2018-19 Offseason Thread

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
...Hey, if John Henry will allow them to have a $260 million payroll, pay a 50%(?) Luxury tax on everything over $210 or so, lose more draft picks, and lose more international signing money for next year, then I’m not going to argue. In that case, let’s sign Eovaldi, Britton/Miller/Ottavino, and Kelly or hopefully better than Kelly, and go to it.

That’s a very short-term philosophy though. come 2020, or soon thereafter, they’ll be the Mets or Mariners, either trying to rig up a wild card long shot or tearing it down to start from scratch.
They will not lose any draft picks by signing any of the players you mentioned above (as none of them received qualifying offers). The only potential consequences would be a lower draft pick slot (which may or may not have any real negative impact) and less international pool money (which might have a significant negative impact). The harsh truth is that the 2020 Sox may be sans Sale, JDM, Bogarts and Porcello and that the 2021 Sox may be sans Betts and Bradley as well as the aforementioned foursome. Any way you slice it, the 2021 Sox may be a Wild Card long shot. I'd rather they go over the LT threshold by signing Eo and Britton (if that indeed pushes them there) than not maximize the fantastic talent base that still exists in 2019. With the amount of talent that may be leaving in the 2 years subsequent to 2019, I'm failing to see any long-term philosophy that could adequately insulate against the possibility that the Sox may not be viable WS contenders in 2021. But if you do, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
They will not lose any draft picks by signing any of the players you mentioned above (as none of them received qualifying offers). The only potential consequences would be a lower draft pick slot (which may or may not have any real negative impact) and less international pool money (which might have a significant negative impact). The harsh truth is that the 2020 Sox may be sans Sale, JDM, Bogarts and Porcello and that the 2021 Sox may be sans Betts and Bradley as well as the aforementioned foursome. Any way you slice it, the 2021 Sox may be a Wild Card long shot. I'd rather they go over the LT threshold by signing Eo and Britton (if that indeed pushes them there) than not maximize the fantastic talent base that still exists in 2019. With the amount of talent that may be leaving in the 2 years subsequent to 2019, I'm failing to see any long-term philosophy that could adequately insulate against the possibility that the Sox may not be viable WS contenders in 2021. But if you do, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I think that’s a reasonable strategy. Go for the repeat in 2019, and pay the luxury tax consequences. Then tear it down after this season, bank all compensation picks (which, unfortunately will be 3rd and 4th rounders due to luxury tax penalties), trade remaining pieces for prospects, and stitch together 2020 with third tier FAs.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
The issues you’ve laid out with Wright, Johnson, and Velazquez are the definition of the issues that you have with 5th starters, even on very good teams. And a lot of times, those teams don’t have 3 options that are even that good.

Hey, if John Henry will allow them to have a $260 million payroll, pay a 50%(?) Luxury tax on everything over $210 or so, lose more draft picks, and lose more international signing money for next year, then I’m not going to argue. In that case, let’s sign Eovaldi, Britton/Miller/Ottavino, and Kelly or hopefully better than Kelly, and go to it.

That’s a very short-term philosophy though. come 2020, or soon thereafter, they’ll be the Mets or Mariners, either trying to rig up a wild card long shot or tearing it down to start from scratch.
yeah, except Sale, Price and EdRod all have injury risk attached to them. Porcello is the only guy without at least a yellow injury flag next to him in the top 4. If that suggests don't go after EO because he is another yellow, fine. But they NEED to have a starter, presumably one they think can give them 150-200 quality innings in 2019, 2020 and 2021 at least
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I definitely do not agree that the presence of Leon and Vazquez means thinking about Ramos (or Grandal) is off the table. That's not really the point though -- spend the surplus however you want. But the idea that it's better to spend 80 mil extra on Eovaldi -- and that's it's not even close -- is preposterous. Buchholz had double the WAR of Eovaldi last year, in fewer innings. In what year was Eovaldi effective and Buchholz not effective?

