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.
Chaim Bloom and the Red Sox Rebuild
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 11:23:25 GMT -5
I advocating tanking like the Astros before last year. They should have. They sucked anyway. If they’d utterly tanked last year and this, they’d be just as able to come out strong in 2023. I’d have stripped this team down to X and Devers, basically — trade Eovaldi, CVaz, JDM... at least. (Ironically, now, I’d have jept Beni and JBJ). That was before last year, before Covid. They’d get some return for those guys, maybe not huge, but some, with the added bonus of being really bad this year instead of ok. Then have top-3 picks 2 years in a row, etc etc. This is my concern with this coming season. Being *meh* doesn’t add any value going forward. And the guys I’d trade will be moving out of their primes by the time this team is deadly serious. This would have made them worse in 2021 and 2022, and for Eovaldi, CVaz, and JDM I don't think they could have gotten one elite prospect. They could've bulked out that 45 FV stash a fair bit, but for all that they could've added the farm system would still be below average. That hardly would've been worth tanking for 2020-2022.
I'm so confused by how you see this team. You don't want them to be "meh," but you projected them for 86 wins, which makes them obviously competitive for a wild card spot. Are you really not satisfied to watch a team like that? You want to go all in on building a 100-game winner, even though there's no guarantee that strategy would even work, and even if you have to wait through several seasons of miserable failure to get there?
86 wins is the definition of *meh*. You are flirting with .500. No, that is not especially interesting to me. That is usually a team beating the teams beneath it, losing to the teams above it. A season of sweeping the Orioles then losing 2/3 to the Twins and White Sox is frustrating. But if they are just... there.... in July, then do they trade pieces away? Likely no. So what do you get for Richards? Nothing that will help in a year or two. Do you get good draft position? Not especially. So it becomes a lost season... guys just one year older, or young guys one year closer to hard decisions. Stasis. And I said trading the Eovaldis wouldn’t yield much. The biggest advantages would be a) getting rid of guys like him, CVaz, and JDM before they get old and are worth even less; and b) sucking this year — getting a second consecutive high pick instead of a mid-round pick.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 27, 2021 11:39:52 GMT -5
This would have made them worse in 2021 and 2022, and for Eovaldi, CVaz, and JDM I don't think they could have gotten one elite prospect. They could've bulked out that 45 FV stash a fair bit, but for all that they could've added the farm system would still be below average. That hardly would've been worth tanking for 2020-2022.
I'm so confused by how you see this team. You don't want them to be "meh," but you projected them for 86 wins, which makes them obviously competitive for a wild card spot. Are you really not satisfied to watch a team like that? You want to go all in on building a 100-game winner, even though there's no guarantee that strategy would even work, and even if you have to wait through several seasons of miserable failure to get there?
86 wins is the definition of *meh*. You are flirting with .500. No, that is not especially interesting to me. That is usually a team beating the teams beneath it, losing to the teams above it. A season of sweeping the Orioles then losing 2/3 to the Twins and White Sox is frustrating. But if they are just... there.... in July, then do they trade pieces away? Likely no. So what do you get for Richards? Nothing that will help in a year or two. Do you get good draft position? Not especially. So it becomes a lost season... guys just one year older, or young guys one year closer to hard decisions. Stasis. And I said trading the Eovaldis wouldn’t yield much. The biggest advantages would be a) getting rid of guys like him, CVaz, and JDM before they get old and are worth even less; and b) sucking this year — getting a second consecutive high pick instead of a mid-round pick. I admit, I have a hard time following the sentiment "I hope my team sucks" when it comes to following sports, so maybe the logic just escapes me. But...
86 wins is flirting with .500 to the same degree that it's flirting with 91 wins. Do you know how many teams in the AL are projected for more than 91 wins? One. Per fangraphs, in fact, no one else is projected above 89. 86 wins puts them within a few lucky bounces of being the second-best team in the AL. They give them a 1-in-3 chance of making the playoffs. It's actually kind of a sweet spot where they have a legitimate chance to be really good in a fun and surprising way, like the 2013 or 1995 teams. It's just bananas to me that you'd pass on that chance - and, again, weaken the team in 2022 as well! - just for a few middle-tier prospects.
And the horror of not being able to trade Richards mid-season is that... we'd have a cheap option on a quality starter for 2022. But since you already want to wave the white flag on 2022 as well, I guess that point is moot.
(I also note, as you advocate for "getting rid of" CVaz, that your sentimental attachment to home-grown players doesn't seem to apply to him. Why is that?)
