|
Post by awalkinthepark on Mar 6, 2024 12:04:07 GMT -5
I have a hard time seeing that they thought he was anymore or less at risk to need TJ than any other FA pitcher who is 29. It's a risk for any pitcher so obviously they didn't just have their head in the sand but if they thought that he was an extra high risk to need TJ in his first year then they wouldn't have offered him a player option for year 2. It would make no sense to offer someone a player option in that scenario. It makes sense to offer a player option if you think TJ is just one possible outcome of many. Another possible outcome was that he pitches a full 2024 and has a bounceback year. And another possible outcome is that he pitches a full 2024 and has poor results again. In that context I think the contract makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Mar 6, 2024 12:06:45 GMT -5
I don't think they thought it was very likely but I do think they thought it was a possibility. Maybe 15-20%, something along those lines. A lot of guys can have a weak elbow that leads to poor results but it won't show up in any medical examination. Okay, but it's literally a possibility with every pitcher. Heck it's pretty much a strong possibility with any pitcher at this point in time. Young-old and in between, it seems like more and more pitchers have needed it the last few years. I really don't buy the idea that something in his medicals led them to believe he was any more or less risky than anyone else and if there was then they are stupid for giving him a 2nd year player option. I guess at this point in time I would like to think that Breslow and Co. are not stupid until proven otherwise. Okay yes it's a possibility with every pitcher but the risk varies. Giolito was awful last year - he had a 5.27 FIP. A guy can pitch poorly for a million different reasons, one of which is a bum elbow similar to Lackey in 2011. It's pretty rare for a guy to pitch well with a bum elbow though, so while yes a guy like Spencer Strider is also a risk of TJS, I am pretty sure you would say Giolito was at a higher risk.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 12:21:29 GMT -5
Okay, but it's literally a possibility with every pitcher. Heck it's pretty much a strong possibility with any pitcher at this point in time. Young-old and in between, it seems like more and more pitchers have needed it the last few years. I really don't buy the idea that something in his medicals led them to believe he was any more or less risky than anyone else and if there was then they are stupid for giving him a 2nd year player option. I guess at this point in time I would like to think that Breslow and Co. are not stupid until proven otherwise. Okay yes it's a possibility with every pitcher but the risk varies. Giolito was awful last year - he had a 5.27 FIP. A guy can pitch poorly for a million different reasons, one of which is a bum elbow similar to Lackey in 2011. It's pretty rare for a guy to pitch well with a bum elbow though, so while yes a guy like Spencer Strider is also a risk of TJS, I am pretty sure you would say Giolito was at a higher risk. Sure, maybe but all I'm saying is that my main thought in regards to Giolito is that it seems highly unlikely to me they looked at his medicals and thought that Giolito was at a higher risk than pitcher X of needing TJ. My main thought supporting that is that they gave him a 2nd year player option. Don't you think it would be pretty dumb of a team to give a pitcher an option for a 2nd year if you thought that said player was at higher risk to blow out their UCL and need TJ in year 1? That thought process does not add up to me. I just think as can happen to any pitcher on any pitch that he hurt himself in ST and here we are now. I'm not going to say it was a fluke thing but I also don't think it was something that could have necessarily been foreseen.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Mar 6, 2024 12:40:04 GMT -5
Okay yes it's a possibility with every pitcher but the risk varies. Giolito was awful last year - he had a 5.27 FIP. A guy can pitch poorly for a million different reasons, one of which is a bum elbow similar to Lackey in 2011. It's pretty rare for a guy to pitch well with a bum elbow though, so while yes a guy like Spencer Strider is also a risk of TJS, I am pretty sure you would say Giolito was at a higher risk. Sure, maybe but all I'm saying is that my main thought in regards to Giolito is that it seems highly unlikely to me they looked at his medicals and thought that Giolito was at a higher risk than pitcher X of needing TJ. My main thought supporting that is that they gave him a 2nd year player option. Don't you think it would be pretty dumb of a team to give a pitcher an option for a 2nd year if you thought that said player was at higher risk to blow out their UCL and need TJ in year 1? That thought process does not add up to me. I just think as can happen to any pitcher on any pitch that he hurt himself in ST and here we are now. I'm not going to say it was a fluke thing but I also don't think it was something that could have necessarily been foreseen. Not if the team has a history of having rehabbing pitchers under contract, like Paxton last year and Liam Hendricks right now. Him exercising the option because he needs TJ is not bad for the Red Sox because it leaves the possibility that he rehabs successfully and helps the 2025 team. Paxton got a player option, didn't he? And him exercising it wound up to be good for the Sox after they declined the team option.
