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 soxcentral on Jan 25, 2019 10:22:33 GMT -5
If you're going to tighten the purse strings on the bullpen, you can get a $6-8 million arm in July for the same cost as signing a $3-4 million arm now. So if we are going to scrape that low maybe it makes sense at this point to let the current group sort itself out, hope to stay in the hunt for the first half, then pull the trigger on an upgrade for the 2nd half that is a higher quality arm. Except you have to trade at least a semi-valuable prospect to do it then. Personally I'd be fine with packages similar to Addison Reed and Brad Ziegler, but my point is to try to figure out what the organization is thinking and not to say its the right approach. I'd like them to sign or trade for one very good back end arm, my wording on the first post admittedly was not clear in distinguishing that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2019 10:34:17 GMT -5
Yeap. It is as if the Sox built a nice house with a solid foundation (young great core), updated everything (rotation pieces), and they completely to replace the roof on the house (the bullpen). This was just my poor analogy of looking at it. Really you couldn't replace a 15 thousand dollar roof (or bring a 9 million dollar arm like Cody Allen) on a 300 thousand dollar house (or a 240 million dollar baseball team) to begin the year? To be fair though, the Sox can say that they won't plan on using young guys in the bullpen and that's fine. Maybe they are planning that one or two arms force the situation kind of like with what Mookie did in 2015. The players could force a promotion to the big leagues with their production in the minor leagues. I'm hoping this is what happens. Heck, I'm hoping they give Lakins a legit shot at breaking camp with the team with the way this bullpen is currently constructed. It absolutely makes no sense to rely on minor league invites. Yes they can cut Thornburg at any point and he should be viewed as a spring training invite on this team right now. Those spring training invites should be bonus guys (meaning a bonus if you get anything out of even one of them). Not guys you look at and say "yeap, these are fine middle relief pieces, let's plan on using one of these to start the year." Pedro, Eduardo Nunez and Steve Pearce aren't equals offensively. Pearce has actually hit well enough recently to be a 1b and fit in the middle of the order. Nunez is below average offensively, has never played 1b in his life and we can't pretend that 1b defense doesn't matter. If it didn't, Nunez's throw would have skipped past Pearce in the ALDS, but Pearce can handle 1b. Nunez, very unlikely. Truth is dumping Nunez would make more sense, but it would probably be tough to find takers and at the moment he still has some value to the Sox given the uncertainty to Pedroia (not that I'd want him playing 2b often, but Holt can't play every day if Pedroia isn't ready to go) and the fact that Devers hasn't quite blossomed yet (at least in the regular season). But as far as Moreland goes, the Sox do need Pearce. Moreland the past two years has started strong and faded badly. They can't go through 2 or 3 month stretches where he doesn't hit at all. They already have catchers that don't hit. Pearce's presence negates that somewhat. As far as Chavis being ready, he doesn't have a ton of ABs in AAA. Maybe he's ready by July? Maybe not. How is he as a 1b? How experienced is he? Defense matters, even at 1b. The issue isn't Pearce's presence. The Red Sox could spend money right now if they wanted to. If they could dump Leon somehow that might give them about an 8 million cushion before going over the cap (that they really shouldn't be shying away from). They should be able to get a Shawn Kelley type for less than that and still have some bucks left over for July. The issue isn't that Pearce isn't good and that he won't help us. The issue is Pearce is upgrading an above average player. Even if Moreland isn't hitting well or our catchers we'll have an above average offense. Pearce is just improving one of the best offenses in Baseball. Our bullpen is kinda crappy right now. That money could take you from below average to average, or from Average to above average. I'd trust Chavis being a platoon bat, over our rookie pitchers being impact relievers. The cost to trade for a platoon 1B is less than an impact reliever at the deadline also. So your saying we currently have less than 5 million to spend and not go over the highest tax level?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 25, 2019 11:25:50 GMT -5
I think just like last year way way way too much is being made of the early season bullpen. The only thing I can see is a closer. Being bummed that we din't pick up the 2nd tier/3rd tier relievers for me is just "who cares?" - Just like it was last year.
ANd this year high probability that 1b we will be better IF IF IF Pedroia can play 2nd we'd be better and if we can't imo we're at far greater risk w/o him than picking up a 2nd or 3rd tier reliever.
