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.
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 30, 2019 10:20:08 GMT -5
I'll go out and say that I think the Sox are going to trade a top 5 prospect and probably more to acquire a big time bullpen arm come July. Which prospect, TBD. You're in a position where you have to go for it with the payroll situation is what it is. Don't fall in love with the prospects this year at least. Pedro, I was thinking - it might not be a Top 5, but it could still be costly. Perhaps somebody like Gilberto Jimenez, who's far away from the majors, but has a strong ceiling. That might be a name that gets sought after. You figure that the Sox best trade bait is probably among Feltman, Hernandez, Lakins, Houck, and Jimenez, with the top name probably Dalbec, but I don't think they'd include Dalbec in a deal for a reliever/closer unless it was a cheap, controllable, top rated closer type - don't think there are many in that category - so I don't see Dalbec going yet. More likely you see two of those names among the 5 listed that go in a deal for a good controllable reliever who has a year plus of control left who doesn't cost much. I don't think Dombrowski would deal Casas or Duran, for relievers or otherwise - they fill potential areas of need cheaply and potentially very effectively.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 30, 2019 10:22:15 GMT -5
Just a heads up, if they trade Gilberto for a reliever I'm straight-up punching a wall. Like total bro-dude fist through the drywall.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 30, 2019 10:53:59 GMT -5
I'll go out and say that I think the Sox are going to trade a top 5 prospect and probably more to acquire a big time bullpen arm come July. Which prospect, TBD. You're in a position where you have to go for it with the payroll situation is what it is. Don't fall in love with the prospects this year at least. Pedro, I was thinking - it might not be a Top 5, but it could still be costly. Perhaps somebody like Gilberto Jimenez, who's far away from the majors, but has a strong ceiling. That might be a name that gets sought after. You figure that the Sox best trade bait is probably among Feltman, Hernandez, Lakins, Houck, and Jimenez, with the top name probably Dalbec, but I don't think they'd include Dalbec in a deal for a reliever/closer unless it was a cheap, controllable, top rated closer type - don't think there are many in that category - so I don't see Dalbec going yet. More likely you see two of those names among the 5 listed that go in a deal for a good controllable reliever who has a year plus of control left who doesn't cost much. I don't think Dombrowski would deal Casas or Duran, for relievers or otherwise - they fill potential areas of need cheaply and potentially very effectively. Yeah Gilberto Jimenez has no trade stock most likely. This system is really bad. A top 5 prospect is the equivalent to a top 10 prospect somewhere else. Gilberto is your classic third piece that a team takes in as a throw in piece. I think any prospect is on the table, even Casas, especially with Dombrowski for the right piece. Add- People will freak out about the deal too. Even though if you trade Dalbec to a team for the equivalent to what Kimbrel was for you, which would actually be a steal, considering the package you gave up for Kimbrel.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on May 30, 2019 11:21:40 GMT -5
Yeah, let's trade valuable pieces for a RELIEVER, it always works out just fine. Ironically, the year we didn't trade for one of these we won it all.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 30, 2019 11:32:21 GMT -5
Your team backed itself into a corner by spending NO MONEY in the bullpen and thought this was a good idea.
Yeap your going to lose the trade value wise most likely. That's what your team planned for later in the season this year.
Every year is different. You won with Kimbrel as a reminder. 2016 is the year where both the Indians and Cubs made huge reliever trades that were big pieces that either got them to the world series, or won it for them in the Cubs.
Add- this team should be making multiple reliever trades because not only is the talent bad, the depth isn't there either.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 30, 2019 11:53:47 GMT -5
Any conversation or critique about this team not spending money on the bullpen has to be done in the greater context of the team's overall spending. The team has obviously made it a priority to extend key players this past offseason (Eovaldi, Sale, Bogaerts) and I imagine they have the hope of doing so again this upcoming offseason (Betts, JD). That said, they're also clearly trying to stay below the highest threshold of luxury tax penalties which I don't think is crazy or unfair of them (no other team is spending more than us). So that said, in order to follow this approach, there needs to be sacrifices (i.e., players making near the minimum) in other areas of roster construction.
To be clear, I do think its totally fair to question whether this is the best approach. In particular, could the ~$17M annual salary for Eovaldi have been better spent elsewhere? Thats a reasonable question, but at the same time, we did(do) have a need for Eovaldi, so if you allocate that money to a reliever like Ottavino, who is replacing Eovaldi? I was personally interested in buy low options like Brad Brach (20.4% BB% this year) and Sergio Romo (4.64 FIP, 5.36 xFIP), but clearly those guys wouldn't have prevented us from being in the situation that we're currently in.
