#FirstWorldProblems: Can you have too much pitching?

wade boggs chicken dinner · Dec 8, 2016

The Red Sox have the same problem that Philly does in basketball. No one is going to give them close to fair value for Pomerantz, ERod, Buchholz or Wright because unless the Red Sox are willing to use them in the bullpen, the Red Sox have no leverage.

Maybe DDom can swing a three-team deal where he gives up Pomerantz or ERod to get some prospects back. Other than that, I'm sure he's already started thinking about this (Wright starts in Pawtucket; Pomerantz in the bullpen; and sees how healthy the starting pitching is).

Snodgrass'Muff · Dec 8, 2016

Wright is out of options so he can't start in Pawtucket. The only pitcher they can option is Eduardo, who is probably better than at least two of the other three (Pomeranz being the possible exception).

And I don't think anyone is looking at the roster thinking "We have lots of starting pitchers, we should figure out a way to have less of those!" It's a matter of maximizing the value of the resources you have available. A starting pitcher that the Sox are going to send to AAA or tuck away in the bullpen is worth less to them than to a team that can start them. That means there's value to be converted there.

They should absolutely not move more than one of the 7 currently vying for a spot in the rotation, but turning one of those guys into value somewhere else makes all the sense in the world. It's not like Owens, Elias, Johnson and which ever guys is left after trading one of Pomeranz, Buchholz, Wright or Rodriguez and tucking the other into the pen isn't as good a depth as you are going to find on pretty much any other 40 man roster.

And the idea that the Sox have no leverage in trade talks is nonsense. With the prices being paid for capable starting pitchers right now, the Sox have plenty of leverage and could get a solid return for any of these guys, and potentially a lot more than that depending on who they move.

As I've said elsewhere, I think Pomeranz is the one to move, but can see the argument for Buchholz instead. Of course, if there is no market for them you don't just take the best offer on the table. They don't HAVE to trade someone. It would just be a better way to deploy what are, by the nature of the existing rules surrounding rosters, limited resources.

Todd Benzinger · Dec 8, 2016

The problem with this analysis is that you are looking at the teams with the best rotation performance results and finding they did not experience injuries and flameouts.

In other words, you want to base the team depth plan on the assumption that the team will have rare and exceptional good luck with health, which just so happens to correlate with superb pitching results.

The real question is how did teams lose key pitchers in season still manage to advance through the postseason?

Sox and Rocks · Dec 8, 2016

Todd Benzinger said:
The problem with this analysis is that you are looking at the teams with the best rotation performance results and finding they did not experience injuries and flameouts.

In other words, you want to base the team depth plan on the assumption that the team will have rare and exceptional good luck with health, which just so happens to correlate with superb pitching results.

The real question is how did teams lose key pitchers in season still manage to advance through the postseason?

Exactly. Offhand, only two of those teams actually won the world series (I might have missed one); while it is clearly ideal for teams to get as many starts as possible from 1-5, it's not reality in most cases, and planning for this outcome is obviously foolish.

As noted above, there is simply no reason to move one of the extra starters for less than a full return. The only one who might fit this is Buchholz if the Sox are intent on getting under the tax (it's not my money). Otherwise, put 1-2 in the pen or have EdRod start in AAA, neither of which are perfect solutions but are undoubtedly better than shipping an extra starter simply to remove excess and fully optimize the opening day 25.

MikeM · Dec 8, 2016

Sox and Rocks said:
As noted above, there is simply no reason to move one of the extra starters for less than a full return. The only one who might fit this is Buchholz if the Sox are intent on getting under the tax (it's not my money). Otherwise, put 1-2 in the pen or have EdRod start in AAA, neither of which are perfect solutions but are undoubtedly better than shipping an extra starter simply to remove excess and fully optimize the opening day 25.

Pretty sure the Sox are trying to win a WS title this season, and ideally fielding your best team going forward tends to go with the territory in doing that.

With all due respect, this let's demote Edro to AAA in the name of keeping a $13m roster spot (potentially in the bullpen no less) open for Buchholz stuff really needs to die a quick death. In no sane world should that happen imo

snowmanny · Dec 8, 2016

None of you have suggested a six-man rotation yet. I'm going to dig out the April/May schedule, have a few drinks, and get back to you with the specifics.

nighthob · Dec 8, 2016

wade boggs chicken dinner said:
The Red Sox have the same problem that Philly does in basketball. No one is going to give them close to fair value for Pomerantz, ERod, Buchholz or Wright because unless the Red Sox are willing to use them in the bullpen, the Red Sox have no leverage.

The gigantic difference is that the Sixers accumulated 17 old fashioned centers in a game moving away from that position. Whereas most of the majors needs starting pitching, so unless the entire rest of the GMs club colludes to set the value, if they elected to trade Pomeranz or Edro they're going to get a pretty good return.

Sox and Rocks · Dec 8, 2016

MikeM said:
Pretty sure the Sox are trying to win a WS title this season, and ideally fielding your best team going forward tends to go with the territory in doing that.

Where did I suggest they aren't? My suggestion was that fielding the best 25 on opening day doesn't necessarily equate to having the best 40 man, or even using the best 25 for the majority of the season, both of which are far more important for the overall success of the season.

Todd Benzinger · Dec 10, 2016

InstaFace said:
You're welcome to go try and address your final question there, but otherwise this is a bit of a Statler-and-Waldorf post. Any subgroup of team performances, or indeed the entire set going back however far you like, could be criticized as not being analogous to the Sox situation for 2017 .

