|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 26, 2024 11:30:48 GMT -5
So this adds depth but basically rules out a rotation upgrade (seeing as Paxton isn't really better than Criswell). They aren't going to bump any of the other four to the bullpen. The only way I could see an upgrade happening now is if they trade Pivetta and acquire a starter with more control, but that feels pretty unlikely. I actually can see it and am for Pivetta to the bullpen Trade for Taillon Houck Crawford Taillon Bello Criswell/Paxton piggy back Jansen Hendricks (getting close) Martin (getting close) Slaten Pivetta Bernardino Winchowski Cotillo said they aren't bumping Pivetta to the pen. It's not 100% clear that he's saying that based on inside info but that's the way it reads to me.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jul 26, 2024 11:31:47 GMT -5
So this adds depth but basically rules out a rotation upgrade (seeing as Paxton isn't really better than Criswell). They aren't going to bump any of the other four to the bullpen. The only way I could see an upgrade happening now is if they trade Pivetta and acquire a starter with more control, but that feels pretty unlikely. I could see them still adding one more and getting creative with a rotating 6 man rotation to keep some of the arms fresh down the stretch, but actually planning the logistics of that is about my pay grade.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 26, 2024 11:31:51 GMT -5
Paxton isnt that good anymore but he's a welcome addition. Criswell was awesome against the Rockies but he hasn't, in totality, really pitched well since May. At worst Criswell is an upgrade to Chase Anderson in the pen, where he can hang out. But the key thing here is that odds are sooner or later somebody will get hurt and Criswell will be needed to start again.Having Criswell go from mong relief to starter is a lot more desirable than any other option theyd have like starting Winckowski or Fitts, etc. So for that alone, assuming the cost is minimal, is a good move, even if Paxton isnt what he used to be. This is the biggest positive in my opinion on the trade as well. Paxton and Criswell at this point might be a coinflip as to which is better but the options past Criswell if/when a need arises are not very appealing and Paxton is almost assuredly an upgrade over that group. I also don't think this necessarily rules them out of getting another SP if Breslow feels like there is good value but I probably wouldn't bet on it. Most likely they add another RP to the mix and some sort of RHH bat and call it a deadline.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 26, 2024 11:34:10 GMT -5
RSP updating his earlier report - now estimates Paxton will cost them $1.38M against the CBT this year. I doubt they end up within $1M of it anyways so probably doesn't matter
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Jul 26, 2024 11:34:56 GMT -5
So this adds depth but basically rules out a rotation upgrade (seeing as Paxton isn't really better than Criswell). They aren't going to bump any of the other four to the bullpen. The only way I could see an upgrade happening now is if they trade Pivetta and acquire a starter with more control, but that feels pretty unlikely. I actually can see it and am for Pivetta to the bullpen Trade for Taillon Houck Crawford Taillon Bello Criswell/Paxton piggy back Jansen Hendricks (getting close) Martin (getting close) Slaten Pivetta Bernardino Winchowski Since June 1 Pivetta is tied with Logan Webb and Aaron Nola in fWAR, 22nd in baseball. Since July 1 he's tied for 4th best, even with his awful start in Colorado. just ahead of Chris Sale. Idk why they would put him in the bullpen.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,497
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2024 11:35:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rhswanzey on Jul 26, 2024 11:38:53 GMT -5
I’ll be honest I did not know who Moises Bolivar was ten minutes ago We haven’t seen an overpay like this since the infamous Inmer Lobo trade
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 26, 2024 11:40:16 GMT -5
I didn’t like paying Paxton before, but having him as depth for almost nothing? Why not? As people say, can’t have too much pitching. They hardly mortgaged the future.
