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.
Starting pitching depth entering season
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 16, 2015 15:56:28 GMT -5
Kelly leaving the game is obviously not good. Hopefully Amaro asks for Owens + Swihart + Betts + YM, just so we can continually hear about Cole. I hope BC comes out to Cafardo saying that a Kelly injury does not change his view on Hamels value.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Mar 16, 2015 17:31:58 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier now Trainer going to see Kelly. Farrell signals immediately for bullpen. Ruben Amaro and Phillies fans start drooling. Cafardo starts typing. Exactly! I never thought much about Carfardo. But, with his constant whining about the Sox' lack of an ace and his Hamels fetish, he's starting to remind me of Shaughnessy and his Sox negativity.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Mar 16, 2015 19:28:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2015 20:37:04 GMT -5
To answer posts regarding "speaking in absolutes", I believe in stating an opinion backing it up and getting on with it. I don't pussy foot around with maybes and contingencies, and I believe it serves the board better to write that way. As Jim Hightower once said, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos". So being wrong is a feature of your rhetorical style? I don't want to get too deep into a meta-discussion here, but I'm perfectly fine with anyone having a strong opinion, defending it forcefully, etc. That's not what I mean by "speaking in absolutes" though. I'm specifically referring to you reducing a question into a yes/no binary when that's clearly not the case.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 16, 2015 22:33:50 GMT -5
Now, it is also true that Cherington has shown an aversion to downside risk. It's very unclear that Wade Miley represents any improvement in a median projection versus four months of De La Rosa and two of whoever proves to be the best pitcher at Pawtucket, but it's arguably a big upgrade over, say, the 20th percentile projection. So there's no inherent preference for veterans over rookies. I think the evidence is pretty clear that there is one for mitigating downside risk, and of course rookies tend to have more of that than veterans. If come June or July there's a kid in Pawtucket who has been consistent and whose stuff projects to get MLB hitters out just fine, that's going to make going with a rookie much more likely. And note that the kid who gets the first crack at any rotation hole doesn't necessarily have to be the one who has demonstrated a reliable high floor. There's a scenario where Johnson and/or Wright has been consistently very good, and Owens, Rodriguez, and/or Barnes has been better but erratic. In which case you give the best overall kid a shot, knowing that if he crashes and burns, you're confident that you have a low-risk but lower upside alternative. Eric- I think that above you are stating my argument better than I did even if I don't totally agree with your conclusions. They have an aversion towards using young unproven starters down the stretch because they represent huge downside risk. You do a good job of explaining that with your Wade Miley example. Personally, I believe that given the Red Sox resources and expectations of their fan base, trading a better 80th percentile projection for an upgrade over a 20th percentile projection is a good strategy. The costs of a disaster are greater than the benefits of a surprise and young starters tend to have very fat tails. Many tend to underestimate how fat they are. To use an analogy, I think sometimes that you want the Red Sox to take a venture capital approach to their major league roster as opposed to a mutual fund approach. In my opinion, I don't think that's appropriate for the Red Sox, especially with their rotation. Given the current landscape, I think that there will be a veteran starting pitcher available at the deadline at a fair price or low price. The deals for starters over the past couple of years shows that often really good starters are being made available for less than what you might normally expect. I thought the Peavy deal was a fair price to pay. They solidified the rotation and protected themselves against further injury which might have forced multiple inexperienced and unproven pitchers into the rotation. The Red Sox have both the excess talent, and financial resources to acquire such a pitcher and I think if they need to replace one of the current five due to long-term injury. You may well be right; in cases like this I'm very low on risk aversion, and I know I'm bringing that bias. But the point I might change would not be the likelihood of a trade, but rather the identity of the AAA replacement. If Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes have all been typically erratic at AAA but Johnson or Barnes has been very good and very consistent, I think there's a good chance that they call up the kid they think has low downside risk, even if he hasn't been the team's best pitcher in terms of total stat line, rather than trade for a veteran. It will of course depend on what the trade market looks like, and how well prospects are faring and hence how many trade chips we're sitting on. If Sean Coyle has a (relatively speaking) breakout season, i.e., stays healthy and projects as a starter, it would be hard not to justify using him to get a 4th starter type.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 16, 2015 23:07:55 GMT -5
