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.
Mid-Season Acquistion Time
|
Post by kevfc89 on Jun 28, 2019 17:48:28 GMT -5
I think it's a terrible idea to either buy or sell even if they're in the same position a month from now. I'm fine with minor rental trades, but don't want any part of giving up anyone in the top 10, maybe top 20. this is my position i think
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Jun 28, 2019 18:22:01 GMT -5
Interesting topic... and I don't have the answers. Boston hasn't shown enough to think a player could put them over the top. They're a decent team... not a force like last year... in contention for the second wild card... but nothing outstanding. It'd be clearer if they were on top - or - a middling team. I guess my thought here is to position the team (salary-wise) for flexibility next year and beyond. That means being a seller of parts you don't expect to be here in a year or two. This includes stars you don't think will re-sign. I think back to what I'd read many years ago about Ralph Kiner and his contract squabbles with the Pirates - a bottom feeder club at that time. Team management told him they could finish in last place without him. The Sox aren't in that position in the standings, yet today there's a limit to what a team's payroll can be. The Sox are a decent team. Not great - not terrible. Using the Pirates' logic... couldn't they be about the same without some of the players who've made them a middle of the road team? If it set Boston up with some salary flexibility, might be worth the deal. Let's be honest here... last year was magical. This year isn't last year. Hate to say that as a lifelong fan.
|
|
orion09
Veteran
Posts: 1,220
Member is Online
|
Post by orion09 on Jun 28, 2019 19:06:37 GMT -5
I actually think this team is Mookie and JD locking in their swings, Eovaldi and Moreland coming back healthy and Feltman coming up as an additional arm, and one acquired impact arm from making a solid run in the second half and being the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs. So who would I give for that arm? Depends on the guy and years of control, but I think Dalbec, Darwinzon Hernandez, Houck and Mata are all potential trade bait. I don't think you can find a team that would want either Nuñez or Thornton, but they are both taking up space and should be let go. As an aside, it's a shame they can't bring up Castillo because he could contribute to this team. All of this is spot on, IMO. The biggest issue on the team hasn't been the bullpen. They really just need one more high-leverage arm, just so that Barnes doesn't get totally overexposed by the end of the season. And then one mid-level guy to soak up innings and push everyone else up - probably either Hernandez or Hembree. Bigger picture, they need better production from the top of the lineup and better production from the 5th starter spot.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 28, 2019 19:51:51 GMT -5
I think it's a terrible idea to either buy or sell even if they're in the same position a month from now. I'm fine with minor rental trades, but don't want any part of giving up anyone in the top 10, maybe top 20. Maybe you do stand pat, but it's going to be a disaster if they miss entirely and they did nothing. The PR firestorm will be enormous. In fact, I feel like if that happens it'll be one of those seasons where we get clubhouse toxicity stories. I'm probably over dramatizing it, but it has that feel to me. Pete Abraham screaming firesale I find extremely odd. Again, completely unfounded, just the vibe I'm personally getting if that happens. If they're 4 out theoretically that also likely means you're behind another team or two as well. So you would need to leap frog not one team, but two or three. It also means you're likely still hovering around .500 and at some point it becomes kind of cheap if they make it to the playoffs. Not really enjoyable to have a near .500 team and 3rd place in your division while trailing multiple teams by a few games for an expanded playoff spot by late July. They've been on fire. They have been beating up bad teams, they have the weakest remaining schedule and they have the talent on paper so I don't believe that will be the case. It's not my prediction. It's not my projection, just my personal feelings on the potential situation. I feel from a PR standpoint it's easier to buy and fail then do nothing and fail. At least you can say you really tried to piece it together and gave the team a boost. As far as being a hot Mookie and JDM away from really tearing it up, that's very true. You're also an injury bug away from being in real trouble. Cleveland lost 3/5 of its rotation. We all know the Yankees issues. The Red Sox, for the most part, have been lucky. The Indians lost the equivalent of Sale, Price and Porcello. Imagine if that were the Red Sox. Then again, they were very healthy last year from what I remember so maybe it's not so lucky and more of a testament to the players they have and the medical staff.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Jun 28, 2019 19:57:50 GMT -5
I actually think this team is Mookie and JD locking in their swings, Eovaldi and Moreland coming back healthy and Feltman coming up as an additional arm, and one acquired impact arm from making a solid run in the second half and being the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs. So who would I give for that arm? Depends on the guy and years of control, but I think Dalbec, Darwinzon Hernandez, Houck and Mata are all potential trade bait. I don't think you can find a team that would want either Nuñez or Thornton, but they are both taking up space and should be let go. As an aside, it's a shame they can't bring up Castillo because he could contribute to this team. All of this is spot on, IMO. The biggest issue on the team hasn't been the bullpen. They really just need one more high-leverage arm, just so that Barnes doesn't get totally overexposed by the end of the season. And then one mid-level guy to soak up innings and push everyone else up - probably either Hernandez or Hembree. Bigger picture, they need better production from the top of the lineup and better production from the 5th starter spot. Agree that, bigger picture, they need better production from the top of the lineup and better production from the 5th starter spot. Don't think they can help the top of the order by making a trade (we just have to get Betts and Benintendi going or at least move Devers up to the 2nd spot permanently. But I could see them making a trade to fix the 5th starter spot. I am no longer convinced that Eovaldi is going to be back heathy enough this year to take a spot in the starting rotation. Maybe, if they are close near the trade deadline, make a trade for a starter and put Eovaldi in the bullpen (along with the return of Wright and hopefully Hembre that will be enough to help the bullpen). If the starter you trade for at the deadline is still with the Sox next year when hopefully Eovaldi is ready to go back in the rotation, the starter can fill Porcello's spot in the rotation. Of course, if they fall too far behind too many teams for the second wild card spot, you try to get something for Porcello and maybe Moreland, and if you do not intend to sign him for next year, Holt.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 28, 2019 21:08:00 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox will make a move to try to improve their bullpen. I think they need an effective closer type.