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Mar 6, 2024 12:46:42 GMT -5
I'm thinking the 2025 player option was pushed for by the player and the 2026 team option was pushed for by the team. The latter was probably due to any skepticism of arm health and/or insurance/protection for this very scenario.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 12:47:42 GMT -5
Sure, maybe but all I'm saying is that my main thought in regards to Giolito is that it seems highly unlikely to me they looked at his medicals and thought that Giolito was at a higher risk than pitcher X of needing TJ. My main thought supporting that is that they gave him a 2nd year player option. Don't you think it would be pretty dumb of a team to give a pitcher an option for a 2nd year if you thought that said player was at higher risk to blow out their UCL and need TJ in year 1? That thought process does not add up to me. I just think as can happen to any pitcher on any pitch that he hurt himself in ST and here we are now. I'm not going to say it was a fluke thing but I also don't think it was something that could have necessarily been foreseen. Not if the team has a history of having rehabbing pitchers under contract, like Paxton last year and Liam Hendricks right now. Him exercising the option because he needs TJ is not bad for the Red Sox because it leaves the possibility that he rehabs successfully and helps the 2025 team. Paxton got a player option, didn't he? And him exercising it wound up to be good for the Sox after they declined the team option. They signed Paxton coming off of TJ knowing he was going to miss all or most of the first season. When Paxton didn't make it back they declined the club option they had and he picked up his player option. Paxton's player option was for 4M not 18. In the two years Paxton played under that contract he made 1/3 of what Giolito will end up making for his two years. I'm sorry but him exercising his option because he needs TJ is very bad for the Red Sox. They basically burnt 19M on Giolito for this year and who knows if he comes back worth anything close to $19M for next year, probably not. It is very dumb to pay a pitcher what they are paying Giolito and then add a player option if they thought he was at a higher risk of blowing out their TJ, if you don't see that than we aren't going to come to any agreement here which is fine we just have a difference of opinion on that aspect.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 6, 2024 12:48:02 GMT -5
Okay yes it's a possibility with every pitcher but the risk varies. Giolito was awful last year - he had a 5.27 FIP. A guy can pitch poorly for a million different reasons, one of which is a bum elbow similar to Lackey in 2011. It's pretty rare for a guy to pitch well with a bum elbow though, so while yes a guy like Spencer Strider is also a risk of TJS, I am pretty sure you would say Giolito was at a higher risk. Sure, maybe but all I'm saying is that my main thought in regards to Giolito is that it seems highly unlikely to me they looked at his medicals and thought that Giolito was at a higher risk than pitcher X of needing TJ. My main thought supporting that is that they gave him a 2nd year player option. Don't you think it would be pretty dumb of a team to give a pitcher an option for a 2nd year if you thought that said player was at higher risk to blow out their UCL and need TJ in year 1? That thought process does not add up to me. I just think as can happen to any pitcher on any pitch that he hurt himself in ST and here we are now. I'm not going to say it was a fluke thing but I also don't think it was something that could have necessarily been foreseen. Why would it be dumb for the team to give him an opt out for year 2? There's a near 0% chance he exercises it now. Assuming he gets less than 140 IP next year, the team is going to have the option to keep him for year 3. This protection clause has worked out very well for them. For Giolito's perspective he could have bet on his health and skills. I can imagine the team thought there was a risk and wanted to protect themselves to get an extra year and Giolito got a player option in case he was fine and rebounded so he could get more money. It seems like the contract is a bit too unique to suggest there wasn't any concerns with the physical.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Mar 6, 2024 12:53:35 GMT -5
Not if the team has a history of having rehabbing pitchers under contract, like Paxton last year and Liam Hendricks right now. Him exercising the option because he needs TJ is not bad for the Red Sox because it leaves the possibility that he rehabs successfully and helps the 2025 team. Paxton got a player option, didn't he? And him exercising it wound up to be good for the Sox after they declined the team option. They signed Paxton coming off of TJ knowing he was going to miss all or most of the first season. When Paxton didn't make it back they declined the club option they had and he picked up his player option. Paxton's player option was for 4M not 18. In the two years Paxton played under that contract he made 1/3 of what Giolito will end up making for his two years. I'm sorry but him exercising his option because he needs TJ is very bad for the Red Sox. They basically burnt 19M on Giolito for this year and who knows if he comes back worth anything close to $19M for next year, probably not. It is very dumb to pay a pitcher what they are paying Giolito and then add a player option if they thought he was at a higher risk of blowing out their TJ, if you don't see that than we aren't going to come to any agreement here which is fine we just have a difference of opinion on that aspect. It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Paxton's deal was different because they 100% knew that he was going to be rehabbing from Tommy John. I am not saying they thought Giolito was going to require TJ, they would not have given him this deal if they did, but with the way the options are baked in it certainly seems like they were hedging their bets that it was a possibility. It was just one outcome of many and the 2026 team option that is given to them with <140 IP kind of screams 'TJ insurance' to me in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 12:56:18 GMT -5
