Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Dec 7, 2018

DD's signing of Brasier ended up being a great move as a mid season Bullpen addition. Everyone everywhere- from SoSH to EEI- was hammering DD for not making a deal at the deadline for a "proven reliever". Meanwhile, Brasier was dominating the competition..... I know he doesn't have the track record so there's still a lot of skepticism over him. But these are the types of moves I think DD has lacked in the past with regards to building a BP. It's always been his weakness... he's always gone after a bigger name, traded good potential for them and not really been able to put together a great pen.
Now, of course, I know across his 3 years here, Kimbrel was great.... but during the WS playoff run, it was the lesser BP guys (and Cora brilliantly using starters) that turned it on and finally gave DD a ring. I want to see more of this.... no signings of "big name relievers" or deals for established BP arms... .I think it's going to be finding guys like Brasier and developing Barnes-types that will be the slight advantage over other teams. Seriously.... how'd that Yankee powerhouse bullpen do?

nvalvo · Dec 8, 2018

simplicio said:
Feltman and Hernandez may well get looks in spring training too.

I think we want our guys with options — or, like Feltman, not even on the 40 man — to start in Pawtucket.

simplicio · Dec 8, 2018

Typically yes, but you only have to look as far as Poyner playing his way around AAA and straight onto the roster last spring to find a contrary example.

joe dokes · Dec 8, 2018

simplicio said:
Typically yes, but you only have to look as far as Poyner playing his way around AAA and straight onto the roster last spring to find a contrary example.

Which conceivably avoids burning an option if he sticks. (Admittedly, that may be overthinking roster construction).

Cesar Crespo · Dec 8, 2018

simplicio said:
Typically yes, but you only have to look as far as Poyner playing his way around AAA and straight onto the roster last spring to find a contrary example.

And Ben Taylor the year before.

Al Zarilla · Dec 8, 2018

Trotsky said:
DD's signing of Brasier ended up being a great move as a mid season Bullpen addition. Everyone everywhere- from SoSH to EEI- was hammering DD for not making a deal at the deadline for a "proven reliever". Meanwhile, Brasier was dominating the competition..... I know he doesn't have the track record so there's still a lot of skepticism over him. But these are the types of moves I think DD has lacked in the past with regards to building a BP. It's always been his weakness... he's always gone after a bigger name, traded good potential for them and not really been able to put together a great pen.
Now, of course, I know across his 3 years here, Kimbrel was great.... but during the WS playoff run, it was the lesser BP guys (and Cora brilliantly using starters) that turned it on and finally gave DD a ring. I want to see more of this.... no signings of "big name relievers" or deals for established BP arms... .I think it's going to be finding guys like Brasier and developing Barnes-types that will be the slight advantage over other teams. Seriously.... how'd that Yankee powerhouse bullpen do?

Dombrowski got a ring as GM of the 1997 Marlins. I guess he’s checked all the boxes now, including helping build a bullpen that helped win a title. A pragmatic, go for it GM.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Dec 9, 2018

Al Zarilla said:
Dombrowski got a ring as GM of the 1997 Marlins. I guess he’s checked all the boxes now, including helping build a bullpen that helped win a title. A pragmatic, go for it GM.

Oh yeah... well, my feelings on his bullpen construction still stand. I don't think his success has been at signing the big name or dealing for an established arm. When it came down to the wire, it was in developed BP arms (Barnes), bullpen retreads (Kelly) and finding overlooked guys (Brasier). Kimbrel, Smith and Thornburg didn't really do much in the playoffs, IIRC.

Dewey'sCannon · Dec 9, 2018

I read some discussion about Kimbrel in the general Offseason thread that I wanted to respond to, but it seemed better placed in this thread.

If money is no object, and the Sox don't care about exceeding even the highest CBT level, then I think bringing Kimbrel becomes more possible, But even then, I don't know that you want to give him 5 or 6 years - 3 years for $50-something million seems reasonable, and even a fourth year at that kind of AAV is a stretch. Even if the Sox really want to bring him back, I think it's smart for DD to be patient and see what the market offers. If the Phillies want to make him a "stupid" offer, I don't think we should compete with that. I think we do have other in-house options to close - Barnes in the short-term, or possibly Feltman in the longer term. And there are other options on the FA market that will probably cost less, in terms of both dollars and AAV.

