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 Underwater Johnson on Dec 19, 2021 16:35:43 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 simply believe that Whitlock's upside as a starter is higher than Pivetta's and that Pivetta's upside as a closer is higher than his upside as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 19, 2021 17:28:13 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. Koji was definitely dumb luck. Cherington and Co., must've liked what they saw but they definitely didn't foresee what he became. Pap was more or less what I'm talking about with Pivetta although he didn't have as many starts in the big leagues. My recollection is that he was a promising starter in the minors (with maybe 3/4 upside) but fell in love with closing and he got his chance in Spring Training '06 after Foulke had been Pipped out of the job by Timiln at the end of '05. Didn't remember the Schilling angle.
I do remember that Pap remarked that he enjoyed finishing an extra inning game at the end of '05 that he entered in the 9th when it was tied (not unlike Pivetta's ALDS Game 3) and 16 years later that sticks in my memory as when he caught the closer bug.
I also remember Pap wanting to call a pitch he had been working on a "slutter" because it was between a slider and a cutter (but Theo told him to stop calling it that to the media).
Anyway, I'm not sure Pap was as "lucky" a situation for the team as Koji. They still had Foulke and Timlin in '06 but they made the decision to give Pap the job before the season started and he never looked back, so it seems like more of a good decision than luck. Same would go for Pivetta, if they pull the trigger...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 20, 2021 21:46:10 GMT -5
Papelbon was a closer in college, so it's not like MLB was his first experience closing.
But to be clear, he was "lucky" in the sense that they didn't go out and acquire one of the top 2 or 3 closers in the game - he was ready when Foulke fell apart, more or less.
And while I agree with the points made above about Koji regarding a potential Bloom strategy, I agree he's not necessarily indicative of that strategy. The book on Koji was that he was good but needed to be handled with kid gloves because he was 38 years old. The Red Sox had literally made two trades for Closers(TM), shipping out Melancon because he "couldn't handle Boston" for Hanrahan and sending Reddick to Oakland for Andrew Bailey. I'm not sure those are really indicative of a "spaghetti" approach so much as getting Hanrahan to be the reliable option in the back of the bullpen and Bailey as a high-injury-risk, high-reward potential 8th-inning/backup closer guy. When we had our bullpen listed at the start of the year, we had Uehara behind Aceves and Tazawa I think. He came absolutely out of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 14, 2022 15:21:49 GMT -5
This topic is getting a lot of play in the Jake Diekman thread.
Is there a way to open the poll back up or start a new one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 15:27:51 GMT -5
This topic is getting a lot of play in the Jake Diekman thread. Is there a way to open the poll back up or start a new one? Start a new thread with slightly different title might be the easiest way.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Mar 14, 2022 17:09:50 GMT -5
It seems premature. How much has changed? But why not wait to see what else the FO does? For all we know, they get an obvious closer. If not, why would the Barnes voters (I was one) shift now?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 14, 2022 20:20:25 GMT -5
It seems premature. How much has changed? But why not wait to see what else the FO does? For all we know, they get an obvious closer. If not, why would the Barnes voters (I was one) shift now? You're right. I was thinking the same thing once I looked at the options, most of which are still in play.
I just got excited that @vor started talking Pivetta up as the possible closer (and I know for a fact he didn't vote for Pivetta the first time around...).
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Mar 14, 2022 21:12:34 GMT -5
Bullpens are always up and down. Last year did anybody see Whitlock being one of our late inning relief arms? Bloom is just trying to throw as many darts at the wall and hoping a few stick, I don’t mind that approach at all.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Mar 15, 2022 2:19:28 GMT -5
Barnes for first half of year and then it is a tossup.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 13, 2022 16:12:43 GMT -5
Hansel Robles, anyone?
Hansel was the Angels closer in 2019 with 23 saves in 27 opportunities. (Fun fact: he was 3rd on LAA in bWAR for that year, ahead of Ohtani.)
He struggled in 2020 and was let go by the Angels after the season. The Twins picked him and he was handed their closer's job in May 2021, picking up 10 saves over the next three months, with some shaky outings sprinkled in, before Chaim acquired him for Alex Scherff (currently at AA Wichita).
He's had a chance to work with the Sox coaching staff the past 9 months and saved the day for the Sox today. Springboard to another closing gig?
