I expect we'll see a few more #5 types added for rotation depth, bulk reliever types and possibly to convert into much needed bullpen help.it's a start, nothing to get excited about though, I guess # 5 maybe?
Well, for a dozen it's more like $25 million.Probably more of a long man in the bullpen. Meh. Dime a dozen kind of guy.
Fuck yes. This is happening again.Insanity. I'm happy. I'm surprised. Can't believe we got em.
That’s what I was waiting for.Insanity. I'm happy. I'm surprised. Can't believe we got em.
Yes. Have we been naughty or nice?Merry Christmas, indeed.
Are you familiar with Chaim Bloom's work?Fits the mold. Other teams' rejects. Lower salary than a prime free agent.
To the cellar! Onward! Downward!
The bolded part is the key thing here. Is he a reliever or a starter? If he's supposed to fill a Heath Hembree type role, this should turn out to be a solid signing. If he's supposed to be a part of the rotation, I think it's wishful thinking that he can maintain that effectiveness.Andriese is exactly the kind of smart signing that Bloom should be getting credit for.
Here’s a list of the 36 pitchers who have fared best against RHH in 2019-20 (min. 1500 pitches, per Statcast):
Those are the best starters in baseball, a few stud relievers with heavy workloads made it past the minimum innings filter...and Matt Andriese.Hendriks (.198 expected hitter wOBA), Maeda, Hader, deGrom, Scherzer, Cole, Woodruff, Luis Castillo, Darvish, Lugo, Glasnow, Clevinger, Syndergaard, Flaherty, Eflin, Verlander, Morton, Elieser Hernandez, Houser, Strasburg, Urias, Workman, Bauer, Neris, Lynn, Scott Barlow, Edwin Diaz, Snell, Peacock, Pablo Lopez, Lamet, Sonny Gray, Miguel Castro, Green, Andriese .279, Bieber
Who knows how predictive that is, but near-elite levels of effectiveness against righties and slightly better than average effectiveness against lefties (.313 xwOBA, 102 among 211 qualified multi-inning pitchers) is a good pitcher. The difference is that Andriese did it over 1-3 inning stints, not 6-7 inning ones.
We’ll see, but it’s a great pickup at $1.85M. Andriese looks like 40 percent of Wheeler, Lynn or Paddack’s innings at about 8-10 percent of the cost.
I dont know how useful Andriese will be, but I am pretty confident that Bloom will not keep a guy around solely because he signed him to a 2.1M contract. If he's no good, he'll be gone.I didn't realize how old this guy is. He's already 31, older than Eovaldi or Martin Perez. He's never had an ERA under 4.00 in any season. Depth Charts and Steamer both project him to have a 4.98 ERA and 4.94 FIP this year.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/matt-andriese/12022/stats?position=P
Not impressive, and he's clearly guaranteed a roster spot. This looks like a lot of Bloom's pitching choices last year. I hope he turns out better than that collection.
Yes. I agree out of ST. I thought you were speaking more broadly.He is absolutely making the team out of spring training. He will have a roster spot unless he is on the DL.
Agreed. I think this team is looking for role/positional flexibility.Even if we have “enough” pitching on paper, no one’s throwing a 180 IP workload after a half season, especially given our personnel. So we need some guys in the pen who can make some spot starts/bulk appearances. I think that’s a good role for Andriese.
35 G, 8 starts, 100 IP, something like that: a bunch of middle relief innings, and the second through fifth innings of some getaway days when the rotation needs an off day we don’t have.
I could see him as the bulk guy but not the opener. He has bulk guy written all over him in my opinion. The opener pitches through the lineup once then the bulk guy comes in and gets you to the 7th/8th inning.Doesn't this guy have opener written all over him?
That is "starting". Maybe he gets a chance to see if he can pitch effectively beyond a second or third inning and if his effectiveness declines the second time through the order they just start yanking him when they find where that threshold is. Maybe he routinely makes it through the order twice without major issues and if he is efficient enough maybe he qualifies for a win.
Seems like the right guy to try this out with. Not much to lose.
I am not all that clear on your point on why Andriese can not be an opener. As an opener he would go once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings.I could see him as the bulk guy but not the opener. He has bulk guy written all over him in my opinion. The opener pitches through the lineup once then the bulk guy comes in and gets you to the 7th/8th inning.
Openers are generally 1-2 inning pitchers. Basically short relievers used at the start of the game instead of late. If you're giving a guy 3-4 innings, which unless he's perfect means he's going to go a decent way through the order a second time, you might as well call him a traditional starter and let him go for 100ish pitches and 5-6+ innings.I am not all that clear on your point on why Andriese can not be an opener. As an opener he would go once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings.
As the "bulk guy" in your post, he would pitcher until innings 7 to 8, which is once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings, as you mentioned.