To answer posts regarding "speaking in absolutes", I believe in stating an opinion backing it up and getting on with it. I don't pussy foot around with maybes and contingencies, and I believe it serves the board better to write that way. As Jim Hightower once said, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos". This is all well and good, but you called everyone else nuts if they didn't think it was possible the Sox would roll with the rookies if Masterson got a knee injury. And occasionally in the middle of the road is a police officer telling you to slow down so you don't crash and burn. And I stand by that. The idea that they are going to turn down a fair deal for a veteran starter so that they can let their pennant hopes rest on Hank Owens big shoulders inexperienced IS nuts. That''s not how they do things, and given the fanbase and the resources they have they would be crazy to do that. And where exactly am I going to crash and burn by ardently declaring my opinion? I could be wrong but so what? Unlike some here I don't spend my life trying to prove on a sports message board how smart I am. I promise you, the sun will rise, the sun will set, and I'll have lunch.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 16, 2015 23:24:01 GMT -5
To answer posts regarding "speaking in absolutes", I believe in stating an opinion backing it up and getting on with it. I don't pussy foot around with maybes and contingencies, and I believe it serves the board better to write that way. As Jim Hightower once said, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos". So being wrong is a feature of your rhetorical style? I don't want to get too deep into a meta-discussion here, but I'm perfectly fine with anyone having a strong opinion, defending it forcefully, etc. That's not what I mean by "speaking in absolutes" though. I'm specifically referring to you reducing a question into a yes/no binary when that's clearly not the case. Well first off I am not wrong and I believe that many questions have binary answers. Sometimes things really are black or white and this is one. Sure Owens could prove that he's the second coming of Sonny Grey and it's possible that every team will demand Mookie Betts in return for veteran pitching. But I believe these scenarios are so unlikely that I am comfortable stating what I said in the way I said it. But then again if you don't like it block button is at the upper right. I don't particularly care for your posts either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2015 6:41:32 GMT -5
How can it possibly be black and white that the Red Sox will never go with a young pitcher in any playoff race? They went into how many seasons counting on Felix Doubront to be the #4 starter?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 17, 2015 6:44:01 GMT -5
Let's stay on topic here. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 17, 2015 9:35:21 GMT -5
Sure Owens could prove that he's the second coming of Sonny Grey and it's possible that every team will demand Mookie Betts in return for veteran pitching. But I believe these scenarios are so unlikely that I am comfortable stating what I said in the way I said it. I agree that those are unlikely, so I don't think those are the main variables to consider ... but there are others. And there's one thing missing in the discussion so far: there is value in giving the rookies exposure in the major leagues and seeing how they perform before entrusting a full season to one of them in 2016. Here's a plausible scenario that I think would make it entirely possible they'll turn to a rookie: They are in late July, with a solid-ish lead in the AL East (say, 3-5 games to be reasonable). A pitcher goes down, and the remaining four pitchers are all pitching more-or-less well, with Buchholz and Porcello holding down the front of the rotation, so the replacement slot is truly a #5. Two or three of the AAA starters are doing very well, well enough that their holding down a rotation spot in 2016 is an active possibility. In that case, I could see them thinking that the cost of acquiring outside pitching isn't worth it at that point and starting to bring up the kids. Here's another: Steven Wright makes a spot start or two early in the year, pitches really well then and in AAA, and then the #5 guy goes down as above. Will these happen? Maybe so, maybe not. There are a couple big caveats there (especially the Buchholz/Porcello part). But they are entirely plausible scenarios ... There's one other variable to consider, though, in how the rest of the system performs. If Deven Marrero hits and Garin Cecchini shows power (and restored OBP), while the guys developing in the lower minors look good, suddenly there's a lot of value in the minor leagues and a trade for a pitcher looks like a good use of existing resources. Look, if I had to bet $100 and the odds were even money, I'd put the money down on them acquiring a starter between June 1 and Aug 1, for sure. I think that's the most likely outcome. But the odds wouldn't have to get too long before I started considering the other side ...
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 17, 2015 14:22:40 GMT -5
I don't think they would do that if they were in a pennant race. This is going to sound very talk radio, but no one wants to prepare for next year during a pennant race. Fans want a World Series this year.
As far as next year goes, they will have at least two free agents in the rotation and if they want to get back under the luxury tax threshold in 16, they might have no choice but to go with at least one of the young pitchers in the rotation, at least to start.
This is another thing that I think is a factor but not a variable. Given how deep their system is right now I think it's most likely that trading for a starter will be a good use of existing resources just as it was in 2013.