Much of the lineup should be improved. The starters with a full season of Sale and Eovaldi and Erod. And more of a season with Wright. Just like last year "Let's get these "soria-types" imo I can care less if we do get or not. It's not a big deal. Same with losing Joe Kelly types who is bad 3.5 months of the season (unless ofc he turned it around then he is a closer-type.).
The team's pitching is still very good and the acquisition of a $2m reliever that is currently in FA won;t change the needle much if at all. We've heard the same music before.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 25, 2019 13:04:45 GMT -5
The issue isn't that Pearce isn't good and that he won't help us. The issue is Pearce is upgrading an above average player. Even if Moreland isn't hitting well or our catchers we'll have an above average offense. Pearce is just improving one of the best offenses in Baseball. Our bullpen is kinda crappy right now. That money could take you from below average to average, or from Average to above average. I'd trust Chavis being a platoon bat, over our rookie pitchers being impact relievers. The cost to trade for a platoon 1B is less than an impact reliever at the deadline also. So your saying we currently have less than 5 million to spend and not go over the highest tax level? Eh, I don't think the relative strength of the offense versus the bullpen really figures into it. As far as I know, no one has ever shown a point of diminishing returns on offense, and Pearce is more reliably productive and will see far more plate appearances than an equally-priced bullpen arm.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 25, 2019 14:03:08 GMT -5
The issue isn't that Pearce isn't good and that he won't help us. The issue is Pearce is upgrading an above average player. Even if Moreland isn't hitting well or our catchers we'll have an above average offense. Pearce is just improving one of the best offenses in Baseball. Our bullpen is kinda crappy right now. That money could take you from below average to average, or from Average to above average. I'd trust Chavis being a platoon bat, over our rookie pitchers being impact relievers. The cost to trade for a platoon 1B is less than an impact reliever at the deadline also. So your saying we currently have less than 5 million to spend and not go over the highest tax level? Eh, I don't think the relative strength of the offense versus the bullpen really figures into it. As far as I know, no one has ever shown a point of diminishing returns on offense, and Pearce is more reliably productive and will see far more plate appearances than an equally-priced bullpen arm. The irony is that Steve Pearce of all people was in the number 3 hole of a 119 win team, during its most important games - and thrived. He certainly doesn't fit that profile, but when he often hit in the middle of the order and he performed well as if he truly was a middle of the order hitter. That's something I find impressive. The idea of sticking Nunez into the lineup to play 1b instead of Pearce - just to save a buck for middle reliever doesn't really work for me. Not with Moreland's inconsistency. And with Pearce being somebody you can plug into the middle of the lineup, it lengthens the lineup and takes the pressure off of Devers who I think will eventually become the Red Sox # 3 hitter right between Mookie and Martinez.
|
|
|
Post by PedroKsBambino on Jan 25, 2019 14:04:33 GMT -5
Justin Wilson off the board to the Mets. 2 years $10 million. Options are dwindling
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 25, 2019 14:30:21 GMT -5
And Oliver Perez back to Cleveland.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 25, 2019 14:55:38 GMT -5
Justin Wilson off the board to the Mets. 2 years $10 million. Options are dwindling Wilson has like a 15% walk rate over the past two years. I'm okay passing on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 25, 2019 15:31:56 GMT -5
FWIW, redsoxpayroll on Twitter has them at 244.69M already for the CBT (admittedly a rough estimate, but don't be fooled by the Cot's spreadsheet like I was, as that's not a CBT number). Figure at least 0.9M comes off with a catcher trade (and as much as $3.75M), there's still not a lot of room to move there. Maybe they save a million or two by cutting one of the arb relievers in camp, but if they're serious about staying under the third CBT threshold, then Dombrowski might be serious about their stance on relievers.
The shame would be if, like, last year, they go over regardless and pass up on FA deals for no reason.
