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.
|
Post by manfred on Nov 30, 2021 13:42:43 GMT -5
It is not my complaint. I was a big fan of the trade, and I am not that worried about resigning him per se. But I have always been an advocate for trading prospects for help in the present. My main points are: A) if they lose Schwarber, they are worse than the team that played in the playoffs and need to replace the production. Obviously it is early, but if they lose ERod and KS and gain Wacha, it is a bad off season. B) The people who look at all of this as a longterm building project should view the Schwarber trade as a loss if he walks. I’m not a believer in that longterm waiting game, but if I was in the rebuild-the-system mindset, I’d view trading one of their better arms for a few months of Schwarber as a strange move. Since my attitude is take a chance when it presents itself, I say trade anyone for a stab at a ring. Add: I agree on the improvement over opening day and *do* hope they sign Schwarber. If it doesn’t happen, I won’t lose it, but it definitely makes the team much better than a year ago. Disagree on the bolded. Lou Gorman tried that and it backfired famously. I didn't think it needs to be said, but not all prospects are considered equal. I was fine with them trading Aldo Ramirez away for Kyle Schwarber. Ramirez is considered far away and doesn't have THAT high a ceiling. If they had traded Winkleman Gonzalez or a Tristan Casas or Nick Yorke for a Schwarber rental I would have been ticked off. As you saw, the Braves didn't have to give the farm away to get the upgrades they got last July. Ok, maybe I exaggerate. And of course I mean for a reasonable return. I wouldn’t trade Casas for most returns… but I would trade him for something huge. I’d *definitely* trade Yorke for a good return. But I am not saying anything other than that I am mot one to view prospects as untouchable, really.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 30, 2021 14:38:53 GMT -5
Yeah, ERod looks like clearly the best big money deal so far, ERod is not better than Gausman (or Gausman’s deal). The numbers say otherwise, he's been better and is younger. ERod is a very safe bet at pitcher on that contract and that's just not something you say very often about starters and long-term deals. With Gausman you're betting on him repeating a career year. ERod would look awesome in the NL with those pitcher parks and no DH, compared to the AL East which is bar none the hardest park and lineup wise for any pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Nov 30, 2021 15:18:06 GMT -5
Is that your complaint, or are you just adventitiously gesturing toward a complaint *one might make* (even though it's not your actual complaint) in order to cast the front office in a bad light? In any case... If they ssign Schwarber they will have made a considerable upgrade from 2021's opening day roster. And then if they're competitive like last year, they can add another Schwarber at the trade deadline. That's an upgrade.
It is not my complaint. I was a big fan of the trade, and I am not that worried about resigning him per se. But I have always been an advocate for trading prospects for help in the present. My main points are: A) if they lose Schwarber, they are worse than the team that played in the playoffs and need to replace the production. Obviously it is early, but if they lose ERod and KS and gain Wacha, it is a bad off season. B) The people who look at all of this as a longterm building project should view the Schwarber trade as a loss if he walks. I’m not a believer in that longterm waiting game, but if I was in the rebuild-the-system mindset, I’d view trading one of their better arms for a few months of Schwarber as a strange move. Since my attitude is take a chance when it presents itself, I say trade anyone for a stab at a ring. Add: I agree on the improvement over opening day and *do* hope they sign Schwarber. If it doesn’t happen, I won’t lose it, but it definitely makes the team much better than a year ago. We got 1.3 bWAR from Schwarber last year, seems like pretty good return for the present value of Aldo's expected career WAR (without doing the math). Rizzo was 0.5 bWAR, Gallo was 0.5 bWAR, Bryant was 1.1 bWAR. I agree with the sentiment that if Wacha is the return for ERod, that'll be disappointing. I'm going to enter the next three months with Wacha being the replacement for Perez and wait until the offseason is over to get disappointed though.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Nov 30, 2021 15:21:15 GMT -5
How in the world is signing Schwarber treading water? ^^ what champs said. If they don’t sign him, they traded Aldo Ramirez for a rental. Seems like the kind of thing people used to get bashed for. Im fine with trading Aldo for a rental. You get him for the full year in this scenario where he re signs. If he doesn't then you are worse off than what you were before you traded for him.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Nov 30, 2021 20:40:51 GMT -5
I'm quick to rant on here about the destructiveness of ridiculously long and expensive contracts. But a corollary of the doctrine that says those contracts are bad is that teams should jump at bargains and superb value like the E-Rod contract.
I'd prefer his deal to any of those signed by other SP in this market. I want no part of Scherzer at $43M (37 years old and missed his last start due to a dead arm), the Jays' deal with Gausman (two years of >2 b-Ref WAR before his outlier 2021 season), or the M's deal with Ray (a robust 8.4 WAR before '21 and most of that came in one season, 2017).
