Beyond Lester: Building a Rotation

[Max Venerable]

Getting an ace would be optimal, but if its not in the cards to do so, I still would hope the Sox can swing a deal for one more depth starter.  Best case would be dealing Victorino for a Victorino equivalent SP or swingman.  Just see it as inevitable that (at the very least) one of Masterson, Buchholz and Kelly is going to be ineffective or injured for a long stretch, and none of the kids in AAA really inspire confidence yet. 

 

[swingin val]

I would like them to take a flyer on Medlen. Has there been any word on what he is looking for in a contract?

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

I'm not sure if he has been mentioned in this thread, but it is possible that Maeda will be posted -- the Red Sox probably have a good feel for what is going on with him.  He could be the final addition to their rotation.  With that said, many project Maeda to be a number 3 starter, not an ace, and so that problem (if you consider it a problem) would continue.
 
Maeda seems better than Dice-k (that isn't saying much)--he has better control whereas Dice-K was too wild and never put up respectable BB/9 ratios.  But I doubt Maeda has the ceiling of a Tanaka or Darvish.  A pretty good scouting report on Maeda is here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2288962-how-japanese-star-kenta-maedas-stuff-will-play-against-mlb-hitters

 

[DavidTai]

I'm not sure if he has been mentioned in this thread, but it is possible that Maeda will be posted -- the Red Sox probably have a good feel for what is going on with him.  He could be the final addition to their rotation.  With that said, many project Maeda to be a number 3 starter, not an ace, and so that problem (if you consider it a problem) would continue.
 
Maeda seems better than Dice-k (that isn't saying much)--he has better control whereas Dice-K was too wild and never put up respectable BB/9 ratios.  But I doubt Maeda has the ceiling of a Tanaka or Darvish.  A pretty good scouting report on Maeda is here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2288962-how-japanese-star-kenta-maedas-stuff-will-play-against-mlb-hitters

 
The article seems to indicate he has the -floor- of a number 3 starter. Perhaps with some work / refinement with Farrell, he could be better.
 
I'd take the chance, at his age.

 

[67WasBest]

The Sox set up with the following fWAR values and fWAR pitcher rankings:
 
Porcello - 2.2 - 28th
Miley - 1.6 - 65th
Buchholz - 1.6 - 67th
Masterson - 1.4 - 80th
 
Kelly has a 0.5 and is ranked 124th and projected at 144 IP
 
Good enough to go to war with, but I sense there's another deal to come.  It likely won't be until after Maeda decides to post and then sign somewhere; because I think that would be option 1 for the Sox.  Assuming that unlikely, I thought a list of potential targets they may be seeking would be useful.  FWAR and salary numbers are indicated:
 
The elite:
 
Sale - 4.7 - $6 AAV, only available in a massive overpay that fills all WS roster holes and even then unlikely
Kluber - 3.6 - 3rd year player, arb in 2016, highly unlikely, but they do have lineup needs
Harvey - 2.8 - 2nd year, coming off TJ, unlikely anyway
Zimmermann - 2.7 - $15.5M, last year before FA - could be but Nats are trying to extend now
Hamels 2.5 - $23M - still there, still too high a cost in talent and to the 2016 roster, but always a possibility
 
The Porcello comps:
 
Maeda - 2.4 - $17M - guestimates, but he would likely be target #1 for them
Kazmir - 2.4 - $11M AAV 13M - would fit, but I think this option would be way down the list
Quintana - 2.3 - $4M - would be high on list of targets especially with Rodon another lefty expected in rotation this year. 
Keuchel - 2.2 - 3rd year - I'm a lot higher on him than many who don't like his ml #s, and he would be my 2nd target, another GB machine
Kuroda - 2.1 - $17M seems to only want the Bronx
Gray - 1.9 3rd year - would cost a good load and unlikely at this time
 
The Miley comps
 
Fister 1.7 - likely $1M arb award - may be the one they deal if they can extend Zim
Kennedy 1.5 - likely $9.5 arb
Ross 1.3 likely $3.5 arb - lots of GBs, but pretty rough September last year.
 
If they are still shopping, and there's no reason to believe they've stopped, the above is who I believe they are looking at, with some far more realistic than others.
 
Others with lower fWARs, or prospect status include
 
Wheeler
deGroom
Giolitto
Syndergard
Rodon

 

[DavidTai]

Looking at the list of potential top remaining pitchers, what about Brett Anderson on a make-good contract? His GB%, if I'm not misreading Fangraphs, indicates careerwise 55 percent, though it's grown to nearly 60 percent the last few years. His big problem is staying healthy, though... but if they have enough innings-eaters, they could well take a flyer with him if they trade Kelly or Buchholz for another innings-eater.
 