As for those saying they should just trade for someone midseason, that's just not a good idea. Last year, would you have assumed they'd need to trade for a 2B and a SP at the deadline? For me, you build a team, then take the Theo method of spending the first third of the season identifying what you need, then the second third finding it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 25, 2019 15:59:06 GMT -5
Justin Wilson off the board to the Mets. 2 years $10 million. Options are dwindling Wilson has like a 15% walk rate over the past two years. I'm okay passing on that one. He had a pretty pronounced split when it came to LHB versus RHB last year too. Just not the same pitcher he was even 3 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 25, 2019 16:20:04 GMT -5
FWIW, redsoxpayroll on Twitter has them at 244.69M already for the CBT (admittedly a rough estimate, but don't be fooled by the Cot's spreadsheet like I was, as that's not a CBT number). Figure at least 0.9M comes off with a catcher trade (and as much as $3.75M), there's still not a lot of room to move there. Maybe they save a million or two by cutting one of the arb relievers in camp, but if they're serious about staying under the third CBT threshold, then Dombrowski might be serious about their stance on relievers. The shame would be if, like, last year, they go over regardless and pass up on FA deals for no reason. As for those saying they should just trade for someone midseason, that's just not a good idea. Last year, would you have assumed they'd need to trade for a 2B and a SP at the deadline? For me, you build a team, then take the Theo method of spending the first third of the season identifying what you need, then the second third finding it. I am missing your points here. Was there any shame/ bad things they did last year? Secondly, I didn't understand the Theo method vs any normal method for a high priced team. Last year they traded for Eovaldi and Pearce and Kinsler. So if someone were to sya let's see what we got going into the year then if need to make a trade, isn't that what we did last year and probably looking like we might do with the bullpen this year? And maybe 2b? And maybe other positions? The idea is to keep money open so they can make a trade. That's what they did last year I thought. So where is the shame if any for this year or last year?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2019 17:44:15 GMT -5
The issue isn't that Pearce isn't good and that he won't help us. The issue is Pearce is upgrading an above average player. Even if Moreland isn't hitting well or our catchers we'll have an above average offense. Pearce is just improving one of the best offenses in Baseball. Our bullpen is kinda crappy right now. That money could take you from below average to average, or from Average to above average. I'd trust Chavis being a platoon bat, over our rookie pitchers being impact relievers. The cost to trade for a platoon 1B is less than an impact reliever at the deadline also. So your saying we currently have less than 5 million to spend and not go over the highest tax level? Eh, I don't think the relative strength of the offense versus the bullpen really figures into it. As far as I know, no one has ever shown a point of diminishing returns on offense, and Pearce is more reliably productive and will see far more plate appearances than an equally-priced bullpen arm. How doesn't it? I don't care how good your offense or starting pitching is if your bullpen implodes all the time. Nevermind most of the season you'll only play one of Moreland and Pearce. I'm a big believer in the your only as good as your weakest link. Well right now that is the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by natesp4 on Jan 25, 2019 18:03:30 GMT -5
FWIW, redsoxpayroll on Twitter has them at 244.69M already for the CBT (admittedly a rough estimate, but don't be fooled by the Cot's spreadsheet like I was, as that's not a CBT number). Figure at least 0.9M comes off with a catcher trade (and as much as $3.75M), there's still not a lot of room to move there. Maybe they save a million or two by cutting one of the arb relievers in camp, but if they're serious about staying under the third CBT threshold, then Dombrowski might be serious about their stance on relievers. The shame would be if, like, last year, they go over regardless and pass up on FA deals for no reason. As for those saying they should just trade for someone midseason, that's just not a good idea. Last year, would you have assumed they'd need to trade for a 2B and a SP at the deadline? For me, you build a team, then take the Theo method of spending the first third of the season identifying what you need, then the second third finding it. I am missing your points here. Was there any shame/ bad things they did last year? Secondly, I didn't understand the Theo method vs any normal method for a high priced team. Last year they traded for Eovaldi and Pearce and Kinsler. So if someone were to sya let's see what we got going into the year then if need to make a trade, isn't that what we did last year and probably looking like we might do with the bullpen this year? And maybe 2b? And maybe other positions? The idea is to keep money open so they can make a trade. That's what they did last year I thought. So where is the shame if any for this year or last year? His point is more about the second half of the sentence. Last year the Sox passed up on improving the team more in free agency presumably in an effort to stay under the tax. They then ended up going just over the limit anyways. If you're not re-setting the tax, just blow through it and go all in. The same situation seems to be setting itself up this year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 25, 2019 18:05:47 GMT -5
