Building a Bullpen, 2019 edition

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
In fairness, I guess, I think guys like Thornburg and Workman are getting a lot of run early while management is sorting things out, but as of this moment, I don't think the plan is for them to take a large percentage of high-leverage innings once the season starts. The pitchers who will be expected to handle those duties seem like they're on a different schedule.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
On the positive side, Darwinson Hernandez looked great again. And Shawaryan has had a couple dominant outings. Those are the two options that I’m looking at now as potentional saviors.
Speaking of Shawaryn, here's an interesting tidbit from a Chad Jennings piece in The Athletic:

"...when [Porcello] threw his live batting practice this week, a huge group came to watch. The rest of the rotation was there with Barnes, Workman, Brasier, Derek Lowe and Pedro Martinez. It was a who’s-who of Red Sox pitchers, and standing right there with them was prospect Mike Shawaryn. “I’m just fortunate enough to be here at a time when, any of those guys throw live, you don’t want to miss it,” Shawaryn said. As for tagging along with such established company, Shawaryn said the Red Sox pitchers have gone out of their way to make that easy. “I think it’s just the M.O. with the team is just that we’re a big family,” Shawaryn said. “Being that I’m in my first big-league camp, first year here, they opened up with open arms. They want us to be a part of it, you know? It’s very valuable because they always push each other. It’s like a brother relationship. They’re there to push each other to get better.”
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,744
How many bullpen guys do they have with no options who are expected to make the team as of now? To start rotating in some of the exciting young non-current 40 man guys, it seems like they will need to have a few of that first group either hurt, 'hurt', or gone, but that is tricky since they need all the depth they can get too. Presumably Fields is out of options (I don't actually know) and that is a strike against from this perspective.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Going through the Sox' pitching stats so far kind of sums up why it's a really bad idea to read too much into early spring results.

I mean, if you're going to be in hand-wringing mode about how Brewer and Workman (for instance) have done so far, then for consistency's sake you have to be very excited about Matthew Gorst, Adam Lau, and Trevor Kelley.
Exactly.

We haven't yet seen:

Sale
Price
Eovoldi
Brasier
Hembree (work with me)
And Barnes has pitched once.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
How many bullpen guys do they have with no options who are expected to make the team as of now? To start rotating in some of the exciting young non-current 40 man guys, it seems like they will need to have a few of that first group either hurt, 'hurt', or gone, but that is tricky since they need all the depth they can get too. Presumably Fields is out of options (I don't actually know) and that is a strike against from this perspective.
Wright’s thingy eases it a bit, but I’d say Hembree and Johnson are locks and Workman and Thornburg are iffy. Johnson’s not appreciably better than either of them, but his five years of team control makes him uncuttable while he’s a decent-enough 6th starter. There are just too many interesting mL pitchers to leave buried in the pen all year. In order of preference, I think Brewer, Putnam, Mejia, Smith, and Ellington could all be playable if healthy.

I also expect that there’ll be a similar bullpen crunch happening leaguewide, which means there could be another wave of perfectly useful pitchers (like Fields) flushed from major league rosters in the next couple months. Teams were able to sign a bunch of decent pitchers to minor league contracts (guys like Norris, Vincent, Clippard, Carson Smith), which will have a ripple effect on rosters. I don’t think teams will see much incentive to tend contracts to their so-so arb-eligible guys next year (Workman types making $1.5-3 million), or keeping guys on the back ends of multi-year contracts (like Tommy Hunter, Juan Nicasio, or Brandon Kintzler). The playable relievers signing mL contracts will be able to do those jobs more cheaply and often with greater team control, and the teams still have to keep lanes open for their minor league pipeline before losing players to Rule 5.

The Cubs have a similar dilemma (and to some extent, so do the Phillies and Yankees). Their bullpen is Strop, Edwards, Cishek, Montgomery, Brach, Kintzler, Duensing and Chatwood, with Morrow and Cedeno on the DL. None of those guys can be sent to the minors except Edwards. When Morrow and Cedeno come back, at least two of those guys will have to be DFA’d, traded, or ‘hurt’, and that’s before they even dip into their own mL pickups or prospects.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Exactly.

We haven't yet seen:

Sale
Price
Eovoldi
Brasier
Hembree (work with me)
And Barnes has pitched once.
Don't throw shade at Hembree! He's a legit major league pitcher who has thrown some valuable innings for the Red Sox during his time with the club. Career stats with the Sox:

3.59 era, 9.2 k/9

And in the postseason, he's thrown 4.2 innings of hitless, scoreless relief.