My point is that your data--while useful and interesting as a report on teams with >120 ERA+ --gives no support to the conclusion offered. You write:
"Based on that, I'm inclined to agree with the posters saying that we ought to trade one of our surplus starters"

This conclusion is technically a non sequitor., meaning it does not follow from the data presented. Examples of teams whose starters held up well enough that they only needed 1-6 are the wrong group to assess in figuring out whether having 1-7 in place is worthwhile. That is my only point.

You are in essence saying "I am studying those individual cars experiencing top performance after 10 years, and based on this dataset it is my conclusion that getting insured against having your car totalled is a waste of money, because none of the cars which were in top condition in year 10 had ever been totalled."

I object: But I am worried my car will be totalled. You riposte: it's a great car! Aren't you hoping for top performance?

Depth (or insurance) aren't irrelevant because there is a reasonable expectation of a better result.

I admire you and others who have such a great facility for analyzing stats. I am not a data guy nor do I have time to do even rudimentary studies of MLB stats. However, I am interested in the logic of arguments.

Hence, I propose that a question which would be more apropos is if any teams have used a great deal of starting depth to weather injuries/ineffectiveness from the projected 1-6 and have thereby advanced deep in the postseason. I am not capable of designing that study, and I am not saying you should do it... but I would enjoy seeing it. Of course, even in that study, as you say, would have some limitations as a source of insight into the Sox specific situation. For one thing, it is very rare to have a 1-7 of a quality comparable to what the Sox have (arguably, a 1-7 of guys who would be in the top 3 or 4 of most other rotations). Still, those quibbles would be worth considering before drawing concrete conclusions from such a study.

Even your list, BTW, has examples that contradict your conclusion. The Indians made it to the postseason, and all the way to the WS, only having needed #6 to contribute a few innings in the regular season. However, they (arguably) lost the WS precisely because they lacked SP depth, even though they lost #2 & #3 late enough in that it doesn't show in your numbers.

nvalvo · Dec 11, 2016

Bradford reports that the Sox asked Miami for Luis Castillo in exchange for Buchholz.

Castillo isn't a particularly touted prospect — he's not a top-100 type, and has only this season started to make some Marlins top 10s — but he's a hard-throwing 23 year old who has reached AA as an SP, and has pretty good rate stats.

It doesn't sound like this particular deal is especially likely to happen, but we had sort of reasoned ourselves in a few threads into the conclusion that what the roster needs most is high-minors optionable depth in SP and maybe position players, and it looks like the FO sees that the same way.

edited to add link to Bradford's story.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2016

It's not clear, though it is implied, that these talks took place this week during the winter meetings. There was rumor around the trade deadline that the Marlins turned down a Buchholz trade because the Sox asking price was "too high". I wonder if Castillo was that price then, or if the price went up to Castillo after Buchholz's second half improvement?

PapaSox · Dec 11, 2016

snowmanny said:
None of you have suggested a six-man rotation yet. I'm going to dig out the April/May schedule, have a few drinks, and get back to you with the specifics.

As I said on one or two of the other threads the innovator has taken up residence elsewhere and you are not going to see Farrell or DD do anything other than the conventional. A six man rotation is beyond Farrell's capabilities as it would mean he'd have to manage it like he manages the pen ... who will he burn out this year by the AS break.

MikeM · Dec 11, 2016

Red(s)HawksFan said:
It's not clear, though it is implied, that these talks took place this week during the winter meetings. There was rumor around the trade deadline that the Marlins turned down a Buchholz trade because the Sox asking price was "too high". I wonder if Castillo was that price then, or if the price went up to Castillo after Buchholz's second half improvement?

Well, it is also worth noting that everything else in the original article seems to be speculated under the present setting.

Then there is the the fact that it makes all the sense in the world for DD to be out there looking to move Buchholz right now. I'm all for holding out to get the best deal, but the speculation floating around suggesting that would or should hypothetically extend into ST is pretty silly imo when factoring in the other surrounding variables going in to that equation.

I mean we currently have a gigantic question mark/hole at 3B, and while the Thornburg signing was solid it's not like the bullpen couldn't be any better. Yet instead of spending anymore money exploring ways to better shore up those areas (Plouffe, still keeping tabs on Greg Holland, ect), or just flat out banking it now to ensure more mid-season flexibility if we need it, we are instead going to simply slot that $13m as temporary 7th SP depth insurance? Under the supporting logic that while you can't pull "market value" from him out of a full winter in this pitching starved setting , surely there still must be some teams out there right now stashing away a Buchholz fund for that exact possibility latter. Who not only are going to get hit with the injury bug in ST, but were obviously among those just waiting for their opportunity chance to knock on our door with the big financial bailout in hand that you wouldn't be able to get now. Assuming Buchholz is even healthy and looking good at such a time, of course.

Buzzkill Pauley · Dec 11, 2016

nvalvo said:
Bradford reports that the Sox asked Miami for Luis Castillo in exchange for Buchholz.

Castillo isn't a particularly touted prospect — he's not a top-100 type, and has only this season started to make some Marlins top 10s — but he's a hard-throwing 23 year old who has reached AA as an SP, and has pretty good rate stats.

It doesn't sound like this particular deal is especially likely to happen, but we had sort of reasoned ourselves in a few threads into the conclusion that what the roster needs most is high-minors optionable depth in SP and maybe position players, and it looks like the FO sees that the same way.

edited to add link to Bradford's story.