And if the payroll budget is an issue within the next four years (which I think is likely, given the needs to expend their resources on retaining the young core position players and dealing with at least one of the rotation slots), then I think it makes sense to pass on Kimbrel and go with these other options. And even if they like Barnes and Feltman, they're probably looking to bring in at least one more arm. I think they need to figure out who they like best out of Kelly, Robertson, Poynter, Miller and Britton. Maybe they can get one of the FAs on a two year deal (or maybe with a third year option). We probably don't want to be shut out here, but again, I think it's prudent to be patient to see how the market shakes out and hope the asking prices come down, unless a reasonable deal just happens to present itself (if someone like Kelly or Robertson has a preference for playing here, and wants to get a deal done sooner rather than later).

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 9, 2018

Trotsky said:
Oh yeah... well, my feelings on his bullpen construction still stand. I don't think his success has been at signing the big name or dealing for an established arm. When it came down to the wire, it was in developed BP arms (Barnes), bullpen retreads (Kelly) and finding overlooked guys (Brasier). Kimbrel, Smith and Thornburg didn't really do much in the playoffs, IIRC.

Kimbrel was a great acquisition and perfectly illustrates the problem with criticizing him for ‘not being able to build a bullpen’, as he’s dealt with for much of his career. It by definition a small sample size and a crapshoot. You can criticize him on Thornburg (he couldn’t have foreseen the TOS but Shaw turned out to be a loss) but otherwise he’s spent smartly for the pen.

Plympton91 · Dec 9, 2018

Carson Smith being an idiot and wrecking his shoulder is really biting them in the ass too. He looked like he was on his way back to being a high quality guy who would make the hole in the pen right now a lot less glaring. I saw they outrighted him and he took FA, so likely gone even if he can come back from what seemed like a pretty severe injury.

RedOctober3829 · Dec 9, 2018

Pozo the Clown · Dec 10, 2018

Dewey'sCannon · Dec 10, 2018

I saw Ottavino making the rounds on MLB network last week. He's an interesting guy - seems very smart and attuned to analytics. Apparently he went to Driveline and made some adjustments in his pitchmix that paid some real dividends. If Brian Bannister and Co. are convinced that his improvements are for real, I can see why they'd be iterested in bringing him on. But I think he's from Staten Island, so that may give the Yankees a hometwon advantage (assuming they're interested, which I'd think they would be since they are also looking to fill a couple of bullpen slots).

chawson · Dec 10, 2018

It seems beneficial that DD accomplished most of the offseason's heavy lifting (Eovaldi, Pearce) before the Winter Meetings, while Cashman still has to devote some measure of attention to the Machado sweepstakes and trading Gray. I know these guys have large squads of assistants, but it can only help that the Sox FO is ready for anything.

Pozo the Clown · Dec 10, 2018

Dewey'sCannon said:
I saw Ottavino making the rounds on MLB network last week. He's an interesting guy - seems very smart and attuned to analytics. Apparently he went to Driveline and made some adjustments in his pitchmix that paid some real dividends. If Brian Bannister and Co. are convinced that his improvements are for real, I can see why they'd be iterested in bringing him on. But I think he's from Staten Island, so that may give the Yankees a hometwon advantage (assuming they're interested, which I'd think they would be since they are also looking to fill a couple of bullpen slots).

There was similar speculation regarding Corbin's NY roots and he went with the $$$ instead. It's safe to assume the same cold, hard logic will apply in Ottavino's case. Additionally, he may be looking for the opportunity to be the main closer (an opportunity the MFYs can't offer him).

Brandon Phillips brief stint with the Sox deprives the team from being able to seduce Ottavino with the chance to be the 1st Red Sox to ever wear jersey number zero (not that that would carry any weight LOL).

moondog80 · Dec 10, 2018

Pozo the Clown said:
There was similar speculation regarding Corbin's NY roots and he went with the $$$ instead. It's safe to assume the same cold, hard logic will apply in Ottavino's case. Additionally, he may be looking for the opportunity to be the main closer (an opportunity the MFYs can't offer him).

