2018-19 Offseason Thread

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Tiresome request! I already posted upthread that the Sox have signed six FA SPs to multi-year contracts since 2002 (Price, Lackey, Dice-K, Burkett, Clement, and Dempster—seven if you wanna count Wakefield). The pitchers they've acquired by trade in that time include Beckett, Sale, Kim, Schilling, Rubby (sorta), Peavy, Miley, Porcello, Rodriguez, Wright, Pomeranz, and Kelly (and Pedro and Lowe, who were already on the team in 2002). Maybe there's a more thorough analysis to be done here about how the Sox acquire players, but it's reasonable to think that pitchers worry that signing with a team that plays in a hitters park in the AL East would hurt their numbers. (Recall that Schilling expressed exactly this to Theo.) That's why I think the Sox tend to get pitchers via trade.
You have not shown your work with regards to free agent pitchers avoiding the Red Sox. What you need to show are examples of free agent pitchers pursued by the Red Sox that ended up signing elsewhere. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head were Mike Mussina (pre-2002, and he stayed in the AL East), maybe CC Sabathia (the Sox were rumored to be in on him until he got an outrageous contract offer to come to the AL East). And Jon Lester, but there was some very relevant history that had a lot to do with his decision. If you can name others, then we can have a debate on this topic.

Both Price and Lackey were some of the more higher profile free agent pitchers to sign, period. And they came to Boston.

It's also worth noting opportunity. The Sox haven't had much reason to go after that many free agent starters.

Finally, taking anything Curt Schilling says at face value seriously devalues your argument, no matter the topic.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
You have not shown your work with regards to free agent pitchers avoiding the Red Sox. What you need to show are examples of free agent pitchers pursued by the Red Sox that ended up signing elsewhere. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head were Mike Mussina (pre-2002, and he stayed in the AL East), maybe CC Sabathia (the Sox were rumored to be in on him until he got an outrageous contract offer to come to the AL East). And Jon Lester, but there was some very relevant history that had a lot to do with his decision. If you can name others, then we can have a debate on this topic.

Both Price and Lackey were some of the more higher profile free agent pitchers to sign, period. And they came to Boston.

It's also worth noting opportunity. The Sox haven't had much reason to go after that many free agent starters.

Finally, taking anything Curt Schilling says at face value seriously devalues your argument, no matter the topic.
Do you have a way of knowing which pitchers the Red Sox pursued but ultimately didn't sign? I don't think all of them make it to the press.

As for Schilling, I obviously agree he's a trash human being, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. It was reported that he had apprehensions about coming to Boston. (Original quote in ESPN article: "Originally, Schilling was skeptical of whether Boston was a place he should go...Schilling had also been concerned that Fenway Park was unfriendly to right-handed fly-ball pitchers.")
 

ricopetro6

New Member
Oct 25, 2013
1,908
Do you have a way of knowing which pitchers the Red Sox pursued but ultimately didn't sign? I don't think all of them make it to the press.

As for Schilling, I obviously agree he's a trash human being, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. It was reported that he had apprehensions about coming to Boston. (Original quote in ESPN article: "Originally, Schilling was skeptical of whether Boston was a place he should go...Schilling had also been concerned that Fenway Park was unfriendly to right-handed fly-ball pitchers.")
Someone who might disagree with you politically does not make them trash. People need to get over this mentality.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
You have not shown your work with regards to free agent pitchers avoiding the Red Sox. What you need to show are examples of free agent pitchers pursued by the Red Sox that ended up signing elsewhere. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head were Mike Mussina (pre-2002, and he stayed in the AL East), maybe CC Sabathia (the Sox were rumored to be in on him until he got an outrageous contract offer to come to the AL East). And Jon Lester, but there was some very relevant history that had a lot to do with his decision. If you can name others, then we can have a debate on this topic.

Both Price and Lackey were some of the more higher profile free agent pitchers to sign, period. And they came to Boston.

