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.
2017 Red Sox Rotation Discussion
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2017 17:33:09 GMT -5
I've not yet heard a convincing argument for why the handedness of the rotation (or the rotation depth) matters. Kelly is seventh on the starting pitcher depth chart. He's higher than that on the reliever depth chart. The difference between Kelly and Hembree seems larger than the difference between Kelly and Henry Owens. Hembree has no options. Barnes has options. Options are only relevant if all 12 projected MLB pitchers avoid the DL coming out of Spring Training. The odds of that happening are not particularly high.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 4, 2017 19:23:30 GMT -5
Hembree has no options. Barnes has options. Options are only relevant if all 12 projected MLB pitchers avoid the DL coming out of Spring Training. The odds of that happening are not particularly high. Or pretty much at any point in the season. Most people account for them when they look at the projected roster. Swihart will be in Pawtucket even if he outperforms the other catchers.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 4, 2017 23:08:12 GMT -5
The difference is you have two catchers on the active roster but twelve pitchers, and pitcher injury rates (both long-term and short-term) are meaningfully higher than position players.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 4, 2017 23:57:05 GMT -5
The difference is you have two catchers on the active roster but twelve pitchers, and pitcher injury rates (both long-term and short-term) are meaningfully higher than position players. I don't disagree that there's likely to be injuries at any point which is why you have depth. For roster projections though, you need to account for options. Even BriSox' post mentioned Kelly's option (and Elias'). Again though, it's the Sox call and it looks like Kelly will start the spring being stretched out as a starter. Anything can happen, Kimbrel could pull a muscle and Kelly could be our closer but you start camp with the thought that everyone is healthy and deal with changes to the plan when they happen, not in anticipation. Let's also not forget that we have three starter options that have never thrown a full season, Wright, Pomeranz and ERod. If two of the starters came up lame, that would pretty much cement it. Our Pawtucket roster will be loaded with viable (but not optimal) relievers. I'll also disagree that the difference in value between Kelly and Hembree as relievers is greater than the difference between Kelly and Owens as starters, just based on the value of starters vs relievers but that's not the point.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 5, 2017 0:22:05 GMT -5
If Kimbrel gets injured out of spring training, then Thornburg would become the closer.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 5, 2017 0:47:35 GMT -5
If Kimbrel gets injured out of spring training, then Thornburg would become the closer. That's assumptive but whatever, that doesn't change my point. Summing my view: If BriSox is correct then Bannister and company feel Kelly has more value as a starter than as a reliever. I don't subscribe to ericmvan's philosophy that they're idiots. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that sabermetric evaluations are the be all, end all. I trust the Sox evaluations. It may or may not work out and circumstances may change all that but nonetheless it appears to be the route the Sox plan to take. In other words, I don't have a view that I think is superior to the Sox view.
|
|
brisox
Rookie
SoxProspects Veteran
Posts: 86
|
Post by brisox on Jan 5, 2017 8:13:33 GMT -5
If Kimbrel gets injured out of spring training, then Thornburg would become the closer. That's assumptive but whatever, that doesn't change my point. Summing my view: If BriSox is correct then Bannister and company feel Kelly has more value as a starter than as a reliever. I don't subscribe to ericmvan's philosophy that they're idiots. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that sabermetric evaluations are the be all, end all. I trust the Sox evaluations. It may or may not work out and circumstances may change all that but nonetheless it appears to be the route the Sox plan to take. In other words, I don't have a view that I think is superior to the Sox view. I appreciate the confidence, but I don't think there is a need to argue the point on Kelly , his value as a starter is really nothing more than that he has been a starter and there were challenges signing FA for the AAA staff . Kelly did a great job in the pen last year and there will possibly be a spot for him on the ML roster there which I am sure he would prefer, depending how things shake out health wise. We have lots of talented kids like Ben Taylor who could move into the AAA rotation but I expect at least one more FA AAA starter will sign before ST. Its funny that the #7 starter is what we have left to discuss. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2017 8:53:01 GMT -5
That's assumptive but whatever, that doesn't change my point. Summing my view: If BriSox is correct then Bannister and company feel Kelly has more value as a starter than as a reliever. I don't subscribe to ericmvan's philosophy that they're idiots. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that sabermetric evaluations are the be all, end all. I trust the Sox evaluations. It may or may not work out and circumstances may change all that but nonetheless it appears to be the route the Sox plan to take. In other words, I don't have a view that I think is superior to the Sox view. I appreciate the confidence, but I don't think there is a need to argue the point on Kelly , his value as a starter is really nothing more than that he has been a starter and there were challenges signing FA for the AAA staff . Kelly did a great job in the pen last year and there will possibly be a spot for him on the ML roster there which I am sure he would prefer, depending how things shake out health wise. We have lots of talented kids like Ben Taylor who could move into the AAA rotation but I expect at least one more FA AAA starter will sign before ST. Its funny that the #7 starter is what we have left to discuss. ;-) So what I get from this is that the Red Sox don't value Kelly much in the bullpen, which I find pretty stupid considering he could be the best reliever on the team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2017 9:51:30 GMT -5
So here's something I just realized: Kelly is only 29 days past four years of service time. If they keep him down for a month, they hypothetically would gain a year. But my gut feeling is that he'd have a pretty good grievance, right? We have a bevy of lawyers here, any of you have insight there? I'm just wondering if part of this is pretending that they still see him as a starter in order to gain a year but will promote him as a reliever when there's an opening in May.