That sounds about right.

I expect one solid but not dazzling prospect in high-A ball for Buchholz straight up, and if the Sox pay some freight maybe the return increases to a legit AA non-40 man prospect, or perhaps a second prospect who's a lower level lottery ticket.

Devizier · Dec 11, 2016

Is Castillo a prospect? His numbers are pretty weak and he's not advanced for his age.

That's pretty much what I'd expect in return for Buchholz -- nothing -- and that's pretty much why I'm cool on all the urgent trade proposals.

YTF · Dec 11, 2016

IMO it's too early to talk about moving one of Buch, Wright or Pomeranz unless another team offers something insane for any of them. One of them is going to be your fifth starter so so there is a surplus of two starters. If Rodriquez scuffles during Spring Training, he has options that can be used and in that case you're down to one extra arm who might prove useful in the pen.

Hee Sox Choi · Dec 11, 2016

Devizier said:
Is Castillo a prospect? His numbers are pretty weak and he's not advanced for his age.

Fangraphs gave him a 40FV after his mid-season trade (later returned for Colin Rea) with an 80 fastball. 24 y.o. who pitched most of the season in Single-A. Says he'll be a reliever:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-all-the-prospects-in-the-andrew-cashner-trade/

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

PapaSox said:
As I said on one or two of the other threads the innovator has taken up residence elsewhere and you are not going to see Farrell or DD do anything other than the conventional. A six man rotation is beyond Farrell's capabilities as it would mean he'd have to manage it like he manages the pen ... who will he burn out this year by the AS break.

Before starting to argue for a six man rotation, please state the case for why any of our three CYA contenders, that should give us 200-220 IPs each, should make less starts?

And any talk of a 'modified' six man is just stupid. If you want to root for a manager doing shit to look smart, go root for the Cubs. Trying to juggle the 4 and 5 spots to keep everyone would do nothing but further eff up the pen, which should be just fine with the innings load the 1-3 slots should be reasonably expected to carry. I'm far from a Farrell apologist, but expecting him to reinvent the wheel for sake of not being conventional is asinine.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

MikeM said:
Well, it is also worth noting that everything else in the original article seems to be speculated under the present setting.

Then there is the the fact that it makes all the sense in the world for DD to be out there looking to move Buchholz right now. I'm all for holding out to get the best deal, but the speculation floating around suggesting that would or should hypothetically extend into ST is pretty silly imo when factoring in the other surrounding variables going in to that equation.

I mean we currently have a gigantic question mark/hole at 3B, and while the Thornburg signing was solid it's not like the bullpen couldn't be any better. Yet instead of spending anymore money exploring ways to better shore up those areas (Plouffe, still keeping tabs on Greg Holland, ect), or just flat out banking it now to ensure more mid-season flexibility if we need it, we are instead going to simply slot that $13m as temporary 7th SP depth insurance? Under the supporting logic that while you can't pull "market value" from him out of a full winter in this pitching starved setting , surely there still must be some teams out there right now stashing away a Buchholz fund for that exact possibility latter. Who not only are going to get hit with the injury bug in ST, but were obviously among those just waiting for their opportunity chance to knock on our door with the big financial bailout in hand that you wouldn't be able to get now. Assuming Buchholz is even healthy and looking good at such a time, of course.

We don't have a hole at 3B and the roster has limits to how many people can be on it. You can call Panda a question mark and hate him all you like but he's going to be your starting 3B. Better to come to grips with that. Plouffe was a .4 WAR player last year, there's no reason to think Pablo with a healthy shoulder and down 40 lbs would be appreciably worse than that.

Thornburg wasn't a signing, they traded for him. The pen also has limits and right now they seem to be full. If you see a reliever out there that you think they should add - absent super team expectations of Jansen - feel free to suggest him.

PapaSox · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Before starting to argue for a six man rotation, please state the case for why any of our three CYA contenders, that should give us 200-220 IPs each, should make less starts?

And any talk of a 'modified' six man is just stupid. If you want to root for a manager doing shit to look smart, go root for the Cubs. Trying to juggle the 4 and 5 spots to keep everyone would do nothing but further eff up the pen, which should be just fine with the innings load the 1-3 slots should be reasonably expected to carry. I'm far from a Farrell apologist, but expecting him to reinvent the wheel for sake of not being conventional is asinine.

Whoa Nelly! No one said anything about using the 1st three starters less. There is a post from "keninten" on the 2017 rotation thread (posting #56) that I happen to think has some validity. I think you said "NO" to that post. And, yes it would take a Maddon to do it well. And, yes Farrell would not be able to do it. And, no if done right it would not 'eff up the pen'. Talking about a 'modified' six man rotation is not 'stupid'. However, saying so is. A 'modified' six man rotation was used well during the Sox "good" run at the tail end of 2015 by Lovullo. Thinking out of the box to cover the frailty of the other four starters is not 'stupid' but rather a tad unconventional and possibly innovative.

Hey! I agreed with you on "KillerBs" (post #59 on the "The 2017 Rotation thread) suggestion .

nvalvo · Dec 11, 2016

Reason number 27 why a rotation experiment won't happen: you'll give Pomeranz, who was on the Rockies team that was the last team to try something like that, PTSD.

PapaSox · Dec 11, 2016

nvalvo said:
Reason number 27 why a rotation experiment won't happen: you'll give Pomeranz, who was on the Rockies team that was the last team to try something like that, PTSD.

