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.
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 13:47:26 GMT -5
Didn't notice a link anywhere so apologies if it's been posted, but if you haven't seen him actually making his comments, as alluded to above, it's pretty clear his quote was taken out of context. nesn.com/2018/05/red-sox-pitcher-carson-smith-expresses-concern-over-shoulder-injury/In context, "fatigue was a factor" appears more to mean that his shoulder happened to be fatigued from pitching, and that's why when he threw his glove, something he does often, his shoulder subluxed, not "Alex Cora pitches me too much so fatigue is why I got hurt." I think "verge of tears" might be a little much but he was clearly worried, and the comment came as part of a much longer answer. It wasn't like the exchange was "Why'd you get hurt?" "My shoulder is fatigued because I'm throwing too much." By the way, as far as things go on the stupidity scale, throwing one's glove is pretty low on that spectrum. This wasn't punching a clubhouse wall or something. If you're going to vent your frustrations, tossing the glove is something I'd think of as a pretty safe way of doing it. I was going to say the same thing about the “stupidity” of throwing his glove. Throwing an object as hard as he can is kind of what he does for a living, right? |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 13:51:17 GMT -5
I can't recall all the names and don't have the time to go back and research it but going back at least 12 maybe 15 years the Sox have had terrible luck trading for relief pitchers. It seems like a long list of guys who performed well before and sometimes after playing here but while in Boston were terrible. Bailey, Hanrahan, Smith, and Thornburg are the big names I can think of and in every single trade the headliner return was not just bad, but catastrophically so. Only the Smith trade ends up more or less a wash, since Miley ended up equally (or even moreso, since he actually played) badly. Hanrahan at least involved the astute acquisition of Holt, and to be fair, Melancon was awful in Boston. Kimbrel’s acquisition has been the lone success story, at least as far as getting the caliber player they traded for. Trading valuable talent for established relievers is almost uniformly dumb. Especially if it involves position players, who are much more predictable and much less injury-prone. I think a smart GM would either acquire young relievers who have yet to break out, or mid-late 20s starters who (Wade Davis, Joe Kelly) have the pitches/stuff but have essentially shown they can’t start. In either case, you don’t have to give up much. Or, you know, convert a guy like Teddy Stankiewicz who clearly isn’t an MLB-quality 5 even, but whose stuff might play up. Imo the answer to having great relievers is, 95% of the time, not trading for them (at least, not after they’ve had success), but molding your own. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 13:55:54 GMT -5
Didn't notice a link anywhere so apologies if it's been posted, but if you haven't seen him actually making his comments, as alluded to above, it's pretty clear his quote was taken out of context. nesn.com/2018/05/red-sox-pitcher-carson-smith-expresses-concern-over-shoulder-injury/In context, "fatigue was a factor" appears more to mean that his shoulder happened to be fatigued from pitching, and that's why when he threw his glove, something he does often, his shoulder subluxed, not "Alex Cora pitches me too much so fatigue is why I got hurt." I think "verge of tears" might be a little much but he was clearly worried, and the comment came as part of a much longer answer. It wasn't like the exchange was "Why'd you get hurt?" "My shoulder is fatigued because I'm throwing too much." By the way, as far as things go on the stupidity scale, throwing one's glove is pretty low on that spectrum. This wasn't punching a clubhouse wall or something. If you're going to vent your frustrations, tossing the glove is something I'd think of as a pretty safe way of doing it. Thanks for finding that, Chris. I think you’re spot-on here. The gulf between reality and what’s been presented by media afterwards is pretty sickening, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 21, 2018 15:14:48 GMT -5
I can't recall all the names and don't have the time to go back and research it but going back at least 12 maybe 15 years the Sox have had terrible luck trading for relief pitchers. It seems like a long list of guys who performed well before and sometimes after playing here but while in Boston were terrible. Bailey, Hanrahan, Smith, and Thornburg are the big names I can think of and in every single trade the headliner return was not just bad, but catastrophically so. Only the Smith trade ends up more or less a wash, since Miley ended up equally (or even moreso, since he actually played) badly. Hanrahan at least involved the astute acquisition of Holt, and to be fair, Melancon was awful in Boston. Kimbrel’s acquisition has been the lone success story, at least as far as getting the caliber player they traded for. Trading valuable talent for established relievers is almost uniformly dumb. Especially if it involves position players, who are much more predictable and much less injury-prone. I think a smart GM would either acquire young relievers who have yet to break out, or mid-late 20s starters who (Wade Davis, Joe Kelly) have the pitches/stuff but have essentially shown they can’t start. In either case, you don’t have to give up much. Or, you know, convert a guy like Teddy Stankiewicz who clearly isn’t an MLB-quality 5 even, but whose stuff might play up. Imo the answer to having great relievers is, 95% of the time, not trading for them (at least, not after they’ve had success), but molding your own. To be fair to Melancon he got off to a terrible start and Valentine buried him - I think even faster than the Sox giving up on Swihart behind the plate. I think if anybody other than Valentine would have been his manager Melancon would have been given the chance to work his way out of his tough start. Melancon might even have blossomed in Boston. The only good thing to come out of it was that the opening for closer a year later resulted in the sheer brilliance of Koji Uehara, which played a big part of the Sox winning it all in 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 15:54:04 GMT -5
Bailey, Hanrahan, Smith, and Thornburg are the big names I can think of and in every single trade the headliner return was not just bad, but catastrophically so. Only the Smith trade ends up more or less a wash, since Miley ended up equally (or even moreso, since he actually played) badly. Hanrahan at least involved the astute acquisition of Holt, and to be fair, Melancon was awful in Boston. Kimbrel’s acquisition has been the lone success story, at least as far as getting the caliber player they traded for. Trading valuable talent for established relievers is almost uniformly dumb. Especially if it involves position players, who are much more predictable and much less injury-prone. I think a smart GM would either acquire young relievers who have yet to break out, or mid-late 20s starters who (Wade Davis, Joe Kelly) have the pitches/stuff but have essentially shown they can’t start. In either case, you don’t have to give up much. Or, you know, convert a guy like Teddy Stankiewicz who clearly isn’t an MLB-quality 5 even, but whose stuff might play up. Imo the answer to having great relievers is, 95% of the time, not trading for them (at least, not after they’ve had success), but molding your own. To be fair to Melancon he got off to a terrible start and Valentine buried him - I think even faster than the Sox giving up on Swihart behind the plate. I think if anybody other than Valentine would have been his manager Melancon would have been given the chance to work his way out of his tough start. Melancon might even have blossomed in Boston. The only good thing to come out of it was that the opening for closer a year later resulted in the sheer brilliance of Koji Uehara, which played a big part of the Sox winning it all in 2013. Koji had a short Sox tenure, but his unbridled enthusiasm, unwavering confidence, and unparalleled brilliance in 2013, all while punching guys out left and right at 88 mph, put him on the short list of all-time Sox favorites. That guy was an absolute joy to have on our team. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on May 21, 2018 16:23:39 GMT -5
I can't recall all the names and don't have the time to go back and research it but going back at least 12 maybe 15 years the Sox have had terrible luck trading for relief pitchers. It seems like a long list of guys who performed well before and sometimes after playing here but while in Boston were terrible. Bailey, Hanrahan, Smith, and Thornburg are the big names I can think of and in every single trade the headliner return was not just bad, but catastrophically so. Only the Smith trade ends up more or less a wash, since Miley ended up equally (or even moreso, since he actually played) badly. Hanrahan at least involved the astute acquisition of Holt, and to be fair, Melancon was awful in Boston. Kimbrel’s acquisition has been the lone success story, at least as far as getting the caliber player they traded for. Trading valuable talent for established relievers is almost uniformly dumb. Especially if it involves position players, who are much more predictable and much less injury-prone. I think a smart GM would either acquire young relievers who have yet to break out, or mid-late 20s starters who (Wade Davis, Joe Kelly) have the pitches/stuff but have essentially shown they can’t start. In either case, you don’t have to give up much. Or, you know, convert a guy like Teddy Stankiewicz who clearly isn’t an MLB-quality 5 even, but whose stuff might play up. Imo the answer to having great relievers is, 95% of the time, not trading for them (at least, not after they’ve had success), but molding your own. Another name I was thinking about was Eric Gagne who was having a great season with Texas and then after the Sox traded for him he sucked. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 21, 2018 16:51:17 GMT -5
There have been also plenty of relatively unheralded relievers who put up good or great seasons with Boston. Think Uehara, Tazawa, pre-breakout Andrew Miller, even guys like Matt Albers, Craig Breslow, Alfredo Aceves and the like. The lesson is that reliever performance is volatile and that you shouldn’t pay premium prices for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 17:12:45 GMT -5