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 27, 2021 11:41:49 GMT -5
I sleep well at night, knowing that Bloom is at the helm ... Funny stuff. Epstein and Dombrowski were popular as well, only Duquette wasn't and reason he didn't have the "love" of the faithful was didn't smile a lot and wasn't with the articulate answers the media expected. In short.. He was Lou Gorman, without the smiles, a GM whom everyone liked, yet made brutal trades, FA signs etc.. Something Duquette wasn't known for. Half of the job of being the GM is smiling for the camera. Bloom learns to do that in Boston and which end to kiss and he'll be fine. Yeah, but in his case the smile is backed by presenting as genuine. It exudes the sagacity and confidence behind it. He looks and speaks the part.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Feb 27, 2021 11:43:08 GMT -5
I don't think these guys are really judged in the same way as when the gatekeepers were like 5 cigar-chomping good old boys at the Globe and Herald who judged players based on batting average and pitcher wins. In any event, Bloom, Cherington, Epstein... they're all the same person: elite college-educated, well-versed in the communicative mores of the professional/managerial class. I don't think the PR will be a problem for him. The judgment will ultimately be based on the on-field performance. As far as that goes, I hope and expect he'll have a very long leash. It's kind of amazing the challenges he walked into when he took the job: -had to trade the team's generational star -had to get under the CBT while being saddled with a bunch of dead money -depleted farm system -covid And whatever anyone thinks of the team's off-season moves, they're clearly not tanking, a la the Cubs and Astros last decade (or the Orioles in perpetuity). So he's trying to build up the farm system while also fielding a competitive team every year. It's a high-wire act, and I hope the owners are patient if a season or two doesn't go as hoped. Personally, I think the rubber will hit the road in the 2022-23 off-season. Between dead money coming off the books and contracts expiring, the 2023 roster will really be his creation, through whatever combination of extensions and FA signings he decides to go with.
I advocating tanking like the Astros before last year. They should have. They sucked anyway. If they’d utterly tanked last year and this, they’d be just as able to come out strong in 2023. I’d have stripped this team down to X and Devers, basically — trade Eovaldi, CVaz, JDM... at least. (Ironically, now, I’d have jept Beni and JBJ). That was before last year, before Covid. They’d get some return for those guys, maybe not huge, but some, with the added bonus of being really bad this year instead of ok. Then have top-3 picks 2 years in a row, etc etc. This is my concern with this coming season. Being *meh* doesn’t add any value going forward. And the guys I’d trade will be moving out of their primes by the time this team is deadly serious. It's been posted here by several before, think needs repeating that Boston is not just a ballclub, but media (NESN) organization as well. Throwing away just a single season would lead to a huge loss of cash. Not just in subscription to NESN, but ticket revenue as well. It wouldn't be bottom line worth it and face it.. This is a company 1st and a 2 billion dollar one at that. JH isn't going to allow anyone running it to even think of affecting the bottom line that negatively and rightfully so. Edit: Maybe my add on Bloom wasn't understood 100%. Not a critique, only that thought Duquette could have done better befriending the faces behind the camera instead of alienating those he did. I also think Bloom should have more leeway than just this coming offseason to judge properly as Incandenza proposed at a minimum. Bloom was put into an impossible position and only after this coming season is over will he really have any room at all to operate as he sees fit. Maybe 2-3 more years more reasonable. My only critique of him this entire offseason has been the MiLB guys. The MLB people were solid.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 11:50:42 GMT -5
86 wins is the definition of *meh*. You are flirting with .500. No, that is not especially interesting to me. That is usually a team beating the teams beneath it, losing to the teams above it. A season of sweeping the Orioles then losing 2/3 to the Twins and White Sox is frustrating. But if they are just... there.... in July, then do they trade pieces away? Likely no. So what do you get for Richards? Nothing that will help in a year or two. Do you get good draft position? Not especially. So it becomes a lost season... guys just one year older, or young guys one year closer to hard decisions. Stasis. And I said trading the Eovaldis wouldn’t yield much. The biggest advantages would be a) getting rid of guys like him, CVaz, and JDM before they get old and are worth even less; and b) sucking this year — getting a second consecutive high pick instead of a mid-round pick. I admit, I have a hard time following the sentiment "I hope my team sucks" when it comes to following sports, so maybe the logic just escapes me. But...
86 wins is flirting with .500 to the same degree that it's flirting with 91 wins. Do you know how many teams in the AL are projected for more than 91 wins? One. Per fangraphs, in fact, no one else is projected above 89. 86 wins puts them within a few lucky bounces of being the second-best team in the AL. They give them a 1-in-3 chance of making the playoffs. It's actually kind of a sweet spot where they have a legitimate chance to be really good in a fun and surprising way, like the 2013 or 1995 teams. It's just bananas to me that you'd pass on that chance - and, again, weaken the team in 2022 as well! - just for a few middle-tier prospects.