It's also worth noting opportunity. The Sox haven't had much reason to go after that many free agent starters.

Finally, taking anything Curt Schilling says at face value seriously devalues your argument, no matter the topic.
He has absolutely shown his work, and no, your bar for satisfaction on it is not correct. More to the point, the underlying observation he's making is that it is an unreliable and volatile path to staffing a rotation, not that "FA pitchers avoid the Red Sox," in part because the AL East can be less attractive for a pitcher. That does not require him to do some in-depth study while he's making a fairly simple point in a birds-eye-view discussion of the roster. He's noted that it does happen here. His Kluber/ Benintendi idea does not exactly hinge on this point, either.

Chawson's made an interesting, outside-the-box suggestion on the Kluber rumor. He's offering a suggestion, not issuing a demand that it happen. The litany of poorly conceived performative nitpicking in response is kind of strengthening his argument, which I also disagree with, not the opposite.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
He has absolutely shown his work, and no, your bar for satisfaction on it is not correct. More to the point, the underlying observation he's making is that it is an unreliable and volatile path to staffing a rotation, not that "FA pitchers avoid the Red Sox," in part because the AL East can be less attractive for a pitcher. That does not require him to do some in-depth study while he's making a fairly simple point in a birds-eye-view discussion of the roster. He's noted that it does happen here. His Kluber/ Benintendi idea does not exactly hinge on this point, either.

Chawson's made an interesting, outside-the-box suggestion on the Kluber rumor. He's offering a suggestion, not issuing a demand that it happen. The litany of poorly conceived performative nitpicking in response is kind of strengthening his argument, which I also disagree with, not the opposite.
Chawson actually expounded off of the suggestion I made earlier in the thread. How many times does an elite starting pitcher with a contract like Kluber's become available? Any World Series contender has to at least explore the possibility. The Indians will only trade Kluber if they get cost-controlled players like Benintendi back. Not many teams have these kind of players available and even fewer have these players, could give one up, and still be a very good team regardless. With the decision of a long term deal on Sale coming, having Kluber locked up for 2 seasons beyond next year would give the Sox some leverage in negotiations. They'd have a #1 starter at roughly the same price as Sale was the last couple years and could put the money they'd have to give to Sale towards extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley if they so choose to keep him.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
This is not a good analogy. You can have literally too much food, such that if you consume any more of it, you just make yourself sick. Starting pitching isn't like that, because we're not talking about quantity here. It's a question of better, not more.

The Red Sox have four starting pitchers solidly slotted in for 2018: Sale, Price, Porcello and Edro. The 5th starter, at this point, is presumably one of Wright, Johnson, Velazquez, or Cuevas. How many extra wins would it be worth to replace one of that group with Kluber? Two seems like a reasonably conservative guesstimate. Could that upgrade be the difference-maker in a tight race? Why yes. Yes it could.

So we have a good rotation and we need to make it better. Is it a pressing, make-or-break, there's-no-way-we-can-contend-without-it kind of need? Of course not. Could it be filled in other ways, without giving up someone as good as Benintendi? Quite likely. But saying it's not a need at all does not make sense to me.
No, it's a perfectly good analogy, you're just missing the point for the third time.

How many wins would it be worth to replace one of that group with Kluber WHILE DOWNGRADING YOUR OUTFIELD IMMENSELY is the question. You would be downgrading your offense, defense, reliability, familiarity, and increasing your (very strained) payroll to make this move. Why do you consistently gloss over that? Do you not understand the concept? It's not a conceptual trade made in a vacuum, hence why Kluber is not a need.