EDIT: Looking deeper at the 2021 Twins, they signed Alex Colome to be their closer for $5m and he was so brutal in April that the job fell to Robles in May, who held it until the trade deadline (although he had some major hiccups as the deadline approached). MIN was long out of contention and Robles was dealt to the Sox, then Colome, who nobody wanted at the deadline, took the closer's role back and excelled in the last two months, going 15-for-18. And that's why Twins fans hate Alex Colome...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 13, 2022 16:38:56 GMT -5
Robles, Barnes, Diekman, Straham - whoever gets people out. Maybe Bello or Mata in August+. German, Kelly, Bazaro also maybe, but not closers.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 13, 2022 21:50:18 GMT -5
You forgot to put Eovaldi on there for dmaineah.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 20, 2022 21:42:03 GMT -5
I officially withdraw my Pivetta vote.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on May 5, 2022 9:59:08 GMT -5
Well, a month in (and too many blown saves to remember) it looks like we have a winner: It's Kenley Jansen! Congratulations to the three (out of 57) people who voted for KJ.
Jansen is 7/7 in save chances for the Braves... after a shaky debut in which he turned a 7-3 Braves lead into a 7-6 Braves win. (Imagine the gnashing of teeth in these pages if that had been his Sox debut!) After that, he went eight straight 9th inning appearances without allowing a hit (one walk), until he allowed a hit to the Mets while locking down his seventh save on Monday. Sounds deliriously delightful, doesn't it?
I was open to a Jansen signing but my enthusiasm for the fantasy of Nick Pivetta becoming the next Pap or Eck got the best of me and I voted for him. Strangely (in retrospect), the main thing that turned me off to Jansen was that I was averse to the idea of sinking so much money into one reliever. Periodically, I have to remind myself that it's not my money.
So the conventionally obvious move (but again, only 3 of 57 votes) of signing the most expensive and decorated closer on the market turned out to be the right one. Can we get a do-over?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on May 5, 2022 10:30:03 GMT -5
Well, a month in (and too many blown saves to remember) it looks like we have a winner: It's Kenley Jansen! Congratulations to the three (out of 57) people who voted for KJ. Jansen is 7/7 in save chances for the Braves... after a shaky debut in which he turned a 7-3 Braves lead into a 7-6 Braves win. (Imagine the gnashing of teeth in these pages if that had been his Sox debut!) After that, he went eight straight 9th inning appearances without allowing a hit (one walk), until he allowed a hit to the Mets while locking down his seventh save on Monday. Sounds deliriously delightful, doesn't it? I was open to a Jansen signing but my enthusiasm for the fantasy of Nick Pivetta becoming the next Pap or Eck got the best of me and I voted for him. Strangely (in retrospect), the main thing that turned me off to Jansen was that I was averse to the idea of sinking so much money into one reliever. Periodically, I have to remind myself that it's not my money. So the conventionally obvious move (but again, only 3 of 57 votes) of signing the most expensive and decorated closer on the market turned out to be the right one. Can we get a do-over? I guess the counterpoint is that they suck in ways Jensen couldn’t fix. So that is a lot to spend to be mediocre. I’d rather they got Freeman.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 5, 2022 10:50:11 GMT -5
Suppose they signed Jensen for $16 million (though it might have had to be more to out-bid the Braves). Assuming the budget is more or less fixed, what do you give up to get him? Forget the Story signing? Pass on both Paxton and Wacha?
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on May 5, 2022 11:37:33 GMT -5
I guess the counterpoint is that they suck in ways Jensen couldn’t fix. So that is a lot to spend to be mediocre. I’d rather they got Freeman. Spot on about not getting Jensen (or any expensive reliever) not being the issue with this team. Outside of last night, blown saves is not a regular issue for this team. There are no blown saves when you don't score enough runs to be in a save situation. I'm not sure I'd dump the money into Freeman either. I think we were just in a position this year that, unless we emptied the farm again, the Sox were not going to be very good. People forget that the starting pitching the first half of last year (and Barnes) was pitching way over their heads almost to a man. Without that happening again, and the law of regression to mean said it probably wasn't going to, this was going to be a tough year even if the offense was better than what we've seen so far. The one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that Matt Barnes should not be the closer at this point. I don't know why, but he seems like he's done.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on May 5, 2022 15:56:01 GMT -5
Suppose they signed Jensen for $16 million (though it might have had to be more to out-bid the Braves). Assuming the budget is more or less fixed, what do you give up to get him? Forget the Story signing? Pass on both Paxton and Wacha? Just spend $16m more of Henry's and Werner's money. Maybe could've even been 2/$30.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on May 5, 2022 16:04:32 GMT -5
I just went through all the games this season and found 5 blown saves that would've been wins if a real closer had closed them. In other words, the Sox record right now would be 15-10 instead of 10-15. They would be in second place, 2.5 games out. It's not that complicated.