And the horror of not being able to trade Richards mid-season is that... we'd have a cheap option on a quality starter for 2022. But since you already want to wave the white flag on 2022 as well, I guess that point is moot.
(I also note, as you advocate for "getting rid of" CVaz, that your sentimental attachment to home-grown players doesn't seem to apply to him. Why is that?)
I don’t think mediocre teams tend to flirt *up*. The chances of things going wrong are greater than going right. As a basic example: is it more likely Eovaldi/Richards overperform or are mediocre and/or get hurt? One of the reasons I don’t like the makeup of this team... I don’t like the platooning, the cutesy advanced stats stuff dominating planning — is the more moving parts, the more places things can go awry. Complicated machines are... complicated. This is a complicated machine. I am not rooting for my team to be bad. I want them to he great, but that is not an option. So the question to me is: protracted mediocrity or a big band-aid pull. Now... you dan disagree with the assessment, and I am cool with people seeing this team as close. But I’m trying to explain why I’d “root” for us to be bad.... if you saw the choices as I do, which would you take? I don’t lump CVaz and in with the others because a) I never claimed total consistency; and b) he is not a star so much as a very good guy at a position with few very good guys. But as such, he could have disproportionate value. I suspect they could get a good return for him (or him+), and on the other side, I think they could start Plawecki without a huge drop.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 27, 2021 12:06:23 GMT -5
I admit, I have a hard time following the sentiment "I hope my team sucks" when it comes to following sports, so maybe the logic just escapes me. But...
86 wins is flirting with .500 to the same degree that it's flirting with 91 wins. Do you know how many teams in the AL are projected for more than 91 wins? One. Per fangraphs, in fact, no one else is projected above 89. 86 wins puts them within a few lucky bounces of being the second-best team in the AL. They give them a 1-in-3 chance of making the playoffs. It's actually kind of a sweet spot where they have a legitimate chance to be really good in a fun and surprising way, like the 2013 or 1995 teams. It's just bananas to me that you'd pass on that chance - and, again, weaken the team in 2022 as well! - just for a few middle-tier prospects.
And the horror of not being able to trade Richards mid-season is that... we'd have a cheap option on a quality starter for 2022. But since you already want to wave the white flag on 2022 as well, I guess that point is moot.
(I also note, as you advocate for "getting rid of" CVaz, that your sentimental attachment to home-grown players doesn't seem to apply to him. Why is that?)
I don’t think mediocre teams tend to flirt *up*. The chances of things going wrong are greater than going right. As a basic example: is it more likely Eovaldi/Richards overperform or are mediocre and/or get hurt? One of the reasons I don’t like the makeup of this team... I don’t like the platooning, the cutesy advanced stats stuff dominating planning — is the more moving parts, the more places things can go awry. Complicated machines are... complicated. This is a complicated machine. I am not rooting for my team to be bad. I want them to he great, but that is not an option. So the question to me is: protracted mediocrity or a big band-aid pull. Now... you dan disagree with the assessment, and I am cool with people seeing this team as close. But I’m trying to explain why I’d “root” for us to be bad.... if you saw the choices as I do, which would you take? I think if I saw things the way you do, I would think to myself "Of course, I might be wrong! All sorts of unexpected things happen all the time, in baseball as in life, and that is part of the joy of both. By trying to field a winner, this team can hopefully make the most of whatever chances they get!"
Remember, I projected them for the exact same number of wins as you, so in a sense I do see things as you do. I think I just have wider error bars on the possible outcomes (at least in the positive direction). And also I guess I'm more averse to having the Red Sox be terrible for multiple seasons in exchange for what you describe yourself as a quite modest prospect haul. Haha, well, that's a bit of a debate-ender, isn't it? ...In fairness, it's true, there's no need to logically justify your personal feelings about players. I was just legitimately curious why you would have the strong attachment to someone like Benintendi or JBJ but not Vazquez - all sort of average-to-good players. Personally, I'm skeptical he would have as much trade value as you think. I'm also skeptical that they can count on easily replacing him, and my guess is that if anything they might want to keep him for a few more seasons. I get the logic of trading Eovaldi and JDM, but with Vazquez it looks to me like a bit of an underpants gnome strategy:
1. Get rid of our starting catcher. 2. ? ? ?
3. Profit!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 12:20:50 GMT -5
I don’t think mediocre teams tend to flirt *up*. The chances of things going wrong are greater than going right. As a basic example: is it more likely Eovaldi/Richards overperform or are mediocre and/or get hurt? One of the reasons I don’t like the makeup of this team... I don’t like the platooning, the cutesy advanced stats stuff dominating planning — is the more moving parts, the more places things can go awry. Complicated machines are... complicated. This is a complicated machine. I am not rooting for my team to be bad. I want them to he great, but that is not an option. So the question to me is: protracted mediocrity or a big band-aid pull. Now... you dan disagree with the assessment, and I am cool with people seeing this team as close. But I’m trying to explain why I’d “root” for us to be bad.... if you saw the choices as I do, which would you take? I think if I saw things the way you do, I would think to myself "Of course, I might be wrong! All sorts of unexpected things happen all the time, in baseball as in life, and that is part of the joy of both. By trying to field a winner, this team can hopefully make the most of whatever chances they get!"
