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 jodyreidnichols on Dec 12, 2016 20:26:22 GMT -5
What evidence do you have to support Wright not repeating? I'd make him the swing man because he'd be the easiest to increase his innings from 2 to 6, and the most likely to make a spot start with little notice. Brian Johnson could be more than that but he needs to re-establish himself. I don't have evidence. I didn't think he looked as good in the second half, and I don't have faith that knuckleball pitchers pitch at an all star level consistently. I am not slamming him so much as suggesting you trade at his high value. But looking at other knuckleballers like Wake and Dickey, they are apt to go from strong seasons to poor (and back). You mean like any other pitcher?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 13, 2016 11:57:02 GMT -5
I don't have evidence. I didn't think he looked as good in the second half, and I don't have faith that knuckleball pitchers pitch at an all star level consistently. I am not slamming him so much as suggesting you trade at his high value. But looking at other knuckleballers like Wake and Dickey, they are apt to go from strong seasons to poor (and back). You mean like any other pitcher? No, rather unlike most all star pitchers when healthy. Look at Tim Wakefield's stats '95-'02: ERAs that go 2.95, 5.14, 4.25, 4.58, 5.08, 5.48, 3.90, 2.91. Dickey wins CY, never has ERA within a run of that year again. And maybe it doesn't matter that it's the knuckleball entirely. Porcello is not likely ever to have a year like he just had again. The difference is he will probably not regress to what he was two years ago. I don't have confidence that Wright is nearly as reliable.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 13, 2016 13:12:29 GMT -5
You mean like any other pitcher? No, rather unlike most all star pitchers when healthy. Look at Tim Wakefield's stats '95-'02: ERAs that go 2.95, 5.14, 4.25, 4.58, 5.08, 5.48, 3.90, 2.91. Dickey wins CY, never has ERA within a run of that year again. And maybe it doesn't matter that it's the knuckleball entirely. Porcello is not likely ever to have a year like he just had again. The difference is he will probably not regress to what he was two years ago. I don't have confidence that Wright is nearly as reliable. Knucklers have alot of unfair prejudices against them. I thought most of that had been proved wrong. For every example you can show of inconsistency by a knuckler I can show you far more examples of that by non-knucklers. I agree that Porcello is likely to do well just not as well as he did last year. I'd expect much the same with Wright although with the extra time he missed it may take longer to get untracked. That said one advantage he has is, it won't take as long to stretch him out of the pen to a starter, ie, I'd make him the swing man and the first to fill in when someone is injured or misses a start, causing less of a disruption to the staff as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 13, 2016 16:29:41 GMT -5
I am not inclined to trade Buchholz. If all is going according to plan in 2017 but a problem or flaw is exposed (other than starting pitching) then, assuming Buchholz has continued his run from the second half of 2016 (and built additional value) that would be the time to leverage his value in a trade. What do you do with our other staters? Who's in your top 5? That's for JF to decide. I would expect Sale, Porcello, Price to headline the rotation and some combination of Wright, ERod, Pomeranz and Buccholz to round it out. Keeping in mind that only Buccholz (twice) and Pomeranz (once) ever pitched more than 170 innings in a given year What if Buchholz pitches like first 2/3 of 2016 and not the last 1/3 of season? Doubtful, but if that is indeed the case he will not be on the 2018 roster, You also need to look at the money, we need to move his money to give us wiggle room . In season not a ton of teams can take on close to his 13.5 million in salary. No I don't. That is up to the ownership. It is their team, not mine. In your plan if Buchholz pitches poorly and we can't trade him unless we pay the majority of his salary. We would lose the ability to take on salary mid season. That would depend on what we need, who wants to take a flyer on Buccholz and how badly both teams want to go about this transaction. I believe the Red Sox are blessed with depth and that it would be an unlikely scenario that a stop gap solution could not be found from within. That said, and a situation presents itself where a player becomes available, that the brain trust feels we absolutely must have, then the loss of a poor performing Buccholz as a through in helps to offset the salary of the must have addition. I'd much rather clear his salary now and take the best offer we can get now. Reports are showing that DD is trying to get a good prospect for him right now. So he's not just dumping him and his salary. He wanted the Marlins #5 prospect. If we get anything close to that I will be doing backflips. Buchholz is just far too risky to gamble on. You can never have enough pitching, especially when the guys auditioning for the #4 and #5 spots have only one 170IP season under their belts.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 13, 2016 17:34:36 GMT -5
Wright could be a nightmare out of the pen if he's able to maintain the level of success he had last year. Could you imagine facing one of our top 3, guys who all throw relatively hard, and then your next AB is against a guy throwing a 73mph knuckle ball? Then if you go up again you're facing someone like Kimbrel of Kelly who throw upper 90's.