Yeah, same with Eovaldi and Houston. Bottom line is that usually doesn't matter and these guys just end up taking the most money.

Green Monster · Dec 10, 2018

Robby Scott traded to the Reds

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/12/reds-to-acquire-robby-scott.html

RedOctober3829 · Dec 10, 2018

Green Monster said:
Robby Scott traded to the Reds

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/12/reds-to-acquire-robby-scott.html

He was actually claimed off waivers. Sox 40 man roster now at 39.

OCD SS · Dec 10, 2018

My understanding is that Ottavino doesn't need to be the closer; he would be comfortable in a relief ace roll, which would be part of his appeal, IMO.

I think he's looking for the largest possible deal and he's probably looking for not far off what Kimbrell's salary... at a certain point he could try to turn a longer deal into a personal services contract based on his work setting up his own PitchFX system, but the Sox already have Bannister doing that.

Back when he was draft eligible, Theo told him that they saw him as a reliever, not a starter, but I've always hoped he'd find his way to the Sox.

bosockboy · Dec 10, 2018

Two of Kelly/Robertson/Ottavino/Miller/Britton and call it a winter.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 10, 2018

bosockboy said:
Two of Kelly/Robertson/Ottavino/Miller/Britton and call it a winter.

This would be ideal but I’m more sure realistic.

Rasputin · Dec 10, 2018

RedOctober3829 said:
He was actually claimed off waivers. Sox 40 man roster now at 39.

Are we planning to pick up someone in the Rule 5 who's more likely to contribute than Robby Scott? I mean, he's Robby Scott and all, but he could be an effective LOOGY.

bosockboy said:
Two of Kelly/Robertson/Ottavino/Miller/Britton and call it a winter.

Am I an asshole for wanting three?

Cesar Crespo · Dec 10, 2018

Is the roster at 38?

Dewey'sCannon · Dec 10, 2018

Regarding Ottavino, I said the fact that he's from NYC "may" give the Yankees an advantage. But I meant only in the sense that it could be a tie-breaker if the offers are close. I agree that these decisions tend to be made based on money first, and opportunity/role second.

bosockboy said:
Two of Kelly/Robertson/Ottavino/Miller/Britton and call it a winter.

Two would be ideal. But DD may need to be a magician to pull that off, or be able to talk JH into blowing past the top tier CBT threshold (and maybe not just for '19).

RedOctober3829 · Dec 10, 2018

DD saying to the media that they aren’t looking to spend big for a closer. He mentioned they are willing to enter ST without an established closer.

Pozo the Clown · Dec 10, 2018

RedOctober3829 said:
DD saying to the media that they aren’t looking to spend big for a closer. He mentioned they are willing to enter ST without an established closer.

geoduck no quahog · Dec 10, 2018

The traditionalist in me really wants to see a lights-out closer. I'm prejudiced by recent history:
Foulke appearing in 2004
Papelbon in 2007
Koji coming on in 2013

Since 2013, the following closers have made it to the World Series
Gregg Holland
Jeurys Famiglia
Aroldis Chapman
Cody Allen/Andrew Miller
Kenley Jansen

Some were invented. Some were studs. Still, these guys (particularly Koji and Jansen) were executioners given a lead in the 9th. Nice thing to have.

If I'm reading the charts correctly, Kimbrel had the 3rd best WHIP of any closer with more than 25 saves last year (tied with Jansen). 3rd in K/9 behind Knebel and Chapman.

If the Red Sox can't get a reasonably priced stud, they're going to have to breed one. I suppose Barnes is the likely candidate.

Nothing quite so bad as losing a game in the 9th. Would be nice to have some security.

Pozo the Clown · Dec 10, 2018

Where will the Fight Club be located in 2019?

