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.
2019-20 Red Sox offseason
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 13:44:32 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury?I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes. Probably a requirement that whoever starts the game goes five complete innings, and then a list of exemptions... if you throw more than X pitches total they can take you out whenever, more than X pitches in a single inning, more than X runs given up, etc. As to the bit about the players union wanting this... I actually think everyone should want this. I think that if you were to fully optimize pitcher usage within the current bounds of the rules, it would make baseball almost unwatchable. For instance, one tiny bit of inefficiency that hasn't been touched is the convention of not lifting your pitcher in the middle of an AB except in the case of an injury. But really, you should always change pitchers mid AB. People have looked at it and it's definitely a huge disadvantage for the hitter, and some college teams have apparently started doing this. But does anyone really want to watch that version of baseball? Critical AB, pitcher gets strike two... and then we bring in an opposite handed pitcher, bringing the game to a screeching halt and putting the hitter in a completely impossible situation? It’s strange that, while in some ways this feels like a reduction to absurdity, it’s actually a real concern. I have no issue with openers, and I think that the frequency of its use as strategy (as with bullpen games, or 5-reliever games after a 5-inning start, etc) is roster-size limited. I’m totally ok with a team having, say, 3 or 4 real starters and then one or two rotation spots done opener-style. I don’t find those aesthetics particularly unpleasant...certainly, to me, no worse than watching Mark Portugal or Johnny Way-back stumble through 5 innings in a traditional manner. In fact, to me it’s probably preferable, frankly, if it means breaking in young guys and/or watching a higher quality of pitching/stuff. But, you’re right that within the bounds of the rules, there are plenty of potential loopholes that analysis is going to eventually reveal and push for, aesthetics be damned. There will always be organizations like the Astros’ current regime (win at all costs) or TB (innovate or fold). And your in-PA example is perfect. That’s ugly baseball. While I generally dislike adding new rules, especially extensive ones, it’s reaching the point of necessity. The TTO and shift-heavy direction of the game are already problematic, in terms of watchability. I dislike the idea of, say, robot umps and counteracting the rise in pitching quality by moving the mound back, too. But as data force evolution of the play on the field, more and more aesthetic issues will be revealed. I’m not sure it can be addressed proactively in many cases, but there are ways of driving the game in the other direction (deadening the ball, lowering the mound, etc.). It’s a very hazy line, I think, between being a pragmatic purist, and being an old fart gribbah grousing about the present while pining for how the game was played 20, or 50, years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 30, 2019 14:30:03 GMT -5
I do wonder if MLB will try and do something to disincentivize the opener somehow if it continues to spread. I'm not sure what that would be though - you can't FORCE the starter to go a certain number of innings. Maybe # of pitches except in the case of an injury? I could see the players union wanting that too. The opener could be seen as a tactic to keep starting pitcher salaries down, in their eyes. I'm just wondering if they did that, what the Red Sox would have done last season when they only had 2 healthy starters for long stretches. Would they really be forced to use far the worse starters they had in the minors and possibly lose some relievers who had to be put on waivers to make room on the 40 man? I mean they did use the best pitchers they had available last year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 30, 2019 14:30:16 GMT -5
I wasn't saying it was a good strategy. I was pushing back a little against the post above mine saying that the poster would choose not to watch games started by an opener which is his right, but my point was that it's not this big huge thing that changes the bottom line: you still need five guys at least to pitch in bulk. Like you said the whole idea is to shift the innings pitched to make life easier for the starter. I don't disagree that the Sox need to find the best swing guys around now that they're more valuable to have, although I would argue that we're basically talking two inning relievers or guys who couldn't hack starting like a Travis Lakins or Darwinzon Hernandez, but have a little more stamina in them that they can be useful for more than 3 batters and/or outs. All I can say is we talk out the unpredictability of