Now go out and get a legit upgrade or two, and it is business time.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Jul 26, 2024 11:41:56 GMT -5
I thought he pitched well for the Red Sox last year until his last couple of starts and would have resigned him for this year. My only concerns that prior to last year he hadn't pitched for most of 3 years and it seemed like he wore out near the end.He is approaching the number of innings he pitched last year and I hope he is not getting tired again. I am thinking the Red Sox might use him to spell starters like Houck and Crawford, who are reaching their inning career highs. Maybe DL Houck for 10 days and let Paxton take his turn. When Houck comes back, DL Crawford. When Crawford comes back DL Paxton or send down Criswell.. Maybe that way they can get the best out of all three.
I hope they are still in the market for another starter that is also under contract for next year.
I feel like this shows how short sighted it was for the Red Sox not to resign some of the players from last years team. We just brought back Paxton and there are many who think Turner could be the right hand bat the Red Sox obviously need. I hope the Red Sox do not make the same mistake with O'Neil and Piveta after this year.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jul 26, 2024 11:42:31 GMT -5
Don’t hate this move. Paxton hasn’t been as horrible as we assumed him to be when you look deeper. And as others have said, I don’t think this counts them out on making another SP move. I’d greatly prefer a 6 man rotation moving forward to take the stress off of Houck & Crawford.
EDIT: A piggy back situation might also be in the cards, too.
|
|
|
Post by jimmydugan on Jul 26, 2024 11:43:46 GMT -5
I know this is probably a long shot, but I feel like a Paxton/Bello piggybacked start could be pretty solid against this Yankees lineup
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 26, 2024 11:51:20 GMT -5
I thought he pitched well for the Red Sox last year until his last couple of starts and would have resigned him for this year. My only concerns that prior to last year he hadn't pitched for most of 3 years and it seemed like he wore out near the end.He is approaching the number of innings he pitched last year and I hope he is not getting tired again. I am thinking the Red Sox might use him to spell starters like Houck and Crawford, who are reaching their inning career highs. Maybe DL Houck for 10 days and let Paxton take his turn. When Houck comes back, DL Crawford. When Crawford comes back DL Paxton or send down Criswell.. Maybe that way they can get the best out of all three. I hope they are still in the market for another starter that is also under contract for next year. I feel like this shows how short sighted it was for the Red Sox not to resign some of the players from last years team. We just brought back Paxton and there are many who think Turner could be the right hand bat the Red Sox obviously need. I hope the Red Sox do not make the same mistake with O'Neil and Piveta after this year. With regards to Paxton and Turner I think it shows the opposite; they were wise to stay away from both in free agency since they're getting them as rentals for almost nothing (obviously Turner hasn't been traded yet).
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 2,524
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 26, 2024 11:51:32 GMT -5
As Alex Speier noted, the Sox almost traded Paxton TO the Dodgers at this time last year. Talk about ironic
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jul 26, 2024 11:54:38 GMT -5
I thought he pitched well for the Red Sox last year until his last couple of starts and would have resigned him for this year. My only concerns that prior to last year he hadn't pitched for most of 3 years and it seemed like he wore out near the end.He is approaching the number of innings he pitched last year and I hope he is not getting tired again. I am thinking the Red Sox might use him to spell starters like Houck and Crawford, who are reaching their inning career highs. Maybe DL Houck for 10 days and let Paxton take his turn. When Houck comes back, DL Crawford. When Crawford comes back DL Paxton or send down Criswell.. Maybe that way they can get the best out of all three. I hope they are still in the market for another starter that is also under contract for next year. I feel like this shows how short sighted it was for the Red Sox not to resign some of the players from last years team. We just brought back Paxton and there are many who think Turner could be the right hand bat the Red Sox obviously need. I hope the Red Sox do not make the same mistake with O'Neil and Piveta after this year. With regards to Paxton and Turner I think it shows the opposite; they were wise to stay away from both in free agency since they're getting them as rentals for almost nothing (obviously Turner hasn't been traded yet). Precisely. Both had immense risks and now your getting Paxton for maybe 10% of the cost you would have gotten him if you were to sign him as a FA.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 26, 2024 11:56:22 GMT -5