The scary part of it will be who do they give up?
I say they need a closer because I think that the rest of the Red Sox problem areas are areas that can be fixed if guys perform to their capabilities.
Betts, Benintendi, and JDM are capable of producing more. It's not like you're better off trying to replace them.
Sale and maybe E-Rod are capable of pitching better. If they don't - or at least in Sale's case, they're not going to go far in the playoffs if they do make it.
There's no trades there to help them. You can say get another #5 type starter and that's a fair argument. I'd prefer to give Johnson that task until Eovaldi returns. I'm still considering Eovaldi as a starter when he does return. Even if it's a 4 or 5 inning type of guy.
But the pen - I don't see the Sox problems with giving up late inning leads go away without them getting a closer.
I think Giles is the best of the lot assuming the Pirates closer is astronomical to obtain. But I'm not really advocating Giles or anybody for that matter. I do think Giles fits the profile of what the Sox like and I know Dombrowski has acquired Shane Greene before so I think he likes him as well. Again not saying that I do or don't. Giles is a guy who has usually had excellent peripherals and has fallen short. This year that hasn't been the case. He was always good for a meltdown against the Red Sox, and he was so bad with Houston in 2017 they couldn't bear the thought of him having to close out close games or even 5-1 leads which is why Morton finished off Game 7.
Is Giles that same guy or has he figured it out finally? The Red Sox would be able to scout and study that better than I can.
As far as WAR and deals, I think it's kind of useless for relievers and tries to factor things in equally that aren't equal. The Sox would be getting a closer to try to make sure they make the playoffs and then to have an impact guy if they advance throughout the playoffs.
As far as the strategy of doing what they did last year - in spots, sure, but look what the cost is.
They won the World Series - so YES it was worth it!! However, it cannot be ignored that the heavy usage of their starters in the pen has contributed to their 6-13 start for 2019 - a spring training that lasted well into the season. It turned into a handicap, so while it can work, I think there is a carryover affect into the next season, so I'd prefer the Sox - if they can advance into the playoffs, to not have to lean so heavily on the rover strategy.
I keep circling back to what would the Sox have to give up to get the reliever? It's not like the Sox have a stacked farm system, but what do they give up? I would think the Sox would not part with Mata because he's one of the rare guys that looks like he'll be a starter in the majors. I don't think the Sox want to give up on Feltman, who is going through a transition - from college to the pros. Lakins? Sure, but he's done nothing to enhance his value. Hernandez? He's a lefty with an electric arm. I don't trust that he'll get his control together, but I think the Sox are higher on him than I am. So I'm left with Houck, who isn't really a starter unless he figures out how to get lefties out. I think he's the most likely to be moved in a deal.
I don't see Dalbec going unless they get a closer with more than 2 years left. I think Dalbec (if not Chavis) is more likely to go in a deal for Porcello's replacement.
So my guess is that Houck, maybe Flores (I'm really cringing now) and another low level arm winds up going in a deal for a closer.
Maybe they get a rental and the cost isn't much more than Houck.
I just hope it works out better than the Buttrey/Kinsler deal. I'd be a liar if I said that I saw what Buttrey would do, but in retrospect I think Brandon Phillips could have given the Sox as much as Kinsler did without having to surrender Buttrey so the Sox do need to be careful here.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 28, 2019 21:13:54 GMT -5
but in reality, we are ten games behind the yankees. coming back to the win the division is becoming very unlikely, so being 'the most dangerous' team in the postseason actually involves first getting to and through a tossup wildcard game where even if you win you are weakened for the next series by using Sale.
Of course they could still make a run at a WS if they get to a wildcard game, but it's a harder path with a lot more uncertainty and i think that has to be thrown into the calculations when weighing the prospect cost and value of any trade. "Weakened" by "using Sale?" You understand that last year the Sox basically won without him, right? That's the point why the Sox would be so strong. If Sale were to be as good as you think - then the next series they'd have everything back from last year in which they already proved they can win without Sale. So you're point of Sale only makes the Sox stronger, right?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 28, 2019 21:56:43 GMT -5
but in reality, we are ten games behind the yankees. coming back to the win the division is becoming very unlikely, so being 'the most dangerous' team in the postseason actually involves first getting to and through a tossup wildcard game where even if you win you are weakened for the next series by using Sale.