All things equal, I'd rather have Eovaldi. He's younger and his stuff is better. But things are far, far, from equal. Give me a year of Buchholz plus 80 mil to spend elsewhere every day of the week.
Lol, so you're somehow thinking that Buchholz is more reliable than Eovaldi? He's 35 and has literally NEVER been reliable. Did you miss his 10 years in Boston? He was the definition of unreliable. Thumbs up for 98 innings in Arizona.

I don't know what the bolded even is supposed to mean. What's not close? What is preposterous? He's not going to get a Corbin level deal and they need someone for more than next season. And as you yourself noted earlier, it's not an either or. They can sign him to a 4/$70-80M deal and still bring in a catcher (so yay! they have four now!).

It blows my mind a bit that people think ownership is hesitant to spend money; or that they're under some kind of disadvantage compared to the Yankees or Dogers. They paid two guys $40M+ to not play for them this year. I'm not entirely convinced they'll halt at adding a Dave Robertson type for $6M because it pushes them over the threshold.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
yeah, except Sale, Price and EdRod all have injury risk attached to them. Porcello is the only guy without at least a yellow injury flag next to him in the top 4. If that suggests don't go after EO because he is another yellow, fine. But they NEED to have a starter, presumably one they think can give them 150-200 quality innings in 2019, 2020 and 2021 at least
This is the road that keeps leading me back to a Beni trade. It’s a deep market for 2.5-4 win outfielders right now, and there are small market teams with rotation surpluses and 2020-22 windows who can’t otherwise afford to sign one of those outfielders. Sign Cutch, trade Beni and Johnson for Taillon, Castillo, or Berrios.
 

Jefferson Durand

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2018
40
They will not lose any draft picks by signing any of the players you mentioned above (as none of them received qualifying offers). The only potential consequences would be a lower draft pick slot (which may or may not have any real negative impact) and less international pool money (which might have a significant negative impact). The harsh truth is that the 2020 Sox may be sans Sale, JDM, Bogarts and Porcello and that the 2021 Sox may be sans Betts and Bradley as well as the aforementioned foursome. Any way you slice it, the 2021 Sox may be a Wild Card long shot. I'd rather they go over the LT threshold by signing Eo and Britton (if that indeed pushes them there) than not maximize the fantastic talent base that still exists in 2019. With the amount of talent that may be leaving in the 2 years subsequent to 2019, I'm failing to see any long-term philosophy that could adequately insulate against the possibility that the Sox may not be viable WS contenders in 2021. But if you do, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case).
I agree with this outlook, and I think we have to accept that this ebb and flow is how we can continue to amass 3-4 World Series rings every 20 years.

I'll just spitball some contract numbers for the 2019-2020 FAs, assuming somewhat normal health this upcoming year:
-Sale 7/240
-JDM 4/130
-Bogaerts 8/180
-Porcello 4/82
-Betts 11/400
-Bradley 5/90

We're absolutely not keeping the core together. I'm guessing we let Sale walk unless an injury depresses his market, and his AAV/length becomes palatable from a risk-reward perspective. Otherwise, our window will be closing, and it won't make much sense to pay a boatload for his declining seasons. JDM having 75% of last year's production should be enough for him to opt out, and seek to add a year and a little AAV. Khris Davis will likely be available, and you could replace JD's power presence at a discount. Bogaerts will command a long-term deal, and I'd expect us to make a run at him, given the lack of organizational depth and appealing options at SS. Finally, Porcello will probably enter next year's market as a reliable innings eater type, but he'll be paid like a #2 starter with Ace potential based on the CYA season. If the window's closing, we're better off getting similar production from a slightly older player like Cole Hamels.

Further ahead, I believe we'll back up the Brinks truck for Betts, IF and ONLY IF, the seasons in 2020 and beyond don't look like dumpster fires. A new, and stable core would have to emerge. Devers and Chavis putting up All-Star corner numbers, Bogaerts continuing his production SS, Beni taking a step forward in the OF, Casas knocking at the door loudly, Groome getting into a groove, Hernandez showing #3-4 SP stuff at least, Feltman closing like a boss, Ed-Ro showing sustained 2-3 stuff, Price not falling off a cliff, and some Victorino/Gomes/Napoli/Koji type acquisition magic to keep us afloat.

