Beyond Lester: Building a Rotation

[TheYaz67]

I think there is no chance the Nats would move Roark unfortunately.  Zim and Fister are free agents at the end of this year - they apparently have info that Zim wants to play elsewhere and Fister will be heading into his age 32 season in 2016.  In addition, Gio and Strasburg are free agents the following year.  Assuming they maybe sign 2 of those 4 free agents at most, because of Scherzer's contract, they are going to need a couple cost controlled starters over the next 3-5 years, and Roark is looking like a very good candidate for that role for the Nats, so I assume he is staying....

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Putting Strasburg to the side for one moment, wouldn't Tanner Roark be a decent trade target?  I was surprised at how good his numbers were last year (and the half-year before).  Solid K rate combined with a great BB rate gives him an excellent K/BB ratio and WHIP.  Better overall numbers than Miley or Porcello.  Still relatively young and cheap.  Not really an "ace," but a guy who looks like he could pitch in the playoffs for you (even if the Nats didn't start him last year).
 
And I bring him up because he wouldn't likely cost Betts, X or Swihart.

 
There is almost no chance the Nats are interested in discussing a Roark trade. He's cost controlled and is good enough that he's the reason they would be comfortable trading a Zimmermann or Strasburg this winter. The control they have over him is one of the few long term certainties they have in the rotation right now, outside of the newly acquired Max Scherzer. If they are willing to part with him for a package significantly south of what's being discussed for Strasburg or Zimmermann, yeah, he'd be a great get. I don't see why they would part with him for anything other than a huge overpay, though. Five years of cost control and he's already a top 30 K/BB pitcher in the majors, even with a K/9 of 6.25 last year. He is insanely good at avoiding free passes and while his ERA outperformed his FIP and xFIP last year (2.85 to 3.47 and 3.84) he keeps the ball in the park.
 
What's interesting about Roark is that he struggled through most of his minor league career, and something apparently clicked for him in 2013 while he was in AAA. Since then his ability to avoid walks has gone from good to excellent and he's been rolling ever since.

 

[ItOnceWasMyLife]

No way. Pedroia is projected to outplay his contract by $10-15m per year. If he's a win 5 win player next year being paid an AAV of $15m, he's a +$20m surplus player based on $7m per win. How much surplus value are we getting from Strasburg? We'd be taking on a worse player who's on a shorter contract and not much cheaper since he's in arbitration now. Unless you could sign him to a contract that is below market value, there's no chance that trade is even close to being fair for us.

And if Betts returns a 4 WAR season for $500k at second base?  That beats Pedey's 5/15, doesn't it?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

And if Betts returns a 4 WAR season for $500k at second base?  That beats Pedey's 5/15, doesn't it?

 
For 1 year. If he's a 4 WAR player out of the gate, he'll be a super 2 and be arb eligible for the 2017 season. If that's the case, he won't be making 500k at that point, and will certainly be making more than Pedroia by his third year of arb eligibility. So while, yes, up front Betts has a chance to exceed his paycheck by a huge amount, that gap will dwindle a bit each year he continues to be that good and the scales could very well tip the other way in years 5 and 6 of the control they have over him.
 
Granted, it's just as possible that Pedroia's on the field value declines over the same span, but it's not like they have an eternally renewing option for Betts at 500k per season. If we use 7 million per win and assume Mookie is worth 28 million a year every one of the next six years, he's worth 168 million. If he's paid 500k in the next two years and then hits arb at like 2 million, and escalates to 10, 15 and 20 from there, he'll be paid 46 million giving him an excess value of 122 million. If Pedroia is a 5 win player for the next 6 years, he's worth 210 million in that span and will be paid 85.25 million. That's an excess value of 127.75 million.
 
These numbers aren't meant to be exact. I'm just illustrating a point. Obviously both players have a range of possibilities ahead of them, but it's no given that Betts will provide more excess value in the next 6 years.

 

[grimshaw]

The injury risk, prohibitive cost, and the Boras factor give me pause on this one.  I'm not against them blowing their farm load on someone, and surplus value is obviously nice, but I would think low to mid market teams would be the ones more lined up to acquire him since he will be cheap. 
 
I'd rather take my chances on a 1 year until DA guy and wait to see either what else they need during the season, or what the nice FA class yields.

