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.
Let’s Go Shopping - 2020-21 FAs
|
Post by manfred on Sept 12, 2020 8:49:13 GMT -5
The difficulty with this thread and others like it is the fundamental difference of opinion between posters on whether the Sox are/should be in the middle of a tear down, and those who think the sox can reload on the fly and be reasonably competitive next year. I am firmly in the reload-on-the-fly camp. The Sox should try hard to get the assets to compete next year, but (of course!) avoid the Sandoval type albatrosses, and even the Price type albatrosses. I think tear-down advocates are ignoring the simple fact that baseball is a high variance sport—that you can increase the odds of success, but you can’t stack the odds like in basketball In basketball, teams can get a certain number of stars and be reasonably sure of dominating. That’s way tougher to do in baseball. Hell, it’s hard to do in basketball (Hello Philadelphia!). Wasting the current core or trading them out for a fistful of lottery tickets and future value while looking forward to 2023 is bad business. There are just too many variables to punt the next season or two in search of a sure thing. This is a really good point. And I want to make a further one: the team 100% believes they can contend next year, and they will be committed to trying to do so.
So the minority folks who propose a tear-it-all-down program will be amusing themselves, but not really adding to an interesting conversation for the rest of us, about what the team might actually do.
Projected rotation depth chart for next year:
Chris Sale (established ace) Eduardo Rodriguez (established #2) Nathan Eovaldi (established #3 / #4 with upside Acquisition (ditto, likely) Martin Perez (ditto) Nick Pivetta (#5 with tantalizing #3 or better upside) Connor Seabold (projected #4).
You have depth, and 4 candidates to step forward and be the starter in game 3 of a playoff.
They've gotten just 15 starts from these guys, none from the #1 and #2, and as recently as August 20 they were 6-5 in their games while they were 2-13 in games started the others, a bunch of guys who project to get zero starts next year. (Subsequently they've lost all 4 of Perez's games but have gone 8 - 8 in the games started by the nobodies. That corresponds to an OPS split by the offense of 744 and then 824 -- the latter obviously much more in line with expectations. If FG stops being buggy, I'll report those in wRC+, with ranks among all teams.)
The problem with this is the #1 won’t be ready for opening day, and may be more like a June arrival. ERod is still a question. I don’t know specifically what a #3 is defined as, but Eovaldi has broken 2 bWAR twice in 9 years: 2015 and 2013. He seems pretty firmly about a 1ish WAR guy. Partly because he is reliable to get hurt. The staff is almost entirely “ifs and buts,” which, as we know, turned to candies and nuts make for the merriest Christmases. I am going to throw something else out there: next season may be snafu again because of Covid. Fauci says this will last until the end of 2021. Winter is going to create a huge uptick of cases. So we don’t know what the market is. Saying those of us who propose FA caution are not adding to the conversation as if this is a normal offseason is a tad condescending. Overlapping are: a terrible financial year; a new front office; the prospect of another terrible season financially; and a team in a transition. Acting like it is clear what path they will take is baseless. Add: and not signing George Springer or Marcus Stroman is hardly “tear it down.” It is seeking to use assets in more productive ways, including trading for more desirable players with teams seeking to dump contracts.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2020 8:51:12 GMT -5
The difficulty with this thread and others like it is the fundamental difference of opinion between posters on whether the Sox are/should be in the middle of a tear down, and those who think the sox can reload on the fly and be reasonably competitive next year. And a part of this is that we lived through Cherington getting that wrong in 2014, reloading for 2015 instead of building for 2018, and losing his job because of it. He traded for MLB talent rather than prospects, sacrificed draft picks for awful free agent signings, and finished in last place again. Right now, despite a core of Devers, Bogaerts, and Verdugo that is good enough, this feels like a team that should be aiming for 2022 rather than 2021. To me, that means not signing any compensation-attached free agents unless the QO suppresses a player's market enough to turn him into an outstanding value.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Sept 12, 2020 10:26:39 GMT -5