A better presentation of my argument is that young and inexperienced pitchers tend to have very fat tails in the distribution of their expected performance. The Red Sox delta in revenue between winning and not winning is probably larger than it is for most other teams, so the Red Sox traditionally try to get rid of as much of that tail risk as they possibly can.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 17, 2015 16:56:30 GMT -5
I don't think they would do that if they were in a pennant race. This is going to sound very talk radio, but no one wants to prepare for next year during a pennant race. Fans want a World Series this year. As far as next year goes, they will have at least two free agents in the rotation and if they want to get back under the luxury tax threshold in 16, they might have no choice but to go with at least one of the young pitchers in the rotation, at least to start. Fair enough, but I think you are conflating "factor to consider" with "reason to make the decision." All I'm saying is that there is value in finding out what they have in these pitchers, value that is part of the cost/benefit analysis. It falls far behind WINNING in that cost/benefit, but there's no magic formula for winning, so it's all probabilities and value (future and current). Yeah, I get the argument, and I think it's generally true ... I do think most prospect watchers discount the downside risk, in the short-term particularly. Even good pitchers can look pretty bad at first, and a pennant race in Boston is a very bad place to look bad. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point (except for the absolute prediction part of it, which honestly I don't care about either way), just trying to deepen and widen the thinking on what they'd probably do in various situations. Since we're getting meta, I generally post here to learn things and think out loud, not to win any argument ... (well, except in Game Threads. That's generally just to be snarky or outraged or superfanboy happy) Oh, and as for the system, I absolutely think it's a variable. The depth of the system can look different in July than it does now and players' valuation can change. It's definitely a dynamic system, not a static one, and that has to play a role in the decision-making process. Maybe Panda looks terrific and Cecchini does, too. That makes Cecchini a much more valuable piece in a trade while simultaneously being (relatively) less valuable to the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 7:52:05 GMT -5
The Red Sox aren't stock piling these starters to not pitch them in the majors that's for damn sure. And the only way a guy goes from young and unproven to veteran status is to actually pitch in the major leagues. You can argue the same thing a million times but tis not going to make it any more or less true. There are plenty of real situations where the Red Sox pitch one to these prospects down the stretch in a pennant race.
By the way there are also multiple real legitimate situations where they both trade for a pitcher AND trust a young starter down the stretch. Mind blowing I know...
I don't know why it's that complicated. Are you just so dug in on your argument that you can't admit that this is a real possibility that actually isn't "so unlikely...."
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 11:24:29 GMT -5
No RJ, I am dug in because I am right and I have presented evidence to back up my claim....please see Chris' off-topic post on logical fallacies....TuRoque, Red Herring, Ad-Hominiem, Straw Man etc.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 11:29:24 GMT -5
I agree with most of above...however I would add that the Red Sox likely value winning now over winning later more than other teams do.
It's not a variable with a wide enough range of expected outcomes to change the overall decision equation. Given the current depth of talent in their system it's most likely that the system will be strong enough and with enough excess talent so that trading some of that excess talent will also be a rational thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 11:36:04 GMT -5
Buster Olney article today highlighting current concerns about the rotation. Though with the caveat that it's March and things could change, it's certainly an area of concern that NONE of the Red Sox pitchers are exactly wowing anyone with their stuff so far. They certainly don't have enough depth, to cover a scenario where none of these pitchers gets better and they can't trade for depth to cover that scenario either. insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post/_/id/9664
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 12:10:59 GMT -5
And again, we circle back to the original argument that it's not the depth you're complaining about. It's about the quality of the actual rotation. Because no one has that much depth.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 12:50:44 GMT -5
And again, we circle back to the original argument that it's not the depth you're complaining about. It's about the quality of the actual rotation. Because no one has that much depth. Nope my original argument is that the depth while high in quality is very inexperienced with at least three pitchers who although they project as eventual major league starters currently have very little experience even above AA. Given this, the natural risk that rookie pitchers bring to the table anyways, and the Sox historical aversion to this risk, the Sox really don't have the depth that others are crowing about.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5
He's talking about my original argument which it still baffles me that people don't think depth is more important to an inferior rotation than it is to a superior one but let's not go down that road again.
But Moon Im in enough awe that I need to further understand specifically what you mean when you say you are right. So you assertion is there is no scenario in which the Red Sox let these kids pitch down the stretch in a season in which they are competing. So we need to define this. Is the trade deadline the dividing point? How do we do this because you'll have a million excuses if you're proven wrong (which no one else is saying will be the case just that it's possible)?