Per the article linked below: "According to multiple major league sources, the Dodgers, Mets and White Sox have joined the Red Sox in becoming the most aggressive when it comes to pursuing the services of Kelly. Of all the teams Los Angeles may be putting the biggest push on garnering the services of the 30-year-old."

https://weei.radio.com/blogs/rob-bradford/red-sox-competition-joe-kelly-coming-focus

OurF'ingCity · Dec 10, 2018

geoduck no quahog said:
The traditionalist in me really wants to see a lights-out closer. I'm prejudiced by recent history:
Foulke appearing in 2004
Papelbon in 2007
Koji coming on in 2013

Since 2013, the following closers have made it to the World Series
Gregg Holland
Jeurys Famiglia
Aroldis Chapman
Cody Allen/Andrew Miller
Kenley Jansen

Some were invented. Some were studs. Still, these guys (particularly Koji and Jansen) were executioners given a lead in the 9th. Nice thing to have.

If I'm reading the charts correctly, Kimbrel had the 3rd best WHIP of any closer with more than 25 saves last year (tied with Jansen). 3rd in K/9 behind Knebel and Chapman.

If the Red Sox can't get a reasonably priced stud, they're going to have to breed one. I suppose Barnes is the likely candidate.

Nothing quite so bad as losing a game in the 9th. Would be nice to have some security.

But doesn’t the Koji example prove that you don’t necessarily need a “lights out closer” going into the season? Koji wasn’t a closer at all, much less a lights out one, heading into 2013.

DeadlySplitter · Dec 10, 2018

some of these comments feel like playing coy as far as showing your hand in negotiations, but I'd love to see Cora revolutionize the ""closer"".

bosockboy · Dec 10, 2018

I think the Melancon signing really scared a lot of clubs on committing 5 years at big money on a closer. Heard an interview with Craig Mish today on SiriusXM, he doesn’t think Kimbrel will get more than 3/36. Predicted Kelly at 2/16. Might be in the middle of a course correction on relief salaries.

Dewey'sCannon · Dec 10, 2018

Lots of discussion about the reliever market on MLB Network tonight. Joel Sherman said that there's like 60 FA relievers on the market, and even 8-10 top-end/experienced closers, so that teams don't feel the need to rush to sign one, especially when they may not see that much difference between them. He said no one wants to be first and set the market, but that once one goes the others may follow relatively quickly. He also noted that this is in contrast to last year, when the reliever market was the only one that was hot in the early stages of the offseason. Dan O'Dowd then chimed in that most of the relievers signed last offseason did not work out very well, so that has also had an impact in chilling the market.

So I think DD is playing it smart by playing it cool, and I'm confident that we'll end up with one or more of these guys in the end. But which one(s) is anybody's guess.

Plympton91 · Dec 10, 2018

Rasputin said:
Are we planning to pick up someone in the Rule 5 who's more likely to contribute than Robby Scott? I mean, he's Robby Scott and all, but he could be an effective LOOGY.

Am I an asshole for wanting three?

They’ll need to make room on the roster as soon as they sign a free agent. So they may have been hoping that with teams having set their rosters for the rule 5 draft already, they could sneak Scott through more easily now than in a week or so. Unfortunately, they’ve got a bunch of guys qualified to be the 12th man on a major league pitching staff, but no closer. Good luck to Robbie, he was a nice find in 2017 and gets a ring and a 6-figure World Series share for his minuscule contribution in 2018.

sean1562 · Dec 10, 2018

How bullish are we on Britton? What could his market realistically look like? I would think he is a better option as a closer than Joe Kelly

Cesar Crespo · Dec 10, 2018

DeadlySplitter said:
some of these comments feel like playing coy as far as showing your hand in negotiations, but I'd love to see Cora revolutionize the ""closer"".

Given how the game has changed over the last 10 years, I wonder if closer by committee would fly. I know it didn't in 2003 but part of that was personal and that was 15 years ago.

Any dominant MR is going to get paid, traditional closer or not.

Pandarama · Dec 11, 2018

When the 2003 Red Sox tried the “closer by committee” experiment, their manager 1) would not test within 30 IQ points of their 2019 manager, and 2) was not sitting comfortably on a World Series victory in one back pocket and a contract extension in the other.