There is another false dichotomy that plays out in these threads around team payroll. Value vs production, whether owners should spend to the max and beyond or should be more budget conscious. While I don’t care a wit about saving any money for billionaires, I very much care about having a balanced and flexible payroll. Dead money means bad teams and lost opportunities to upgrade good teams when needed to get over the hump. So I want the Sox to almost never be projected to be significantly over the cap for any given year, especially if they are expected to compete. I really hope, and expect, CB to do a better job than Cherington in 2014-2015 offseason, or DD this past offseason. Those are pretty low bars. To make it simple, one can think of a payroll structure instead of overall dollars. Only having one mega contract, and a couple of major contracts, and plenty of room for 8-10 million dollar contracts that may be needed. This, of course, requires a productive farm system, so the farm can’t be ignored. Here is how I think the offseason should be judged: 1.) maintain payroll flexibility, get good value, make the team at least incrementally better (talent wise), while also looking to the future. If there is good value on the market, scoop it up. At least a competent starting pitcher, please. 2.) When CB trades a core player, and I think he absolutely will, the return is Verdugo type players: young, cost controlled, talented, plus building blocks for future seasons. The effect for the following season should be neutral, kind of like Verdugo was neutral for this season. Not saying that Verdugo is better than or even equal to the-player-who-must-not-be-named, but this season would have turned out functionally the same with either player on the roster. 3.) The pitching at the beginning of the season has easily identifiable playoff winning upside, has at least middle of the pack stats at the end of the season, and future upside and depth.
It will be a wild ride, and the roster churn will happen, even with the core players, which is fine. In my last post, I was arguing against a tear down and writing off next season. That doesn’t mean we should go after stupid contracts.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 12, 2020 10:56:25 GMT -5
I like the Gausman idea a lot. I think bringing back JBJ makes sense as well. I’d invest the rest in the bullpen (especially since those kind of guys we can flip for prospects at the deadline if we wish) or extending guys.
Maybe take a flier on Garrett Richards or Robbie Ray as reclamation projects..
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 12, 2020 14:12:22 GMT -5
This. As much as I blame Dombrowski for getting us into this mess (and not having an exit strategy), these contracts got the ball rolling and didn't help. It's incredibly hard to stay under the threshold with dead money on the books, and it will now be a stretch of 5 years where we head into the year with 15-20M of dead money (Pablo 2018/2019, Price 2020/2021/2022). Come on those aren't the same, the Red Sox improved releasing Sandoval. Bloom traded Price and ate that money. He didn't have to trade him to get under. Price was overpaid, yet still a useful piece. I'm not evening say the move was wrong, yet that was our current GM. I think you're missing my point, and if you're trying to say that it's Chaim's fault we have Price's dead money, I see your point. However, I don't want to revisit whether it was better to have Price for 31M or free up the 16M to spend elsewhere. The point I'm making is that it gets harder when the active roster needs to be 20M below the threshold. And I'm not even counting Pedroia here. Poor free agent spending is one of the biggest way a front office can impact the team, and the Red Sox have a poor track record here over the past decade. To be fair many teams have dead money on their books (hello Ellsbury) so we're not alone, but the margin of error gets much thinner as teams build up dead money. It's what made the Patriots dynasty so impressive, they never got themselves cap-tied during their 20-year run.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 12, 2020 14:42:44 GMT -5
Come on those aren't the same, the Red Sox improved releasing Sandoval. Bloom traded Price and ate that money. He didn't have to trade him to get under. Price was overpaid, yet still a useful piece. I'm not evening say the move was wrong, yet that was our current GM. I think you're missing my point, and if you're trying to say that it's Chaim's fault we have Price's dead money, I see your point. However, I don't want to revisit whether it was better to have Price for 31M or free up the 16M to spend elsewhere. The point I'm making is that it gets harder when the active roster needs to be 20M below the threshold. And I'm not even counting Pedroia here. Poor free agent spending is one of the biggest way a front office can impact the team, and the Red Sox have a poor track record here over the past decade. To be fair many teams have dead money on their books (hello Ellsbury) so we're not alone, but the margin of error gets much thinner as teams build up dead money. It's what made the Patriots dynasty so impressive, they never got themselves cap-tied during their 20-year run. Sure I get that point, there's just a massive difference in some of the worst contracts every in Sandoval and Ellsbury compared to Price. Price wasn't great, yet it was a very solid signing and Bloom picked 16 million in space with 16 million in dead money over having a still solid starter. The DD got us into this mess seems crazy unfair. More like the prized system Cherington left us, didn't produce any starters is what got us into this mess. A few crap drafts by him, where as DD first draft and the system he left behind seems a lot better than people gave him credit for.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 12, 2020 17:17:17 GMT -5
True, Price is a different story than Sandoval and Ellsbury, but it still leaves us in the exact same position with dead money on the books. No matter how (un)talented the player or how right the move was, it's just harder for the front office to operate when there's dead money.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 14, 2020 3:16:43 GMT -5
This is a really good point. And I want to make a further one: the team 100% believes they can contend next year, and they will be committed to trying to do so.