Transportation is a need, a Ferrari when you've already got a very good car is not. You're putting a bandage on an arm without a wound while creating a cut that wasn't there on the other. How many more analogies do you want?
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I suppose it's too old school of me to ask why the Indians would even consider trading Kluber to a team they have to get past in order to reach the World Series
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
I suppose it's too old school of me to ask why the Indians would even consider trading Kluber to a team they have to get past in order to reach the World Series
Their intent on listening to trade offers for veteran players suggests to me that they are breaking up the team because they can't afford to pay Lindor with the amount of payroll they have now. Therefore, how hard are they trying to contend? Ramirez is signed long-term for cheap.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Their intent on listening to trade offers for veteran players suggests to me that they are breaking up the team because they can't afford to pay Lindor with the amount of payroll they have now. Therefore, how hard are they trying to contend? Ramirez is signed long-term for cheap.
See, I read it as the opposite. They're willing to listen for the right offer (i.e. one that improves another part of the roster), but they're not seeking to break up the team. If they were breaking up the roster, they'd be more proactive about moving guys than just saying "we'll listen".
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Chawson actually expounded off of the suggestion I made earlier in the thread. How many times does an elite starting pitcher with a contract like Kluber's become available? Any World Series contender has to at least explore the possibility. The Indians will only trade Kluber if they get cost-controlled players like Benintendi back. Not many teams have these kind of players available and even fewer have these players, could give one up, and still be a very good team regardless. With the decision of a long term deal on Sale coming, having Kluber locked up for 2 seasons beyond next year would give the Sox some leverage in negotiations. They'd have a #1 starter at roughly the same price as Sale was the last couple years and could put the money they'd have to give to Sale towards extensions for Betts, Bogaerts, and Bradley if they so choose to keep him.
Correct, RedOctober was the first to formulate a Beni swap for Kluber or Carrasco. I argued upthread we should explore offering him for Snell, Taillon, C-Mart, Nola, or one of the Mets’ aces. It didn’t occur to me that Kluber/Carrasco would be available. YMMV, clearly.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
The Indians aren't going into rebuilding mode. I'll be surprised if they really do trade one of their top players, but the purpose would be to offset costs in order to balance the roster... sacrifice a starting pitcher to cover the costs of improving the outfield (and bullpen). They have enough cost controlled pieces that they shouldn't be tearing it down for another two years. I think the "news" that they're willing to listen to offers is as much about lowering fan expectations for the off-season as anything. The 2019 AL Central title is already theirs, and trading their ace of the past half-decade to another AL contender would be public relations suicide. I hate to disappoint everyone, but the last page of this thread was a waste of time.

*
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
Not for nothing but

STEAMER for next season

Kluber (age 33) 4.8 fWAR over 209 IP
Brantley (age 32) 2.6 fWAR over 146 games (seems optimistic given that would be his highest total in 5 seasons)

Benintendi (age 25) 3.5 fWAR over 149 games
Eovaldi (age 29) 3.0 fWAR over 160 IP

Applying the "over thirty" rule of thumb (-0.5 WAR/year) you would expect Benintendi and Eovaldi to outperform their Cleveland counterparts beginning in 2020.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
How many wins would it be worth to replace one of that group with Kluber WHILE DOWNGRADING YOUR OUTFIELD IMMENSELY is the question. You would be downgrading your offense, defense, reliability, familiarity, and increasing your (very strained) payroll to make this move. Why do you consistently gloss over that? Do you not understand the concept? It's not a conceptual trade made in a vacuum, hence why Kluber is not a need.
I understand perfectly why it might be a bad idea to trade Benintendi for Kluber, and in fact I've said more than once that I'm inclined to agree, though not as strongly as you (because I lean a bit more toward Chawson's take on Benintendi than most here).

So if you'd said "the Sox shouldn't trade for Kluber, because the price will be too high," you would have gotten crickets from me. But you said "the Sox don't need Kluber," which is an entirely different (and manifestly absurd) statement. So yeah, I'm just quibbling about language. On we go.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
744
I suppose it's too old school of me to ask why the Indians would even consider trading Kluber to a team they have to get past in order to reach the World Series
In the event that the Indians ARE willing to trade Kluber to another AL contender, the Yankees have lots of chips to offer. Andujar (plus?) might be more appealing to the Tribe than Beni. With his defensive struggles at 3rd, Andujar might be a good candidate to move to LF. MFYs then sign Machado.