Not sure how you can say that erasing a third of your losses with a single roster change doesn't address the issue.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 5, 2022 18:00:05 GMT -5
I guess the counterpoint is that they suck in ways Jensen couldn’t fix. So that is a lot to spend to be mediocre. I’d rather they got Freeman. Spot on about not getting Jensen (or any expensive reliever) not being the issue with this team. Outside of last night, blown saves is not a regular issue for this team. There are no blown saves when you don't score enough runs to be in a save situation. I'm not sure I'd dump the money into Freeman either. I think we were just in a position this year that, unless we emptied the farm again, the Sox were not going to be very good. People forget that the starting pitching the first half of last year (and Barnes) was pitching way over their heads almost to a man. Without that happening again, and the law of regression to mean said it probably wasn't going to, this was going to be a tough year even if the offense was better than what we've seen so far. The one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that Matt Barnes should not be the closer at this point. I don't know why, but he seems like he's done. Um, yeah it is. It's not the only issue certainly but it's a prominent issue, possibly the most prominent one. It wasn't just one night. The offense will be better. Eventually Story, Hernandez, and Verdugo will hit better. Add in Devers, X, and JDM, it's decent lineup although it's not as deep as others. But the Sox will continue to blow close games late and they're also 0-5 in extra innings. The bullpen is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 5, 2022 21:41:39 GMT -5
Suppose they signed Jensen for $16 million (though it might have had to be more to out-bid the Braves). Assuming the budget is more or less fixed, what do you give up to get him? Forget the Story signing? Pass on both Paxton and Wacha? Just spend $16m more of Henry's and Werner's money. Maybe could've even been 2/$30. Sure, fine, they could've signed every free agent on the market and had a $500 million payroll.
This is not a realistic argument. I just went through all the games this season and found 5 blown saves that would've been wins if a real closer had closed them. In other words, the Sox record right now would be 15-10 instead of 10-15. They would be in second place, 2.5 games out. It's not that complicated. Not sure how you can say that erasing a third of your losses with a single roster change doesn't address the issue. Sure, fine, Jensen would've been worth 5 wins in the first 1/7th of the season. He'd be on pace for 35 WPA or whatever. "It's not that complicated."
This is not a realistic argument.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on May 5, 2022 23:42:22 GMT -5
Turning a $15-16m contract into a $500m payroll is not a realistic argument. Closer was a huge question this off-season (and the impetus for some clever person to start a thread about it with a poll that attracted 57 responses). Jansen at $16m was a legitimate option for a big-market team with no CBT worries.
Jansen is 7/7 in saves and has already had a streak of 8 straight hitless outings. Would he have closed out all of the Sox save situations so far? Maybe not but I'd sure as hell take my chances compared with what we've had so far.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 6, 2022 0:36:56 GMT -5
Turning a $15-16m contract into a $500m payroll is not a realistic argument. Closer was a huge question this off-season (and the impetus for some clever person to start a thread about it with a poll that attracted 57 responses). Jansen at $16m was a legitimate option for a big-market team with no CBT worries. Jansen is 7/7 in saves and has already had a streak of 8 straight hitless outings. Would he have closed out all of the Sox save situations so far? Maybe not but I'd sure as hell take my chances compared with what we've had so far. Okay, to spell it out explicitly then... Presumably the Red Sox had some limits on the amount of money they were going to spend. Maybe it was the second CBT limit. Presuming that is the case, spending $15-20 million on a reliever comes with an opportunity cost - it's that much money they can't spend on the rest of the roster. So again, the question is: where else are you going to cut $15-20 million from?
And listen - if you legitimately think signing Jansen would have netted the team 5 wins in the first 25 games of the season, you should have no problem saying they should have passed on Story or Wacha or whatever to make that addition.
On the other hand, if money is no object in your hypothetical scenario, they could've just signed Eduardo Rodriguez or Kevin Gausman or Robbie Ray or whatever and then kept Whitlock in the bullpen. Problem solved.
As for Jansen*... He has a 2.70 ERA in 10 IP. The Red Sox bullpen coming into today had a 3.98 ERA. (Houck blew it up today, I guess, but I don't think Houck is what most people are ocmplaining about.) Replacing *generic Red Sox bullpen guy* with Jansen would have meant about 1 less run given up to this point this season. That's not nothing. But that's the scale of advantage we're talking about here. It doesn't turn a .400 baseball club into a .600 club.
(*very pleased with myself for finally figuring out it's 'Jansen' and not 'Jensen'.)