So the minority folks who propose a tear-it-all-down program will be amusing themselves, but not really adding to an interesting conversation for the rest of us, about what the team might actually do.
Projected rotation depth chart for next year:
Chris Sale (established ace) Eduardo Rodriguez (established #2) Nathan Eovaldi (established #3 / #4 with upside Acquisition (ditto, likely) Martin Perez (ditto) Nick Pivetta (#5 with tantalizing #3 or better upside) Connor Seabold (projected #4).
You have depth, and 4 candidates to step forward and be the starter in game 3 of a playoff.
They've gotten just 15 starts from these guys, none from the #1 and #2, and as recently as August 20 they were 6-5 in their games while they were 2-13 in games started the others, a bunch of guys who project to get zero starts next year. (Subsequently they've lost all 4 of Perez's games but have gone 8 - 8 in the games started by the nobodies. That corresponds to an OPS split by the offense of 744 and then 824 -- the latter obviously much more in line with expectations. If FG stops being buggy, I'll report those in wRC+, with ranks among all teams.)
The problem with this is the #1 won’t be ready for opening day, and may be more like a June arrival. ERod is still a question. I don’t know specifically what a #3 is defined as, but Eovaldi has broken 2 bWAR twice in 9 years: 2015 and 2013. He seems pretty firmly about a 1ish WAR guy. Partly because he is reliable to get hurt. The staff is almost entirely “ifs and buts,” which, as we know, turned to candies and nuts make for the merriest Christmases. I am going to throw something else out there: next season may be snafu again because of Covid. Fauci says this will last until the end of 2021. Winter is going to create a huge uptick of cases. So we don’t know what the market is. Saying those of us who propose FA caution are not adding to the conversation as if this is a normal offseason is a tad condescending. Overlapping are: a terrible financial year; a new front office; the prospect of another terrible season financially; and a team in a transition. Acting like it is clear what path they will take is baseless. Add: and not signing George Springer or Marcus Stroman is hardly “tear it down.” It is seeking to use assets in more productive ways, including trading for more desirable players with teams seeking to dump contracts. How is an argument that the team might not contend -- one which you can construct for, what 85%? of the teams ever assembled -- remotely relevant to the question of whether the team should try to contend? It isn't. It's completely off-topic.
There's no rational argument that we can't contend next year. There's no good argument that we probably won't. Everyone can see how we might well be able to. Because of this, the team unequivocally, 100% plans to try to contend. Therefore there was no "problem" at all with my post, which simply argued that the folks who argue for a full tear-down (e.g., starting with trading Vazquez) are essentially talking to themselves. There's a handy metaphor I'm avoiding. (I want to point out now that I couldn't tell you who those people are -- I just stop reading stuff like that when I see it.)
To answer one of your questions: Eovaldi is an established #3 / #4 (league-average) quality starter. Everyone knows he needs to stay healthy and has trouble doing so. And in case it wasn't clear, the rundown of pitching depth was intended to show that we probably would have a good #3 starter. If each of the four candidates has a 1 in 4 chance of realizing their upside, you have a 70% chance of finding one.
In general ... pointing out that there is downside is not a rebuttal to an argument that there is upside. If I say "I'm asking Denise out, she might say yes," the useful reply is not "she might say no," and the more elaborate that response is, the less useful it becomes. The only useful rebuttal is "dude, you have no chance." The actual rebuttal is an argument that there isn't upside.