Bottom line -- the complaints about our bullpen situation are becoming tiresome when the luxury tax implications are simultaneously being ignored.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 30, 2019 12:03:27 GMT -5
Any conversation or critique about this team not spending money on the bullpen has to be done in the greater context of the team's overall spending. The team has obviously made it a priority to extend key players this past offseason (Eovaldi, Sale, Bogaerts) and I imagine they have the hope of doing so again this upcoming offseason (Betts, JD). That said, they're also clearly trying to stay below the highest threshold of luxury tax penalties which I don't think is crazy or unfair of them (no other team is spending more than us). So that said, in order to follow this approach, there needs to be sacrifices (i.e., players making near the minimum) in other areas of roster construction. To be clear, I do think its totally fair to question whether this is the best approach. In particular, could the ~$17M annual salary for Eovaldi have been better spent elsewhere? Thats a reasonable question, but at the same time, we did(do) have a need for Eovaldi, so if you allocate that money to a reliever like Ottavino, who is replacing Eovaldi? I was personally interested in buy low options like Brad Brach (20.4% BB% this year) and Sergio Romo (4.64 FIP, 5.36 xFIP), but clearly those guys wouldn't have prevented us from being in the situation that we're currently in. Bottom line -- the complaints about our bullpen situation are becoming tiresome when the luxury tax implications are simultaneously being ignored. Agree totally. If they end up a 92-win team this year instead of a 97-win team because they used their resources this offseason to better set themselves up for the long term, well, I'm happy for that, especially coming off a title. Sure, that's gonna lead to some short-term frustration but it's hard to argue with that as a strategy. It certainly doesn't lend itself to "Gilberto Jimenez is a throw-in third piece for a reliever."
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 30, 2019 12:23:52 GMT -5
Bottom line -- the complaints about our bullpen situation are becoming tiresome when the luxury tax implications are simultaneously being ignored. I'm kind of giggling because I didn't ignore it, even before it happened. I fought the whole message board on the Steve Pearce thing. I knew that the Sox were foolish to jump the gun and sign quickly Pearce to a contract when you had bigger needs at the time. You had Chavis in your system, who I brought up as depth in that thread. I even was wanted to give Nunez a first base glove if it meant signing a reliever. This isn't about the third highest luxury tax line either. You're falling into the trap everyone else is falling into. The Sox *prefer* to stay under but are willing to go over again, even this year. This about your owner pinching pennies at this point because he's mad that this team has the highest payroll in MLB. Really that's what it is. Your owner setting limits on payroll and being stingy when it got past the point after you signed Eovaldi. He's got the money. He doesn't want to do it. Regardless, there are ways to get relievers and still not cross that third luxury tax line. The Sox should still have about 3-5 million in space before they hit that line before the trade deadline is over. Even if you want a releiever that costs a little more than that, you can throw in a Eduardo Nunez or a Steve Pearce to offset salaries. Greg Holland was worth 2 plus million in the off-season. You could have had Greg Holland. Greg Holland is worth 1 bWAR this year so far. Everyone likes to point to the examples of relievers failing a lot. Well here's a case of great value that this team could have had potentially.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 30, 2019 12:27:25 GMT -5
Any conversation or critique about this team not spending money on the bullpen has to be done in the greater context of the team's overall spending. The team has obviously made it a priority to extend key players this past offseason (Eovaldi, Sale, Bogaerts) and I imagine they have the hope of doing so again this upcoming offseason (Betts, JD). That said, they're also clearly trying to stay below the highest threshold of luxury tax penalties which I don't think is crazy or unfair of them (no other team is spending more than us). So that said, in order to follow this approach, there needs to be sacrifices (i.e., players making near the minimum) in other areas of roster construction. To be clear, I do think its totally fair to question whether this is the best approach. In particular, could the ~$17M annual salary for Eovaldi have been better spent elsewhere? Thats a reasonable question, but at the same time, we did(do) have a need for Eovaldi, so if you allocate that money to a reliever like Ottavino, who is replacing Eovaldi? I was personally interested in buy low options like Brad Brach (20.4% BB% this year) and Sergio Romo (4.64 FIP, 5.36 xFIP), but clearly those guys wouldn't have prevented