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.
Craig Breslow hired as Chief Baseball Officer
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 26, 2024 13:58:37 GMT -5
I hear all that and yet I just can’t imagine an MLB front office being happy with their pitching depth and not wanting to sign one of the 1/10 guys at the least to improve it.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 13:59:36 GMT -5
I was trying to look at things from Breslow's perspective after reading this, and was ruminating on two things: 1. Short of murdering someone, Craig Breslow ain't getting fired after this year no matter what happens on the field. Cora might, but Breslow just came off an exhaustive GM search where a plethora of candidates were skittish at the idea of jumping on the "Boston Red Sox Chief Baseball Executive Carousel." So getting stop-gap veterans like you might normally look to get (example: Michael A Taylor instead of Rafaela, Whit Merrifield instead of Grissom, Michael Lorenzen instead of Tanner Houck, etc) is not something he has to worry about in terms of job security. 2. In addition to hoping that the upside of certain young guys takes what projects to be a 79-81 win team to being unexpectedly better than that, I kinda wonder if there's a benefit for Breslow to this crashing and burning as opposed to signing some random veterans to ensure you're at least .500. Breslow can go to John Henry and say, "Look, we tried seeing what we had with the internal guys - and it's no where close to good enough. Unless you want to wait a few years, you're going to have to spend." They won't be able to use "we didn't give X enough opportunities at the Major League level" as an excuse after 2024 if a lot of the question-mark-guys-with-upside that litter the roster just flat out suck. #1 I could buy. But #2 doesn't make much sense to me. For one thing, "hoping to be unexpectedly better than .500" and saying "look, we tried with the internal guys and they weren't nearly good enough" contradict each other. If the team is unexpectedly good then by this logic Henry really won't want to spend in the future!
The most generous read I can give to Breslow is that it was just a really weak free agent class, and the one quality guy who was an obvious fit for the Red Sox had such unyielding contract demands that he hasn't signed with anyone two days from opening day. Even on this generous read, though, Breslow plainly did fail on his own terms: he came in very publicly and explicitly saying that improving the rotation was the team's primary goal, and the net effect of this offseason has been to make the rotation weaker.
(Apropos not quite nothing... Both ZiPS DC and Steamer now project Imanaga to put up a hair more WAR than any of Snell, Montgomery, or Gray.)
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 26, 2024 14:27:18 GMT -5
I hear all that and yet I just can’t imagine an MLB front office being happy with their pitching depth and not wanting to sign one of the 1/10 guys at the least to improve it. The market for mediocre SP was a little bit frothy this year.
I get why they might not want to give Jack Flaherty 1/14 as a guy who projects to be a 1.5 WAR player if he's in the rotation all year when that makes him like the 7th best starter on the team (before Giolito went down..). How many actual wins is that adding if you do the whole chain reaction analysis of him moving someone to the pen, and some relievers getting lower leverage innings etc? Like maybe .75? You can do that move if you're just filling up a budget to the luxury tax line, but maybe not if you're trying to impress your boss how much you know the value of a dollar.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 14:43:05 GMT -5
I hear all that and yet I just can’t imagine an MLB front office being happy with their pitching depth and not wanting to sign one of the 1/10 guys at the least to improve it. The market for mediocre SP was a little bit frothy this year.
I get why they might not want to give Jack Flaherty 1/14 as a guy who projects to be a 1.5 WAR player if he's in the rotation all year when that makes him like the 7th best starter on the team (before Giolito went down..). How many actual wins is that adding if you do the whole chain reaction analysis of him moving someone to the pen, and some relievers getting lower leverage innings etc? Like maybe .75? You can do that move if you're just filling up a budget to the luxury tax line, but maybe not if you're trying to impress your boss how much you know the value of a dollar.
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 26, 2024 14:57:56 GMT -5
The market for mediocre SP was a little bit frothy this year.
I get why they might not want to give Jack Flaherty 1/14 as a guy who projects to be a 1.5 WAR player if he's in the rotation all year when that makes him like the 7th best starter on the team (before Giolito went down..). How many actual wins is that adding if you do the whole chain reaction analysis of him moving someone to the pen, and some relievers getting lower leverage innings etc? Like maybe .75? You can do that move if you're just filling up a budget to the luxury tax line, but maybe not if you're trying to impress your boss how much you know the value of a dollar.
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
Here's the argument against all of them. You want to see what you have in Crawford, Whitlock and Houck IN the rotation. If you sign those guys, you don't answer those three questions. You don't have to agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 26, 2024 14:58:28 GMT -5
The IP on those projections are crazy high. A bunch of old and injured players throwing the most they have in years.
I would like the Imanaga deal still. Paxton at the time sounded good but he's clearly still injured and the Sox knew what was going on with him the best of anyone. Meh on the rest. I mean I'd like it if we had one of them instead of Chase Anderson, but I get why we don't.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 15:07:30 GMT -5
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
Here's the argument against all of them. You want to see what you have in Crawford, Whitlock and Houck IN the rotation. If you sign those guys, you don't answer those three questions. You don't have to agree with it. Just as so many people were saying at the beginning of the offseason: "hopefully they'll enter the season with one fewer starting pitcher than they have now because I really want to see Houck and Whitlock both guaranteed spots in the rotation."
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 26, 2024 15:18:16 GMT -5
Here's the argument against all of them. You want to see what you have in Crawford, Whitlock and Houck IN the rotation. If you sign those guys, you don't answer those three questions. You don't have to agree with it. Just as so many people were saying at the beginning of the offseason: "hopefully they'll enter the season with one fewer starting pitcher than they have now because I really want to see Houck and Whitlock both guaranteed spots in the rotation." I'm looking forward to seeing what they both have. Excited about it. I'm not excited about retreads and aging veterans - I've seen enough of those since 2020. If you can't get excited about Whitlock's start yesterday, than I don't know what to tell you. But I will tell you this; if he has a fantastic season (or if Houck or both of them do), I don't give two craps what anyone was saying at the beginning of the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 26, 2024 15:22:01 GMT -5
Here's the argument against all of them. You want to see what you have in Crawford, Whitlock and Houck IN the rotation. If you sign those guys, you don't answer those three questions. You don't have to agree with it. Just as so many people were saying at the beginning of the offseason: "hopefully they'll enter the season with one fewer starting pitcher than they have now because I really want to see Houck and Whitlock both guaranteed spots in the rotation." I think many of us would have wanted them to add a top-line starter, but failing that I'm on board with seeing what the young guys can do rather than signing most of the guys on your list. I would have been thrilled to sign Imanaga for that price back in October, but given the relative lack of interest in Imanaga teams clearly don't buy the hype, so I've dismounted that hype train. I'd have taken Paxton on his current deal, but I read that he was specifically looking for a deal on the west coast. Everyone else I just outright wouldn't want.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 26, 2024 15:31:28 GMT -5
I fail to see how any of the SPs listed by Incandenza other than Stroman and Imanga would be guaranteed a SP role with this team if they had signed. It still would have led to plenty of starts for Whitlock/Houck/Crawford if they show they are worthy of the starts. It's a question of depth with this rotation to me, what is the rotation going to look like if 2-3 of them get hurt at the same time? It could get ugly quick, but I guess you can say that about most rotations around the league.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 26, 2024 15:42:29 GMT -5
I fail to see how any of the SPs listed by Incandenza other than Stroman and Imanga would be guaranteed a SP role with this team if they had signed. It still would have led to plenty of starts for Whitlock/Houck/Crawford if they show they are worthy of the starts. It's a question of depth with this rotation to me, what is the rotation going to look like if 2-3 of them get hurt at the same time? It could get ugly quick, but I guess you can say that about most rotations around the league. Which of the SPs on that list would have signed without a guaranteed SP spot, though?
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 26, 2024 15:43:08 GMT -5
The market for mediocre SP was a little bit frothy this year.
I get why they might not want to give Jack Flaherty 1/14 as a guy who projects to be a 1.5 WAR player if he's in the rotation all year when that makes him like the 7th best starter on the team (before Giolito went down..). How many actual wins is that adding if you do the whole chain reaction analysis of him moving someone to the pen, and some relievers getting lower leverage innings etc? Like maybe .75? You can do that move if you're just filling up a budget to the luxury tax line, but maybe not if you're trying to impress your boss how much you know the value of a dollar.
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
How many of those guys project to be better than Garrett Whitlock and Tanner Houck on a per-inning basis? How many of them have signed on to be sixth/seventh starters? I’m pretty sure Imanaga is the only one who meets the former criterion.I don’t think the likes of Kyle Gibson or Lance Lynn make much sense for this team, and I don’t think the likes of Severino or Montas are more attractive options than Houck or Whitlock. I would love to have Sean Manaea coming out of the bullpen, ready to move to the rotation after the next injury. I’d imagine Sean Manaea would rather be in the middle of the Mets’ rotation. It’s a weird roster, and finding the right fit for a weird roster isn’t easy. Given Snell and Montgomery’s contract demands and Yamamoto’s inevitable destination, they probably picked the cleanest fit on the market in Giolito. The FG write up puts it best, I think. You don’t have to squint very hard to see five solid starters in this rotation, which is more than most teams, even very good ones, have. But without anybody at the top to anchor things, it’s also easy to see it unraveling pretty quickly—more mediocre starters doesn’t change that very much, though. And if they do find themselves in the middle of a playoff race and need one more back-end starter, they have plenty of 40ish prospects to flip for one.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 26, 2024 15:46:23 GMT -5
I fail to see how any of the SPs listed by Incandenza other than Stroman and Imanga would be guaranteed a SP role with this team if they had signed. It still would have led to plenty of starts for Whitlock/Houck/Crawford if they show they are worthy of the starts. It's a question of depth with this rotation to me, what is the rotation going to look like if 2-3 of them get hurt at the same time? It could get ugly quick, but I guess you can say that about most rotations around the league. Which of the SPs on that list would have signed without a guaranteed SP spot, though? That is a fair argument and probably none of them would have. So from that angle yes I agree the fit was probably hard to make but I disagree with the theoretical argument that signing just about any of those guys at their AAV wasn't worth doing if they would have agreed to come in and compete. Especially since they're sitting $24M under the LT.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 16:31:08 GMT -5
Just as so many people were saying at the beginning of the offseason: "hopefully they'll enter the season with one fewer starting pitcher than they have now because I really want to see Houck and Whitlock both guaranteed spots in the rotation." I'm looking forward to seeing what they both have. Excited about it. I'm not excited about retreads and aging veterans - I've seen enough of those since 2020. If you can't get excited about Whitlock's start yesterday, than I don't know what to tell you. But I will tell you this; if he has a fantastic season (or if Houck or both of them do), I don't give two craps what anyone was saying at the beginning of the offseason. Not only am I excited to see these guys, I am specifically high on Whitlock and Houck! What I am not excited about is watching a bunch of Cooper Criswell starts when someone inevitably gets injured.
Your argument is totally sensible in a world in which all five Red Sox starters are healthy for the entire season. But I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. And if an additional starter pushed Houck to the bullpen (where he'd be a dynamic weapon) until that first injury hits, I would consider that an acceptable price to pay to avoid the kind of collapse of pitching depth the team suffered through in 2022, and to some extent in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 26, 2024 18:00:33 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing what they both have. Excited about it. I'm not excited about retreads and aging veterans - I've seen enough of those since 2020. If you can't get excited about Whitlock's start yesterday, than I don't know what to tell you. But I will tell you this; if he has a fantastic season (or if Houck or both of them do), I don't give two craps what anyone was saying at the beginning of the offseason. Not only am I excited to see these guys, I am specifically high on Whitlock and Houck! What I am not excited about is watching a bunch of Cooper Criswell starts when someone inevitably gets injured.
Your argument is totally sensible in a world in which all five Red Sox starters are healthy for the entire season. But I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. And if an additional starter pushed Houck to the bullpen (where he'd be a dynamic weapon) until that first injury hits, I would consider that an acceptable price to pay to avoid the kind of collapse of pitching depth the team suffered through in 2022, and to some extent in 2023.
I think the next time Houck goes to the pen it'll end up being permanent regardless of if he's good enough to be in the rotation. I can't think of many success stories that alternate years in the rotation and pen and not being stretched out means he'll never have a real shot to overcome the 3rd time through the lineup knock against him. Last year when he finally got a consistent chance to start he was coming off back surgery and still got good peripherals despite bad results until he took a line drive to the face after which he had a rough all around second half but recovered enough to end the year throwing 6 no-hit innings against the Os. If/when there are injuries (or if we're in contention and need a TOR arm) we can still trade for someone or grab someone off waivers if Criswell/Walter/Fitts don't look ready
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 26, 2024 18:19:43 GMT -5
I think another thing that hasn't come up is that Breslow/Bailey almost certainly knew way less about the existing staff before getting here, its entirely possible they came in with the assumption that there were only 2-3 guys that belonged in the rotation only to re-evaluate once they lost out on YY and decide that the internal options as more likely to provide upside or surplus value than Monty on the 7/175 contract he wanted. As his asking price has come down they've had more time to work with what they have and all of Whitlock/Houck/Crawford (and arguably Criswell) have shown rotation caliber stuff this Spring.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 26, 2024 18:22:38 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing what they both have. Excited about it. I'm not excited about retreads and aging veterans - I've seen enough of those since 2020. If you can't get excited about Whitlock's start yesterday, than I don't know what to tell you. But I will tell you this; if he has a fantastic season (or if Houck or both of them do), I don't give two craps what anyone was saying at the beginning of the offseason. Not only am I excited to see these guys, I am specifically high on Whitlock and Houck! What I am not excited about is watching a bunch of Cooper Criswell starts when someone inevitably gets injured.
