Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Red Sox Forum' started by Devizier, Oct 29, 2018.
I can't see them blowing the market for Eovaldi after they held the line on Corbin.
Free-agent RHP Nathan Eovaldi in agreement with #RedSox, pending physical, sources tell The Athletic.
My problem with him is the multiple concussions he had last year. Pass.
Moot now, but "remnants" in the literal sense, the remaining quantity.
Some players are going to take smaller contracts once they no longer have multiple bidders. Happ is a risk for this because his performance demands a larger contract but his age suggests otherwise. Lynn has the added complication of his poor postseason showing.
Lynn is weird. Casual Yankee fans seem to hate him, but he had a decent year — particularly if you want to discount his first month because of the late sign. He had an excellent 3.35 FIP after May 22, and finished with higher velocity than he ever had with the Cards.
Anyway, there are fewer teams tanking/tearing down this year. I think he'll get more than a one-year contract.
To update, we need two guys from this list before 2020. (The bold names are free agents this year, unbolded names available next.)
Even with Eovaldi, it still seems better to get a second pitcher now rather than two next offseason. Sale, Verlander and Cole are the big prizes next year, and in a best case* scenario we'll sign one of them, but it would cost a ton. So will Wheeler if he has another 4-5 win season.
If we're going over the secondary threshold this year anyway, and since our trade options are limited, I'd see if we can also sign Morton now rather than two of the unbolded names above next year.
Who do you bump from the rotation? Or do you go with the (often-discussed, rarely-implemented) 6-man rotation?
It's a limited market for Porcello, but one season of him tracks perfectly with Cueto's and Ohtani's TJS. He's a lock for 180 innings, but with his decreasing velocity, rising walk rate, rising home run rate, I'm not sure we'd want them.
This plan seems a little too clever by half - for starters, why wouldn't one of those teams just sign Morton and be done with it?
Why are we proposing to trade Porcello again?
I’d rather Morton than Porcello this year and Morton over whomever we’d get to replace Porcello next year. Signing him to, say, a 2/$32M contract would also keep him from going to one of our rivals.
It’s essentially what Cashman is doing with Gray. I agree it’s probably too cute, but I’m not a big Porcello guy.
I'll take steady-eddy reliable Porcello over old Morton, thanks. I'm sure I'm not alone in that thought, either.
I hope you realize that list of pitchers you posted that you say we need to choose from for our 2020 rotation is not static. Things change and a lot of variables and scenarios will be in play well before 2020 rolls around.
Sonny Gray would kill to have Rick's consistency, and consistency is something you don't value in numbers, but it most definitely matters quite a bit.
I don't think DD will be getting too cute trying to trade Peter to sign Paul (and then trade for Mary). The rotation is set and it's dominant (yes... like every other team out there... assuming good health across the rotation).
I'm putting them in this order as 1-5 not arguing about ability as much as I think there's some seniority mixed with ability in how they'll start the year.
Bullpen just needs one addition. I'm assuming both Johnson and Wright will be in there unless they think they can get a decent prospect for either of them. Add Barnes and FA (Kelly or Robertson) and I think that's a solid core.
You forgot Ryan “Full Tilt” Braiser.
Who's your closer?
They should be in on Morton regardless of Porcellos impending free agency. Rodriquez, Wright, Johnson, Velazquez is not quality depth.
I’m certain that Morton is cool with being a 6th starter.
Save money on any more pitchers, just get a whole heap of CPAP's.
Make everyone into Josh Hader.
Rodriquez can be cool with the bullpen.
Rodriguez not enough quality being the 5th starter? Of course Scherzer will be better.
Is 120 innings from your #5 starter quality?
129.2 innings, 146 Ks, 3.82 ERA, 13-5 ain't too shabby from your #5.
One guy that's a solid 3 and three others that are viable 5/6s isn't quality depth? Since when?
I don't know who Rodriquez is.
Eduardo Rodriguez is at worst a back-end rotation piece. he's not starting the season in the pen.
I don't get it either.
Eduardo Rodriguez isn't good enough to be our 5th starter? Really?!? He was a top 60 SP by WAR using both methods last season, despite only pitching 130 innings last season. If you need a few starts from the Johnson/Wright/Velazquez group, so be it. Why spend 8 figures to bring in Morton to effectively be Rodriguez for an extra 30 innings (assuming IP history repeats itself, which is a big assumption)?
Unless he has no other options, no starter is going to come here with there being such a murky path to spot in the rotation.
Yeah, it makes no sense to send someone from this rotation out on a jet plane, for 500 miles.
Don't understand the shade Semper threw on Rodriguez.
Career: 4.12 era, 107 era+, 3.97 fip, 1.28 whip, 9.0 k/9
2018: 3.82 era, 114 era+, 3.65 fip, 1.27 whip, 10.1 k/9
What's not to like about that? Dude is just 25. Will be 26 when the season starts, just now should be entering his prime. 3.0 bWAR pitcher last year, making way less than he's worth. You don't find many better values than that. I'd love to see him take the next step (like 18 wins, though yeah, that isn't as relevant, 3.33-3.50 era, something like that), but if he stayed as THIS, that's still a well above average starting pitcher, and he's the #5. Absolutely ZERO to complain about there.