FWIW, redsoxpayroll on Twitter has them at 244.69M already for the CBT (admittedly a rough estimate, but don't be fooled by the Cot's spreadsheet like I was, as that's not a CBT number). Figure at least 0.9M comes off with a catcher trade (and as much as $3.75M), there's still not a lot of room to move there. Maybe they save a million or two by cutting one of the arb relievers in camp, but if they're serious about staying under the third CBT threshold, then Dombrowski might be serious about their stance on relievers. The shame would be if, like, last year, they go over regardless and pass up on FA deals for no reason. As for those saying they should just trade for someone midseason, that's just not a good idea. Last year, would you have assumed they'd need to trade for a 2B and a SP at the deadline? For me, you build a team, then take the Theo method of spending the first third of the season identifying what you need, then the second third finding it. If it's really that high, they are going over most likely. Just from your normal call ups and your September guys. Even if you got it to around 5 million you only leave yourself a few million to make trades. So not only will they pass on great deals to likely go over anyways. They might limit call ups to try and stay under or pay more in trades to have teams paydown the money. Does anyone have a good breakdown of the numbers? www.overthemonster.com/2018/11/3/18058530/red-sox-payroll-2018-2019According to that we have a lot more money available because it includes the full 40 man roster for the whole year and we know that won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 25, 2019 19:20:35 GMT -5
I am missing your points here. Was there any shame/ bad things they did last year? Secondly, I didn't understand the Theo method vs any normal method for a high priced team. Last year they traded for Eovaldi and Pearce and Kinsler. So if someone were to sya let's see what we got going into the year then if need to make a trade, isn't that what we did last year and probably looking like we might do with the bullpen this year? And maybe 2b? And maybe other positions? The idea is to keep money open so they can make a trade. That's what they did last year I thought. So where is the shame if any for this year or last year? His point is more about the second half of the sentence. Last year the Sox passed up on improving the team more in free agency presumably in an effort to stay under the tax. They then ended up going just over the limit anyways. If you're not re-setting the tax, just blow through it and go all in. The same situation seems to be setting itself up this year. Who did they pass up on last year to start the season? I think what they did was perfect. When they went over they got a terrific starter and a terrific hitter. Further, they continued the excellent move by signing both for this year. Who were those players though they missed out on last year instead?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 25, 2019 22:06:06 GMT -5
His point is more about the second half of the sentence. Last year the Sox passed up on improving the team more in free agency presumably in an effort to stay under the tax. They then ended up going just over the limit anyways. If you're not re-setting the tax, just blow through it and go all in. The same situation seems to be setting itself up this year. Who did they pass up on last year to start the season? Tony Watson.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 25, 2019 23:28:52 GMT -5
Who did they pass up on last year to start the season? Tony Watson. We didn;t get Tony Watson so that was a blunder? We'll see. We didn't need him last year, right? So it wasn't a blunder last year. ANy relief pitcher we would have gotten we don';t know if they would have done "a Kimbrel" or "a Kelly." So I can't see calling it a mistake thus far.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jan 25, 2019 23:34:08 GMT -5
Speier and redsoxpayroll are the most accurate numbers for sure. Speier: $235
The difference in those numbers is that Speier is not including a built in buffer for call ups, the inevitable shuttle up and down, milb salaries, bonuses and a little trade wiggle room. Payroll has $8.25M built in to his $244, so they are basically spot on. I know the Sox do use a "buffer" in their planning calculations because it's unavoidable.