LOL. We wouldn't want to do that, would we now.

snowmanny · Dec 11, 2016

PapaSox said:
As I said on one or two of the other threads the innovator has taken up residence elsewhere and you are not going to see Farrell or DD do anything other than the conventional. A six man rotation is beyond Farrell's capabilities as it would mean he'd have to manage it like he manages the pen ... who will he burn out this year by the AS break.

I was kidding about the six-man rotation. It will never happen, no matter how many times posters try to summon it by repeating it's name. By the way, we will also never the see the other "six-man rotation" option, which is to pitch one of their five/six inning pitchers (Buchholz/Pomeranz/Rodriguez) every fifth day and bring in one of the others for the four-inning save.

Edit: Although I admit I'm starting to think the Rodriguez/Buchholz combo wouldn't be bad.

MikeM · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
We don't have a hole at 3B and the roster has limits to how many people can be on it. You can call Panda a question mark and hate him all you like but he's going to be your starting 3B. Better to come to grips with that. Plouffe was a .4 WAR player last year, there's no reason to think Pablo with a healthy shoulder and down 40 lbs would be appreciably worse than that.

Thornburg wasn't a signing, they traded for him. The pen also has limits and right now they seem to be full. If you see a reliever out there that you think they should add - absent super team expectations of Jansen - feel free to suggest him.

I'm fully aware Panda is going to be our starting 3B. What i don't understand is the logic against signing Plouffe on top of that, other then maybe writing it off as a potential budget crunch issue (which then makes slotting Buchholz $13m here a relevant factor in that discussion). Why does it need to be all or nothing there?

I also already did share a bullpen suggestion in Holland. Who I would rather see us at least making a run at now if the realistic alternative there includes settling on or even getting stuck paying Buchholz to come out of the bullpen.

If DD knows he is going to move one of the 3 before the end of ST and has Buchholz pegged as the most likely candidate, there is simply more realistic potential for downside there then there is upside in waiting until the last minute to make that move. For me it is really that simple here once this debate reaches a point where you start acknowledging the existence of outside factors.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

MikeM said:
I'm fully aware Panda is going to be our starting 3B. What i don't understand is the logic against signing Plouffe on top of that, other then maybe writing it off as a potential budget crunch issue (which then makes slotting Buchholz $13m here a relevant factor in that discussion). Why does it need to be all or nothing there?

I also already did share a bullpen suggestion in Holland. Who I would rather see us at least making a run at now if the realistic alternative there includes settling on or even getting stuck paying Buchholz to come out of the bullpen.

If DD knows he is going to move one of the 3 before the end of ST and has Buchholz pegged as the most likely candidate, there is simply more realistic potential for downside there then there is upside in waiting until the last minute to make that move. For me it is really that simple here once this debate reaches a point where you start acknowledging the existence of outside factors.

Well right now, you have:

Two of Leon/Swihart/Vazquez
Moreland 1B/DH
Ramirez 1B/DH
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Pablo
Benintendi
JBJ
Betts
Young
Holt
UI - most likely Hernandez

Five starters
Seven BP arms

Where are you trimming a player to add Trevor Plouffe?

Holland is a nice buy low candidate. Right now the pen is most likely:

Kimbrel
Thornburg
Ross
Barnes
Scott
Kelly
Whomever loses the battle for fifth starter but isn't traded

You still have Carson Smith coming back at some point, Hembree and Abad around as well. So where is Holland getting in and when is he ready to pitch effectively enough to jettison one of those members? Any deal he signs will most likely have an exit date for him to be called up or released and it will likely be earlier than is safe to say he's back to the guy he was

This is all to say nothing of 40 man roster considerations.

It's got nothing to do with a budget crunch. It's a roster crunch. It'd be great to add a Plouffe as insurance but they don't have the room unless you want Holt to be your primary middle infield backup. The pen has a lack of options for guys and is planning to add Smith back, so you'd have to lose one of them.

It's perfectly fine to want solid backup options in case of injury or players not returning to form. Unfortunately it's just not feasible.

mauf · Dec 11, 2016

MikeM said:
I'm fully aware Panda is going to be our starting 3B. What i don't understand is the logic against signing Plouffe on top of that, other then maybe writing it off as a potential budget crunch issue (which then makes slotting Buchholz $13m here a relevant factor in that discussion). Why does it need to be all or nothing there?

In a world of 12-man pitching staffs, you can't carry three third basemen (Panda, Plouffe, Holt), none of whom hit enough to play 1B/DH.

If Plouffe were already under contract, you'd bring him to Spring Training and let him compete with Panda for a roster spot, but you're not going to give him guaranteed money to do that. So unless Plouffe's market collapses and he has to settle for a ST invite, there isn't a place for him.

mauf · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Well right now, you have:

Two of Leon/Swihart/Vazquez
Moreland 1B/DH
Ramirez 1B/DH
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Pablo
Benintendi
JBJ
Betts
Young
Holt
UI - most likely Hernandez

Five starters
Seven BP arms

Where are you trimming a player to add Trevor Plouffe?

Holland is a nice buy low candidate. Right now the pen is most likely:

Kimbrel
Thornburg
Ross
Barnes
Scott
Kelly
Whomever loses the battle for fifth starter but isn't traded

You still have Carson Smith coming back at some point, Hembree and Abad around as well. So where is Holland getting in and when is he ready to pitch effectively enough to jettison one of those members? Any deal he signs will most likely have an exit date for him to be called up or released and it will likely be earlier than is safe to say he's back to the guy he was

This is all to say nothing of 40 man roster considerations.