 

[Pedro 4 99MVP]

I really don't like the thought of trading Betts for Strasburg, even if it makes sense for both teams. Strasburg scares me a little as far as injury concerns go. I still think Zimmermann is the guy to go after. The problem is that we don't match up "need" wise with the Nationals, who are obviously World Series contenders. But what if we gave up a few good prospects that could help them in the future, or they could then use their newly found prospect depth to make a deal at the trade deadline when it is more apparent what they might need down the stretch.
 
I have a couple of thoughts of possible deals. The guys who love prospects will probably think this is too much, but not all prospects pan out and not all are going to be major leaguers with the Red Sox.
 
With no extension in place: 1. Swihart or Owens, 2. middle infield prospect (Coyle or Marrero), 3. RHP who is ML ready (Ranaudo, Workman, Barnes, maybe can help Nationals need for bullpen), maybe even 4. Nava, Craig, or Victorino to give them OF depth as protection against Werth's shoulder or Harper's injury history.
 
If we could work out extension for Zimmermann: all of the above but Swihart and Owens instead of one or the other.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Absolutely LOVE Pedroia.  LOVE him.
 
I'd trade him in a heartbeat for Strasburg, though, and I think the Nats would be insane not to consider it.  Slide Betts into 2nd and hope he outperforms Pedroia's next 5-6 years at a lower price tag.  Extend Strasburg, even better.  Let him walk, take the pick.
 
If the Nats really do want to move Harper as well, add Owens and Swihart to Pedroia and grab both Strasburg and Harper.  Pedroia fills their biggest hole and Owens and Swihart have real value for them as well, as opposed to Marrero or someone too far away like Margot.  Getting Strasburg and Harper in their prime is a huge way to capitalize on a great but oft-injured team leader in Pedroia and a couple of prospects who MAY be stars in a few years.
 
Too fantasy league a deal?

 

[soxhop411]

Absolutely LOVE Pedroia.  LOVE him.
 
I'd trade him in a heartbeat for Strasburg, though, and I think the Nats would be insane not to consider it.  Slide Betts into 2nd and hope he outperforms Pedroia's next 5-6 years at a lower price tag.  Extend Strasburg, even better.  Let him walk, take the pick.
 
If the Nats really do want to move Harper as well, add Owens and Swihart to Pedroia and grab both Strasburg and Harper.  Pedroia fills their biggest hole and Owens and Swihart have real value for them as well, as opposed to Marrero or someone too far away like Margot.  Getting Strasburg and Harper in their prime is a huge way to capitalize on a great but oft-injured team leader in Pedroia and a couple of prospects who MAY be stars in a few years.
 
Too fantasy league a deal?

Yes. Pedroia took a deep discount to stay with the sox. Good luck getting any player to sign another deal like his if you trade him.

 

[dcmissle]

Absolutely LOVE Pedroia.  LOVE him.
 
I'd trade him in a heartbeat for Strasburg, though, and I think the Nats would be insane not to consider it.  Slide Betts into 2nd and hope he outperforms Pedroia's next 5-6 years at a lower price tag.  Extend Strasburg, even better.  Let him walk, take the pick.
 
If the Nats really do want to move Harper as well, add Owens and Swihart to Pedroia and grab both Strasburg and Harper.  Pedroia fills their biggest hole and Owens and Swihart have real value for them as well, as opposed to Marrero or someone too far away like Margot.  Getting Strasburg and Harper in their prime is a huge way to capitalize on a great but oft-injured team leader in Pedroia and a couple of prospects who MAY be stars in a few years.
 
Too fantasy league a deal?

In the main, yes. They are not moving Harper, recognizing you said "if".

Rizzo would drool over Pedroia. People can mock leadership and other intangibles all they please, but something has been missing from this club in the postseason other than a reliable pen. Virtually the entire lineup slumped this past post other than Harper. Pedroia is a Rizzo kind of guy and flame tested.

EDIT to make it clear that I would not favor this deal. But this is the one RS/Nats deal that makes sense from a matchup standpoint.

I would not do this deal not only because of Pedroia, but also I'm convinced Rizzo is scared to death of SS from a health standpoint and that those concerns are well grounded. And no amount of medical due diligence by the RS is going to trump Rizzo's insider knowledge to my satisfaction.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Yes. Pedroia took a deep discount to stay with the sox. Good luck getting any player to sign another deal like his if you trade him.