Now, I'll admit, that seems to fly in the face of a strategy that has led the team to trade Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Mauricio Dubon, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, Travis Shaw, and Josh Pennington in order to win now. Just a wrinkle that I noticed.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jan 5, 2017 11:19:53 GMT -5
So here's something I just realized: Kelly is only 29 days past four years of service time. If they keep him down for a month, they hypothetically would gain a year. But my gut feeling is that he'd have a pretty good grievance, right? We have a bevy of lawyers here, any of you have insight there? I'm just wondering if part of this is pretending that they still see him as a starter in order to gain a year but will promote him as a reliever when there's an opening in May. Now, I'll admit, that seems to fly in the face of a strategy that has led the team to trade Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Mauricio Dubon, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, Travis Shaw, and Josh Pennington in order to win now. Just a wrinkle that I noticed. I'd do it. Some guys just take a few more years to develop (Kluber). Odds are he's just a real good 8th inning guy going forward. Ceiling @ 4/5 starter. Either way, that one year value would outweigh 1 month, especially with a deep BP (if everyone is healthy coming out of ST).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 5, 2017 11:28:53 GMT -5
So here's something I just realized: Kelly is only 29 days past four years of service time. If they keep him down for a month, they hypothetically would gain a year. But my gut feeling is that he'd have a pretty good grievance, right? We have a bevy of lawyers here, any of you have insight there? I'm just wondering if part of this is pretending that they still see him as a starter in order to gain a year but will promote him as a reliever when there's an opening in May. Now, I'll admit, that seems to fly in the face of a strategy that has led the team to trade Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Mauricio Dubon, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, Travis Shaw, and Josh Pennington in order to win now. Just a wrinkle that I noticed. Nitpicking but it would take about a month and a half since the days are based on 170 days in a year. Still, nonetheless plausible. I don't think he'd have a grievance unless he could prove intent. That's really no different than any other start the spring in AAA then promoted after there's less than a year remaining which happens regularly. It's the contract that the the players association signed off on (lol, off on). ADD: Good catch. I'm sure you also realize that the extra year of control dramatically increases his trade value if he was successful as a starter in Pawtucket and there were no openings in Boston. That would be true even if he was viewed as a bottom of the rotation guy. Keep in mind, our system is reliever loaded.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2017 12:52:15 GMT -5
I wouldn't call the system reliever loaded. They have a lot of relievers in the top 40, but that's more a function of how thin the system is. Most of those guys project as lower-leverage bullpen arms, and the higher-ceiling guys are farther away from the majors. The guys in Pawtucket and Portland (Martin, Scott, Ysla, Shepherd, Jerez, etc.) might be MLB arms, but they're likely not setup men.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 5, 2017 13:11:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't call the system reliever loaded. They have a lot of relievers in the top 40, but that's more a function of how thin the system is. Most of those guys project as lower-leverage bullpen arms, and the higher-ceiling guys are farther away from the majors. The guys in Pawtucket and Portland (Martin, Scott, Ysla, Shepherd, Jerez, etc.) might be MLB arms, but they're likely not setup men. Carson Smith, Matt Barnes and we still have Thornburg. It's not like there's a shortage. Are you suggesting that a set up man is worth more than a rotation piece ? Last year, a Wade Miley was worth one Elias more than a Carson Smith.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2017 13:18:09 GMT -5
I wouldn't call the system reliever loaded. They have a lot of relievers in the top 40, but that's more a function of how thin the system is. Most of those guys project as lower-leverage bullpen arms, and the higher-ceiling guys are farther away from the majors. The guys in Pawtucket and Portland (Martin, Scott, Ysla, Shepherd, Jerez, etc.) might be MLB arms, but they're likely not setup men. Carson Smith, Matt Barnes and we still have Thornburg. It's not like there's a shortage. Are you suggesting that a set up man is worth more than a rotation piece ? Last year, a Wade Miley was worth one Elias more than a Carson Smith. At the time of the trade, Wade Miley had a 101 career ERA+ as a starter, a K/BB of 2.48 and a track record of durability. Also, the Mariners didn't send him to Tacoma.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2017 13:38:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't call the system reliever loaded. They have a lot of relievers in the top 40, but that's more a function of how thin the system is. Most of those guys project as lower-leverage bullpen arms, and the higher-ceiling guys are farther away from the majors. The guys in Pawtucket and Portland (Martin, Scott, Ysla, Shepherd, Jerez, etc.) might be MLB arms, but they're likely not setup men. Carson Smith, Matt Barnes and we still have Thornburg. It's not like there's a shortage. Are you suggesting that a set up man is worth more than a rotation piece ? Last year, a Wade Miley was worth one Elias more than a Carson Smith. The reason starters are more valuable than relievers is because they pitch more innings. But Joe Kelly wouldn't start the season in the MLB rotation, and he's not even the sixth starter (that would be Wright). Joe Kelly, AAA starter, probably doesn't get 60 MLB innings next year. The seventh-most MLB innings pitcher by a Red Sox starting pitcher, going backwards from 2016: 22.1, 52.1, 61.1, 30.1, 45.2. Meanwhile, he'd immediately be, what, their third or fourth or fifth-best reliever? Carson Smith is out until June. Matt Barnes has upside, but he's still inconsistent (Steamer projects a 3.94 ERA next year).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 5, 2017 14:04:21 GMT -5
Exactly, starters are more valuable. And as James Dunne pointed out, potentially even more valuable. This seems like a pretty clear case that if he's used as a starter in Boston, the starter value and if unused, the trade value dramatically exceeds the incremental value as a reliever to the overall picture of the club.
It's also not like as if in an emergency, Kelly wouldn't be able to handle the drive from Pawtucket.
I think the Sox are making the right move based on the situation at hand. I'm also pretty confident that Sox scouting concurs or it wouldn't be their 'A' plan.
ADD: I'm also pretty sure that the Sox consider all the factors before taking a course of action like this. The extra year of Kelly that James pointed out also has significant value to the club.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2017 14:25:13 GMT -5
If Joe Kelly starts the season in the Pawtucket rotation and pitches 50 innings in Boston as their seventh starter, how much trade value do you think he'll have? If he's not traded, we're having the exact same discussion next year, he'll be out of options, and the projected rotation will be just as crowded.
Meanwhile, Joe Kelly the reliever has a spot on the MLB roster this year and going forward, at a time when the Red Sox are prioritizing squeezing as much present value out of its MLB roster as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 5, 2017 14:26:07 GMT -5
If you're going to default to "the Red Sox are planning to do it, therefore it's probably a good idea," that's fine, but we're not going to have a useful discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 5, 2017 15:07:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2017 15:10:37 GMT -5
Exactly, starters are more valuable. And as James Dunne pointed out, potentially even more valuable. This seems like a pretty clear case that if he's used as a starter in Boston, the starter value and if unused, the trade value dramatically exceeds the incremental value as a reliever to the overall picture of the club. It's also not like as if in an emergency, Kelly wouldn't be able to handle the drive from Pawtucket. I think the Sox are making the right move based on the situation at hand. I'm also pretty confident that Sox scouting concurs or it wouldn't be their 'A' plan. ADD: I'm also pretty sure that the Sox consider all the factors before taking a course of action like this. The extra year of Kelly that James pointed out also has significant value to the club. They already squeezed an extra year out of him last year by waiting to call him up in September. This is a pretty ridiculous strategy if they're trying to win now. If Kelly turns out to be a bullpen stud like I think he could, he'll be way more valuable in the pen, not as a 7th starter. We're trying to win now.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2017 15:24:26 GMT -5
They did not squeeze an extra year out of him in 2016. He surpassed four years of service time during the season.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 5, 2017 18:16:54 GMT -5
Joe Kelly as a starter. Godd*mn, the FO must really have nothing to do.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 5, 2017 19:02:58 GMT -5
I apologize if this is posted somewhere earlier in this thread (I even spent some time looking).....but where is this Joe Kelly as a starter news coming from? Its just some speculation right?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 5, 2017 23:20:10 GMT -5
So here's something I just realized: Kelly is only 29 days past four years of service time. If they keep him down for a month, they hypothetically would gain a year. But my gut feeling is that he'd have a pretty good grievance, right? We have a bevy of lawyers here, any of you have insight there? I'm just wondering if part of this is pretending that they still see him as a starter in order to gain a year but will promote him as a reliever when there's an opening in May. Now, I'll admit, that seems to fly in the face of a strategy that has led the team to trade Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Mauricio Dubon, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, Travis Shaw, and Josh Pennington in order to win now. Just a wrinkle that I noticed. That's an excellent observation. And my guess is that, if the Kris Bryant thing wasn't contested, this wouldn't be. It's much more defensible given the bullpen roster/options (or lack tgereof) situation.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 5, 2017 23:24:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't call the system reliever loaded. They have a lot of relievers in the top 40, but that's more a function of how thin the system is. Most of those guys project as lower-leverage bullpen arms, and the higher-ceiling guys are farther away from the majors. The guys in Pawtucket and Portland (Martin, Scott, Ysla, Shepherd, Jerez, etc.) might be MLB arms, but they're likely not setup men. Ysla is probably the only guy there who has that sort of upside, but yeah, he's also probably a ways from getting there, if he does.
|
|
|