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.
6/14-6/16 Red Sox vs. Baltimore Series Thead
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 17, 2016 12:01:13 GMT -5
I'm guessing ERod down and Elias up after the game. Clay to get Erod's next start. That has to be it. Granted, it was only 3 IP, but that was Buchholz's best FIP in a game since June of 2014. He's 5 2 0 0 2 5 in his last three relief outings. To not find out whether he has morphed into The Real Clay (TM) would be insane, because if he has (and I would put the odds at 50 / 50, which is to say, nobody has any better idea), that offsets any four negative things you can think of. It would essentially be acquiring the #2 you would love to have. You have to find out if you have that guy. Add a revitalized Clay and an OK Elias and suddenly the rotation is fine. I'm not being a pollyanna and asserting it will happen; I am pointing out that it is a very real and obvious possibility, and you have to give it a shot. Not liking Buchholz is not a counter-argument.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 17, 2016 12:13:57 GMT -5
I'm guessing ERod down and Elias up after the game. Clay to get Erod's next start. That has to be it. Granted, it was only 3 IP, but that was Buchholz's best FIP in a game since June of 2014. He's 5 2 0 0 2 5 in his last three relief outings. To not find out whether he has morphed into The Real Clay (TM) would be insane, because if he has (and I would put the odds at 50 / 50, which is to say, nobody has any better idea), that offsets any four negative things you can think of. It would essentially be acquiring the #2 you would love to have. You have to find out if you have that guy. Add a revitalized Clay and an OK Elias and suddenly the rotation is fine. I'm not being a pollyanna and asserting it will happen; I am pointing out that it is a very real and obvious possibility, and you have to give it a shot. Not liking Buchholz is not a counter-argument. The likelihood is whether it's Buchholz or E-Rod going out every 5th day, the results are likely to be lousy, so if that's a real scenario, they're better off going with Buchholz and letting E-Rod work out his issues in AAA, as Buchholz serves very little purpose out of the bullpen other than wasting a roster spot. And like you said, if Buchholz becomes Derek Lowe circa October 2004 rather than April thru Sept 2004, then all the better. My guess is Buchholz will be better, but quite mediocre, and in a couple of months, health allowing, E-Rod will resemble the pitcher we remember from last year, but if his knee isn't right, then unless Elias does a great job as a #4, they're going to be short in the pitching rotation. Given their options and the likely acquisition cost of starting pitching, their best shot right now is to give Buchholz the starts and see what happens with E-Rod and Elias down the road.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jun 17, 2016 12:49:30 GMT -5
We're on to Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 17, 2016 12:51:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure 2014 Billy Beane should be the model you want your front office to follow. Besides, other than the fact that they both made trades at the deadline, what he did that year has very little in common with what Epstein did in 2004. Beane traded his best prospects for star players, which is what you seem to suggest this year's team should do. Epstein acquired low-key role players that filled holes without materially hurting his farm system. This year's team has an excellent core of position players, and the real issue on the pitching front is not the front-end guys (having Price and Wright as your two best starters and Kimbrel and Tazawa as your two best relievers is more than adequate). What they need is depth and complementary guys-- maybe another mid/back-end starter, maybe another trustworthy reliever, maybe a LF or corner infielder. The idea that you need to go "all in" is cheesy machismo nonsense. I am not suggesting the team do this as much as I was responding to the suggestions that Dombrowski may do this. Personally I don't see that "one or two moves" that gets you to the World Series right now. I am not even sure this team will be ahead of Toronto by July 31. I will say if there was that "one guy" (or even two) that I think would turn this into a dominant team, or at least a clear winner of the division, and he was not a pure 3 month rental, then yes, I would trade two of Moncada-Benintendi-Devers-Espinosa for him, and I would also consider - if healthy - including Swihart and maybe even ERod in a deal. But I am not advocating dealing any of these guys out of hand - and none of them for a reliever, certainly - and I don't see the one or two elite guys out there who are "those guys." This team has to play it out til late July, see where they are and then the management needs to make the tough decisions (or not).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 17, 2016 13:15:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure 2014 Billy Beane should be the model you want your front office to follow. Besides, other than the fact that they both made trades at the deadline, what he did that year has very little in common with what Epstein did in 2004. Beane traded his best prospects for star players, which is what you seem to suggest this year's team should do. Epstein acquired low-key role players that filled holes without materially hurting his farm system. This year's team has an excellent core of position players, and the real issue on the pitching front is not the front-end guys (having Price and Wright as your two best starters and Kimbrel and Tazawa as your two best relievers is more than adequate). What they need is depth and complementary guys-- maybe another mid/back-end starter, maybe another trustworthy reliever, maybe a LF or corner infielder. The idea that you need to go "all in" is cheesy machismo nonsense. I am not suggesting the team do this as much as I was responding to the suggestions that Dombrowski may do this. Personally I don't see that "one or two moves" that gets you to the World Series right now. I am not even sure this team will be ahead of Toronto by July 31. I will say if there was that "one guy" (or even two) that I think would turn this into a dominant team, or at least a clear winner of the division, and he was not a pure 3 month rental, then yes, I would trade two of Moncada-Benintendi-Devers-Espinosa for him, and I would also consider - if healthy - including Swihart and maybe even ERod in a deal. But I am not advocating dealing any of these guys out of hand - and none of them for a reliever, certainly - and I don't see the one or two elite guys out there who are "those guys." This team has to play it out til late July, see where they are and then the management needs to make the tough decisions (or not). There are never "one or two moves" that get a team to a World Series. Even a totally dominant team, like this year's Cubs, is far more likely to wash out in the divisional/conference series than it is a World Series team. Generally, the idea that you should only go "all in" if you can reach a certain level of dominance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. At midseason, there is still enough uncertainty around your projected record (and that of your competitors) that there aren't really tipping points that you have to reach to justify a certain deal. If anything, the teams that should go "all in" aren't the ones who have the chance to go from a great team to a dominant team, but the ones who have the chance to go from a fringe contender to a definite contender. This is the idea of the win curve and how a team in the high-80s should be the one most willing to pay for marginal upgrades (see here or here).
|
|
|