Fully agree that this would be a huge hit both with players and fans but the upside in adding those guys in their prime is that it gives us, imho, a better chance at rings than keeping Pedroia now and having Owens and Swihart stall or flameout.  It would definitely be a ballsy move, but at least they could say, "we sent him to a viable WS contender and not to some remote outpost because we agree Dustin deserves the best and we appreciate all he's given us over the years."
 
 
edit:  gives, not makes

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
If Pedroia is a 5 win player for the next 6 years, he's worth 210 million in that span and will be paid 85.25 million. That's an excess value of 127.75 million.

 
Pedroia wasn't even a 5-win player last year, and if you use FG's version he's only been a 5-win player for two out of the past six years. He's turning 32 this summer. Thirty-two. The idea that he will be a five-win player this year is rational optimism. The idea that he will average out as a 5-win player from ages 31 through 36 is not.
 
There are obvious and probably unanswerable arguments against trading Pedroia, and they've been made here and elsewhere, but let's not make the issue look simpler than it is by resorting to pie-in-the-sky estimates of his value going forward.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Pedroia wasn't even a 5-win player last year, and if you use FG's version he's only been a 5-win player for two out of the past six years. He's turning 32 this summer. Thirty-two. The idea that he will be a five-win player this year is rational optimism. The idea that he will average out as a 5-win player from ages 31 through 36 is not.
 
There are obvious and probably unanswerable arguments against trading Pedroia, and they've been made here and elsewhere, but let's not make the issue look simpler than it is by resorting to pie-in-the-sky estimates of his value going forward.

 
I was responding to a post that had Betts as a 4 win player at 500K as though it made it an easy decision to pick Pedroia over Betts. I'm not projecting Pedroia as a 5 win player for the next 6 years, I'm pointing out that if we're going rosy with the projections for Betts, we should compare it to a rosy outlook for Pedroia and then factor in arb awards for Betts, which closes the gap quickly. There are a ton of possibilities for each player going forward, and it's entirely possible Betts provides more excess value in the next six years than Pedroia. However, there are a number of possible outcomes where Pedroia provides more even when we consider that Betts won't be a free agent at any point during that span.
 
If we take a more rational look at Pedroia and say maybe he's a 4 win player on average over the next 6 years. That's 168 million in value while being paid 82.25 or 85.75 million in excess value. Is it really so hard to see Betts providing less excess value over the same 6 years? My point was that Pedroia is an enormously valuable asset and it's not so easy to replace him, no matter how high we are on Betts.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

"Pedroia also has full no-trade protection."
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2013/07/red_sox_agree_on_contract_extension_with_pedroia.html
 
"Dustin Pedroia has full no-trade protection."
https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/514460541067079680
 
"The deal includes full no-trade protection as well."
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2013/07/report_red_sox_dustin_pedroia.html

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The elephant in the room with Strasburg is injury risk. As far as I know, he has stuck with his pre-injury mechanics, which Tommy John himself called "the worst mechanics I've ever seen in my life."
 
The Nationals don't want to change anything for fear of screwing him up. The arm lag is still there. They only own him for 2 more years anyway. They'll take the Lincecum approach and milk him for what he's got while they have him. It will work out great until it doesn't.  
 
It's smart for the Nationals to look at this as something of a crossroads - 2 years of Strasburg has significant value in the market. I just hope that the Red Sox would evaluate the risks/rewards properly. For me, this would mean looking at him as a 2-year investment, rather than the pitcher you are going to give a Kershaw contract to in 2 years.

Absolutely.

The other issue here is that Strasburg simply has never produced the value that you'd think he might given his K numbers and stuff, because he's not a very efficient pitcher. He finished 33rd and 13rd in fWAR among all pitchers in 2013-14. That's still a great pitcher and a legitimate "ace" (if you're into those kinds of labels) but he has never really produced in the Scherzer, Felix, Price, Sale, Wainwright realm of guys that have been good bets to put up 5 fWAR in any given season. Obviously Strasburg might improve given his age and the overall post-TJ trajectory of his career (his innings have jumped each year). But he also might get worse, or hurt again.

I'm not giving up Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart in any deal for two years of a pitcher with train-wreck mechanics who has never exceeded 4.3 fWAR.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

No way. Pedroia is projected to outplay his contract by $10-15m per year. If he's a win 5 win player next year being paid an AAV of $15m, he's a +$20m surplus player based on $7m per win. How much surplus value are we getting from Strasburg? We'd be taking on a worse player who's on a shorter contract and not much cheaper since he's in arbitration now. Unless you could sign him to a contract that is below market value, there's no chance that trade is even close to being fair for us.