relievers....well so it is for these swing guys/multiple inning relievers. Obviously on the Red Sox guys like Shawaryn, Lakins and even Darwinzon Hernandez, although I would suspect they'd rather he be a late inning 1 inning reliever, could be these opener guys. But still the key is having guys like Sale, Price, Eovaldi (if he is indeed more than a 2 or 3 inning opener), E-Rod and whoever they acquire to take Porcello's spot do the job of pitching the bulk innings needed. I think there's this thought that the closer is this drastically revolutionary change. I honestly don't think it is. I think it's just a strategic shift but it doesn't drastically change the need to find guys who can pitch innings (like a starting pitcher would). To me it's kind of like all of this shifting. It doesn't add extra guys to the defense. It just places the 9 guys already there in a more strategic way. The way some talk, you'd think there are 10 guys on the field or something like that. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, and I do think there’s an important distinction. Yes, you need guys to eat up innings in the 4/5 spots. But the division of innings can be very fluid. CW approach to a staff has pigeonholed guys into SP (6+ inning guys) and relievers (the vast majority being 20-30 pitch guys). There’s been, it seems to me, a decrease in “bulk” relievers, the relatively quality guys who pitch 100-140 innings largely out of the bullpen...old school swingmen (remember Mark Eichorn?) who weren’t just viewed as failed starters, but valuable components for games where the starter junked early. The SP/RP line has gotten more stark with time. But I think the opener strategy TB came up with is a sort of re-imagining of that (very) old-school approach. There is a certain market inefficiency whereby post-hype high-end prospects (like Glasnow) with significant flaws (for him it was command), or solid “SP” prospects with good command, ability to throw 100 pitches regularly, who fail due to middling stuff/lacking a platoon-neutralizing pitch like a CH/no true out pitch (Jalen Beeks) lose value and their *niche*, because of the stringency of CW definition of niches. Historically, those guys have washed out or been converted for a role (say, 7-8th inning reliever for Glasnow) that underutilized their skillset (he’s capable of 100+ pitches but only throwing 20-30). The opener-bulk strategy is specifically designed for addressing an early platoon advantage, and then limiting the bulk guy to two times through the order. To me, that seems like an *ideal* approach for two types of pitchers: 1) aging veterans who’ve suffered a loss in stuff and are thus highly susceptible to the 3rd-time penalty (and thus come *really* cheaply in FA or through trade), and 2) young pitchers like Glasnow (or, say, Houck maybe, or Darwinzon) who have significant upside if they can address their critical flaw. It’s also very useful for a guy like Beeks who, without the 3rd-time penalty, can give you 4-5 innings of 3 or high-end 4 quality work (maybe 120 innings a year), rather than being a borderline AAAA guy. I don’t understand the pushback on openers. True aces and even quality 2/3 guys will always have a place in the game. But if a team can convert their two “5th starter/long reliever/basically replacement level when forced into a traditional role” guys into what amounts to “one” 240-inning #3 starter, that has tremendous value. Roster size won’t allow TOO much of that, but it’s a good way to get the same number of innings (traditional might mean one guy ends up your cruddy 160-inning 0.5 WAR 5th starter and the other a 0 WAR 80-inning swingman/spot starter/low end middle reliever). In that sense, you’re getting “bulk” innings but spreading them more evenly. And because the situations that are most likely to reveal their flaws (3rd time for the first guy, riding pine/bouncing from role to role and AAA to MLB for the second) are minimized, instead you get two 1-1.5 WAR 120-inning guys. Same pitchers, more wins. It’s also a great way to break in prospects or rebuild post-hype sleepers, and to turn aging pillow-contract guys into legit quality contributors. I think it's important to differentiate between two types of changes to the game:
A) Those that change the aesthetics of the game (as you discuss in your subsequent post) B) Those that just change the distribution of events among players, messing up traditional notions of roles and the stats that go with them
B has always been a part of baseball. And traditionalists have often (always?) complained. More often than not, they make the game more interesting strategically. Almost always, they improve the quality of play. All the old-timers who were complaing about the death of the CG twenty years ago were still nevertheless getting apoplectic when their manager left an obvious faltering pitcher in the game instead of going to the pen. It's just resistance to change, even change for the better.