I remain in Chaim We Trust mode (we don't have much choice, do we?), but I can't imagine what the thinking was here.
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Dec 1, 2021 0:21:58 GMT -5
I mean I think it’s fair to say that having the negotiations in the middle of this off season really kind threw a lot of people for a loop. I read a lot of places including on here how it would just make the hot stove colder than usual and absolutely nothing would get done until the new rules were hashed out. The exact opposite happened and not only that suddenly everyone was fine overpaying. So in that context, I do wonder if there red Sox are looking at the ERod deal now and thinking damn. Now they did get a draft pick, which is something, but I think it might be fair to say that the Red Sox may have understandably just miscalculated the market.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Dec 1, 2021 2:20:13 GMT -5
I mean I think it’s fair to say that having the negotiations in the middle of this off season really kind threw a lot of people for a loop. I read a lot of places including on here how it would just make the hot stove colder than usual and absolutely nothing would get done until the new rules were hashed out. The exact opposite happened and not only that suddenly everyone was fine overpaying. So in that context, I do wonder if there red Sox are looking at the ERod deal now and thinking damn. Now they did get a draft pick, which is something, but I think it might be fair to say that the Red Sox may have understandably just miscalculated the market. I don’t think so. I think Bloom is not interested in 4-5+ year deals right now. It makes sense. They said we were competitive on Matz but i’m sure we weren’t matching the 4 years. Bloom is doing his thing. History proves those deals usually don’t work. We went from top 5 draft pick to ALCS. The man knows what he’s doing let him go to work! Maybe he’s not getting the sexy names now but we’re going to be flexible and i don’t see the yankees blowing money yet either. We need hungry guys not guys coming in with fat paychecks for years to come just coasting through.Of all teams we’ve watched our team hand out the worst contracts in the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 2, 2021 9:36:23 GMT -5
Any particular reasons for that belief? They have essentially identical steamer projections for next season (Eduardo actually has an 0.1 higher WAR projection). Eduardo also has a longer track record of success, is two years younger, and costs about 30% less. E R A I actually didn’t even look at their ERAs I promise. I’ve been a Gausman fan for a long time. The guy is a horse. I wanted him before he even went to the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 10:01:00 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton.
That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good.
Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 2, 2021 10:30:04 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton. That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good. Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer. Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 11:02:49 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton. That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good. Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer. Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying. OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 2, 2021 11:17:35 GMT -5
Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying. OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened. I picked those two as examples. But I view 1,000 innings as ambitious. Go with career highs: Sale 216 (2016) Eovaldi 199 (2014) Wacha 181 (2015) Hill 195 (2007!) Paxton 160 (2018) Pivetta 164 (2018) Houck 69 (last year) Whitlock 73 (last year) That is barely over 1,000 with many of those numbers inconceivable. Optimistically, Paxton will be short by 100; Hill by 50; Sale by 40ish; Wacha by a decent measure. It returns me to Houck and Whitlock. Can they both add add least 75 innings to last year’s totals? And even that might not get you to your 1,000.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Dec 2, 2021 11:21:21 GMT -5
Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying. OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Dec 2, 2021 11:25:25 GMT -5
Doesn't matter what Chaim and FO do, there will be always the smart A**s that know better.
Last year the DOOM legion stated the same and in the end they eat their words, I can see the same happening next season.
IMO, Chaim and the FO have more and better information but looks like our board warriors, KNOW BETTER.