Assuming he ages gracefully. To quote fangraphs, however (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/robinson-cano-and-second-base-aging-curves/) when discussing the future of the Cano contract by looking at great 2b of yore: "Even including McAuliffe, these five players averaged 3.5 WAR per season after they turned 31. Hardly a group that just fell apart after their prime was over."
 
Do you really think that Pedey will continue to be a five win player?
 
Moveover, combine that with another fangraphs article from yesterday (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-enormous-trade-value-of-stephen-strasburg/) which projects Strasburg to provide $50 mil surplus value over the next two years, plus returning a great pick if he doesn't sign.
 
With those numbers, I think the red sox would win that trade... but each team would be dealing from a position of strength to fill a need.
 
Edit: Ah, but with full no-trade protect... fuggetabowtit

 

[Bigpupp]

 
For 1 year. If he's a 4 WAR player out of the gate, he'll be a super 2 and be arb eligible for the 2017 season. If that's the case, he won't be making 500k at that point, and will certainly be making more than Pedroia by his third year of arb eligibility. So while, yes, up front Betts has a chance to exceed his paycheck by a huge amount, that gap will dwindle a bit each year he continues to be that good and the scales could very well tip the other way in years 5 and 6 of the control they have over him.
 
Granted, it's just as possible that Pedroia's on the field value declines over the same span, but it's not like they have an eternally renewing option for Betts at 500k per season. If we use 7 million per win and assume Mookie is worth 28 million a year every one of the next six years, he's worth 168 million. If he's paid 500k in the next two years and then hits arb at like 2 million, and escalates to 10, 15 and 20 from there, he'll be paid 46 million giving him an excess value of 122 million. If Pedroia is a 5 win player for the next 6 years, he's worth 210 million in that span and will be paid 85.25 million. That's an excess value of 127.75 million.
 
These numbers aren't meant to be exact. I'm just illustrating a point. Obviously both players have a range of possibilities ahead of them, but it's no given that Betts will provide more excess value in the next 6 years.

Super 2 status has nothing to do with how well you play, it's all based on service time, so Betts will never be a super 2 player.

Other than that I mostly agree with the main point being that Pedroia is going nowhere. Most likely neither will Betts.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Super 2 status has nothing to do with how well you play, it's all based on service time, so Betts will never be a super 2 player.

Other than that I mostly agree with the main point being that Pedroia is going nowhere. Most likely neither will Betts.

 
I think I was misreading the rule and basing it entirely on service time and not the date of his debut. If he'll be a "2 year player" at the end of the 2015 season and not the 2016, then no, he won't be a Super 2.

 

[ItOnceWasMyLife]

 
I think I was misreading the rule and basing it entirely on service time and not the date of his debut. If he'll be a "2 year player" at the end of the 2015 season and not the 2016, then no, he won't be a Super 2.

Despite that, I appreciated your original response to my post.  It was a good point.
 
Hypothetically, I'd bet on Betts returning more value than Pedey over the next 6 years (relative to $$$ paid), but it's a moot bet.  Pedey's not going anywhere.

 

[Bigpupp]

 
I think I was misreading the rule and basing it entirely on service time and not the date of his debut. If he'll be a "2 year player" at the end of the 2015 season and not the 2016, then no, he won't be a Super 2.

You should base it entirely on service time, but he would have to finish a season with his service time above the cutoff (which is normally around 2 years and 120 days) but below 2 years and 180 days.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

You should base it entirely on service time, but he would have to finish a season with his service time above the cutoff (which is normally around 2 years and 120 days) but below 2 years and 180 days.

 
Yeah, he'd be at 2 years and about 92 days from his debut last June, but his actual service time would be well below that since he wasn't up for good until mid-August. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[jasvlm]

Yes. Pedroia took a deep discount to stay with the sox. Good luck getting any player to sign another deal like his if you trade him.