Remember, I projected them for the exact same number of wins as you, so in a sense I do see things as you do. I think I just have wider error bars on the possible outcomes (at least in the positive direction). And also I guess I'm more averse to having the Red Sox be terrible for multiple seasons in exchange for what you describe yourself as a quite modest prospect haul. Haha, well, that's a bit of a debate-ender, isn't it? ...In fairness, it's true, there's no need to logically justify your personal feelings about players. I was just legitimately curious why you would have the strong attachment to someone like Benintendi or JBJ but not Vazquez - all sort of average-to-good players. Personally, I'm skeptical he would have as much trade value as you think. I'm also skeptical that they can count on easily replacing him, and my guess is that if anything they might want to keep him for a few more seasons. I get the logic of trading Eovaldi and JDM, but with Vazquez it looks to me like a bit of an underpants gnome strategy:
1. Get rid of our starting catcher. 2. ? ? ?
3. Profit!
Independent of all else, my feeling on CVaz is that if they have someone who is a very good defensive catcher lined up behind him, it would be fine. He is a good offensive *catcher*, which is, of course, relative. But even great teams eat poor catcher offense if the D is strong. And maybe I’m alone, but I keep waiting for him to turn into a pumpkin. Maybe that is one of the things that sets him apart from the others... I am suspicious that this is an illusion. Now, I concede... I may be overestimating a return, and unlike Eovaldi and JDM, CVaz I’d keep if the return wasn’t optimal. That would be a little different from a tank move... it’d be a legitimate effort to sell high. And that is one other thing that separates it from the Beni trade. It feels like we quit on Beni, and I hate that. In truth, I worry they *ruined* him trying to make him something he wasn’t. But that is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 27, 2021 13:13:24 GMT -5
The Astro's tank job started in 2011, they didn't get more than 90 wins till 2017. That's what a full teardown looks like, it doesn't happen in two years. You'd have Bogaerts, Dever's and ERod looking to find new teams.
Yeah I much prefer a mini rebuild over a tear it down and start over campaign.
I also don't get how platooning equals complicated, thus more issues. It actually creates more flexibility, thus making things easier if an injury happens or players just have horrible years. Great depth and flexibility take away a lot of issues. Nevermind fixing the issues is a lot easier. Like finding a guy that plays the OF and hits RHP versus having to get an everyday player who plays the OF. This isn't a new concept and it's really worked well for many clubs for years.
When it comes to doing better than expected wins, guys like Eovaldi and Richards are exactly the types that can change that. Guy's that have had better seasons than they are projected to. Plus the availability of guys in the minors to help and potential upgrade the team. The depth a team has to withstand injuries and down years. Our system might be a little short on high end guys, yet we have depth that's just about ready at so many positions in a way I haven't seen in a long time. That can be the difference between being okay and rather good.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 27, 2021 13:18:53 GMT -5
The biggest trade chip we may have is Erod. I can’t see much a return for Martinez with the limited market for DH amd his salary. Looking at upcoming FAs. Evo, CV, Ottivinno and Barnes may bring something of significance. That said if all of these guys stay healthy and are having a season where they have value I don’t think the Sox will be in the trade market.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 13:33:20 GMT -5
The Astro's tank job started in 2011, they didn't get more than 90 wins till 2017. That's what a full teardown looks like, it doesn't happen in two years. You'd have Bogaerts, Dever's and ERod looking to find new teams. Yeah I much prefer a mini rebuild over a tear it down and start over campaign. I also don't get how platooning equals complicated, thus more issues. It actually creates more flexibility, thus making things easier if an injury happens or players just have horrible years. Great depth and flexibility take away a lot of issues. Nevermind fixing the issues is a lot easier. Like finding a guy that plays the OF and hits RHP versus having to get an everyday player who plays the OF. This isn't a new concept and it's really worked well for many clubs for years. When it comes to doing better than expected wins, guys like Eovaldi and Richards are exactly the types that can change that. Guy's that have had better seasons than they are projected to. Plus the availability of guys in the minors to help and potential upgrade the team. The depth a team has to withstand injuries and down years. Our system might be a little short on high end guys, yet we have depth that's just about ready at so many positions in a way I haven't seen in a long time. That can be the difference between being okay and rather good. The two starters are the guys who would *have* to change it. That is, the road to exceeding expectations is a) a massive offense; b) over-production from pitching; a combination of a+b. But Eovaldi, especially, simply is what he is. When healthy he is a very, very good 4 inning pitcher and a pretty good 5-6 inning pitcher. He doesn’t have a next level though. He hasn’t added a pitch, his command has always actually been good etc. He is what he is. Richards, I agree, in 2016 looked like a possible Cy Young. But I just don’t believe a guy who has average 50 innings a year since then is going to suddenly burst out. I bet he is good, but limited. 