I mean your easiest excuse will be that they expected so and so to be back healthy and effective considering they have 5 starters and short of season ending surgery before July 31 then it's a built in out you can go to.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 13:03:44 GMT -5
And again, we circle back to the original argument that it's not the depth you're complaining about. It's about the quality of the actual rotation. Because no one has that much depth. Nope my original argument is that the depth while high in quality is very inexperienced with at least three pitchers who although they project as eventual major league starters currently have very little experience even above AA. Given this, the natural risk that rookie pitchers bring to the table anyways, and the Sox historical aversion to this risk, the Sox really don't have the depth that others are crowing about. If depth is needed, they're going to use it, regardless of their historical aversion to this risk. They have setup the team to have the young pitchers as depth and traded away the more risky (or mediocre) depth. And if they are never going to use these young pitchers, the fact that they exist makes it pretty easy to acquire whatever depth you're talking about. Or did I get what you're saying wrong in that they don't have depth because they aren't going to want to use it? Realistically, no team wants to use their depth and no one has good starting pitchers stashed somewhere not starting because if they're good enough to be in the rotation, they would be - somewhere. If they lose someone for the season early or someone is awful, they can make a trade for a starting pitcher, like most competing teams would.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 13:12:25 GMT -5
Jim what he's saying is every year is the same variables be damned. It's obvious every year they've needed to add a starter they had a very good minor league option they decided not to use.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 13:27:58 GMT -5
Jim what he's saying is every year is the same variables be damned. It's obvious every year they've needed to add a starter they had a very good minor league option they decided not to use. I just don't see how this is true. I'll just use 2013 since that's the only year they were competing. They used 11 different starters in 2013, including a 25 year old Felix Doubront who got 27 starts. Webster got 7. Workman got 3. Wright got 1. Just because they traded for Peavy, doesn't mean they didn't use their young pitchers. The Red Sox won't make the next Peavy trade this season if one starter or even two starters are on the 14 day DL. If any trades are made early, it will be because of a long term injury. If any trades are made at the deadline, it will be because they can upgrade the rotation for not a ridiculous price. Other than that, I can easily see any of the 5 AAA starters getting 10-20 starts (total).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 14:15:03 GMT -5
Jim what he's saying is every year is the same variables be damned. It's obvious every year they've needed to add a starter they had a very good minor league option they decided not to use. I just don't see how this is true. I'll just use 2013 since that's the only year they were competing. They used 11 different starters in 2013, including a 25 year old Felix Doubront who got 27 starts. Webster got 7. Workman got 3. Wright got 1. Just because they traded for Peavy, doesn't mean they didn't use their young pitchers. The Red Sox won't make the next Peavy trade this season if one starter or even two starters are on the 14 day DL. If any trades are made early, it will be because of a long term injury. If any trades are made at the deadline, it will be because they can upgrade the rotation for not a ridiculous price. Other than that, I can easily see any of the 5 AAA starters getting 10-20 starts (total). But when it came time to choose for the pennant race ,they made a trade for a veteran as opposed to using their more inexperienced depth. At the time there were many posters that complained about this. This year as opposed to using their depth they acquired three veteran pitchers. Your examples are especially poor. Doubront was young but not inexperienced as he had a full season of major league starts under his belt. Lester too in 2007 had 15 major league starts. Webster was terrible, and they made a trade so they didn't have to use Workman. The Red Sox AAA rotation is extremely inexperienced with only two major league starts, combined. Very inexperienced pitchers are extremely risky and the Sox have always tried to avoid that risk when possible. As I said before, there are extreme cases where they maybe forced to use their depth in a pennant race due to outrageous market pricing of pitchers, or a young pitcher proving himself in the major leagues before the trade deadline. But they are not going to put place their pennant hopes on the shoulders of a pitcher with minimal or no major league experience if they can possibly help it. The only arguments I have heard otherwise, assume that the current crop of pitchers is better than it really is. I think I have repeated my argument enough....but the proof will be in the pudding. Despite their supposed depth, they will likely acquire a veteran starting pitcher between now and July 31st.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 14:21:43 GMT -5
That's not even much of an argument. I'll argue that the depth starers will make more starts than the 7/31 acquired veteran. It doesn't much matter when those starts are handed out. All the games are worth the same.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 18, 2015 14:29:50 GMT -5
That's not even much of an argument. I'll argue that the depth starers will make more starts than the 7/31 acquired veteran. It doesn't much matter when those starts are handed out. All the games are worth the same. All the games are technically worth the same...but games later in the season are higher leverage.....so yes it does matter when those starts are handed out and they won't be handing out the higher leverage starts to rookies. As for your evaluation of my argument and my arguing skills.....pot kettle black.
|
|
|