This is a salient point.  Pedroia is going nowhere.  The no trade clause seals it, but the Red Sox wouldn't move him for the reason quoted here.  The man took less-way less-to stay on the team he loves and helps to lead.  They need more Pedey, not less.  They'll be getting it this year.
The issue, as has been raised here, is that Strasburg is only a 2 year solution, albeit at a very high level and for reasonable cost.  His injury history and mechanics matter more if the consideration is a long term contract, but Boras assures that such will not be the case-he's going to be a free agent after 2016.  So, what is the true value of a 2 year, elite, in his prime starting pitcher signed for a reasonable contract?  My guess is that the comp should be David Price, who was traded this past year with 1.5 years of control left.  His salaries were higher than Strasburg's, and he was moving from a team that couldn't afford him to one who could.  Those are not issues with Washington.  So, if Price cost the Tigers Austin Jackson, Drew Smyly and Willie Adames, what should the Sox have to pay for Strasburg taking the differences into account?  The Rays were willing to accept less current value and more long term value (Adames), which Washington won't necessarily value as aggressively.  I still think that Betts is a non starter in any trade talk for a guy with only 2 years of control, and even Swihart would be hard to part with in a Strasburg trade for the same reason.  Still, I don't know that the Red Sox have the right pieces to make a fair deal that works for both sides.  
If Strasburg is dealt, it says here he goes to San Diego.

 

[nattysez]

Dave Cameron has a lengthy piece advocating Betts-for-Strasburg.  Here's the conclusion of the "Why Boston should do it" section:
 

In 2015, swapping Betts for Strasburg is probably something close to a two win upgrade for the Red Sox. It doesn’t sound like a huge difference, but the Red Sox are at the point where wins are highly valuable, and Strasburg is the kind of asset that could be leveraged to an even larger degree in October. While the upgrade is probably smaller in 2016 — with Victorino set to be a free agent, Betts would be able to play most everyday — the Sox still have Allen Craig under contract and Bradley in the organization, so they wouldn’t be dropping down to zero value replacements.
And while they would be surrendering four years of Betts’ prime during years in which Strasburg could theoretically be pitching for someone else, some of that is offset by the ability to exclusively negotiate a long-term extension or get a draft pick as compensation if he leaves. There’s no question that you’d rather have four more years of Betts’ production than either of those options, but the lost value is deferred several years into the future, and the Red Sox should be willing to trade future wins for upgrades in the next two years. Strasburg would represent the kind of upgrade that would make giving up Betts’ future worthwhile.

 
 
FWIW, saying "the Sox won't miss Betts with Craig and JBJ in the organization" doesn't really make sense to me at this point.  If Craig bounces back and/or JBJ starts hitting again, he may have a point.  And, of course, this analysis assumes Castillo can handle CF and hit well. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

FWIW, saying "the Sox won't miss Betts with Craig and JBJ in the organization" doesn't really make sense to me at this point.  If Craig bounces back and/or JBJ starts hitting again, he may have a point.  And, of course, this analysis assumes Castillo can handle CF and hit well. 

 
Beyond those two, Margot should crack the roster by 2017 so they could have a full outfield again by the time their control of Strasburg would expire. This article brings up a good point, though. Theoretical wins in a vacuum are great, and excess value generated beyond what players are being paid is great, but at some point you have to defer to the wins you would actually be getting on the field. Betts might provide more excess value beyond his contract expectations over the next two years when compared to Strasburg, but Strasburg is likely to provide more on the field wins, even if Betts' contributions are deflated by playing time. That matters. You also have to consider what each player would be replacing and the likely gains. In the outfield, with Victorino, Craig, Nava and JBJ in the fold for 2015, and Margot maybe joining the fray some time in 2016 (looking just at what Betts is competing with for playing time, so excluding Hanley and Castillo), there's a decent chance that his replacement value is only a win or two where as Strasburg replacing the worst starting pitcher on the staff could be significantly more over the next two years.
 
The long term control is valuable. Very valuable. But there are a lot of controlled assets in the outfield right now and not so much in the rotation. I'm still of the mind that the best course of action for the front office is to wait and see what they have in late June, but a Betts for Strasburg deal, straight up or with some lottery ticket prospects thrown in, would be very tempting.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Betts might provide more excess value beyond his contract expectations over the next two years when compared to Strasburg, but Strasburg is likely to provide more on the field wins, even if Betts' contributions are deflated by playing time.

 
Is he, though? Consider that Mookie provided almost half of Strasburg's fWAR, and more than half of his rWAR, last year in less than a third of a season's worth of work at the age of 21. Surprisingly, Strasburg has never managed to provide more than 3.2 (rWAR) or 4.3 (fWAR) wins in a season. Maybe this should be fodder for a critique of pitching WAR formulas, but it is what it is.
 