us from being in the situation that we're currently in. Bottom line -- the complaints about our bullpen situation are becoming tiresome when the luxury tax implications are simultaneously being ignored. Agree totally. If they end up a 92-win team this year instead of a 97-win team because they used their resources this offseason to better set themselves up for the long term, well, I'm happy for that, especially coming off a title. Sure, that's gonna lead to some short-term frustration but it's hard to argue with that as a strategy. It certainly doesn't lend itself to "Gilberto Jimenez is a throw-in third piece for a reliever." I disagree totally. First time in 100 years you have a roster that is at least capable of back to back titles and the highest payroll in the league, you go for it. It's time to put your chips on the table again. In fact, that's what the team did by bringing everyone back this off-season.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 30, 2019 12:55:15 GMT -5
Just a heads up, if they trade Gilberto for a reliever I'm straight-up punching a wall. Like total bro-dude fist through the drywall. Just to be clear - I'm not advocating dealing Gilberto Jimenez for a reliever. What I'm saying is if you're another team and you're looking around at what the Red Sox have that would interest you, he'd be a name you're looking at. The Red Sox farm system isn't the strongest in the world, here - no secret here. The Red Sox have some future relief arms, two nearly surefire regulars, a potential regular, one starter who could be a mid rotation starter - if he gets healthy and proves himself - and that's a big if. So I threw Jimenez's name out there because that's who I'd target if I were another team with a valuable proven but not expensive high leverage reliever. I'd would want of the Red Sox young relievers and if I can't get Dalbec (and Casas and Duran are something I certainly can't get for a reliever), I'd want somebody with a future, even if they're far, far away. I'd also look at a lower ceiling player such as Chatham. I'm not "indicting" the Red Sox on not getting some more arms as much as I'm trying to say that I think their strategy was to stay under the highest limit, throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks and then try to help the bullpen externally - if there is no internal help coming - which to me, is quite apparent. I think the Sox would be nuts to count on any of Feltman, Hernandez, Lakins, Houck, or Shawaryn to jump up to the majors and take on a high leverage relief role this season. So they're going to have to get external help - unless they want to keep gambling on the "rover" thing. It was the "rover" thing that helped lead the Sox to that 6-13 start that has them in a hole they've been trying to dig out of. I'm not criticizing Cora's use of the rovers - you cannot complain when it wins you a World Championship, but obviously it's not all clean and neat and there is a price to pay (and to be clear it was totally worth it!) - it can handicap the team the following season if it doesn't get you during the post-season. At some point you pay some kind of cost. If they advance to and through the post-season, yes they'll use the rover, but they still need bullpen help, especially if you're not convinced that Workman and Walden will necessarily hold up and/or that Brasier will bounce back to what he did last year. So when I brought up Jimenez my point was that Pedro might be correct - there could be a deal to aid the pen that makes us cringe a bit. I know I don't want Jimenez to go - he's becoming one of my little binkies and right now on that level - Flores and Jimenez are the two I have the highest hopes for.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on May 30, 2019 16:23:36 GMT -5
Updated metrics, with context. A lot of the relievers have had great karma on balls in play. A good part of that has to be that the Sox are 2nd in MLB in shift effectiveness (wOBA - xwOBA where negative is good). Rick Porcello, for instance, sure as heck seems to have the skill of getting hitters to hit into the shift. I haven't yet checked out each of the relievers.
"Result" is now wOBA. "Quality" is still adjusted xWOBA. "xWins" is the expected WPA, adjusted for leverage, per 60 appearances, based on Quality. And "Wins" (formerly "Results") is the actual wins. The last two columns separate the difference between Wins and Expected Wins into Ball in Play Karma and Situational Karma, which includes both runners on / outs karma and inning / score karma . As I just said, the former is real only to the extent that pitchers can get hitters to hit the ball at fielders. (I'll look at outfield karma and defense next.) The latter is real to the extent that Cora might match his relievers up to the guys they project to do well against only in close games, and leave a guy in to take a beating in a meaningless situation.
Weber and Velazquez Karma are estimates as I've used their overall Quality (including starts) to calculate xWins. IOW, it assumes that any difference in Quality according to role was random.
