|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 7, 2015 12:07:59 GMT -5
Well, he lost his closing gig at the end of 2013 and was pretty much persona non grata for the playoffs....so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 7, 2015 12:12:12 GMT -5
I thought Mujica was a good signing at the time, but his velo dropped down a tick (from 91.6 in 2013 to 90.8 last year and 90.3 this year), he struggled with his control and command (47.1% zone rate this year; 54.5% career), and his strikeout rate dropped this year. Bullpen arms are volatile, and it's clearly the area that Cherington has struggled the most with in his time as GM.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 7, 2015 12:20:23 GMT -5
Mujica is the poster child for why you don't hand out 4 year deals to relief pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 7, 2015 12:28:30 GMT -5
Mujica is the poster child for why you don't hand out 4 year deals to relief pitchers. Unless they spell their name...A-N-D-R-E-W...M-I-L-L-E-R.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 7, 2015 12:38:00 GMT -5
Mujica is the poster child for why you don't hand out 4 year deals to relief pitchers. Unless they spell their name...A-N-D-R-E-W...M-I-L-L-E-R. Let me know in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 7, 2015 12:40:58 GMT -5
Has there been a better bullpen signing this decade than Uehara, though? Cherington has some notable whiffs in the bullpen, but Mujica was a sensible signing with low risk. It just didn't work out this time.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 7, 2015 12:46:31 GMT -5
If St. Louis doesn't want a pitcher, it's probably not a good idea to give him a lot of money. Mujica not making the playoff roster was not a good sign. It may not have been just due to an injury. They tried to clone what was working for Koji and it was a near epic fail.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 7, 2015 12:46:42 GMT -5
Has there been a better bullpen signing this decade than Uehara, though? Cherington has some notable whiffs in the bullpen, but Mujica was a sensible signing with low risk. It just didn't work out this time. Yeah, Cherington also acquired Melancon, who turned out to be excellent ... eventually.
|
|
|
Post by nmacny on May 7, 2015 14:17:47 GMT -5
I know I was happy when they signed Mujica - I thought he could be a lesser version of Uehara. I also thought taking a flier on Craig wasn't such a bad idea either at the time, figuring the Sox must have had some confidence in him returning to his previous form. My issue is with how long the Sox stick with these guys when they're killing us. I guess it's easier for me to say - it's not my money.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 7, 2015 14:30:28 GMT -5
That's the volatility of pitchers, relievers in particular. I thought it was a good signing that didn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on May 7, 2015 18:40:43 GMT -5
Great move if Barnes is the replacement. Does Ben pull the trigger on Napoli as well?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 7, 2015 20:08:48 GMT -5
Great move if Barnes is the replacement. Does Ben pull the trigger on Napoli as well? I say the odds are good Mujica is claimed off waivers ... so "sunk cost" or not, this could be a "money saver". Napoli : ... if the trigger gets pulled, he gets the "Carp spot" on the bench reserved for the 25th man. The competition heats up: Victorino, Craig, Napoli, Nava ... all competing for that harmless role. Napoli to 'Stros in July.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 7, 2015 20:16:00 GMT -5
I say the odds are good Mujica is claimed off waivers ... You'd have to be pretty stupid to spend $4m on a below-replacement level reliever. I'm not sure even RAJ is that stupid.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 7, 2015 23:30:11 GMT -5
Unless they spell their name...A-N-D-R-E-W...M-I-L-L-E-R. Let me know in 2019. Maybe so, but in 2015 the Yankees are certainly getting their money's worth from Andrew Miller. I, too, tend to say - look at the end of that deal, it's a killer, but sometimes when you do that, you forget that if you get a few good years out of the deal it's worth it or if you win because of it, there's value. I guess CC Sabathia represents the extreme view of both sides. He's kind of an albatross now, and has been bad for a few years, but he was great for a few years, too, and there's no way the Yanks win in 2009 without him. I would say all in all, he was certainly worth it for them. For example, you can say the Sox got spotty value in 4 years with Schilling, 1 great year, 1 injury riddled year, and 2 decent to good years. Was it worth it? Of course. Keith Foulke is more extreme example. The Sox signed him for 3 years and got 1 good year out of him. Was it worth? It most certainly was. If Miller gives them 2 or 3 good years, then it's worth it for the Yankees, especially if he at some point gives them performance that helps get them into the post-season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 7, 2015 23:33:51 GMT -5
It's too bad about Mujica. I won't miss him.
But I'm not going to lie. I was thrilled when they signed him. 4 million for 2 years isn't exactly a huge risk.
