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.
Red Sox Sign Kenley Jansen (2 years, 32 million)
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 7, 2022 13:07:19 GMT -5
Incandenza, when I read this I almost burst out laughing and thought of you. I don't think you'd give 32 dollars for a closer, let alone 32 million. Can't imagine Bloom backers are thrilled with this burst of creativity, buy an established closer for big bucks. I'm on the fence on this one. I value closers with long track records but I can't honestly say I was clamoring for Jansen, although it does keep alive the tradition of obtaining guys who helped the Red Sox win the World Series, by playing on the other team. Lol I wouldn't have signed Jansen. I think the long ball might bite him a bit and I dont know if they get 2 good years out of him. My hope was that they'd sign Taylor Rogers, who'd be a lot cheaper and let either him or Schreiber close. And use that money to being back Eovaldi and obtain Senga. That said, I totally get why they got Jansen. It puts an end to closer roulette which has been unstable since Kimbrel left. Workman and Barnes each seized the role for a stretch but imploded badly and from night to night it wasn't obvious who Cira would use to close and the Red Sox let a lot if leads slip away in the 9th last year. I would have tried Schreiber because he has closed in the minors, pitches great last year, and I dont want to see him pitching multiple innings. I though Rodgers would give them a late lefty or potential closer option. But now Schreiber and Martin can set up in the 7th and 8th innings. They can start Houck if need be or trade him although I prefer him as a multi inning reliever than as a starter, but a stable hierarchy develops with Jansen's arrival....as long as he doesnt suck. So I don't love it but I get it. Is Taylor Rogers going to be a lot cheaper? I mean I like him too maybe at the same price even, but I don’t know how you can assume he’s going to be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxkc on Dec 7, 2022 13:10:15 GMT -5
1. 41 saves vs. 28 blown saves 2. It’s not your $$. Be happy they’re spending. 3. They’ll go over the tax 4. Needs: SP, Xander, RF, DH/1B ($70MM, less if trades) 5. Just added 3 RPs better than all but 2 of last years staff.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 7, 2022 13:11:55 GMT -5
Incandenza, when I read this I almost burst out laughing and thought of you. I don't think you'd give 32 dollars for a closer, let alone 32 million. Can't imagine Bloom backers are thrilled with this burst of creativity, buy an established closer for big bucks. I'm on the fence on this one. I value closers with long track records but I can't honestly say I was clamoring for Jansen, although it does keep alive the tradition of obtaining guys who helped the Red Sox win the World Series, by playing on the other team. Lol I wouldn't have signed Jansen. I think the long ball might bite him a bit and I dont know if they get 2 good years out of him. My hope was that they'd sign Taylor Rogers, who'd be a lot cheaper and let either him or Schreiber close. And use that money to being back Eovaldi and obtain Senga. That said, I totally get why they got Jansen. It puts an end to closer roulette which has been unstable since Kimbrel left. Workman and Barnes each seized the role for a stretch but imploded badly and from night to night it wasn't obvious who Cira would use to close and the Red Sox let a lot if leads slip away in the 9th last year. I would have tried Schreiber because he has closed in the minors, pitches great last year, and I dont want to see him pitching multiple innings. I though Rodgers would give them a late lefty or potential closer option. But now Schreiber and Martin can set up in the 7th and 8th innings. They can start Houck if need be or trade him although I prefer him as a multi inning reliever than as a starter, but a stable hierarchy develops with Jansen's arrival....as long as he doesnt suck. So I don't love it but I get it. Is Taylor Rogers going to be a lot cheaper? I mean I like him too maybe at the same price even, but I don’t know how you can assume he’s going to be cheaper. He might get 32 million but not over 2 years. He might get that over 3 years. He's good but doesnt have Jansen's resume to get 16 million per year.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 7, 2022 13:12:10 GMT -5
Incandenza, when I read this I almost burst out laughing and thought of you. I don't think you'd give 32 dollars for a closer, let alone 32 million. Can't imagine Bloom backers are thrilled with this burst of creativity, buy an established closer for big bucks. ... Yes, you predicted my reaction well! In general, almost all the usual Bloom fans are hating on this move, and several Bloom critics seem to like it. Goes to show very few here are either personal lickspittles or reactionary critics; folks just have different theories about team-building.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Dec 7, 2022 13:12:58 GMT -5