I thought he pitched well for the Red Sox last year until his last couple of starts and would have resigned him for this year. My only concerns that prior to last year he hadn't pitched for most of 3 years and it seemed like he wore out near the end.He is approaching the number of innings he pitched last year and I hope he is not getting tired again. I am thinking the Red Sox might use him to spell starters like Houck and Crawford, who are reaching their inning career highs. Maybe DL Houck for 10 days and let Paxton take his turn. When Houck comes back, DL Crawford. When Crawford comes back DL Paxton or send down Criswell.. Maybe that way they can get the best out of all three. I hope they are still in the market for another starter that is also under contract for next year. I feel like this shows how short sighted it was for the Red Sox not to resign some of the players from last years team. We just brought back Paxton and there are many who think Turner could be the right hand bat the Red Sox obviously need. I hope the Red Sox do not make the same mistake with O'Neil and Piveta after this year. With regards to Paxton and Turner I think it shows the opposite; they were wise to stay away from both in free agency since they're getting them as rentals for almost nothing (obviously Turner hasn't been traded yet). I mean it doesn't matter much either way but why is almost nothing better than actually nothing (other than a slightly larger dent in Henry's wallet) + 4 months of playing time?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 26, 2024 12:04:02 GMT -5
With regards to Paxton and Turner I think it shows the opposite; they were wise to stay away from both in free agency since they're getting them as rentals for almost nothing (obviously Turner hasn't been traded yet). I mean it doesn't matter much either way but why is almost nothing better than actually nothing (other than a slightly larger dent in Henry's wallet) + 4 months of playing time? Well if you want to pretend money is not a factor, then ok. You said your opinion is he is no better than Criswell so it's literally money for nothing and one dsl chick for free.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jul 26, 2024 12:15:15 GMT -5
With regards to Paxton and Turner I think it shows the opposite; they were wise to stay away from both in free agency since they're getting them as rentals for almost nothing (obviously Turner hasn't been traded yet). I mean it doesn't matter much either way but why is almost nothing better than actually nothing (other than a slightly larger dent in Henry's wallet) + 4 months of playing time? Almost nothing and a third of the money, when the other options have been better in those 4 months of playing time, seems like a win to me. I feel like we had this exact conversation in the offseason, if they really needed a depth starter at the deadline they could go get one for nothing. That’s exactly what happened here. They could also use a legitimate upgrade, but I don’t think they lost anything by not signing one of those guys in the winter. Now, a genuine upgrade like Imanaga or Lugo? That would’ve been nice. Would certainly be better to not have to pay the prospect price for someone like that. But for depth, I think this is the way to go, especially for teams that are on the bubble going into the season.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,111
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 26, 2024 12:21:28 GMT -5
Moises Boliver is quite a name, recalling the guys who said “let my people go” to both Egypt and Spain.
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 473
|
Post by badfishnbc on Jul 26, 2024 12:24:04 GMT -5
Moises Boliver is quite a name, recalling the guys who said “let my people go” to both Egypt and Spain. Yeah, I'm definitely mourning the loss of a player nicknamed "The Liberator." Top-tier nickname.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 26, 2024 12:24:37 GMT -5
If they had signed Paxton last offseason for 1/7 and he had put up Criswell's numbers, people would have considered it a very savvy signing.
If they had made this trade for Criswell and he had had Paxton's numbers, it would get about a 5-comment thread and be seen as a meh depth move.
|
|
|
Post by bmoneyproblemz on Jul 26, 2024 12:32:39 GMT -5
Sox get a lefty in the starting rotation for a literal lottery ticket. Is Paxton great? No. But he is what the club needs: an arm. I don't see how anyone could complain about this deal.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 26, 2024 12:39:16 GMT -5
If they had signed Paxton last offseason for 1/7 and he had put up Criswell's numbers, people would have considered it a very savvy signing. If they had made this trade for Criswell and he had had Paxton's numbers, it would get about a 5-comment thread and be seen as a meh depth move. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... They signed Criswell for $1 million dollars. Was that a savvy signing? Also, Criswell has options and is an easy stash in AAA or the bullpen. Paxton would not have been. No way he's signing if he isn't starting. To start the season that would have been iffy. Given what Criswell has provided, I don't really see any argument for why they 'should' have signed Paxton. EDIT: I'll just add that while it definitely looks like Paxton's better days are behind him, he definitely has a track record when healthy of being a good pitcher. Even with the good seasons thus far from Houck, Crawford et al; there's no guarantee they finish the season strong. Same can be said of Criswell or anyone that doesn't have any track record. Doesn't mean Paxton will, but the name and career count for something, which would also warrant more than a 5 comment thread.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jul 26, 2024 12:47:22 GMT -5
If they had signed Paxton last offseason for 1/7 and he had put up Criswell's numbers, people would have considered it a very savvy signing. If they had made this trade for Criswell and he had had Paxton's numbers, it would get about a 5-comment thread and be seen as a meh depth move. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... They signed Criswell for $1 million dollars. Was that a savvy signing? Also, Criswell has options and is an easy stash in AAA or the bullpen. Paxton would not have been. No way he's signing if he isn't starting. To start the season that would have been iffy. Given what Criswell has provided, I don't really see any argument for why they 'should' have signed Paxton. EDIT: I'll just add that while it definitely looks like Paxton's better days are behind him, he definitely has a track record when healthy of being a good pitcher. Even with the good seasons thus far from Houck, Crawford et al; there's no guarantee they finish the season strong. Same can be said of Criswell or anyone that doesn't have any track record. Doesn't mean Paxton will, but the name and career count for something, which would also warrant more than a 5 comment thread. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought Incandenza was making an editorial comment on perception of those 2 moves (same end result of both players on our roster but different order of operation) not a suggestion that Sox should've done one over the other. Again, maybe I misunderstood (NOT the first time).
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Jul 26, 2024 12:50:09 GMT -5
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... They signed Criswell for $1 million dollars. Was that a savvy signing? Also, Criswell has options and is an easy stash in AAA or the bullpen. Paxton would not have been. No way he's signing if he isn't starting. To start the season that would have been iffy. Given what Criswell has provided, I don't really see any argument for why they 'should' have signed Paxton. EDIT: I'll just add that while it definitely looks like Paxton's better days are behind him, he definitely has a track record when healthy of being a good pitcher. Even with the good seasons thus far from Houck, Crawford et al; there's no guarantee they finish the season strong. Same can be said of Criswell or anyone that doesn't have any track record. Doesn't mean Paxton will, but the name and career count for something, which would also warrant more than a 5 comment thread. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought Incandenza was making an editorial comment on perception of those 2 moves (same end result of both players on our roster but different order of operation) not a suggestion that Sox should've done one over the other. Again, maybe I misunderstood (NOT the first time). I misunderstand things often, so certainly that could be what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 26, 2024 12:56:19 GMT -5
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... They signed Criswell for $1 million dollars. Was that a savvy signing? Also, Criswell has options and is an easy stash in AAA or the bullpen. Paxton would not have been. No way he's signing if he isn't starting. To start the season that would have been iffy. Given what Criswell has provided, I don't really see any argument for why they 'should' have signed Paxton. EDIT: I'll just add that while it definitely looks like Paxton's better days are behind him, he definitely has a track record when healthy of being a good pitcher. Even with the good seasons thus far from Houck, Crawford et al; there's no guarantee they finish the season strong. Same can be said of Criswell or anyone that doesn't have any track record. Doesn't mean Paxton will, but the name and career count for something, which would also warrant more than a 5 comment thread. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought Incandenza was making an editorial comment on perception of those 2 moves (same end result of both players on our roster but different order of operation) not a suggestion that Sox should've done one over the other. Again, maybe I misunderstood (NOT the first time). Yep, this is all I was saying. Wasn't criticizing either move. If anything I think they don't get enough credit for Criswell, who's been better than most of the free agents I, for one, would have been happy to sign last offseason.
|
|