Name Use Result Quality xWins Wins BKar SKar Marcus Walden 164 .229 .262 .95 1.64 0.65 0.03 Matt Barnes 166 .256 .271 .77 1.71 0.30 0.63 Brandon Workman 131 .208 .290 .40 .75 1.62 -1.27 Heath Hembree 100 .305 .318 -.16 .60 0.26 0.49 Colten Brewer 86 .339 .324 -.28 -1.98 -0.29 -1.42 Hect. Velazquez 15 .338 .339 -.56 -1.58 0.02 -1.03 Ryan Weber 21 .335 .341 -.59 1.01 0.11 1.49 Ryan Brasier 140 .298 .353 -.83 -.97 1.08 -1.22 Josh Taylor 5 .499 .298 .25 -4.28 -3.96 -0.56 Darw. Hernandez 6 .412 .320 -.20 1.16 -1.81 3.16 Josh A. Smith 4 .290 .325 -.29 .59 0.69 0.18 Tyler Thornburg 15 .408 .407 -1.91 1.71 -0.01 3.63 Travis Lakins 43 .364 .412 -2.01 -3.16 0.95 -2.11 Bobby Poyner 6 .674 .591 -5.52 -22.47 -1.65 -15.30 Now, some benchmarks. They are different for xWins and Wins.
All of these are the minimum for a first-division (better-than-average) pitcher in that role.
For xWins:
1.20 closer. Nobody.
0.75 8th inning. Walden is average for a contender, Barnes also sneaks in as contender-caliber, but he's more league-average. 0.50 7th inning. Nobody else. 0.30 4th man in pen. Workman is average for a contender. 0.05 5th man in pen. Hembree falls short here.
This isn't rosy if none of the karma is real, but a good deal of it seems to be.
Benchmarks for actual Wins:
1.90 closer. Still nobody. 1.15 8th inning. Barnes are Walden have both been very good. 0.75 7th inning. Workman just sneaks in as contender-caliber. 0.40 4th man in pen. Hembree qualifies.
0.00 5th man. Nobody.
Barnes and Walden can continue to share the last two innings. That's a solid strategy to get roster bang for buck if closers are prohibitively expensive dollar-wise or talent-wise (and they are). Should we be worried about Barnes regressing? I don't think so, as the current numbers seem to be catching him at a bit of an off streak. Edit: Walden is more worrisome, as he's had a lot of luck on non-shift grounders which is unlikely to be sustainable. The bench-marks may well differ because a lot of relievers do have legit karma, and Walden's current karma may well be inflated relative to the norm. I think he may be ultimately a 7th inning guy.
Workman and Hembree are fine as the 4th and 5th guys. Workman should be the guy who gets high-leverage only when someone needs a day off or one of the three guys ahead of him has already coughed it up. Edit: His overall karma has been ordinary, but it's a combination of ridiculous, unsustainable karma on balls in play, and terrible situational karma. I think the former is probably a bit more due for regression, which is a big reason you don't want to see him in high-leverage except as a plan B. You'd rather see Hembree as a 6th option, but you wouldn't trade talent to do that.
What they hugely need is a third guy of Walden / Barnes caliber, which is to say the guy Brasier was supposed to be.
Steven Wright has an excellent chance of filling that role (edit: and replacing Walden and bumping him to the 7th). He's had long stretches where his quality has been in the .230 range, and .270 is perfectly reasonable once you add in rougher stretches. They shouldn't be trading for anyone until they find out whether he can do the job.
