Yeah, you’d be pushing guys like Zack Kelly, Joe Jacques, and the like off the roster. Theres still a fair amount of filler on the 40.
Nick Pivetta to the 15-Day IL retroactive to April 6, with a right elbow flexor strain. (Bernardino called up)
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Right, but the proposed hypothetical "depth" proposes having up to seven guys for the rotation plus the optionable guys more likely ticketed for the pen (Whitlock/Houck/Crawford). At some point you run out of spots even for the so-called quality arms. And that's without considering the significantly higher payroll required to retain all those guys. It's just not a sustainable way to "build" depth.
Ok, then trade some of them. The idea the Red Sox would have somehow had too many good pitchers at any point over the last four years if they had been more aggressive in free agency is laughable on its face.
Last edited:
Dr. James Andrews was quoted in a recent story talking about the volume of TJS procedures being done, especially at the high school and college levels.
Baseball in the real world does not work the way you're proposing, and it's not fixed by this "just trade them" idea you imagine.
Why would a SP sign as a #6 starter knowing that they'd be sent to the bullpen in the meantime, and maybe see their career as a starter derailed?
Why would any SP sign if they knew they might never get a chance to get back in the rotation if they were injured?
Why would any young pitcher sign an extension if they knew they'd be strat-o-matically demoted as long as they had options. . .or sent to the pen where they wouldn't accrue value as a starter?
Why would any rehabbing starting pitcher sign with a club if they thought they'd be traded to another club who would just put them in the bullpen? (Since that's how it works, I guess?)
I dunno, how do teams like the Dodgers and Rangers keep signing pitchers even when they have a bunch? How are they convincing players to join their team? Do we have any ideas how they are doing this, or is it just a big mystery?
This has been covered up thread. The Dodgers did it because they’re the Dodgers, and no one else is allowed to be the Dodgers:
The Rangers just rejected Monty's overtures because they ran out of spots/money, right after he was a postseason hero. So it's not infinite.
FWIW (this isn't to @Rovin Romine ), one reason it's hard to mimic what the Dodgers have done (tried to do) is that you need 40 man spots for those guys over the winter, and it ends up costing you in other areas. The Dodgers' bullpen and infield have a lot of question marks currently, and that's in part because they chose to load up in the way that they did.
Fair enough, it seems a matter of degrees. The Sox, as currently constructed from where I sit, are nowhere near a place where additional arms create anything but a better team. I can however, see the ‘boundary condition’ where you do have such depth as not to be attractive to an FA.
Something worth contemplating in this thread: right now, the Mariners are freaking out about their rotation.
They have a 7+ ERA (with peripherals to match) and Woo has elbow inflammation. This stuff’s hard.
They have a 7+ ERA (with peripherals to match) and Woo has elbow inflammation. This stuff’s hard.
They knew their starters weren't going to be ready to start the season back before the New Year. It's easier to add extra pitchers when you know you have opening day spots for them.
I'll give the criticism of ownership's unreasonable spending limits a rest when the plan as presented shows itself to have worked out, or when you stop popping off on anyone who happens to hold an opinion contrary to ownership's desire to increase their profit line at the expense of the team's competitiveness. Giolitto was already down and the Sox FO had the rare opportunity to sign a very good starting pitcher who was still available, and they choose not to bolster a thin starting staff.
If you think that the small sample of the season so far somehow proves that their plan is working, then don't you also have to accept the trends indicated by that small sample? The team had one good turn through the rotation, and the next turn showed diminishing effectiveness; how is that not indicative of the plan not being able to hold up? The complaint has always been that ownership set spending limits that prevented the team from being improved, and the lack of depth is telling.
In this case the Sox did have the chance to fix this problem. Monty was available when Giolitto went down and it's safe to say they likely could've added him to fill the same roll they intended for Giolitto. It was a unique opportunity... the way things are going he'll probably blow up too (I've already thrown my tin foil hat in the right about his medicals).
In fairness to @Midnight Ryder Jones, any team probably needs to do both. On the Sox litterally none of the rotation signed here as free agents, and 3/5 of them are young guys who could've wound up in the bullpen and it wouldn't have been a huge injustice, especially after last year. Certainly there would be some dissent and we'd all think that someone else should be in the rotation and someone else demoted, but if B&B had brought in another veteran arm to take the workload, would anyone really have batted an eye?
The other thing to keep in mind is that finding players whose potential you can unlock isn't limited to minor leaguers with lesser pedigrees. I feel like the "deep depth" lessons of the 2013 squad are getting short shrift, and if injuries are going to keep piling up across MLB and the Boston roster, it's not going to be an underappreciated part of the game for very long. Unfortuanately, the two worst areas for the Sox (SS and SP) is where they got hit to start.
The answer to all these questions is "money." It won't work for every player, but there are quite a few who will take the risk (and bet on themselves) for a better pay day.
You know, if the team actually offers it to them.