Incandenza, when I read this I almost burst out laughing and thought of you. I don't think you'd give 32 dollars for a closer, let alone 32 million. Can't imagine Bloom backers are thrilled with this burst of creativity, buy an established closer for big bucks. I'm on the fence on this one. I value closers with long track records but I can't honestly say I was clamoring for Jansen, although it does keep alive the tradition of obtaining guys who helped the Red Sox win the World Series, by playing on the other team. Lol I wouldn't have signed Jansen. I think the long ball might bite him a bit and I dont know if they get 2 good years out of him. My hope was that they'd sign Taylor Rogers, who'd be a lot cheaper and let either him or Schreiber close. And use that money to being back Eovaldi and obtain Senga. That said, I totally get why they got Jansen. It puts an end to closer roulette which has been unstable since Kimbrel left. Workman and Barnes each seized the role for a stretch but imploded badly and from night to night it wasn't obvious who Cira would use to close and the Red Sox let a lot if leads slip away in the 9th last year. I would have tried Schreiber because he has closed in the minors, pitches great last year, and I dont want to see him pitching multiple innings. I though Rodgers would give them a late lefty or potential closer option. But now Schreiber and Martin can set up in the 7th and 8th innings. They can start Houck if need be or trade him although I prefer him as a multi inning reliever than as a starter, but a stable hierarchy develops with Jansen's arrival....as long as he doesnt suck. So I don't love it but I get it. Is Taylor Rogers going to be a lot cheaper? I mean I like him too maybe at the same price even, but I don’t know how you can assume he’s going to be cheaper. Exactly RE: Rodgers. I see him getting a 3 or 4 year deal around the same annual price point.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 7, 2022 13:16:10 GMT -5
Well obviously I'm with the haters on this one. I think the best lipstick you can put on this pig is the theory some have mentioned that this is a backdoor way of increasing starter depth by letting both Houck and Whitlock start.
The problem is that that still depends on Jansen actually being good. That's like a 50/50 proposition. And if this is the move, I'd rather have done it with Taylor Rogers, among others.
As for the theory that this makes Houck expendable in a trade... well, there goes the starter depth after all, and they're probably back to needing to add another one.
Obviously you don't do this deal unless you think it's more like 80/ 20. Is it credible that they have reasons to believe this, that we don't know? I just cited one that I bet no one else here was thinking about. There could well be others.
Houck in a trade for a #2 starters from a non-contending team who has maybe 2 years of control left makes a lot of sense. (I am not going to see if such a guy exists!) And yes, in that scenario they sign Wacha or someone else from that tier of FA's.
Adding Houck to the rotation and adding one of the top 3 available FA starters also makes sense.
Looking at Jansen's season, he had two awful 7-game stretches in terms of results, from May 18 to May 31, and August 27 to September 11. FG has his WPA in those games as -2.66. In his other 51 appearances he was +3.68. I will probably look into his 2022 in more detail, even though I really shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 7, 2022 13:26:10 GMT -5
Well obviously I'm with the haters on this one. I think the best lipstick you can put on this pig is the theory some have mentioned that this is a backdoor way of increasing starter depth by letting both Houck and Whitlock start.
The problem is that that still depends on Jansen actually being good. That's like a 50/50 proposition. And if this is the move, I'd rather have done it with Taylor Rogers, among others.
As for the theory that this makes Houck expendable in a trade... well, there goes the starter depth after all, and they're probably back to needing to add another one.
Obviously you don't do this deal unless you think it's more like 80/ 20. Is it credible that they have reasons to believe this, that we don't know? I just cited one that I bet no one else here was thinking about. There could well be others.
Houck in a trade for a #2 starters from a non-contending team who has maybe 2 years of control left makes a lot of sense. (I am not going to see if such a guy exists!) And yes, in that scenario they sign Wacha or someone else from that tier of FA's.
Adding Houck to the rotation and adding one of the top 3 available FA starters also makes sense.
Looking at Jansen's season, he had two awful 7-game stretches in terms of results, from May 18 to May 31, and August 27 to September 11. FG has his WPA in those games as -2.66. In his other 51 appearances he was +3.68. I will probably look into his 2022 in more detail, even though I really shouldn't.
I don't think it's possible to be that justifiably confident in any reliever. In fact, just the fact that they signed two top-tier relievers in Martin ad Jansen suggests bet-hedging, if anything.
As for his "two awful 7-game stretches"... that just sounds like the way you describe any reliever who is mediocre. How did Brasier or Diekman look last year if you took out their two worst 7-game stretches, or some such cherry-picked "exception" to their overall performance?
|
|
|
Post by redsox3in10 on Dec 7, 2022 13:26:56 GMT -5
Ok, I wasn't expecting this, especially after the Martin signing. With that said, his numbers were still good (not great) last year - certainly better than what we put out there. And, as mentioned a few times, it's not my money.
He is still striking out more than a batter an inning, still has a WHIP near 1.000, and has only had a FIP over 3.48 and an ERA+ less than 1.21 once in his career (both 2018). His BB/9 in 2021 was too high, but it came back down last year. If there is anything concerning, it may be the bump in his fly balls and hard hit rates, but that may also have just been the change of parks. I hope so at least.
Ultimately, if this doesn't impact our ability to add three more key pieces (SS, RF and SP), then I'm fine with it. Just wish it was for a little less cash.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Dec 7, 2022 13:35:45 GMT -5
Not sure about this, I feel like he has been on the decline for a while. Never been nails in the post season. Is Bloom allergic to relievers under 30?
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,342
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2022 13:37:56 GMT -5
Not sure about this, I feel like he has been on the decline for a while. Never been nails in the post season. Is Bloom allergic to relievers under 30? It's not exactly common for good relievers under 30 to be free agents and trading for relievers can be a crapshoot. Generally you need to develop those guys which as we've seen they haven't done a good job recently.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Dec 7, 2022 13:39:45 GMT -5
I like the signing the only thing scares me he has one of the slowest tempos in the game 3rd on the list of relief pitchers. I hope he can adjust. Bases Empty – 19.2 seconds (4th slowest) Runners On – 24.6 seconds (3rd slowest) Time to Cut – 4.4 seconds This signing singlehandedly makes me grateful for the new pitch clock. Kenley makes Daisuke look like Mark Buehrle.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 7, 2022 13:40:21 GMT -5
I don’t know why people are so certain the Sox will not go over the tax limit this year. They are fully capable of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of going over the cap in 2023 and then deciding to go over. Oooof. I don't have that kind of faith. They just burned a year of tax exceedance and diminished their draft pick return for departing FAs to finish last. People may think I'm a hard grader but in my opinion that was an amateur hour kind of screwup.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 7, 2022 13:52:20 GMT -5
I feel like this fanbase could sleep with a bus full of supermodels and still have something to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 7, 2022 13:53:43 GMT -5
This is the first move from this FO that I have a completely negative gut reaction to. I see a few possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive: - The Sox really were losing out on all of their targets, were afraid they would end up with literally nobody, and did this. That would obviously be bad, although better than just sitting on the money
- There is a plan to deal existing cheap bullpen options (Schreiber, Mata, etc.) and they chose to spend FA $ on the 'pen so that they could bolster other areas via trade - I would like this a lot, but am doubtful any Sox relievers have that all that much trade value
- The FO felt they needed to further bolster the 'pen with a "proven" player and felt this was the best value - I will say I certainly prefer this to trading for a big-name high-leverage reliever
- They plan to win on the strength of their bullpen - It has happened before, but probably not a good bet
- Absent everything else, the Sox simply think this is a good/worthwhile signing - Obviously the simplest answer and ironically the one I would be the most upset with, as I think it is a massive overpay (not compared to the rest of the market, its fair in that sense, just in terms of what you are likely to get for the money)