I welcome opener strategies. At some point a team with some great starters and quality opener types but no reliable closer will try an opener + #2/3 starter combo, where the former SP is expected to go 6 and finish the game. It would especially make sense for an aging or oft-injured SP whose innings you were hoping to limit. Who wouldn't want to see that? Every new startegy just gives us more fodder for smart discussion.
The game is indeed in an aesthetic crisis. There's very little evidence that shifts are a significant element. Competitive imbalance is a problem, but not as big as people think. Excessively easy home runs have actually been good for attendance, but only, I'm quite sure, because they ameliorate the real, huge problem.
And that is the rise in strikeouts and walks and the corresponding decline in the number of PA's that ends with the ball hit into the playing field (or out of it). And that has been largely driven by the rise in pitch velocity, and, in the past few years (as velo finally seemed to peak), the analytics-driven change in pitch mix towards less use of the FB.
I haven't been working on my SABR Committee solution to that problem (making the ball heavier in a way that also reduces rotation rate) for real-life reasons ... I hope to get back to it early in the New Year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:03:59 GMT -5
Thank you, Eric, that’s what I was alluding to without clearly delineating it. I agree that the shift data overall don’t represent a huge issue in that there doesn’t seem to be a large enough effect *league-wide* to be “observable” during viewing, beyond the kinda fun silly appearance of the fielders. But it does have a marginal effect that provides enough utility to perpetuate the practice. I see shifts as falling into the sort of grey zone in which the two groups have some overlap. Baseball is a particularly “conservative” sport (and despite my left-leaning moderate political sensibilities, it’s an aspect I really love), so there’s quite a bit of hand-wringing when it comes to justified, analytic-driven change. Yet, I find the John Smoltz/Goose Gossages of the baseball world particularly annoying, despite my appreciation for baseball history and limited rule change. Often, the complaints are in contrast to the quality of play rising (see: integration, for example), but...yeah, the TTO issue is a serious one. I think a deadened ball/mound drop would have a substantial effect, but it takes a few years for the league to adjust (find/develop speedier players with better contact skills, for example). For that reason, I wonder if the recent offensive nadir of ‘14/‘15 might’ve scared the league into too quickly overcompensating with the ball. Idk.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:20:47 GMT -5
All that said, I think there’s an added aspect of difficulty in roster construction these days, because certain players (Mookie might even be one) could see significant production drop in the case of a ball carrying less. And, guys who are GB pitchers would see little change with less carry, but FB pitchers could really benefit. A deadened ball would probably benefit both, although high-K guys would see a reduced benefit.