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on May 6, 2022 11:12:39 GMT -5
Turning a $15-16m contract into a $500m payroll is not a realistic argument. Closer was a huge question this off-season (and the impetus for some clever person to start a thread about it with a poll that attracted 57 responses). Jansen at $16m was a legitimate option for a big-market team with no CBT worries. Jansen is 7/7 in saves and has already had a streak of 8 straight hitless outings. Would he have closed out all of the Sox save situations so far? Maybe not but I'd sure as hell take my chances compared with what we've had so far. Okay, to spell it out explicitly then... Presumably the Red Sox had some limits on the amount of money they were going to spend. Maybe it was the second CBT limit. Presuming that is the case, spending $15-20 million on a reliever comes with an opportunity cost - it's that much money they can't spend on the rest of the roster. So again, the question is: where else are you going to cut $15-20 million from?
And listen - if you legitimately think signing Jansen would have netted the team 5 wins in the first 25 games of the season, you should have no problem saying they should have passed on Story or Wacha or whatever to make that addition.
On the other hand, if money is no object in your hypothetical scenario, they could've just signed Eduardo Rodriguez or Kevin Gausman or Robbie Ray or whatever and then kept Whitlock in the bullpen. Problem solved.
As for Jansen*... He has a 2.70 ERA in 10 IP. The Red Sox bullpen coming into today had a 3.98 ERA. (Houck blew it up today, I guess, but I don't think Houck is what most people are ocmplaining about.) Replacing *generic Red Sox bullpen guy* with Jansen would have meant about 1 less run given up to this point this season. That's not nothing. But that's the scale of advantage we're talking about here. It doesn't turn a .400 baseball club into a .600 club.
(*very pleased with myself for finally figuring out it's 'Jansen' and not 'Jensen'.)
C'mon, look at the game logs: He gave up three runs in his debut (luckily the Braves were up by 4) and then nothing in nine appearances since (all one-inning, 9th inning), including eight straight that were hitless.
But yes, I believe that the Sox should not be concerning themselves with the CBT. If they are (and I don't particularly believe that they are), then I'm putting the pox on FSG, not Chaim. At the same time, not worrying about the CBT for the next couple years is not the same as throwing stupid money around, willy-nilly. You still need to get value for money and Jansen looks like pretty good value right now, especially (in one of the many places) where the Sox itch. I would not have outbid DET for E-Rod, as Chaim chose not to; I didn't like paying Ray after an obvious outlier of a career year (no idea how Chaim felt); and I preferred Gausman to E-rod but don't know if I would've gone higher than TOR did (5/$110m)... and I definitely didn't foresee 41 Ks and 0 BBs in his first five starts.
Back to Jansen, I was interested but not adamant about him when he was available -- Jansen-curious, if you will -- but with 20/20 hindsight he was clearly the best option at closer, was still available after ST games had already started, and he would not have affected the team's ability to get under the CBT when the penalties become truly punative (2024-25?).
|
|
|
Post by briam on May 6, 2022 11:39:39 GMT -5
Turning a $15-16m contract into a $500m payroll is not a realistic argument. Closer was a huge question this off-season (and the impetus for some clever person to start a thread about it with a poll that attracted 57 responses). Jansen at $16m was a legitimate option for a big-market team with no CBT worries. Jansen is 7/7 in saves and has already had a streak of 8 straight hitless outings. Would he have closed out all of the Sox save situations so far? Maybe not but I'd sure as hell take my chances compared with what we've had so far. Okay, to spell it out explicitly then... Presumably the Red Sox had some limits on the amount of money they were going to spend. Maybe it was the second CBT limit. Presuming that is the case, spending $15-20 million on a reliever comes with an opportunity cost - it's that much money they can't spend on the rest of the roster. So again, the question is: where else are you going to cut $15-20 million from?
And listen - if you legitimately think signing Jansen would have netted the team 5 wins in the first 25 games of the season, you should have no problem saying they should have passed on Story or Wacha or whatever to make that addition.
On the other hand, if money is no object in your hypothetical scenario, they could've just signed Eduardo Rodriguez or Kevin Gausman or Robbie Ray or whatever and then kept Whitlock in the bullpen. Problem solved.
As for Jansen*... He has a 2.70 ERA in 10 IP. The Red Sox bullpen coming into today had a 3.98 ERA. (Houck blew it up today, I guess, but I don't think Houck is what most people are ocmplaining about.) Replacing *generic Red Sox bullpen guy* with Jansen would have meant about 1 less run given up to this point this season. That's not nothing. But that's the scale of advantage we're talking about here. It doesn't turn a .400 baseball club into a .600 club.
(*very pleased with myself for finally figuring out it's 'Jansen' and not 'Jensen'.)
Why is the assumption they would HAVE to shed that money to sign Kenley. According to fangraphs they’re roughly $14 million below the second CBT threshold, it’s not like they’re a repeat CBT team either and it’s been talked about repeatedly how much comes off the books this winter. I wasn’t even a fan of Kenley but the “oh they don’t have money” argument is hysterical for Fenway Sports Group.
|
|
|