Brian Johnson is the 6th guy. That leaves Thornburg and a whole bunch of guys with options -- Brewer, Velazquez, Weber, Brasier, and all the kids -- as candidates for the last spot when everyone is healthy, and it would help is someone in that group could be good. Better than Hembree, especially.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 30, 2019 17:55:32 GMT -5
Just a heads up, if they trade Gilberto for a reliever I'm straight-up punching a wall. Like total bro-dude fist through the drywall. Just to be clear - I'm not advocating dealing Gilberto Jimenez for a reliever. What I'm saying is if you're another team and you're looking around at what the Red Sox have that would interest you, he'd be a name you're looking at. The Red Sox farm system isn't the strongest in the world, here - no secret here. The Red Sox have some future relief arms, two nearly surefire regulars, a potential regular, one starter who could be a mid rotation starter - if he gets healthy and proves himself - and that's a big if. So I threw Jimenez's name out there because that's who I'd target if I were another team with a valuable proven but not expensive high leverage reliever. I'd would want of the Red Sox young relievers and if I can't get Dalbec (and Casas and Duran are something I certainly can't get for a reliever), I'd want somebody with a future, even if they're far, far away. I'd also look at a lower ceiling player such as Chatham. I'm not "indicting" the Red Sox on not getting some more arms as much as I'm trying to say that I think their strategy was to stay under the highest limit, throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks and then try to help the bullpen externally - if there is no internal help coming - which to me, is quite apparent. I think the Sox would be nuts to count on any of Feltman, Hernandez, Lakins, Houck, or Shawaryn to jump up to the majors and take on a high leverage relief role this season. So they're going to have to get external help - unless they want to keep gambling on the "rover" thing. It was the "rover" thing that helped lead the Sox to that 6-13 start that has them in a hole they've been trying to dig out of. I'm not criticizing Cora's use of the rovers - you cannot complain when it wins you a World Championship, but obviously it's not all clean and neat and there is a price to pay (and to be clear it was totally worth it!) - it can handicap the team the following season if it doesn't get you during the post-season. At some point you pay some kind of cost. If they advance to and through the post-season, yes they'll use the rover, but they still need bullpen help, especially if you're not convinced that Workman and Walden will necessarily hold up and/or that Brasier will bounce back to what he did last year. So when I brought up Jimenez my point was that Pedro might be correct - there could be a deal to aid the pen that makes us cringe a bit. I know I don't want Jimenez to go - he's becoming one of my little binkies and right now on that level - Flores and Jimenez are the two I have the highest hopes for. I actually agree with you. I think of the Pearce-Espinal trade as a guideline. A cost-conscious team trading a fairly good but soon to be “too expensive” arb-eligible reliever, particularly if they’re early-mid-rebuild, would be looking for exactly a guy like Gilberto. Tools are coming back in vogue because analytics (EV, LA, electronic timing to 1b or for peak speed, etc.) allow for actual quantification of tools vs old school eyeballing. That makes guys who made scouts drool WAY more appealing to the more fiscally conservative but data-progressive elements of FOs. Big upside lottery tickets are increasing in value as team-building doctrine CW gets further away from the risk-averse strategy many teams adopted (by making eyeballing less risky, since there are now hard objective data to back up those opinions).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 30, 2019 17:58:39 GMT -5
Of course, Espinal wasn’t a true upside play, but his bat and SS ability made him an attractive lower-level prospect who seemed like a good value bet (UTIL INF with SS ability and possible league-avg bat), and offered upside of maybe being a second-division SS. That’s a great commodity for a rental who was unlikely to return.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 30, 2019 20:52:15 GMT -5
I'm in the minority in believing that the Sox have a solid Eleven on the staff.
Erasmo, Mejia, Tapia, Runzler, Montgomery, Putnam: they signed these guys to provide plenty of barely-adequate depth. Yet, they've gotten nothing from them at this point. Having eight starters coming into spring training probably was an obstacle on signing quality SP for AAA.
The extra starters were Johnson, Velazquez, Wright.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 30, 2019 21:02:47 GMT -5
Here's a encouraging piece talking about how the results haven't translated to his good stuff yet.
They need the results to come at some point though.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 31, 2019 11:25:54 GMT -5