It's got nothing to do with a budget crunch. It's a roster crunch. It'd be great to add a Plouffe as insurance but they don't have the room unless you want Holt to be your primary middle infield backup. The pen has a lack of options for guys and is planning to add Smith back, so you'd have to lose one of them.

It's perfectly fine to want solid backup options in case of injury or players not returning to form. Unfortunately it's just not feasible.

I'd think we're going to add another right handed bat and live with Holt as the utility IF (the new 10-day DL makes this slightly more palatable), but either way I agree there's no place for another defensively challenged veteran 3B on the roster.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

PapaSox said:
Whoa Nelly! No one said anything about using the 1st three starters less. There is a post from "keninten" on the 2017 rotation thread (posting #56) that I happen to think has some validity. I think you said "NO" to that post. And, yes it would take a Maddon to do it well. And, yes Farrell would not be able to do it. And, no if done right it would not 'eff up the pen'. Talking about a 'modified' six man rotation is not 'stupid'. However, saying so is. A 'modified' six man rotation was used well during the Sox "good" run at the tail end of 2015 by Lovullo. Thinking out of the box to cover the frailty of the other four starters is not 'stupid' but rather a tad unconventional and possibly innovative.

Hey! I agreed with you on "KillerBs" (post #59 on the "The 2017 Rotation thread) suggestion .

What frailty are you referring to with Price, Porcello or Sale? And please lay out how a genius like Maddon would work his modified six man rotation that's so complicated yet effective that Farrell couldn't figure it out? Also, how keeping three guys on a regular rotation but three others guys on irregular usage patterns wouldn't lead to performance and stamina issues with the latter three that would impact the rest of the bullpen.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

maufman said:
I'd think we're going to add another right handed bat and live with Holt as the utility IF (the new 10-day DL makes this slightly more palatable), but either way I agree there's no place for another defensively challenged veteran 3B on the roster.

Either way they need someone else that can play MI. Bogaerts got run into the ground last year and Pedey probably needs to start getting a few more days off, even if it takes taping him to the dugout pole Pedro style.

mauf · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Either way they need someone else that can play MI. Bogaerts got run into the ground last year and Pedey probably needs to start getting a few more days off, even if it takes taping him to the dugout pole Pedro style.

If Holt is still the primary backup for 5-6 positions, and Hernandez (or Marrero) is the first man up in case of a non-pitching injury, then I think you can live with Holt playing MI when X or Pedey needs a day off when everyone is healthy (which won't be often), rather than having Moreland's noodle bat in the lineup (in a 1B/DH spot, no less) against LHPs. (Moreland had a reverse split in 2016, but his career split is about what you'd expect from a lefty.)

MikeM · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Well right now, you have:

Two of Leon/Swihart/Vazquez
Moreland 1B/DH
Ramirez 1B/DH
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Pablo
Benintendi
JBJ
Betts
Young
Holt
UI - most likely Hernandez

Five starters
Seven BP arms

Where are you trimming a player to add Trevor Plouffe?

Holland is a nice buy low candidate. Right now the pen is most likely:

Kimbrel
Thornburg
Ross
Barnes
Scott
Kelly
Whomever loses the battle for fifth starter but isn't traded

You still have Carson Smith coming back at some point, Hembree and Abad around as well. So where is Holland getting in and when is he ready to pitch effectively enough to jettison one of those members? Any deal he signs will most likely have an exit date for him to be called up or released and it will likely be earlier than is safe to say he's back to the guy he was

This is all to say nothing of 40 man roster considerations.

It's got nothing to do with a budget crunch. It's a roster crunch. It'd be great to add a Plouffe as insurance but they don't have the room unless you want Holt to be your primary middle infield backup. The pen has a lack of options for guys and is planning to add Smith back, so you'd have to lose one of them.

It's perfectly fine to want solid backup options in case of injury or players not returning to form. Unfortunately it's just not feasible.

If it's giving us better insurance depth at 3B and at worst a platoon partner for Pablo once that day 1 need starts factoring in again, I'm pretty straight with Holt as my UI and leaving Hernandez off the roster.

To my knowledge Holland is currently being projected as ready to start the year. Even so Barnes has options and would be the guy heading to Triple A to make room for him.

Carson Smith coming back latter in the year and then presenting a potential roster spot issue sounds like a pretty nice problem to have btw/imo.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

MikeM said:
If it's giving us better insurance depth at 3B and at worst a platoon partner for Pablo once that day 1 need starts factoring in again, I'm pretty straight with Holt as my UI and leaving Hernandez off the roster.

To my knowledge Holland is currently being projected as ready to start the year. Even so Barnes has options and would be the guy heading to Triple A to make room for him.

Carson Smith coming back latter in the year and then presenting a potential roster spot issue sounds like a pretty nice problem to have btw/imo.

Plouffe is projected to get around $8M.

Holland is reportedly asking for 2/$22M.

For a backup 3B that provided .4 WAR and a setup man coming off TJ, you want to spend close to $20M? Sorry, I don't see it.

Edit: and again, who are you dropping from the 40 man?