Of course they could still make a run at a WS if they get to a wildcard game, but it's a harder path with a lot more uncertainty and i think that has to be thrown into the calculations when weighing the prospect cost and value of any trade. "Weakened" by "using Sale?" You understand that last year the Sox basically won without him, right? That's the point why the Sox would be so strong. If Sale were to be as good as you think - then the next series they'd have everything back from last year in which they already proved they can win without Sale. So you're point of Sale only makes the Sox stronger, right? Huh? He was electric in the 1st half which helped tremendously put the season away. He wasn't himself in the playoffs, but he was still serviceable. No one really went longer than he did. He was also used out of the pen and closed the final game because the Red Sox did not trust Kimbrel. If the Sox were to use Sale in the 1-game play in then it means he's pitching great. It would mean that a great Sale can only be used once in a 5 game series. If he's not pitching well, then you have Price in there and now you're relying on Sale for 2 games and Price for 1. Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 28, 2019 23:54:47 GMT -5
Huh? He was electric in the 1st half which helped tremendously put the season away. He wasn't himself in the playoffs, but he was still serviceable. No one really went longer than he did. He was also used out of the pen and closed the final game because the Red Sox did not trust Kimbrel. If the Sox were to use Sale in the 1-game play in then it means he's pitching great. It would mean that a great Sale can only be used once in a 5 game series. If he's not pitching well, then you have Price in there and now you're relying on Sale for 2 games and Price for 1. Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. Huh? The other poster was talking playoffs - not the regular season. You saw what the Sox did in the playoffs without him. That doesn't count? You said Sale was "serviceable" in the playoffs? Huh? He only started once. His one start he pitched 4 innings and let up 3 runs. That stinks. That's not "serviceable." And the final game when we were up 5-1-- And I don't think it had one bit due to not trusting Kimbrel. Not one bit. As far as what you're saying about Sale in your 2nd para was exactly the point I was making. So why the "huh" from you? If he is pitching great and he did nothing for the Sox last year in the playoffs it would be counter the point that the poster was making that losing Sale screws up our rotation. His start last year stunk. So the Sox really needed him badly for the one inning vs the Dodgers in which we were ahead 5-1? If he was so good - then why didn't we use him before in other games?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2019 3:01:19 GMT -5
Huh? He was electric in the 1st half which helped tremendously put the season away. He wasn't himself in the playoffs, but he was still serviceable. No one really went longer than he did. He was also used out of the pen and closed the final game because the Red Sox did not trust Kimbrel. If the Sox were to use Sale in the 1-game play in then it means he's pitching great. It would mean that a great Sale can only be used once in a 5 game series. If he's not pitching well, then you have Price in there and now you're relying on Sale for 2 games and Price for 1. Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. Huh? The other poster was talking playoffs - not the regular season. You saw what the Sox did in the playoffs without him. That doesn't count? You said Sale was "serviceable" in the playoffs? Huh? He only started once. His one start he pitched 4 innings and let up 3 runs. That stinks. That's not "serviceable." And the final game when we were up 5-1-- And I don't think it had one bit due to not trusting Kimbrel. Not one bit. As far as what you're saying about Sale in your 2nd para was exactly the point I was making. So why the "huh" from you? If he is pitching great and he did nothing for the Sox last year in the playoffs it would be counter the point that the poster was making that losing Sale screws up our rotation. His start last year stunk. So the Sox really needed him badly for the one inning vs the Dodgers in which we were ahead 5-1? If he was so good - then why didn't we use him before in other games? A. By the fact they ran away with the division allowed them to rest guys, secure home field throughout, and not have to worry about a play-in. That helped their October chances. B. Chris Sale started 3 October games, not 1. He started 1 game in each round mainly because they only lost 1 game in each round. In the 1st round he had 1 start and 1 relief appearance against NY and gave up 2 ER in 6.1 IP. In the second round he gave up 2 ER in 4.0 IP with no relief appearances. Against the Dodgers it was 3 ER in 5.0 IP in 1 start and 1 relief appearance in which he got the series ending save. None of those are catastrophic disasters. Most of the staters weren't going deep into games by design. Trust me, you could do a hell of a lot worse than that. Just ask Kershaw. C. The point I'm reading is that they trust Sale and that the 1-game play-in will make you lose him. The larger point is that you'll lose your best pitcher whether that's Sale or Price. If Sale is great, you regulate him to 1 game, if not then you go Price and your stuck with a shaky Sale and Porcello as your 1-2 punch. The Wild Card prevents you from stacking your rotation in the first round.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2019 3:35:48 GMT -5