Part of the reason for this, I think, is that Strasburg is a bit of an all-or-nothing pitcher: When he's not striking people out, he tends to give up hard contact--23% career LD% and a basically league-average HR/FB despite making half his starts in what has recently become one of the most power-suppressing parks in the majors (#26 and #29 in HR park factor in 2013 and 2014 according to ESPN). And he has been good, but not extraordinary, on the road: only half the K/BB ratio and a full run higher ERA compared to his home numbers.
 
So in short, there may be reasons beyond his suspected fragility to wonder whether two years of Strasburg is actually fair value for five or six years of Mookie Betts.

 

[snowmanny]

Cameron saying they would have "exclusivisty" to negotiate an extension with Boras is laughable; it makes his whole argument suspect.

 

[nvalvo]

I was actually thinking along Cameron-type lines the other day. If — if — the FO thinks Bradley will be the player his minor league record indicates he should be by 2016, then dealing Betts for Hamels or Strasburg or Sonny Gray is a smart move. 
 
Basically, if JBJ can become an elite-glove CF with good OBP and a bit of occasional pull power (say, a .260/.350/.380-ish hitter with a superlative glove), then a longterm Ramirez-Bradley-Castillo OF looks downright amazing, and you deal Betts to be somebody else's second baseman, which his poor throwing arm, the one real flaw in his game, says he probably should be. It would be a deal from a position of organizational strength to acquire a medium-term ace for the last years of the Ortiz era. 
 
If Bradley can't be that guy (as 2014 strongly suggests), then we need to hang onto Betts. Long story short, the talent evaluators need to nail this. 

 

[pdub]

Strasburg is definitely a great talent. But I think the free agent market will be deep enough that the team can pool its cash and be the highest bidder for someone such as Zimmerman. Also, with Strasburg I think its almost a certainty that he will test free agency due to the Boras Factor. Therefore, his two years of control become less desirable when we can simply wait one season and sign Zimmerman, who I absolutely feel is waiting to test the market.
 
If we're good enough to make the playoffs as is in 2015, we have as good a shot as any other team to win it all. If we're a mediocre team and our rotation falls apart, well, its unlikely that a guy like Strasburg would be able to make up the difference. I say stand pat and see what the team really has, our current rotation looks like it could touch either end on the performance spectrum.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Basically, if JBJ can become an elite-glove CF with good OBP and a bit of occasional pull power (say, a .260/.350/.380-ish hitter with a superlative glove), then a longterm Ramirez-Bradley-Castillo OF looks downright amazing, and you deal Betts to be somebody else's second baseman, which his poor throwing arm, the one real flaw in his game, says he probably should be. It would be a deal from a position of organizational strength to acquire a medium-term ace for the last years of the Ortiz era. 
 
If Bradley can't be that guy (as 2014 strongly suggests), then we need to hang onto Betts. Long story short, the talent evaluators need to nail this. 

 
I basically agree (especially with your last sentence), but I'd point out two things--Betts' arm means he probably shouldn't be a right fielder long-term, and perhaps not even a center fielder, but it certainly doesn't mean he couldn't be a left fielder. In fact his athletic type seems well suited for LF. Granted, Betts' speed would not be put to optimum use in Fenway's LF, but then it wouldn't be put to optimum use at 2B either (it's quickness and agility more than sprinter chops that matter there, as witness our current incumbent).
 
And this segues to the second thing, which is that talking about "a longterm Ramirez-Bradley-Castillo OF" requires a bit of an asterisk, since Ramirez will only be here for four years and it's by no means clear he'll spend all four of them in LF. He could be DHing by 2017 or even 2016, and Betts could slide over to LF. If Bradley gets his offensive act together you could be looking at a Betts/Bradley/Castillo OF, which would be defensively epochal. If not, we find a stopgap RF till Margot is ready. Or we move Xander out there when Marrero is ready. Lots of options.

 

[bosockboy]

If they want to both keep their kids and not drop 200 million on a FA next winter, feels like a perfect storm to step up and sign Shields if he could be had for like 4/88. I'd rather have Shields and all our chips, and possibly deal for Chapman or Kimbrel in July.

 

[nattysez]

If they want to both keep their kids and not drop 200 million on a FA next winter, feels like a perfect storm to step up and sign Shields if he could be had for like 4/88. I'd rather have Shields and all our chips, and possibly deal for Chapman or Kimbrel in July.

