It will depend on how they are doing. If Sale has arm trouble (we never knew what happened last year), Price reverts to his 2016 form and relievers are imploding, Sox will become sellers and start again.
2018-19 Offseason Thread
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
The Red Sox wish that Price pitches as well as he did in 2016. He was a fine pitcher that year, and it’s not the fault of Price or the Red Sox that their fans are stupid.
He was not a fine pitcher that year. He was okay in that he threw a lot of innings and got a decent number of strikeouts, but when he didn't get those strikeouts, he was hit hard. Batters ended up having a basically league average slash line against him. You need better than league average innings from your #2 starter, even if he throws a whole bunch of them.
That's a variable definition.
I, for one, am perfectly fine with Price putting up that FIP if he keeps up racking 200+ IP a season. Let us not forget the guy was money in the postseason last year, too.
I'm well aware of what his FIP was, which is why I mentioned the strikeouts. But unless you're going full McCracken and claiming a pitcher has zero control over the quality of contact against him, his actual results mattered. And the fact that he went on the DL for most of the next season was a pretty good indicator that he had been pitching with diminished stuff and allowing harder contact, not that he had 220 innings of bad luck that turned a good season into a thoroughly average one.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but even if you use raw stats, his season was perfectly ‘fine’. Overpaid and not a stud, but yeah, that’s a good year if you look at other pitchers in the league. There was nothing thoroughly average about it. It was disappointing because we thought he’d be an ace but he had a very good year.
Independently of Price being what he has been or could be, my original point was that it is wiser to wait till mid-season and decide if you are seller or buyer and not go over the second threshold right now. Sale’s arm would be the key; besides, relievers have great variations from one year to another, for instance look at the best pitcher in the world in 17 and in 18, Mr. Adam Ottavino.
Reliever variation is mostly random due to the small sample size. You get the best underlying quality to minimize that. It’s not an excuse for throwing 7 Randomly selected minor league free agents out there.
I'd want to see evidence that he isn't broken first. The Giants can gamble a few million on a comeback candidate; they're not near the tax limit and no one's expecting very much of them. If he pans out, maybe he helps them make a run; if not, no big. The Sox are in a different position altogether.
I imagine that having a chance to start was at least as important as money to him, and the Giants could offer him that while he'd be waiting for an injury with the Sox.
Taking a spot from Wright or Johnson? I think I'd pass at any price unless he wants to relieve (and clearly he doesn't).
No one in particular. I'd just sign him for that much, even if to stash him in AAA. He's obviously better off with the Giants.
There's also the fact that he makes his home in the Bay area. It could be that it would take more than what the Giants offered to get him to pitch elsewhere, regardless of his anticipated role.
He could be a good trade chip at the deadline. Teams could afford him financially, $2-$3 mil at the trade deadline and a decent prospect. Most teams could do that. The new market efficiency.
I am prepared to buy any product that has Mookie introducing his name James Bond-style.
Sox sign Jenrry Mejia.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25879334/jenrry-mejia-agrees-deal-boston-red-sox
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25879334/jenrry-mejia-agrees-deal-boston-red-sox
From the ESPN article:
Mejia was the Mets' closer in 2014. He was suspended for 80 games on April 11, 2015, following a positive test for Stanozolol, a drug popular among bodybuilders. At the time, he maintained, "I can honestly say I have no idea how a banned substance ended up in my system."
Mejia returned on July 12, appeared in seven games for New York, then was banned for 162 games on July 28 after a positive test for Stanozolol and Boldenone. The third suspension was for a positive test for Boldenone, an anabolic steroid generally used by veterinarians on horses.
Mejia is 9-14 with a 3.68 ERA in 18 starts and 95 relief appearances. In addition to random drug tests, he is subject annually to six additional urine tests and three additional blood tests.
The hair on the back of my neck always stands up, when someone starts a sentence with "I can honestly say ......." It pretty much guarantees you are about to be served a plate full of BS.
Mejia was the Mets' closer in 2014. He was suspended for 80 games on April 11, 2015, following a positive test for Stanozolol, a drug popular among bodybuilders. At the time, he maintained, "I can honestly say I have no idea how a banned substance ended up in my system."
Mejia returned on July 12, appeared in seven games for New York, then was banned for 162 games on July 28 after a positive test for Stanozolol and Boldenone. The third suspension was for a positive test for Boldenone, an anabolic steroid generally used by veterinarians on horses.