Your argument is totally sensible in a world in which all five Red Sox starters are healthy for the entire season. But I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. And if an additional starter pushed Houck to the bullpen (where he'd be a dynamic weapon) until that first injury hits, I would consider that an acceptable price to pay to avoid the kind of collapse of pitching depth the team suffered through in 2022, and to some extent in 2023.
Realistically, what’s the difference between relying on Cooper Criswell for 60 innings of spot start duty compared to 60 innings of Luis Severino or Sean Manaea? 5 runs? ZiPS suggests it’s closer to 1 or 2 runs. Realistically, you’re talking about replacing Chase Anderson as the 8th starter on the depth chart. You’re probably not even looking at a 1-win difference here. If that’s what kills the season, then the guys at the top of the roster who we’re excited about probably had disappointing seasons, which would be what actually killed the season. And if they need much more than that out of Criswell, then significant injuries to multiple starters, including their preseason number 1, probably killed the season. It is what it is, more guys who aren’t particularly good isn’t going to solve the glaring issue with the pitching staff, which is the lack of a true number 1.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 26, 2024 18:43:11 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing what they both have. Excited about it. I'm not excited about retreads and aging veterans - I've seen enough of those since 2020. If you can't get excited about Whitlock's start yesterday, than I don't know what to tell you. But I will tell you this; if he has a fantastic season (or if Houck or both of them do), I don't give two craps what anyone was saying at the beginning of the offseason. Not only am I excited to see these guys, I am specifically high on Whitlock and Houck! What I am not excited about is watching a bunch of Cooper Criswell starts when someone inevitably gets injured.
Your argument is totally sensible in a world in which all five Red Sox starters are healthy for the entire season. But I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. And if an additional starter pushed Houck to the bullpen (where he'd be a dynamic weapon) until that first injury hits, I would consider that an acceptable price to pay to avoid the kind of collapse of pitching depth the team suffered through in 2022, and to some extent in 2023.
If you were specifically high on Whitlock and Houck, you'd want to see what they can do as a starter for a whole year, not moonlighting as swingmen at 27 and 24 years of age. "I'm very specifically high on both of you, but I think everyone agrees you'd be better off NOT in the rotation".
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 19:14:33 GMT -5
My last comment on this is just a general big-picture reply to all the objections: I do not think primarily in terms of "roles," like "is this guy a starter or a reliever." I start from the question: where are the innings going to come from? Adding a mid-tier free agent starter ultimately takes innings away not so much from Houck or Whitlock as from Criswell, Bernardino, Anderson, and whoever else is shuffling around at the margins of the pitching staff.
As it is, even with another pitching addition at least one of Whitlock or Houck would be guaranteed a starting role throughout the entire season. If it is desperately important for them both to be guaranteed a starter's role for the entire season then the team should have either committed to a 6-man rotation (which would last until the inevitable injury) or perhaps invested in more relief pitching, since neither Whitlock nor Houck will be available to bolster the bullpen.
And if their real problem is a lack of a #1, well, that's something they can't fix at this point. The next best option would be to try to make up in depth what they lack in strength. Instead they're apparently just going to hope everyone stays healthy all season long.