17 starts? There are bodies that just don’t stay healthy. We’ve seen guys a million times like that. And I hope the Pivetta, Seabold, Houck guys work out. But I’d take *work out* — exceed a 4/5 expectation is greedy. Anyway... as for the complexity issue. Well, a basic example. If Renfroe’s platoon partner gets hurt and/or sucks, then Renfroe *also* loses value. You have a system that is a line of dominoes where small issues tip into other areas. Now, obviously anyone can get hurt. But when you use two rosters slots for one position, (or one roster slot for two positions, a la Kiké), you up the chances of a problem. This is the equivalent of why I dislike the “opener.” Pitchers don’t always have it. Thus, the more pitchers you *plan* to throw, the more you risk a guy blowing up. If I say you 5 guys are sharing the 9 today, I feel like the odds of a problem are higher than if I say you go as long as you can, then we’ll see (obviously assuming that guy is at least average).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 27, 2021 14:05:57 GMT -5
The Astro's tank job started in 2011, they didn't get more than 90 wins till 2017. That's what a full teardown looks like, it doesn't happen in two years. You'd have Bogaerts, Dever's and ERod looking to find new teams. Yeah I much prefer a mini rebuild over a tear it down and start over campaign. I also don't get how platooning equals complicated, thus more issues. It actually creates more flexibility, thus making things easier if an injury happens or players just have horrible years. Great depth and flexibility take away a lot of issues. Nevermind fixing the issues is a lot easier. Like finding a guy that plays the OF and hits RHP versus having to get an everyday player who plays the OF. This isn't a new concept and it's really worked well for many clubs for years. When it comes to doing better than expected wins, guys like Eovaldi and Richards are exactly the types that can change that. Guy's that have had better seasons than they are projected to. Plus the availability of guys in the minors to help and potential upgrade the team. The depth a team has to withstand injuries and down years. Our system might be a little short on high end guys, yet we have depth that's just about ready at so many positions in a way I haven't seen in a long time. That can be the difference between being okay and rather good. The two starters are the guys who would *have* to change it. That is, the road to exceeding expectations is a) a massive offense; b) over-production from pitching; a combination of a+b. But Eovaldi, especially, simply is what he is. When healthy he is a very, very good 4 inning pitcher and a pretty good 5-6 inning pitcher. He doesn’t have a next level though. He hasn’t added a pitch, his command has always actually been good etc. He is what he is. Richards, I agree, in 2016 looked like a possible Cy Young. But I just don’t believe a guy who has average 50 innings a year since then is going to suddenly burst out. I bet he is good, but limited. 17 starts? There are bodies that just don’t stay healthy. We’ve seen guys a million times like that. And I hope the Pivetta, Seabold, Houck guys work out. But I’d take *work out* — exceed a 4/5 expectation is greedy. Anyway... as for the complexity issue. Well, a basic example. If Renfroe’s platoon partner gets hurt and/or sucks, then Renfroe *also* loses value. You have a system that is a line of dominoes where small issues tip into other areas. Now, obviously anyone can get hurt. But when you use two rosters slots for one position, (or one roster slot for two positions, a la Kiké), you up the chances of a problem. This is the equivalent of why I dislike the “opener.” Pitchers don’t always have it. Thus, the more pitchers you *plan* to throw, the more you risk a guy blowing up. If I say you 5 guys are sharing the 9 today, I feel like the odds of a problem are higher than if I say you go as long as you can, then we’ll see (obviously assuming that guy is at least average). Like I said platoon guys are rather easy to get and replace, nevermind how is that worse than say Bradley going down and you have to play your 4th OF? What's easier to find a replacement for? It makes things easier, reduces risks, it doesn't increase them. Look no further than the Red Sox record in games Eovaldi and Perez started to understand the impact him pitching well can have. Especially when he should be the 3/4th guy when Sale comes back. Those innings are because he was injured, you know this. He might be risky, yet he's also coming off his first healthy season in a long time with a new elbow. He certainly has a wide range of outcomes, yet one of them is being a lot better than people expect.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 14:10:54 GMT -5