Bottom line -- the complaints about our bullpen situation are becoming tiresome when the luxury tax implications are simultaneously being ignored. I'm kind of giggling because I didn't ignore it, even before it happened. I fought the whole message board on the Steve Pearce thing. I knew that the Sox were foolish to jump the gun and sign quickly Pearce to a contract when you had bigger needs at the time. You had Chavis in your system, who I brought up as depth in that thread. I even was wanted to give Nunez a first base glove if it meant signing a reliever. This isn't about the third highest luxury tax line either. You're falling into the trap everyone else is falling into. The Sox *prefer* to stay under but are willing to go over again, even this year. This about your owner pinching pennies at this point because he's mad that this team has the highest payroll in MLB. Really that's what it is. Your owner setting limits on payroll and being stingy when it got past the point after you signed Eovaldi. He's got the money. He doesn't want to do it. Regardless, there are ways to get relievers and still not cross that third luxury tax line. The Sox should still have about 3-5 million in space before they hit that line before the trade deadline is over. Even if you want a releiever that costs a little more than that, you can throw in a Eduardo Nunez or a Steve Pearce to offset salaries. Greg Holland was worth 2 plus million in the off-season. You could have had Greg Holland. Greg Holland is worth 1 bWAR this year so far. Everyone likes to point to the examples of relievers failing a lot. Well here's a case of great value that this team could have had potentially. Pedro -- I respond with great hesitation as I really don't want to derail the thread. There's certainly some stuff that you said above that I could disagree with but instead I'll just say this -- its not like there was a camp of posters heading into the season claiming the bullpen was fine and a camp claiming that the bullpen was an area of concern. I think almost every poster here was surprised that there were no bullpen moves made in the offseason. What you're doing in the gameday threads comes off as "see I told you the bullpen was awful" every time they give up a run. Thats not a fair stance given that other posters aren't arguing about whether the bullpen could be improved...its a greater discussion involving cost-benefit analysis.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2019 11:28:30 GMT -5
Notice he doesn't bring up trading Porcello while the Red Sox are on their 11th and 12th starters.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 31, 2019 12:16:04 GMT -5
I'm kind of giggling because I didn't ignore it, even before it happened. I fought the whole message board on the Steve Pearce thing. I knew that the Sox were foolish to jump the gun and sign quickly Pearce to a contract when you had bigger needs at the time. You had Chavis in your system, who I brought up as depth in that thread. I even was wanted to give Nunez a first base glove if it meant signing a reliever. This isn't about the third highest luxury tax line either. You're falling into the trap everyone else is falling into. The Sox *prefer* to stay under but are willing to go over again, even this year. This about your owner pinching pennies at this point because he's mad that this team has the highest payroll in MLB. Really that's what it is. Your owner setting limits on payroll and being stingy when it got past the point after you signed Eovaldi. He's got the money. He doesn't want to do it. Regardless, there are ways to get relievers and still not cross that third luxury tax line. The Sox should still have about 3-5 million in space before they hit that line before the trade deadline is over. Even if you want a releiever that costs a little more than that, you can throw in a Eduardo Nunez or a Steve Pearce to offset salaries. Greg Holland was worth 2 plus million in the off-season. You could have had Greg Holland. Greg Holland is worth 1 bWAR this year so far. Everyone likes to point to the examples of relievers failing a lot. Well here's a case of great value that this team could have had potentially. Pedro -- I respond with great hesitation as I really don't want to derail the thread. There's certainly some stuff that you said above that I could disagree with but instead I'll just say this -- its not like there was a camp of posters heading into the season claiming the bullpen was fine and a camp claiming that the bullpen was an area of concern. I think almost every poster here was surprised that there were no bullpen moves made in the offseason. What you're doing in the gameday threads comes off as "see I told you the bullpen was awful" every time they give up a run. Thats not a fair stance given that other posters aren't arguing about whether the bullpen could be improved...its a greater discussion involving cost-benefit analysis. I just have to say there was a good size group that was more than happy with this bullpen and thought that's what the team should do. A you can find bullpen arms anywhere, so no use in spending free agent money on them way of thinking. That camp certainly existed before the season started. It kinda amazed me how many people were liking this bullpen before the season.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by gerry on May 31, 2019 13:24:51 GMT -5
I was in that camp of “liking” this bullpen. But this camp was as much about not bringing back a recently shaky Kimbrel on a big multi year contract as it was about confidence and extending the core. Most in that camp, myself included, were suprised that NONE of the very good, low cost, veteran FA relievers were signed.
That camp was very high on Barnes in place of Kimbrel, which has worked out in a fireman kind of role, and also Feltman, Darwinzon, Lakins, Taylor, Brewer, Erasmo, which has not worked out. Who here expected the Rotation to fail so badly in April, or early injuries to Eovaldi, Price, Wright, Johnson? Who expected the Pen to start off so well, compensating for a lousy Rotation and getting worn down? Lots of surprises, including Workman and Walden stepping up, while Brasier and Brewer not.
I remain glad we didn’t break the bank long term on CK, and were able to extend XB and Sale, with more to come. I don’t think many on this board expected Chavis to be a ROY candidate, but he is and has ably compensated for injured Pearce, Moreland, Pedroia, Holt and Nunez.