However, if the reality sets in that the window is closing, we'll be in position to revamp the farm in July 2020, or even at the Winter Meetings a year from now (if this upcoming season is largely disappointing). It's John Henry's money, but for future roster construction purposes, I'm ok with the loss of draft and international capital should we blow by the upper-tier threshold.

A repeat in 2019 is not hard to imagine if we do the following:
Sign Eovaldi 4/68, Robertson and Britton to deals around 2/30, and hope Grandal or Ramos falls to something stupid like 1/6. The first 3 can likely be flipped if things start to fall apart. That helps us regain the farm talent lost from penalties. We can do this because we are a big market ball club. We've seen this formula work rather quickly for the Yankees in the last couple years.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,100
Lol, so you're somehow thinking that Buchholz is more reliable than Eovaldi?.
When did I suggest that? I went out of my way, several times, to say that Eovaldi is the superior option. He’s just not 80 million better.

As for the comment about catchers, I’m pretty sure they are allowed to trade Vazquez or Leon.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Just curious where you might be comfortable when it comes to Eovaldi.
15. Then again i thought JD wasn’t going to be that good here so what do i know?

I’m curious as to what the team is going to do with Porcello and Sale though. If Henry will let DD keep everyone.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
When did I suggest that? I went out of my way, several times, to say that Eovaldi is the superior option. He’s just not 80 million better.

As for the comment about catchers, I’m pretty sure they are allowed to trade Vazquez or Leon.
Citing ‘$80M better’ is disengenious. You’re talking about a one year deal for Buchholz versus a 4 year deal for Eovaldi. And we just noted, it appear to be a $64M deal vs whatever Buchholz would get for one year of spending three months on the DL. Then they need to still fill that spot next year.

We obviously don’t see eye to eye in this but I think any mention of Buchholz is ludicrous, if for no other reason than what he showed us for ten years. He could be free and I wouldn’t want to count on him.

As to catchers, sure they could trade one. But they’ve clearly shown they’re ok with a black void at the plate there, which is fine, but as noted it’s not an either or. They can do both if they want, but Leon is arb tendered and Vazquez is well overpaid. I think they’d be perfectly fine letting Leon walk and giving Swihart some run rather than bring someone new in. Ymmv.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Jesus that’s a lot of coin. Hopefully there’s an out clause in case he gets hurt again.
I don't think that's gonna happen.

It's a lot of money, but we have some depth at starter and Eovaldi would provide depth in the bullpen which makes the overall risk lower so I'm cool spending a bit more.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Cervelli? He's better offensively than Leon or Vazquez, but that would be a surprising add for the Sox.

Eovaldi at 4/68? Where do I sign?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
4/70?

Somewhere, Ben Cherington is scoffing at the notion the Red Sox are going to give Eovaldi "Lester money".
The Lester things is simply water under the bridge - no getting that one back.

But since then (and Price is here only because Lester isn't), things have worked out pretty well for both Lester and the Sox, wouldn't you say?

Three years since Price joined the Sox:

Lester: 50-19, 3.33 era, 129 era+, 1.21 whip, 8.4 k/9, Cubs finish 1, 1, 2, win one WS (Lester great)
Price: 39-19, 3.74 era, 119 era+, 1.18 whip, 9.0 k/9, Sox finish 1, 1, 1, win one WS (Price dominant)

We all love Lester but when all is said and done...Price has been a perfectly adequate replacement for Lester.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
The Lester things is simply water under the bridge - no getting that one back.

But since then (and Price is here only because Lester isn't), things have worked out pretty well for both Lester and the Sox, wouldn't you say?
But not so much for Cherrington....
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
I thought 4/60 was a reasonable overpay for Evo. 4/68, its not my dough, and it potentially soldifies the rotation for the next couple of years, and gives us flexibility re Sale/Porcello. I'd do it, before Cashman throws 5/90-100 at the guy.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
That’s chump change these days. If that’s what he wants sign him.
I have such strong visceral feelings for this player at this point in time that under $20 mil feels pretty alright by me.