Looking at the Sox, I really think they’re in an especially good position to benefit from the opener strategy, because of the very-talented-but-significantly-flawed cluster of young arms in big D, Houck, and Mata. Those are *exactly* the sort of pitchers who fit the “bulk” profile. Hernandez probably can only give you 4-6 innings because of command/pitch count. But he needs reps. Houck has two great pitches but no ready platoon neutralizer...so he’s a big 3rd-time risk and could stand to miss some lefties. And Mata has command issues as well, but terrific stuff and is very young, needing reps. All three could see significant upticks in performance and development time by limiting exposure to their weaknesses, pitching regularly but with moderately fewer pitches, and increased exposure to MLB including coaching. It also saves money, because viable relievers to make up the 1-2 “extra” innings are a LOT cheaper than viable 3/4 level (or even 4/5) SPs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 30, 2019 20:38:33 GMT -5
Btw, just saw TB DFA’d Jesus Aguilar...he’s someone I wouldn’t mind seeing the Sox take a shot on. Had a rough follow-up to his breakout, but he walks (11%) and cut his K rate from 25 to 22%. Big drop in ISOP but some of his struggles are probably BABIP-driven. He’s slugged over .500 in ‘17-18, so depending on cost he might be worth a flier. Probably redundant with Chavis/Dalbec, but if Chavis starts at 2b and Dalbec in AAA, Aguilar might be useful for a few months, and flippable if he starts out hot.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 30, 2019 21:21:23 GMT -5
Thank you, Eric, that’s what I was alluding to without clearly delineating it. I agree that the shift data overall don’t represent a huge issue in that there doesn’t seem to be a large enough effect *league-wide* to be “observable” during viewing, beyond the kinda fun silly appearance of the fielders. But it does have a marginal effect that provides enough utility to perpetuate the practice. I see shifts as falling into the sort of grey zone in which the two groups have some overlap. Baseball is a particularly “conservative” sport (and despite my left-leaning moderate political sensibilities, it’s an aspect I really love), so there’s quite a bit of hand-wringing when it comes to justified, analytic-driven change. Yet, I find the John Smoltz/Goose Gossages of the baseball world particularly annoying, despite my appreciation for baseball history and limited rule change. Often, the complaints are in contrast to the quality of play rising (see: integration, for example), but...yeah, the TTO issue is a serious one. I think a deadened ball/mound drop would have a substantial effect, but it takes a few years for the league to adjust (find/develop speedier players with better contact skills, for example). For that reason, I wonder if the recent offensive nadir of ‘14/‘15 might’ve scared the league into too quickly overcompensating with the ball. Idk. If that's true I think it's crazy. It's not like 2014-2015 was anywhere near the equivalent of 1967-1968 with offense. I think 2014-2015 would have fit in fine with the 1980s/early 1990s when I think baseball had the right balance of offense/pitching - not too many HRs, runs weren't so damn cheap, but runs did score, stolen bases were part of the offense and not everybody was sitting back waiting on the 3 run HR. If you're right what a ridiculous overcompensation by MLB, turning the game into slow pitch HR derby softball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2019 10:47:13 GMT -5
Thank you, Eric, that’s what I was alluding to without clearly delineating it. I agree that the shift data overall don’t represent a huge issue in that there doesn’t seem to be a large enough effect *league-wide* to be “observable” during viewing, beyond the kinda fun silly appearance of the fielders. But it does have a marginal effect that provides enough utility to perpetuate the practice. I see shifts as falling into the sort of grey zone in which the two groups have some overlap. Baseball is a particularly “conservative” sport (and despite my left-leaning moderate political sensibilities, it’s an aspect I really love), so there’s quite a bit of hand-wringing when it comes to justified, analytic-driven change. Yet, I find the John Smoltz/Goose Gossages of the baseball world particularly annoying, despite my appreciation for baseball history and limited rule change. Often, the complaints are in contrast to the quality of play rising (see: integration, for example), but...yeah, the TTO issue is a serious one. I think a deadened ball/mound drop would have a substantial effect, but it takes a few years for the league to adjust (find/develop speedier players with better contact skills, for example). For that reason, I wonder if the recent offensive nadir of ‘14/‘15 might’ve scared the league into too quickly overcompensating with the ball. Idk. If that's true I think it's crazy. It's not like 2014-2015 was anywhere near the equivalent of 1967-1968 with offense. I think 2014-2015 would have fit in fine with the 1980s/early 1990s when I think baseball had the right balance of offense/pitching - not too many HRs, runs weren't so damn cheap, but runs did score, stolen bases were part of the offense and not everybody was sitting back waiting on the 3 run HR. If you're right what a ridiculous overcompensation by MLB, turning the game into slow pitch HR derby softball. And there's also the circumstantial evidence that Rob Manfred was hired in January 2015. I find it very unlikely that it was just a pure coincidence that he was hired, MLB buys Rawlings in 2018 while saying "We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.", then the ball in the 2019 playoffs stops flying out of the park like a video game without the league knowing damn well what they're doing. My suspicion is that Rawlings wasn't fully cooperating before they were purchased. Home runs increased 61.9% since Manfred was hired. 4186 (the season before he was hired) to 6776 in 2019. It's a real shame that teams do not know what difficulty MLB is going to be played at in 2020, so that they can either plan for more of the same nonsense or alter their approach to finding pitchers and hitters that will benefit or be hurt least by the ball being deadened. I think the Red Sox are setup pretty well for a less juiced baseball because they have a lot of contact hitters and a lot of pitchers who were killed by home runs. Biggest example is Chris Sale - who in his worst results season by far, only had a 2.93 xFIP, which is .02 higher than his career xFIP. Obviously, guys like Vazquez are going to suffer greatly, but the Red Sox didn't have a ton of those guys like other teams had.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 1, 2019 15:56:47 GMT -5
I know Harold Reynolds is not one of the favorite voices here, but I actually agree with his reasoning on trading Mookie Betts. The front office is possibly about to make a final push to sign Mookie, and I sure hope they can. But if their offer is really fair and strong, and Betts decides to go to free agency, you trade the guy.