That sounds like a pretty good way to throw off just about any hitters timing. 91-95mph, to 73, then 97-100.
But I think it comes down to either who performs better in ST, or whoever they get the strongest offer for.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think that if Clay stays on the team, he should be a starter. However, I do think he is the most likely to be traded.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 13, 2016 17:43:21 GMT -5
You mean like any other pitcher? No, rather unlike most all star pitchers when healthy. Look at Tim Wakefield's stats '95-'02: ERAs that go 2.95, 5.14, 4.25, 4.58, 5.08, 5.48, 3.90, 2.91. Dickey wins CY, never has ERA within a run of that year again. And maybe it doesn't matter that it's the knuckleball entirely. Porcello is not likely ever to have a year like he just had again. The difference is he will probably not regress to what he was two years ago. I don't have confidence that Wright is nearly as reliable. Just so your informed: R.A Dickey's ERA in 3 consecutive years with the Mets: 2.84, 3.28, 2.73, and then 4 consecutive years with the Blue Jays: 4.21, 3.71, 3.91, 4.46 So, basically Dickey was consistently above average with the Mets, and then consistently average with the Blue Jays. That would seem to disprove the idea that knuckleballers can't be above average for sustained periods of time, and also that knuckleballers are characterized by inconsistency more generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2016 20:58:09 GMT -5
What do you do with our other staters? Who's in your top 5? That's for JF to decide. I would expect Sale, Porcello, Price to headline the rotation and some combination of Wright, ERod, Pomeranz and Buccholz to round it out. Keeping in mind that only Buccholz (twice) and Pomeranz (once) ever pitched more than 170 innings in a given year What if Buchholz pitches like first 2/3 of 2016 and not the last 1/3 of season? Doubtful, but if that is indeed the case he will not be on the 2018 roster, You also need to look at the money, we need to move his money to give us wiggle room . In season not a ton of teams can take on close to his 13.5 million in salary. No I don't. That is up to the ownership. It is their team, not mine. In your plan if Buchholz pitches poorly and we can't trade him unless we pay the majority of his salary. We would lose the ability to take on salary mid season. That would depend on what we need, who wants to take a flyer on Buccholz and how badly both teams want to go about this transaction. I believe the Red Sox are blessed with depth and that it would be an unlikely scenario that a stop gap solution could not be found from within. That said, and a situation presents itself where a player becomes available, that the brain trust feels we absolutely must have, then the loss of a poor performing Buccholz as a through in helps to offset the salary of the must have addition. I'd much rather clear his salary now and take the best offer we can get now. Reports are showing that DD is trying to get a good prospect for him right now. So he's not just dumping him and his salary. He wanted the Marlins #5 prospect. If we get anything close to that I will be doing backflips. Buchholz is just far too risky to gamble on. You can never have enough pitching, especially when the guys auditioning for the #4 and #5 spots have only one 170IP season under their belts. Well ownership wants to stay under Luxury tax, DD has said as much. That was my whole point! To give you the wiggle room we would need if we had to add players during season we'll need to move Buchholz or Pomeranz and Abad. It sure seems they are moving Buchholz's. You really think we have great depth ? I would say good at best, we have big holes like OF and 3B. I would say chances that DD adds a player or players is far greater than him not adding a player. The Baseball season i s very long and a lot can happen. We need the room to be able to add a Ziegler, Pomeranz or Hill if we need them. Also if you can get a prospect like we wanted from Miami you take it. That's a guy that could have added depth later this year and for years after that.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Dec 13, 2016 21:28:07 GMT -5
I noticed the Marlins recieved competitive balance pick 36.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 13, 2016 21:42:18 GMT -5
