Re-signing Andrew Miller
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
- Status
nattysez said:
One can only imagine that one of the Webster/Ranaudo/RDLR combo will end up as a serviceable bullpen piece as well, if not traded.
Rasputin said:
Plus Britton is out of options, right? Unless he's traded I'd have to think the Sox would give him a long look in spring training to hope he makes the team. (Note, I'm NOT saying he'll ever be as good as Miller, but with his arm, if the Sox try to get him through waivers to get him back to Pawtucket, someone will claim him).
It is tempting after seeing what Kansas City just did by making most games six innings long but he could cost more than Koji at this point (more years creating more of an investment). I just looked at his numbers and realized he is as good against RHB as LHB. Bigger holes to fill but if there is money left and he is available...
I think it comes down to this: Miller is a great relief pitcher, but he's a relief pitcher and relief pitchers aren't extraordinarily valuable individually because of the low number of innings they impact. Also, relievers performance can fluctuate, and with the years Miller is likely to get (I keep hearing four) there are better, more impactful ways to spend the available money.
If they could get him for two years and an option, that's something to consider, but that's not happening.
If they could get him for two years and an option, that's something to consider, but that's not happening.
mattymatty said:
Yes, but the kind of money we're talking about isn't extraordinary, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. To break this down numerically:
1. Relief pitchers pitch a third of their team's innings as a rule.
2. Back-end relief pitchers (closer + 1 or 2 setup guys) typically pitch about a third of a starter's innings each, and they are the most high-leverage innings the team plays.
3. Therefore, if you want elite back-end relief performance, you should expect to pay at least 1/3 of an elite starter's salary for it--or between 8 and 10 million a year.
Ideally, I'd also like the Sox to be able to find the next Miller and not pay full freight for the current one. But it took a few years for Miller to become Miller. Do we want to go into next season wildly guessing/hoping that player X (RDLR? Layne???!) turns into a dominant late inning reliever? Savin's point, with which I agree, is that it makes good roster and financial sense to pay for a couple of elite guys at the back end of your pen. Big budget teams can afford that. They don't have to spend 5 (or 29) years like KC trying to figure out where all of the unproven pieces ultimately fit. They can pay for Miller AND work 1 or 2 young arms into the bullpen mix to ultimately replace Koji.
mattymatty said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
Compounding this is the potential for wild fluctuations in season-by-season performance for any non-elite reliever. Lights-out closers are pretty consistent; proven setup men as well. The rest? It can be kind of a crapshoot, as we've seen from Cherington's past attempts at bullpen construction. And it's not just him, that's across baseball, and it's likely because we're dealing with such small sample sizes from year to year.
If Cherrington thinks someone is going to overpay at a level the Sox won't match, given that it may be a key competitor, he ought to make a comment that raises the final price for Miller. He's not doing that, so I think a fair way to read the comment is 1) it's truthful (so he doesn't have to worry about a controversy) 2) it does nothing to piss off Miller and/or his agent 3) it does nothing to make other targets think the Red Sox won't be interested.JimD said:
Certainly they can. In fact, I think they've done it many times in the past -- Garces, Okajima, Tazawa, Hill, Bard. Unfortunately, they also identified Manuel, Bonser, Delcarmen, Hansen, Aceves, Tavarez, Morales.Rudy Pemberton said:
It's a numbers game with "unproven" relievers -- bring in enough and some will work out, even be very good. But getting that pitcher to repeat "very good" is tough, knowing when he will no longer be very good is tough, and identifying someone who is elite, thus worth elite money, is even more difficult.
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
You could actually make a pretty good case that this is an argument for, not against, multiyear deals for relievers who've established a certain level of ability and whose health you have fairly high confidence about--especially if you can get an AAV break that way. The odds that Andrew Miller is worth $24 million over the next three years might be better than the odds that he's worth $10 million in any one year.
There are two traps you don't want to fall into: one is paying for multiple years and getting stuck when a guy craters early in the deal, the other is continually getting caught on the wrong phase of the fluctuation wave, so to speak, with short-term acquisitions--the way we did with Melancon. They're both traps worth avoiding, but the first one is more obvious and gets most of the attention.
I mentioned this in the last Miller thread but I think I'll bring it up again. Since becoming a reliever the guy has thrown nothing but fastballs and sliders. The last two years he's thrown 43% sliders. Not crazy hard sliders, but consistently 84-85 mph. It's a nasty pitch for sure, but throwing that pitch that often doesn't exactly scream low risk. The upside is pretty decent, sure, but there's plenty of evidence that guys who throw sliders that often are more prone to arm injuries. Couple that with the inconsistency of relievers (not to mention how wild Miller himself has been throughout his career) and count me out if you have to sign him for more than 2 years.
This guy is going to get paid. Lots of teams have the need and the money, but the Red Sox have enough young, cheap arms that they can replace his production without taking on that kind of risk over a 3 (or even 4) year period. Love the guy, but he's just too volatile a commodity to sign for as many years as it's going to take.
