2018 Red Sox roster building

That's tougher to do - design a team that will win post-season series. It's easier to tell Sale and Kimbrel not to suck and be as brilliant as they were during the regular season. Tell Price to pretend he's pitching out of the bullpen when he starts.

I mean the Sox had a 22 game winner and a 17 game winner in 2016 have their worst starts of the year vs Cleveland. The best offense in 2016 dropped dead against Kluber (no crime there) and guys like Tomlin and Bauer (which is ridiculous).

In 2017 a team with an ERA of 3.7 which is up there couldn't survive the 1st inning without getting crunched. The guy who was awful in the regular season (Hanley) was the only guy I trusted up in a key spot in the post-season - for the 2nd year in a row. Tell me how that makes sense!

The point is you cannot build a team to beat Cleveland, NY, or Houston. You build the best team you can, hope they stay healthy and hope they perform as well as they did in the regular season. I mean in the regular season in 2016 the Sox beat Cleveland 5 games out of 7. The Indians were really banged up and it didn't matter.

---

We won the division in two consecutive years and lost the head to head match up against the NYYs'. Playing a Houston or Cleveland 7 or 9 times does not compare to playing the best team (on paper) in the division 19 times. The Tribe has lost assets from the 2017 roster. The Astros' were stronger at the end of the year (after we finished our season series against them) than when we played them. As I stated, this is a post season team. Whether this team is fodder, like the 2016 and 2017 team or a viable contender for a birth in the WS will depend on how it matches up against the NYY's, Astros' and to a lesser extent, the Tribe.

---

I don't want to say the post-season is a crapshoot, but in a way it is.

---

Luck is the residue of hard work....

---

As far as "my father's" Red Sox or at least the Sox I know most remember (I actually do remember 1986 clearly), the Red Sox lost because of boneheaded managerial decisions. In 75 it was Darrell Johnson going with a LOOGY to pitch the most important inning of the season (instead of staying with Willoughby who mowed the Reds down in the 8th) and we know what happen in 86 - thanks John McNamara. Hell Grady Little did the same boneheaded kind of stuff in 2003.

---

I blame it all on Lonborg pitching with only 2 days rest against Gibson.

---

What I'm trying to say is that "my father's Red Sox" usually lost because of hair brained decisions by an old school manager, not because they lacked this or lacked that.

---

Doesn't explain 47'. There is no game 7 in 1975 if Johnson doesn't allow El Tiante to throw 155 pitches (complete with having the tying runner in scoring position and Joe Morgan at the plate in the 9th) in game 5, and in 2003 Little leaves Pedro in (he gets 2 strikes on both Matsui and Posada) and the HOFer can't seal the deal as opposed to 86" when McNamara pulls the Rocket after 5 ground balls singles through 7 2/3 ip. Besides just getting to the WS in 86' rivals the comeback against the NYYs' in 2004. All things considered, your Fathers Red Sox were almost always one pitcher or more short. They were never at a loss for offensive heroics.

---

The Red Sox have to find the best way to improve their team based on the weaknesses they have. On paper it's lack of a true middle of the order hitter they can count on and a thin bullpen bridge leading up to Kimbrel.

---

We disagree. I'm on record as urging DD to resign Reed. I am also of the opinion that this team positions itself better to advance in the playoffs with the addition of a front line RHSP.

---

It's not like if the Red Sox find a 30 game winner they can win. For Chrissakes the Dodgers had the Astros on the ropes and Clayton Kershaw couldn't hold a 4 run lead in Game 5. Stuff happens and you never really know why. I mean can the Dodgers find a better pitcher, somebody they'd prefer to start? No, but it didn't work out anyways. Keep in mind somebody is going to pay Yu Darvish big money and he killed the Dodgers in the Series as did the best closer in the game, Jansen, who pitched poorly. Again, the point is there is no winning formula. Build the team the best you can for the regular season and hope they play well in the post-season.

---

Keep in mind that Kershaw is a lefty and Houston has a predominately RH line up. Second time they saw Clayton, they owned him. Both Wood and Hill (both lefties) out pitched Kershaw in the WS. Both were on a short leash, which IMO lead to the premature meltdown of the Dodger bullpen. Both managers made gaffs in the 2017 WS. Hinch reacted quicker, and I can only concur with the insiders that Houston (probably Beltran) figured out how to read Darvish. Yu pitched well in the weeks leading up to the WS. The winning formula came down to Houston having more favorable match ups more often. I'd love to see a Red Sox player get a read on Verlander, or Severino or even Tanaka. Heck, I even wonder if the NL has read Harvey the way Houston read Darvish.