No, rather unlike most all star pitchers when healthy. Look at Tim Wakefield's stats '95-'02: ERAs that go 2.95, 5.14, 4.25, 4.58, 5.08, 5.48, 3.90, 2.91. Dickey wins CY, never has ERA within a run of that year again. And maybe it doesn't matter that it's the knuckleball entirely. Porcello is not likely ever to have a year like he just had again. The difference is he will probably not regress to what he was two years ago. I don't have confidence that Wright is nearly as reliable. Just so your informed: R.A Dickey's ERA in 3 consecutive years with the Mets: 2.84, 3.28, 2.73, and then 4 consecutive years with the Blue Jays: 4.21, 3.71, 3.91, 4.46 So, basically Dickey was consistently above average with the Mets, and then consistently average with the Blue Jays. That would seem to disprove the idea that knuckleballers can't be above average for sustained periods of time, and also that knuckleballers are characterized by inconsistency more generally speaking. My point was after winning the CY, he was, as you put it, "consistently average." My argument was simply that trading Wright at peak value along with a Buch trade might help replenish minors without too much damage. If Wright regresses to mediocre (and he is slated to be aswing starter anyway), that is replaceable in case of injury or spot start.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 13, 2016 22:30:17 GMT -5
Just so your informed: R.A Dickey's ERA in 3 consecutive years with the Mets: 2.84, 3.28, 2.73, and then 4 consecutive years with the Blue Jays: 4.21, 3.71, 3.91, 4.46 So, basically Dickey was consistently above average with the Mets, and then consistently average with the Blue Jays. That would seem to disprove the idea that knuckleballers can't be above average for sustained periods of time, and also that knuckleballers are characterized by inconsistency more generally speaking. My point was after winning the CY, he was, as you put it, "consistently average." My argument was simply that trading Wright at peak value along with a Buch trade might help replenish minors without too much damage. If Wright regresses to mediocre (and he is slated to be aswing starter anyway), that is replaceable in case of injury or spot start. Except the idea that he is "at peak value" is based on a presumption that's been shown to be a fallacy both in this thread, and elsewhere: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-knuckleball-is-more-conventional-than-it-seems/You could be right that he'll never approach this season's performance again, but if so, you've still based that conclusion on an inherently faulty CW. In fact, there's some suggestion in that article that Wright's performance last year had some basis in approach (commanding velocity) which actually suggests both reproducibility and potential improvement. Furthermore, there's also the piece about knuckleballer in-season *consistency*, which has tremendous value for a back-end starter/swingman. Personally, I think trading Wright is a terrible idea. He's cheap, he's been good and can reasonably be expected to continue to be at least average or better, he provides much-needed reliable 6th-starter depth, he's likely to be undervalued in the market for the same reasons (urban myths) you've posited, and his performance record isn't long enough for other teams to risk the sort of quality prospects on him that the Sox would need to get back to make a trade worthwhile.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,519
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 13, 2016 23:55:44 GMT -5
My point was after winning the CY, he was, as you put it, "consistently average." My argument was simply that trading Wright at peak value along with a Buch trade might help replenish minors without too much damage. If Wright regresses to mediocre (and he is slated to be aswing starter anyway), that is replaceable in case of injury or spot start. Except the idea that he is "at peak value" is based on a presumption that's been shown to be a fallacy both in this thread, and elsewhere: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-knuckleball-is-more-conventional-than-it-seems/You could be right that he'll never approach this season's performance again, but if so, you've still based that conclusion on an inherently faulty CW. In fact, there's some suggestion in that article that Wright's performance last year had some basis in approach (commanding velocity) which actually suggests both reproducibility and potential improvement. Furthermore, there's also the piece about knuckleballer in-season *consistency*, which has tremendous value for a back-end starter/swingman. Personally, I think trading Wright is a terrible idea. He's cheap, he's been good and can reasonably be expected to continue to be at least average or better, he