The 2019 version of Alex Cora is the guy who could kill the Eck / LaRussa closer model. I don’t know if that’s an actual goal of his, but I do believe he could do it.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 11, 2018

Yeah, I think a lot has changed in 15 years, and both players and organizations are more open-minded than they used to be. A team got to the playoffs with an "opener" strategy, after all. The smart approach is to understand what your players are best at and build roles around that, rather than shoehorning players into conventional roles or spending inordinate sums on players who are pre-shoehorned for them. You do need a manager who's a really good communicator, but we have that. If anybody could make it work, Cora 2019 could.

That doesn't mean we don't need to add a reliever or two, but they don't necessarily have to be "proven closers", and in fact it might be an advantage if they are guys who are flexible about what role they're signing up for.

Mugsy's Jock · Dec 11, 2018

Pandarama said:
When the 2003 Red Sox tried the “closer by committee” experiment, their manager 1) would not test within 30 IQ points of their 2019 manager, and 2) was not sitting comfortably on a World Series victory in one back pocket and a contract extension in the other.

The 2019 version of Alex Cora is the guy who could kill the Eck / LaRussa closer model. I don’t know if that’s an actual goal of his, but I do believe he could do it.

I totally disagree with this ridiculous post, which shows your complete lack of understanding of metrics and analysis.

It’s “within at least 75 IQ points”

joe dokes · Dec 11, 2018

Savin Hillbilly said:
Yeah, I think a lot has changed in 15 years, and both players and organizations are more open-minded than they used to be. A team got to the playoffs with an "opener" strategy, after all. The smart approach is to understand what your players are best at and build roles around that, rather than shoehorning players into conventional roles or spending inordinate sums on players who are pre-shoehorned for them. You do need a manager who's a really good communicator, but we have that. If anybody could make it work, Cora 2019 could.

That doesn't mean we don't need to add a reliever or two, but they don't necessarily have to be "proven closers", and in fact it might be an advantage if they are guys who are flexible about what role they're signing up for.

This is where I am. To a large extent, the inevitable add-ons of getting a "proven closer" are long-term expensive contracts and a guy who hasn't warmed up mid-inning in 5 years and comes in with runners on base twice a year. The future budget issues DD identified in his Kimbrel epitaph-ish comments suggest that management thinks that the place to get quality without an 8 or 9-figure deal is to pile up bullpen arms. As you say, if anyone could make it work, and not panic if they lose opening day on a bullpen meltdown, it's Cora.

Dewey'sCannon · Dec 11, 2018

One of the keys to making such a flexible bullpen approach successful, besides having a smart manager willing and able to execute it, is having pitchers who are comfortable with this approach, and not having defined/inning specific roles. I read an interview with Joe Kelly a couple of days ago where he said it didn't matter to him when he gets used, just a matter of getting loose. And I think there's some advantage here in not having guys who are defined as "established closers," because they seem to be the ones who are most particular about how they are used. Several of the guys that the Sox are looking at - Miller, Robertson and Ottavino, as well as Kelly, have some experience as closers but have also be used in other roles, so they would probably be more amenable to the more flexible approach. Britton, on the other hand, has been used almost exclusively as a closer for a while (other than his brief stint with the Yankees at the end of last season), and seems to be seeking a return to a closer's role, so I think they'd have to talk to him to make sure he's cool with this before signing him.

But it certainly makes more sense to base bullpen usage on match-ups and game situations rather than defined roles and specific innings, if you can get the players to buy into it.

BaseballJones · Dec 11, 2018

Britton is a terrific relief pitcher. Not a big strikeout guy, but he's nasty still. Unreasonable to expect him to produce like he did from 2014-2016, but I bet he can be a 2.25-2.50 era kind of guy. He's really good and I'd love to have him and one other hard throwing righty in the pen.

dhappy42 · Dec 11, 2018

Dewey'sCannon said:
One of the keys to making such a flexible bullpen approach successful, besides having a smart manager willing and able to execute it, is having pitchers who are comfortable with this approach, and not having defined/inning specific roles. I read an interview with Joe Kelly a couple of days ago where he said it didn't matter to him when he gets used, just a matter of getting loose. And I think there's some advantage here in not having guys who are defined as "established closers," because they seem to be the ones who are most particular about how they are used. Several of the guys that the Sox are looking at - Miller, Robertson and Ottavino, as well as Kelly, have some experience as closers but have also be used in other roles, so they would probably be more amenable to the more flexible approach. Britton, on the other hand, has been used almost exclusively as a closer for a while (other than his brief stint with the Yankees at the end of last season), and seems to be seeking a return to a closer's role, so I think they'd have to talk to him to make sure he's cool with this before signing him.