No, you are mistaken. An opener goes through the lineup once so that’s about two innings. Then the bulk guy comes in and pitches until hopefully the 8th.I am not all that clear on your point on why Andriese can not be an opener. As an opener he would go once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings.
As the "bulk guy" in your post, he would pitcher until innings 7 to 8, which is once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings, as you mentioned.
If you think about it, you can't get through the order once in 4 innings. If you get 9 outs and thus 3 IP out of the first time through, you've been perfect. The league-wide OBP in 2020 was .322, so — if I did the algebra right — it takes an average of 13 (and change) hitters to record 9 outs. The modal fourth inning starts with the fifth-place hitter. If it starts instead with the leadoff man, you're having a good defensive night.I am not all that clear on your point on why Andriese can not be an opener. As an opener he would go once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings.
As the "bulk guy" in your post, he would pitcher until innings 7 to 8, which is once through the lineup, give or take a few batters. This usually means 3 to 4 innings, as you mentioned.
Are you asking why most signings are basically league average kind of guys, +/- a bit? I'd say it's because most players are league average kind of guys.Gee, I thought this is the "Why are all the additions to our pitching staff replacement level players?" thread that began last year.
Thanks for clarifying this for me.Openers are generally 1-2 inning pitchers. Basically short relievers used at the start of the game instead of late. If you're giving a guy 3-4 innings, which unless he's perfect means he's going to go a decent way through the order a second time, you might as well call him a traditional starter and let him go for 100ish pitches and 5-6+ innings.
Didn't take your sarcasm meter for its annual tune-up?Are you asking why most signings are basically league average kind of guys, +/- a bit? I'd say it's because most players are league average kind of guys.
Who were you thinking we would sign? Who did this signing preclude the signing of?
No, I'm asking why they are replacement level. 31 year old Matt Andriese and his career ERA+ of 91 aspire to be league average.Are you asking why most signings are basically league average kind of guys, +/- a bit? I'd say it's because most players are league average kind of guys.
Obviously, this signing doesn't preclude us from singing anybody else. I'm just saying I'm not looking forward to watching this guy pitch this year. I guess he'll be better than the riff-raff who pitched for last year, but that's an awfully low bar. This team used to aspire to more.Who were you thinking we would sign? Who did this signing preclude the signing of?
Not every signing is going to be an all star. They need the replacement level and league average guys too. Can't really read into what the team aspires to based on a couple signings in a sluggish market. Andriese really only gets a thread here because a) we're fans who pay attention to every move the team makes and b) nothing else is going on at all.No, I'm asking why they are replacement level. 31 year old Matt Andriese and his career ERA+ of 91 aspire to be league average.
Obviously, this signing doesn't preclude us from singing anybody else. I'm just saying I'm not looking forward to watching this guy pitch this year. I guess he'll be better than the riff-raff who pitched for last year, but that's an awfully low bar. This team used to aspire to more.
But he’s not replacement level. He’s better. Since he added pitches in 2019, Matt Andriese has an FIP of 3.90. That’s better than Trevor Bauer over that same period and about as good as E-Rod was in 2019. Against right handed-hitters, Andriese’s 2.92 FIP was better than Shane Bieber, Jack Flaherty and Dinelson Lamet. His expected numbers are even better, because he was really unlucky in 2019, allowing a .332 BABIP despite a high groundball rate.No, I'm asking why they are replacement level. 31 year old Matt Andriese and his career ERA+ of 91 aspire to be league average.
Obviously, this signing doesn't preclude us from singing anybody else. I'm just saying I'm not looking forward to watching this guy pitch this year. I guess he'll be better than the riff-raff who pitched for last year, but that's an awfully low bar. This team used to aspire to more.
I think it is clear that Bloom has been placed on a very tight budget by John Henry. Red Sox reset their cap in 2020 but it doesn't appear it is going to make any difference in the calibre of signings for 2021I didn't realize how old this guy is. He's already 31, older than Eovaldi or Martin Perez. He's never had an ERA under 4.00 in any season. Depth Charts and Steamer both project him to have a 4.98 ERA and 4.94 FIP this year.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/matt-andriese/12022/stats?position=P
Not impressive, and he's clearly guaranteed a roster spot. This looks like a lot of Bloom's pitching choices last year. I hope he turns out better than that collection.