Also, if he pitches well, Jansen probably could bring back quite a bit if dealt midseason either of the next 2 years, but I sincerely hope that's not the driving factor in signing someone for this kind of money. In favor of this deal, I will say, the downside is pretty-much limited to "Who are you not signing due to the money spent on Jansen?" - if the answer is effectively nobody, then at least the risk is pretty minimal compared to a lot of FAs.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 7, 2022 13:55:05 GMT -5
Robert Murray said the Sox beat out both the Giants and Blue Jays. Safe to say this wasn't a panic desperation move
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 7, 2022 13:55:29 GMT -5
I feel like this fanbase could sleep with a bus full of supermodels and still have something to complain about. My divorce fees?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2022 13:59:42 GMT -5
I feel like this fanbase could sleep with a bus full of supermodels and still have something to complain about. "It was great up until Kate Upton said Rick Porcello shouldn't have won the 2016 Cy Young"
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,824
|
Post by nomar on Dec 7, 2022 14:03:42 GMT -5
The bullpen loses Strahm and Whitlock and gains Jansen, Martin, and Rodriguez. Definitely coming out ahead, especially just by cutting out some of the dead weight the Sox were forced to use last year. Really have to hope Schreiber is real though. The next big W for the pen long term would be German being legit
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 7, 2022 14:22:50 GMT -5
I'd be fine with this if the Martin deal didn't happen but committing that much money with the rest of the holes on the roster feels, at the very least, premature. My exact feelings. Don't mind Jansen, give me the proven closer to set order to the bullpen. Yet you've now spent a lot of money on two older bullpen arms when you have a ton of needs.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 7, 2022 14:30:07 GMT -5
“He closed in the minors” is the “he comes from a good family” of closer compliments.
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Dec 7, 2022 16:31:07 GMT -5
This is a huge eyebrow raise for me. 16 million a year is a lot for any closer, and I’m not sure Jansen is a top 10 closer in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Dec 7, 2022 16:36:32 GMT -5
This is a huge eyebrow raise for me. 16 million a year is a lot for any closer, and I’m not sure Jansen is a top 10 closer in baseball. Who would be the 10 you'd have above him? I'm not crazy about the contract but to me he very easily clears this bar.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 7, 2022 16:37:07 GMT -5
“He closed in the minors” is the “he comes from a good family” of closer compliments. I know, lame, closing in the minors is nothing like closing in the majors. Point well taken. I guess I was trying to point out that he has experience coming into the game with no safety net from his minor league experience and based on what I sae of him last season he didn't strike me as a guy who would wilt if put into the pressure cooker of the 9th inning. I liked Schreiber in the shorter stints and didnt like it when Cora tried to stretch him even though I understood Cora's desperation. I dont know if Bloom is thrilled that he signed Jansen but I'm sure Cora must be the happiest guy on the Sox today, at least until Xander signs.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 7, 2022 16:37:33 GMT -5
I feel like this fanbase could sleep with a bus full of supermodels and still have something to complain about. "It was great up until Kate Upton said Rick Porcello shouldn't have won the 2016 Cy Young" She was... a little bit clearer than that. As for the Jansen signing, the team probably blew enough late-inning games last year to have at least threatened for a playoff spot. My gut feeling, and probably their data, is that they have to start by doing what they're doing: find some warm bodies and shuffle through them to find a viable bullpen combination.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 7, 2022 16:43:06 GMT -5
In a way this reminds me of when the Sox acquired Lee Smith, although that was a trade.
The Sox were getting a big time resume of a guy starting to decline but hoping to squeeze out a couple of good years, especially after the bullpen debacle of the previous season.
The 1987 bullpen was horrific and the thought was if they had a closer they'd stop blowing sp many damn games and it would impact them for the good in the standings.
It kind of worked. Smith wasn't spectacular. He'd pitch better with the Cardinals in the future, but he was solid and it benefitted Bob Stanley and Dennis Lamp as the chaotic pen of the year before formed a bit of a hierarchy.
It wasn't like Lee Smith was the reason why the Sox improved by 11 games, but it did help a bit.
Hopefully Jansen works out the same way.
|
|
|