But it certainly makes more sense to base bullpen usage on match-ups and game situations rather than defined roles and specific innings, if you can get the players to buy into it.

Yes. It’s been discussed and debated ad nauseam, but matching relief pitchers to specific innings instead of situations or batters has never made much sense other than making some pitchers more comfortable with a predictable routine, (which isn’t insignificant, but is overvalued, imo.) Red Sox bullpen pitchers ex Kimbrel - even starters - have demonstrated a willingness to think outside the pre-determined roles box. So has Cora and he’s one of a few MLB managers with all the necessary skills to pull this off... assuming he and the team want to. Even better than “closer by committee” would be a total rethink of relief pitcher usage.

Al Zarilla · Dec 11, 2018

Mugsy's Jock said:
I totally disagree with this ridiculous post, which shows your complete lack of understanding of metrics and analysis.

It’s “within at least 75 IQ points”

On a log scale.

joe dokes · Dec 11, 2018

dhappy42 said:
Yes. It’s been discussed and debated ad nauseam, but matching relief pitchers to specific innings instead of situations or batters has never made much sense other than making some pitchers more comfortable with a predictable routine, (which isn’t insignificant, but is overvalued, imo.) Red Sox bullpen pitchers ex Kimbrel - even starters - have demonstrated a willingness to think outside the pre-determined roles box. So has Cora and he’s one of a few MLB managers with all the necessary skills to pull this off... assuming he and the team want to. Even better than “closer by committee” would be a total rethink of relief pitcher usage.

And it would certainly "help" Cora if, in fact, he didn't start the season with any so-called "closers."

There's an assumption underlying the entire "closer" strategy that losing a game in the 9th inning is somehow worse than losing it in the 7th or 8th. It isn't.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2018

dhappy42 said:
Yes. It’s been discussed and debated ad nauseam, but matching relief pitchers to specific innings instead of situations or batters has never made much sense other than making some pitchers more comfortable with a predictable routine, (which isn’t insignificant, but is overvalued, imo.) Red Sox bullpen pitchers ex Kimbrel - even starters - have demonstrated a willingness to think outside the pre-determined roles box. So has Cora and he’s one of a few MLB managers with all the necessary skills to pull this off... assuming he and the team want to. Even better than “closer by committee” would be a total rethink of relief pitcher usage.

I'm all for the use of relievers or pitchers in general based on situation rather than inning, but I'm not prepared to take what happened in October and assume that the flexibility and enthusiasm for fluid roles then will carry over to the regular season next year. Would it be great if everyone continued their self-less, team-first attitude in April and May? Of course, but I'm not counting on it.

Unless they make signings this off-season with the express condition that there won't be a defined "closer" and that the plan is truly going to be a "committee", I expect, at least for the regular season, a bit of status quo in terms of typical bullpen roles.

chawson · Dec 11, 2018

BaseballJones said:
Britton is a terrific relief pitcher. Not a big strikeout guy, but he's nasty still. Unreasonable to expect him to produce like he did from 2014-2016, but I bet he can be a 2.25-2.50 era kind of guy. He's really good and I'd love to have him and one other hard throwing righty in the pen.

I'm not sure what's up with Britton's control issues since his return but that groundball rate is back to elite levels, and we really have no one else like that in the pen.

Meanwhile, it's noon on day two of the Winter Meetings, things are moving slowly, eh?

joe dokes · Dec 11, 2018

Red(s)HawksFan said:
I'm all for the use of relievers or pitchers in general based on situation rather than inning, but I'm not prepared to take what happened in October and assume that the flexibility and enthusiasm for fluid roles then will carry over to the regular season next year. Would it be great if everyone continued their self-less, team-first attitude in April and May? Of course, but I'm not counting on it.