I don't know what or who the final comment is intended for. I'm all-in on contending and I think Springer is a terrible idea and am dubious about Stroman (though I haven't looked into it). The question is whether it makes sense to trade Vazquez, trade Dalbec now, trade JDM for whatever you can get, shop Xander, etc., and whether you can type up that argument with one hand.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 14, 2020 4:57:59 GMT -5
For me, there's no doubt that we can contend next year and that it will be the planned course this offseason. I also think though that we can improve the odds by creative trading.
My biggest concern going into next season isn't the pitching, it's JDM. I can only think of one great hitter that struggled this much and this long who returned to former greatness, David Ortiz in 2009. I'm sure there must be others but everyone else I can think of pretty much turned into Albert Puljols.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Sept 14, 2020 6:20:05 GMT -5
Go 1 year on Kluber, 2 years Paxton, 3 years JBJ at 5.5 mil per. There's value to be had but this is not the class you're going to invest long term in.
Springer is a decent player but not knowing what pitches are being thrown ahead of time cost him some money.
Also, if 2 Bags gets his option declined he's certainly a no brainer to bring back for veteran leadership. Workman would be nice to have back too.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,507
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 14, 2020 7:59:27 GMT -5
For me, there's no doubt that we can contend next year and that it will be the planned course this offseason. I also think though that we can improve the odds by creative trading. My biggest concern going into next season isn't the pitching, it's JDM. I can only think of one great hitter that struggled this much and this long who returned to former greatness, David Ortiz in 2009. I'm sure there must be others but everyone else I can think of pretty much turned into Albert Puljols. I also have concerns for JDM. There is little to no chance he opts out now, and I think he was a manifestation of his video studying more than his bat to ball talent. Without regular access to video, I'm not sure he can be the same player. He's another example of dead money, whether he stays on the team, or they trade him and kick in some of his salary. So we are stuck with hoping MLB relaxes the guidelines for players to be able to study their own in game video (not really my preference) or a player who clearly can't hack it without that tool.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 8:39:18 GMT -5
The problem with this is the #1 won’t be ready for opening day, and may be more like a June arrival. ERod is still a question. I don’t know specifically what a #3 is defined as, but Eovaldi has broken 2 bWAR twice in 9 years: 2015 and 2013. He seems pretty firmly about a 1ish WAR guy. Partly because he is reliable to get hurt. The staff is almost entirely “ifs and buts,” which, as we know, turned to candies and nuts make for the merriest Christmases. I am going to throw something else out there: next season may be snafu again because of Covid. Fauci says this will last until the end of 2021. Winter is going to create a huge uptick of cases. So we don’t know what the market is. Saying those of us who propose FA caution are not adding to the conversation as if this is a normal offseason is a tad condescending. Overlapping are: a terrible financial year; a new front office; the prospect of another terrible season financially; and a team in a transition. Acting like it is clear what path they will take is baseless. Add: and not signing George Springer or Marcus Stroman is hardly “tear it down.” It is seeking to use assets in more productive ways, including trading for more desirable players with teams seeking to dump contracts. How is an argument that the team might not contend -- one which you can construct for, what 85%? of the teams ever assembled -- remotely relevant to the question of whether the team should try to contend? It isn't. It's completely off-topic.
There's no rational argument that we can't contend next year. There's no good argument that we probably won't. Everyone can see how we might well be able to. Because of this, the team unequivocally, 100% plans to try to contend. Therefore there was no "problem" at all with my post, which simply argued that the folks who argue for a full tear-down (e.g., starting with trading Vazquez) are essentially talking to themselves. There's a handy metaphor I'm avoiding. (I want to point out now that I couldn't tell you who those people are -- I just stop reading stuff like that when I see it.)
To answer one of your questions: Eovaldi is an established #3 / #4 (league-average) quality starter. Everyone knows he needs to stay healthy and has trouble doing so. And in case it wasn't clear, the rundown of pitching depth was intended to show that we probably would have a good #3 starter. If each of the four candidates has a 1 in 4 chance of realizing their upside, you have a 70% chance of finding one.
