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.
Who should be the Red Sox closer in 2022?
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 17, 2021 9:17:54 GMT -5
I'm starting to lean towards the thought of just leaving Whitlock in the pen as a multi inning guy. That can be just as valuable as him as a 4th or 5th starter. It's probably easier and cheaper to acquire another guy to be an option as a 4th/5th starter than it is to replace Whitlock and his late inning high leverage ability. Houck on the other hand has already gotten good results when used correctly as a 4-5 inning starter so I think they should keep him in rotation and see if he can take the next step, which is largely dependent on his splitter. I'll take a 2.97 era and 1.070 WHIP from a 5th starter who so far has averaged 4.7 innings per start. 4-5 inning starter are probably here to stay anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 17, 2021 14:49:03 GMT -5
There is a lot riding on that 26th roster spot, which is absolutely up for discussion as a negotiation point in the CBA. You cannot have 4 inning starters trending up more and more with a 25 man roster.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Dec 17, 2021 14:51:12 GMT -5
Where's "ask me once the lockout ends and we see who they sign?" Also, they are not "paying Barnes to close." He's making good setup man money. His contract is comparable to Treinen's. "Yes they are" unless Barnes forgot he was the closer when he signed the extension
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 17, 2021 21:41:09 GMT -5
I'm starting to lean towards the thought of just leaving Whitlock in the pen as a multi inning guy. That can be just as valuable as him as a 4th or 5th starter. It's probably easier and cheaper to acquire another guy to be an option as a 4th/5th starter than it is to replace Whitlock and his late inning high leverage ability. Houck on the other hand has already gotten good results when used correctly as a 4-5 inning starter so I think they should keep him in rotation and see if he can take the next step, which is largely dependent on his splitter. I'll take a 2.97 era and 1.070 WHIP from a 5th starter who so far has averaged 4.7 innings per start. 4-5 inning starter are probably here to stay anyway. I'd rather find out what Whitlock's ceiling is as a starter sooner than later, so I want him stretched out from Day 1 of Spring Training. The longer you keep him in the bullpen, the longer it takes for him to reach his full potential as a starter.
EDIT: Ditto Houck.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 18, 2021 1:01:16 GMT -5
For those wanting the big name reliever - checkout these two stat-lines from 2021, who would you rather have? I think it's a close call.
A: 7-8, 22 Saves, 8 Hold, 4 Blown Saves, 73.2 IP, 58 hits, 34 walks, 67 Ks (averaged 95.8 MPH on fastball) B: 3-5, 14 saves, 17 holds, 2 Blown Saves, 69 IP, 58 hits, 37 walks, 76 Ks (averaged 96.9 MPH on fastball)
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Dec 18, 2021 1:07:54 GMT -5
For those wanting the big name reliever - checkout these two stat-lines from 2021, who would you rather have? I think it's a close call. A: 7-8, 22 Saves, 8 Hold, 4 Blown Saves, 73.2 IP, 58 hits, 34 walks, 67 Ks (averaged 95.8 MPH on fastball) B: 3-5, 14 saves, 17 holds, 2 Blown Saves, 69 IP, 58 hits, 37 walks, 76 Ks (averaged 96.9 MPH on fastball) B, pending the reveal of my best buddy xERA
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 18, 2021 13:39:32 GMT -5
The answer is clearly Good Matt Barnes. The Red Sox think so. That's why they paid him. I'm not clear on why/how Good Matt Barnes turned into Bad Matt Barnes and if Good Matt Barnes can be resurrected on a reliable basis. GMB was as good as you could want as a closer. When BMB took over, the bullpen plan went up in flames.
Because I don't see CB ill-advisedly dropping serious coin on a Closer(TM), the second choice would be a Committee of some sort which would amount to a season long tryout of several of the arms mentioned in this thread as well as some surprises to us all. I believe CB will use the Tampa Bay Spaghetti Against the Wall Way of discovering effective relief arms on the cheap. Who knows where it will. I'll bet the list of potential relievers and closers hanging on CB's wall is dozens of names long.