The Kluber to the Sox scenario is a huge long shot at best. Reminds me of the barrage of posts about Stanton to the Sox years ago. Nothing more than off-season pipe dreaming.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
I understand perfectly why it might be a bad idea to trade Benintendi for Kluber, and in fact I've said more than once that I'm inclined to agree, though not as strongly as you (because I lean a bit more toward Chawson's take on Benintendi than most here).

So if you'd said "the Sox shouldn't trade for Kluber, because the price will be too high," you would have gotten crickets from me. But you said "the Sox don't need Kluber," which is an entirely different (and manifestly absurd) statement. So yeah, I'm just quibbling about language. On we go.
Quibbling about language is exactly why the main board is exhausting these days.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In the event that the Indians ARE willing to trade Kluber to another AL contender, the Yankees have lots of chips to offer. Andujar (plus?) might be more appealing to the Tribe than Beni. With his defensive struggles at 3rd, Andujar might be a good candidate to move to LF. MFYs then sign Machado.

The Kluber to the Sox scenario is a huge long shot at best. Reminds me of the barrage of posts about Stanton to the Sox years ago. Nothing more than off-season pipe dreaming.
Or the barrage of Sale to the Sox posts. Oh, wait.

Kluber to anywhere is a long shot. But if the Sox truly were interested in building a package around Beni, I'd be shocked if Cleveland wouldn't listen. I think people here are undervaluing Benintendi, but I doubt League GMs are.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Someone who might disagree with you politically does not make them trash. People need to get over this mentality.
Sorry, I wasn’t talking about Schilling’s politics. I meant that he is literally composed of waste products.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I understand perfectly why it might be a bad idea to trade Benintendi for Kluber, and in fact I've said more than once that I'm inclined to agree, though not as strongly as you (because I lean a bit more toward Chawson's take on Benintendi than most here).

So if you'd said "the Sox shouldn't trade for Kluber, because the price will be too high," you would have gotten crickets from me. But you said "the Sox don't need Kluber," which is an entirely different (and manifestly absurd) statement. So yeah, I'm just quibbling about language. On we go.
The team the Red Sox just fielded was by far the best team in all of baseball in 2018. If they returned the exact same roster, does that mean it would be the best team in 2019? Who knows? But they achieved 108 wins...

(1) While taking their foot off the gas in September,
(2) By losing a month of their best pitcher,
(3) Losing the entire season from their best second baseman, and
(4) Having 20% of their starts pitched by Pomeranz, Johnson, and Velazquez, two of which were minor league depth while the third sported a nifty 6.08 era.

So do they NEED Kluber? No, I don't think they do. Would it HELP to add Kluber? Well, of course it would be a massive improvement to have Kluber start the 32 games started by Pomeranz, Johnson, and Velazquez.

If the Sox *NEED* Kluber because he represents a sizable upgrade for them, then we could also say that the Sox *NEED* Mike Trout, Christian Yelich, Jose Ramirez, Alex Bregman, Paul Goldschmidt, and many other players who would also represent a sizable upgrade at their respective positions.

Clearly, that's absurd.

There are very good reasons to explore the idea if you're the Sox. But *NEED* is not one of them.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
The 2018 team won 119 games. With Pedroia hopefully returning, the only 2019 “needs” are to replace Eovaldi, Kelley and Kimbrel, maybe with Eovaldi, Kelly and Kimbrel. Re-signing Pearce would be nice too, but that’s not exactly a “need.”

Could be — should be — a boring off season.
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,031
nh
I know the upside and affordable contract, but do we think Erod is a lock to stay? He seemed to frustrate the team and Cora the last couple months of the season.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I know the upside and affordable contract, but do we think Erod is a lock to stay? He seemed to frustrate the team and Cora the last couple months of the season.
How did he frustrate the team?
He had a really good season, got hurt, and then did a really solid job in Game 4 of the WS.
 