Unless they make signings this off-season with the express condition that there won't be a defined "closer" and that the plan is truly going to be a "committee", I expect, at least for the regular season, a bit of status quo in terms of typical bullpen roles.

Assuming we aren't talking about starters, the change is that late-game roles wont depend on innings so much as lineup position. Basically acknowledging that it makes little sense to save your best reliever for a 9th inning against the bottom of the order and not use him against the middle of the order in the 8th.

I'm not sure why selflessness (any more than usual in a team sport) is required here. It may require more attention to game situations.

Pozo the Clown · Dec 11, 2018

joe dokes said:
This is where I am. To a large extent, the inevitable add-ons of getting a "proven closer" are long-term expensive contracts and a guy who hasn't warmed up mid-inning in 5 years and comes in with runners on base twice a year. The future budget issues DD identified in his Kimbrel epitaph-ish comments suggest that management thinks that the place to get quality without an 8 or 9-figure deal is to pile up bullpen arms. As you say, if anyone could make it work, and not panic if they lose opening day on a bullpen meltdown, it's Cora.

The Opening Day bullpen meltdown worked out just fine in 2018.

chawson said:
I'm not sure what's up with Britton's control issues since his return but that groundball rate is back to elite levels, and we really have no one else like that in the pen.

BaseballJones said:
Britton is a terrific relief pitcher. Not a big strikeout guy, but he's nasty still. Unreasonable to expect him to produce like he did from 2014-2016, but I bet he can be a 2.25-2.50 era kind of guy. He's really good and I'd love to have him and one other hard throwing righty in the pen.

I'm a big fan of adding Britton's skill set to the Sox pen. I'm curious as to what it will take for a team to sign him. There was a NY Post article that suggested that he was unlikely to return to the MFY based on his desire to return to closing.

I've seen more ink referring to the Sox interest in Ottavino/Robertson/Kelly than I have regarding Britton. Perhaps the Sox are targeting more "role-flexible" BP arms. It'll be interesting to see how the reliever market develops once the dominoes begin to fall (hopefully soon).

dhappy42 · Dec 11, 2018

It it worth a separate thread to discuss ideas on completely rethinking pitcher usage?

If you were designing a pitching staff from scratch, without regard to tradition or convention, how would you do it? Would you stick with the 5 starters system, expecting starters to pitch 6 or 7 innings, with 1-2 inning set-up relievers, then a closer? Or something else entirely?

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2018

joe dokes said:
I'm not sure why selflessness (any more than usual in a team sport) is required here. It may require more attention to game situations.

Selflessness in the sense of being open to changing norms. You touched on one aspect that would change with a more fluid role (comfort). The other is more stat driven. It's becoming less of a factor, but relievers for a long time got paid for saves. If you weren't a closer with impressive save totals, you weren't a highly paid reliever. That trend is changing but not by much...non-closers are getting paid better but it's still the "closers" who get the big contracts. The Jansen/Chapman kind of deals.

Just taking a guy like Barnes as an example, don't you think he would prefer to be the closer for this team for the next 2-3 years so he can rack up a bunch of saves to hit free agency with? Could be the difference of a few million dollars and/or an extra year or two of security. Not to suggest he wouldn't play whatever role is assigned to him moving forward, but in a committee situation where he's getting the save chance every third opportunity instead of four out of every five, there's a chance of resentment. Especially if most other teams are still employing more traditional bullpen roles.

In an ideal world, Cora and the Sox would deploy the most efficient and smart methods of pitching management the game has ever seen, and the pitchers would all buy in, and everything would go smoothly. It's just not an ideal world and I don't expect everything to go smoothly, even if everything on the field is working out perfectly to plan.

Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Member

Member

Member

Member

79

Member

Member

Member

Homeland Security

bubble burster

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Homeland Security

Will outlive SeanBerry

79

Member

Member

New Member

not particularly consistent

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

bubble burster

Member

79

New Member

loves the secret sauce

Eli apologist

Member

Member

ivanvamp

Straw Man

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Straw Man

Member