With the intentions of stretching him out to be a starter? I think the ship on him being a starter has all but sailed. If they go with the opener, I do like the idea of it being Darwinzon though. He walks/strikes out far too many guys to get deep into ball games. He's not exactly efficient with the pitch count.Let Darwinzen be an opener until he gains some arm strength
Also, it's early days, but so far he seems to have a pretty pronounced platoon tendency. Of course with the three-batter rule there's really no such thing as a LOOGY anymore, but if he's a reliever, at least a manager can exercise some strategic control over which part of a lineup he faces.With the intentions of stretching him out to be a starter? I think the ship on him being a starter has all but sailed. If they go with the opener, I do like the idea of it being Darwinzon though. He walks/strikes out far too many guys to get deep into ball games. He's not exactly efficient with the pitch count.
He didn't have much of a split in the minors but as we know, that's a different beast. If that is an issue, he won't have a very long major league career anyway. I'm not even convinced he'll be able to overcome the walks but he strikes out so many batters and doesn't give up HRs.Also, it's early days, but so far he seems to have a pretty pronounced platoon tendency. Of course with the three-batter rule there's really no such thing as a LOOGY anymore, but if he's a reliever, at least a manager can exercise some strategic control over which part of a lineup he faces.
When facing an opener, do teams construct a lineup with platoons in mind against the first guy? Using someone as an opener may not give the opener's manager maximum strategic control, but it does take away some of the other manager's strategic control.Also, it's early days, but so far he seems to have a pretty pronounced platoon tendency. Of course with the three-batter rule there's really no such thing as a LOOGY anymore, but if he's a reliever, at least a manager can exercise some strategic control over which part of a lineup he faces.
I imagine teams would treat an opener the same way they do a reliever. I was thinking someone like Darwinzon could probably be used one time through the order, which for him means 2 innings. I think teams would still treat him as a MR.When facing an opener, do teams construct a lineup with platoons in mind against the first guy? Using someone as an opener may not give the opener's manager maximum strategic control, but it does take away some of the other manager's strategic control.
It’s a good question. IIRC some Rays opponents in 2018 stubbornly trotted out the same lineup, maybe because they didn’t take it seriously, but the Rays really were onto something.When facing an opener, do teams construct a lineup with platoons in mind against the first guy? Using someone as an opener may not give the opener's manager maximum strategic control, but it does take away some of the other manager's strategic control.
According to the trade values website (thanks for clarifying this for me, everyone), Devers is the 8th most valuable player in baseball. Jack Flaherty is the only pitcher of comparable value. I take these numbers with a grain of salt (just look at the ranges in projected value), but it follows the eye test. Generally speaking, position players are going to be worth more on account of their reliability.Thinking outside the box, and I hate to say this because how many beloved players can I stand to lose in one year: but if the Sox are in contention at the deadline but struggling with the rotation, and Dalbec seems clearly ready, what about trading Devers for a really good (i.e. #2 or better), cost-controlled starter? We have an emerging surplus at 3B and a shortage in the rotation--so far we're talking about addressing this at the bottom of the depth chart, but there's no particular reason we couldn't do it at the top instead.
Something to keep in mind when trying to forecast signings/trades to bolster the rotation is that while the Betts/Price trade bought the team some room under the CBT limit, it's only about $19M. Obviously they can afford a contract like Archer's under those circumstances, but it eats up a fair amount of their cushion. If the team intends to be competitive for a playoff spot (and they should be), they may want to keep some powder dry in order to make a mid-season acquisition without screwing up their quest to stay under the CBT cap. For that reason, I don't see this newly gained cap space as an invitation to go right out and spend it, particularly on yet another pitcher with health question marks.Chris Archer might be another trade option. New GM, Ben Cherington, has indicated that the Pirates are going to build (not re-build) the program. I would be surprised if that meant Archer was a big part of their plan down the road. Archer was a 200ip horse for a few years although it has been tempered recently knee surgery and shoulder inflammation. Recent reports are that he is fully healthy. At $9M (2020) and a $11M club option in 2021, he is a bit more pricey than Stripling or some of the options above, but would still fit under the 2020 CBT if projections are correct. Would someone like Duran or Jimenez get it done?
Similar, but I think it depends on the pitcher. Tampa had a couple of guys last season who served in both the opener role (one or two innings mostly) and other times the same guy might be used as a bulk reliever in other games (3 plus innings sometimes more) and others that took on either one role or the other. So yes you're right I guess, treated like a reliever but for most with a defined role much like a set up guy or closer might know his role.I imagine teams would treat an opener the same way they do a reliever. I was thinking someone like Darwinzon could probably be used one time through the order, which for him means 2 innings. I think teams would still treat him as a MR.
