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.
How Red Sox draft strategy has affected the club's pitching
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 13, 2024 16:52:47 GMT -5
This is a zero-sum situation: to spend more draft resources on pitching means spending less on position players. Does anyone really wish we had gone with pitchers instead of Casas or Anthony just so that we'd have a more "balanced" system? That's one (or two!) cherry picked for you. Now what do you say to people that cherry pick wishing the Sox had taken Bobby Miller (drafted #29) instead of Nick Yorke (#17)? Ha, jokes on them. Miller already graduated and merely helps the Dodgers win actual MLB games and has nothing to do with balancing the system. Yeah, of course they're cherry-picked, in order to illustrate the opportunity cost. If this needs to spelled out explicitly: what I'm saying is that the chances of their taking a solid position player go down if they use more draft picks on pitchers instead, and while that obviously improves their chances of landing on a solid pitcher, that results in a net negative payoff (for reasons I explain in the part of the comment you didn't quote). Is the substantive point here not clear?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 13, 2024 17:12:04 GMT -5
All pitchers draft is coming.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Feb 13, 2024 17:40:13 GMT -5
It’s cherry picking because he picked good players in Casas and Anthony. It’s not like he going to pick position players that didn’t work out, right?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 13, 2024 17:43:36 GMT -5
It’s cherry picking because he picked good players in Casas and Anthony. It’s not like he going to pick position players that didn’t work out, right? But you're missing the point. A hitter that is drafted that then doesn't work out isn't a wasted pick because it's a hitter, it's because the player didn't work out. Like, in your own cherry-picked argument, you talk about Nick Yorke vs. Bobby Miller. Sure, I'd rather have Miller than Yorke at this point, but I'd also rather have PCA or Jordan Walker, too. Because while balance is a nice thing to have, again, the most important thing is getting the pick right.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Feb 13, 2024 17:49:31 GMT -5
That's one (or two!) cherry picked for you. Now what do you say to people that cherry pick wishing the Sox had taken Bobby Miller (drafted #29) instead of Nick Yorke (#17)? Ha, jokes on them. Miller already graduated and merely helps the Dodgers win actual MLB games and has nothing to do with balancing the system. Yeah, of course they're cherry-picked, in order to illustrate the opportunity cost. If this needs to spelled out explicitly: what I'm saying is that the chances of their taking a solid position player go down if they use more draft picks on pitchers instead, and while that obviously improves their chances of landing on a solid pitcher, that results in a net negative payoff (for reasons I explain in the part of the comment you didn't quote). Is the substantive point here not clear? You describe a narrow opportunity cost, sure. What’s the opportunity cost of having no starting pitching prospects in your farm for several years in a row?
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Feb 13, 2024 20:21:59 GMT -5
Yeah, of course they're cherry-picked, in order to illustrate the opportunity cost. If this needs to spelled out explicitly: what I'm saying is that the chances of their taking a solid position player go down if they use more draft picks on pitchers instead, and while that obviously improves their chances of landing on a solid pitcher, that results in a net negative payoff (for reasons I explain in the part of the comment you didn't quote). Is the substantive point here not clear? You describe a narrow opportunity cost, sure. What’s the opportunity cost of having no starting pitching prospects in your farm for several years in a row? It makes your team more volatile over time, but it also didn’t stop the 2018 team from being the best Red Sox team in the live ball era. So difficult to say. “Not having starting pitching prospects” isn’t really something that has an opportunity cost anyway, it’s the opportunity cost of this approach. And that’s probably not totally accurate, because they take a scattershot approach in the IFA market which is how they’ve ended up with Bello and some of the guys down on the farm. It’d be interesting to see the world where they don’t get that IFA ban, because it probably played a huge role in the system cratering in the way it did.
|
|
|
Post by ephus on Feb 13, 2024 20:30:18 GMT -5
Really fantastic piece and a ton of work I am sure. Huge thanks to Ian. I wonder how this compares to international signing resources, where, I think the team has been a little more aggressive, but not significantly so.