No, he's not a top tier reliever, but he's a valuable member of the bullpen.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
I think we can mix and match guys in the 8th and 9th innings, it’s the middle relief I’m worried about. Especially if we lighten the pitch counts on our starters early in the season.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Feltman!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/03/14/sox-prospect-durbin-feltman-could-fast-track-majors/sUeD1YXSTIgVFovm4q8hjI/story.html

Jump from AA to MLB could happen by summer if he's really this good. Not that you want a rookie closer in the postseason but he's clearly auditioning for an eventual setup role, especially if Workman's velocity remains MIA. [Apparently Workman was up to 90-91 today.]

On another topic, does the news today of a 3-batter minimum for relievers (starting next season) mean the end of the LOOGY?
 
Last edited:

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
On another topic, does the news today of a 3-batter minimum for relievers (starting next season) mean the end of the LOOGY?
By definition, yes, since it stands for Lefty One Out GuY (with ROOGY being the RHP version). The lefty/righty specialist could still exist for lineups that are heavy with LHH or RHH at some point in the batting order with an IBB or some crossed fingers.
 

The Raccoon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2018
935
Germany
By definition, yes, since it stands for Lefty One Out GuY (with ROOGY being the RHP version). The lefty/righty specialist could still exist for lineups that are heavy with LHH or RHH at some point in the batting order with an IBB or some crossed fingers.
... So we will go with LTOOWGY (Lefty Two Out One Walk GuY)?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Feltman!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/03/14/sox-prospect-durbin-feltman-could-fast-track-majors/sUeD1YXSTIgVFovm4q8hjI/story.html

Jump from AA to MLB could happen by summer if he's really this good. Not that you want a rookie closer in the postseason but he's clearly auditioning for an eventual setup role, especially if Workman's velocity remains MIA. [Apparently Workman was up to 90-91 today.]

On another topic, does the news today of a 3-batter minimum for relievers (starting next season) mean the end of the LOOGY?
So does the new rule mean you can’t bring a reliever into the game with one out in the 9th to close it out? Because he may only face two batters. I’m sure the answer is no...or at least I’d hope the answer is no.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,744
So does the new rule mean you can’t bring a reliever into the game with one out in the 9th to close it out? Because he may only face two batters. I’m sure the answer is no...or at least I’d hope the answer is no.
Three batters or the end of an inning.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
So does the new rule mean you can’t bring a reliever into the game with one out in the 9th to close it out? Because he may only face two batters. I’m sure the answer is no...or at least I’d hope the answer is no.
You’re sure because the alternative is fucking ridiculous. Come on.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
The whole 3 batter minimum rule is fucking ridiculous.
Agreed! Recent rule changes (no blocking the plate, no taking out the 2nd baseman) have been geared towards maintaining the health of the players. This has the potential to do just the opposite.

Over/under on the date this season that a pitcher goes down with an arm injury and claims it occurred because he was abiding by the new rule?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
This is MLB we're talking about here, don't forget.
Edit here: seeing you’re questioning being able to bring the reliever in in the first place, which is a less silly question that I thought you were asking. Pre-coffee reading comprehension.

The whole 3 batter minimum rule is fucking ridiculous.
Yeah, oddly enough I didn't say anything about the rule itself.
 
Last edited:

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Another possible argument against this is that it could render a reliever who might otherwise be available to face just one batter in a key situation to be unavailable. Can you imagine the consequences during the post season in an extra inning deciding game?
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Imagine the strategy if that wasn't the case in the 9th inning. New pitcher comes in with one out and 1 on to face a bad hitter, a double play no longer ends the game
I also like to imagine a strategy where the closer is struggling and gets the bases loaded with two outs. New reliever comes in and strikes out the batter----BUT THE INNING AIN'T OVER

Or a similar situation with a man on second and one out----you could still have two sac flies to bring the runner in.
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
4,167
I also like to imagine a strategy where the closer is struggling and gets the bases loaded with two outs. New reliever comes in and strikes out the batter----BUT THE INNING AIN'T OVER

Or a similar situation with a man on second and one out----you could still have two sac flies to bring the runner in.
Perhaps I am missing something, but why would the inning not be over in this situation?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Perhaps I am missing something, but why would the inning not be over in this situation?
It's assuming the pitcher HAS to face 3 batters, so if there are 2 outs and a new pitcher comes in, that team gets 3 more batters. Double plays and triple plays wouldn't matter either as far as outs are concerned. Bring a guy in with 1 out and a man on first, and he records a double play, doesn't matter. He still has to face 2 more guys.