Bailey, Hanrahan, Smith, and Thornburg are the big names I can think of and in every single trade the headliner return was not just bad, but catastrophically so. Only the Smith trade ends up more or less a wash, since Miley ended up equally (or even moreso, since he actually played) badly. Hanrahan at least involved the astute acquisition of Holt, and to be fair, Melancon was awful in Boston. Kimbrel’s acquisition has been the lone success story, at least as far as getting the caliber player they traded for. Trading valuable talent for established relievers is almost uniformly dumb. Especially if it involves position players, who are much more predictable and much less injury-prone. I think a smart GM would either acquire young relievers who have yet to break out, or mid-late 20s starters who (Wade Davis, Joe Kelly) have the pitches/stuff but have essentially shown they can’t start. In either case, you don’t have to give up much. Or, you know, convert a guy like Teddy Stankiewicz who clearly isn’t an MLB-quality 5 even, but whose stuff might play up. Imo the answer to having great relievers is, 95% of the time, not trading for them (at least, not after they’ve had success), but molding your own. Another name I was thinking about was Eric Gagne who was having a great season with Texas and then after the Sox traded for him he sucked. Yeah, that was further back than I was thinking but he was truly awful. And, he was pretty much done afterwards. In fairness, looking him up, he had some terrible BABIP luck and his peripherals were OK (3 FIP), but he’d been lucky with TX to that point. He also didn’t look like the guy from LA (PEDs-no-more), even before the trade, and his strand rate with the Sox was just abominable. They didn’t end up giving up much, although Murphy would’ve been a nice 4th OF and I was pretty pissed about Beltre at the time, cuz I thought he had some real upside. Yeah, trading for relievers is silly, but the Sox appear to have made a number of just flat-out bad reliever trades, with the topper of having foolishness compounded by rotten luck. Honestly, relievers are my one great Sox frustration this century. They can’t seem to develop many good ones, especially the past 10 years, and so they end up making bad trades. The guys they get usually implode, leading them to trade for more, because...they’re not developing their own. It’s an ugly catch-22. I say, convert Stankiewicz and Haley now, and break in Beeks as one (but Cardinal/Brave him til Pomeranz is gone or needs replacing). Look to acquire from cost-conscious teams youngish starters (25-28) who are in AAAA limbo because they’ve been struggling for a while in MLB and are due for arb raises. Then turn them into relievers. Throw bodies at the wall and see who sticks. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 21, 2018 17:19:50 GMT -5
There have been also plenty of relatively unheralded relievers who put up good or great seasons with Boston. Think Uehara, Tazawa, pre-breakout Andrew Miller, even guys like Matt Albers, Craig Breslow, Alfredo Aceves and the like. The lesson is that reliever performance is volatile and that you shouldn’t pay premium prices for it. This was precisely why I didn't like the Kimbrel trade when they made it. It wasn't that I thought there was zero chance that Kimbrel would be worth it, but rather the chances that his performance might just fall off a cliff like we've seen with all but a handful of RPs over the years. Luckily, both he's been worth it and the guys they've traded have universally not reached their ceilings - Margot is having an abysmal year at the plate, Guerra turned into a pumpkin, Allen's still a good prospect, and Asuaje is Asuaje (and also having a terrible season). It was also why the Smith trade was fine. Miley is exactly the kind of asset that you're fine with giving up for a RP. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 17:24:42 GMT -5
There have been also plenty of relatively unheralded relievers who put up good or great seasons with Boston. Think Uehara, Tazawa, pre-breakout Andrew Miller, even guys like Matt Albers, Craig Breslow, Alfredo Aceves and the like. The lesson is that reliever performance is volatile and that you shouldn’t pay premium prices for it. Exactly...it’s not the trading that’s the issue, it’s the premium price. Ever year there are several guys like Josh Hader (OK, maybe not THIS Hader, but you get my meaning) who burst out looking unhittable. Miller is my ultimate archetype for the reliever trade. Struggled for a while as a starter. Great stuff but just two pitches. They gave up a moderately talented but questionable minor league arm in Dustin Richardson. $-conscious Marlins looking to get *something* for him before non-tendering him. Sox made him a reliever and he was good, then excellent, then transcendent. And he netted Rodriguez. Build value, don’t demolish it. If I were the Sox I’d be combing the landscape for pitchers whose teams are ready to give up. Kevin Gausman, if he were on the Reds. Or, speaking of the Reds, a guy like Amir Garrett. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 21, 2018 18:05:10 GMT -5
Or, would the Rangers move Mike Minor? His contract is kinda gross, but it’s really not bad as a set-up man deal. The Rangers stink, and they might prefer to be out from under it. I’d think the Sox could get him for little more than taking on most of his salary. 2.5 years and $15M wouldn’t be awful. It would actually represent a slight discount to going off-season rates. And, he was excellent as a reliever as recently as last year.