Mejia is 9-14 with a 3.68 ERA in 18 starts and 95 relief appearances. In addition to random drug tests, he is subject annually to six additional urine tests and three additional blood tests.
The hair on the back of my neck always stands up, when someone starts a sentence with "I can honestly say ......." It pretty much guarantees you are about to be served a plate full of BS.
Is it weird that I like this signing?
This is actually the way I'm hoping DD proceeds.... throw tons of shit at the wall. Somethings will stick and some turd will have a gold nugget in it. I'd be looking for pitchers with stuff and then lock and chain them up in a shed with Bannister until he breaks them.
This is actually the way I'm hoping DD proceeds.... throw tons of shit at the wall. Somethings will stick and some turd will have a gold nugget in it. I'd be looking for pitchers with stuff and then lock and chain them up in a shed with Bannister until he breaks them.
I like the fact that he's accumulating arms and seeing how it plays out. This arm, however, seems like an extreme long shot. His one season of any significance was 5 years ago, and even in that year his WHIP was 1.48.
Colten Brewer is on the 40-man, so I won’t count him, but Zach Putnam and Erasmo Ramirez are a couple of other “throw ‘em at the wall” guys. At this point in his career — and with his health and NRI status — so is Carson Smith.
Well, I think we'll all be very interested to see what Mejia looks like in Fort Myers after a few years away from the game and presumably without his horse steroids.
His repertoire: cutters and two-seamers around 94 MPH, along with changeup, slider, and curve seems impressive for a reliever. If he can still generate and command that mid-90s velocity, he could be something.
His repertoire: cutters and two-seamers around 94 MPH, along with changeup, slider, and curve seems impressive for a reliever. If he can still generate and command that mid-90s velocity, he could be something.
I stand corrected. Never heard of those guys (other than Smith), but I guess that's the point. They're not dumb, so whatever the plan is, they must be reasonably confident it will work.
You know when the main offseason discussion thread devolves into defining “plural”, things are at a low point.
I’m interested in a lot of the rumors that came out that posited the Sox as interested as guys who would easily push the team over the 2nd LT threshold. While I guess we could just chalk it up to reporters or agents trying to drum things up, it still seems like an odd about face to pinch pennies in the face of mounting a title defense with such a historically good team. Once you’re willing to loose the draft status, why is it a problem the second time? The rest of the penalties are not really that much money.
More importantly, doesn’t this approach preclude any extensions for Betts, X, or JBJ? Their AAV would certainly go up under a new deal, sucking away more cap space.
The overall approach now seems to be to go to war with this team and see how they’re doing as the season goes. If theyre in striking distance and don’t suffer any season crippling events (major injuries, huge losing streaks, etc), was hen they can decide to spend later. We just have to hope that if they’re only going in for a penny, they’re not being penny-wise and pound foolish. The division still looks awfully tight.
I’m interested in a lot of the rumors that came out that posited the Sox as interested as guys who would easily push the team over the 2nd LT threshold. While I guess we could just chalk it up to reporters or agents trying to drum things up, it still seems like an odd about face to pinch pennies in the face of mounting a title defense with such a historically good team. Once you’re willing to loose the draft status, why is it a problem the second time? The rest of the penalties are not really that much money.
More importantly, doesn’t this approach preclude any extensions for Betts, X, or JBJ? Their AAV would certainly go up under a new deal, sucking away more cap space.
The overall approach now seems to be to go to war with this team and see how they’re doing as the season goes. If theyre in striking distance and don’t suffer any season crippling events (major injuries, huge losing streaks, etc), was hen they can decide to spend later. We just have to hope that if they’re only going in for a penny, they’re not being penny-wise and pound foolish. The division still looks awfully tight.
You're implying that "this approach" = "don't go over the secondary limit under any circumstances, regardless of what we gain by it." That seems implausible to me. If, in fact, they've decided not to go over the limit to sign any relievers (and of course we don't know this for certain), it probably says as much about their view of the bang-for-buck of reliever contracts as it does about their view of the limit and the penalties for exceeding same. What's a deal-breaking penalty for signing a closer is not necessarily going to be a deal-breaker for extending Mookie.
Exactly. If Mookie tells them he'll sign a 5/$140 deal they'd ink it in a heartbeat, luxury tax be damned. Although I still think there's a decent money 1 year deal amount they'd sign Kimbrel for.
Last edited:
Sure, and Machado could tell DD that he so wants to play for the Sox that he’s willing to sign for $10M/ year for 5 years, but that would push them over the tax level as well. If you set the stakes at a “winning the lottery” extreme, that doesn’t tell us very much.