Though I agree, it looks like Kenta Maeda would be priority #1, in which case, nevermind.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Is there any deadline on posting for the Japanese teams? (I can't find it.)  Maeda is a lot of fun to watch.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

There are a bunch of rumors out there that the Marlins could trade Nathan Eovaldi, with rumors over the past few months linking him to the Diamondbacks for Miley and to the Pirates for Pedro Alvarez. I like this idea because (a) Eovaldi has awesome stuff, demonstrated terrific control last year, had a 3.37 FIP and is loaded with breakout potential going into his age-25 season, and (b) the Marlins have been in an idiot's version of GFIN mode and it seems like we should take advantage rather than letting the Dodgers have all the fun. 
 
I assume it was the Fish who backed out of the Pedro Alvarez idea but if they are really looking for a first baseman who sucked last year, Allen Craig would be an obvious candidate to build a trade around. Or even Napoli...?
 
EDIT: And I wrote all that before I even read this from Cafardo today:
 

2. Allen Craig, 1B/OF, Red Sox — The Marlins have Craig on their list of possible acquisitions as they pursue a righthanded hitter to play first base. They’re doing their homework on the 30-year-old, who had very good years with St. Louis before he was sent to Boston at last year’s trading deadline. Milwaukee also has some interest in Craig in a platoon with Adam Lind.
 
 

 

Man, would that be a huge steal for the Red Sox.  

 

[foulkehampshire]

There are a bunch of rumors out there that the Marlins could trade Nathan Eovaldi, with rumors over the past few months linking him to the Diamondbacks for Miley and to the Pirates for Pedro Alvarez. I like this idea because (a) Eovaldi has awesome stuff, demonstrated terrific control last year, had a 3.37 FIP and is loaded with breakout potential going into his age-25 season, and (b) the Marlins have been in an idiot's version of GFIN mode and it seems like we should take advantage rather than letting the Dodgers have all the fun. 
 
I assume it was the Fish who backed out of the Pedro Alvarez idea but if they are really looking for a first baseman who sucked last year, Allen Craig would be an obvious candidate to build a trade around. Or even Napoli...?
 
EDIT: And I wrote all that before I even read this from Cafardo today:
 

 

Man, would that be a huge steal for the Red Sox.  

 
I like Eovaldi, but much of his issues stem from the lack of a 3rd pitch. His curveball and changeup aren't quality pitches. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

The Sox have had conversations with Washington about Zimmerman per Rosenthal.
 

The Nationals also had conversations about Zimmermann with the Red Sox and other clubs, again targeting premium young talent, according to sources. Zimmermanns $16.5 million salary, though, almost certainly would limit the return. Which returns us to the original question: What exactly is the Nats' plan?
 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/don-t-nationals-want-to-pay-to-play-121414

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Miller and Walker for Desmond and Zimmerman gives us a sense of what the Nationals ballpark ask is and it seems like they are being reasonable and not just asking to be blown away by an offer. If they would do that deal, would they do Owens and Marrero for Zimmerman straight up? Or could Seattle be tempted to give us Miller in return for Allen Craig (maybe subsidized) and then flip Miller and Owens for Zimmerman, contingent on a long term extension?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

The Sox have had conversations with Washington about Zimmerman per Rosenthal.

The Nationals also had conversations about Zimmermann with the Red Sox and other clubs, again targeting premium young talent, according to sources. Zimmermanns $16.5 million salary, though, almost certainly would limit the return. Which returns us to the original question: What exactly is the Nats' plan?

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/don-t-nationals-want-to-pay-to-play-121414

 
With absolutely no insider knowledge of their plans it can only come down to what is publicly available. They are are probably the best team in baseball and obviously want to contend this year, That being said they have a bunch of core players on their final contract year, so one would suppose they plan to keep the ones they think they can resign or are deemed untradeable because of the teams's 2015 needs. The rest are up for auction. If Zimmerman is being discussed one assumes they cant afford to resign him and is possibly surplus. So they will talk to as many teams as possible to see what kinds of prospect haul is available. As he's expensive and on a one year deal they're not going to get as much as they would like. But some team may overpay. That team is unlikely to be the Sox. The best thing about getting Porcello, Miley and Jedi is that the Sox are no longer desperate. 
 
Would they offer Owens or Margot or Devers ? I rather doubt it. If the Sox were really interested in Z long term then they should insist on the Negotiating Window as part of the deal (with a better mix of prospects - possibly including Owens). If its just a one year rental then i can't see much being offered - at least not enough to get a deal done.

 

[DanoooME]

I'd love to see Medlen sign a 2 year deal with the Sox to help mitigate the fact that Kelly likely won't make through the whole season as a starter.  If Medlen is expected to be back in June or so, bring him back at the All-Star Break and shift Kelly to the bullpen to keep his innings under control (150 or so).  Then you get him for another season with his command improved.  And Kelly could likely make the jump to a full time starter in 2016.

 

[lxt]

As the Marlins seem to be interested in Craig I was wondering if we throw in Middlebrooks, Ranaudo and Nava if we could pick up Tom Koehler & Jarred Cosart. Koehler got a 44% GB rate, 28, with about 4 years control and some potential. Cosart got 50% GB rate is 24 and has about 4 - 5 years control.
Trading from each roster players who may or may not mean much to each team in the coming years.

 

[MakMan44]

As the Marlins seem to be interested in Craig I was wondering if we throw in Middlebrooks, Ranaudo and Nava if we could pick up Tom Koehler & Jarred Cosart. Koehler got a 44% GB rate, 28, with about 4 years control and some potential. Cosart got 50% GB rate is 24 and has about 4 - 5 years control.
Trading from each roster players who may or may not mean much to each team in the coming years.

I think the Marlins would quibble with the notion that Cosart doesn't mean much in their coming years. 
 
https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status/544158950493802497
 
Marlins don't want to trade Alvarez or Cosart for 1B.They've had more talks with FA Michael Morse in recent days;maybe best realistic option

 

[lxt]

I think the Marlins would quibble with the notion that Cosart doesn't mean much in their coming years. 
 
https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status/544158950493802497
 
Marlins don't want to trade Alvarez or Cosart for 1B.They've had more talks with FA Michael Morse in recent days;maybe best realistic option

Can't argue with that.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

As it stands now the Sox have a full rotation with some young depth. What they need now is an ace. Trading for or signing more 3-4 level starters is not what they need to do. Zimmerman would be a good catch if he is willing to negotiate a contract as one poster mentioned.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Out of curiosity, why do people think Zimmermann would be willing to extend with Boston? Isn't the whole reason the Nats are even considering dealing him away is because negotiations aren't progressing? This isn't a situation where they know they can't afford him; the Nats aren't exactly the Rays.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Marlins just hired Morse:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/104205190/source-miami-marlins-michael-morse-agree-to-two-year-contract
(see discussion above for relevance to this thread)

 

[donchoi]

FWIW, here are the Steamer projections for last year's opening day rotation compared with what we have in house now.
 
[tablegrid= Red Sox Starting Rotations 2014 vs 2015 (Steamer Projections) ]2014 Age IP K/9 BB/9 ERA WAR   2015 Age IP K/9 BB/9 ERA WAR Lester 30 192 7.3 2.9 4.00 3.1   Porcello 26 192 6.2 2.2 3.99 3.1 Lackey 35 189 7.1 2.3 4.06 3.0   Buchholz 30 173 6.9 2.9 4.21 2.1 Peavy 33 153 7.2 2.1 3.98 2.5   Miley 28 173 7.0 3.1 4.23 2.0 Buchholz 29 134 7.2 3.1 4.26 1.5   Masterson 30 173 7.0 4.0 4.26 2.0 Dubront 26 153 7.8 3.7 4.23 1.8   Kelly 27 144 6.0 3.5 4.66 1.1 TOTAL 30.6 821 7.3 2.8 4.10 11.9   TOTAL 28.2 855 6.6 3.1 4.25 10.3 [/tablegrid]
 
TAKEAWAYS
1. The rotation is getting quite a bit younger. Positively, this can be called upside. But it could also be instability.
2. We probably have more innings certainty than last year. That means these five should stay healthier than last year's five, but if they don't perform, it doesn't matter.
3. The strikeouts will be WAY down with this group. Last year our starters were 10th in the AL with 7.06 K/9, and this year we will probably fall short of that. That means defense will be that much more crucial, as we will see more balls in play.
4. Walks look to increase moderately from this year's rotation. Not a good combination.
5. Last year's rotation ended up with a 4.36 ERA (13th in the AL), 4.16 FIP (13th in the AL) and generating only 11.7 WAR (11th in the AL). This group doesn't give me much confidence, looking at these numbers.
 
We should have a very potent offense this year, but our run prevention is not in good shape. I think we should still pursue someone else, whether it be a James Shields or a Cole Hamels, and trade either Buchholz or Kelly.

 

[Idabomb333]

FWIW, here are the Steamer projections for last year's opening day rotation compared with what we have in house now.
 
<snip>
 
TAKEAWAYS
1. The rotation is getting quite a bit younger. Positively, this can be called upside. But it could also be instability.
2. We probably have more innings certainty than last year. That means these five should stay healthier than last year's five, but if they don't perform, it doesn't matter.
3. The strikeouts will be WAY down with this group. Last year our starters were 10th in the AL with 7.06 K/9, and this year we will probably fall short of that. That means defense will be that much more crucial, as we will see more balls in play.
4. Walks look to increase moderately from this year's rotation. Not a good combination.
5. Last year's rotation ended up with a 4.36 ERA (13th in the AL), 4.16 FIP (13th in the AL) and generating only 11.7 WAR (11th in the AL). This group doesn't give me much confidence, looking at these numbers.
 
We should have a very potent offense this year, but our run prevention is not in good shape. I think we should still pursue someone else, whether it be a James Shields or a Cole Hamels, and trade either Buchholz or Kelly.

Agreed on 1 & 2.
On 3 and 4, I think that the ground ballers with the Sox defense (especially in the infield) has definite potential to help these guys beat their FIPs.  Then again, they'll play half their games in Fenway, so who knows.  Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox think they can improve the K/BB #s for these guys with Christian behind the plate and maybe some particular coaching about how to get borderline calls and use the modified strike zone.  I would bet that Sox pitchers last year largely beat their K rate projections, and that might well continue.
On 5, I'm not sure that's really the right comparison point.  How did the pre-season projections compare to how the original rotation ended up?  I'm assuming you're giving the ERA for Sox starters in 2014 rather than the total ERA for the 5 guys projected to be in the rotation.  I suspect your numbers somewhat unfairly count the starts made by RDLR and Webster (gone), and other young guys who will hopefully be improved this year.
 
I don't think there's much doubt that the team would be improved significantly by having a Shields or Hamels at the top of the rotation, but I'm optimistic that we don't need a guy like that, at least not yet.  I think these projections will be systematically beaten for Sox starters as described above.  On top of that, at least 1 and probably more than 1 of these guys will beat his projection just by chance.  Maybe someone has a breakout year, maybe someone has a lucky career year, etc.  The flip side, of course, is that at least 1 and probably more than 1 of these guys will come in below his projection just by chance (injury, loss of feel for a pitch, unlucky BABIP, etc.).  The interesting thing to me is that the Sox have so many guys in the minors whose median projections are also probably right around Kelly's 1.1 WAR (if they were projected to be in the rotation all year) and it's likely more than 1 of them will beat his projection.  I'd argue that having a young, relatively inexpensive rotation gives us extra flexibility move whatever guy is under performing to the bullpen, Pawtucket, or another team and start using the best of the guys who starts in AAA.  I think the result is that we'll get the benefit of fluctuation upward much more than we feel the pain of fluctuation downward.  When the whole rotation is full of veterans on hefty contracts, the ones below projection are stuck.
 
Add in the probably vastly improved offense, and I think the team is very likely to clearly be in contention by the deadline.  If the Sox don't commit to a specific ace now, but they still think they need one then, they can trade for a target with the additional knowledge of whether Shields or Hamels or any other option has had a catastrophic injury in the meantime.  Plus they retain flexibility to become sellers if they run into a disaster, etc.
 
I'd definitely be happier if Lester had signed for 135, but I'm pretty happy with how things ended up too.  I think there are a lot of good reasons to be optimistic about the 2015 pitching.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

It seems to me they're taking a cumulative approach to building this staff; combining a sinking strike-zone, Vazquez's absurd framing skills (especially at the bottom of the zone), and an improved infield defense that has the potential to be exceptional. Then they targeted specific pitchers that would be most positively effected by all those elements in a hope that they could turn out to be relative bargains in this environment, while allowing themselves to drastically improve the offense. It's an interesting look at team dynamics as well, in a sport that's so often in a 1 vs 1 scenario. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

5. Last year's rotation ended up with a 4.36 ERA (13th in the AL), 4.16 FIP (13th in the AL) and generating only 11.7 WAR (11th in the AL). This group doesn't give me much confidence, looking at these numbers.

 
This will tend to happen when (1) three of your five Opening Day guys underperform expectations pretty substantially, and (2) you trade four of them between June and July, and (3) the one you don't trade is one of the underperformers.
 
The current rotation may not be as good as the one we started last year with (it's certainly not as good as we thought they were), but it's much better than the one we finished last year with. Saying "we don't project as well as last year's rotation, and look how bad they were, ergo, we're really gonna suck this year!", without acknowledging that you're comparing to a moving target, is just muddying the waters.

 

[donchoi]

Savin Hillbilly, I fully agree that the combined starting staff numbers don't reflect the performances of just the Opening Day rotation, and that all the trades affected those numbers, sure. But that was not the main point I was trying to make.
 
In the offseason, all you can do is line up your front five plus your depth starters, with some reasonable expectation of what they can do. Of course there will always be over- and underperformers, but that's not predictable (a moving target, as you say). The whole point is to put your team in the best position to succeed, is it not? All I am saying is that what we have right now doesn't compare to what we opened the season with last year, on many levels, and that worries me. I am not a huge Shields fan, nor do I want us to trade any of our top prospects for Hamels, but I would be a lot more comfortable with at least one "sure thing" heading up this staff, both in-season and in the playoffs.
 
Ldabomb333, Younger pitchers have "upside", but Porcello and Miley have not yet played in Boston under close fan and media scrutiny before, and Masterson and Kelly will be observed a lot more closely this year than ever before.
 
"Muddying the waters" is not really the issue here, otherwise we should not compare any previous numbers, because they are not necessarily predictive of what will happen this season. Isn't that always true? And I didn't say we were going to suck. I am not optimistic about this rotation as is.

 

[Rasputin]

Are you optimistic about the lineup?

Because not being optimistic about a specific part of the team is largely irrelevant.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

"Muddying the waters" is not really the issue here, otherwise we should not compare any previous numbers, because they are not necessarily predictive of what will happen this season. Isn't that always true? And I didn't say we were going to suck. I am not optimistic about this rotation as is.

 
What I was objecting to was your using the poor final numbers for last year's rotation as if they reinforce your point about the relative projections of the two groups. Last year's rotation drastically underperformed its projections. This year's rotation may underperform as well. Or they may overperform. Or they may hit their projections dead-on. The fact that their projections are slightly lower than last year's really has nothing to do with this question.

 

[donchoi]

Sorry but I beg to differ. As I mentioned above, you're right that those numbers aren't really a fair representation of what that Opening Day rotation could do. But in fact, it is what happened with that starting five. Now we are looking at a top five which are worse than those guys. Is it reasonable to think that they will outperform last year? Based on what? Blind optimism? Homerism?
 
Projections have everything to do with what we can reasonably expect from the top five starters we are currently running with. The projections tell us a bit about the character of our staff, and I am telling you, if we are done, this staff is worse than what we fielded last April. Of course a player can break out, and I hope they do. But you can not look at these numbers and tell me that we are better off than last April in terms of our top five.

 

[Rasputin]

Sorry but I beg to differ. As I mentioned above, you're right that those numbers aren't really a fair representation of what that Opening Day rotation could do. But in fact, it is what happened with that starting five. Now we are looking at a top five which are worse than those guys. Is it reasonable to think that they will outperform last year? Based on what? Blind optimism? Homerism?

Math.

Every season, every player has a range of performance levels. It's perfectly reasonable to think the batch we have now will outperform what we had them because what we got our of the rotation last year was, in some cases, far below the average, and in other cases--four of them, in fact--the guy we had at the beginning of the season was replaced with someone worse. Two of those guys are the ones we sent for Miley and even those who didn't like the trade think Miley is likely to outperform them both in the near term.

Also, the defense is better, starting with a catcher who is going to get 3-5 more called strikes per game than frikkin' Pierzynski.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Ok I'm not following. The math says that last years lousy rotation performed better than this year's new rotation is projected to perform. That's not encouraging, is it? What is the basis for optimism? That this year's projections understate the rotation's likely performance, given better defense, etc?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ok I'm not following. The math says that last years lousy rotation performed better than this year's new rotation is projected to perform. That's not encouraging, is it? What is the basis for optimism? That this year's projections understate the rotation's likely performance, given better defense, etc?

 
Are you referring to the table donchoi posted?  Because that's comparing pre-season projections of 2014's starting 5 to 2015's expected starting 5.  It's utterly meaningless unless the point is to say that we expected bigger things out of Lester/Lackey/Peavy/Buchholz/Doubront than we do out of Porcello/Buchholz/Miley/Masterson/Kelly.  Big whoop.

 

[Drek717]

Sorry but I beg to differ. As I mentioned above, you're right that those numbers aren't really a fair representation of what that Opening Day rotation could do. But in fact, it is what happened with that starting five. Now we are looking at a top five which are worse than those guys. Is it reasonable to think that they will outperform last year? Based on what? Blind optimism? Homerism?
 
Projections have everything to do with what we can reasonably expect from the top five starters we are currently running with. The projections tell us a bit about the character of our staff, and I am telling you, if we are done, this staff is worse than what we fielded last April. Of course a player can break out, and I hope they do. But you can not look at these numbers and tell me that we are better off than last April in terms of our top five.

Based on the fact that none of them are ass clowns of the highest order like Felix Doubront.
 
Or that they'll probably still have the two best guys from that group pitching for them past the trade deadline.
 
Or that the new additions are established but still peak age guys as opposed to someone on the downturn, like Peavy.
 
Or that he FO is specifically targeting a certain kind of pitcher because they see some value to be mined.
 
Or the fact that they'll have Vaz and Hanigan catching instead of a lot of AJP time.
 
Or generally improved defense thanks to young, athletic new outfielders, a quality new 3B, Bogaerts getting a full year to focus on and commit to SS, a healthier Pedroia and Napoli, and the obvious VAz/Hanigan upgrade behind the plate.
 