My personal favorite for the closer job is Tanner Houck. His limited repertoire and elite effectiveness first time through a lineup make him ideally suited for the role. His arm seems rubbery enough to handle multiple day usage in a week. He also has a "lunch pail" attitude toward the work. He shows up every day, does the job asked of him, gives the boring Bull Durham interview -- "Just happy to help out the ballclub , blah, blah, blah," and goes about his way. Never too high or too low, memory of a Lasso goldfish. Perfect head for a closer. Cheap too.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 18, 2021 13:53:14 GMT -5
Whitlock and Pivetta would both be exceptional closers, but both are far more valuable as starters. Houck as a starter is a notch below them, imo.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 18, 2021 13:57:13 GMT -5
For those wanting the big name reliever - checkout these two stat-lines from 2021, who would you rather have? I think it's a close call. A: 7-8, 22 Saves, 8 Hold, 4 Blown Saves, 73.2 IP, 58 hits, 34 walks, 67 Ks (averaged 95.8 MPH on fastball) B: 3-5, 14 saves, 17 holds, 2 Blown Saves, 69 IP, 58 hits, 37 walks, 76 Ks (averaged 96.9 MPH on fastball) Player A gave up just five homers while Player B gave up 8, which pushes it pretty clearly to Player A I think. Also, Player A made less than half as much money as Player B in 2021. Also, too... Player A also has a .317 xwOBA and gave up 7.8% barrels while Player B has a .333 xwOBA and 11.2% barrels. Player B is also a year older. I don't think it's close. Player A walks too many guys and doesn't have a long enough record of consistency for me to trust him as a relief ace, but he was better and seems a good bet to continue to be.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 18, 2021 14:14:42 GMT -5
For those wanting the big name reliever - checkout these two stat-lines from 2021, who would you rather have? I think it's a close call. A: 7-8, 22 Saves, 8 Hold, 4 Blown Saves, 73.2 IP, 58 hits, 34 walks, 67 Ks (averaged 95.8 MPH on fastball) B: 3-5, 14 saves, 17 holds, 2 Blown Saves, 69 IP, 58 hits, 37 walks, 76 Ks (averaged 96.9 MPH on fastball) B, pending the reveal of my best buddy xERA B's xERA was 4.83 in 2021. A's was 4.27.
I got A on my first guess. Took 2 or 3 guesses to get B.
EDIT: I don't really want either as the closer but I can see where either could emerge if you were willing to work through the kinks.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 18, 2021 14:47:20 GMT -5
Whitlock and Pivetta would both be exceptional closers, but both are far more valuable as starters. Houck as a starter is a notch below them, imo. I want an exceptional closer.
'04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel
Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team.
I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 18, 2021 15:13:20 GMT -5
For those wanting the big name reliever - checkout these two stat-lines from 2021, who would you rather have? I think it's a close call. A: 7-8, 22 Saves, 8 Hold, 4 Blown Saves, 73.2 IP, 58 hits, 34 walks, 67 Ks (averaged 95.8 MPH on fastball) B: 3-5, 14 saves, 17 holds, 2 Blown Saves, 69 IP, 58 hits, 37 walks, 76 Ks (averaged 96.9 MPH on fastball) Player A gave up just five homers while Player B gave up 8, which pushes it pretty clearly to Player A I think. Also, Player A made less than half as much money as Player B in 2021. Also, too... Player A also has a .317 xwOBA and gave up 7.8% barrels while Player B has a .333 xwOBA and 11.2% barrels. Player B is also a year older. I don't think it's close. Player A walks too many guys and doesn't have a long enough record of consistency for me to trust him as a relief ace, but he was better and seems a good bet to continue to be. Player A had a career best 0.61 HR/9 last year, if we assume he goes back to his previous 1.03 HR/9 then he would project to have 8 HR - same as player B. The HRs were clearly an outlier from career norms. The difference of 30 or 31, in context of 'who should be the Red Sox closer in 2022' doesn't hold much weight as there's no sign of physical regression from either player and both should still be in the tail-end of their primes. But I'll give you that the barrel% & xwOBA favor player A - this was due to a stark exit velocity and hardhit% differences. Player B clearly was hit much harder in 2021 and that's enough of a concern that I agree player A should be given the slight edge. But player B makes much of that back with player A struggling in both fastball spin rate (13th percenntile) and chase rate (5th percentile) - which is quite alarming. If you could have either going forward, you clearly take the guy who's 1 year olderyounger and under team control for the next 3 years. But my point was that they project to be close enough (Steamer projects an edge of player B at 0.1 fWAR to 0.0 fWAR fwiw) that we shouldn't be wanting player A to be the closer (along with paying the acquisition costs) when we aren't even considering player B as a setup man; as he sits available as a free agent. For a short-inning mid-reliever on a short term deal, I would be happy with either one.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 18, 2021 15:33:01 GMT -5