---

Again this team made the playoffs with no Ortiz and about 75 ip from their $30M dollar man. This team is playoff bound again. Loose another season series to the Yankees and the chances are they are fodder again. Find a RHSP that can go through Stanton, Judge, Sanchez, Gregorious, and Frazier 3 times and they stand a far better chance of winning the season series and advancing in the post season.

---

p23w,

Lot of points. Luck is also the residue of luck. The Red Sox usually lost because their manager was old school dumb. I think you meant '67 rather than '47 (or did you mean '46)? Lonborg was the only really good pitcher they had unless you wanted Bell who got bombed in Game 3 to start or wanted to roll the dice with Lee Stange who hadn't started a game in awhile - and they already had done that with Gary Wasilewski in Game 6. And yes if it had rained maybe they would have had a chance, but then again Gibson would have had another day of rest - so instead of giving up 2 runs perhaps Gibson pitches a shutout instead. He had come off an injury and his innings total was quite low and he was in mid-season form. Nobody was touching Gibson. The Sox simply weren't as good as the Cards. The fact of the matter is the Sox weren't going to win unless they won the 4 games Gibson didn't start. No crime there.

---

Meant 46'. Lonborg outpitched Gibson in the series up to game 7. If the weather of 75' happened in 67' the impossible dream would have had a joyous ending and we would have all been spared the curse of the Bambino nonsense.

---

'75 - the Sox bullpen was questionable and yes the gamble to keep Tiant pitching Game 4 was reasonable. Bill Lee always said Johnson messed up not pitching him in Game 6 and give Tiant the rest to pitch Game 7. I don't really share that view, but it's an interesting thought.

---

I liked Lee when he tore the Gerbil a new anal passage at the close of the 78' season.

---

Honestly the pitcher the Sox were usually short back in those days was a dominating reliever. Joe Page was the difference between the late 40s Yankees and the Sox. The Sox bullpen in 75 didn't have a surefire closer - Drago and Willoughby were their best. The 86 bullpen was a disaster area. Schiraldi collapsed in the post-season and Stanley was brutal. In 03, Grady was scared to go to the pen even though Timlin, Embree, and Williamson had been pitching well in the post-season.

---

The only dominant relievers the Sox ever developed were Radatz and Papelbon. They never developed a decent bullpen until the 2000s'. And even now they try to get by on the cheap. The Sox were always shy one or more SP. Best chance was Clemens and Hurst (with Schilling at AA). Even Pedro was not enough until Schilling came back.

---

These Red Sox have a dominating reliever - unfortunately he spit the bit at the worst time last year. I always will wonder what would have happened had Kimbrel held the tie and the Sox had won on Devers' inside-the-park HR and had forced Game 5.

---

Pedey hits a 5th game winning home run and it's 2003 or 2004 all over again.

---

You tell me the Sox need to bring back Reed and get a dominating RH starter to mess up the Yankees and the Astros. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Darvish is the best guy out there, and he was brutal against the Astros. So who IS that starter you think they should get that's going to put them over the top? Is Curt Schilling coming out of retirement? He's the only guy I remember having that vibe and feeling that way about.

---

Darvish has the best stuff of all available FA pitchers. Darvish pitched well in his 5 starts prior to facing Houston. I believe that Houston (probably Beltran) found a way to read Darvish. The fact that the Astros' are talking with Darvish leads me to suspect that he was tipping his pitches. The FA market has 3 guys that I think qualify; Darvish, Arrieta and Cobb. The three long shots I would investigate are Lincecum, Harvey and Wheeler. I'm sure some creative FO guy who gets paid can come up with a handful of other candidates.

---

As far as Reed, try it from his perspective. He will get the most money as a closer. That will not be on the Red Sox. He will close for somebody's team and probably earn more than $10 million/year to do so. And there's this thought, too. Don't know if you recall, but it was Reed when he was the Mets who let the winning runs score in extra innings for the KC Royals in their World Series clinching Game 5 back in 2015. He entered the game 2-2 in a position of needing to hold down the Royals and by time the inning ended it was 7-2 Royals. Even Reed doesn't guarantee anything. And I liked Reed, but he is hardly dominating.