 
FWIW, Dave Stewart just told the media that the Scherzer contract has so drastically increased Shields' asking price that the D'back are out on him.  So 4/88 sounds very unlikely.

 

[Sampo Gida]

 
FWIW, Dave Stewart just told the media that the Scherzer contract has so drastically increased Shields' asking price that the D'back are out on him.  So 4/88 sounds very unlikely.

 
I dont see why the value of Scherzer deal changed anything.  The value of the deal per MLB is 7/185 which was in the ball park of most projections for him.   Shields is the last top tier FA SP'er with Lester and Scherzer down, so maybe he feels he can capitalize on this (and may be why he is not signed now, waiting for this opportunity) and has bumped up his asking price.  I think he signs for 5/90-95, and perhaps a bit higher (5/100) if enough teams are bidding for his services, but thats it.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
FWIW, Dave Stewart just told the media that the Scherzer contract has so drastically increased Shields' asking price that the D'back are out on him.  So 4/88 sounds very unlikely.

 
"We looked into it and apparently James informed us rather tersely that he was a mathlete growing up. We're disappointed, but moving on."

 

[nattysez]

 
I dont see why the value of Scherzer deal changed anything.  The value of the deal per MLB is 7/185 which was in the ball park of most projections for him.   Shields is the last top tier FA SP'er with Lester and Scherzer down, so maybe he feels he can capitalize on this (and may be why he is not signed now, waiting for this opportunity) and has bumped up his asking price.  I think he signs for 5/90-95, and perhaps a bit higher (5/100) if enough teams are bidding for his services, but thats it.

 
This is fair.  Stewart may have just used the Scherzer deal as a convenient way to back out of his prior claims that the D'backs had interest, since at the time of those claims he essentially said that he thought Shields might take less to sign with "a real baseball team" like the D'backs.  Money talks and b.s. walks, Dave.

 

[Plympton91]

If they want to both keep their kids and not drop 200 million on a FA next winter, feels like a perfect storm to step up and sign Shields if he could be had for like 4/88. I'd rather have Shields and all our chips, and possibly deal for Chapman or Kimbrel in July.

I'm glad to see someone else bringing up the prospect of needing to fortify the bullpen.

While you never want to make a trade out of fear of how it will benefit the other team; putting Betts near the top of the Nats lineup would be positively frighteningly good. Of course, like Boston is shaping up in 2015 and the Tigers of recent vintages, unless addressed, the Nats 2015 bullpen could be an Achilles heel come October.

 

[Lowrielicious]

 
I dont see why the value of Scherzer deal changed anything.  The value of the deal per MLB is 7/185 which was in the ball park of most projections for him.   Shields is the last top tier FA SP'er with Lester and Scherzer down, so maybe he feels he can capitalize on this (and may be why he is not signed now, waiting for this opportunity) and has bumped up his asking price.  I think he signs for 5/90-95, and perhaps a bit higher (5/100) if enough teams are bidding for his services, but thats it.

Shields and his agent might THINK that it bumps up his price.
But Lester and Scherzer getting all that cash does take a lot of money out of Shields market, so if anything it might even drop it.

 

[Lowrielicious]

I'm glad to see someone else bringing up the prospect of needing to fortify the bullpen.

While you never want to make a trade out of fear of how it will benefit the other team; putting Betts near the top of the Nats lineup would be positively frighteningly good. Of course, like Boston is shaping up in 2015 and the Tigers of recent vintages, unless addressed, the Nats 2015 bullpen could be an Achilles heel come October.

Uehara and Tazawa alone make the comparison to the tigers recent shitshow bullpens laughable.
Mujica would probably have been the top bullpen arm on recent detroit teams.

 

[Plympton91]

Uehara and Tazawa alone make the comparison to the tigers recent shitshow bullpens laughable.
Mujica would probably have been the top bullpen arm on recent detroit teams.

So you think we should totally discount Uehara's performance last August and September, and the fact that he's 39 years old?

Juaquin Benoit picked an inopportune time to miss his location on a fastball to David Ortiz, but he has accumulated 6.4 WAR to 3.8 WAR for Junichi Tazawa over the past 3 years.

 

[Rasputin]

So you think we should totally discount Uehara's performance last August and September, and the fact that he's 39 years old?

Juaquin Benoit picked an inopportune time to miss his location on a fastball to David Ortiz, but he has accumulated 6.4 WAR to 3.8 WAR for Junichi Tazawa over the past 3 years.

