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.
Closer for the rest of 2013 (and 2014?)
|
Post by bassman on Jun 25, 2013 8:44:36 GMT -5
We've all seen the car accidents that happen when we give up prospects for a 30 something guy who has had some good innings in some almost empty stadium somewhere; the poor slob we get almost never records an out and the players we give up end up either as good chips in a better deal or being serviceable players. I want to try and fix the pen without alerting the roster so why not Dempster? He has a good makeup, prior experience, great K's and it would open a slot in the rotation for somebody we are trying to develop (De la Rosa, Webster). Besides, limiting Dempsters innings may produce better results.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jun 25, 2013 8:59:22 GMT -5
There's no guarantee a relief acquisition won't start sucking immediately or in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 25, 2013 10:40:03 GMT -5
We've all seen the car accidents that happen when we give up prospects for a 30 something guy who has had some good innings in some almost empty stadium somewhere; the poor slob we get almost never records an out and the players we give up end up either as good chips in a better deal or being serviceable players. I want to try and fix the pen without alerting the roster so why not Dempster? He has a good makeup, prior experience, great K's and it would open a slot in the rotation for somebody we are trying to develop (De la Rosa, Webster). Besides, limiting Dempsters innings may produce better results. Dempster is maybe the second best starter in the rotation right now, and will probably continue to be until Buchholz gets healthy. Meanwhile, Uehara has been lights-out all season and will probably settle into the closer role for the foreseeable future. Tazawa and Miller have been mostly excellent all season and slot nicely into the setup role, while Breslow has been solid and Bailey could get his mojo back and work his way back into the high-leverage innings mix. Yes, the Red Sox could probably use another reliable bullpen arm, especially to protect against unexpected injury or ineffectiveness. But so could just about any other contender, and the Red Sox probably have a better mix of back-end bullpen arms (Mortensen, Aceves, Wilson, Morales), potential late-season converts (De La Rosa, Webster, Britton, Workman), and AAAA-types (De La Torre, Beato, Rowland-Smith, Carter, Martin, Hernandez) than most teams. They certainly have enough depth to avoid having to shift one of their better starters into the closer role.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 25, 2013 12:55:09 GMT -5
K-Rod? His #'s have bounced back in a big way, though in a relatively SSS. I agree the Sox have been awful at trading for closers, but don't think they would have to give up a top prospect for Rodriguez, and will likely have to clear some space off of the 40 man before next year anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jun 25, 2013 15:55:35 GMT -5
It's ironic that what is holding back Rowland-Smith (other than the 40-man) is the fact that he's lefthanded and the sox already have 3 in Boston (before the Morales DL). It's uually a benefit to be lefthanded when trying to find a MLB job, but here it seems to be hurting RRS. Rowland-Smith has been lights out all year and has some MLB experience. He should get a shot one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 25, 2013 16:46:06 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in the right place but stupid if they try to trade for a closer because the team is not in contention for a World Series until this AWESOME next wave of prospects come up and if you sell those prospects off than there is no real point in the future because of how naturally uncertain the closer role is(ie. Joel Hanarhan gets 40 saves last year, Andrew Bailey is an all-star). This team right now is built to entertain the fans and get to the playoffs and try to make some noise but they wont win it all until they get the prospects into Boston. They are and should go to the bitter end with the team that they have now. Yes, please. I hate to see guys traded and do well as we try again and again with same process. Wasn't it fun with Lynn, Rice, Evans, Fisk, Cooper, Oglivie etc. ??
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 25, 2013 17:13:25 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in the right place but stupid if they try to trade for a closer because the team is not in contention for a World Series until this AWESOME next wave of prospects come up and if you sell those prospects off than there is no real point in the future because of how naturally uncertain the closer role is(ie. Joel Hanarhan gets 40 saves last year, Andrew Bailey is an all-star). This team right now is built to entertain the fans and get to the playoffs and try to make some noise but they wont win it all until they get the prospects into Boston. They are and should go to the bitter end with the team that they have now. Five of the last ten World Series winners had 92 wins or less. One of them had 83 wins. This isn't the NBA, any team that makes the playoffs is a World Series contender.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 25, 2013 17:34:56 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in the right place but stupid if they try to trade for a closer because the team is not in contention for a World Series until this AWESOME next wave of prospects come up and if you sell those prospects off than there is no real point in the future because of how naturally uncertain the closer role is(ie. Joel Hanarhan gets 40 saves last year, Andrew Bailey is an all-star). This team right now is built to entertain the fans and get to the playoffs and try to make some noise but they wont win it all until they get the prospects into Boston. They are and should go to the bitter end with the team that they have now. Please define "AWESOME" next group of prospects who will be MLB starting position players or starting pitchers. I see Boagerts, Bradley, maybe Cecchini if he can hit higher level pitching and a couple candidates who may peak as #3 pitchers. Bogaerts looks to be the only