Seems to me the only flaw/concern with ERod so far in his career has been his durability. But if the bottom line expectation for him is to be the #5 in the rotation, his ability to throw 180+ innings isn't necessarily the highest priority for him to be a valuable asset.
With no shirt on his back or a penny to his name.
He's kinda like Clay Buccholz in that regard. He's good, but for like half a season.
Given all the money going elsewhere, the team is almost required to give him every shot to get 30 starts.
Difference is he maintains a certain level of performance and doesn't alternate between ace level pitching and absolute garbage every season.
Wasn't his injury last season non-pitching related? He got stepped on or something? It's not like he has a fragile shoulder or elbow...
I wouldn't characterize Rodriguez as having durability concerns - he missed time last season after a collision at first base. His performance in the first half of the 2018 season seems to indicate that he was fully recovered from the knee issues.
Why no team could ever win its division if Brian Johnson, Steven Wright, and Hector Velasquez are getting 25 starts combined! Let alone a World Series!
Do you consider the Rays a rival? http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/rays/...arlie-morton-among-starting-pitching-options/
I didn't mean to imply that he has durability concerns moving forward so much as the only negative on his resume so far is that he has gotten hurt often. In other words, there should be no concerns over his performance based on what he's done to date. If he's healthy, he produces. He's got nothing chronic to be worried about unless you believe the knee injuries that plagued him for a couple years aren't behind him. And for the first time in a couple years, he made it through the whole season without that particular injury flaring up. Whether it is because he's past it or because it was preempted by the ankle injury remains to be seen. I'm confident he's good to go, but there's prudence in only counting on him for 140-150 innings in 2019 and anything beyond that is a happy bonus. That's still a hell of a fifth starter.
Yes. The Rays won 90 games last year.
Buster Olney on Michael Kay podcast said today Dombrowski is comfortable waiting for Kimbrel’s price to go down.
I could see a team splurging on Kimbrel though. I'd be surprised if his price goes down enough that we are able to sign him on a good deal.
Main problem would be the years he wants; too risky.
He seems like a guy who could get stuck in QO purgatory.
And in a division with two 100 game winning teams no less.
The AL had some pretty shitty teams this year. Only six even had a .500 record. And five had 95 or more losses, three with over 100. Win totals were skewed and I think we need to start adjusting to it as more and more we’re going to see a divide.
This may be for another thread, but I think we're nearing a course correction.
The Cubs and Astros remade themselves by being abjectly horrible for a few years. Since that time, a number of teams have imitated that strategy of building a contender by stripping the 25 man roster all the way to the studs. Let's call it a "deep" rebuild — the kind where you expect to lose 100 games for three years — to contrast it from older, shallower rebuilds. We have seen recent rebuilds of this type from Philadelphia and Atlanta; current ones from CWS, Minnesota, Miami, San Diego; and perhaps Baltimore, KC and Seattle are heading in this direction.
But now, we're in a situation where the limitation of that strategy are starting to emerge. That strategy assumes that you can put together a core of elite players — Correa, Altuve, Springer, Bregman; Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Baez, Schwarber, Contreras — by trading anything and everything of value from the 25 man, and pocketing the resulting high draft picks. But there are a limited number of franchise-altering prospects. If two or three teams are in deep rebuilds at a given moment, you can pocket four or five of these players: the trade market is tilted in your favor, and a given number of losses offers a better draft position. But if eight or nine teams are in deep rebuilds, it will be harder to make that process work. More teams will be chasing those handful of top prospects, and the returns on those trades will be lower. And of course, only one team can get the top overall pick; in this year's June draft, teams with 95 losses will pick 6th and 7th. As recently as 2016, a 95 loss team would have picked 2nd, after the 103 loss Twins.
You risk investing years of losses, and coming out of your deep rebuild with only a few stars, not a franchise altering core.
I don’t really think it’s about trading for prospects - those Astros and Cubs made their core through the draft (Rizzo and Russel being the exceptions, but neither were for huge pieces, they were just good deals). And yes, only one team can pick first but it’s not about picking first in MLB, especially the way the draft is built now. It’s about your budget, since you can’t spend whatever you want anymore. Only a few of the guys you listed were #1 picks. The difference is that teams have started to realize it’s not worth adding a mediocre free agent for $10M to add a win or two. So we’re seeing less of teams like the Pirates signing a Jeromy Burnitz to feign trying to win to their fans. As the incomes start to abandon the middle class, much like the NFL with a rookie QB on a cheap deal, teams will be built like you mention, with a young cheap core and a few super high priced guys. And since there’s no floor in MLB, there’s no need to sign that 1 WAR FA for $10M. Teams are making their money through revenue sharing, not ticket sales so they don’t mind a few down years to get to the top. I don’t think any tide is changing I think it’s going to get more divided. But ymmv.
Edit: I’m not sure how you see a course correction when a full quarter of the league lost 95 or more games and three at 100 or more. That has to be unprecedented.
To be clear, I don't see it in the recent past, I anticipate it in the near future. It's one thing to lose 90 games and get the #6 pick. It's another thing to lose 90 games and pick #12.
It isn't. In 2002 and 6 teams lost 100 or more and 7 lost at least 95. 8 lost 90. Whether 2018 is a trend or an outlier remains to be seen.
TB, KC, DET, and MIL lost over 100 (with all but KC losing 106). You are correct about 7 with 95 losses or more though. Still an impressive amount of ugly.