 
Yeah, most of that is the difference between pitching the 7th and 8th and pitching the 9th. Also, why are we comparing Benoit to the guy who is probably third in line to be our closer?

 

[nvalvo]

 
Yeah, most of that is the difference between pitching the 7th and 8th and pitching the 9th. Also, why are we comparing Benoit to the guy who is probably third in line to be our closer?

 
Uhh... I wasn't aware the fWAR formula (based on FIP) had any leverage adjustment. 
 
Both pitchers have elite K/BB ratios (although Taz' was only good in 2014) but slightly high HR rates. Benoit has done a great job suppressing hits, but he also had a .207 BABIP last year. Also, Benoit is a Padre. Why are we talking about him again?

 

[Plympton91]

 
Uhh... I wasn't aware the fWAR formula (based on FIP) had any leverage adjustment. 
 
Both pitchers have elite K/BB ratios (although Taz' was only good in 2014) but slightly high HR rates. Benoit has done a great job suppressing hits, but he also had a .207 BABIP last year. Also, Benoit is a Padre. Why are we talking about him again?

Because he was the primary set up man for the Tigers in 2013, to which I compared the Red Sox bullpen. But, this is the starting pitching thread, so I'll stop.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Could Boston be the team that Beachy has "zeroed in on"?
 
 
1500ESPN
https://twitter.com/DarrenWolfson/status/559093689071730690

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I doubt it. If you are Beachy isn't a guaranteed rotation spot your most important objective? Can't reestablish value in the bullpen.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Well, since Beachy isn't even going to be ready to start the year, I doubt any team is "guaranteeing" him a rotation spot.  But yeah, he'd want to go to a team with a high degree of likelihood that he'll be needed in the rotation.
 
If he takes the Medlen route, he'll sign a two-year deal.  That opens up some possibility for Boston.  If he comes back healthy and pitches well, he could slot in for 2016, an option that looks feasible in Boston given that Porcello, Masterson and Buchholz - 3 of their presently projected starters - are either FAs or on options years then.  

 

[The Boomer]

Well, since Beachy isn't even going to be ready to start the year, I doubt any team is "guaranteeing" him a rotation spot.  But yeah, he'd want to go to a team with a high degree of likelihood that he'll be needed in the rotation.
 
If he takes the Medlen route, he'll sign a two-year deal.  That opens up some possibility for Boston.  If he comes back healthy and pitches well, he could slot in for 2016, an option that looks feasible in Boston given that Porcello, Masterson and Buchholz - 3 of their presently projected starters - are either FAs or on options years then.  

 
If Kelly isn't on track to win the Cy Young Award later this year and they need his arm in the bullpen, there could be a starting job for Beachy this season.  Beachy, if he gets back to his form before injury, was on a trajectory to become a top of the rotation (maybe even an ace) before he was sidelined:
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beachbr01.shtml

 

[MikeM]

 
If Kelly isn't on track to win the Cy Young Award later this year and they need his arm in the bullpen, there could be a starting job for Beachy this season.

 
This is true, but i would think you would would also have to take into account the general level of commitment that comes with any flyer money he does get. With Boston being a fairly poor overall bet to extend him any extra "well we did spend money on the guy" rope in the event he struggles some coming out the gate. 

 

[soxhop411]

Peter Gammons @pgammo · 16h16 hours ago

Making the Case for a Strasburg/Betts Trade | FanGraphs Baseball. Good thoughts, but Bosox could not sign Strasburg http://shar.es/1b9eki

 

[nvalvo]

He doesn't quite say it, but it sounds like Heyman thinks Shields may sign for well under $100m.

https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/559752595863248896

https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/559752595863248896

link to tweet

I'm interested at 4/$80 and below.

 

[Pilgrim]

Rosenthal said something similar to that today

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/history-hurts-shields-chances-at-landing-a-big-contract-012715

"A five-year, $100 million deal for Shields was the original expectation by many in the industry. A four-year deal probably is more realistic, and at this point it would be a surprise if Shields received $20 million per year."

There are some reasons to be skeptical, but that sound like a great signing.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Rosenthal said something similar to that today

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/history-hurts-shields-chances-at-landing-a-big-contract-012715


There are some reasons to be skeptical, but that sound like a great signing.

I wouldn't go above 3 years $55M, but it's not my money.

 

[bosockboy]

At some point it becomes too reasonable to ignore. I'd see if 3/66 would get it done. Sounds like it might.