If only the hoped for RP’s in AAA and AA step up to make this discussion moot.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 31, 2019 13:38:08 GMT -5
I was in that camp of “liking” this bullpen. But this camp was as much about not bringing back a recently shaky Kimbrel on a big multi year contract as it was about confidence and extending the core. Most in that camp, myself included, were suprised that NONE of the very good, low cost, veteran FA relievers were signed. That camp was very high on Barnes in place of Kimbrel, which has worked out in a fireman kind of role, and also Feltman, Darwinzon, Lakins, Taylor, Brewer, Erasmo, which has not worked out. Who here expected the Rotation to fail so badly in April, or early injuries to Eovaldi, Price, Wright, Johnson? Who expected the Pen to start off so well, compensating for a lousy Rotation and getting worn down? Lots of surprises, including Workman and Walden stepping up, while Brasier and Brewer not. I remain glad we didn’t break the bank long term on CK, and were able to extend XB and Sale, with more to come. I don’t think many on this board expected Chavis to be a ROY candidate, but he is and has ably compensated for injured Pearce, Moreland, Pedroia, Holt and Nunez. If only the hoped for the RP’s in AAA and AA step up to make this discussion moot. Yeah, that's where I'm at. Personally, I would have had no problem with the Sox bringing back Kimbrel for 3 and 40 if that were an option. I'm not as concerned about the Sox going over the highest threshold again. Rather see them do that for Kimbrel than do that for Ian Kinsler like they did last year. I don't worry as much about John Henry's bottom line, which I would be suppose would be fantastic anyways. The Red Sox don't exactly lose money. Factor in NESN and you get the picture. However, that's a different argument, and the pragmatic side of me says that the above paragraph doesn't matter anyways because they have zero intention of crossing that line again. The part I bolded is what I agree with. There were a number of pitchers in that $2 million - $3 million range that they didn't go after. I don't remember being particularly enamored with any of them, but remember hoping the Sox would take a flier on one or two of them. Which one? Well, the Red Sox have better analysts and scouts than I do, so I'd trust their determinations on that decision more than mine. Maybe they disliked all the relievers, although I think it was more of a financial decision set by Henry rather than the true desire of the baseball ops dept. They probably compromised with - we'll stay under the limit, throw our current relievers up against the wall see what sticks, and spend money on relievers at the deadline if need be and still stay under the upper tax limit as the reliever would probably be a rental being counted as half their salary on the books. The other hope they had was that they'd get a lot of help from the various minor league relievers. I don't think they are going to get any impactful relief help from the minors so they will be forced to make a deal, even though that probably wasn't their first preference.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2019 13:50:17 GMT -5
I was in that camp of “liking” this bullpen. But this camp was as much about not bringing back a recently shaky Kimbrel on a big multi year contract as it was about confidence and extending the core. Most in that camp, myself included, were suprised that NONE of the very good, low cost, veteran FA relievers were signed. That camp was very high on Barnes in place of Kimbrel, which has worked out in a fireman kind of role, and also Feltman, Darwinzon, Lakins, Taylor, Brewer, Erasmo, which has not worked out. Who here expected the Rotation to fail so badly in April, or early injuries to Eovaldi, Price, Wright, Johnson? Who expected the Pen to start off so well, compensating for a lousy Rotation and getting worn down? Lots of surprises, including Workman and Walden stepping up, while Brasier and Brewer not. I remain glad we didn’t break the bank long term on CK, and were able to extend XB and Sale, with more to come. I don’t think many on this board expected Chavis to be a ROY candidate, but he is and has ably compensated for injured Pearce, Moreland, Pedroia, Holt and Nunez. If only the hoped for the RP’s in AAA and AA step up to make this discussion moot. Yeah, that's where I'm at. Personally, I would have had no problem with the Sox bringing back Kimbrel for 3 and 40 if that were an option. I'm not as concerned about the Sox going over the highest threshold again. Rather see them do that for Kimbrel than do that for Ian Kinsler like they did last year. I don't worry as much about John Henry's bottom line, which I would be suppose would be fantastic anyways. The Red Sox don't exactly lose money. Factor in NESN and you get the picture. However, that's a different argument, and the pragmatic side of me says that the above paragraph doesn't matter anyways because they have zero intention of crossing that line again. The part I bolded is what I agree with. There were a number of pitchers in that $2 million - $3 million range that they didn't go after. I don't remember being particularly enamored with any of them, but remember hoping the Sox would take a flier on one or two of them. Which one? Well, the Red Sox have better analysts and scouts than I do, so I'd trust their determinations on that decision more than mine.Maybe they disliked all the relievers, although I think it was more of a financial decision set by Henry rather than the true desire of the baseball ops dept. They probably compromised with - we'll stay under the limit, throw our current relievers up against the wall see what sticks, and spend money on relievers at the deadline if need be and still stay under the upper tax limit as the reliever would probably be a rental being counted as half their salary on the books. The other hope they had was that they'd get a lot of help from the various minor league relievers. I don't think they are going to get any impactful relief help from the minors so they will be forced to make a deal, even though that probably wasn't their first preference. Seriously, go look at the ones you suggested and see what kind of seasons they are having. Maybe it would have made you feel better that they were pretending to try by wasting money, but they wouldn't be in a much better place now unless they were lucky in getting the 2-3 out of 20 free agent relief pitchers that are doing anything good this year. Walden and Workman (who someone wanted cut from the roster) have provided far more than most of the 2-3 million dollar relievers.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,694