Huh? The other poster was talking playoffs - not the regular season. You saw what the Sox did in the playoffs without him. That doesn't count? You said Sale was "serviceable" in the playoffs? Huh? He only started once. His one start he pitched 4 innings and let up 3 runs. That stinks. That's not "serviceable." And the final game when we were up 5-1-- And I don't think it had one bit due to not trusting Kimbrel. Not one bit. As far as what you're saying about Sale in your 2nd para was exactly the point I was making. So why the "huh" from you? If he is pitching great and he did nothing for the Sox last year in the playoffs it would be counter the point that the poster was making that losing Sale screws up our rotation. His start last year stunk. So the Sox really needed him badly for the one inning vs the Dodgers in which we were ahead 5-1? If he was so good - then why didn't we use him before in other games? The point I'm reading is that they trust Sale and that the 1-game play-in will make you lose him. The larger point is that you'll lose your best pitcher whether that's Sale or Price. If Sale is great, you regulate him to 1 game, if not then you go Price and your stuck with a shaky Sale and Porcello as your 1-2 punch. The Wild Card prevents you from stacking your rotation in the first round. If the Sox go to a wild card game, Cora will go from starting Chris Sale to then handing the ball straight to David Price's hands in the same game. He won't mess around. You're forgetting how Cora operates in the post-season. If they get Ken Giles, maybe he closes the ninth. This game will ride on the arms of Sale and Price, your two money making arms and that's how it should be. That's a formidable group of pitching in one game if you're facing the Boston Red Sox. Makes me smile thinking about it actually, because that's elite right there. Good luck Tampa Bay, Texas, or Celeveland lol. I wouldn't be surprised if Price came back and pitched game 2 of the ALDS either, right after pitching the wild card game. You're also forgetting how valuable Price is. The dude pitched every other game this past post-season. He was incredible, unlike any other rubber pitcher I have ever seen. He just kept bouncing back and kept pitching at a absurd level. Cora is planning to use David Price around 150 innings this season, just for this reason. Keeping him fresh for the playoffs. I'm more worried about making the playoffs, then the actual game. I'd be really anxious about that too, but I'd know Cora would put the best the Sox have out there and ride and die with his very best in that game.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2019 5:09:24 GMT -5
Double posting, but it's important to note. Add starter pitcher to the list if you're buying this year-
Makes more sense that the Sox were scouting Boyd now.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2019 7:15:51 GMT -5
"Weakened" by "using Sale?" You understand that last year the Sox basically won without him, right? That's the point why the Sox would be so strong. If Sale were to be as good as you think - then the next series they'd have everything back from last year in which they already proved they can win without Sale. So you're point of Sale only makes the Sox stronger, right? Huh? He was electric in the 1st half which helped tremendously put the season away. He wasn't himself in the playoffs, but he was still serviceable. No one really went longer than he did. He was also used out of the pen and closed the final game because the Red Sox did not trust Kimbrel. If the Sox were to use Sale in the 1-game play in then it means he's pitching great. It would mean that a great Sale can only be used once in a 5 game series. If he's not pitching well, then you have Price in there and now you're relying on Sale for 2 games and Price for 1. Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. I've seen this posted elsewhere and unless Cora was lying I don't think this it true. I remember Cora saying if the score had been closer Sale would not have pitched the 9th inning in Game 5. Eovaldi had thrown 97 pitches two days earlier and was warming in the pen. Perhaps he would have gotten the call, but I doubt it. Barnes? Doubt it. Probably would have been Kimbrel had it been a 3-1 or 4-1 game. Cora knew Sale was antsy to get into the game and contribute something in the World Series and he probably figured it might be some sort of psychological warfare bringing in Sale to pitch the 9th. Cora knew that Sale was good for an inning but had trouble maintaining his stuff beyond that last October, but didn't want to gamble with Sale unless he knew his lead was large enough. Think of it this way. Kimbrel was far worse in the ALCS yet when the Sox had a chance to close out Houston with a 4-1 lead Cora turned to Kimbrel to finish off the series - and he finally had a scoreless inning. I doubt Cora was hiding from Kimbrel during Game 5 of the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 29, 2019 9:20:00 GMT -5
I think the Red Sox will make a move to try to improve their bullpen. I think they need an effective closer type. The scary part of it will be who do they give up?
Which kind of brings me back to the point I stuck on this winter - specifically, why not go over the top tier cap so they could sign Ottavinio when all it does was increase the tax (for a year) on money over the luxury tax limit and knock down your draft choice and pool money? You can still game the draft with limited pool dollars, and so many of those draft picks never make MLB, and if they do it's 3-5 years away. Now you have to give up talent - and probably at an exorbitant rate, which many in the game think is more precious than cash, to get what's left over of the talent that no one got this winter.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 29, 2019 10:25:09 GMT -5
A. By the fact they ran away with the division allowed them to rest guys, secure home field throughout, and not have to worry about a play-in. That helped their October chances. B. Chris Sale started 3 October games, not 1. He started 1 game in each round mainly because they only lost 1 game in each round. In the 1st round he had 1 start and 1 relief appearance against NY and gave up 2 ER in 6.1 IP. In the second round he gave up 2 ER in 4.0 IP with no relief appearances. Against the Dodgers it was 3 ER in 5.0 IP in 1 start and 1 relief appearance in which he got the series ending save. None of those are catastrophic disasters. Most of the staters weren't going deep into games by design. Trust me, you could do a hell of a lot worse than that. Just ask Kershaw. C. The point I'm reading is that they trust Sale and that the 1-game play-in will make you lose him. The larger point is that you'll lose your best pitcher whether that's Sale or Price. If Sale is great, you regulate him to 1 game, if not then you go Price and your stuck with a shaky Sale and Porcello as your 1-2 punch. The Wild Card prevents you from stacking your rotation in the first round. Wow -- did I miss about the his starts. You are right - Sale started 3 games and overall pitched in 5. He was "serviceable." My mistake. But read the below comment from kevfc89 that I replied to: ANd also read the last part in bold for the context of my post regarding Sale. You will need to read the poster gudas's post that kevfc89 replied to. Would you agree with me about Sale after reading all of it and considering "playoffs only?" From kev replying to guidas: ". . . so being 'the most dangerous' team in the postseason actually involves first getting to and through a tossup wildcard game where even if you win you are weakened for the next series by using Sale."********