The two starters are the guys who would *have* to change it. That is, the road to exceeding expectations is a) a massive offense; b) over-production from pitching; a combination of a+b. But Eovaldi, especially, simply is what he is. When healthy he is a very, very good 4 inning pitcher and a pretty good 5-6 inning pitcher. He doesn’t have a next level though. He hasn’t added a pitch, his command has always actually been good etc. He is what he is. Richards, I agree, in 2016 looked like a possible Cy Young. But I just don’t believe a guy who has average 50 innings a year since then is going to suddenly burst out. I bet he is good, but limited. 17 starts? There are bodies that just don’t stay healthy. We’ve seen guys a million times like that. And I hope the Pivetta, Seabold, Houck guys work out. But I’d take *work out* — exceed a 4/5 expectation is greedy. Anyway... as for the complexity issue. Well, a basic example. If Renfroe’s platoon partner gets hurt and/or sucks, then Renfroe *also* loses value. You have a system that is a line of dominoes where small issues tip into other areas. Now, obviously anyone can get hurt. But when you use two rosters slots for one position, (or one roster slot for two positions, a la Kiké), you up the chances of a problem. This is the equivalent of why I dislike the “opener.” Pitchers don’t always have it. Thus, the more pitchers you *plan* to throw, the more you risk a guy blowing up. If I say you 5 guys are sharing the 9 today, I feel like the odds of a problem are higher than if I say you go as long as you can, then we’ll see (obviously assuming that guy is at least average). Like I said platoon guys are rather easy to get and replace, nevermind how is that worse than say Bradley going down and you have to play your 4th OF? What's easier to find a replacement for? It makes things easier, reduces risks, it doesn't increase them. Look no further than the Red Sox record in games Eovaldi and Perez started to understand the impact him pitching well can have. Especially when he should be the 3/4th guy when Sale comes back. Those innings are because he was injured, you know this. He might be risky, yet he's also coming off his first healthy season in a long time with a new elbow. He certainly has a wide range of outcomes, yet one of them is being a lot better than people expect. He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Feb 27, 2021 14:22:51 GMT -5
I don’t subscribe to the tank for picks ideology in baseball, the bust rate on first round picks is too high. I don’t mind rebuild - trading MLB players for young talent - but I think intentionally shipping off guys for little to no value in order to move up 10 picks in what is a volatile exercise isn’t the greatest strategy.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 14:48:01 GMT -5
Like I said platoon guys are rather easy to get and replace, nevermind how is that worse than say Bradley going down and you have to play your 4th OF? What's easier to find a replacement for? It makes things easier, reduces risks, it doesn't increase them. Look no further than the Red Sox record in games Eovaldi and Perez started to understand the impact him pitching well can have. Especially when he should be the 3/4th guy when Sale comes back. Those innings are because he was injured, you know this. He might be risky, yet he's also coming off his first healthy season in a long time with a new elbow. He certainly has a wide range of outcomes, yet one of them is being a lot better than people expect. He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years. Ok, last point: Richards averaged a bit over 3 innings an appearance last year. So healthy, yes. Tested... not so much.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 27, 2021 14:55:57 GMT -5
Like I said platoon guys are rather easy to get and replace, nevermind how is that worse than say Bradley going down and you have to play your 4th OF? What's easier to find a replacement for? It makes things easier, reduces risks, it doesn't increase them. Look no further than the Red Sox record in games Eovaldi and Perez started to understand the impact him pitching well can have. Especially when he should be the 3/4th guy when Sale comes back. Those innings are because he was injured, you know this. He might be risky, yet he's also coming off his first healthy season in a long time with a new elbow. He certainly has a wide range of outcomes, yet one of them is being a lot better than people expect. He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years. Richards made 10 starts and averaged 4.6 IP in those starts. He had 6 5+IP starts, and two of 7 IP. Then they moved him to the bullpen which brought his IP average down. That was in preparation for the playoffs.