Sure, maybe but all I'm saying is that my main thought in regards to Giolito is that it seems highly unlikely to me they looked at his medicals and thought that Giolito was at a higher risk than pitcher X of needing TJ. My main thought supporting that is that they gave him a 2nd year player option. Don't you think it would be pretty dumb of a team to give a pitcher an option for a 2nd year if you thought that said player was at higher risk to blow out their UCL and need TJ in year 1? That thought process does not add up to me. I just think as can happen to any pitcher on any pitch that he hurt himself in ST and here we are now. I'm not going to say it was a fluke thing but I also don't think it was something that could have necessarily been foreseen. Why would it be dumb for the team to give him an opt out for year 2? There's a near 0% chance he exercises it now. Assuming he gets less than 140 IP next year, the team is going to have the option to keep him for year 3. This protection clause has worked out very well for them. For Giolito's perspective he could have bet on his health and skills. I can imagine the team thought there was a risk and wanted to protect themselves to get an extra year and Giolito got a player option in case he was fine and rebounded so he could get more money. It seems like the contract is a bit too unique to suggest there wasn't any concerns with the physical. Hindsight is 20/20. My point is not that it was dumb to give him a player option for year two if his medicals were clean which I have to believe they were. My point is that some on here are saying well they must have thought his medicals were iffy due to the 3rd year option and I have to assume that no his medicals must have looked relatively clean. I'm not going to keep parroting my same comment but in my opinion if they thought that he was at a higher risk of needing TJ than random pitcher X and gave him 19M for one year with a player option for a 2nd year at $19M then it's a dumb move. In this theoretical scenario where they somehow thought he was at a higher risk of needing TJ then why in the world would you give the player that type of power? If so and now that the worst outcome has happened they basically guarantee that he's opting in for year 2 and now they're on the hook to pay him $38M over two seasons in which they'll be lucky if he pitches effectively for any of that now since it's no sure thing to come back from TJ, especially his 2nd. The 3rd year vesting option is irrelevant to me since $14M is not chump change and if he pitches less than 140 innings in 2025 then you probably don't want him back for 2026 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Mar 6, 2024 13:18:21 GMT -5
Why would it be dumb for the team to give him an opt out for year 2? There's a near 0% chance he exercises it now. Assuming he gets less than 140 IP next year, the team is going to have the option to keep him for year 3. This protection clause has worked out very well for them. For Giolito's perspective he could have bet on his health and skills. I can imagine the team thought there was a risk and wanted to protect themselves to get an extra year and Giolito got a player option in case he was fine and rebounded so he could get more money. It seems like the contract is a bit too unique to suggest there wasn't any concerns with the physical. Hindsight is 20/20. My point is not that it was dumb to give him a player option for year two if his medicals were clean which I have to believe they were. My point is that some on here are saying well they must have thought his medicals were iffy due to the 3rd year option and I have to assume that no his medicals must have looked relatively clean. I'm not going to keep parroting my same comment but in my opinion if they thought that he was at a higher risk of needing TJ than random pitcher X and gave him 19M for one year with a player option for a 2nd year at $19M then it's a dumb move. In this theoretical scenario where they somehow thought he was at a higher risk of needing TJ then why in the world would you give the player that type of power? If so and now that the worst outcome has happened they basically guarantee that he's opting in for year 2 and now they're on the hook to pay him $38M over two seasons in which they'll be lucky if he pitches effectively for any of that now since it's no sure thing to come back from TJ, especially his 2nd. The 3rd year vesting option is irrelevant to me since $14M is not chump change and if he pitches less than 140 innings in 2025 then you probably don't want him back for 2026 anyway. Is it really that strange? The extension the Braves gave Sale is extremely similar to what Giolito got - 2 years/$38 million with a team option for 2026, and Sale is obviously a huge injury risk.