WestMassExpat

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,083
Boston
He's 25 and still trending upward. With 3 more years under team control and a bWAR this year at 3.0.

Theoretically he could be a piece for something, but I think it would be in response to a very specific opportunity and/or a substantial degradation of the perception of his work ethic/teamwork buy-in.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,247
I know the upside and affordable contract, but do we think Erod is a lock to stay? He seemed to frustrate the team and Cora the last couple months of the season.
I might have entertained this slightly before WS game 4. Then Cora rightly said he grew up a lot in that game. No chance, we need him.

Random tidbit from Cafardo of all people I found interesting:

1. Alex Cora said that Rafael Devers will spend the majority of the winter working with J.D.Martinez in Miami. This is a pretty good idea as Martinez can get the 22-year-old Devers in a solid mindset at the plate. This is an even better idea than Devers going off to play winter ball.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
Cafardo’s report about JD working with Devers this winter ? This team is a fairy tail.

Edit, just realized the misspell: fairy tale.
 
Last edited:

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
What is Rafael's most optimistic ceiling? Do we really think Chris Sale will be on the Red Sox past next season? What would a deal for him look like, at leave Price's, right? With the need to sign Mookie long term(Mookie Betts staying with the Sox is more important than any other player on this team, in my opinion), I don't think we can have two $30+ million a year pitchers on the team, plus Mookie Betts with whatever he will command(32-35?). I could see us letting Xander, JBJ and Sale walk after next season and taking a year to regroup salary cap wise. Getting a major contribution from Devers(30-40 HRs a year?), seeing Benintendi maintain his solid play and hitting LHPs better, and hitting on one of the two 3B/LF/1B guys we have in the minors would do wonders for the post-Sale era Red Sox
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
But of the players that hit FA next season, I would like them to re-sign Xander more than any of them. He just had a 4 WAR year, hitting .883 as a 25 year old SS.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
But of the players that hit FA next season, I would like them to re-sign Xander more than any of them. He just had a 4 WAR year, hitting .883 as a 25 year old SS.
The question I've asked several times is what does the market really look like for Xander. There are a lot of really good shortstops around the league, most of them under 30. If the Phillies don't get Machado this year, that's a possible spot. But I'm not sure what kind of a bidding war is going to be waiting for him.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
Suppose the Beni for Kluber trade happened. Could Dalbec or Chavis be converted into a useful LFer?

Trading Beni may be a way to extract value from his athleticism that is currently under utilized playing in front of the Monster. It also may be a way to get one of the two corner prospects into the bigs. I think the probability that they are starting ML caliber is higher than the pitching prospects. The Sox would still probably need to sign a cheap mediocre veteran as insurance.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
He’s a Boras client. Boston will have to beat a market rate bid (from the Mystery Team, no less).
I imagine it will be the same for all of the players we have that hit FA. I don't want Sale at 7/230+ over Xander at what, 8/200? Would Xander's deal be bigger than Sale's?
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Good to see the old ‘the player works for Boras’ trope hasn’t died. Never change SoSH!
Not my point. Boras works for the player, of course.

My response was to to sean1562's post that he'd like the Sox to sign Xander. Well, I'd like a pony.

Xander hired Boras for a reason. He wants to maximize his income, especially in Free Agency. This is the Null Hypothesis for all Boras clients. Boras has every right to do what he does. If a "Mystery Team" gets involved, so be it. We've seen that movie before. The player has every right to do what he does. He's earned it.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
I think the main criticism to that line is that every player tries to maximize his income in FA, not just Boras clients. Boras is just a more conscious self promoter with media and fans than other agents, who are also doing everything they can to maximize the income of their clients. Of the Red Sox players who will be FAs, I would much rather prefer Xander, who I can see maintaining an OPS between .825-900 for the next few years, over signing Sale, and locking up a solid 25% of our payroll into pitchers in their 30s.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
I think the main criticism to that line is that every player tries to maximize his income in FA, not just Boras clients
Not every player. Boras advised A-Rod to go to arbitration every year when he signed with Seattle after being drafted. A-Rod valued the security of putting money in the bank. In 2004, Jason Varitek put Boras on a very short leash and told him to get as much money as he could from the Red Sox. There almost certainly was a larger payday available elsewhere.