---

Try this perspective. Who is better Reed or Miller. I'd take Miller. Miller acquiesced his closer role in Baltimore to set up first in NY, then in Clev. Sit down with Reed. Compare his stats to Miller, and tell him you will pay him "Miller money" to set up for Kimbrel. If Reed is a team guy he signs. FWIW it wasn't only Reed who pitched poorly in the 2015 WS. The entire Mets bullpen sucked. There are others out there that I would consider. I just think that Reed has the stuff, experience and demeanor to do the job better than anyone else currently on the roster.

---

I do think they will probably require bullpen help, but there's no reason they can't audition Barnes, Smith, Thornburg, Kelly, and Workman and see if somebody emerges as a dominating bullpen piece behind Kimbrel. My money would be on Smith as he is now healthier and his stuff was nasty (really good slider) when he was in Seattle. If not they can trade the next Jamie Callahan and Steve Nogosek for the next expiring contract of a good setup man/closer who is right-handed.

The Sox need Price, Sale, Pomeranz, and Porcello not to suck when they start in October. They've had 7 lousy starts in 7 post-season starts. You'd think the law of averages would catch up with them at some point?!

Yes . Reed is a good choice. This is a question not a challenge - if the Sox sign JDM and Reed or Cobb (not Lynn he would cost a draft pick) they would definitely be above 237m then . Is it worth it?

I agree with the odd seeming non correlation of post season stars to regular season performance. It's probably small sample size and I imagine there is more correlation than thought. However, I remember off-hand how Ted Williams (though he was apparently injured), Willy Mays didn't shine, whereas Marty Barrett was a force for the sox in post season. As for "my fathers"- or my Redsox, yes dopey managing and I'll also add key injuries circumvented them. I believe these were excellent teams not really short of much- and also they faced 4 of the best teams in NL history, real powerhouses in those WS losses- and took them to 7 games in all cases. In '67 they were without Tony C, in '75 without Jim Rice, and in '86 people forget they traded for Tom Seaver in his last season but he was hurt for post season. Down the stretch he was their best starter other than Clemmens. And boy
with the way Nipper and Boyd got lit up- and him pitching against his old Mets it's likely they would have won in less than 7 with him there. 1975 was even more boneheaded than it appears- Fisk was going crazy all season with Darrell Johnson's decisions. In the 9th of game 7 he pinch-hit for Wiloughby with Cooper- who in effect replaced Rice and Yaz moved to left-who was 1 for 19 and there were 2 out and nobody on. And Wiloughby was a former starting pitcher, capable of going 4 innings into extras, and had his good sinker going and rendered the Reds helpless in his one inning of work. They put in Burton, a rookie Loogy- disgraceful. The decision I'm intrigued about was in 2003- those 3 relievers you mentioned all had mid nineties stuff and were throwing well. Yet it's been alluded to that Little had less options than people thought- anyone have any insight on this? All I know was that Yankee Stadium was louder than it's whole history I believe- it had been called the greatest game ever played there- and there was unthinkable pressure on whomever would come in to pitch.

I'm not sure what "worth it" means. I can spend John Henry's money pretty easily though.  Anyhow, the problem is when it comes to the playoffs a lot comes down to how hot you are along with talent.  I don't like how the Sox "limited themselves" with Moreland. When I think of other potential mediocrity at the bottom of the order - so I would side with "it's not worth it" for either. So if the SOx get JDM -- then see what they can do with it thus keeping open deadline deals. 

What do you think? 

I'm not sure what "worth it" means. I can spend John Henry's money pretty easily though.  Anyhow, the problem is when it comes to the playoffs a lot comes down to how hot you are along with talent.  I don't like how the Sox "limited themselves" with Moreland. When I think of other potential mediocrity at the bottom of the order - so I would side with "it's not worth it" for either. So if the SOx get JDM -- then see what they can do with it thus keeping open deadline deals. 

What do you think? 

Is worth going over 237m and paying a 50% luxary tax?

1. It was posted, like, three hours ago.

2. It's Heyman on a Boras client. As someone who thinks those who slag off on Boras are nuts, Heyman is his media mouthpiece, and Heyman's articles on his clients range from unnamed PR pieces to fanfic. Forget a grain of salt, the Pacific Ocean isn't saline enough to produce the amount skepticism a Heyman/Boras piece deserves.

"Unnamed friends think Martinez will wait until spring training. He won't blink! You might as well just sign him!"

3. Stop getting mad at free agents asking to be paid. HE WANTS AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE WHAT A JERK.