I replied to this point. I didn't reply tot he regular season. And kevfc89 replied to the poster GUIDAs's comment that the Sox could be the most dangerous team in the AL Playoffs. The discussion was the playoffs and not the regular season. So kev's reply to mitigate guidas's point was to say that we'd lose Sale to start game 1 - but as you say he just started only one game in each series and he was only "serviceable" for the playoffs, correct? So the point is we could still be extremely dangerous if we don't have Sale to start game 1 of the ALDS, right? You saw it last year. And if Sale is pitching very well - which we'd assume because he is starting the wc game - and guidas made other points(below) of adding a bullpen and of Mookie and JD and Eovaldi and Moreland and one minor leaguer reliever-- the context of guidas's point would "trump" the worry of "only" having Sale pitch once, right? And as for Porcello as you say in bold - Sale only started one game in each series and the Sox won "comfortably" in each series. And the guy you had mentioned in your prior post-- Porcello -- you said the following about him: "Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. "Yet Porcello pitched better than Sale last year in the playoffs. The Sox "steamrolled" all the teams last year. How is Porcello "problematic" while you saw him pitch pretty well and the context of what guidas and kevfc89 said of Sox being weakened? This was the point guidas made that kev replied to: *****From Guidas: "I actually think this team is Mookie and JD locking in their swings, Eovaldi and Moreland coming back healthy and Feltman coming up as an additional arm, and one acquired impact arm from making a solid run in the second half and being the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs. "
If the above happens as guidas had said- and from what we saw last year-- are you dismissing that the Sox can't be the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs even if Sale is used in game 1? Potentially we are stronger than last year because Sale would probably be pitching great and not just "serviceable," right? That was teh context I was speaking when I replied to kev. Am I wrong in this scenario if things happen as guidas says? OFC nothing is assured but if we're "steamrolling" with a healthy Sale and healthy players above losing Sale in wc game isn't that big of deal is it? We saw last year it wasn't and we'd be stronger now considering guidas's "context."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 29, 2019 10:48:41 GMT -5
You're working under what, so far, has been the false premise that they intend to do anything with the bullpen and that they're comfortable exceeding the top tier tax threshold this year. So far, all evidence to the contrary. Actually, I am challenging the organizational thinking that you spell-out above. They were willing to invest, but only to a point - which was probably partially influenced by what they believed regressions would be and not wanting to exceed the 2018 budget. I'm just challenging that thinking because it is producing a situation now where, if they want to get to the playoffs they will likely have to forfeit asset in the minors. I guess it comes down to what they value, and that most of these guys will never make the majors. I guess personally I never like to trade talent for relief pitchers. I'd much rather buy them.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 29, 2019 12:36:28 GMT -5
You're working under what, so far, has been the false premise that they intend to do anything with the bullpen and that they're comfortable exceeding the top tier tax threshold this year. So far, all evidence to the contrary. Actually, I am challenging the organizational thinking that you spell-out above. They were willing to invest, but only to a point - which was probably partially influenced by what they believed regressions would be and not wanting to exceed the 2018 budget. I'm just challenging that thinking because it is producing a situation now where, if they want to get to the playoffs they will likely have to forfeit asset in the minors. I guess it comes down to what they value, and that most of these guys will never make the majors. I guess personally I never like to trade talent for relief pitchers. I'd much rather buy them. They had 4 starters getting hurt and have already missed a ton of the season (Eovaldi, Wright, Johnson, and Valazquez.). Right or wrong they did/do expect Wright to help. Had their starters got hurt for most of the season which wears down their bullpen. And as for now-- all four are coming back or have returned. You could wind up having Eovaldi come out of the bullpen this year, couldn't you? So Sox could go out and get another reliever and just give up lowered level prospect thus they wouldn't have had to gamble on getting a guy like Robertson or Miller (I know you said Ottavino but I'm just offering a counter that on here there were discussions to get these guys too. And if you got these guys who were basically nearly equally valued instead - you'd be chasing your tail yet again for a reliever.). I just don't think your challenge has the teeth that you think it does. If you are looking for that "elite closer" you may already have him in Eovaldi. And you just need a combo of the 3 in Wright/Johnson and Velaz to hold the fort as a 5th starter and long reliever. And if Yanks could get Encarcion and not give up much - the Sox could get a decent reliever or decent starter to also help and not give up as much in terms of future draft pick positioning and pool money. They could win with Eovaldi in the bullpen. **If they give up a lot for a reliever though -- then i agree with you. And I'll reiterate that right now we all seem to say "Ottavino" was the guy. Yet before that there was very little discussion from what I remember that it was "Ottavino or bust." Many on here were also talking Miller and Robertson would be real good. And as a secondary I know there was talk of Familia -- a guy I never wanted. I'm just saying it's easy to say singularly focus on "Ottavino" right now. But their are huge traps with relievers too. And as I watch the game right now another example of how our staring pitching has let us down again. Our SP was supposed to be much better. In terms of ERA sox are 17th for SP (and about to drop). This isn't close to what the Sox had expected. The problem with Sox - it's more than just relievers/Ottavino. We're 17th in SP.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2019 13:53:02 GMT -5