Has Harold "the Wise" said.....it is not that difficult. If an excellent offer is turned down, you trade the man.
Reading an article on MLB, the idea of moving Betts and Price to the Angels for all the money and getting back a couple of solid kids may be a good way to dig ourselves out the financial hole we are currently in. Adell (Jo) is not going anywhere, but the Angels have "righted" their farm system some over the last 2 years, and a couple of those kids are intriguing.
Glad to see Sale was given a great medical report, but I would love to see the Sox move in a more sustainable direction.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Dec 1, 2019 16:43:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Dec 1, 2019 17:27:21 GMT -5
Btw, just saw TB DFA’d Jesus Aguilar...he’s someone I wouldn’t mind seeing the Sox take a shot on. Had a rough follow-up to his breakout, but he walks (11%) and cut his K rate from 25 to 22%. Big drop in ISOP but some of his struggles are probably BABIP-driven. He’s slugged over .500 in ‘17-18, so depending on cost he might be worth a flier. Probably redundant with Chavis/Dalbec, but if Chavis starts at 2b and Dalbec in AAA, Aguilar might be useful for a few months, and flippable if he starts out hot. He'd be of more use than Sam Travis. Found a Brewers link from last S/T tho that showed he was out of options back then tho. optionStill, MLB Ref showed he only made tad less than 650k last year if roster could manage another RH hitting 1b/DH type entire season and hope for a 2018 type season out of him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2019 17:36:04 GMT -5
I know Harold Reynolds is not one of the favorite voices here, but I actually agree with his reasoning on trading Mookie Betts. The front office is possibly about to make a final push to sign Mookie, and I sure hope they can. But if their offer is really fair and strong, and Betts decides to go to free agency, you trade the guy. Has Harold "the Wise" said.....it is not that difficult. If an excellent offer is turned down, you trade the man. Trade the guy to a contending team that could use one year of Mookie? Such as the Red Sox!!!!! I'm not sure what is so hard to figure out about this. One year of Mookie playing for the Red Sox has possibly more value to the Red Sox than for any other team. If you don't trade Mookie, you are not getting nothing for him. You're getting one more full season in a year they should be able to contend for another World Series, in a park where he is much more valuable than in other parks, and when the team has literally no prospects to play CF, when they need two of them. I would absolutely not trade Mookie unless blown away. And I highly doubt they'll get blown away.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 2, 2019 2:54:10 GMT -5
I know Harold Reynolds is not one of the favorite voices here, but I actually agree with his reasoning on trading Mookie Betts. The front office is possibly about to make a final push to sign Mookie, and I sure hope they can. But if their offer is really fair and strong, and Betts decides to go to free agency, you trade the guy. Has Harold "the Wise" said.....it is not that difficult. If an excellent offer is turned down, you trade the man. Trade the guy to a contending team that could use one year of Mookie? Such as the Red Sox!!!!! I'm not sure what is so hard to figure out about this. One year of Mookie playing for the Red Sox has possibly more value to the Red Sox than for any other team. If you don't trade Mookie, you are not getting nothing for him. You're getting one more full season in a year they should be able to contend for another World Series, in a park where he is much more valuable than in other parks, and when the team has literally no prospects to play CF, when they need two of them. I would absolutely not trade Mookie unless blown away. And I highly doubt they'll get blown away. The only way that makes sense, if you've determined you can't resign him is that you are a true contender. Even then it's a going all in on one season type move given what you can likely get for him. Yet I could be down if they go for it, but to truly go for it likely means blowing past the upper tax limits. Yet they are talking about resetting. Like how do you add the pitching needed, 2nd base depth, a guy for 1b, hopefully a new back-up catcher and bullpen arm? I don't want to trade away the farm to go for it without knowing more about 3/5 of our starters. I don't see a true contender right now unless you think everything goes 100% right.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2019 12:34:20 GMT -5