At any rate, suppose he lasts half a season as an effective starter, essentially as a bridge to Sale. Then the Red Sox could have a potential post-season rotation led by Sale and Rodriguez, and then whichever one of Eovaldi, Houck, Pivetta, and Seabold looks best. Your position is that it's impossible to imagine a team like that making a run in the playoffs? No one denies that a few things have to go right for the Red Sox to do really well this season (which is true for most teams who end up being successful). A lot of people would just disagree with you that it's inconceivable that could happen.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Feb 27, 2021 14:56:52 GMT -5
He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years. Rich Hill is close But I will take the under on 15 starts for Richards.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 27, 2021 15:57:54 GMT -5
With Richards has it been a whole bunch of injuries? I don’t think so. Lost most of 2 seasons to Tommy John. Not saying he is an injury free durable pitcher. Just saying he is no rich hill either.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 15:59:54 GMT -5
With Richards has it been a whole bunch of injuries? I don’t think so. Lost most of 2 seasons to Tommy John. Not saying he is an injury free durable pitcher. Just saying he is no rich hill either. Knee. Bicep 2017. Shoulder 2019. He is a medical school course.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 27, 2021 16:04:52 GMT -5
With Richards has it been a whole bunch of injuries? I don’t think so. Lost most of 2 seasons to Tommy John. Not saying he is an injury free durable pitcher. Just saying he is no rich hill either. Knee. Bicep 2017. Shoulder 2019. He is a medical school course. I wouldn’t go medical School coarse. Obviously this year wand going forward will tell. But he was relatively healthy until hi TJ in 2016 and again last year. I’m not saying he won’t be hurt but how much of his whole injury history steams from the TJ. And is it posible that is all now in the past??
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 27, 2021 19:29:27 GMT -5
Like I said platoon guys are rather easy to get and replace, nevermind how is that worse than say Bradley going down and you have to play your 4th OF? What's easier to find a replacement for? It makes things easier, reduces risks, it doesn't increase them. Look no further than the Red Sox record in games Eovaldi and Perez started to understand the impact him pitching well can have. Especially when he should be the 3/4th guy when Sale comes back. Those innings are because he was injured, you know this. He might be risky, yet he's also coming off his first healthy season in a long time with a new elbow. He certainly has a wide range of outcomes, yet one of them is being a lot better than people expect. He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years. That's why players get TJ surgery. I don't get your averages, when he was injured during those five years. Only one year wasn't his elbow and many have speculated the bicep injury was because of his elbow, trying to find a different way to pitch around it. It was in that article I posted awhile back. Wouldn't his history with a good elbow be more relevant?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 19:41:33 GMT -5
He’s always hurt. That was my point. If I can find a Vegas book on him getting hurt, I’ll take it. Serious question: how many pitchers have had a 30+ start season, then averaged 40 innings a year for 5 years, then, age 32/33, made a huge comeback? Edit: and I mean a guy who had no zero inning seasons, no 100+ inning... not someone whose average is based on a lost year or two between healthy years. That's why players get TJ surgery. I don't get your averages, when he was injured during those five years. Only one year wasn't his elbow and many have speculated the bicep injury was because of his elbow, trying to find a different way to pitch around it. It was in that article I posted awhile back. Wouldn't his history with a good elbow be more relevant? 2016, he had an elbow injury. He chose platelet rich injection, not TJ. Now... in 2017, he had a biceps issue — a nerve issue, unrelated to the elbow. At that time, they checked... and he passed the MRI. Structurally sound. The injection the previous year seems to have worked. 2018... TJ surgery. So that is actually at least two *separate* elbow injuries. And the bicep, which did not appear to be the result of the elbow in 2017. Maybe it was a sign of things to come. 2019... shoulder issues delay his return (a return, mind you, that is terrible in 3 games). So it is actually *four* injuries. And yes, his history with a good elbow is relevant. He was good in 2014 and 2015, the last full seasons with a fully functioning arm.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 27, 2021 19:48:47 GMT -5
With Richards has it been a whole bunch of injuries? I don’t think so. Lost most of 2 seasons to Tommy John. Not saying he is an injury free durable pitcher. Just saying he is no rich hill either. Knee. Bicep 2017. Shoulder 2019. He is a medical school course. The knee was 2014 when he made 26 starts, the shoulder was nothing, just sore coming back from TJ, he missed almost no time with that. See comment above about the bicep. Your five years are injured his Elbow doesn't get TJ misses year, injuries his Bicep trying to come back without TJ misses year, then next year comes back elbow still isn't right, finally getting TJ misses most of 2018/2019. Comes back late 2019 and has been fully healthy since. Every pitcher has huge risks, yet he's got a new Elbow. 2020 was the first full year since 2015 and you know what? He didn't have any major injuries. Just imagine if we get anything close to the 2014/2015 Richards.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 19:58:21 GMT -5