|
|
|
Post by trotman on Mar 6, 2024 14:27:05 GMT -5
Why would it be dumb for the team to give him an opt out for year 2? There's a near 0% chance he exercises it now. Assuming he gets less than 140 IP next year, the team is going to have the option to keep him for year 3. This protection clause has worked out very well for them. For Giolito's perspective he could have bet on his health and skills. I can imagine the team thought there was a risk and wanted to protect themselves to get an extra year and Giolito got a player option in case he was fine and rebounded so he could get more money. It seems like the contract is a bit too unique to suggest there wasn't any concerns with the physical. Hindsight is 20/20. My point is not that it was dumb to give him a player option for year two if his medicals were clean which I have to believe they were. My point is that some on here are saying well they must have thought his medicals were iffy due to the 3rd year option and I have to assume that no his medicals must have looked relatively clean. I'm not going to keep parroting my same comment but in my opinion if they thought that he was at a higher risk of needing TJ than random pitcher X and gave him 19M for one year with a player option for a 2nd year at $19M then it's a dumb move. In this theoretical scenario where they somehow thought he was at a higher risk of needing TJ then why in the world would you give the player that type of power? If so and now that the worst outcome has happened they basically guarantee that he's opting in for year 2 and now they're on the hook to pay him $38M over two seasons in which they'll be lucky if he pitches effectively for any of that now since it's no sure thing to come back from TJ, especially his 2nd. The 3rd year vesting option is irrelevant to me since $14M is not chump change and if he pitches less than 140 innings in 2025 then you probably don't want him back for 2026 anyway. I think you're on the right track. it's safe to assume TJ was not a concern during negotiations. It could be something as simple as the Red Sox wanted a 1 year pillow contract. Giolito wanted a longer deal and compromised with the player option so the Red Sox avoid a 2-3 year deal. As a further compromise the Red Sox tacked on the 3rd year team option as more leverage to cover any poor performance or normal pitcher fatigue. With the current contract the Red Sox worst scenario was probably an ineffective '24 where Giolito picks up his option. 140 innings now is really only two IL stints in a season.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Mar 7, 2024 0:56:47 GMT -5
Can we just release him? Like what's the point of keeping him? He’s injured he’s not dead. He will be back at some point during this contract believe it or not. Would you prefer they try to get some value out of the contract or would you prefer they get no value out of it while paying him to pitch for another team? I know I’d prefer the former! I thought it was 1 year with 1 year team option contract my fault. I make 300,000 a year and I would have to do that for 60 years to make what he will make not pitching one game for us this year lol. These guys get so paid why wasnt I better at this sport! haha
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 414
|
Post by badfishnbc on Mar 7, 2024 10:12:01 GMT -5
Can you retroactively insure a pitcher's expensive contract...? (Asking for a FO I follow.)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 7, 2024 10:19:17 GMT -5
Can you retroactively insure a pitcher's expensive contract...? (Asking for a FO I follow.) Iirc they rarely have insure contacts. Especially for players who rarely had any injury risk at the time
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 8, 2024 10:38:40 GMT -5
You know, for what it's worth, I don't think this injury changed the fangraphs projections at all. They had Goilito down for a mid-4s ERA, and the effect of his loss was to redistribute those innings half to Whitlock (3.98 ERA) and half to Criswell/Murphy/Winckowski (4.98/4.93/4.35). That's basically a wash. The Red Sox have the 16th-ranked rotation in fangraphs depth charts; before the injury I think they were 18th.
I'm not saying I buy that entirely. But it's interesting.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,075
|
Post by cdj on Mar 8, 2024 10:57:13 GMT -5
Can you retroactively insure a pitcher's expensive contract...? (Asking for a FO I follow.) It’s a 2 year deal I very much doubt they would bother to insure it
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 8, 2024 11:01:12 GMT -5
You know, for what it's worth, I don't think this injury changed the fangraphs projections at all. They had Goilito down for a mid-4s ERA, and the effect of his loss was to redistribute those innings half to Whitlock (3.98 ERA) and half to Criswell/Murphy/Winckowski (4.98/4.93/4.35). That's basically a wash. The Red Sox have the 16th-ranked rotation in fangraphs depth charts; before the injury I think they were 18th.
I'm not saying I buy that entirely. But it's interesting.