My idea of a good opener is a guy who is capable of making it thru the lineup once , not just 3 outs. The Sox have many prospects that were starters turned relievers, it would be nice if a few of them could give you decent numbers and 100 innings. I would think Johnson and Velazquez could be those guys also, they have both had their moments. You're talking two good innings basically. You're not likely going to have some #6 type starter/normal 7th inning reliever go nine up and nine down. Most likely you're talking getting through 8 or 9 batters in 2 innings. Basically a 2 inning reliever. In a perfect world situation you're talking about a guy getting six guys out so that the starter comes in for the 3rd inning facing the 7/8/9 batters so he's not being as tested as he would be dealing with the best hitters in the lineup coming up right away to face him. You are correct.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2019 13:30:01 GMT -5
Trade the guy to a contending team that could use one year of Mookie? Such as the Red Sox!!!!! I'm not sure what is so hard to figure out about this. One year of Mookie playing for the Red Sox has possibly more value to the Red Sox than for any other team. If you don't trade Mookie, you are not getting nothing for him. You're getting one more full season in a year they should be able to contend for another World Series, in a park where he is much more valuable than in other parks, and when the team has literally no prospects to play CF, when they need two of them. I would absolutely not trade Mookie unless blown away. And I highly doubt they'll get blown away. The only way that makes sense, if you've determined you can't resign him is that you are a true contender. Even then it's a going all in on one season type move given what you can likely get for him. Yet I could be down if they go for it, but to truly go for it likely means blowing past the upper tax limits. Yet they are talking about resetting. Like how do you add the pitching needed, 2nd base depth, a guy for 1b, hopefully a new back-up catcher and bullpen arm? I don't want to trade away the farm to go for it without knowing more about 3/5 of our starters. I don't see a true contender right now unless you think everything goes 100% right. They're absolutely a contender right now unless you really think that they'll only get one good starting pitcher again. It's still basically the same team that won in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Dec 2, 2019 13:34:09 GMT -5
The only way that makes sense, if you've determined you can't resign him is that you are a true contender. Even then it's a going all in on one season type move given what you can likely get for him. Yet I could be down if they go for it, but to truly go for it likely means blowing past the upper tax limits. Yet they are talking about resetting. Like how do you add the pitching needed, 2nd base depth, a guy for 1b, hopefully a new back-up catcher and bullpen arm? I don't want to trade away the farm to go for it without knowing more about 3/5 of our starters. I don't see a true contender right now unless you think everything goes 100% right. They're absolutely a contender right now unless you really think that they'll only get one good starting pitcher again. It's still basically the same team that won in 2018.Except the potential subtractions that have come and are coming in JBJ, Porcello, Holt, and who else knows is going. They tendered JBJ a contract so they could trade him, not to keep him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 2, 2019 13:38:49 GMT -5
The only way that makes sense, if you've determined you can't resign him is that you are a true contender. Even then it's a going all in on one season type move given what you can likely get for him. Yet I could be down if they go for it, but to truly go for it likely means blowing past the upper tax limits. Yet they are talking about resetting. Like how do you add the pitching needed, 2nd base depth, a guy for 1b, hopefully a new back-up catcher and bullpen arm? I don't want to trade away the farm to go for it without knowing more about 3/5 of our starters. I don't see a true contender right now unless you think everything goes 100% right. They're absolutely a contender right now unless you really think that they'll only get one good starting pitcher again. It's still basically the same team that won in 2018. The Red Sox have a chance, but I wouldn't say they're absolutely a