provides much-needed reliable 6th-starter depth, he's likely to be undervalued in the market for the same reasons (urban myths) you've posited, and his performance record isn't long enough for other teams to risk the sort of quality prospects on him that the Sox would need to get back to make a trade worthwhile. I'd simply just add that Wright is capable of soaking up a lot of innings. This guy can go 9. He provides quality and quantity. Pomeranz is more likely to run up a larger pitch count earlier in the game. I think the Sox are going to go with Pomeranz over Wright. If Pomeranz or somebody else gets hurt Wright will get inserted into the rotation anyways. I think it's obvious Buchholz will be dealt soon. He's the easiest way to get a good deal under the luxury tax threshold and still provide enough wiggle room to get a bat or whatever if they need it in July. I think they could get something reasonably valuable for Pomeranz, but I'm sure the Red Sox would prefer to keep both Wright and Pomeranz around. I think after trading Espinoza to get Pomeranz there's no way they turn him back into a reliever and Wright is much more capable of being "stretched out" if need be of course, so even though I prefer Wright over Pomeranz, Pomeranz will most likely get the rotation spot. I think with Porcello, Wright, Price, and Porcello the Red Sox have four guys capable of pitching at least 7 innings with regularity (which is such a rarity these days) which takes a ton of pressure off of the bullpen. I think guys like E-Rod and Pomeranz are more likely to be a five to six inning pitcher than the other four guys.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 14, 2016 0:32:27 GMT -5
Except the idea that he is "at peak value" is based on a presumption that's been shown to be a fallacy both in this thread, and elsewhere: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-knuckleball-is-more-conventional-than-it-seems/You could be right that he'll never approach this season's performance again, but if so, you've still based that conclusion on an inherently faulty CW. In fact, there's some suggestion in that article that Wright's performance last year had some basis in approach (commanding velocity) which actually suggests both reproducibility and potential improvement. Furthermore, there's also the piece about knuckleballer in-season *consistency*, which has tremendous value for a back-end starter/swingman. Personally, I think trading Wright is a terrible idea. He's cheap, he's been good and can reasonably be expected to continue to be at least average or better, he provides much-needed reliable 6th-starter depth, he's likely to be undervalued in the market for the same reasons (urban myths) you've posited, and his performance record isn't long enough for other teams to risk the sort of quality prospects on him that the Sox would need to get back to make a trade worthwhile. I'd simply just add that Wright is capable of soaking up a lot of innings. This guy can go 9. He provides quality and quantity. Pomeranz is more likely to run up a larger pitch count earlier in the game. I think the Sox are going to go with Pomeranz over Wright. If Pomeranz or somebody else gets hurt Wright will get inserted into the rotation anyways. I think it's obvious Buchholz will be dealt soon. He's the easiest way to get a good deal under the luxury tax threshold and still provide enough wiggle room to get a bat or whatever if they need it in July. I think they could get something reasonably valuable for Pomeranz, but I'm sure the Red Sox would prefer to keep both Wright and Pomeranz around. I think after trading Espinoza to get Pomeranz there's no way they turn him back into a reliever and Wright is much more capable of being "stretched out" if need be of course, so even though I prefer Wright over Pomeranz, Pomeranz will most likely get the rotation spot. I think with Porcello, Wright, Price, and Porcello the Red Sox have four guys capable of pitching at least 7 innings with regularity (which is such a rarity these days) which takes a ton of pressure off of the bullpen. I think guys like E-Rod and Pomeranz are more likely to be a five to six inning pitcher than the other four guys. True, although I think Rodriguez may very well (and if I had to pick a side, I'd say he will) become that sort of pitcher. I absolutely agree about Pomeranz as a reliever, and I think they're unlikely to trade him for the same reason (unless, of course, Dombrowski can either swindle someone, or Pomeranz really is the guy DD thought he was, shows it, and commands a huge return).