They are building the roster as better as they see it, GET USE TO IT.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 2, 2021 11:33:11 GMT -5
Doesn't matter what Chaim and FO do, there will be always the smart A**s that know better. Last year the DOOM legion stated the same and in the end they eat their words, I can see the same happening next season. IMO, Chaim and the FO have more and better information but looks like our board warriors, KNOW BETTER. They are building the roster as better as they see it, GET USE TO IT. All of this is true but if moves can't be questioned or discussed and debated, we might as well just make this a shrine for Chaim Bloom and never question anything. Hate to break the news to you, but sometimes GMs make moves that don't work out or that backfire spectacularly. If they didn't they never lose their jobs. It would be appointed GM jobs for life. Obviously that doesn't happen. GMs are human like the rest of us and make mistakes. So this, well he know more, so we can't question nothing line of reasoning doesn't really work. A GM can be right 99% of the time and the keyboard warriors 1%, but that doesn't mean that the GM is always right and the fan is always wrong. If it is, again, why bother having a board to discuss anything? We can just bask in the perfection of Chaim Bloom. Just for the record, I like most of what Bloom does and I get what he's trying to accomplish, but I certainly don't agree with everything and there are legit questions that can be asked. This blind trust in Chaim or Dombrowski or Ben or Theo....it gets tiring.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 2, 2021 11:33:16 GMT -5
Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Wacha, Hill, Houck, Whitlock, Paxton. That looks like maybe 1000 quality innings with the Sox embracing getting better performance per outing over innings pitched per start. It looks like the type of staff that Bloom and the Sox will be building for the foreseeable future. I like it and think it could turn into one of the best in baseball next season. Just about every one of them could have an era below 4, I know that is an antiquated stat but if your team era is 3.8 then life is good. Could 23-24 Paxton be the Eovaldi replacement plan? It could be but I hope it is not, I think Nate has a few good years left in him and hope the Sox pony up to keep him longer. Wacha has been under 4 once since 2015. Pivetta will be 29 and has never been below 4.50. The staff could be decent, but we should be realistic. To me, the x factors are Houck and Whitlock. If at the end of the year the staff order is Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Houck, and the rest, I think the staff is likely better than expected. If Houck and Whitlock struggle, and the back end is the rest, it might be trying. I'm optimistic (more just hoping) that this is one reason why Chaim has only worked around the edges of the rotation thus far -- that the team is confident that Houck and Whitlock are ready for their close-ups. If not, I think we'll see another starter added.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 11:56:05 GMT -5
OK Mr Negative did you see the words "just about" and "could" in there right, it was there for a reason. I realize this about Pivetta and Wacha but 6 out of the 8 have a history of <4 but thank you for pointing out that 2 of the 8 don't. The x factors are not just Houck and Whitlock, the x factors are just about every pitcher on the Sox and in baseball for that matter. VERY VERY few pitchers in baseball can truly be counted on to be really good yr in yr out and they get paid BIG money. Which the Sox are avoiding, would you rather they spend big on a guy who did it for one season, Robbie Ray. And let me once again state the obvious. The whole idea about a staff that is constructed this way is that guys pitch fewer but more quality innings. Take a look at TBays staff from last season that led the AL in era and tell me it looks like a better staff than what the Sox have going into next year. BTW Tampa also had the fewest quality starts in baseball also. So once again, guys with a history of being decent to good starters can USUALLY dial it up in shorter stints which leads to better performance. That is just a reality that Bloom believes in and is building his staff around. So IMO the Sox now have 7 guys who should contribute between 120 and 180 innings along with a ? in Paxton that should add up to 1000 innings of hopefully very good production. Hopefully being a key word but that is what most teams are dealing with, hope. Who knows maybe Wacha is next seasons Ray, crazier things have happened. I picked those two as examples. But I view 1,000 innings as ambitious. Go with career highs: Sale 216 (2016) Eovaldi 199 (2014) Wacha 181 (2015) Hill 195 (2007!) Paxton 160 (2018) Pivetta 164 (2018) Houck 69 (last year) Whitlock 73 (last year) That is barely over 1,000 with many of those numbers inconceivable. Optimistically, Paxton will be short by 100; Hill by 50; Sale by 40ish; Wacha by a decent measure. It returns me to Houck and Whitlock. Can they both add add least 75 innings to last year’s totals? And even that might not get you to your 1,000. Houck and Whitlock have both been starters their entire lives and have both thrown 120 innings in the minors. Lets stop looking at 120 innings as being a big deal for guys who aren't expected to be ready to pitch every day and an inning at a time. If 4 of those guys average 150 and the other 4 average 100 that is 1000. Is that really all that ambitious to expect from 8 guys who should be and want to be considered starters? Maybe a little considering Paxton but so what that isn't the point. The point is the way in which the staff is being built. Which is around guys that can contribute more than an inning at a time while not being used as a traditional starter. Those totals you list above are not barely over 1000, it adds up to 1257, but that is irrelevant as they mean nothing next yr. And they mean nothing in the context of my post or what Bloom is putting together as far as the staff goes.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 2, 2021 12:09:58 GMT -5
I picked those two as examples. But I view 1,000 innings as ambitious. Go with career highs: Sale 216 (2016) Eovaldi 199 (2014) Wacha 181 (2015) Hill 195 (2007!) Paxton 160 (2018) Pivetta 164 (2018) Houck 69 (last year) Whitlock 73 (last year) That is barely over 1,000 with many of those numbers inconceivable. Optimistically, Paxton will be short by 100; Hill by 50; Sale by 40ish; Wacha by a decent measure. It returns me to Houck and Whitlock. Can they both add add least 75 innings to last year’s totals? And even that might not get you to your 1,000. Houck and Whitlock have both been starters their entire lives and have both thrown 120 innings in the minors. Lets stop looking at 120 innings as being a big deal for guys who aren't expected to be ready to pitch every day and an inning at a time. If 4 of those guys average 150 and the other 4 average 100 that is 1000. Is that really all that ambitious to expect from 8 guys who should be and want to be considered starters? Maybe a little considering Paxton but so what that isn't the point. The point is the way in which the staff is being built. Which is around guys that can contribute more than an inning at a time while not being used as a traditional starter. Those totals you list above are not barely over 1000, it adds up to 1257, but that is irrelevant as they mean nothing next yr. And they mean nothing in the context of my post or what Bloom is putting together as far as the staff goes. We can make an over/under bet: I’ll take the under on that group, $100 to the Jimmy Fund.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 2, 2021 12:25:27 GMT -5
Sale 165 Eovaldi 165 Wacha 120 Hill 110 Paxton 55 Pivetta 160 Houck 115 Whitlock 110
Here's your 1000 innings. I don't think that's an ambitious forecast for a single one of these pitchers. Of course it's likely that one or another of them gets hurt and doesn't reach that total, but there's also a lot of fungibility between all of them to allow others to pick up the slack (e.g., if Wacha gets hurt Hill could get more innings, or vice verse).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 2, 2021 12:27:22 GMT -5
Sale 165 Eovaldi 165 Wacha 120 Hill 110 Paxton 55 Pivetta 160 Houck 115 Whitlock 110
Here's your 1000 innings. I don't think that's an ambitious forecast for a single one of these pitchers. Of course it's likely that one or another of them gets hurt and doesn't reach that total, but there's also a lot of fungibility between all of them to allow others to pick up the slack (e.g., if Wacha gets hurt Hill could get more innings, or vice verse).