It's not chump change if the price of relievers requires the Sox to go over the 2nd threshold, which it's looking like it possibly could.
If the price of relievers is prohibitive that just tells me they should find a way to fill the bullpen that doesn’t involve throwing a bunch of money around.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I agree, which is why I consider Buchholz a real option on a one-year, 7 figure deal.
God, please no. Regardless of numbers he is the most annoying pitcher possible to watch. Guy has it in his head that a runner on first is due to score and has to check the runner 9 times before each pitch. He's unwatchable -- let him go elsewhere.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It's not chump change if the price of relievers requires the Sox to go over the 2nd threshold, which it's looking like it possibly could.
Because of dollars spent or the penalties? You realize the Sox have paid about 10% of what your team has since luxury tax came into play, right?

It’s one year. They won’t resign Porcello if they sign Eovaldi. Pablo only has one year on books. $17/yr is nothing these days if he provides what they assume. Spending heavy on relievers has very rarely proven fruitful and they can still do both. Again this isn’t an either or. They could always dump Nunez to save that money.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
Because of dollars spent or the penalties? You realize the Sox have paid about 10% of what your team has since luxury tax came into play, right?

It’s one year. They won’t resign Porcello if they sign Eovaldi. Pablo only has one year on books. $17/yr is nothing these days if he provides what they assume. Spending heavy on relievers has very rarely proven fruitful and they can still do both. Again this isn’t an either or. They could always dump Nunez to save that money.
Because of the penalties. Nobody cares about the additional "tax" but the draft penalties are probably not something a team wants to commit to multiple years in a row.

And can we have a conversation without sox vs yankees? I don't want the Yankees over the 2nd threshold either.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Because of the penalties. Nobody cares about the additional "tax" but the draft penalties are probably not something a team wants to commit to multiple years in a row.

And can we have a conversation without sox vs yankees? I don't want the Yankees over the 2nd threshold either.
Sure and apologies, I wasn’t trying to drop it down to a pissing contest. If your point is about the draft penalties then I see that angle, I just don’t think it’s a dollar figure. I’d rather they not be over second cap either as well but that’s where we are. I’d rather run this out and deal with the salted earth after but reasonable minds can differ there.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I like those eyes.

BTW I don't get the point of comparing Eovaldi's career up to now (e.g. to Buchholz). Going forward, there is reason to believe that EO is a totally different guy than prior to now, and that's the guy the Sox are valuing. If they're right, he would join a pretty long list of guys who didn't figure it all out right away. Sure, the past isn't totally irrelevant and the injury history is part of that, but the upside is ace-level, which you can't get anywhere else for 4/70 or whatever the price tag ends up being.
 
Last edited:

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
That’s chump change these days. If that’s what he wants sign him.
You have a strange definition of chump change. It’s still 8% of the luxury tax threshold on 4% of the roster.

If it were my money, I’d hold the line at 2/$30 with a third year achievable option and a $4m buyout. But since it’s Henry’s money, it’s a hell of a lot less than I thought he’d get bid up to, and I’m fine with going all in on a 2019 repeat and then going full Mariners, I hope they close the deal as reported.

Also like the Cervelli rumor.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I agree, 4/$68M would be a lot less than I thought he’d get after the report that literally every team in baseball was in.

Also, hell yes to the idea of trading with the Pirates. Lotta exciting young arms could be added to that Cervelli deal.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Because of the penalties. Nobody cares about the additional "tax" but the draft penalties are probably not something a team wants to commit to multiple years in a row.

And can we have a conversation without sox vs yankees? I don't want the Yankees over the 2nd threshold either.
I think BOS will definitely end up over the second threshold again and deal with the long-term ramifications later (and I think this is the right decision) and as I've been saying I think there's a good chance NY ends up over also even though they have much more flexibility right now. In NY's case, they have loaded up with a lot of young international and draft talent the last couple of seasons (the top levels of their system have weakened a lot due to graduations and trades, though) and maybe Cashman can figure out a financially prudent way to fill in the remaining holes while still making the team as good as it can be, but it's hard to see how that doesn't involve a lot of money to FAs at this point.
 