Huh? He was electric in the 1st half which helped tremendously put the season away. He wasn't himself in the playoffs, but he was still serviceable. No one really went longer than he did. He was also used out of the pen and closed the final game because the Red Sox did not trust Kimbrel. If the Sox were to use Sale in the 1-game play in then it means he's pitching great. It would mean that a great Sale can only be used once in a 5 game series. If he's not pitching well, then you have Price in there and now you're relying on Sale for 2 games and Price for 1. Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. I've seen this posted elsewhere and unless Cora was lying I don't think this it true. I remember Cora saying if the score had been closer Sale would not have pitched the 9th inning in Game 5. Eovaldi had thrown 97 pitches two days earlier and was warming in the pen. Perhaps he would have gotten the call, but I doubt it. Barnes? Doubt it. Probably would have been Kimbrel had it been a 3-1 or 4-1 game. Cora knew Sale was antsy to get into the game and contribute something in the World Series and he probably figured it might be some sort of psychological warfare bringing in Sale to pitch the 9th. Cora knew that Sale was good for an inning but had trouble maintaining his stuff beyond that last October, but didn't want to gamble with Sale unless he knew his lead was large enough. Think of it this way. Kimbrel was far worse in the ALCS yet when the Sox had a chance to close out Houston with a 4-1 lead Cora turned to Kimbrel to finish off the series - and he finally had a scoreless inning. I doubt Cora was hiding from Kimbrel during Game 5 of the World Series. I don't know, if you have the chance to close out the World Series I think you go with the guy you feel is throwing the ball the best. Can you imagine if they blew that game because Cora was worried about how Sale felt? I remember that Benintendi bailed out Kimbrel twice with circus catches. I don't know if you see Sale there if Kimbrel was on lockdown.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2019 14:03:45 GMT -5
A. By the fact they ran away with the division allowed them to rest guys, secure home field throughout, and not have to worry about a play-in. That helped their October chances. B. Chris Sale started 3 October games, not 1. He started 1 game in each round mainly because they only lost 1 game in each round. In the 1st round he had 1 start and 1 relief appearance against NY and gave up 2 ER in 6.1 IP. In the second round he gave up 2 ER in 4.0 IP with no relief appearances. Against the Dodgers it was 3 ER in 5.0 IP in 1 start and 1 relief appearance in which he got the series ending save. None of those are catastrophic disasters. Most of the staters weren't going deep into games by design. Trust me, you could do a hell of a lot worse than that. Just ask Kershaw. C. The point I'm reading is that they trust Sale and that the 1-game play-in will make you lose him. The larger point is that you'll lose your best pitcher whether that's Sale or Price. If Sale is great, you regulate him to 1 game, if not then you go Price and your stuck with a shaky Sale and Porcello as your 1-2 punch. The Wild Card prevents you from stacking your rotation in the first round. Wow -- did I miss about the his starts. You are right - Sale started 3 games and overall pitched in 5. He was "serviceable." My mistake. But read the below comment from kevfc89 that I replied to: ANd also read the last part in bold for the context of my post regarding Sale. You will need to read the poster gudas's post that kevfc89 replied to. Would you agree with me about Sale after reading all of it and considering "playoffs only?" From kev replying to guidas: ". . . so being 'the most dangerous' team in the postseason actually involves first getting to and through a tossup wildcard game where even if you win you are weakened for the next series by using Sale."********
I replied to this point. I didn't reply tot he regular season. And kevfc89 replied to the poster GUIDAs's comment that the Sox could be the most dangerous team in the AL Playoffs. The discussion was the playoffs and not the regular season. So kev's reply to mitigate guidas's point was to say that we'd lose Sale to start game 1 - but as you say he just started only one game in each series and he was only "serviceable" for the playoffs, correct? So the point is we could still be extremely dangerous if we don't have Sale to start game 1 of the ALDS, right? You saw it last year. And if Sale is pitching very well - which we'd assume because he is starting the wc game - and guidas made other points(below) of adding a bullpen and of Mookie and JD and Eovaldi and Moreland and one minor leaguer reliever-- the context of guidas's point would "trump" the worry of "only" having Sale pitch once, right? And as for Porcello as you say in bold - Sale only started one game in each series and the Sox won "comfortably" in each series. And the guy you had mentioned in your prior post-- Porcello -- you said the following about him: "Heck, even if they both are pitching well you're stuck using someone like Porcello one extra game over either of them. It's problematic no matter the situation. "Yet Porcello pitched better than Sale last year in the playoffs. The Sox "steamrolled" all the teams last year. How is Porcello "problematic" while you saw him pitch pretty well and the context of what guidas and kevfc89 said of Sox being weakened? This was the point guidas made that kev replied to: *****From Guidas: "I actually think this team is Mookie and JD locking in their swings, Eovaldi and Moreland coming back healthy and Feltman coming up as an additional arm, and one acquired impact arm from making a solid run in the second half and being the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs. "