That is what makes it exciting! Feels like a very fair over/under.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 13:46:27 GMT -5
Sale 165 Eovaldi 165 Wacha 120 Hill 110 Paxton 55 Pivetta 160 Houck 115 Whitlock 110
Here's your 1000 innings. I don't think that's an ambitious forecast for a single one of these pitchers. Of course it's likely that one or another of them gets hurt and doesn't reach that total, but there's also a lot of fungibility between all of them to allow others to pick up the slack (e.g., if Wacha gets hurt Hill could get more innings, or vice verse).
That is what makes it exciting! Feels like a very fair over/under. Incandeza those are pretty much the numbers I had in mind and yes their is all kinds of fungibility there. I can see Pivetta as being improved just based on the experience and success he had in the playoffs. But I also think their is a real possibility that one of the Wacha, Houck, Whitlock or Hill group could be a good surprise. They all have it in them to pitch at a high level, which could lead to a lot more innings. I actually like the way it looks going in and I haven't even mentioned Seabold who could also be a strong contributor in the same type of role. It would be a very fair over/under. And it is a little ambitious but then again not, depends on usage and health. BTW as someone who used to gamble a lot but realized that bets too often are decided by the bounce of the ball I have stepped way back, but I do often bet season wins over/under totals. Like the Sox this past season and the Pats this season. I thought both were good gambles and laid 4 figures as I have for a long time with the Pats, it has been a great run of hitting on those. Then once I know I have won that I can start gambling with house money. Then it is easy to go with parlays and hit big.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Dec 2, 2021 14:02:58 GMT -5
Also not forget about;
Connor Seabold
Josh Winckowski
Kutter Crawford
And a possible surprise,
Jay Groome
Brayan Bello
All can be called up to start some games
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 2, 2021 14:34:38 GMT -5
Also not forget about; Connor Seabold Josh Winckowski Kutter Crawford And a possible surprise, Jay Groome Brayan Bello All can be called up to start some games I am picking Groome as the big breakout pitcher this coming season. He finished the year strong and has always had the potential, this could be his year.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 2, 2021 14:39:41 GMT -5
Also not forget about; Connor Seabold Josh Winckowski Kutter Crawford And a possible surprise, Jay Groome Brayan Bello All can be called up to start some games I'm not sure bello starts any games next year but I think there's a fairly decent chance he's up as a reliever at some point next year. He throws some gas and the scouting reports have his change up as a potential plus pitch already. That's all you need in the bullpen to be a weapon. Hopefully we see some solid progression from this group and the Sox finally develop at least one home grown rotation piece as they haven't had one since buchholz pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by aardsmacarta on Dec 3, 2021 8:02:36 GMT -5
Sale 165 Eovaldi 165 Wacha 120 Hill 110 Paxton 55 Pivetta 160 Houck 115 Whitlock 110 Here's your 1000 innings. I don't think that's an ambitious forecast for a single one of these pitchers. Of course it's likely that one or another of them gets hurt and doesn't reach that total, but there's also a lot of fungibility between all of them to allow others to pick up the slack (e.g., if Wacha gets hurt Hill could get more innings, or vice verse).
For what it's worth, Hill threw 158 innings last year. He seems like a solid bet to keep them in games longer than the Richards types. I don't know how it's all going to work out, but as a fan I prefer to spend a season hoping someone like Houck or Wacha overachieves, or that Paxton comes back in time for the playoffs, than spend it praying that someone like Robbie Ray or Scherzer's arm doesn't fall off.
|
|
|