So while a reliever other than Kimbrel wouldn't officially already put them over, they would build up to it and hit it at some point in the middle of the season, exactly like what happened last year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 26, 2019 1:20:40 GMT -5
I’m more and more getting the sense that the Sox really do think they can find/polish some diamonds in the rough. I’m actually pretty confident in Barnes closing, and I feel good about Brasier. Idk...they seem very inclined to actually go into the season with essentially the group they have, and I’m (oddly?) less worried about it than I think I should be. We’ll see, but it certainly an interesting approach to take.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 26, 2019 3:05:18 GMT -5
It is not a good idea to assume that an obviously thin position will not become a major problem during the season. In recent years we saw it in the outfield and at 3b. It's like the old adage that the ball will find an inexperienced player. The bullpen is an obviously thin position. If it is not strengthened, it well might become a significant problem.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 26, 2019 5:12:00 GMT -5
We didn;t get Tony Watson so that was a blunder? We'll see. We didn't need him last year, right? So it wasn't a blunder last year. ANy relief pitcher we would have gotten we don';t know if they would have done "a Kimbrel" or "a Kelly." So I can't see calling it a mistake thus far. If the Sox got Tony Watson on a 2 year deal last year, you wouldn't be looking for someone, you know, as good as Tony Watson in free agency right now this year. The Sox were about to trade prospects for Kelvin Herrera last year, they were about to pull the trigger and the Nationals backed out. That actually happened. They might have never done this if they had signed Watson. The Sox wanted another reliever last year with a bullpen that featured Kimbrel and Kelly and now the Sox don't have either of them. If you want to default and say "everything the Sox did worked last year." Then that's fine if you want to do that. The Sox got really fortunate to have a lead in each playoff series and used their starters in high leverage roles out of the bullpen. The beat every team early and often in each playoff series before maxing out each series. They had a chance to reset after each playoff round. If any one of the opponents the Sox faced in the playoffs stretched it into a 6-7 game playoff series (5 games in the Yankees series case), the Sox could have worn out by the end of the playoffs. The Sox went 11-3 in the postseason. That's a total of 14 games. To put that into perspective, the Sox played 5 less total games then they could have possibly played (19 total games). Cora was the best manager in the postseason. He went for the jugular, and it paid off. It might be a lot different in next year's playoffs however. It's good to have quality depth. It's good to have a lot of talent in a bullpen. It helps long and gruling playoff series and it helps to have it when your starters aren't performing in any given playoff start.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 26, 2019 5:26:04 GMT -5
Speier and redsoxpayroll are the most accurate numbers for sure. Speier: $235
The difference in those numbers is that Speier is not including a built in buffer for call ups, the inevitable shuttle up and down, milb salaries, bonuses and a little trade wiggle room. Payroll has $8.25M built in to his $244, so they are basically spot on. I know the Sox do use a "buffer" in their planning calculations because it's unavoidable.
So while a reliever other than Kimbrel wouldn't officially already put them over, they would build up to it and hit it at some point in the middle of the season, exactly like what happened last year.
"Add another $6 million in pre-arbitration salaries and $14 million for medical costs, health benefits, spring training allowances, moving and traveling expenses, etc. That brings the early payroll projection to $238.8625 million." www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/01/boston-red-sox-payroll-2019-early-projection-has-it-nearing-240m-as-dave-dombrowski-still-pursues-bullpen-help.htmlMass live has them just short of 239 million, but I'm not sure they used that buffer you were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 26, 2019 9:24:32 GMT -5
Eh, I don't think the relative strength of the offense versus the bullpen really figures into it. As far as I know, no one has ever shown a point of diminishing returns on offense, and Pearce is more reliably productive and will see far more plate appearances than an equally-priced bullpen arm. How doesn't it? I don't care how good your offense or starting pitching is if your bullpen implodes all the time. Nevermind most of the season you'll only play one of Moreland and Pearce. I'm a big believer in the your only as good as your weakest link. Well right now that is the bullpen. One Steve Pearce-priced reliever isn't going to be the difference between a bad bullpen and a good one, though. It's very possible that such a reliever would make no difference at all.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2019 9:26:25 GMT -5
We didn;t get Tony Watson so that was a blunder? We'll see. We didn't need him last year, right? So it wasn't a blunder last year. ANy relief pitcher we would have gotten we don';t know if they would have done "a Kimbrel" or "a Kelly." So I can't see calling it a mistake thus far. If the Sox got Tony Watson on a 2 year deal last year, you wouldn't be looking for someone, you know, as good as Tony Watson in free agency right now this year. The Sox were about to trade prospects for Kelvin Herrera last year, they were about to pull the trigger and the Nationals backed out. That actually happened. They might have never done this if they had signed Watson. The Sox wanted another reliever last year with a bullpen that featured Kimbrel and Kelly and now the Sox don't have either of them. If you want to default and say "everything the Sox did worked last year." Then that's fine if you want to do that. The Sox got really fortunate to have a lead in each playoff series and used their