On the one hand this could be attributed to extreme TNSTAAPP but it could also be attributed to taking the Best Player Available™️ (the great thing with baseball this may not literally be the best player, but may be the most signable player to save for overslot later).
It would also be easy to compare this to the Patriots move away from drafting offensive skill players, but I think it is more a strategy to have cost-controlled players in as many spots as possible, then splurging on two or three pitchers and two superstars. We haven’t seen it yet, but I truly believe this is where we are headed in the next three years.
Build the core from within, then add shiny pieces to put them over the top.
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Feb 13, 2024 21:17:45 GMT -5
Yeah, of course they're cherry-picked, in order to illustrate the opportunity cost. If this needs to spelled out explicitly: what I'm saying is that the chances of their taking a solid position player go down if they use more draft picks on pitchers instead, and while that obviously improves their chances of landing on a solid pitcher, that results in a net negative payoff (for reasons I explain in the part of the comment you didn't quote). Is the substantive point here not clear? You describe a narrow opportunity cost, sure. What’s the opportunity cost of having no starting pitching prospects in your farm for several years in a row? Bojack, try this thought experiment. Imagine that the Sox draft only position players for five straight drafts. Those drafts are wildly successful, and at the end of that five years, you have zero home-grown pitchers but a lineup of cost-controlled Mookies at every position. That would be the best offensive and defensive team in the history of baseball, and there would be a lot of resources left over to fill out the pitching staff. You could trade a couple of your Mookies for pitching and still score 1,000 runs. Or you could plow $100M/year into free agents. Or both. Nobody would mind that that team didn't draft any pitchers because they'd be winning 120 games/season. Now imagine a much less extreme version of that, in which 80% of the draft picks and bonuses go toward position players, and the result is good to great cost-controlled, home-grown players at most positions, and you have redundant prospect capital to trade for pitching and money to spend in free agency. That's what the defenders position-player-heavy drafts are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 13, 2024 22:36:05 GMT -5
I agree with most of this. It's not always first rounder or the big bucks pulling in the pitching talent. In fact, Cleveland and LAD have been successful in rounds 3-5 consistently, and Tampa has been very successful acquiring undervalued guys - both inconsistent veteran and prospects - and sprinkling magic dust on them. I think the key is better scouting and pitcher development more than dollar asset allocation. These were supposed to be hallmarks of Chaim Bloom's skill set, but he had decidedly mixed results. Now Breslow and Bailey are the new Pitcher Whisperers™. We'll see. Also, I think the hit on pitching development hasn't been "no home-grown starters" as much as it is "no homegrown starters who aren't 4/5s." That's been much more representative of the outcomes over the last 10+ years, with Bello, who's a 3 right now but still has a ton of development, being a distinct outlier. Crawford was right there for most last year, too, although both ZiPS and Steamer has him regressing significantly this year. I don't know enough about their models to know what that prediction is base on, but results will be seen on the field. Either way, you've got two guys right now who are outliers from the last 10 years. The question will be can they improve, especially Bello who is just 24, to become consistent #2 types or better. But we'll need more, and more evidence that Breslow and Bailey offer a positive departure from the vast bulk of what we've seen from the last three regimes' pitching development. Bloom had "mixed results" but the two "outliers" from the last 10 years have both emerged in the last year or two. Hmm... Yup. If you want to imply that it was Bloom or his system who got the most out of two guys he inherited, that’s fine and probably merited in Bello’s case as most of his development came under that regime. Crawford, however, continued his up and down roller coaster ERA/FIP under