Not sure it is “clear“ yet.I think it is clear that Bloom has been placed on a very tight budget by John Henry. Red Sox reset their cap in 2020 but it doesn't appear it is going to make any difference in the calibre of signings for 2021
Has that budget been placed on most of the rest of the league too? Aside from the Padres trading for all the aces, no one is really making much of a splash this winter. Saw a tweet from I think Jon Heyman yesterday that said something to the effect of 85% of potential free agents (players with a reasonable chance to play if they sign) are still available including nearly all the big ticket guys. Expectation is that we're going to see a flurry of activity once it's more clear what the 2021 season is going to look like...as in will it start on time, will it be a full season, will there be fans, etc. Now is not the time to judge anything any team (except, again, the Padres) is planning.I think it is clear that Bloom has been placed on a very tight budget by John Henry. Red Sox reset their cap in 2020 but it doesn't appear it is going to make any difference in the calibre of signings for 2021
I don't see why you think that is clear.I think it is clear that Bloom has been placed on a very tight budget by John Henry. Red Sox reset their cap in 2020 but it doesn't appear it is going to make any difference in the calibre of signings for 2021
This came in while I was typing, and yeah: what R(s)HF said. The only thing I'd add is that I wouldn't exclude the Padres from the budget crunch, necessarily. We may still see a good-prospect-stapled-to-Wil-Myers type trade to allow SD to compensate for some of the payroll they've taken on, and given all the high-end pitching they added. While that wouldn't be a blue chip like Mackenzie Gore or Luis Patino, it's certainly conceivable that it could be (a reach) Adrian Morejón, or one of their post-TJ prospects in Reggie Lawson or Pedro Avila. They've traded so many people, but the system remains deep, and they will be facing a massive 40 man roster crunch sooner rather than later that should motivate them to cash in their chips.Has that budget been placed on most of the rest of the league too? Aside from the Padres trading for all the aces, no one is really making much of a splash this winter. Saw a tweet from I think Jon Heyman yesterday that said something to the effect of 85% of potential free agents (players with a reasonable chance to play if they sign) are still available including nearly all the big ticket guys. Expectation is that we're going to see a flurry of activity once it's more clear what the 2021 season is going to look like...as in will it start on time, will it be a full season, will there be fans, etc. Now is not the time to judge anything any team (except, again, the Padres) is planning.
I bet we'll see more than one big splash move, and that the Sox will end up one of the most active teams this winter.I also really doubt we see a single big splash move. I bet payroll goes up, but mostly by stockpiling small improvements, depth, and/or upside plays. This seems fine to me -none of the top FAs this year feel like can't miss guys to me, and no matter what they do, they'll need to get really lucky to compete in 2021.
Most likely, the biggest FA deal the Sox make is in the Bradley/Wong range, and hopefully the biggest deal they give out is a Devers extension. There may be an opportunistic big trade along the lines of the Davish and Snell deals, but that is impossible to predict.
Didn't Patino already go in the Snell trade?? I agree with Heyman's article that many of the teams are waiting to see what the 2021 season will look like before the activity picks up.I don't see why you think that is clear.
If Bloom and co. haven't shopped from the Sugano/Quintana/Tanaka/Paxton/Hill/Kluber/Hamels/Odorizzi/Happ tier of starters by Spring Training — or haven't added pitching in trade — then it makes sense to ask that question. It's clear that we need a starter or preferably two; if they don't get it, it's fair to ask why.
There are still like 9 good-to-decent FA starting pitchers out there, of various profiles. I'd expect them to avoid anyone attached to a draft penalty, but that only rules out Bauer. (Gausman and Stroman accepted QOs.) Of the half dozen starting pitchers who have signed so far from FA, Charlie Morton and maybe Drew Smyly or Mike Minor are the only ones who looked like a fit for Boston.
Sugano would make a lot of sense as a target, so I wouldn't be surprised if things will come into focus following his decision: if we sign Sugano, he's the new number 3 with upside, and then we want Quintana as a stable back of the rotation source of reliable innings. But if Sugano signs elsewhere, then we fall back to Hill/Kluber and Odorizzi.
This came in while I was typing, and yeah: what R(s)HF said. The only thing I'd add is that I wouldn't exclude the Padres from the budget crunch, necessarily. We may still see a good-prospect-stapled-to-Wil-Myers type trade to allow SD to compensate for some of the payroll they've taken on, and given all the high-end pitching they added. While that wouldn't be a blue chip like Mackenzie Gore or Luis Patino, it's certainly conceivable that it could be (a reach) Adrian Morejón, or one of their post-TJ prospects in Reggie Lawson or Pedro Avila. They've traded so many people, but the system remains deep, and they will be facing a massive 40 man roster crunch sooner rather than later that should motivate them to cash in their chips.
Ahh, of course. Thanks for the correction.Didn't Patino already go in the Snell trade?? I agree with Heyman's article that many of the teams are waiting to see what the 2021 season will look like before the activity picks up.
I'm becoming familiar with it. As an old-time traditionalist I really don't like what's going on, but we'll see.Are you familiar with Chaim Bloom's work?
So was Cole, Verlander, Scherzer, everyone does it.FWIW, Andriese's name was dropped in the Angels staffer lawsuit as someone that was doctoring the ball.