awesome-potential guy. Who am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jun 25, 2013 17:47:36 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in the right place but stupid if they try to trade for a closer because the team is not in contention for a World Series until this AWESOME next wave of prospects come up and if you sell those prospects off than there is no real point in the future because of how naturally uncertain the closer role is(ie. Joel Hanarhan gets 40 saves last year, Andrew Bailey is an all-star). This team right now is built to entertain the fans and get to the playoffs and try to make some noise but they wont win it all until they get the prospects into Boston. They are and should go to the bitter end with the team that they have now. Five of the last ten World Series winners had 92 wins or less. One of them had 83 wins. This isn't the NBA, any team that makes the playoffs is a World Series contender. With all of the questions on this team (Buchholz's health, Lester's performance, if Jose keeps going, the production of bench players that good teams need to have like Gomes and Ross (if you end up getting him back), the drop-off of Nava lately, Victorino's health, if Mike Napoli's hip falls apart, and the ebb and flow of Ellsbury) in combination with the strength of the AL East if they have a sub-500 month or any kind of bad stretch the rest of the division could easily knock them out of contention for even the second wild card. It doesn't make sense for the Sox to give up anyone who is in the next wave of prospects for someone who will help the team for maybe two years or not at all with the track record of closers since Pap. There are more internal options that the Sox could look to that would not require them risking part of their future like Workman or RDLR
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 25, 2013 17:53:47 GMT -5
Selling high is an underrated strategy with regards to prospects. Remember when Michael Bowden and Lars Anderson were untouchable? Trust your scouts-- if they're telling you that a guy is a reliever (Workman) or a second-division outfielder (Brentz) but another team values them more than that and are willing to give up players that materially improve the MLB team, it's stupid not to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 25, 2013 18:55:05 GMT -5
Selling high is an underrated strategy with regards to prospects. Remember when Michael Bowden and Lars Anderson were untouchable? Trust your scouts-- if they're telling you that a guy is a reliever (Workman) or a second-division outfielder (Brentz) but another team values them more than that and are willing to give up players that materially improve the MLB team, it's stupid not to consider it. This exactly. We all want these guys to succeed but the sad reality is very few become MLB regulars or better. The organizations tend to know their guys better than other teams. If other teams really believe Owens or Barnes will be a number 1 and your guys are saying 3s at best and someone is willing to give you an overpay and it fits your needs you gotta go there as a GM.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jun 25, 2013 19:15:30 GMT -5
Selling high is an underrated strategy with regards to prospects. Remember when Michael Bowden and Lars Anderson were untouchable? Trust your scouts-- if they're telling you that a guy is a reliever (Workman) or a second-division outfielder (Brentz) but another team values them more than that and are willing to give up players that materially improve the MLB team, it's stupid not to consider it. Like Eric Gagne? If you look at the World Series winners do trade acquisitions usually play a big roe? The Giants a couple years ago are the best example of them helping and those were veteran retread bullpen guys (Lopez and Ramirez). What's the last big time acquisition that led a team to a title? I'm all for trading guys when it makes sense. The options being bandied about make no sense. If Workman projects as a reliever that will be under team control for 7 years with 3 of those being years you can shuttle him for depth then why trade him for a rental reliever? By the way that's his projected floor with upside. Brentz is a different story because he's a free swinger with high bust potential.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jun 25, 2013 19:44:22 GMT -5
All I wanted from this year was for the team not to suck, they have achieved that already. If they find a good piece that doesn't cost too much then good. I'm not mortgaging the future for this year. 86 is not on the back of the franchise any more, those days are gone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 25, 2013 19:46:43 GMT -5
Selling high is an underrated strategy with regards to prospects. Remember when Michael Bowden and Lars Anderson were untouchable? Trust your scouts-- if they're telling you that a guy is a reliever (Workman) or a second-division outfielder (Brentz) but another team values them more than that and are willing to give up players that materially improve the MLB team, it's stupid not to consider it. This exactly. We all want these guys to succeed but the sad reality is very few become MLB regulars or better. The organizations tend to know their guys better than other teams. If other teams really believe Owens or Barnes will be a number 1 and your guys are saying 3s at best and someone is willing to give you an overpay and it fits your needs you gotta go there as a GM. Problem is that when we have great prospects, teams are going to be asking for them first.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jun 25, 2013 19:49:25 GMT -5