Whitlock and Pivetta would both be exceptional closers, but both are far more valuable as starters. Houck as a starter is a notch below them, imo. I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Why do you think Pivetta will be an exceptional closer? He has 2 career saves and when Philly tried to convert him to a relief pitcher he struggled (.375 career wOBA as a reliever). He also has 3+ average-to-better pitches which he mixes well. Last season his .284 wOBA the second time through the lineup was actually better than the .307 wOBA his first time through the lineup. He's the exact type of pitcher who you don't want to convert to relief (unless you're piggy-backing). He struggles his third time through the lineup, but that goes for almost everyone on the Red Sox (and MLB really).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 18, 2021 16:07:52 GMT -5
I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Why do you think Pivetta will be an exceptional closer? He has 2 career saves and when Philly tried to convert him to a relief pitcher he struggled (.375 career wOBA as a reliever). He also has 3+ average-to-better pitches which he mixes well. Last season his .284 wOBA the second time through the lineup was actually better than the .307 wOBA his first time through the lineup. He's the exact type of pitcher who you don't want to convert to relief (unless you're piggy-backing). He struggles his third time through the lineup, but that goes for almost everyone on the Red Sox (and MLB really). Yeah, my estimate above was that there are 2 or 3 relief pitchers in the majors at any given time who can reliably be expected to perform at a Foulke/Papelbon/Koji/Kimbrel level. What are the odds that any particular middle-tier starter would be able to just jump into that role? Why don't most teams do this with their Pivetta equivalent? And I think most teams do have a Pivetta equivalent.
(Hope this isn't too much of an "as I previously stated" comment. I'm trying to cut back, I promise!)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 18, 2021 16:44:50 GMT -5
I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Why do you think Pivetta will be an exceptional closer? He has 2 career saves and when Philly tried to convert him to a relief pitcher he struggled (.375 career wOBA as a reliever). He also has 3+ average-to-better pitches which he mixes well. Last season his .284 wOBA the second time through the lineup was actually better than the .307 wOBA his first time through the lineup. He's the exact type of pitcher who you don't want to convert to relief (unless you're piggy-backing). He struggles his third time through the lineup, but that goes for almost everyone on the Red Sox (and MLB really). Chicken/egg? Did Pivetta struggle when they tried to convert him to a reliever, or was he struggling as a starter so they put him in the bullpen where he continued to struggle?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2021 16:48:20 GMT -5
Why do you think Pivetta will be an exceptional closer? He has 2 career saves and when Philly tried to convert him to a relief pitcher he struggled (.375 career wOBA as a reliever). He also has 3+ average-to-better pitches which he mixes well. Last season his .284 wOBA the second time through the lineup was actually better than the .307 wOBA his first time through the lineup. He's the exact type of pitcher who you don't want to convert to relief (unless you're piggy-backing). He struggles his third time through the lineup, but that goes for almost everyone on the Red Sox (and MLB really). Yeah, my estimate above was that there are 2 or 3 relief pitchers in the majors at any given time who can reliably be expected to perform at a Foulke/Papelbon/Koji/Kimbrel level. What are the odds that any particular middle-tier starter would be able to just jump into that role? Why don't most teams do this with their Pivetta equivalent? And I think most teams do have a Pivetta equivalent.
(Hope this isn't too much of an "as I previously stated" comment. I'm trying to cut back, I promise!)
We all want the next Andrew Miller or even Pomeranz, but Pivetta is much better as a starter than either was when they were converted. I'd stick with him as a starter for now. Best case scenario is having Darwinzon Hernandez cut his walk rate in half, because he has the best stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 18, 2021 16:54:43 GMT -5
I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Why do you think Pivetta will be an exceptional closer? He has 2 career saves and when Philly tried to convert him to a relief pitcher he struggled (.375 career wOBA as a reliever). He also has 3+ average-to-better pitches which he mixes well. Last season his .284 wOBA the second time through the lineup was actually better than the .307 wOBA his first time through the lineup. He's the exact type of pitcher who you don't want to convert to relief (unless you're piggy-backing). He struggles his third time through the lineup, but that goes for almost everyone on the Red Sox (and MLB really). Maybe for the same reasons that @orco thinks so?
He shows the kind of fire that I want in a closer. Loved him in Game 3 of the ALDS. He gets geeked up during starts sometimes too. I'm also not as sanguine on his 3+ average-to-better pitches. Fastball and curve, sure. Slider, not as much. Change, no. I think he's already near his ceiling as a starter.