I wonder what they had projected internally. If Giolito was gonna be a Chad innings eater with a 4.50ish ERA, sure you can replace that (especially if they acquire someone better than Cooper Criswell as your 7th guy on the Depth Chart). There was also the possibility the Sox wouldn't actually "fix" him, and the guy who averaged close to a 5 ERA the last two years isn't all that missed aside from the innings. Losing the world where Andrew Bailey turns him back into 2019-2021 Giolito just really sucks though. His stuff had ticked up however briefly.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 8, 2024 11:10:25 GMT -5
You know, for what it's worth, I don't think this injury changed the fangraphs projections at all. They had Goilito down for a mid-4s ERA, and the effect of his loss was to redistribute those innings half to Whitlock (3.98 ERA) and half to Criswell/Murphy/Winckowski (4.98/4.93/4.35). That's basically a wash. The Red Sox have the 16th-ranked rotation in fangraphs depth charts; before the injury I think they were 18th.
I'm not saying I buy that entirely. But it's interesting.
I wonder what they had projected internally. If Giolito was gonna be a Chad innings eater with a 4.50ish ERA, sure you can replace that (especially if they acquire someone better than Cooper Criswell as your 7th guy on the Depth Chart). There was also the possibility the Sox wouldn't actually "fix" him, and the guy who averaged close to a 5 ERA the last two years isn't all that missed aside from the innings. Losing the world where Andrew Bailey turns him back into 2019-2021 Giolito just really sucks though. His stuff had ticked up however briefly.Yeah, that's why I don't take the depth charts projections too literally. It's not that big a deal to lose 180 IP from a 4.5 ERA pitcher; the real hit is that they're losing the - 30%? 40%? - chance that he might have been much better than that.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 8, 2024 11:36:16 GMT -5
If Andrew Bailey actually does even half of the things people seem to expect him to he should be the highest paid man in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Mar 8, 2024 11:36:18 GMT -5
I wonder what they had projected internally. If Giolito was gonna be a Chad innings eater with a 4.50ish ERA, sure you can replace that (especially if they acquire someone better than Cooper Criswell as your 7th guy on the Depth Chart). There was also the possibility the Sox wouldn't actually "fix" him, and the guy who averaged close to a 5 ERA the last two years isn't all that missed aside from the innings. Losing the world where Andrew Bailey turns him back into 2019-2021 Giolito just really sucks though. His stuff had ticked up however briefly.Yeah, that's why I don't take the depth charts projections too literally. It's not that big a deal to lose 180 IP from a 4.5 ERA pitcher; the real hit is that they're losing the - 30%? 40%? - chance that he might have been much better than that. I think I mostly buy it if we're just talking about the starting 5. (Admittedly, I'm bullish on Whitlock and Winckowski.) On the other hand, it definitely hurts their depth and makes it more likely that we see Criswell sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 8, 2024 11:45:19 GMT -5
If Andrew Bailey actually does even half of the things people seem to expect him to he should be the highest paid man in baseball. Point taken. But I was particularly optimistic about what they might get out of Giolito given that they specifically targeted him in free agency and maybe even overpaid a bit; he fell apart last season in a way that seemed correctable; and he had said himself that they gave him helpful feedback just in the discussions they had with him that he started implementing before even signing.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 8, 2024 12:18:49 GMT -5
If Andrew Bailey actually does even half of the things people seem to expect him to he should be the highest paid man in baseball. It’s funny, based on that Rays article in the Athletic, it seems like the most important thing a pitching coach can do is convince his players to trust their stuff enough to throw strikes. Apparently there are only a handful of guys in baseball who can actually do that! I guess the natural instinct to work the corners and live on the edge of the zone is hard to overcome. I agree that it seems like people are getting a little overzealous about Bailey in particular. I do think the overall suite of pitching development minds they’ve added to the organization has the potential to pay huge dividends, though. There’s a lot of things to like about the pitching staff, hopefully they’re better able go maximize the good and minimize the bad going forward.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 8, 2024 12:19:42 GMT -5
I don't think Bailey all on his own is going to be a miracle worker so some of that definitely seems overblown. That being said it's also not just him, I believe they've hired some Driveline guys this offseason who correct me if I'm wrong are rather well thought of and could certainly help make a difference.
I don't know if it just wasn't necessarily talked about all that much the last few years but it definitely seems to me Breslow is more focused on the development and implementation of pitching and pitching strategies that has me eager to see the results. Guys like Bello, Houck, Whitlock, Winckowski and the minor leaguers sound to me like they could really benefit from Breslow and Company's vision for pitching. It certainly could all be blowing smoke but it is still something to watch for at least.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Mar 8, 2024 12:39:31 GMT -5
I'm feeling irritable right now and may delete this later, but the Andrew Bailey I remember was a 0 WAR player for 75% of his career.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 8, 2024 12:47:05 GMT -5
|
|