contender. I have no idea if Sale will make it through the season. We really don't know that. We don't know how they're going to get a 1b, a 2b, replace JBJ if he winds up going, replace Porcello, hope they get a much better and healthier season from Eovaldi, fix up the starting pitching depth if injuries happen again (which given their track records...), and oh yeah, spruce up the pen a bit - all while trying to lower payroll. That's a really tall order. Can it happen? Sure, why not? Maybe Dalbec and Chavis mash on the right side of the infield and the defense isn't terrible and/or they bring back Brock for cheap or get Gennett for cheap and are rewarded his bounceback. Maybe Sale is completely healthy, Price bounces back and they replace Porcello for cheap very well and they get the 2018 version of whoever plays the role of Velazquez/Johnson/Wright and their pen is better than suspected. Not all of those have to go perfectly, but a lot of them do for the Red Sox to be a serious contender in a division where you have NYY and TB. If you want to increase your odds of those things then you spend more $ to make those odds increase, but if you're decreasing $, it's hard to see how you increase the odds of those things happening. 2018 was a season the Sox had a gaping hole behind the plate, at 2b, at 3b and in CF for half a season and a bullpen that was shaky, yet they kicked absolute butt. Last year, they filled in all of those holes pretty much, but everything else went south. It's really hard to say with any absolute certainty that the Red Sox are definite contenders if they slash their payroll like they're doing, even while keeping Mookie - and I would like them to keep Mookie. Just don't know if they'll have enough talent around him if they keep trying to do bargain basement for everything else. Right now the pitching is very suspect.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2019 13:46:15 GMT -5
"if they slash their payroll like they're doing"
Hasn't happened yet. I'd bet that they're going for it one more season. The worst possible thing they could do is go in between trying to win and cutting payroll significantly. Either go all out one way or the other. In between guarantees failing at both. Personally, I wouldn't waste one last year of Mookie when they have such an insanely talented core group of hitters and several pitchers who could and maybe should easily bounce back from disappointing seasons.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 2, 2019 13:48:52 GMT -5
"if they slash their payroll like they're doing" Hasn't happened yet. I'd bet that they're going for it one more season. so you think JBJ will be in CF with Mookie in RF next season?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2019 13:55:01 GMT -5
"if they slash their payroll like they're doing" Hasn't happened yet. I'd bet that they're going for it one more season. so you think JBJ will be in CF with Mookie in RF next season? They could probably replace JBJ with someone almost as good for less money if they got creative. But that would not preclude them from going for it one more season. But trading Mookie is an absolute guarantee that they would be significantly reducing their chance at winning in 2020. And if they're doing that, they may as well trade everyone they can. There was a fangraphs article a month ago that pegged the Red Sox at 95 wins next year without trading Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 2, 2019 14:04:50 GMT -5
so you think JBJ will be in CF with Mookie in RF next season? They could probably replace JBJ with someone almost as good for less money if they got creative. But that would not preclude them from going for it one more season. But trading Mookie is an absolute guarantee that they would be significantly reducing their chance at winning in 2020. And if they're doing that, they may as well trade everyone they can. There was a fangraphs article a month ago that pegged the Red Sox at 95 wins next year without trading Mookie. I remember reading that article and wondering if they were sure what the pitching staff was going to look like, as in how many months of Chris Sale do they get? Will David Price go the full season? Who replaces Porcello? Is Eovaldi capable of pitching the entire season healthy and effective? What does their pitching depth look like if they sustain injuries? What if Workman regresses what happens to the bullpen's hierarchy? Another question - if they're dead set on getting below 208 million and they hang onto Mookie, wouldn't David Price be the most obvious way to try to get below the limit? What does that do for the pitching staff? I guess there's way too many question marks that I have about the pitching to comfortably project 95 wins even with Mookie. As we saw this past year, if they don't get enough right answers to those questions they can finish well under 95 wins.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2019 14:06:23 GMT -5