starters in high leverage roles out of the bullpen. The beat every team early and often in each playoff series before maxing out each series. They had a chance to reset after each playoff round. If any one of the opponents the Sox faced in the playoffs stretched it into a 6-7 game playoff series (5 games in the Yankees series case), the Sox could have worn out by the end of the playoffs. The Sox went 11-3 in the postseason. That's a total of 14 games. To put that into perspective, the Sox played 5 less total games then they could have possibly played (19 total games). Cora was the best manager in the postseason. He went for the jugular, and it paid off. It might be a lot different in next year's playoffs however. It's good to have quality depth. It's good to have a lot of talent in a bullpen. It helps long and gruling playoff series and it helps to have it when your starters aren't performing in any given playoff start. But the SOx aren't looking for Tony Watson, are they? At least not at the moment. And doesn't Tony have a player option for year 3? And if they really wanted him they'd have paid more than $3.5m. As for Kelvin Herrera - they could have had him this year but didn't either. They didn't want him this year for $9m. Yes they were looking for help last year but haven't we seen with DD if he really wants he gets? He overpays quite a bit at times. But this year for example he wants to see how Thornburgh does. ANd this site here - many were talking up Lakins and Feltman? It's as if now they don't exist. I realize DD said you can't count on them but in the same breath if we take him for his word to that level then we have to take him for his word that Thornburgh is feeling much better and he expects Wright to contribute a lot more too. DD said those things recently. He said it on NESN. So we're only going to look at the negative when it comes to DD? Anyhow, these are two pitchers that gave little last year. And if we were looking for those guys last year why can;t we look for those types again during the season? For example-- how much would it take to get Tony Watson during the season? If we had him last year as I said :maybe he;s a "last year version of a playoff Kimbrel." And I do want to say everything worked out last year because it did. We can "if" anything to death. When you bring up your perspective, mine is that a 108 win team is capable of being that dominant and even with a hurt Sale, a not-much used Erod, and a lousy Kimbrel they weren't pushed to many extra games. That's what 108 win teams are capable of. And for all of the Sox other championships - they were on the ropes for each of them too. Its a norm to expect you're on the ropes. We can look back at many championship teams of recent times and say things could have been different if . . . **Last year DD held out vs JD Martinez while several on here were saying he should have just given in. Instead his patience came through. Last year many on here were saying we got to have bullpen help. Instead DD's held to his guns and his patience again was rewarded. Now he is saying "let's wait and see" and we're still not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he might be right? And if he isn't - we go out and get someone. What's the big deal? So if your perspective is we were fortunate to win-- that;s fine but imo using that perspective then so is nearly every other past championship team of recent years. But this team also deserved to win because they were the best team. Any team that would have beaten the 2018 Sox team "would have been fortunate to win." Overall though I wonder where this "fortunate" stuff comes from. I can't remember one time any of my Yankee friends say they were fortunate beat us or win championships. Maybe they did but I can't recall.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 26, 2019 15:54:22 GMT -5
We didn;t get Tony Watson so that was a blunder? We'll see. We didn't need him last year, right? So it wasn't a blunder last year. ANy relief pitcher we would have gotten we don';t know if they would have done "a Kimbrel" or "a Kelly." So I can't see calling it a mistake thus far. Right, it's not so much a criticism because things wound up working out fine (although, as I've mentioned a few times, if they wound up hurting their chances this year because of how they had to use the starters in the playoffs, then maybe it didn't work out fine - conversation for another time though). But the one I was thinking of was Tony Watson as well. Bobby Poyner made the opening day roster. For the contract that Watson wound up signing, the only justification, assuming he'd have signed with the Red Sox for the same price (big assumption), was the Red Sox were adamant about avoiding the $237M mark. Now, maybe the fact that they realized they needed a starter midseason, and therefore had little choice but to go over that mark, changed the plan. But in that case, they miscalculated and should have signed a guy like Watson in the preseason. It is possible to make a mistake and have it not cost you. I believe not signing Tony Watson, assuming he'd have signed for similar money, was a mistake. I'm not sure you can make a credible argument that they couldn't have used him (which is a different thing than saying they NEEDED him, which they clearly did not). You are the one who introduced "blunder." Nobody called anything they did a blunder. But it is a miscalculation to pass on parts of the free agent market in the offseason for monetary reasons, then wind up going over the final tax threshold midseason anyway. Then penalties are NOT that great - the Red Sox paid $11+ million in tax this year, or in other words, only slightly more than they paid Rusney Castillo to play for the PawSox and much less than they paid Pablo Sandoval to play for the Giants. If they don't think big-money deals for relievers are worth it at all, then that's one thing and I guess could justify not getting in on a Robertson or Ottavino type. But if they don't even pick anyone up in the Brach/Kelley/etc. band on a reasonable one-year deal, then go over the $248M mark anyway, then I will again say that was a miscalculation and a mistake, whether or not it cost them.
|
|
|