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 11, 2016

maufman said:
If Holt is still the primary backup for 5-6 positions, and Hernandez (or Marrero) is the first man up in case of a non-pitching injury, then I think you can live with Holt playing MI when X or Pedey needs a day off when everyone is healthy (which won't be often), rather than having Moreland's noodle bat in the lineup (in a 1B/DH spot, no less) against LHPs. (Moreland had a reverse split in 2016, but his career split is about what you'd expect from a lefty.)

I'd have preferred someone who could cover both IF and OF corners, a Hinske type, but unfortunately that's not the way they went. As the roster is currently constructed, I don't see how you can live with only one players that can play MI, while he is also your primary backup at 3B and secondary in the OF. Against LHers you put Young at DH and Hanley at 1B. If an OFer needs a day off Holt covers it. You need someone else that can play either MI or OF. Plouffe does neither. Previous to Moreland, sure, he could fit in. Now, not so much and not at that price tag for what his role would be.

MikeM · Dec 11, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Plouffe is projected to get around $8M.

Holland is reportedly asking for 2/$22M.

For a backup 3B that provided .4 WAR and a setup man coming off TJ, you want to spend close to $20M? Sorry, I don't see it.

Edit: and again, who are you dropping from the 40 man?

Again, it doesn't need to be all or nothing for me. If Plouffe really goes to $8m I'm cool probably taking a pass there, and that still leaves me Holland alone as a better option then spending $13m on Buchholz.

Or we could ultimately fall short on both and and be left simply banking the money early. Which is still a better option atm/imo then making a bet that waiting until the last minute to trade Buchholz's $13m contract is going to end on an upside positive note.

As far as the 40 man goes I'm failing to see why that would be some huge sticking point with you. Rutledge, Brentz, Hembree, Marrero, Elias, and Abad would all generally fall into the realm of reasonable consideration imo. I personally wouldn't lose much sleep over the loss of any of them.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 12, 2016

MikeM said:
Again, it doesn't need to be all or nothing for me. If Plouffe really goes to $8m I'm cool probably taking a pass there, and that still leaves me Holland alone as a better option then spending $13m on Buchholz.

Or we could ultimately fall short on both and and be left simply banking the money early. Which is still a better option atm/imo then making a bet that waiting until the last minute to trade Buchholz's $13m contract is going to end on an upside positive note.

As far as the 40 man goes I'm failing to see why that would be some huge sticking point with you. Rutledge, Brentz, Hembree, Marrero, Elias, and Abad would all generally fall into the realm of reasonable consideration imo. I personally wouldn't lose much sleep over the loss of any of them.

I've never once advocated for keeping Buchholz, so I'm not sure why you keep throwing him at me. I haven't even mentioned him in this discussion. I've been pretty vocal about my dislike for him and even that aside I think he is the most logical candidate to go. I'd gladly chip in on a plane ticket out of town. His salary is not an issue moving him. They're not going to 'get stuck' with it and even if they did, it's not going to hinder other moves they want to make. It's a matter of what they want back and if they want more than simply getting rid of the money, then yes, they are most likely to keep him until spring training and wait for an injury on another team. If a team comes now looking for a lottery ticket they can turn into a bigger return at the deadline or wants a reasonable stopgap one year deal to gamble on his upside, take it. Otherwise wait it out.

As to the 40 man, immediately remove any positional player you propose dropping for a reliever gambit. They're already extremely pitcher heavy, with only 17 positional players. Assuming 13 of those will be on the 25 man, you can't drop any of the remaining 4 for another pitcher, regardless of their stature. I wouldn't lose sleep over Brent's or Marrerro or Rutledge going bye bye, but you need bodies for the shuttle and the other guy is a catcher, so 3 bodies as backup ain't great.

As to the pitchers, Hembree is perfectly suitable to provide the leverage innings that Holland would slot into if you want to send down Barnes and do it at a fraction of the cost. He will most likely be on the 25 man if DD follows the 'preserve all assets' route that Bc and Theo did. Scott and Abad assume the same slot, Abad isn't nearly as bad as he looked in the short span he had in town. Interchange those names on the list I had, assuming Hembree and Abad get first crack before heading to waivers if you want. Elias is out of options so he's likely gone, but we go back to the shortage of position players. There's a roster crunch of optionable players, specifically positional ones, that needs to be accounted for. There's really no one in the minors that falls into that that is irreplaceable, but they're already short bodies and if any of them go they need to be replaced. If a pitcher goes they someone with options.

It'd be great to add both and I give about a shit and a half about salary, you just can't have everything in life. Subtract one of Wright/Clay/Rodriguez and hopefully add some versatility to the players that can ride the shuttle and this is the team we are going to war with. And it's a damn good team on paper.

MikeM · Dec 12, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
They're not going to 'get stuck' with it and even if they did, it's not going to hinder other moves they want to make. It's a matter of what they want back and if they want more than simply getting rid of the money, then yes, they are most likely to keep him until spring training and wait for an injury on another team. If a team comes now looking for a lottery ticket they can turn into a bigger return at the deadline or wants a reasonable stopgap one year deal to gamble on his upside, take it. Otherwise wait it out.

Define "get stuck" though. I agree they move Buchholz one way or the other, but I'm just not buying into a concept that there is even a realistic chance of a better return being there latter if we were to wait. Much less one that makes it all worth the risk that this just plays out to back us into a corner where we end up eating unnecessary salary we otherwise might not have to now.