Bloom in much the same way he had before without Bloom. He may make a big leap out of the #4 starter type profile this year - and he’s certainly flashed #2 stuff fin stretches - but then do you credit that to the new guys or the last guy? But if you want to give Bloom credit for the two outliers, then he or his system has to be held to account for not getting to what ever it was out of Péréz that made him an all star as soon as the Sox walked away from him. Ditto Braiser, who walked out the door broken, and two weeks later was pitching like one of the nasties set-up men in the league. Same for Strahm. And it was Bloom or his system/scouting that undervalued Springs, who was dealt for spare parts and became an ace almost immediately. Also the same scouting/eval system that identified Kluber as a good idea, clung to Ort like he was made of platinum, identified Wacha as a low risk opportunity (good job!), yet let him walk after a year only to see him continue that low cost success elsewhere (not so good job). So, yeah, I think Breslow and Bailey need to produce better than that with pitching scouting, acquisition and development, or they’ll just be at the end of the next conga line in 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Feb 13, 2024 23:07:24 GMT -5
You describe a narrow opportunity cost, sure. What’s the opportunity cost of having no starting pitching prospects in your farm for several years in a row? Bojack, try this thought experiment. Imagine that the Sox draft only position players for five straight drafts. Those drafts are wildly successful, and at the end of that five years, you have zero home-grown pitchers but a lineup of cost-controlled Mookies at every position. That would be the best offensive and defensive team in the history of baseball, and there would be a lot of resources left over to fill out the pitching staff. You could trade a couple of your Mookies for pitching and still score 1,000 runs. Or you could plow $100M/year into free agents. Or both. Nobody would mind that that team didn't draft any pitchers because they'd be winning 120 games/season. Now imagine a much less extreme version of that, in which 80% of the draft picks and bonuses go toward position players, and the result is good to great cost-controlled, home-grown players at most positions, and you have redundant prospect capital to trade for pitching and money to spend in free agency. That's what the defenders position-player-heavy drafts are saying. They're saying if they keep doing the same thing over and over eventually the monkeys will type out the complete works of Shakespeare in the form of a team of all Mookies? Interesting, what are we to make of the reality in which we are living in which the Sox have mostly done this for 5 years and apparently don't have the extra hitting prospects to make meaningful trades for pitching? I guess you're saying wait 2 or 3 more years for this plan to come to fruition? That's fine, it's their team and they can run it the way they want, but you'd think if they were embarking on a long term plan to have a surplus of hitting prospects to trade in year 7 or 8 that they might have handled some other decisions differently no? Maybe trade off a bunch of MLB assets to speed up the accumulation of surplus prospects? Is it too much to ask for someone to point to the team that has successfully used this strategy? You want to say the Orioles. Ok, the Orioles did it while tanking for several years and generating multiple top of the draft prospects and became the best farm system in baseball over multiple years. The Red Sox tanked for one bizarre Covid year and managed to have an above average farm system. Not a very good comp imo. Anybody else?
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Feb 13, 2024 23:13:19 GMT -5
I think it is more a strategy to have cost-controlled players in as many spots as possible, then splurging on two or three pitchers and two superstars. We haven’t seen it yet, but I truly believe this is where we are headed in the next three years. Build the core from within, then add shiny pieces to put them over the top. That sounds good, and maybe it will work, but you need to remember there will be other teams bidding on the shiny pieces, too. When contract length and dollars start getting high--say if the Sox and Mets both target Corbin Burnes after this season--will the Sox be willing to splurge against big spenders like Steve Cohen?