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 31, 2019 14:21:30 GMT -5
Yeah, that's where I'm at. Personally, I would have had no problem with the Sox bringing back Kimbrel for 3 and 40 if that were an option. I'm not as concerned about the Sox going over the highest threshold again. Rather see them do that for Kimbrel than do that for Ian Kinsler like they did last year. I don't worry as much about John Henry's bottom line, which I would be suppose would be fantastic anyways. The Red Sox don't exactly lose money. Factor in NESN and you get the picture. However, that's a different argument, and the pragmatic side of me says that the above paragraph doesn't matter anyways because they have zero intention of crossing that line again. The part I bolded is what I agree with. There were a number of pitchers in that $2 million - $3 million range that they didn't go after. I don't remember being particularly enamored with any of them, but remember hoping the Sox would take a flier on one or two of them. Which one? Well, the Red Sox have better analysts and scouts than I do, so I'd trust their determinations on that decision more than mine.Maybe they disliked all the relievers, although I think it was more of a financial decision set by Henry rather than the true desire of the baseball ops dept. They probably compromised with - we'll stay under the limit, throw our current relievers up against the wall see what sticks, and spend money on relievers at the deadline if need be and still stay under the upper tax limit as the reliever would probably be a rental being counted as half their salary on the books. The other hope they had was that they'd get a lot of help from the various minor league relievers. I don't think they are going to get any impactful relief help from the minors so they will be forced to make a deal, even though that probably wasn't their first preference. Seriously, go look at the ones you suggested and see what kind of seasons they are having. Maybe it would have made you feel better that they were pretending to try by wasting money, but they wouldn't be in a much better place now unless they were lucky in getting the 2-3 out of 20 free agent relief pitchers that are doing anything good this year. Walden and Workman (who someone wanted cut from the roster) have provided far more than most of the 2-3 million dollar relievers. At the moment they have. Let's see how it plays out over the full season instead of 1/3 of the season and let's see if that's enough. Let's see if Workman can get by on his curveball the entire season and hold up. Let's see if Walden is for real. Let's see if that's enough depth for you. I already don't think it is. Some of the guys who have struggled that they have bypassed might actually start pitching to their track records over the long haul. I get that established track records aren't guaranteed and we're talking relatively small sample sizes here - fine, but you seem to be of the school of thought that the Red Sox bullpen is fine as is. You seem to think the Red Sox don't need to do anything to improve their bullpen - they're just fine as is. You seem to think the pen will hold up just fine over the long season. I disagree on that. I think one of Workman and Walden if not both are working on the borrowed time of effectiveness that Brasier was working on. I do believe that Barnes is becoming one of the best relievers in the league. Beyond that, what?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 31, 2019 14:24:11 GMT -5
Notice he doesn't bring up trading Porcello while the Red Sox are on their 11th and 12th starters. Well if you traded Porcello, you be trading him for a replacement. Porcello had a awful start too.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 31, 2019 14:26:30 GMT -5
Pedro -- I respond with great hesitation as I really don't want to derail the thread. There's certainly some stuff that you said above that I could disagree with but instead I'll just say this -- its not like there was a camp of posters heading into the season claiming the bullpen was fine and a camp claiming that the bullpen was an area of concern. I think almost every poster here was surprised that there were no bullpen moves made in the offseason. What you're doing in the gameday threads comes off as "see I told you the bullpen was awful" every time they give up a run. Thats not a fair stance given that other posters aren't arguing about whether the bullpen could be improved...its a greater discussion involving cost-benefit analysis. I just have to say there was a good size group that was more than happy with this bullpen and thought that's what the team should do. A you can find bullpen arms anywhere, so no use in spending free agent money on them way of thinking. That camp certainly existed before the season started. It kinda amazed me how many people were liking this bullpen before the season. They still exist, even to this day.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan511 on May 31, 2019 14:33:24 GMT -5
I’m still pissed at how well ty Buttrey is playing. Why didn’t our scouts foresee this?
|
|
|