I could keep going.  The reality is that a 1.6 projected WAR differential over five guys is effectively meaningless when you're talking about pitcher stock.  Pitching is inherently volatile.  This is why the Red Sox have repeatedly said they do not want to get involved in paying 30+ pitchers big money.  Pitchers get hurt more often, they fall off an inexplicable cliff more often, and complete unknowns drop monster seasons more often than hitters do.  That isn't going to change as the literal arms race pushes every young pitcher to go for more velocity, harder break, etc..
 
A few posts up you cited the impact of media scrutiny and the like on players as something meaningfully unique to the Red Sox but ignore all the tangible unique variables with the group currently assembled.  I think the media angle is grossly overplayed and the real problem with pitchers not handling Boston well is the unique park dimensions and a generally tough division to pitch in (both from park conditions throughout the AL East and the once quite stout AL East lineups).  The Sox seem to be planning for the former and the later is far less an issue as the AL East isn't the offensive juggernaut it once was.
 
Lastly, I for one have much more faith in the 2015 second layer of depth than the 2014 second layer of depth.  I have far more hope in what Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson can do in the majors than Rubby or Webster, and it will take more than five starters to make it through the season, it always does.

 

[phenweigh]

I have far more hope in what Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson can do in the majors than Rubby or Webster, and it will take more than five starters to make it through the season, it always does.

In the long term I agree.  But if those guys are needed early in the season I don't think they are as close to MLB ready as De La Rosa or Webster were.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

In the long term I agree.  But if those guys are needed early in the season I don't think they are as close to MLB ready as De La Rosa or Webster were.

 
They may not be, but Spruill, Workman, Escobar, Ranuado, Wright and Barnes are.  Barring abject disaster, there shouldn't be any reason to see Owens, Rodriguez or Johnson before August, if not 2016.

 

[JimD]

I really don't see media and fan scrutiny being an issue in 2015.  Just based on anecdotal discussions and observations, it seems that fan expectations are pretty low for this team following another last place finish. The front office seems to be surviving the Lester debacle without too much fan blowback but the acquisitions of Panda, Hanley and the pitchers don't seem to be moving the needle much in the positive direction either.  And while Wade Miley is about to learn the difference between Boston and Arizona, Porcello and Kelly have participated in multiple playoff races in Detroit and St. Louis and Masterson has proven he can perform in Boston.  The media will do what they do and stir the shit but unless the bottom falls out and players start turning on each other, I don't see their act gaining much traction.  It would have been much, much worse if the Lester affair followed a competitive season.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

It's frustrating to see Eovaldi go to the Yankees for not much in return. Eovaldi is still 24 and one of the hardest throwing starters out there, who has already thrown 460 major league innings with a 3.70 FIP, 4.07 ERA, 95 ERA+. At his age and velocity, he seems like a good bet to get better soon, and could become a really good young starting pitcher. I would much rather have this guy than Masterson, for example. 
 
I don't really get what the Marlins were going after with Prado, but it seems like the Red Sox might have been able to beat that offer without giving up all that much. How much better are the Marlins at third with Prado over McGehee anyway? And Phelps is 4 years older than Eovaldi and doesn't look like much.
 
What would a similar offer from the Red Sox be? Maybe we wouldn't have the pieces that the Marlins wanted, but it's frustrating to see NY get a young guy like that for some spare parts they didn't need, in the same offseason when we also needed starting pitching. 
 
Congrats to the Yankees on getting a young arm with upside, I guess. Bastards.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

 
Are you referring to the table donchoi posted?  Because that's comparing pre-season projections of 2014's starting 5 to 2015's expected starting 5.  It's utterly meaningless unless the point is to say that we expected bigger things out of Lester/Lackey/Peavy/Buchholz/Doubront than we do out of Porcello/Buchholz/Miley/Masterson/Kelly.  Big whoop.

No I was looking at the 11.7 actual WAR accumulated by the rotation that he cited. I read that as being for the full year. Is that incorrect? If correct, then the projection for this current group is less than what last years group achieved. That's not good, is it?? Not debating here really, just asking.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

No I was looking at the 11.7 actual WAR accumulated by the rotation that he cited. I read that as being for the full year. Is that incorrect? If correct, then the projection for this current group is less than what last years group achieved. That's not good, is it?? Not debating here really, just asking.

Yeah the guy put up a table of what Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, Peavy and Doubront were supposed to provide, and then just grabbed the final numbers for all Boston starters from Fangraphs. It's a random collection of facts that provide no insight into how this team will perform. The Red Sox starting rotation last year accumulated 0.1 fewer fWAR than the Angels, and over 2 fWAR more than the Orioles. If the offense performs as expected (i.e., top three in the AL), that should be plenty of pitching to get them to the playoffs.

 

[The Boomer]

It's frustrating to see Eovaldi go to the Yankees for not much in return. Eovaldi is still 24 and one of the hardest throwing starters out there, who has already thrown 460 major league innings with a 3.70 FIP, 4.07 ERA, 95 ERA+. At his age and velocity, he seems like a good bet to get better soon, and could become a really good young starting pitcher. I would much rather have this guy than Masterson, for example. 
 