The pessimist in me thinks this means they're going to waste the whole season attempting rehab and getting lousy spot starts out of Pivetta in between IL trips, and then do the Tommy John just in time to lose him for all of next season.
"Koudelka puzzled over this attempted readjustment of his point-of-view, then let it bounce harmlessly off his impermeable habits of thought."
Getting back to the actual update on Nick Pivetta's injury-- it's actually pretty good news.
UCL intact, reasonable to expect him back in around 15 days.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/09/sports/red-sox-pivetta-injured-list/?
UCL intact, reasonable to expect him back in around 15 days.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/09/sports/red-sox-pivetta-injured-list/?
“Hopefully it’s just a short amount of time and I can come back and just continue to do what I’m doing.”
To quote the venerable JTB, that would be straight up mowing pricks down!
To quote the venerable JTB, that would be straight up mowing pricks down!
Does this count as irony?
Kutter is moving up to pitch tonight kicking the starter issue out to Friday. Looks like Anderson is getting the spot start?
Excellent. Hopefully this is just a minor bump in the road.
Kutter is going today, so we'll see what other moves they make (if any) to address Pivetta's slot. With his being out until April 21, that's probably 3 starts to account for, maybe 4, depending.
Could be as few as two starts also if Pivetta can return as soon as or shortly after he's eligible to do so. Assuming they also push up Whitlock and Houck, they'll need someone on Saturday, then the following Thursday. After that, the off-day on Monday 4/23 would enable them to skip the fifth starter and push need for it off until Saturday 4/28.
True.
I think we also want to account for Pivetta being ramped back up and/or doing some rehab throwing. I don't know what shape that would take or when it would occur on the timeline (before or after the 15 days), but I doubt he'd just be plugged back in and expected to throw 90 pitches.
As you point out though, the 28th being a possible second Pivetta slot gives them more of cushion to do that sort of thing.
One thing we now know, relative to four months ago, is that part of the plan was to use the cap space under the 2024 CBT to frontload salary for players we sign to extensions. Bello and Rafaela have signed. Casas could join them any day. If he were extended — we know they're trying; we don't know at how much — it'll likely put our 2024 payroll a few mil under the $237 million threshold.
Doesn't that seem like evidence of a substantive plan? At least one that's different from "increasing profit" (at the expense of the team)? Sure, it'll be a second consecutive year under the tax threshold, and that is atypical. But with the prospect core emerging in 2024-25 (Rafaela, Mayer, Anthony, Teel, possibly Bleis and Yorke), the choice to stay under now means there would be less penalty in exceeding in 2026.
Should Henry spend more? Sure. I'd prefer it if he gave 98 percent of his wealth to housing cooperatives. But within the parameters of the game, its rules and systems and evolving strategies, I don't think the plan we're seeing unfold is particularly outlandish or nefarious.
I thought it was looking more like Criswell would take his two spots. Then it might make sense to have him open the scheduled Pivetta starts and go basically as long as he's looking good and for Pivetta to finish the games?
Edit- And then switch them in those roles after Pivetta hits 85 pitches again? Drop Criswell back down at that point.
Last edited:
It's hard to believe (maybe it's not) that the "but the Dodgers" argument is being made here about starting pitching depth. Ohtani was never going to throw a pitch this season and Gonsling, May and Kershaw went into the year with the team knowing that they would start the season on the 60 IL and miss a fair amount of time from day one.
@Petagine in a Bottle asked the question re: the Dodgers convincing pitchers to join their team, which might have been rhetorical. (Although if so, I'm not sure what it's meant to suggest affirmatively. Kershaw isn't the same as Paxton isn't the same as Ohtani.)
But it certainly does no harm to take a look at what the Dodgers have, what deals they're signed to, and what their current and expected pitching status is. I'm kind of curious as to the details myself.
If you're interested in this, feel free to verify the accuracy of that list and get the ball rolling by adding some data. Cots is probably a good starting point?
| Tyler Glasnow AAV 27.31 FA 2029 |
| Yoshinobu Yamamoto AAV 27.08 FA 2036 |
| Shohei Ohtani (IL) AAV 23.04 FA 2034 |
| Walker Buehler (IL) AAV 8.03 FA 2025 |
| James Paxton AAV 7 FA 2025 |
| Clayton Kershaw (IL) AAV 5 FA 2026 |
| Tony Gonsolin (IL) AAV 3.33 FA 2027 |
| Dustin May (IL) AAV 2.14 FA 2026 |
| Bobby Miller AAV .75 |
| Gavin Stone AAV .74 |
| Total AAV 104.42 |
For Ohtani I used 50% of his AAV as pitching AAV.
Last edited:
The photographer? If so that's pretty awesome!
It's a quote from the chronically underrated L.M.Bujold. (Shards of Honor.)
The photographer -- wonderful man, full of natural grace. His images of the Roma annual gatherings in the French Camargue are matchless. "Josef doesn't take assignments," my favorite riposte to magazine editors. I'll check out Bujold. It's going to be a long season.