|
|
|
Post by notnickyorke on Feb 14, 2024 1:30:26 GMT -5
I found the “Where do top pitching prospects come from” part to be very interesting. Particularly the ratio of international vs domestic pitching prospects on prospect lists. I didn’t expect the international market to be that inferior a source for pitching prospects. The ratio seems to extend past prospecthood as well. Looking at the top ten for pitching bWAR in each season since 2014, there is never more than 2 internationally signed pitchers in it (not counting Japanese pitchers). It is odd to think that 80% of the top ten pitchers every year have come from the domestic draft and Japanese posting system for the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by notnickyorke on Feb 14, 2024 1:49:24 GMT -5
I agree with most of this. It's not always first rounder or the big bucks pulling in the pitching talent. In fact, Cleveland and LAD have been successful in rounds 3-5 consistently, and Tampa has been very successful acquiring undervalued guys - both inconsistent veteran and prospects - and sprinkling magic dust on them. I think the key is better scouting and pitcher development more than dollar asset allocation. These were supposed to be hallmarks of Chaim Bloom's skill set, but he had decidedly mixed results. Now Breslow and Bailey are the new Pitcher Whisperers™. We'll see. Also, I think the hit on pitching development hasn't been "no home-grown starters" as much as it is "no homegrown starters who aren't 4/5s." That's been much more representative of the outcomes over the last 10+ years, with Bello, who's a 3 right now but still has a ton of development, being a distinct outlier. Crawford was right there for most last year, too, although both ZiPS and Steamer has him regressing significantly this year. I don't know enough about their models to know what that prediction is base on, but results will be seen on the field. Either way, you've got two guys right now who are outliers from the last 10 years. The question will be can they improve, especially Bello who is just 24, to become consistent #2 types or better. But we'll need more, and more evidence that Breslow and Bailey offer a positive departure from the vast bulk of what we've seen from the last three regimes' pitching development. Bloom had "mixed results" but the two "outliers" from the last 10 years have both emerged in the last year or two. Hmm... Three members of the rotation with above average ERA+ last year:Bello - 107 ERA+ - 157IP - Small bonus signing Crawford - 113 ERA+ - 129IP - 16th round pick Pivetta - 113 ERA+ - 142IP - Acquired for reliever rentals Five members of the bullpen that look to be high leverage relievers:Schreiber 150 ERA+ last 2 years in pen - Claimed on waivers for nothing Bernardino 143 ERA+ in 50IP last year - Claimed on waivers for nothing Whitlock 2.65 ERA as a reliever - rule 5 Houck 2.68 ERA as a reliever - Late 1st round pick Winckowski 158 ERA+ in 84IP last year - Acquired for a regressing outfielder I guess I take issue with the notion that Bloom administration wasn’t finding undervalued pitching and bringing it into the system as well as developing it. Over half the staff looks to be filled with impact pitching that was acquired for nothing or very little. I hope this trend continues (Slaten, Fitts, Campbell, Mata). Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade.
|
|
|
Post by ephus on Feb 14, 2024 7:51:57 GMT -5
I think it is more a strategy to have cost-controlled players in as many spots as possible, then splurging on two or three pitchers and two superstars. We haven’t seen it yet, but I truly believe this is where we are headed in the next three years. Build the core from within, then add shiny pieces to put them over the top. That sounds good, and maybe it will work, but you need to remember there will be other teams bidding on the shiny pieces, too. When contract length and dollars start getting high--say if the Sox and Mets both target Corbin Burnes after this season--will the Sox be willing to splurge against big spenders like Steve Cohen? I don’t control the purse strings.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 14, 2024 8:32:19 GMT -5
Bloom had "mixed results" but the two "outliers" from the last 10 years have both emerged in the last year or two. Hmm... Three members of the rotation with above average ERA+ last year:Bello - 107 ERA+ - 157IP - Small bonus signing Crawford - 113 ERA+ - 129IP - 16th round pick Pivetta - 113 ERA+ - 142IP - Acquired for reliever rentals Five members of the bullpen that look to be high leverage relievers:Schreiber 150 ERA+ last 2 years in pen - Claimed on waivers for nothing Bernardino 143 ERA+ in 50IP last year - Claimed on waivers for nothing Whitlock 2.65 ERA as a reliever - rule 5 Houck 2.68 ERA as a reliever - Late 1st round pick Winckowski 158 ERA+ in 84IP last year - Acquired for a regressing outfielder I guess I take issue with the notion that Bloom administration wasn’t finding undervalued pitching and bringing it into the system as well as developing it. Over half the staff looks to be filled with impact pitching that was acquired for nothing or very little. I hope this trend continues (Slaten, Fitts, Campbell, Mata). Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade. Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK…