Even throwing my previous concern over Buchholz staying healthy/good out the window, you can't just decide you don't want any of that $13m on next year's payroll and then write off your dump path as being a simple matter of "waiting for an injury on another team" imo. There is a lot of other and outside variables which we don't even control that are going into that:

1. First you'll need to find a team that actually has $13m in budget room left available for a late spring training trade.
2. From that rather specific list of teams you'll then obviously need one to suffer a notable injury in the rotation.
3. Narrow the list down even further to teams that *might* have a face value interest in Buchholz to begin with.

Once you make it past step 3, you are then of course hoping you can reach a deal that one of those potential suitors left find preferable to anything else out there. For example: Deciding they would just rather wait on their guy to get healthy, grab themselves a Chris Heston type flyer on the cheap like Seattle recently did, and patiently wait to see how things develop from there. Or to be even more specific, choose the path which I'm generally guessing would win the majority vote here if the shoe was on the foot.

What's left is we are not actually talking about a simple matter here as much as we are a bad overall bet that comes with rather long shot odds. All things considered I just can't see how DD decides that risk being worthwhile. Ben maybe, but I see DD moving him before ST.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 12, 2016

I honestly don't even know what you're trying to debate with me at this point.

I've agreed they should move Buchholz. I've agreed they should probably do it it for nothing else than salary relief.

My stance is simply that if they want more than just that they should hold him until spring training. This is in part to guard themselves against injury and also in part to play the market.

Pretty much every team has $13M a a available for a one year deal. This could be teams that have an injury need. Teams that have a desire to try to flip him at the deadline. Or teams that in a couple months find that they couldn't acquire anyone. This is one of the worst FA SP markets in a long time. Friggin Rich Hill just got 3/$48M. And you think they couldn't move Clay at 1/$13M? You're unrealistic. Not sure what else to tell you.

To the overall discussion you're arguing that Clay as a known commodity at $13M needs to go, even if he's a bullpen piece, but let's bring in a guy coming off TJ for 2/22M. Either would be filling the same role. Holland coming in is not bringing us a Miller relief ace.

MikeM · Dec 12, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Pretty much every team has $13M a a available for a one year deal. This could be teams that have an injury need. Teams that have a desire to try to flip him at the deadline. Or teams that in a couple months find that they couldn't acquire anyone. This is one of the worst FA SP markets in a long time. Friggin Rich Hill just got 3/$48M. And you think they couldn't move Clay at 1/$13M? You're unrealistic. Not sure what else to tell you.

I'm debating this right here.

Unrealistic is thinking you have a chance to get a better return in late ST on Buchholz then you would before then. Much less an equal one once teams have already finished building their off season rosters. If it's not there now in this market, it's certainly not going to be there latter. The long shot injury to the right player, on the right team, and under the right circumstances isn't trumping what should be the default logic play here imo.

Not sure what else to tell you either. So I guess we'll simply disagree.

mauf · Dec 12, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'd have preferred someone who could cover both IF and OF corners, a Hinske type, but unfortunately that's not the way they went. As the roster is currently constructed, I don't see how you can live with only one players that can play MI, while he is also your primary backup at 3B and secondary in the OF. Against LHers you put Young at DH and Hanley at 1B. If an OFer needs a day off Holt covers it. You need someone else that can play either MI or OF. Plouffe does neither. Previous to Moreland, sure, he could fit in. Now, not so much and not at that price tag for what his role would be.

Totally agree on Plouffe. I'm just saying I expect another minor signing, because I think they're more likely to live with Holt as the utility IF (at least when everyone is healthy) than live with either Moreland at 1B against LHPs, or Young as the weak half of a 1B/DH platoon. ICBW, obviously.

DanoooME · Dec 12, 2016

MikeM said:
I'm debating this right here.

Unrealistic is thinking you have a chance to get a better return in late ST on Buchholz then you would before then. Much less an equal one once teams have already finished building their off season rosters. If it's not there now in this market, it's certainly not going to be there latter. The long shot injury to the right player, on the right team, and under the right circumstances isn't trumping what should be the default logic play here imo.

Not sure what else to tell you either. So I guess we'll simply disagree.

The market right now includes many options. They may or may not be inferior options, or more expensive options, but they are still options. By Spring Training, anyone worth grabbing would have already been grabbed. It's a basic lesson of supply and demand. Then the market price can go up at that point. Plus, you have the benefit of seeing what the Sox staff does and whether there are any injuries internally.

Drek717 · Dec 12, 2016

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Either way they need someone else that can play MI. Bogaerts got run into the ground last year and Pedey probably needs to start getting a few more days off, even if it takes taping him to the dugout pole Pedro style.

One addition: their rule 5 draft move to bring Rutledge back gives us a pretty clear answer on the current bench. Holt is the 5th OF/LH utility IF, Rutledge is the RH utility IF who will see some regular PT taking LHP ABs away from Sandoval here and there (not full platoon). Hernandez is in Pawtucket giving some additional MI depth. Moreland likely gets into a few games in LF before the end of the season.

Not great, but it fills all the holes with something and it's not even 2017 yet. The extra SP is likely being shopped for someone who can fill either the role Rutledge is in now or a borderline ready starter/reliever with options.