In general ... pointing out that there is downside is not a rebuttal to an argument that there is upside. If I say "I'm asking Denise out, she might say yes," the useful reply is not "she might say no," and the more elaborate that response is, the less useful it becomes. The only useful rebuttal is "dude, you have no chance." The actual rebuttal is an argument that there isn't upside.
I don't know what or who the final comment is intended for. I'm all-in on contending and I think Springer is a terrible idea and am dubious about Stroman (though I haven't looked into it). The question is whether it makes sense to trade Vazquez, trade Dalbec now, trade JDM for whatever you can get, shop Xander, etc., and whether you can type up that argument with one hand.
If each of the four has a 1-in-4 chance you don’t have a 70% chance. Don’t gamble. If you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a 5 with a die, and you don’t the first time, it doesn’t raise your odds the second time. And if you are not just asking Denise out but doing it by buying her a car, I think saying “dude, hold your horses” is exactly what a friend says. But look: you arguing against a strawman. I never said teardown. I never said trade Dalbec. I did say trade Vasquez — because he might bring value, and he’d be easily replaced. Hell, you made the case elsewhere that the gap between Verdugo and Mookie is negligible; CVaz is .2 bWAR. The Sox could just start Plawecki and see manageable decline. I said I’d be a Dodgers fan if they traded Xander. If you aren’t reading posts, then it makes sense the Stroman/Springer debate has passed you by. But if your position is they “may” contend but shouldn’t sign an expensive free agent, great... you are arguing against someone who agrees. I mean, with Covid, the Yankees, Rays, and Jays could all get sick and leave the Sox AL East champs. But if teams are healthy and they play about as they should, the Sox just are not as good as the competition. Maybe that changes by trading for guys with big contracts. As I’ve said in posts you must gave skipped, I’d dar rather do that than sign guys from what I think is not a good or helpful FA class. Edit: and you don’t really answer the Eovaldi question. By what measure is he a #3? Since his first complete season, he has had an ERA+ under 90 as often (twice) as he has been over 100. He is a career mid-90s ERA+ guy. He’s broken 2 bWAR twice. Now, we can say “but the STUFF!” or lament injuries, but he will be 31 next season. He’ll be in his fourth season as a Sox. If he was going to change his spots, it would have happened. He is what he is, and that is a 4th, maybe a 5th starter depending on if he can get through 22 starts (which he last did in 2015).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 14, 2020 12:10:16 GMT -5
How is an argument that the team might not contend -- one which you can construct for, what 85%? of the teams ever assembled -- remotely relevant to the question of whether the team should try to contend? It isn't. It's completely off-topic. There's no rational argument that we can't contend next year. There's no good argument that we probably won't. Everyone can see how we might well be able to. Because of this, the team unequivocally, 100% plans to try to contend. Therefore there was no "problem" at all with my post, which simply argued that the folks who argue for a full tear-down (e.g., starting with trading Vazquez) are essentially talking to themselves. There's a handy metaphor I'm avoiding. (I want to point out now that I couldn't tell you who those people are -- I just stop reading stuff like that when I see it.) To answer one of your questions: Eovaldi is an established #3 / #4 (league-average) quality starter. Everyone knows he needs to stay healthy and has trouble doing so. And in case it wasn't clear, the rundown of pitching depth was intended to show that we probably would have a good #3 starter. If each of the four candidates has a 1 in 4 chance of realizing their upside, you have a 70% chance of finding one. In general ... pointing out that there is downside is not a rebuttal to an argument that there is upside. If I say "I'm asking Denise out, she might say yes," the useful reply is not "she might say no," and the more elaborate that response is, the less useful it becomes. The only useful rebuttal is "dude, you have no chance." The actual rebuttal is an argument that there isn't upside.
I don't know what or who the final comment is intended for. I'm all-in on contending and I think Springer is a terrible idea and am dubious about Stroman (though I haven't looked into it). The question is whether it makes sense to trade Vazquez, trade Dalbec now, trade JDM for whatever you can get, shop Xander, etc., and whether you can type up that argument with one hand.