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 14, 2024 9:12:21 GMT -5
Three members of the rotation with above average ERA+ last year:Bello - 107 ERA+ - 157IP - Small bonus signing Crawford - 113 ERA+ - 129IP - 16th round pick Pivetta - 113 ERA+ - 142IP - Acquired for reliever rentals Five members of the bullpen that look to be high leverage relievers:Schreiber 150 ERA+ last 2 years in pen - Claimed on waivers for nothing Bernardino 143 ERA+ in 50IP last year - Claimed on waivers for nothing Whitlock 2.65 ERA as a reliever - rule 5 Houck 2.68 ERA as a reliever - Late 1st round pick Winckowski 158 ERA+ in 84IP last year - Acquired for a regressing outfielder I guess I take issue with the notion that Bloom administration wasn’t finding undervalued pitching and bringing it into the system as well as developing it. Over half the staff looks to be filled with impact pitching that was acquired for nothing or very little. I hope this trend continues (Slaten, Fitts, Campbell, Mata). Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade. Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK… Yeah as it relates to finding undervalued pitching and developing it, yes.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 14, 2024 9:29:48 GMT -5
Three members of the rotation with above average ERA+ last year:Bello - 107 ERA+ - 157IP - Small bonus signing Crawford - 113 ERA+ - 129IP - 16th round pick Pivetta - 113 ERA+ - 142IP - Acquired for reliever rentals Five members of the bullpen that look to be high leverage relievers:Schreiber 150 ERA+ last 2 years in pen - Claimed on waivers for nothing Bernardino 143 ERA+ in 50IP last year - Claimed on waivers for nothing Whitlock 2.65 ERA as a reliever - rule 5 Houck 2.68 ERA as a reliever - Late 1st round pick Winckowski 158 ERA+ in 84IP last year - Acquired for a regressing outfielder I guess I take issue with the notion that Bloom administration wasn’t finding undervalued pitching and bringing it into the system as well as developing it. Over half the staff looks to be filled with impact pitching that was acquired for nothing or very little. I hope this trend continues (Slaten, Fitts, Campbell, Mata). Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade. Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK… Things you've said in this discussion:
- "The key is better scouting and pitcher development" - the team has been bad at this for the last 10+ years - the notable exceptions came within the last couple of years - the team was better at pitching development and acquisition 6-8 years ago
You just ignored all the points in the comment you're responding to here about how much better the team seems to be at acquiring and developing pitching. But you contrast it with the division-winning years, when they built an entire staff by selling most of the farm and making big-dollar free agent signings. So... the key isn't better scouting/development but actually they just need to trade away all their prospects and spend big on free agents? I have no idea what you're arguing here.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 14, 2024 9:56:06 GMT -5
Here is another one of my periodic reminders about how the punishment that made us have zero regular international signings in 2016-17 also hurt us. In 2018 we signed Bello, as well as Rafaela and a few other guys still in the system. Imagine if we had a couple of guys similar to but 12 months older than Bello and Rafaela. (With the caveat that Ian's study shows that few good pitchers have been Latin American signings lately.) www.soxprospects.com/international21.htm#2016
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 14, 2024 12:59:48 GMT -5
Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK… Things you've said in this discussion: - "The key is better scouting and pitcher development" - the team has been bad at this for the last 10+ years - the notable exceptions came within the last couple of years - the team was better at pitching development and acquisition 6-8 years ago You just ignored all the points in the comment you're responding to here about how much better the team seems to be at acquiring and developing pitching. But you contrast it with the division-winning years, when they built an entire staff by selling most of the farm and making big-dollar free agent signings. So... the key isn't better scouting/development but actually they just need to trade away all their prospects and spend big on free agents? I have no idea what you're arguing here.