And but listen, I'm not gonna lose *that* much sleep over how much better this team could have been if only they had signed Kenta Maeda or whatever. It just seems like a weird unnecessary risk to go into the season with such a shallow pitching roster for a team that is right on the cusp of competing for a playoff spot. It may amount to "only" a win or so, but that one win could make a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 26, 2024 19:40:25 GMT -5
If you were specifically high on Whitlock and Houck, you'd want to see what they can do as a starter for a whole year, not moonlighting as swingmen at 27 and 24 years of age. "I'm very specifically high on both of you, but I think everyone agrees you'd be better off NOT in the rotation". Ironically, that was the plan before Giolito got hurt though - one of Houck and Whitlock would have been in the bullpen by now if things went as they envisioned. At one point in spring training, there was buzz by the beat guys it would be Houck - meaning the exhibition gem by Whitlock in Texas last night might not have happened… To clarify a point I may have inartfully made that jumpstarted this dialogue - I just wonder payroll issues aside if after Giolito went down Breslow just wasn’t interested in any half measures. (Cue Mike Ehrmantraut.) The Sox have had some intriguing guys that they’ve used as a crutch not to spend - but not just this off-season. Like in 2022 they went out and signed Wacha/Rich Hill and never spoke to Kevin Gausman - and part of that at the time was the team wanting there to be a runway for Whitlock and Houck to be starters. Only, they hedged because of their inexperience and ended up shifting them constantly between roles that may have led to injuries. I can imagine the last thing Breslow wants to do is sign Mike Clevinger for 130 meh innings only for John Henry to get skittish signing big money pitchers 8 months from, and now he has to have this same conversation about Houck or Whitlock because he didn’t get a definitive answer about them starting now. Signing one of the random cheap vets is a half measure - signing Jordan Montgomery or committing to those two dudes is going all the way. (You can also apply this logic to some of their young outfielders.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 26, 2024 20:04:12 GMT -5
The market for mediocre SP was a little bit frothy this year.
I get why they might not want to give Jack Flaherty 1/14 as a guy who projects to be a 1.5 WAR player if he's in the rotation all year when that makes him like the 7th best starter on the team (before Giolito went down..). How many actual wins is that adding if you do the whole chain reaction analysis of him moving someone to the pen, and some relievers getting lower leverage innings etc? Like maybe .75? You can do that move if you're just filling up a budget to the luxury tax line, but maybe not if you're trying to impress your boss how much you know the value of a dollar.
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
I think the argument against all of them is… you don’t *get* all of them. So you have to pick one and be right. Which is it? Because it is highly likely some will be wrong. I am very happy with Breslow. He made good trades, dumped two guys they needed to dump, and didn’t try to jive us with dumpster diving. No way he was turning what he inherited into a legit contender this season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 26, 2024 20:08:53 GMT -5
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
I think the argument against all of them is… you don’t *get* all of them. So you have to pick one and be right. Which is it? Because it is highly likely some will be wrong. I am very happy with Breslow. He made good trades, dumped two guys they needed to dump, and didn’t try to jive us with dumpster diving. No way he was turning what he inherited into a legit contender this season. Didn't you predict they'll win 87 games?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 26, 2024 20:13:55 GMT -5
Here are some free agent pitchers with their fangraphs WAR projection and the AAV they signed for:
Stroman 2.2/18.5 Montas 2.1/16 Manaea 1.9/14 Imanaga 3.2/13.25 Gibson 2.0/13 Severino 1.6/13 Maeda 2.1/12 Hicks 1.9/11 Lynn 2.1/11 Mahle 0.6*/11 Paxton 1.8/7
Doesn't really look all that frothy to me. Just doing a crude $/WAR calculation, every one of these guys is a bargain. (Mahle's a special case.) You can certainly make an argument against any of them. But how can you make an argument against all of them?
I think the argument against all of them is… you don’t *get* all of them. So you have to pick one and be right. Which is it? Because it is highly likely some will be wrong. I am very happy with Breslow. He made good trades, dumped two guys they needed to dump, and didn’t try to jive us with dumpster diving. No way he was turning what he inherited into a legit contender this season. All the guys Incandeza listed signed prior to Febtruary 1st. We found out Giolito was hurt March 1st. Both Whitlock and Houck would have been in the pen from day 1. Which means no breakout game against Texas, but I'm sure as soon as he moved into the rotation after Maeda's or whoevers season ending injury in May he would just take off with the same results.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 26, 2024 20:17:38 GMT -5
I think the argument against all of them is… you don’t *get* all of them. So you have to pick one and be right. Which is it? Because it is highly likely some will be wrong. I am very happy with Breslow. He made good trades, dumped two guys they needed to dump, and didn’t try to jive us with dumpster diving. No way he was turning what he inherited into a legit contender this season. Didn't you predict they'll win 87 games? So are you saying the Red Sox would be a legit contender if they only had Kenta Maeda?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 26, 2024 20:22:58 GMT -5
I think the argument against all of them is… you don’t *get* all of them. So you have to pick one and be right. Which is it? Because it is highly likely some will be wrong. I am very happy with Breslow. He made good trades, dumped two guys they needed to dump, and didn’t try to jive us with dumpster diving. No way he was turning what he inherited into a legit contender this season. Didn't you predict they'll win 87 games? Optimistically. But I don’t think, say, subbing Stroman in and moving Whitlock to the pen increases it.
|
|
|