I believe that in a SIRP role, his heater would play up (already averages close to 95) and he wouldn't have to throw his slider as much. I also don't think what happened in Philly means much. The whole world was wondering why he didn't have better results there, given his stuff. Credit to Chaim for targeting him.
Again, I don't expect it to happen but I think it would work. How it would come about is another matter... (add another starter, bypass Barnes, etc.). So I hope he takes another step forward in the rotation and proves me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 18, 2021 17:19:42 GMT -5
On the "value as starter vs. closer" question, what if you look at it the other way?
Say you took Josh Hader and put him in the rotation as your third starter and he gave you league-average numbers in 150 IP, instead of being a shut-down closer. Would that make the Brewers better?
I would say he's more valuable to them as a closer, largely because league-average 3rd starters are easier to replace than shut-down closers.
Obviously there's no guarantee Pivetta would become a shut-down closer but (at the risk of quoting myself from other threads) I think he has a higher ceiling there than in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 18, 2021 19:25:37 GMT -5
On the "value as starter vs. closer" question, what if you look at it the other way? Say you took Josh Hader and put him in the rotation as your third starter and he gave you league-average numbers in 150 IP, instead of being a shut-down closer. Would that make the Brewers better? I would say he's more valuable to them as a closer, largely because league-average 3rd starters are easier to replace than shut-down closers. Obviously there's no guarantee Pivetta would become a shut-down closer but (at the risk of quoting myself from other threads) I think he has a higher ceiling there than in the rotation. I'm going to overall disagree that a league average 3rd starter is harder to replace than a dominant closer but I also gotta ask. You said you wanted to see what Whitlocks ceiling is when I mentioned I think maybe his best role is the bullpen. So what do you think Whitlocks ceiling is because last year he was a dominant reliever. No he wasn't the closer but he was their best reliever.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 18, 2021 22:36:06 GMT -5
Whitlock and Pivetta would both be exceptional closers, but both are far more valuable as starters. Houck as a starter is a notch below them, imo. I want an exceptional closer.
'04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel
Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team.
I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
I think Houck would be an exceptional closer. Not as good as Koji, but as good or better than the other three. I don't think he'll be a better starter than Whitlock or Pivetta, at least not in 2022. Pivetta showed in the playoffs that he can indeed close big games. I don't think that energy level is sustainable during a season, especially when he's closing out a 7-4 June game in Minnesota.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 18, 2021 22:46:52 GMT -5
On the "value as starter vs. closer" question, what if you look at it the other way? Say you took Josh Hader and put him in the rotation as your third starter and he gave you league-average numbers in 150 IP, instead of being a shut-down closer. Would that make the Brewers better? I would say he's more valuable to them as a closer, largely because league-average 3rd starters are easier to replace than shut-down closers. Obviously there's no guarantee Pivetta would become a shut-down closer but (at the risk of quoting myself from other threads) I think he has a higher ceiling there than in the rotation. I'm going to overall disagree that a league average 3rd starter is harder to replace than a dominant closer but I also gotta ask. You said you wanted to see what Whitlocks ceiling is when I mentioned I think maybe his best role is the bullpen. So what do you think Whitlocks ceiling is because last year he was a dominant reliever. No he wasn't the closer but he was their best reliever. I would be shocked to see Whitlock in the bullpen next year. He was basically on a starter short leash last year. Yes, he was fantastic in relief last year, but he was essentially on a starter's schedule. He pitched every fourth day or so and never worked back to back games. He was essentially an opener except his one or two innings were strategically utilized in high leverage situations. So long as he has the arm strength, he will be starting.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 18, 2021 23:13:44 GMT -5
I'm going to overall disagree that a league average 3rd starter is harder to replace than a dominant closer but I also gotta ask. You said you wanted to see what Whitlocks ceiling is when I mentioned I think maybe his best role is the bullpen. So what do you think Whitlocks ceiling is because last year he was a dominant reliever. No he wasn't the closer but he was their best reliever. I would be shocked to see Whitlock in the bullpen next year. He was basically on a starter short leash last year. Yes, he was fantastic in relief last year, but he was essentially on a starter's schedule. He pitched every fourth day or so and never worked back to back games. He was essentially an opener except his one or two innings were strategically utilized in high leverage situations. So long as he has the arm strength, he will be starting. Perhaps, I wouldn't be surprised either way but he was also coming back from Tommy John so it makes sense they did their best to avoid using him too many days in a row so I don't know that we can look and say he was "basically a starter on a short leash." Personally I like Whitlock staying in the pen and being the guy they turn to in the highest leverage situations. That doesn't necessarily mean closer but he was a force out of the pen and hopefully with a full healthy season and offseason he can once again be a consistent force.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 19, 2021 1:00:36 GMT -5
With three plus pitches and a 6'5" 200lb frame, Whitlock is a starting pitcher fresh off the drawing board. Just as it does for Chris Sale, TJ slows his endurance development, not his potential. With a 5.7% walk rate and another season of recovery time from surgery, it is not unreasonable to expect Whitlock to pitch into the 6th inning and beyond in most starts next season. Such a starter is far more valuable than a closer with similar peripherals.
