd then go out and trade for Kimbrel or Chapman, or sign O'Day. They're not thinking of trading Andrew Miller and not replacing him. But dude, go ahead and keep deluding yourself into thinking Matt Barnes could get you a 50 save closer. You could try really really really hard, and you still couldn't come up with a less likely trade scenario.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2015 15:03:56 GMT -5
I'm pretty skeptical that any highly-paid reliever (and, to be more specific, Melancon, Chapman and Kimbrel) offers enough enough surplus value to be worth giving up a significant prospect package for. When you only pitch ~60-70 innings a year, it's just tough to be worth a $10m+ salary plus a big prospect package. That's especially true for one-year rentals like Melancon and Chapman. Those guys offer, what, ~$4m in surplus value for 2015? Even including the potential of offering them the QO and getting a pick in return (~$8m, per this analysis, but keep in mind that it's not 100% that they'll pitch well enough in 2016 to be worth offering the QO), that's not worth a Margot. It's worth more than a Marrero or a Barnes, though-- per this analysis, it'd be something like a mid/back-end-top-100 prospect, so think somewhere in the Guerra/Kopech/Johnson tier.
|
|
|