If each of the four has a 1-in-4 chance you don’t have a 70% chance. Don’t gamble. If you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a 5 with a die, and you don’t the first time, it doesn’t raise your odds the second time. And if you are not just asking Denise out but doing it by buying her a car, I think saying “dude, hold your horses” is exactly what a friend says. But look: you arguing against a strawman. I never said teardown. I never said trade Dalbec. I did say trade Vasquez — because he might bring value, and he’d be easily replaced. Hell, you made the case elsewhere that the gap between Verdugo and Mookie is negligible; CVaz is .2 bWAR. The Sox could just start Plawecki and see manageable decline. I said I’d be a Dodgers fan if they traded Xander. If you aren’t reading posts, then it makes sense the Stroman/Springer debate has passed you by. But if your position is they “may” contend but shouldn’t sign an expensive free agent, great... you are arguing against someone who agrees. I mean, with Covid, the Yankees, Rays, and Jays could all get sick and leave the Sox AL East champs. But if teams are healthy and they play about as they should, the Sox just are not as good as the competition. Maybe that changes by trading for guys with big contracts. As I’ve said in posts you must gave skipped, I’d dar rather do that than sign guys from what I think is not a good or helpful FA class. Edit: and you don’t really answer the Eovaldi question. By what measure is he a #3? Since his first complete season, he has had an ERA+ under 90 as often (twice) as he has been over 100. He is a career mid-90s ERA+ guy. He’s broken 2 bWAR twice. Now, we can say “but the STUFF!” or lament injuries, but he will be 31 next season. He’ll be in his fourth season as a Sox. If he was going to change his spots, it would have happened. He is what he is, and that is a 4th, maybe a 5th starter depending on if he can get through 22 starts (which he last did in 2015). Eovaldi even after missing time is 82nd in fwar among starters with 30 or more innings. So he's currently a #3 and was one in 2018, so he's been a #3 starter 2 out of the last three years. That is much more meaningful when doing projections than what he did to start his career. Sure there's some risk there, yet that's true for every pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 14, 2020 12:16:42 GMT -5
How is an argument that the team might not contend -- one which you can construct for, what 85%? of the teams ever assembled -- remotely relevant to the question of whether the team should try to contend? It isn't. It's completely off-topic.
There's no rational argument that we can't contend next year. There's no good argument that we probably won't. Everyone can see how we might well be able to. Because of this, the team unequivocally, 100% plans to try to contend. Therefore there was no "problem" at all with my post, which simply argued that the folks who argue for a full tear-down (e.g., starting with trading Vazquez) are essentially talking to themselves. There's a handy metaphor I'm avoiding. (I want to point out now that I couldn't tell you who those people are -- I just stop reading stuff like that when I see it.)
To answer one of your questions: Eovaldi is an established #3 / #4 (league-average) quality starter. Everyone knows he needs to stay healthy and has trouble doing so. And in case it wasn't clear, the rundown of pitching depth was intended to show that we probably would have a good #3 starter. If each of the four candidates has a 1 in 4 chance of realizing their upside, you have a 70% chance of finding one.
In general ... pointing out that there is downside is not a rebuttal to an argument that there is upside. If I say "I'm asking Denise out, she might say yes," the useful reply is not "she might say no," and the more elaborate that response is, the less useful it becomes. The only useful rebuttal is "dude, you have no chance." The actual rebuttal is an argument that there isn't upside.
I don't know what or who the final comment is intended for. I'm all-in on contending and I think Springer is a terrible idea and am dubious about Stroman (though I haven't looked into it). The question is whether it makes sense to trade Vazquez, trade Dalbec now, trade JDM for whatever you can get, shop Xander, etc., and whether you can type up that argument with one hand.