I'm arguing that the Sox have been poor at developing starting pitching better than a 4th/5th starter for 12-15 years. There have been a few outliers recently (Bello, maybe Crawford), but overall they are still substandard at it. When Bloom was hired we were told he was a pitching development and scouting guru, but the results remained mixed. With two guys ascending it could be whatever developmental protocols he implemented. There were some nice pick-ups, but again, relievers and 4th/5th starters, which the Sox have been OK at producing. Also, the near immediate success of got-aways in other systems - Péréz, Springs Strahm among others - makes one wonder. All of this is to say, we've heard the pitching genius siren's song before. I'll believe it when they develop some #2 and #1 starters again. I'll add that it's dispiriting when ownership runs the same BS at us year after year since mid-2019 and expects us to swallow it over and over again. I'll believe it when I see it on the field.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 14, 2024 13:45:02 GMT -5
Things you've said in this discussion: - "The key is better scouting and pitcher development" - the team has been bad at this for the last 10+ years - the notable exceptions came within the last couple of years - the team was better at pitching development and acquisition 6-8 years ago You just ignored all the points in the comment you're responding to here about how much better the team seems to be at acquiring and developing pitching. But you contrast it with the division-winning years, when they built an entire staff by selling most of the farm and making big-dollar free agent signings. So... the key isn't better scouting/development but actually they just need to trade away all their prospects and spend big on free agents? I have no idea what you're arguing here.
I'm arguing that the Sox have been poor at developing starting pitching better than a 4th/5th starter for 12-15 years. There have been a few outliers recently (Bello, maybe Crawford), but overall they are still substandard at it. When Bloom was hired we were told he was a pitching development and scouting guru, but the results remained mixed. With two guys ascending it could be whatever developmental protocols he implemented. There were some nice pick-ups, but again, relievers and 4th/5th starters, which the Sox have been OK at producing. Also, the near immediate success of got-aways in other systems - Péréz, Springs Strahm among others - makes one wonder. All of this is to say, we've heard the pitching genius siren's song before. I'll believe it when they develop some #2 and #1 starters again. I'll add that it's dispiriting when ownership runs the same BS at us year after year since mid-2019 and expects us to swallow it over and over again. I'll believe it when I see it on the field. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but when was Bloom ever touted as a pitching development guru?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 14, 2024 13:47:51 GMT -5
I'm arguing that the Sox have been poor at developing starting pitching better than a 4th/5th starter for 12-15 years. There have been a few outliers recently (Bello, maybe Crawford), but overall they are still substandard at it. When Bloom was hired we were told he was a pitching development and scouting guru, but the results remained mixed. With two guys ascending it could be whatever developmental protocols he implemented. There were some nice pick-ups, but again, relievers and 4th/5th starters, which the Sox have been OK at producing. Also, the near immediate success of got-aways in other systems - Péréz, Springs Strahm among others - makes one wonder. All of this is to say, we've heard the pitching genius siren's song before. I'll believe it when they develop some #2 and #1 starters again. I'll add that it's dispiriting when ownership runs the same BS at us year after year since mid-2019 and expects us to swallow it over and over again. I'll believe it when I see it on the field. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but when was Bloom ever touted as a pitching development guru? People just conflate anyone that’s ever touched the Rays as being pitching King Midas, I think.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 14, 2024 13:51:15 GMT -5
Things you've said in this discussion: - "The key is better scouting and pitcher development" - the team has been bad at this for the last 10+ years - the notable exceptions came within the last couple of years - the team was better at pitching development and acquisition 6-8 years ago You just ignored all the points in the comment you're responding to here about how much better the team seems to be at acquiring and developing pitching. But you contrast it with the division-winning years, when they built an entire staff by selling most of the farm and making big-dollar free agent signings. So... the key isn't better scouting/development but actually they just need to trade away all their prospects and spend big on free agents? I have no idea what you're arguing here.