I don't really get what the Marlins were going after with Prado, but it seems like the Red Sox might have been able to beat that offer without giving up all that much. How much better are the Marlins at third with Prado over McGehee anyway? And Phelps is 4 years older than Eovaldi and doesn't look like much.
 
What would a similar offer from the Red Sox be? Maybe we wouldn't have the pieces that the Marlins wanted, but it's frustrating to see NY get a young guy like that for some spare parts they didn't need, in the same offseason when we also needed starting pitching. 
 
Congrats to the Yankees on getting a young arm with upside, I guess. Bastards.

 
A good trade for the Yankees though I was unsure who now plays 2B for them but found this:
 
http://nomaas.org/2014/11/rob-refsnyder-should-be-the-2015-starting-second-baseman/
 
Eovaldi, some of their pitching staff and Refsnyder will signal that the Yankees are finally trying to filter in a few younger players.  Imitation is sometimes a sincere source of flattery.  This subtle Yankees movement toward adding younger and cost controlled players was overdue and, in fact, indicates that they are trying to keep up more with the Sox than the other way around.  Going forward, almost anyone will still prefer the horded assets in the Sox farm system over the thin group of Yankees minor leaguers.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Wouldn't Eovaldi project as a 3-4 starter for the Sox? And if so, don't we already have enough of those? I understand the future upside, but not getting him is fine. The fact that the YANKEES got a good trade is the bad part. Why not the Cubs.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

No I was looking at the 11.7 actual WAR accumulated by the rotation that he cited. I read that as being for the full year. Is that incorrect? If correct, then the projection for this current group is less than what last years group achieved. That's not good, is it?? Not debating here really, just asking.

 
The 11.7 actual WAR was accumulated by the five listed PLUS everyone else they ran out there (Kelly, RDLR, Workman, Webster, etc, etc).  It's an unfair comparison to take that total and put it against what just five guys are projected to do (without considering what starters 6 through whatever would contribute).  There's no conclusion to draw from doing that.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

The Red Sox starting pitching last season prior to the purge (the only relevant part of the season in this discussion) was the best part of a mediocre team. If the Red Sox had been able to couple that pitching with this offense (or the 2013 offense) they likely would have won the division.

 

[donchoi]

Is it unfair to compare 2014 and 2015 projections?

 

[Doctor G]

It's frustrating to see Eovaldi go to the Yankees for not much in return. Eovaldi is still 24 and one of the hardest throwing starters out there, who has already thrown 460 major league innings with a 3.70 FIP, 4.07 ERA, 95 ERA+. At his age and velocity, he seems like a good bet to get better soon, and could become a really good young starting pitcher. I would much rather have this guy than Masterson, for example. 
 
I don't really get what the Marlins were going after with Prado, but it seems like the Red Sox might have been able to beat that offer without giving up all that much. How much better are the Marlins at third with Prado over McGehee anyway? And Phelps is 4 years older than Eovaldi and doesn't look like much.
 
What would a similar offer from the Red Sox be? Maybe we wouldn't have the pieces that the Marlins wanted, but it's frustrating to see NY get a young guy like that for some spare parts they didn't need, in the same offseason when we also needed starting pitching. 
 
Congrats to the Yankees on getting a young arm with upside, I guess. Bastards.

I want Eovaldi in the second TJS contest this season.
He might have 460 innings but he only had 260 going into last year, and only had 106 in 2013.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Is it unfair to compare 2014 and 2015 projections?

 
The problem is not with comparing 2014 projections to 2015 projections. It's with your apparent inability to understand that because of how much the rotation changed from the start of the 2014 season to the trade deadline, making any kind of judgement about how this rotation compares to that one based on your overall impression of the team's pitching performance on the year is meaningless. If you want to say that this staff isn't projected to be quite as good as the one the team started the year with, then sure, it's a valid position to take. It's also not a damning thing to say about the 2015 rotation, as the rotation at the start of the 2014 season was really good.

 

[phenweigh]

 
They may not be, but Spruill, Workman, Escobar, Ranuado, Wright and Barnes are.  Barring abject disaster, there shouldn't be any reason to see Owens, Rodriguez or Johnson before August, if not 2016.

I'll give you Workman and Ranuado for having a fair number of MLB starts, but they haven't had the success Rubby did before in MLB.  The rest could be argued as being about as ready as Webster.  I'm bullish on Wright, but not so much the others.  (Though I'd rather Steven in the pen, but it's looking like there won't be room for him.)  The shear number of possibilities though means somebody is likely to contribute in Boston, if the Sox are able to identify the right player.