They could probably replace JBJ with someone almost as good for less money if they got creative. But that would not preclude them from going for it one more season. But trading Mookie is an absolute guarantee that they would be significantly reducing their chance at winning in 2020. And if they're doing that, they may as well trade everyone they can. There was a fangraphs article a month ago that pegged the Red Sox at 95 wins next year without trading Mookie. I remember reading that article and wondering if they were sure what the pitching staff was going to look like, as in how many months of Chris Sale do they get? Will David Price go the full season? Who replaces Porcello? Is Eovaldi capable of pitching the entire season healthy and effective? What does their pitching depth look like if they sustain injuries? What if Workman regresses what happens to the bullpen's hierarchy? I guess there's way too many question marks that I have about the pitching to comfortably project 95 wins even with Mookie. As we saw this past year, if they don't get enough right answers to those questions they can finish well under 95 wins. Last year, just about everything went wrong. No one should expect the same thing to happen this year. They're not a 108 win team and they're also not an 84 win team. Somewhere in between makes them legitimate contenders.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 2, 2019 14:09:51 GMT -5
so you think JBJ will be in CF with Mookie in RF next season?They could probably can replace JBJ with someone almost as good even better for less money if they get creative. And that would not preclude them from going for it one more season. But trading Mookie is an absolute guarantee that they would be significantly reducing their chance at winning in 2020. And if they're doing that, they may as well trade everyone they can. There was a fangraphs article a month ago that pegged the Red Sox at 95 wins next year without trading Mookie. I think they will
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2019 14:15:37 GMT -5
They could probably can replace JBJ with someone almost as good even better for less money if they get creative. And that would not preclude them from going for it one more season. But trading Mookie is an absolute guarantee that they would be significantly reducing their chance at winning in 2020. And if they're doing that, they may as well trade everyone they can. There was a fangraphs article a month ago that pegged the Red Sox at 95 wins next year without trading Mookie. I think they will Yes we know you don't value defense at all.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 2, 2019 14:27:01 GMT -5
The only way that makes sense, if you've determined you can't resign him is that you are a true contender. Even then it's a going all in on one season type move given what you can likely get for him. Yet I could be down if they go for it, but to truly go for it likely means blowing past the upper tax limits. Yet they are talking about resetting. Like how do you add the pitching needed, 2nd base depth, a guy for 1b, hopefully a new back-up catcher and bullpen arm? I don't want to trade away the farm to go for it without knowing more about 3/5 of our starters. I don't see a true contender right now unless you think everything goes 100% right. They're absolutely a contender right now unless you really think that they'll only get one good starting pitcher again. It's still basically the same team that won in 2018. That 2018 team had Sale at his best, Price having the most dominate stretch in four years, Porcello and ERod pitching well, along with Eovaldi best stretch of his career. Add in Kimbrel for the bullpen. The team had so many starters they barely used ERod in the playoffs coming off a 3 bwar season. What are the chances you get Sale, Price, and Eovaldi pitching well and staying healthy? Even if you do, you still don't have Porcello and Kimbrel. Where's your pitching depth? Thinking this is the same team as 2018 basically means you think everything goes 100% right with our pitching. If your being 100% honest with yourself, what are the chances that happens?
|
|
|