No doubt - I think any deals this spring are low-money and/or make-good deals from Chaim's Tampa playbook.Something to keep in mind when trying to forecast signings/trades to bolster the rotation is that while the Betts/Price trade bought the team some room under the CBT limit, it's only about $19M. Obviously they can afford a contract like Archer's under those circumstances, but it eats up a fair amount of their cushion. If the team intends to be competitive for a playoff spot (and they should be), they may want to keep some powder dry in order to make a mid-season acquisition without screwing up their quest to stay under the CBT cap. For that reason, I don't see this newly gained cap space as an invitation to go right out and spend it, particularly on yet another pitcher with health question marks.
If the Sox were projected to be one of the top 2-3 teams in the league, then your plan sounds good. But I’m seeing it a different way.Something to keep in mind when trying to forecast signings/trades to bolster the rotation is that while the Betts/Price trade bought the team some room under the CBT limit, it's only about $19M. Obviously they can afford a contract like Archer's under those circumstances, but it eats up a fair amount of their cushion. If the team intends to be competitive for a playoff spot (and they should be), they may want to keep some powder dry in order to make a mid-season acquisition without screwing up their quest to stay under the CBT cap. For that reason, I don't see this newly gained cap space as an invitation to go right out and spend it, particularly on yet another pitcher with health question marks.
Kuenn/Colavito?Sure, and I’d consider that deal if it were real. But at that level of value a 1-for-1 trade seems too disruptive to teams’ plans, and I don’t think it makes sense to trade Devers for multiple less valuable parts.
I can’t remember the last time two cost-controlled franchise players on perennially contending teams — a/k/a two of the top 15 or so most valuable players in baseball — were traded straight up for one another.
Hah, good one!Kuenn/Colavito?
That was only 60 years ago and I remember it like yesterday..
Workman is a free agent after this season, is on the wrong side of 30, and has already had TJ once. There are 2 scenarios:The obvious issue with many of the 'trade Barnes and/or Workman' scenarios is that they're based on our potential lack of success this season, only.
With a strong young, still cheap for the short term core and free from the worsening financial shackles of the tax, I expect the Red Sox see this year as a bump-reset. In two seasons' time we need Barnes and Workmans in the bullpen. Blowing it all up now just pushes the Sox window out further into the Bogaerts opt out/ Devers arb years for little reason.
We expect the Sox to push for Mookie again for 2021 and they'll have money to spend.
Overall I agree with your point, I would look to move him if I were Boston. But if I were the GM of another club I would probably go with one of my younger guys with upside and a minimum contract vs. spending assets on a guy like Workman with all of the issues that you detailed. He may be a guy that after gauging offers from around the league, Bloom may be better off waiting until the deadline and betting on his value increasing.Workman is a free agent after this season, is on the wrong side of 30, and has already had TJ once. There are 2 scenarios:
1) He’s as good as he was last season, racking up another high intensity, high usage year on his arm. He will then want a long term contract at relief ace money. Exactly the type of contract the RedSox have been avoiding like the plague. Thus, he’s unlikely to be resigned and leaves for nothing.
2) He's not as good as he was last year, and therefore he has less value at the deadline than he does now.
Clear Conclusion:
Trade him now.
To replace his quality, anyone.On candidates to replace Price in the rotation, Bloom says Sox 'have a lot of time to figure that out.' @alexspeir
Say what? How about Porcello's innings?
They have a crapload of innings to eat, even if Sale and Eovaldi are healthy. They probably need to acquire more depth than one starter.#5 guy will be whoever pitches the best in spring who is out of options or who we made a significant investment in
1. Sale L
2. Eovaldi R
3. Erod L (deserves to be #2, but my guess is no)
4. Perez L (ugggh)
No harm in signing one or two of those guys to minor league deals if you can get them, but it makes more sense to me to throw money at Puig for a pillow deal now and then trade an outfielder from strength, maybe Puig himself, at the deadline.
My thoughts as well...some intriguing projects have already signed to minor league deals with some still remaining. No harm in brining in a few of these guys and see if it jumps start their career.
Yeah, the non-LT reason to trade Mookie doesn't really apply here; the difference between bupkis and what you could get for one season of Workman is not likely to be big enough to justify the sacrifice of 2020 depth.However good he's been, he's still a reliever. Nobody's going to project him to be worth a QO next winter, and you get nothing extra beyond pro-rated value for trading him now. Seems a stronger move to see how things pan out towards the deadline and take the value spike then if applicable.
Plympton leaves out the possibility that he's good and the rest of the team isn't and they get a haul for him this summer.
To be fair, Bloom hasn't had a lot of sleep lately.On candidates to replace Price in the rotation, Bloom says Sox 'have a lot of time to figure that out.' @alexspeir
Say what? How about Porcello's innings?