I'm arguing that the Sox have been poor at developing starting pitching better than a 4th/5th starter for 12-15 years. There have been a few outliers recently (Bello, maybe Crawford), but overall they are still substandard at it. When Bloom was hired we were told he was a pitching development and scouting guru, but the results remained mixed. With two guys ascending it could be whatever developmental protocols he implemented. There were some nice pick-ups, but again, relievers and 4th/5th starters, which the Sox have been OK at producing. Also, the near immediate success of got-aways in other systems - Péréz, Springs Strahm among others - makes one wonder. All of this is to say, we've heard the pitching genius siren's song before. I'll believe it when they develop some #2 and #1 starters again. I'll add that it's dispiriting when ownership runs the same BS at us year after year since mid-2019 and expects us to swallow it over and over again. I'll believe it when I see it on the field. Okay. Though Bello + Crawford (and Houck, etc.) is better than what they were producing in, say, 2018, when the best starter on the major league roster who they had originally signed was Brian Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by notnickyorke on Feb 14, 2024 15:16:21 GMT -5
Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade. Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK… I was under the impression that Bloom took over after the 2019 season when they finished in third place and only won 84 games. At that point they were coming off and committed to the following -Chris Sale coming off the worst season of his career and about to undergo TJ surgery - 5 yrs/ 29 million AAV - David Price coming off the worst season of his career and about to opt out of the next season - 3 yrs/ 32 million AAV -Nathan Eovaldi coming off the worst season of his career and been demoted to the bullpen 3yrs 17million -Eduardo Rodriguez coming off the best season of his career and about to develop a heart condition with 2 yrs of arb control left -Rick Porcello coming off the worst season of his career in his final guaranteed year -free agent They had almost 80 million committed to three pitchers that would make 8 starts in 2020, 51 in 2021, 22 in 2022 with little to no depth behind them. There were multiple reasons Dombroski got fired, quite a few of them were justified.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 14, 2024 15:21:45 GMT -5
I'm arguing that the Sox have been poor at developing starting pitching better than a 4th/5th starter for 12-15 years. There have been a few outliers recently (Bello, maybe Crawford), but overall they are still substandard at it. When Bloom was hired we were told he was a pitching development and scouting guru, but the results remained mixed. With two guys ascending it could be whatever developmental protocols he implemented. There were some nice pick-ups, but again, relievers and 4th/5th starters, which the Sox have been OK at producing. Also, the near immediate success of got-aways in other systems - Péréz, Springs Strahm among others - makes one wonder. All of this is to say, we've heard the pitching genius siren's song before. I'll believe it when they develop some #2 and #1 starters again. I'll add that it's dispiriting when ownership runs the same BS at us year after year since mid-2019 and expects us to swallow it over and over again. I'll believe it when I see it on the field. Okay. Though Bello + Crawford (and Houck, etc.) is better than what they were producing in, say, 2018, when the best starter on the major league roster who they had originally signed was Brian Johnson. This I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 14, 2024 15:50:16 GMT -5
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but when was Bloom ever touted as a pitching development guru? People just conflate anyone that’s ever touched the Rays as being pitching King Midas, I think. I remember Saris including it in an article about Bloom early on, talking about how he had an extraordinary eye for finding undervalued pitching and developing it. Again, that could be conflation with just being part of the Tampa org. Also, just for reference for the MLB Team: 2023 4.52 ERA/4.37 FIP/4.23 xFIP 2022 4.53 ERA/4.17 FIP/4.11 xFIP 2021 4.27 ERA/3.95 FIP/4.07 xFIP 2020 (omitted - short season outlier, but you can look it up if you like) 2019 4.70 ERA/4.28 FIP/4.39 xFIP 2018 3.75 ERA/3.82 FIP/3.92 xFIP 2017 3.73 ERA/3.78 FIP/3.91 xFIP 2016 4.00 ERA/4,00 FIP/4.20 xFIP 2015 4.34 ERA/4.17 FIP/4.14 xFIP 2014 4.01 ERA/3.93 FIP/.3.87 xFIP 2013 3.78 ERA/3.84 FIP/3.89 xFIP The past solution was to either spend assets for elite pitching, or trade them for elite pitching. Like many here, I'm all for spending cash that isn't mine, but I also recognize that if your pitching development continues to be middle of the road or worse, then sometimes you need to trade elite assets to get elite assets. We all have our favorites, and I don't want to see mine go out the door for some #1/2 who could blow up at any time, either. However, if they want to be truly competitive within their division, as the article suggested, they need to change what they've been doing to get more consistent results. I am hopeful this new regime has the keys to that magic Mercedes, as I was with the last two regimes. But I'll remain skeptical until I see results on the field.
|
|
|