If the above happens as guidas had said- and from what we saw last year-- are you dismissing that the Sox can't be the most dangerous team in the AL playoffs even if Sale is used in game 1? Potentially we are stronger than last year because Sale would probably be pitching great and not just "serviceable," right? That was teh context I was speaking when I replied to kev. Am I wrong in this scenario if things happen as guidas says? OFC nothing is assured but if we're "steamrolling" with a healthy Sale and healthy players above losing Sale in wc game isn't that big of deal is it? We saw last year it wasn't and we'd be stronger now considering guidas's "context." I get that Sale was falling apart in October last year, but he was dealing with some shoulder fatigue. If the playoffs started tomorrow, are you using Porcello or Sale to start a game (actually, they'd be eliminated, but that's besides the point). The better way to look at it is, if you use your best pitcher in the play-in then your "ace" can only go for 1 out of 5 games where your 2 and 3 have to go twice. If the Sox use both like Pedro suggests your probably looking at the next series looking like 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 Theoretically, you're giving yourself a major disadvantage in two of those games, break even for 2 and advantageous for 1.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 29, 2019 14:44:48 GMT -5
I get that Sale was falling apart in October last year, but he was dealing with some shoulder fatigue. If the playoffs started tomorrow, are you using Porcello or Sale to start a game (actually, they'd be eliminated, but that's besides the point). The better way to look at it is, if you use your best pitcher in the play-in then your "ace" can only go for 1 out of 5 games where your 2 and 3 have to go twice. If the Sox use both like Pedro suggests your probably looking at the next series looking like 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 Theoretically, you're giving yourself a major disadvantage in two of those games, break even for 2 and advantageous for 1. Yes but you are changing the context. Guidas spoke of "if" the scenario was tha the Sox were rolling similar to last year. If the Sox are rolling similar to last year and the team was arguably one of the best ever over the past 40-50 years, then you are still a super dangerous team. It's not about who is better "Sale" or Porcello" - it is how "dangerous would the Sox be" if Sale was starting just once in the ALDS. Well if everything is clicking in the manner guidas stated -- and you saw with your own eyes last year one of the super great teams ever over the last 40-50 years perform with "only a serviceable Sale" then you aren't "that weakened." The team showed you they were incredibly awesome with only "a serviceable Sale." And why assume Porcello is going to be "problematic?" He wasn't very good last year in the reg season yet was pretty good during the playoffs. Why assume now he is "problematic?"
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2019 14:59:57 GMT -5
I get that Sale was falling apart in October last year, but he was dealing with some shoulder fatigue. If the playoffs started tomorrow, are you using Porcello or Sale to start a game (actually, they'd be eliminated, but that's besides the point). The better way to look at it is, if you use your best pitcher in the play-in then your "ace" can only go for 1 out of 5 games where your 2 and 3 have to go twice. If the Sox use both like Pedro suggests your probably looking at the next series looking like 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 1 vs 3 3 vs 1 2 vs 2 Theoretically, you're giving yourself a major disadvantage in two of those games, break even for 2 and advantageous for 1. Yes but you are changing the context. Guidas spoke of "if" the scenario was tha the Sox were rolling similar to last year. If the Sox are rolling similar to last year and the team was arguably one of the best ever over the past 40-50 years, then you are still a super dangerous team. It's not about who is better "Sale" or Porcello" - it is how "dangerous would the Sox be" if Sale was starting just once in the ALDS. Well if everything is clicking in the manner guidas stated -- and you saw with your own eyes last year one of the super great teams ever over the last 40-50 years perform with "only a serviceable Sale" then you aren't "that weakened." The team showed you they were incredibly awesome with only "a serviceable Sale." And why assume Porcello is going to be "problematic?" He wasn't very good last year in the reg season yet was pretty good during the playoffs. Why assume now he is "problematic?" Well, in the context of last year, Sale was probably our worst starter in October. As far as Porcello, he's just like Derek Lowe. He's real tough when that sinker is sinking, but this year it hasn't happened often.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 29, 2019 15:33:25 GMT -5
I don't know, if you have the chance to close out the World Series I think you go with the guy you feel is throwing the ball the best. Can you imagine if they blew that game because Cora was worried about how Sale felt? I remember that Benintendi bailed out Kimbrel twice with circus catches. I don't know if you see Sale there if Kimbrel was on lockdown. We can agree to disagree here big time. The sox bullpen was strong enough with Eovaldi and Barnes to be used to bail out Sale. You had said Sale was "serviceable" so how can someone that is just serviceable be the top option? And your point of "can you imagine . . . ?" -- Please don't take this the wrong way. Please don't. But imo your point of "can you imagine" is a microcosm of the false fear many had on here last year. After what you saw what the SOx did in reg season, then you saw how they dismantled the Yanks, and then how you saw how they dismantled the Astros then you saw them up 3-01 on Dodgers and up 5-1 in the 9th and how you saw Cora manage clearly being the best mgr in baseball last year - after all this - could I imagine a guy who you called "serviceable in the playoffs" blowing a 4 run lead? No--- last year --- I can't imagine what you fear and maybe still are still fearing (the fact you bring it up). As you say Kimbrel wasn't lockdown yet Cora still used him to close. Yet there were others performing far better than Kimbrel in the playoffs. AT 5- 1-- Cora didn't even have Kimbrel warming up but didn't he have Eovaldi? And it's as the posterredsoxchamp said: "Think of it this way. Kimbrel was far worse in the ALCS yet when the Sox had a chance to close out Houston with a 4-1 lead Cora turned to Kimbrel to finish off the series - and he finally had a scoreless inning." IMO COra did not manage / believe in your pov -"Can you imagine . . ." I'm sure he imagined it but imo he would have had enougg confidence the way the pen was going to throw in anyone (including Kimbrel_ to close down at 5-1. Other than Kimbrel; the Sox pen was aweome and Kimbrel had not let up any runs in 3 appearances of games 1 though 3. SO I doubt game 4 rattled Cora to "not trust Kimbrel" in the manner you speak.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jun 29, 2019 16:25:51 GMT -5