The Red Sox are in the right place but stupid if they try to trade for a closer because the team is not in contention for a World Series until this AWESOME next wave of prospects come up and if you sell those prospects off than there is no real point in the future because of how naturally uncertain the closer role is(ie. Joel Hanarhan gets 40 saves last year, Andrew Bailey is an all-star). This team right now is built to entertain the fans and get to the playoffs and try to make some noise but they wont win it all until they get the prospects into Boston. They are and should go to the bitter end with the team that they have now. Please define "AWESOME" next group of prospects who will be MLB starting position players or starting pitchers. I see Boagerts, Bradley, maybe Cecchini if he can hit higher level pitching and a couple candidates who may peak as #3 pitchers. Bogaerts looks to be the only awesome-potential guy. Who am I missing? I think that you are selling some of the prospects a little bit short because Webster, although young and still relatively inexperienced has the stuff to be a #2 guy if you watched you saw that he got 20 something swing-and-misses, either Ranaudo or Barnes still can be a #2 or 3, Workman and Britton can be a dominant guys in the Bullpen, and even Brentz who may not be "'AWESOME'" can still help a club hitting 245 with 20-25 homers albeit with 200 ks (Mike Napoli)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 25, 2013 20:20:26 GMT -5
No one here is more bullish on Workman or Britton than I've been, and I'd love all this to be true, but I think if a GM believes he is a player away from a legit shot at the World Series and that player costs you two or three of the prospects you named - essentially anyone BUT Xander Bogaerts -- you have to think very seriously about making that deal. Because, honestly, there is no other prospect in the system high A or above that projects - not best case scenario - but projects as a true difference maker/perennial All Star, including Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 25, 2013 20:45:56 GMT -5
Selling high is an underrated strategy with regards to prospects. Remember when Michael Bowden and Lars Anderson were untouchable? Trust your scouts-- if they're telling you that a guy is a reliever (Workman) or a second-division outfielder (Brentz) but another team values them more than that and are willing to give up players that materially improve the MLB team, it's stupid not to consider it. Like Eric Gagne? If you look at the World Series winners do trade acquisitions usually play a big roe? The Giants a couple years ago are the best example of them helping and those were veteran retread bullpen guys (Lopez and Ramirez). What's the last big time acquisition that led a team to a title? I'm all for trading guys when it makes sense. The options being bandied about make no sense. If Workman projects as a reliever that will be under team control for 7 years with 3 of those being years you can shuttle him for depth then why trade him for a rental reliever? By the way that's his projected floor with upside. Brentz is a different story because he's a free swinger with high bust potential. For the right reliever (dominant, little injury history, years of team control, not too expensive, etc.), I would absolutely consider trading Workman, even though I generally am loathe to give up value for a reliever. We can haggle about the specifics, but my point is that the "lets not trade ANY of our prospects, they're going to lead up to a World Series!" attitude is a silly way to think.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jun 25, 2013 20:53:58 GMT -5
Like Eric Gagne? If you look at the World Series winners do trade acquisitions usually play a big roe? The Giants a couple years ago are the best example of them helping and those were veteran retread bullpen guys (Lopez and Ramirez). What's the last big time acquisition that led a team to a title? I'm all for trading guys when it makes sense. The options being bandied about make no sense. If Workman projects as a reliever that will be under team control for 7 years with 3 of those being years you can shuttle him for depth then why trade him for a rental reliever? By the way that's his projected floor with upside. Brentz is a different story because he's a free swinger with high bust potential. For the right reliever (dominant, little injury history, years of team control, not too expensive, etc.), I would absolutely consider trading Workman, even though I generally am loathe to give up value for a reliever. We can haggle about the specifics, but my point is that the "lets not trade ANY of our prospects, they're going to lead up to a World Series!" attitude is a silly way to think. I don't think that if the right trade comes along that there would be much push back but as it relates to relievers more specifically closers the right deal will almost never happen because the cost of the good bullpen arms skyrockets when the trading deadline comes around
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 12, 2013 15:32:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 12, 2013 16:10:52 GMT -5
Looks like the 2014 closer role is already wrapped up for Uehara. Hey, does anyone want to argue for the value of a Proven Closer? I think now would be the perfect time to bring that up.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 12, 2013 19:57:20 GMT -5
This is great as it likely would cost more to resign him.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 14, 2013 21:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 14, 2013 22:03:29 GMT -5
Hell, I'd give him 10m next year. He's been incredible.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 15, 2013 6:02:41 GMT -5
Dempster is maybe the second best starter in the rotation right now, and will probably continue to be until Buchholz gets healthy. FIP-: 59 Workman as starter 59 Buchholz 83 Doubront 84 Workman overall 88 Lackey 94 Lester 104 Peavy overall 112 Dempster140 Peavy w/Boston SIERA 3.24 Workman overall 3.33 Lackey 3.34 Workman as starter 3.47 Buchholz 3.65 Peavy overall 3.96 Lester 4.09 Doubront 4.23 Dempster4.91 Peavy w/Boston ERA- 41 Buchholz 58 Workman as starter 79 Lackey 80 Doubront 102 Lester 107 Peavy overall 107 Dempster109 Workman overall 142 Peavy w/Boston WPA/30 GS 6.88 Buchholz 2.20 Workman 1.77 Doubront 1.30 Lackey 0.20 Peavy overall -0.29 Lester -0.44 Dempster-1.05 Peavy w/Boston I don't recall him ever ranking any better, so I'm not sure whether this was an awful assessment or an awful prediction; he had a 4.15 ERA and 4.80 FIP on that date. But I wanted to produce that ranking anyway ...
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 15, 2013 6:27:19 GMT -5
Kind of unfair to argue against a point made nearly two months ago, isn't it?
|
|
|