I liked the Smith trade for exactly the reason Chris noted: they had a fungible SP in Miley, so they took their shot. I hope Smith comes back OK, because they could really use him if he’s pitching well. Shoulder subluxation isn’t so bad as long as the supporting muscles aren’t torn and there’s no damage to the glenoid cartilage. But I’d hate for the team to make yet another bad reliever trade, especially involving prospects of any note.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 21, 2018 18:45:40 GMT -5
Or, would the Rangers move Mike Minor? His contract is kinda gross, but it’s really not bad as a set-up man deal. The Rangers stink, and they might prefer to be out from under it. I’d think the Sox could get him for little more than taking on most of his salary. 2.5 years and $15M wouldn’t be awful. It would actually represent a slight discount to going off-season rates. And, he was excellent as a reliever as recently as last year. I liked the Smith trade for exactly the reason Chris noted: they had a fungible SP in Miley, so they took their shot. I hope Smith comes back OK, because they could really use him if he’s pitching well. Shoulder subluxation isn’t so bad as long as the supporting muscles aren’t torn and there’s no damage to the glenoid cartilage. But I’d hate for the team to make yet another bad reliever trade, especially involving prospects of any note. Can't see the Red Sox going over the $237 million threshold to take on Mike Minor's contract. That would be surprising. Unless Gerson Bautista is some amazing closer down the road I think the Addison Reed deal was fine. I think they have to do something similar. Don't think they can do as well when they traded the lesser Basabe brother for Ziegler the year before. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on May 21, 2018 18:58:01 GMT -5
Another name I was thinking about was Eric Gagne who was having a great season with Texas and then after the Sox traded for him he sucked. Yeah, that was further back than I was thinking but he was truly awful. And, he was pretty much done afterwards. In fairness, looking him up, he had some terrible BABIP luck and his peripherals were OK (3 FIP), but he’d been lucky with TX to that point. He also didn’t look like the guy from LA (PEDs-no-more), even before the trade, and his strand rate with the Sox was just abominable. They didn’t end up giving up much, although Murphy would’ve been a nice 4th OF and I was pretty pissed about Beltre at the time, cuz I thought he had some real upside. Yeah, trading for relievers is silly, but the Sox appear to have made a number of just flat-out bad reliever trades, with the topper of having foolishness compounded by rotten luck. Honestly, relievers are my one great Sox frustration this century. They can’t seem to develop many good ones, especially the past 10 years, and so they end up making bad trades. The guys they get usually implode, leading them to trade for more, because...they’re not developing their own. It’s an ugly catch-22. I say, convert Stankiewicz and Haley now, and break in Beeks as one (but Cardinal/Brave him til Pomeranz is gone or needs replacing). Look to acquire from cost-conscious teams youngish starters (25-28) who are in AAAA limbo because they’ve been struggling for a while in MLB and are due for arb raises. Then turn them into relievers. Throw bodies at the wall and see who sticks. Agree on Beeks, he could sure up the pen. I am still optimistic Velazquez is going to be a key arm this year. |
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on May 22, 2018 0:18:16 GMT -5
After seeing Beeks last night I think he is better than Pomeranz right now. Maybe Pomeranz should be moved, temporarily to the bullpen, and Beeks given a chance in his place.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 22, 2018 1:56:40 GMT -5
After seeing Beeks last night I think he is better than Pomeranz right now. Maybe Pomeranz should be moved, temporarily to the bullpen, and Beeks given a chance in his place. Wright will be in the rotation before Beeks. Wright is out of options and is pitching well at the MLB level since coming back (so far). |
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on May 24, 2018 12:20:07 GMT -5
After seeing Beeks last night I think he is better than Pomeranz right now. Maybe Pomeranz should be moved, temporarily to the bullpen, and Beeks given a chance in his place. Wright will be in the rotation before Beeks. Wright is out of options and is pitching well at the MLB level since coming back (so far). Wright looked super effective the other night. Whether that was because no one sees knuckle balls for a year and struggle or he just had it moving that much idk. If he's throwing strikes like that, he'd be worth a spot no? Especially to break up the hard throwing lefty monotony we have going. |
|
|