Well, in the context of last year, Sale was probably our worst starter in October. As far as Porcello, he's just like Derek Lowe. He's real tough when that sinker is sinking, but this year it hasn't happened often. Right. That was my point. If Sox won it and he was amongst their worst and they won so convincingly they could do it again but maybe there would be more 7 game series etc. But last year you recall all the stuff before the playoffs even started regarding Price? Even on here -- "Throw him in the pen," at some point was the talk during the season. As far as Porcello- why assume the worst? Last year he didn't have a good regular season either. He showed he can pitch well enough in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2019 17:55:01 GMT -5
I've seen this posted elsewhere and unless Cora was lying I don't think this it true. I remember Cora saying if the score had been closer Sale would not have pitched the 9th inning in Game 5. Eovaldi had thrown 97 pitches two days earlier and was warming in the pen. Perhaps he would have gotten the call, but I doubt it. Barnes? Doubt it. Probably would have been Kimbrel had it been a 3-1 or 4-1 game. Cora knew Sale was antsy to get into the game and contribute something in the World Series and he probably figured it might be some sort of psychological warfare bringing in Sale to pitch the 9th. Cora knew that Sale was good for an inning but had trouble maintaining his stuff beyond that last October, but didn't want to gamble with Sale unless he knew his lead was large enough. Think of it this way. Kimbrel was far worse in the ALCS yet when the Sox had a chance to close out Houston with a 4-1 lead Cora turned to Kimbrel to finish off the series - and he finally had a scoreless inning. I doubt Cora was hiding from Kimbrel during Game 5 of the World Series. I don't know, if you have the chance to close out the World Series I think you go with the guy you feel is throwing the ball the best. Can you imagine if they blew that game because Cora was worried about how Sale felt? I remember that Benintendi bailed out Kimbrel twice with circus catches. I don't know if you see Sale there if Kimbrel was on lockdown. I remember hearing Cora explain his reasoning behind Sale's appearance. He felt the lead had to be big enough - and he felt 4 runs were big enough to use Sale instead of Kimbrel. By the World Series, Cora felt that Kimbrel was more back to his normal self. He felt he was tipping his pitches and he had something changed up after Game 4 of the ALCS. Kimbrel closed out Game 5 of the ALCS allowing just a walk. Kimbrel closed out the 8-4 Game 1 victory with a 1-2-3 inning. Kimbrel closed out the 4-2 Game 2 victory with a 1-2-3 inning. Kimbrel bailed David Price out of trouble in the 9th inning of Game 3 and I believe he pitched a scoreless 10th as well. That's 4 good outings in a row. During garbage time, with a 9-4 lead, Kimbrel gave up a 2-run HR to Kiké Hernandez - but I don't think that was enough to shake Cora's faith in Kimbrel. And like I said, if the game had been closer, I believe we would have seen Kimbrel. I think Cora felt that Sale had 1 strong inning in him, felt he was a huge contributor, and wanted to give him a chance and felt that he had Barnes, Eovaldi, and Kimbrel available if he got in trouble, but with a 4 run lead he had rope to work with.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2019 18:46:04 GMT -5
I don't know, if you have the chance to close out the World Series I think you go with the guy you feel is throwing the ball the best. Can you imagine if they blew that game because Cora was worried about how Sale felt? I remember that Benintendi bailed out Kimbrel twice with circus catches. I don't know if you see Sale there if Kimbrel was on lockdown. I remember hearing Cora explain his reasoning behind Sale's appearance. He felt the lead had to be big enough - and he felt 4 runs were big enough to use Sale instead of Kimbrel. By the World Series, Cora felt that Kimbrel was more back to his normal self. He felt he was tipping his pitches and he had something changed up after Game 4 of the ALCS. Kimbrel closed out Game 5 of the ALCS allowing just a walk. Kimbrel closed out the 8-4 Game 1 victory with a 1-2-3 inning. Kimbrel closed out the 4-2 Game 2 victory with a 1-2-3 inning. Kimbrel bailed David Price out of trouble in the 9th inning of Game 3 and I believe he pitched a scoreless 10th as well. That's 4 good outings in a row. During garbage time, with a 9-4 lead, Kimbrel gave up a 2-run HR to Kiké Hernandez - but I don't think that was enough to shake Cora's faith in Kimbrel. And like I said, if the game had been closer, I believe we would have seen Kimbrel. I think Cora felt that Sale had 1 strong inning in him, felt he was a huge contributor, and wanted to give him a chance and felt that he had Barnes, Eovaldi, and Kimbrel available if he got in trouble, but with a 4 run lead he had rope to work with. I'm going off a lot of memory so it might be an argument in futility. I just remember Benny bailing out Kimbrel big time in two separate occasions and just looked very shaky. I get not going away from him in the ALCS because you still had another round and you wanted to keep showing him faith. When you're 3 outs away from putting away the World Series whether it's 1 run or 4 runs I feel like you have to put in your best guy to just end it. There's no more games after that, so why not? Why dink around with a lesser option? It's not like teams haven't blown 4 run leads in the 9th before. I don't think there was a single person that was upset seeing Sale get the chance to end it instead of Kimbrel. If he was vintage Kimbrel I think it might have been different.
|
|
|