And based on his overall season in St. Louis in 2013, it showed that he was a guy who never walked anybody and had a strong K/BB ratio. With visions of Koji, Tazawa, and Mujica locking down the late innings, never walking anybody, I was pretty excited by the idea.
The reality is that Mujica never really was the same after his injury. He pitched decently down the stretch last year and my gut tells me he'll rebound with some other team and keep an ERA under 4, maybe even under 3, but he just was never a good fit for the Sox.
And the Sox are learning that having relief pitchers who miss bats in a big thing to have during the last 3 innings of the game.
|
|
|
Post by mookiemagicfan on May 9, 2015 22:08:13 GMT -5
Mujica and cash to the A's for a player to be named or cash. Cool they got...something?...
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 9, 2015 22:18:41 GMT -5
We go to OAK this week. 100000% chance he shuts the sox down.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 9, 2015 22:52:52 GMT -5
I say the odds are good Mujica is claimed off waivers ... You'd have to be pretty stupid to spend $4m on a below-replacement level reliever. I'm not sure even RAJ is that stupid. I guess you and Billy B. are not of the same mind.
You're quick to spout off, though.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 9, 2015 23:10:29 GMT -5
I mean, Mujica was not claimed on waivers, he was traded to Oakland with the Red Sox covering what is likely to be a majority of his contract. There's a big difference between Mujica at $4m and Mujica at, say, $1m.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 9, 2015 23:18:51 GMT -5
I mean, Mujica was not claimed on waivers, he was traded to Oakland with the Red Sox covering what is likely to be a majority of his contract. There's a big difference between Mujica at $4m and Mujica at, say, $1m. Sox never gave the A's a chance to take him "for nothing" on waivers. They got what they saw was a better offer. EDIT: on the other hand, Mujica might have gone on waivers THUR afternoon .... 48 hours brings us to SAT late in the day. So maybe it happened. Some sites mention 48 business day hours which would bring it to Monday afternoon. I am not convinced that the business-day hours part of the rule is real.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 10, 2015 3:21:55 GMT -5
I mean, Mujica was not claimed on waivers, he was traded to Oakland with the Red Sox covering what is likely to be a majority of his contract. There's a big difference between Mujica at $4m and Mujica at, say, $1m. Sox never gave the A's a chance to take him "for nothing" on waivers. They got what they saw was a better offer. OK, this you have to explain to me, how is "Sox pay A's to take Mujica off their hands" better for the Sox than "A's take Mujica and pay his salary themselves"?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 10, 2015 8:33:43 GMT -5
Sox never gave the A's a chance to take him "for nothing" on waivers. They got what they saw was a better offer. OK, this you have to explain to me, how is "Sox pay A's to take Mujica off their hands" better for the Sox than "A's take Mujica and pay his salary themselves"? I don't know. Do you have the details? Who is the PTBNL? How much are the Sox paying? Sounds like the Sox liked it.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 10, 2015 8:46:58 GMT -5
OK, this you have to explain to me, how is "Sox pay A's to take Mujica off their hands" better for the Sox than "A's take Mujica and pay his salary themselves"? I don't know. Do you have the details? Who is the PTBNL? How much are the Sox paying? Sounds like the Sox liked it. The PTBNL will be no one. The Sox chose the A's paying a little of his salary over releasing him and having to pay all of his salary. He wasn't going to get claimed.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on May 10, 2015 10:22:37 GMT -5
Sox never gave the A's a chance to take him "for nothing" on waivers. They got what they saw was a better offer. OK, this you have to explain to me, how is "Sox pay A's to take Mujica off their hands" better for the Sox than "A's take Mujica and pay his salary themselves"? Mujica probably would not have been claimed off waivers. Oakland would have let him go through waivers and then signed him. In the end I bet the Sox save a few thousand dollars and get an organization guy they might like.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 10, 2015 10:23:59 GMT -5
OK, this you have to explain to me, how is "Sox pay A's to take Mujica off their hands" better for the Sox than "A's take Mujica and pay his salary themselves"? I don't know. Do you have the details? Who is the PTBNL? How much are the Sox paying? Sounds like the Sox liked it. You're the one who said it was a great offer, so I thought you would be providing the details. I expect this PTBNL to be even more disappointing than the hotly-anticipated PTBNL from the Felix Doubront trade. My guess would be the Sox send $3.5m and get $50,000 back. And yes, the Sox surely liked it, because it's better than paying the complete salary.
|
|