They aren't going into 2017 with absolutely zero weaknesses. People need to accept that. Sandoval with Holt, Rutledge, and Hernandez behind him is, sadly, likely to give us pretty comparable 3B production to what we have seen nearly every year since Theo let Beltre go to trade for Gonzalez and move Youk back to 3B on the wrong side of 30. We've won without stellar 3B production.

mauf · Dec 12, 2016

Drek717 said:
One addition: their rule 5 draft move to bring Rutledge back gives us a pretty clear answer on the current bench. Holt is the 5th OF/LH utility IF, Rutledge is the RH utility IF who will see some regular PT taking LHP ABs away from Sandoval here and there (not full platoon). Hernandez is in Pawtucket giving some additional MI depth. Moreland likely gets into a few games in LF before the end of the season.

I think you're reading way too much into the Rutledge selection. How many Rule 5 picks make the Opening Day roster? I haven't checked the data, but I'm pretty sure it's well under 50%, particularly in recent years.

My take is that they envision some circumstance where Rutledge might be worth a roster spot. It only costs them a nominal amount of money, plus the foregone opportunity to bring some other fringy minor leaguer to Spring Training for an audition.

grimshaw · Dec 12, 2016

maufman said:
I think you're reading way too much into the Rutledge selection. How many Rule 5 picks make the Opening Day roster? I haven't checked the data, but I'm pretty sure it's well under 50%, particularly in recent years.

Did the Adam Stern era mean nothing to you?

Cesar Crespo · Dec 12, 2016

maufman said:
I think you're reading way too much into the Rutledge selection. How many Rule 5 picks make the Opening Day roster? I haven't checked the data, but I'm pretty sure it's well under 50%, particularly in recent years.

My take is that they envision some circumstance where Rutledge might be worth a roster spot. It only costs them a nominal amount of money, plus the foregone opportunity to bring some other fringy minor leaguer to Spring Training for an audition.

How many of them spent the last 2 years on the same team that drafted them?

Minneapolis Millers · Dec 12, 2016

There's been debate here about which SP to trade - Pom, Buch, or E-Rod. IMO, it's Buchholz, because (1) the team could save more money dealing him, (2) he's controllable only for a year, (3) he's been relatively unreliable (or volatile), and (4) I like the upside of Pom and E-Rod more both short and longer term. (E-Rod should NOT be in trade discussions; of the 3, he's the only one controllable beyond the current 3-year "window.")

Beyond that discussion, we seem to be debating "when" to trade Buch. I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating that DD turn down a good offer now on the off-chance that a better one might pop up in ST. Assuming no good offer emerges soon, waiting makes sense, but I think everyone here who would deal Clay agrees that DD should pull the trigger whenever he thinks he's getting good enough value. (For me, getting Castillo and full salary relief would have been fine, but I understand the Marlins looking to minimize costs.) DD might be having discussions right now; no way for us to really know. There are plenty of teams who could be in on Buchholz once other dominoes fall and they have a better sense of their available budget and resource allocation options. Could be now. Next week. February. I'm not sure I see what difference that makes, unless people think that the Sox are holding off on other significant moves that could be made now because they don't yet have the salary relief from trading Buchholz. I'm not sure that's accurate; I suspect they'll bank that savings for use later, perhaps in-season if necessary, and otherwise just use it to get and stay under the CBA/LT limit.

uncannymanny · Dec 12, 2016

DanoooME said:
The market right now includes many options. They may or may not be inferior options, or more expensive options, but they are still options. By Spring Training, anyone worth grabbing would have already been grabbed. It's a basic lesson of supply and demand. Then the market price can go up at that point. Plus, you have the benefit of seeing what the Sox staff does and whether there are any injuries internally.

And when all the players worth grabbing have been grabbed, what does the demand look like?

Drek717 · Dec 12, 2016

maufman said:
I think you're reading way too much into the Rutledge selection. How many Rule 5 picks make the Opening Day roster? I haven't checked the data, but I'm pretty sure it's well under 50%, particularly in recent years.

My take is that they envision some circumstance where Rutledge might be worth a roster spot. It only costs them a nominal amount of money, plus the foregone opportunity to bring some other fringy minor leaguer to Spring Training for an audition.

I think you're reading too much into what I'm prescribing as Rutledge's role on the team if you think I'm reading too much into the Rule 5 selection.

To me it just says that they view Rutledge as some quantity better than the average FA they could pull (i.e. your fringy minor leaguer). He's been with the team a good bit of time now and at one point last year before his injury the club was preferentially employing Rutledge on the 25 man over Hernandez (the person I referenced him replacing) and Deven Marrero. He isn't a standard Rule 5 pick for this fact.

That doesn't mean he's locked into a job. He's a placeholder they aren't opposed to going into 2017 with, nothing more. If moving Buch returns an upgrade, either directly or freeing up cap space to sign one, they'll do so. If not they like him better than (again) Hernandez, Marrero, or any random they're likely to be able to pull off the street at that time.

Not dramatically different than your Pedro Ciriaco/Mike Aviles/etc. types of just a few years ago. Or hell, Alex Cora other than not being a baseball super genius. "Replacement level player" is a nice concept until you're in-season and need exactly that, then suddenly they aren't so readily available. Rutledge is currently, for better or worse, the 25th man because he's exactly that with the right positional versatility, handedness, team familiarity, and low cost to make it an obvious pocket move.

#FirstWorldProblems: Can you have too much pitching?

The Ultimate One

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

The Ultimate One

Member

The Ultimate One

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Homeland Security

Homeland Security

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Homeland Security

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Homeland Security

Homeland Security

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

Homeland Security

Homeland Security

Member

Homeland Security

Member

Homeland Security

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

above replacement level

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

79

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

Member