Wake49

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 11, 2016
507
I agree, 4/$68M would be a lot less than I thought he’d get after the report that literally every team in baseball was in.

Also, hell yes to the idea of trading with the Pirates. Lotta exciting young arms could be added to that Cervelli deal.
I still think that’s too much for a guy who’s had two TJ surgeries. That is, unless he closes, then the wear and tear might not be as bad.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
With not much minor league depth lately and our great youngsters coming up on payday we've been looking at a rebuild being a very real thing.
I'm all on board with going for one more title before that happens and going over that second threshhold to do is it fine with me. Add Eovaldi and 2 of Kelly, Robertson and Britton and lets go to battle again with NY. We just saw this year how beautiful baseball can be when you outspend the Yankees. Let's do it one more time before the Grim Reaper knocks.
Then as others said we start to rebuild the farm and reset the tax just as NY just did.
Think about the possibility of 5 championships in 16 years. Lets do this. No holds barred this offseason.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
You have a strange definition of chump change. It’s still 8% of the luxury tax threshold on 4% of the roster.

If it were my money, I’d hold the line at 2/$30 with a third year achievable option and a $4m buyout. But since it’s Henry’s money, it’s a hell of a lot less than I thought he’d get bid up to, and I’m fine with going all in on a 2019 repeat and then going full Mariners, I hope they close the deal as reported.

Also like the Cervelli rumor.
Well, what are we talking about? AAV or total package? I don’t find $17/yr to be very significant these days when considering what I assume will be an above average starter. Let’s call him a #3? A potential #2? A 2.5? We’re paying Porcello more than that now to eat innings.

If you’re holding the line at 2 years you’re not getting him. I basically view any FA contract or extension to have a year or two of ‘waste’ built in, because none of them work out. It’s the cost of business. I’d rather give it to a young guy, TJ or not.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
With not much minor league depth lately and our great youngsters coming up on payday we've been looking at a rebuild being a very real thing.
I'm all on board with going for one more title before that happens and going over that second threshhold to do is it fine with me. Add Eovaldi and 2 of Kelly, Robertson and Britton and lets go to battle again with NY. We just saw this year how beautiful baseball can be when you outspend the Yankees. Let's do it one more time before the Grim Reaper knocks.
Then as others said we start to rebuild the farm and reset the tax just as NY just did.
Think about the possibility of 5 championships in 16 years. Lets do this. No holds barred this offseason.
I’m with you in spirit, but I don’t know if a rebuild is necessary. Trade young hitting for pitching, and trust that there will be low-cost short-term position players available who play well to our ballpark.

Plus, if we want to extend Mookie through his prime years, I don’t think the grim reaper is part of the sales pitch.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm fine with letting Kimbrel go and spending 4/68 on Eovaldi.
It's almost impossible to separate the calculation of what to pay him from the memories of his fantastic postseason work.

On MLB network, Smoltz was saying that he could be their closer. I don't know if they want to think that far outside the box but yeah, he could do that if it's somehow decided that starting is too much for him but closing wouldn't be.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
I have been early to sound the alarms about Eovaldi's elbow and a long term deal, but I think I might swallow hard and commit to 4/66, or whatever the rumor is. That's a very reasonable AAV — SoxScout remarked on twitter that it was like paying 2 WAR prices for a guy projected for 3 — so even if *knocks wood* the worst happens, it won't completely derail us.

If we get two good seasons out of him, they look likely to be some very important seasons for the franchise. We're at a point on the continuum where adding a 3 WAR player is astonishingly valuable.
  • We'll likely be in another tight pennant race with an excellent NY team, and I expect the 2019 Rays to be pretty great, also. The Blue Jays should start working in some top prospects from their very top-tier farm system, so they'll likely be better as the year goes on. (The less said about the Orioles, the better.)
  • As the roster stands, he'd be replacing Brian Johnson's innings in the rotation. I like Johnson; you miss a replacement level starting pitcher if you don't have one. But... yeah.
And if we're blowing up the team at the deadline in 2020, a healthy 30 y/o Eovaldi with 2/$33 remaining is a hell of trade chip — if he's still healthy. You have to take some risks when you have a team in a go-for-it-now posture, as we now are.
 