Knee. Bicep 2017. Shoulder 2019. He is a medical school course. The knee was 2014 when he made 26 starts, the shoulder was nothing, just sore coming back from TJ, he missed almost no time with that. See comment above about the bicep. Your five years are injured his Elbow doesn't get TJ misses year, injuries his Bicep trying to come back without TJ misses year, then next year comes back elbow still isn't right, finally getting TJ misses most of 2018/2019. Comes back late 2019 and has been fully healthy since. Every pitcher has huge risks, yet he's got a new Elbow. 2020 was the first full year since 2015 and you know what? He didn't have any major injuries. Just imagine if we get anything close to the 2014/2015 Richards. You cannot brush off the elbow as one long injury. It simply wasn’t. It was multiple injuries. Listen, I agree... if they get 33-year old Garrett Richards to pitch like 27-year old Garrett Richards after multiple lost years and multiple arm issues, it will be a huge bonus. Is it worth $10 million to test it out? Well.... there do seem to be guys who have similar upsides going for less. But it isn’t my money. Now... is it a *massive* gamble? I’d say so. Does JA Happ at $8.5 million seem safer? Seems safer. If Richards has a strong season, I’ll tip my cap to Gamblin’ Chaim. But if Richards ends up clogging up the IL, I think it is fair to say tgat it was pretty predictable.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 27, 2021 20:04:22 GMT -5
The Astro's tank job started in 2011, they didn't get more than 90 wins till 2017. That's what a full teardown looks like, it doesn't happen in two years. You'd have Bogaerts, Dever's and ERod looking to find new teams. Yeah I much prefer a mini rebuild over a tear it down and start over campaign. I also don't get how platooning equals complicated, thus more issues. It actually creates more flexibility, thus making things easier if an injury happens or players just have horrible years. Great depth and flexibility take away a lot of issues. Nevermind fixing the issues is a lot easier. Like finding a guy that plays the OF and hits RHP versus having to get an everyday player who plays the OF. This isn't a new concept and it's really worked well for many clubs for years.
When it comes to doing better than expected wins, guys like Eovaldi and Richards are exactly the types that can change that. Guy's that have had better seasons than they are projected to. Plus the availability of guys in the minors to help and potential upgrade the team. The depth a team has to withstand injuries and down years. Our system might be a little short on high end guys, yet we have depth that's just about ready at so many positions in a way I haven't seen in a long time. That can be the difference between being okay and rather good. Platoons are fine....in small measure. Look at the last 20 World Series winners. They aren't clubs who rely heavily on platoons. Not to mention that you risk marketing revenue losses. Who comes to game and / or buys jerseys of platoon guys. Alot of folks here know better than i do, and increasing the depth is great (for reasons you mentioned). But, getting back to the thread premise, if Bloom thinks he is going to win either the World Series or the market fandom, by over relying on platoons.....i can safely say he is going to fail, in one or both of those metrics. Those roster types are for small market teams with lack of financial muscle. The Sox, at some point in the future, need to flex that competitive advantage.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 27, 2021 20:10:49 GMT -5
The Astro's tank job started in 2011, they didn't get more than 90 wins till 2017. That's what a full teardown looks like, it doesn't happen in two years. You'd have Bogaerts, Dever's and ERod looking to find new teams. Yeah I much prefer a mini rebuild over a tear it down and start over campaign. I also don't get how platooning equals complicated, thus more issues. It actually creates more flexibility, thus making things easier if an injury happens or players just have horrible years. Great depth and flexibility take away a lot of issues. Nevermind fixing the issues is a lot easier. Like finding a guy that plays the OF and hits RHP versus having to get an everyday player who plays the OF. This isn't a new concept and it's really worked well for many clubs for years.
When it comes to doing better than expected wins, guys like Eovaldi and Richards are exactly the types that can change that. Guy's that have had better seasons than they are projected to. Plus the availability of guys in the minors to help and potential upgrade the team. The depth a team has to withstand injuries and down years. Our system might be a little short on high end guys, yet we have depth that's just about ready at so many positions in a way I haven't seen in a long time. That can be the difference between being okay and rather good. Platoons are fine....in small measure. Look at the last 20 World Series winners. They aren't clubs who rely heavily on platoons. Not to mention that you risk marketing revenue losses. Who comes to game and / or buys jerseys of platoon guys. Alot of folks here know better than i do, and increasing the depth is great (for reasons you mentioned). But, getting back to the thread premise, if Bloom thinks he is going to win either the World Series or the market fandom, by over relying on platoons.....i can safely say he is going to fail, in one or both of those metrics. Those roster types are for small market teams with lack of financial muscle. The Sox, at some point in the future, need to flex that competitive advantage. Totally agree. The issue of *product* is one we haven’t discussed enough. People can mock me for holding Mookie against Bloom, but I doubt I’m alone. When you combine that with saying our new outfield is a mix of semi-anonymous part-times, it doesn’t make me want to shell out $100+ for my mlb app.
|
|
|