OTOH if we approach this at the level of reasonable offseason expenditures, we can see just how little wiggle room there is. Are they willing to extend Mookie at something more reasonable/ market rate ($200+M)? What about JBJ, X, or even Beni? Any such extension is likely to put them over the cap, at which point why not go out and get a closer (or 2 of the big name relievers as we were discussing a month ago)? So where exactly is the line?
My feeling is that the FO will hedge their bets to see how things go in-season. Maybe they can take on 1 year deals now and see if they can cut things down below the threshold next year…
OTOH if we approach this at the level of reasonable offseason expenditures, we can see just how little wiggle room there is. Are they willing to extend Mookie at something more reasonable/ market rate ($200+M)? What about JBJ, X, or even Beni? Any such extension is likely to put them over the cap, at which point why not go out and get a closer (or 2 of the big name relievers as we were discussing a month ago)? So where exactly is the line?
My feeling is that the FO will hedge their bets to see how things go in-season. Maybe they can take on 1 year deals now and see if they can cut things down below the threshold next year…
Can we interest you in a Red Sox alumnus's baseball/softball-centric educational non-profit to consider supporting in the mean time until the season begins?
At SaberSeminar a few years ago, Farrell made the point that middle relievers show enough variation year-to-year that it makes sense to over-pay mid-season for a reliever having a good year.
The flip-side of that would seem to be not paying for a player at a "position" that shows such high year-to-year variation in the off-season before you know what kind of season the guy is having.
I dunno if this is actually a factor in the decision making this off-season, but it's definitely something I would expect them to be considering. Hope, even.
MODS, nor sure if this is new thread worthy, but if so please adjust fire.
In a slow free agent season, Washington Post makes the case this is the new normal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/30/something-is-rotten-about-baseball-free-agency/?utm_term=.ea74af301a73
In a slow free agent season, Washington Post makes the case this is the new normal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/30/something-is-rotten-about-baseball-free-agency/?utm_term=.ea74af301a73
Concur. I believe most of Washington Post story was covered in the JDM threads last off season but on the off chance that the community saw something new in continued downturn I "offered it up."
But you are right.
Thanks.
R,
Hawk
On the other hand, I can't believe I clicked on the new post indicator to read this.
I would be interested to see the analysis behind this. If there is so little correlation in things pitchers control from year to year, I’d be shocked if there’s more meaningful correlation from first half to second half.
Put another way, variation for a relief pitcher can be broken down into : variation in health, variation in stuff not related to health, and variation in luck. The part attributable to luck would be even greater in a smaller sample size. On the other hand, health would be less volatile the shorter you have to worry about staying healthy. Maybe those somewhat offset, but I’d bet luck is way more variable than health in half season samples.
So, how correlated is stuff and could that push the net toward half seasons? I would think stuff would account for most of the year to year correlation that exists, and maybe a little more correlation within the first and second half of a season than year to year. So it seems quite ambiguous. Would love to see the numbers.
But, also, there’s certainly more correlation in closers than in middle relievers too. That suggests, if the Farrell hypothesis of middle relief is correct, that correlation in stuff increases in the quality of that stuff. And that suggests the “3 closers” approach to building a bullpen is the correct one.
It also, I think, suggests that you shouldn’t skimp on the high end of your bullpen (assuming you don’t have a cheap relief ace in the first place) while overinvesting in your 4th and 5th starters. But I need to work that logic out out more when I have time.
I think last shows the RS have changed the calculus of this significantly or at least much more consistently (since it has always been done to a certain degree). The 4th and 5th starter as well as the #1-3 starter on his normal bullpen throwing day represents the high end of the bullpen in the the playoffs. So over-investing in your 4th and 5th starters is also investing in the high end of your bullpen for the playoffs. This likely has significant changes to any algorithm which accounts for appropriate expenditure between a back end regular season relief pitcher and 4th or 5th starter. Put simply if you had to choose between Eovaldi and Kimbrel, who are you spending your money on?
Id start by not resigning Porcello for 2020 at anything more than what Lance Lynn got. Porcello at $20 million is a big expensive luxury as a 4th, and with Edro, maybe 5th, starter. I’d have been actively trying to move him to the team that would take the largest part of his contract this winter. I don’t think anyone would have taken enough to get to Kimbrel’s range, and I’m not bullish on Kimbrel anyway. But, if I had found someone who would have taken enough of Porcello’s contract to let me sign Britton, Ottavino, or Miller, I’d have taken it.
Last edited:
