|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 11, 2024 14:30:44 GMT -5
Lead off man on ! This is where the comeback starts. Right ?...Maybe .....
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 11, 2024 14:32:55 GMT -5
we traded a lot of prospects in those reliever trades for negative value so far Welcome to the wonderful world of trading for relievers!
And by the way, the loss of Slaten has really been underrated for this team. He was incredibly valuable for them.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Aug 11, 2024 14:34:39 GMT -5
These awful relievers one after another. We have to go way back to Tazawa to have a successful home grown reliever. That is about 15+ years ago. Barnes was pretty successful
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Aug 11, 2024 14:34:46 GMT -5
WTF? Just turned in. Gonna tune right out. Horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Aug 11, 2024 14:35:47 GMT -5
Only question now is how high are they gonna be drafting next year? I'm gonna say around pick #14.
|
|
briam
Veteran
Posts: 1,180
|
Post by briam on Aug 11, 2024 14:38:33 GMT -5
we traded a lot of prospects in those reliever trades for negative value so far Welcome to the wonderful world of trading for relievers!
And by the way, the loss of Slaten has really been underrated for this team. He was incredibly valuable for them.
To be fair, neither were exactly the type of reliever you point to as a huge addition. Sims had a - fWAR at the time of the trade and Garcia is on his 6th team in 11 years. Kinda what you get bargain bin shopping.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 11, 2024 14:43:40 GMT -5
Welcome to the wonderful world of trading for relievers!
And by the way, the loss of Slaten has really been underrated for this team. He was incredibly valuable for them.
To be fair, neither were exactly the type of reliever you point to as a huge addition. Sims had a - fWAR at the time of the trade and Garcia is on his 6th team in 11 years. Kinda what you get bargain bin shopping. That, and what kind of talent are you getting for the marginal talent that was traded away? A middle reliever.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Aug 11, 2024 14:45:20 GMT -5
To be fair, neither were exactly the type of reliever you point to as a huge addition. Sims had a - fWAR at the time of the trade and Garcia is on his 6th team in 11 years. Kinda what you get bargain bin shopping. That, and what kind of talent are you getting for the marginal talent that was traded away? A middle reliever. Yankees got a better reliever (1.5 fWAR this year) with a few years of control for their marginal talent
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Aug 11, 2024 14:46:24 GMT -5
More Jansen, less Wong
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 11, 2024 14:46:33 GMT -5
Well I'm glad they didn't invest *more* in bullpen additions. If anything I would've passed on the Sims trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 11, 2024 14:49:03 GMT -5
That, and what kind of talent are you getting for the marginal talent that was traded away? A middle reliever. Yankees got a better reliever (1.5 fWAR this year) with a few years of control for their marginal talent I dont think Leiter is all that, though. His ERA was half a run higher than Garcia'd at the time of the deal. Same thing with the prior few years.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Aug 11, 2024 14:50:52 GMT -5
Yankees got a better reliever (1.5 fWAR this year) with a few years of control for their marginal talent I dont think Leiter is all that, though. His ERA was half a run higher than Garcia'd at the time of the deal. Same thing with the prior few years. but his FIP is great, his strikeouts are up, he has a demon splitter and he seems to have figured something out this year. not a free agent until 2027--would've been a much better get than garcia or sims.
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Aug 11, 2024 14:54:02 GMT -5
There was this guy, I think his name was Lugo, who a lot of us wanted the team to sign and try to bolster the rotation even after Giolito. That would have helped. They didn’t want to spend, although Criswell has been better than I thought. Shrug. Lugo had question marks. He turned out well, so if you and "a lot" of people randomly guessed he'd be this good in his second year as a starter, you got lucky. And of course, he got two years (age 34 and 35) plus an option. So the book is still very open on him. Sox are up to $185M/224 CB tax in commitments and spent (intelligently I think) out of their prospect capital to acquire players. So they're about $12M under the threshold. For a bridge year, that's acceptable. Lugo would have taken us over the threshold. But put Lugo aside, since your complaint was about "not spending." Would you have been ecstatic (regardless of the outcome) with Jordan Mongomery taking up a 26 man spot at $25M and blowing past the tax threshold? Because "a lot" of people thought the Sox couldn't compete without him.
|
|
|
Post by rhswanzey on Aug 11, 2024 14:56:14 GMT -5
I still think they did well at the deadline. I wish the market worked such that they could have gotten at least one of the two righties in there a week or two before the deadline, but that’s not how the market works. We’ve typically been letting rule 5 eligible and lower end prospects depreciate and/or walk for nothing. There’s not a lot of downside risk to those types of moves and they should try to win at the major league level even in years where they’re not running out a World Series contender heavyweight.
If they fall out of contention over the next few weeks, I’m discouraged by the idea that that could validate management’s various decision points to not invest in the major league roster over the past few winters, or to navigate quiet/silent trade deadlines.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 11, 2024 15:01:04 GMT -5
There was this guy, I think his name was Lugo, who a lot of us wanted the team to sign and try to bolster the rotation even after Giolito. That would have helped. They didn’t want to spend, although Criswell has been better than I thought. Shrug. Lugo had question marks. He turned out well, so if you and "a lot" of people randomly guessed he'd be this good in his second year as a starter, you got lucky. And of course, he got two years (age 34 and 35) plus an option. So the book is still very open on him. Sox are up to $185M/224 CB tax in commitments and spent (intelligently I think) out of their prospect capital to acquire players. So they're about $12M under the threshold. For a bridge year, that's acceptable. Would it have been a "bridge year" if they had signed Lugo or Imanaga? Those two examples are not random; they were widely reported as being intereseted on both of them but they didn't win the bidding in either case.
Of course not trading Sale for Grissom was another option. Not that I'm second-guessing that trade; but it seemed like it called for them to add another starter to make up for it - much as the trade for JBJ/Hamilton/Binelas was fine but then they failed to close up the hole they left on the roster as a result.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 11, 2024 15:12:31 GMT -5
I would bring in Dom Smith to pitch here. Smdh Cora. Four innings too late.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 11, 2024 15:15:04 GMT -5
Dom on the mound for the 3rd time this year says a lot
That his ERA is 0.00 is a story too.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Aug 11, 2024 15:17:08 GMT -5
I trust Smith more than most of our bullpen
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 11, 2024 15:19:33 GMT -5
Ump has clearly had enough of this game
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 11, 2024 15:25:42 GMT -5
13Ks. Deplorable last 2 games with the bats.
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Aug 11, 2024 15:27:15 GMT -5
Shrug. Lugo had question marks. He turned out well, so if you and "a lot" of people randomly guessed he'd be this good in his second year as a starter, you got lucky. And of course, he got two years (age 34 and 35) plus an option. So the book is still very open on him. Sox are up to $185M/224 CB tax in commitments and spent (intelligently I think) out of their prospect capital to acquire players. So they're about $12M under the threshold. For a bridge year, that's acceptable. Would it have been a "bridge year" if they had signed Lugo or Imanaga? Those two examples are not random; they were widely reported as being intereseted on both of them but they didn't win the bidding in either case.
Of course not trading Sale for Grissom was another option. Not that I'm second-guessing that trade; but it seemed like it called for them to add another starter to make up for it - much as the trade for JBJ/Hamilton/Binelas was fine but then they failed to close up the hole they left on the roster as a result.
I think you have to distinguish between post-hoc thinking and trying to discern their at-the-moment plans. It seems like they kicked the tires on a lot of players but preferred one-year contracts for older players. Which is generally unsurprising on the position-player side of things, given the current state of the farm. I think it's fair to say the plan was to be competitive this year, with maybe pitching not being the key strength. Story/Grissom/Casas is pretty much a worst-case injury scenario, which is half the problem with what we're seeing now. But the Giolitto/Whitlock/Murphy injuries (and even Walter) really chewed into their SP innings bank. So maybe "bridge year" isn't the most applicable term to what they thought would happen. Maybe it's "development year with competitive upside" or something like that. But the basic thing here is that at the beginning of their ST they had two veteran spots in their rotation: Giolitto and Pivetta. Maybe they each ramp things up, but they're both pending FAs if they do (given Giolitto's contract.) Maybe they resign or maybe they don't. But that's sort of beside the point - those two left the Sox three spots for internal development in their (whatever-you-want-to-call-it) 2024 year. If they sign an aging starter, they're down to 2, and while that might be short-term competitive, they still don't stretch out more than 2 of the Bello/Houck/Whitlock/Crawford/Winckowski group as young cost-controlled starters. Which is what everyone in baseball wants, and wants to build around. They're just locked in as bullpen guys, or yo-yo'd around after injury, which hasn't really worked well for the sox in 2022 or 2023. OR if the Sox thought they'd heavily rely on that group in 2025, then 2025 becomes the experiment/stretch-out year. The point being there comes a time when you have to commit to guys as ML starters. As a final note, that may not have been their thought process in November. Maybe a combo of the FA market, Breslow/Bailey reviewing the staff, and the desire to extend Bello and others changed their thinking on what they'd be doing this year. But I don't think it's as simple as some people argue.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 11, 2024 15:31:08 GMT -5
This weekend was a brutal waste of 3 home games. Low point I hope.
|
|
|
Post by finaliz3d on Aug 11, 2024 15:33:22 GMT -5
So with Paxton injured, the question is now what? Criswell back to the rotation when he's back? Either way we're going to need a pitcher. Campbell or Horn presumably come up? I'll be honest, I'd rather just let Fitts come up and see how he does in the rotation, even if I know that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Aug 11, 2024 15:37:29 GMT -5
So with Paxton injured, the question is now what? Criswell back to the rotation when he's back? Either way we're going to need a pitcher. Campbell or Horn presumably come up? I'll be honest, I'd rather just let Fitts come up and see how he does in the rotation, even if I know that's not going to happen. Criswell has been an effective starter though. If he does not look to be back by Friday, then I agree that a Fitts start beats a bullpen game. They need Winkowski in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 11, 2024 15:40:11 GMT -5
Last three years post - AS break - first 21 games
2024 - 8-13 including 3-6 at home 2023 - 10-11 including 5-4 at home 2022 - 8-13 including 5-9 at home
|
|