Walker's not terrible if he's healthy. He's league-average for his career in the +/- columns, and he's never had a FIP or an ERA over 5. He hasn't lived up to the hype, but he hasn't been a bad pitcher.Of those options, I do not like A, since those pitchers are terrible
Who is giving us this information?Chris Sale to Wear Special Sleeve for Tracking to Prevent Further Injury Damage
12 Up | Feb 23
1 0
Chris Sale and the Boston Red Sox are taking their concern for his health to the next level in Spring Training.
The ace southpaw was spotted wearing a black sleeve around his left elbow in camp, and apparently it has sensors in it that allow the team to monitor his throwing motion and track his elbow to avoid future injuries.
Considering his unorthodox delivery and the injuries that have plagued him over the past two years with the Red Sox, it's a brilliant move to have him wear the sleeve.
I think you’re missing it. This is the preseason, his wrap will make him pitch at his best all season with no fear of being injured, he also showed up in the best shape of his life. No Mookie? No worries, have you seen the shape that Vazquez showed up in? I don’t believe any news from training camp ever!!!Who is giving us this information?
Who is saying it's brilliant?
Context matters
Where is this from? Source?Chris Sale to Wear Special Sleeve for Tracking to Prevent Further Injury Damage
12 Up | Feb 23
1 0
Chris Sale and the Boston Red Sox are taking their concern for his health to the next level in Spring Training.
The ace southpaw was spotted wearing a black sleeve around his left elbow in camp, and apparently it has sensors in it that allow the team to monitor his throwing motion and track his elbow to avoid future injuries.
Considering his unorthodox delivery and the injuries that have plagued him over the past two years with the Red Sox, it's a brilliant move to have him wear the sleeve.
Yep, interesting, lengthy piece. Excerpt:It's from a Jen McCaffrey story in the Athletic.
One of my favorite quotes from this piece, actually:Yep, interesting, lengthy piece. Excerpt:
https://theathletic.com/1627501/2020/02/22/chris-sale-high-tech-sleeve-red-sox/
He certainly deserves to be.With Sale missing (at least) a couple days of the start of the season, who will be the starter for Opening Day?
Gotta be EdRo, right?
Given the reason for Sale not being that guy, it probably means we need to watch the other starters to see who gets six starts in spring training. Rodriguez was already scratched from a scheduled start this week after tripping in the bullpen (didn't he do that once before?). He's supposed to start tomorrow though. That might still line him up for six turns before Opening Day.With Sale missing (at least) a couple days of the start of the season, who will be the starter for Opening Day?
Gotta be EdRo, right?
I hope you're wrong. Games count, opening day matters. Four games in Toronto and that improved offense can't be overlooked and 3 out of 3 in Baltimore keeps them out of an early hole.Opening Day will be on the road, and ridiculously early, and I suspect they'll treat that whole first road trip, not quite as extended spring training (the games do count) but as a chance to get the loose ends tightened up and try a few things before they hit the Opening Day that matters more from an optics POV, which is April 2. That's the 8th game of the season, so if they want Edro to pitch that day they'll want him to start game 3, Saturday the 28th in Toronto. That leaves Perez, Eovaldi or an opener/committee start for game 1.
I think you're batting .500 here. Games absolutely count, but opening day only matters in terms of optics. From an optics point of view, I'd rather have my stud who missed winning 20 games by a hair last year on the mound for the first Fenway game, rather than a March game under the dome in Toronto. And as far as the games counting -- if they're going to have to use an opener for one or more games in that first series, does it really matter which ones? An Opening Day loss is no different from any other loss. (Factoid: the Sox have won their Opening Day game in only one of their four championship years--but they won their opening series in three of them, and split the fourth.)Games count, opening day matters.
My point being the first week of the season, no matter how early, shouldn't be treated as a chance to tie up "loose ends". Yes it's a long season and many adjustments will be made during the course of it, but I'm not fond of using the first seven games of the season to work the kinks out before the home opener.I think you're batting .500 here. Games absolutely count, but opening day only matters in terms of optics. From an optics point of view, I'd rather have my stud who missed winning 20 games by a hair last year on the mound for the first Fenway game, rather than a March game under the dome in Toronto. And as far as the games counting -- if they're going to have to use an opener for one or more games in that first series, does it really matter which ones? An Opening Day loss is no different from any other loss. (Factoid: the Sox have won their Opening Day game in only one of their four championship years--but they won their opening series in three of them, and split the fourth.)
I think you do what you need to do. A reluctance to acknowledge that they weren't quite ready for the regular season, and make the necessary adjustments out of the gate, may well have contributed to their SP woes last year. If Bloom is the kind of smart, reality-based executive I'm hoping he is, he won't be spooked by the words "Opening Day" into repeating that mistake. The fact that they're holding Sale back is a good sign on this front.My point being the first week of the season, no matter how early, shouldn't be treated as a chance to tie up "loose ends". Yes it's a long season and many adjustments will be made during the course of it, but I'm not fond of using the first seven games of the season to work the kinks out before the home opener.