 

[donchoi]

 
The problem is not with comparing 2014 projections to 2015 projections. It's with your apparent inability to understand that because of how much the rotation changed from the start of the 2014 season to the trade deadline, making any kind of judgement about how this rotation compares to that one based on your overall impression of the team's pitching performance on the year is meaningless. If you want to say that this staff isn't projected to be quite as good as the one the team started the year with, then sure, it's a valid position to take. It's also not a damning thing to say about the 2015 rotation, as the rotation at the start of the 2014 season was really good.

 
Um, I conceded that point way back. It's more of an apparent inability to read that I think.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Um, I conceded that point way back. It's more of an apparent inability to read that I think.

 
You conceded that point then followed with this...
 
 

Sorry but I beg to differ. As I mentioned above, you're right that those numbers aren't really a fair representation of what that Opening Day rotation could do. But in fact, it is what happened with that starting five. Now we are looking at a top five which are worse than those guys. Is it reasonable to think that they will outperform last year? Based on what? Blind optimism? Homerism?
 
Projections have everything to do with what we can reasonably expect from the top five starters we are currently running with. The projections tell us a bit about the character of our staff, and I am telling you, if we are done, this staff is worse than what we fielded last April. Of course a player can break out, and I hope they do. But you can not look at these numbers and tell me that we are better off than last April in terms of our top five.

 
So you concede that the overall numbers aren't an accurate representation of what the original starting five did on the year, but then double down on those numbers having meaning in this conversation. That the staff combined for a 4.36 ERA on the season is 100% irrelevant when comparing the opening day starting five in 2014 to this year's projected top 5. That "it is what happened with the starting five" is both an untrue statement and completely contradicts your conceding of the point earlier. Either the 4.36 ERA doesn't matter in this conversation at all (it doesn't) and you should stop pointing to it, or it does matter and you need to find a way to prove that it is relevant (which you can't, because it's not relevant).
 
And then you went on to beat the heck out of a straw man as though anyone on the board is arguing that the starting five this team has now is better than, or even as good as the starting five they had last April. No one is doing that. People are simply taking exception to the fact that your argument is put together poorly and that your conclusions are not supportable with the data you have presented. If all you are saying is that last year's starting five in April was projected to be better than this year's current starting five, then congratulations... you've stated the obvious. Then jumping to the conclusion that we should be worried that this starting five isn't good enough is where you've lost everyone.
 
When you add some context to the projections by first acknowledging that they have fairly large margins for error, they don't take into account things like the nature of an injury or how likely it is someone will recover fully from it (like Masterson), how widely a player missed their projection the year before and whether that was indicative of some kind of permanent change (Buchholz on the down swing, Lester on the upswing), or things like a ground ball heavy staff that will be pitching in front of an above average infield defense, and you should start to see that citing projections from the two different staffs tells us very little about what we should expect this spring.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

donchoi, maybe what we're objecting to would become clearer if we simplify the argument. Instead of staffs let's talk about individual pitchers. I'm sure you can see the flaw in this syllogism:
 
1) Justin Verlander's 2014 projection was better than Rick Porcello's 2015 projection.
2) Justin Verlander had a surprisingly crappy year in 2014.
3) Therefore, we should expect Rick Porcello to have an even crappier year in 2015.
 
This is obviously silly. Yet it seems to be more or less what you were arguing about the 2014 and 2015 Sox rotations.

 

[donchoi]

Okay, now I understand the problem a bit. I'm sorry if my language was not clear. What I meant by "that's what happened" is simply that even starting the season with those 5, that was the result. I was not attributing the result to their performance only. I am fully acknowledging that the season numbers were inflated by the presence of younger pitchers like Rubby De La Rosa, Allen Webster, etc.
 
However, would it surprise you if I told you that just the front 5 last season (Boston numbers only) put up this combined line?
32-38 record in 107 GS, 634 IP, 4.28 ERA, 3.94 FIP, 7.1 K/9, 2.1 BB/9
 
That "watering down" effect wasn't as big as one might think, due to the fact that Buchholz (5.34 ERA) and Doubront (6.07 ERA) were both terrible, and Peavy was pretty bad (4.72 ERA). They really dragged down really strong performances by Lester and Lackey.
 
Savin Hillbilly, that analogy makes some sense, but I think it's different when you apply it to a group of players rather than individuals (as shown above), since you expect statistical regression to the mean to cancel out a bit, countering the impact of "outlier" seasons like Verlander's 2014. I think that the numbers do show that this year's front five are not as good as last year's (which we all agree on). But I think that the effect of increased groundballs in front of our solid infield defense will be cancelled out, and probably overwhelmed by fewer strikeouts and more walks. Those have been shown to have a much stronger influence on FIP and ERA than increasing GB% from say 45% to 50%.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

How did you arrive at a 4.28 ERA? Also, an increased ground ball rate should have zero impact in FIP since, by design, batted ball data is filtered out.