If each of the four has a 1-in-4 chance you don’t have a 70% chance. Don’t gamble. If you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a 5 with a die, and you don’t the first time, it doesn’t raise your odds the second time. ... Edit: and you don’t really answer the Eovaldi question. By what measure is he a #3? Since his first complete season, he has had an ERA+ under 90 as often (twice) as he has been over 100. He is a career mid-90s ERA+ guy. He’s broken 2 bWAR twice. Now, we can say “but the STUFF!” or lament injuries, but he will be 31 next season. He’ll be in his fourth season as a Sox. If he was going to change his spots, it would have happened. He is what he is, and that is a 4th, maybe a 5th starter depending on if he can get through 22 starts (which he last did in 2015). No, eric's right about the probability. If you roll a four-sided die four times, your odds of rolling a 4 on at least one of those rolls is 68.4%. I do think you're still ignoring the upside argument. Let's say next season hinges on Eovaldi putting together one of his 2+ WAR seasons. Do you say "well he's only done that twice in his career so it's not worth going for it." Or do you say "he might do it so it's worth a shot." It's very obvious to me that you do the latter.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 14, 2020 12:36:34 GMT -5
If each of the four has a 1-in-4 chance you don’t have a 70% chance. Don’t gamble. If you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a 5 with a die, and you don’t the first time, it doesn’t raise your odds the second time. ... Edit: and you don’t really answer the Eovaldi question. By what measure is he a #3? Since his first complete season, he has had an ERA+ under 90 as often (twice) as he has been over 100. He is a career mid-90s ERA+ guy. He’s broken 2 bWAR twice. Now, we can say “but the STUFF!” or lament injuries, but he will be 31 next season. He’ll be in his fourth season as a Sox. If he was going to change his spots, it would have happened. He is what he is, and that is a 4th, maybe a 5th starter depending on if he can get through 22 starts (which he last did in 2015). No, eric's right about the probability. If you roll a four-sided die four times, your odds of rolling a 4 on at least one of those rolls is 68.4%. I do think you're still ignoring the upside argument. Let's say next season hinges on Eovaldi putting together one of his 2+ WAR seasons. Do you say "well he's only done that twice in his career so it's not worth going for it." Or do you say "he might do it so it's worth a shot." It's very obvious to me that you do the latter. I say neither: I say “what can we do to minimize our need for the somewhat unlikely eventuality that Eovaldi starts more than 22 times.” If the answer is reasonable... do it. If it puts me in a position to do something I don’t want to do, I don’t. Do I sign Stroman, for example? No, because I don’t trust carrying his contract. I think he’ll be overpaid. Do I trade a prospect package for a pitcher? Maybe! Let’s talk turkey. But if Eovaldi is a #3, if ERod is back at full strength, and if Sale is a #1, we can both be happy: they dan contend without a major move, satisfying you (they are contenders) and me (they don’t make a dumb, expensive move). Upside arguments diminish as guys become know qualities. I buy the upside on, say, Arroyo. But at some point the odds become more likely that you are what you are. Honestly, how much faith do you have in Eovaldi? Now, I’d also say Eovaldi is a relatively small part of the larger puzzle. Anyway, I don’t advocate *tanking* next season. I have a limited view: don’t spend on a bad free agent class. There are no top-tier FAs this off season I want to sign. I’ve said I’d do a reliever (eg Rosenthal) if the price is right. Otherwise, I’d do a combination of a) use “cap space” (for lack of a better phrase) to get players from dumping teams; and b) promote from within. If Casas and Downs are the future AND close to being ready, I am content to wait. Maybe they are here sometime next year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 14, 2020 18:18:16 GMT -5
I'm still going with Munoz > Arroyo but I like them both. I also think Seabold will be in the rotation after April 16th and will have a #3ish career.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Sept 17, 2020 6:09:09 GMT -5
Yes. JBJ Joc Pederson 1B/OF
Trevor Bauer Keone Kela
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Sept 17, 2020 6:40:05 GMT -5
Yes. JBJ Joc Pederson 1B/OF Trevor Bauer Keone Kela LeMahieu is obviously the better player but I will say I’ve liked what I’ve seen from Munoz, and Arroyo has looked decent, and still hoping for Chavis to be better. I wonder what LeMahieu’s price tag will be. If Joc can play first base as that would be great though I don’t think the experiment went well in LA when he tried playing there.