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 14, 2016 13:15:23 GMT -5
I noticed the Marlins recieved competitive balance pick 36. Can that pick be traded?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 14, 2016 20:19:18 GMT -5
I noticed the Marlins recieved competitive balance pick 36. Can that pick be traded? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by scarr0214 on Dec 15, 2016 4:10:05 GMT -5
Not only do I think Clay will be traded I think the trade is already in place and has been since we acquired Sale if not before. It's going to be a very minor deal, basically Clay for a bag of balls. As we see each starting pitcher disappear off the market it narrows down who exactly is getting him. If Volquez is getting 2 years at 22 somebody will gladly take Clay at his current deal. My money is on Clay to San Diego for a player in A ball.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Dec 15, 2016 6:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Dec 15, 2016 12:04:07 GMT -5
Does anyone think a Josh Harrison for Clay Buchholz trade makes sense? Harrison could offer insurance at 3B if Panda falls on his face, or in the Righty part of a platoon if Panda continues to struggle against LHP as Harrison hits Lefties very well. He is also really versatile can play 2B, 3B, SS & OF, so could give any of our lefty batters a day off vs LHP.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2016 15:24:50 GMT -5
Does anyone think a Josh Harrison for Clay Buchholz trade makes sense? Harrison could offer insurance at 3B if Panda falls on his face, or in the Righty part of a platoon if Panda continues to struggle against LHP as Harrison hits Lefties very well. He is also really versatile can play 2B, 3B, SS & OF, so could give any of our lefty batters a day off vs LHP. I'd do it , just not sure why Pirates would do that trade.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 15, 2016 15:37:30 GMT -5
Does anyone think a Josh Harrison for Clay Buchholz trade makes sense? Harrison could offer insurance at 3B if Panda falls on his face, or in the Righty part of a platoon if Panda continues to struggle against LHP as Harrison hits Lefties very well. He is also really versatile can play 2B, 3B, SS & OF, so could give any of our lefty batters a day off vs LHP. I think the Dominguez signing obviates the need for another 3B guy. Rather see non 40 man P or OF prospect the return for Clay, no $$$ retained.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2016 15:54:15 GMT -5
Does anyone think a Josh Harrison for Clay Buchholz trade makes sense? Harrison could offer insurance at 3B if Panda falls on his face, or in the Righty part of a platoon if Panda continues to struggle against LHP as Harrison hits Lefties very well. He is also really versatile can play 2B, 3B, SS & OF, so could give any of our lefty batters a day off vs LHP. I think the Dominguez signing obviates the need for another 3B guy. Rather see non 40 man P or OF prospect the return for Clay, no $$$ retained. I can understand wanting a prospect and not a guy that makes decent money. Now I can't understand why you think Dominguez means we don't have depth issues. If he has to play more than a couple games were in trouble. DD added him to take a chance he might be a late Bloomer and add another layer of depth. Harrison would be like getting a better Holt. He can play above average D at 2nd and 3B. He can also play the OF. He would solve any depth issue we had.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 16, 2016 7:49:13 GMT -5
I think the Dominguez signing obviates the need for another 3B guy. Rather see non 40 man P or OF prospect the return for Clay, no $$$ retained. I can understand wanting a prospect and not a guy that makes decent money. Now I can't understand why you think Dominguez means we don't have depth issues. If he has to play more than a couple games were in trouble. DD added him to take a chance he might be a late Bloomer and add another layer of depth. Harrison would be like getting a better Holt. He can play above average D at 2nd and 3B. He can also play the OF. He would solve any depth issue we had. Dominguez was signed as a depth move. Of course DD is counting on Pablo to say in shape and contribute in a meaningful way to the offense. Holt is the primary backup for several if and of positions. Matt has a good glove and, if for no other reason, can hold the position defensively, at least on an emergency basis. While his hitting stats are not very good, he does have some power.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 17, 2016 15:00:20 GMT -5
Given that pomeranz's elbow could pop at any moment, I think we should keep Buchholz.