Of course, that's not the rule. It's 3 batters or the end of an inning.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
I think the aim of this 3 batter rule could better be accomplished by cutting down on all of the wasted time that takes place when there is a pitching change. Maybe that means that the new pitcher comes in on a golf cart. Three warmup pitches from the mound, that's it, and let's go. If the bases are empty, no throwing it down to second or around the infield. Why all of that can't take a minute or less I have no idea. I feel like the production that ensues every time there is a pitching change is nothing more than an excuse to run a couple ads on TV or radio.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
Thornburg looked pretty damn sharp today. Stuff and location was there.

Barnes looked great as well and Hernadnez continues to seem like a very very real prospect. He's exciting of an arm as I've seen come up in a while.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
Then why’d he walk somebody, again.
Yea, I mean is this even serious? Did you watch his inning? He looked sharp. Looking sharp doesn't mean he was perfect. He didn't go out there and strike out the side on 9 pitches.

What he did was establish a fastball with good velocity and tilt with a strong breakingball. It was, clearly, an improvement from a results and scouting perspective.

If you wanna just completely discount it cause he walked a guy, I guess you can do that.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Right, because pitchers who look sharp and have their stuff and location never, ever issue a single walk. Take Chris Sale, for instance. Never has he ever walked anybody.
I'll take a WHIP of 1.0.
I don't care if it's a hit, a walk, a bribe, or a HBP.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
Plymp is bringing some expert level hater game. Thornburg is going to have to put up a decades worth of all-star level performance for him to admit the man doesn't suck.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Plymp is bringing some expert level hater game. Thornburg is going to have to put up a decades worth of all-star level performance for him to admit the man doesn't suck.
It won't matter. Mauricio dubons hall of fame career cancels all that out.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,744
This is not my fight and I argue with P91 as much as anyone, but one clean inning against ATL's 3rd stringers (the 7th inning of an away game) does not erase a disastrous spring so far for Thornburg.

And I don't know why anyone would bring up Dubon when Travis Shaw has put up 3.9 and 4.1 bWAR in his two seasons for MIL.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
All I said was he looked as sharp as he has all spring. I honest to god don't understand why that's seen as some "He's back and dominant" comment. It wasn't. And I have no idea why it has anything to do with the trade in general.

He looked better. His fastball looked better. His breaking ball looked better. It was a comment after his most recent outing simply explaining that hey, he looked better.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
All I said was he looked as sharp as he has all spring. I honest to god don't understand why that's seen as some "He's back and dominant" comment. It wasn't. And I have no idea why it has anything to do with the trade in general.

He looked better. His fastball looked better. His breaking ball looked better. It was a comment after his most recent outing simply explaining that hey, he looked better.
Some of us appreciated the feedback for what it was.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
All I said was he looked as sharp as he has all spring. I honest to god don't understand why that's seen as some "He's back and dominant" comment. It wasn't. And I have no idea why it has anything to do with the trade in general.

He looked better. His fastball looked better. His breaking ball looked better. It was a comment after his most recent outing simply explaining that hey, he looked better.
I think I read somewhere that he was going to be taking something off the fastball for command purposes.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,461
Worcester
He’s been good. But they’ve got him on a minor league deal, so they can be patient for a while.

Brewer has had several good outings in a row now, including a 2 inning stint. That’s a good sign.
But he walked someone...and gave up a hit. That's a WHIP of 1.000 . Horrible for a middle reliever, right?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Mejia hasn’t thrown a full season in several years. If he’s healthy and effective, the Sox will need him down the stretch and in the playoffs more than they need a dominant April/May.

Brewer’s a different type of experiment. That 94 mph cutter he throws throws 60 percent of the time could be dominant if he solves the command issue, but he’s useless if he doesn’t. If he sticks, his repertoire’s very similar to Will Harris’s of Houston. That’s a guy who should stick in our pen all year as well as a long-term asset.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
913
I’m calling it now, Mejia will be our closer and have a great year.
I know that we're six innings into the Jenrry Mejia redemption arc, but, I'm jumping on this prediction as well. Mejia ends the year with the most saves for the Sox. My only worry is that he appears to have abandoned his mullet (and we've got to get his name right too):
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Feels like they might think there is enough bottom feeders that their offense and starting pitching will deliver 95 wins, and fix bullpen as they go.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Feels like they might think there is enough bottom feeders that their offense and starting pitching will deliver 95 wins, and fix bullpen as they go.
You really think this team, as constructed, is THIRTEEN games worse than 2018? That they'll only win 95 because of other teams tanking?

Rosy.