I agree that Whitlock's success and usage last year points to the value of having a bullpen Fireman/Stalker -- someone who can come into critical game situations in the 5th-8th innings and get 3-6 outs. Andrew Miller did this brilliantly for both the Sox and Orioles a decade ago. What's old is new again as bullpen usage is reinvented. This is a valuable role, but it doesn't have to be Whitlock's job. Others can fill it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 19, 2021 8:45:53 GMT -5
Whitlock and Pivetta would both be exceptional closers, but both are far more valuable as starters. Houck as a starter is a notch below them, imo. I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Here's the thing - look at how these guys became exceptional closers for the Red Sox. Foulke - Signed as a FA at age 31 to do exactly what we're discussing here. Papelbon - Team-controlled player who was in his second year as a shutdown reliever, able to do that in part due to the splitter Schilling taught him in spring training in 2006 I believe. Uehara - Entered the year as the club's 7th inning guy at best (and perhaps less - we had listed him fifth in the hierarchy entering the year) and only started closing after Joel Hanrahan and Andrew Bailey, both acquired by trade in what would become bad deals, were injured and ineffective. Kimbrel - acquired by trade to do exactly what he did. So in other words, they basically lucked into two of them, and the guys they thought would be in that role in 2013 are examples of how acquiring a closer can backfire. We'd all love to have a guy like that back there, but let's not act like we know precisely how to get that guy.
|
|
|
Post by orcoaster on Dec 19, 2021 11:01:40 GMT -5
I want an exceptional closer. '04 = Foulke '07 = Papelbon '13 = Koji '18 = Kimbrel Yes, Kimbrel gave us all ulcers in the '18 playoffs but he was a big part of the 108-win regular season team. I disagree that Pivetta is far more valuable as an average starter than as an exceptional closer. I don't expect him to be asked to close, so I hope he proves me wrong in the rotation.
Here's the thing - look at how these guys became exceptional closers for the Red Sox. Foulke - Signed as a FA at age 31 to do exactly what we're discussing here. Papelbon - Team-controlled player who was in his second year as a shutdown reliever, able to do that in part due to the splitter Schilling taught him in spring training in 2006 I believe. Uehara - Entered the year as the club's 7th inning guy at best (and perhaps less - we had listed him fifth in the hierarchy entering the year) and only started closing after Joel Hanrahan and Andrew Bailey, both acquired by trade in what would become bad deals, were injured and ineffective. Kimbrel - acquired by trade to do exactly what he did. So in other words, they basically lucked into two of them, and the guys they thought would be in that role in 2013 are examples of how acquiring a closer can backfire. We'd all love to have a guy like that back there, but let's not act like we know precisely how to get that guy. You could call it luck, or you could call it carefully calculated, strategic small bets on multiple targets with the expectation that one of them pans out. This seems to be CB's modus operandi. He'll acquire a bunch of inexpensive, high upside players, knowing that all them won't work out, but one or two of them will. This is how the team ended up with players like Cordero and Andriese in the first case, and Renfroe and Pivetta in the second case. I don't believe CB will use the "all the eggs in one basket" strategy that landed the team players like Foulke and Bailey in the past. It's not a reliable method because those players are so risky. The Papelbon method foretells what they could well do with Houck. That seems to be a reasonable, low risk, high upside option, especially if Houck is not needed in the rotation, say if Paxson establishes himself in the second half. The most likely method is the Koji Way -- spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. You never know how it will work out and you must have an open mind to all kinds of unexpected possibilities. CB and Cora have that mindset. They adapt their plans quickly according to how players are performing with little regard to salary or what a player had been expected to do back in spring training, a la Matt Barnes. Bottom line, I don't expect CB to spend big money for a big name closer. I suspect he thinks he can do better for much less money.
|
|
|