However if we have to move Buchholz, we need to get a dependable major league reliever.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,519
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 17, 2016 15:12:24 GMT -5
Given that pomeranz's elbow could pop at any moment, I think we should keep Buchholz. However if we have to move Buchholz, we need to get a dependable major league reliever. If Pomeranz's elbow pops they still have five starters in E-Rod, Wright, Porcello, Price, and Sale. Buchholz's presence keeps them unnecessarily over the luxury tax limit. The Red Sox don't need to keep around a $13 million 7th starter. At this point Brian Johnson should be able to function as a 7th starter.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 17, 2016 16:16:05 GMT -5
Given that pomeranz's elbow could pop at any moment, I think we should keep Buchholz. However if we have to move Buchholz, we need to get a dependable major league reliever. Any pitcher could blow out an elbow or shoulder at any time. You basing this on Pomeranz dead arm last year? That was to be expected when a pitcher doubles his innings. DD had a chance to recind the trade. If he thought Pomeranz was a ticking time bomb he recinds trade. With a little rest he was dominant in playoffs outside one big HR. He sure didn't look like a guy that was about to need major surgery.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 18, 2016 22:07:35 GMT -5
Given that pomeranz's elbow could pop at any moment, I think we should keep Buchholz. However if we have to move Buchholz, we need to get a dependable major league reliever. Any pitcher could blow out an elbow or shoulder at any time. You basing this on Pomeranz dead arm last year? That was to be expected when a pitcher doubles his innings. DD had a chance to recind the trade. If he thought Pomeranz was a ticking time bomb he recinds trade. With a little rest he was dominant in playoffs outside one big HR. He sure didn't look like a guy that was about to need major surgery. Yeah, I'm not tremendously concerned re: Pomeranz's elbow. He pitched a lot of innings last year, especially relative to his history. And, because he has some control issues, he throws a lot of pitches per inning. I don't necessarily equate taking what sounds like NSAID anti-inflammatories (which was probably ibuprofen/naproxen OTC or flurbiprofen/indomethacin Rx) with major arm issues. He probably (in light of UMass's strong point that DD didn't rescind the trade) just had some soreness. I can't imagine that Dombrowski, even in the pickle they were in, would have let the trade stand if there were any real sign of structural damage. He might be aggressive, but he's absolutely not stupid. As much as I was concerned last year about Pomeranz contributing significantly down the stretch due to the combination of workload/style (hence the HR/fly issues), I'm much less concerned about his first-half expectations in 2017. I think he'll do well, even if he does a short DL stint for recurrent soreness. I'm inclined to think that he's a good pitcher, whether or not he's the coming-into-his-own TOR guy the Sox seemed to think. And, I think RSchamps makes a solid point, too, which is that Owens/Johnson should be sufficient 7th starter depth if/when Buchholz is moved. It's not hard to see that shedding his salary was a major side-benefit of the Sale acquisition. It's essentially forced by it. I'm all for having depth, but a $13.5M 7th starter who's a 3 on many teams (with 1a upside) is a luxury that the Sox can theoretically afford, but which has limited value. At some point the team is best served by getting the young guys MLB innings and either developing them, or moving them. To me, Johnson looks like at least a 3/4 if he stays healthy, and I'd say the same for Owens (or more) if his control improves. With two guys like that, there's some redundancy that makes giving either (or both) their chances very valuable, either on the field or as low-cost trade chips. As for a return on Buchholz, the Castillo ask from the Marlins should tell you where the Sox are looking. Young, high-upside starters 1-2 years away. IMO, that's exactly where they should be looking. They're going to need that MiL depth come Sale and Porcello's impending departure. It improves their negotiating position and gives them time to debut/develop the guy. With Kimbrel/Thornburg, they have solid 9/8 pitchers; Kelly was terrific in relief and looks like a serious X factor; Barnes has plenty of upside and could be a future closer; Ross is a very good 7th inning arm; Wright is destined for the pen. And, they have Smith due back midseason (and under extended team control). Hembree also has value, and at some point in 2017 I think you'll see Scott return, and possibly the debuts of several solid relief arms in Martin, Ysla (who could be terrific), Shepard, and possibly even Cosart (a long shot, but I could see him start the year in AA or get a quick bump from high-A).
|
|
|