Last edited:

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
I'd prefer spending 4/68 on Eovaldi to a similar amount on Kimbrel. I see Eo as replacing Porcello after '19.

And I don't understand why some folks think it will be a tire fire in 2020, and that we'll need to reset and rebuild. They should be able to reload on the fly, if they can keep Bogie next offseason and Mookie the year after, especially if they can get one or two kids to contribute from the farm over that stretch out of Chavis, Dalbec, Feltman, etc.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,918
Salem, NH
I hope the Cervelli rumors are false. Can’t exactly remember why, but he’s one of my least favorite MLB players.

When I think of him, I think of a colossal douche with every STD known to man. Also PEDs and back zits.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'd prefer spending 4/68 on Eovaldi to a similar amount on Kimbrel. I see Eo as replacing Porcello after '19.

And I don't understand why some folks think it will be a tire fire in 2020, and that we'll need to reset and rebuild. They should be able to reload on the fly, if they can keep Bogie next offseason and Mookie the year after, especially if they can get one or two kids to contribute from the farm over that stretch out of Chavis, Dalbec, Feltman, etc.
I think the "tire fire" narrative rests on the assumption that they can't do those things, or at least, not both of them.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
I think the "tire fire" narrative rests on the assumption that they can't do those things, or at least, not both of them.
I believe that to be a false assumption - I see no reason they can't do both. They may not be able to keep everyone, especially not all the pitchers (looking at you, Sale and Porcello), but they CAN keep both Bogie and Mookie if they are willing to pay what it takes.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
I hope the Cervelli rumors are false. Can’t exactly remember why, but he’s one of my least favorite MLB players.

When I think of him, I think of a colossal douche with every STD known to man. Also PEDs and back zits.
It’s the enormous helmet.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I still think that’s too much for a guy who’s had two TJ surgeries. That is, unless he closes, then the wear and tear might not be as bad.
On MLB network, Smoltz was saying that he could be their closer. I don't know if they want to think that far outside the box but yeah, he could do that if it's somehow decided that starting is too much for him but closing wouldn't be.
If they pay Eovaldi what they're talking about (4/70+), he better be in the rotation. Paying him that to close would be a colossal overpay.

And I question whether closing would truly be less wear-and-tear on the elbow. 100 pitches every 5 days versus 20-25 every other day doesn't strike me as all that less stressful. Especially if the bullpen workload is more 100% maximum effort and exertion.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
If they pay Eovaldi what they're talking about (4/70+), he better be in the rotation. Paying him that to close would be a colossal overpay.

And I question whether closing would truly be less wear-and-tear on the elbow. 100 pitches every 5 days versus 20-25 every other day doesn't strike me as all that less stressful. Especially if the bullpen workload is more 100% maximum effort and exertion.
Most starters go to the bullpen because A. they don't have 3 pitches, B. they see a significant uptick in velo from shorter outings.
EO has the three pitches and doesn't have the capacity to add anymore velo. Seems like a very inefficient way to maximize his talents.

Perhaps they just continue using him like they did in the playoffs, starts then comes back on 2 days rest to throw 3-4 innings followed by another start a day or two later.

Between Price/Porcello/EO we could go with a 3 man rotation and 5-6 man pitching staff saving a lot of extra bench spots.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I understand the concerns about the lower draft picks and less international pool money, but a team like this is what you build towards. 2018 was not some fluke win - nothing is guaranteed but the Red Sox will be legitimate contenders to repeat. Is it worth going cheap and diminishing this opportunity so they can hopefully remain a wild-card contender in the early 2020's?
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Is anyone else dreading the Yankees swooping in with a last minute 5/100 offer for Eovaldi, or am I just emotionally damaged?
Yeah that’s not going to happen. If it does however then I wish him the best except when he’s playing the Sox. Sox better not match any crazy offers such as that.