But the starting assumption for me with any Boras client is that until I become aware of evidence to the contrary, total guaranteed money is what makes or breaks the deal. No one plays that game better than Scott Boras. He is a grandmaster.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Not every player. Boras advised A-Rod to go to arbitration every year when he signed with Seattle after being drafted. A-Rod valued the security of putting money in the bank. In 2004, Jason Varitek put Boras on a very short leash and told him to get as much money as he could from the Red Sox. There almost certainly was a larger payday available elsewhere.
Varitek's experience seems like an outlier among Boras clients - is there another notable example of a star player completely spurning free agency the way he did?
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
Steven Strasburg, Elvis Andrus, and Carlos Gonzalez are all Boras clients who signed pre-FA extensions.

It seems generally like players in their 20s are less interested in extensions these days regardless of their representation, though. Jose Ramirez is one of few I can think of to sign a deal in recent memory.
 

EllisTheRimMan

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2007
4,560
Csmbridge
The 2018 team won 119 games. With Pedroia hopefully returning, the only 2019 “needs” are to replace Eovaldi, Kelley and Kimbrel, maybe with Eovaldi, Kelly and Kimbrel. Re-signing Pearce would be nice too, but that’s not exactly a “need.”

Could be — should be — a boring off season.
Agreed and I hope we are both correct. There is no need for a major overhaul in 2019 for a team that just won 108 games and steamrolled the best of the rest to a WS championship. Kelly could be Kimbrel's replacement... Hell, Eovaldi could be Kimbrel's replacement (joking). Of the 3 pitchers I think the Sox and Kelly will come to an agreement and the other two will walk. I'm not sure signing Kelly is the best choice, but that is just my intuition. Pearce re-signing with the Sox for short money makes too much sense for both sides not to get it done. After that, we fill the BP and rotation with some DDski diamonds in the rough and go to war with nearly same squad as 2018.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
The team the Red Sox just fielded was by far the best team in all of baseball in 2018. If they returned the exact same roster, does that mean it would be the best team in 2019?
Guessing Vegas would put that down as a yes.

In no way is this a knock on DD or implication of him "not doing his job", but fresh off a ring and considering all the surrounding question marks we have going forward as a whole....I *highly* doubt he's actually looking ahead in any type of firm manner where trading for Kluber would even register as a consideration atm.

Resign Pearce, address the bullpen, and that'll be a wrap for the winter. From there he spends the year collecting/analyzing even more data on the personal already in house.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
Agreed and I hope we are both correct. There is no need for a major overhaul in 2019 for a team that just won 108 games and steamrolled the best of the rest to a WS championship. Kelly could be Kimbrel's replacement... Hell, Eovaldi could be Kimbrel's replacement (joking). Of the 3 pitchers I think the Sox and Kelly will come to an agreement and the other two will walk. I'm not sure signing Kelly is the best choice, but that is just my intuition. Pearce re-signing with the Sox for short money makes too much sense for both sides not to get it done. After that, we fill the BP and rotation with some DDski diamonds in the rough and go to war with nearly same squad as 2018.
Dombrowski was on MLBN (or they called him) this past week. They asked him who would close next year if Kimbrel moves on. He said the two best candidates in house were Barnes and Brasier. “If we don’t think they’ll be good enough, we’ll have to look elsewhere.” Paraphrasing that last part. No mention of Kelly or Eovaldi. Everybody thinks Eovaldi will be a starter, right? Kelly gone, or too unreliable, or both?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Not to be that guy, but how great would Ty Buttrey look right now? *ducks*

At the time, I make that trade though. A WS ring makes it all moot too.