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Sept 17, 2020 7:26:06 GMT -5
Yes. JBJ Joc Pederson 1B/OF Trevor Bauer Keone Kela Kela has been a big headache in Pittsburgh and Texas...talented guy but not sure I'd want him on the team at all or for more than a 1 year deal if at all. The again, you could say the same about Bauer and I'm all on board with him if he keeps to his word about seeking short term deals.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 17, 2020 9:03:26 GMT -5
Why the poor thread rename ?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2020 9:40:47 GMT -5
Is it just me or is anybody else concerned that Munoz hasn't drawn even one walk in his 40 something ABs?
I know that's just pesky details when a guy is hitting .350 something with an OPS just around .900, but it seems to me that if he doesn't hit for a really strong BA, his OBP won't be that good, so that if he hits .280 that's maybe a .300 - .310 OBP? The odds are with a lot more ABs, he won't be a .350 hitter.
For a utility guy that's fine if he's a .280 hitter hitter with a .300 - .310 OBP, but it doesn't make me think Munoz is even a temporary answer at 2b as a regular.
Certainly though, he'd be a primary bench guy for the 2021 team.
I guess it's just been such a year, that we're celebrating anybody that's even good enough to be a legit utility guy.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 17, 2020 9:47:10 GMT -5
Is it just me or is anybody else concerned that Munoz hasn't drawn even one walk in his 40 something ABs? I know that's just pesky details when a guy is hitting .350 something with an OPS just around .900, but it seems to me that if he doesn't hit for a really strong BA, his OBP won't be that good, so that if he hits .280 that's maybe a .300 - .310 OBP? The odds are with a lot more ABs, he won't be a .350 hitter. For a utility guy that's fine if he's a .280 hitter hitter with a .300 - .310 OBP, but it doesn't make me think Munoz is even a temporary answer at 2b as a regular. Certainly though, he'd be a primary bench guy for the 2021 team. I guess it's just been such a year, that we're celebrating anybody that's even good enough to be a legit utility guy. Not when he's rocking a .186 ISO. I'll bet next spring he's in direct competition with Benintendi for the starting LF job even before considering 2B.
|
|
|
Post by bellhorndingers21 on Sept 17, 2020 10:01:41 GMT -5
I wonder if the Rockies IFA money could be used as a trade chip? Every year it seems there is a flurry of trades of guys who won't make their respective clubs 40 man roster. Even though Boston will have a higher slot to claim players I wonder if Bloom would use this to grab players he likes before they go on the waiver wire.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 17, 2020 10:08:08 GMT -5
I can't remember ever thinking the Sox might trade away IFA money.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2020 10:14:56 GMT -5
Is it just me or is anybody else concerned that Munoz hasn't drawn even one walk in his 40 something ABs? I know that's just pesky details when a guy is hitting .350 something with an OPS just around .900, but it seems to me that if he doesn't hit for a really strong BA, his OBP won't be that good, so that if he hits .280 that's maybe a .300 - .310 OBP? The odds are with a lot more ABs, he won't be a .350 hitter. For a utility guy that's fine if he's a .280 hitter hitter with a .300 - .310 OBP, but it doesn't make me think Munoz is even a temporary answer at 2b as a regular. Certainly though, he'd be a primary bench guy for the 2021 team. I guess it's just been such a year, that we're celebrating anybody that's even good enough to be a legit utility guy. Not when he's rocking a .186 ISO. I'll bet next spring he's in direct competition with Benintendi for the starting LF job even before considering 2B. That's great but we're talking 40 something ABs here. Conversely I'm not holding Benintendi's 40 something ABs against him. The real concern for me re: Benintendi is that he hasn't really hit well since the second half of 2018. That worries me more than the 40 ABs, although those 40 ABs didn't exactly make me feel better. I suspect that it's a distinct possibility that neither will be the regular LF in 2021. I would anticipate that the Red Sox acquire a regular LF with more thump. Again, I think Munoz winds up a primary utility guy, getting about 200 - 300 plate appearances, but I'd think they'll find a guy who can bop 25 to 30 homers as their LF next season. Duran is even a possibility although I would think he's more likely their CF by May of next year. Perhaps Munoz holds the fort until Duran is deemed ready.
|
|
|