This guy is going to get paid. Lots of teams have the need and the money, but the Red Sox have enough young, cheap arms that they can replace his production without taking on that kind of risk over a 3 (or even 4) year period. Love the guy, but he's just too volatile a commodity to sign for as many years as it's going to take.
Asked in the Koji thread, but probable belongs here. Does anyone else think this guy would be a nice addition at, likely, a much more favorable price than Miller?
Zach Duke: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=dukeza01&t=p&year=2014
Zach Duke: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=dukeza01&t=p&year=2014
Duke seems like a good idea if you can get him for cheap money. Career best K rate (31.3%) last year supported by a career best swinging strike rate (12.3%) and career best contact rates in and out of the zone. Pitching to Lucroy definitely helped, but the swings and misses seem real. The velocity isn't good, but he seems like a sinker guy who gets a lot of groundballs. He also didn't show much of a platoon split and actually faced more RHHs than LHHs last year.
Vs RHH: 133 TBF, .262 wOBA allowed
Vs LHH: 105 TBF, .258 wOBA allowed
He probably won't live up to his line from last year and I don't think he's a replacement for Andrew Miller, but for the right price he seems like a pretty good option.
Vs RHH: 133 TBF, .262 wOBA allowed
Vs LHH: 105 TBF, .258 wOBA allowed
He probably won't live up to his line from last year and I don't think he's a replacement for Andrew Miller, but for the right price he seems like a pretty good option.
The reason Miller is going to get top of the market years and dollars is because the answer to that question is, not very likely.Rudy Pemberton said:
In the past 40 years, how many non-closer relievers have the Red Sox had who are as good as Andrew Miller is right now? Bard for a couple years and...
Put it another way, if you were Kansas City, would you be looking to trade Herrera and Davis, because after all it's easy to just find the next Herrera and Davis?
I love the Koji signing in isolation, but if there was only room to pay 1 reliever $9 million a season, I would have chosen Miller at 4/$36 over Koji at 2/$18 in a heartbeat.
That's assuming Miller could be had for 9 mil a year. Wouldn't surprise me to see a team do something crazy/stupid in regards to MillerPlympton91 said:
Plympton91 said:
This is backwards. The reason isn't that it's easy to find the next Herrera and Davis; it's that you're not at all sure that Herrera and Davis will continue to be the current Herrera and Davis.
This is a common stat-driven critique of middle relief, but I find it lazily applied in a lot of cases. It is recognized that relief aces, who are usually but not always closers, are much more consistent than middle relievers. Another correlarry to the CW that I believe would hold true if someone did the study is that pitchers who were at least marginal MLB starters tend to be more consistent as relievers than a typical middle reliever (from Riveraat the top to Affelt/Dempster). Davis and Miller certainly fit into both categories, and this year Herrera may have elevated himself into the relief ace category as well.nvalvo said:
Plympton91 said:
This is an interesting suggestion, but it's hard to see why it would be the case, or how you would determine which marginal ex-starters make the jump.
The first thought would be that reliable RP who were once fringy SP have at least three pitches — that's often how these distinctions are made in the minors, etc. — but some of the most high-profile relief aces (Rivera most famously) depend on a one or two pitch mix. Affeldt, in contrast, throws a four pitch mix that looks like a starter's repertoire, with a split in place of a changeup. Miller relies heavily on four-seam fastball and slider, but also throws a few changeups and two-seamers. Some of these guys have tremendous velocity, others don't. As pitchers, this group have pretty diverse profiles.
On the other hand, if you're right that marginal starters are the place to look, we have a ton of those guys on the roster right now.
Davis and Miller and Herrera and so on all look great right now, but then Daniel Bard.
I guess it ultimately comes down to what Miller wants. If he concurs with those who believe he can become a classic closer, then he is likely to get the opportunity to do so, and that opportunity will not be with the Red Sox of Boston. If he doesn't feel compelled to transition into that role, then maybe that puts the Red Sox back in play, but at the same time his market will likely become such that the price will be prohibitive. So it seems really unlikely to me that he will be in Boston in 2015.
Maybe this could be repurposed as a catch-all "Rebuilding the Bullpen" thread? We know Cherington won't sit on his hands in this area, regardless of what he says publicly.
Maybe this could be repurposed as a catch-all "Rebuilding the Bullpen" thread? We know Cherington won't sit on his hands in this area, regardless of what he says publicly.
Nick Cafardo @nickcafardo 4m4 minutes ago
Andrew Miller's agent, Mark Rodgers, meeting with the Red Sox late this afternoon. Said saved Red Sox as last meeting.'
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/532659357972832256
Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 8m8 minutes ago
Source: LHP Andrew Miller seeking at least four-year contract or "astounding" yearly salary. Red Sox mulling options: http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2014/11/red_sox_free_agency_andrew_mil.html …
Andrew Miller's agent, Mark Rodgers, meeting with the Red Sox late this afternoon. Said saved Red Sox as last meeting.'
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/532659357972832256
Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 8m8 minutes ago
Source: LHP Andrew Miller seeking at least four-year contract or "astounding" yearly salary. Red Sox mulling options: http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2014/11/red_sox_free_agency_andrew_mil.html …
Rudy Pemberton said:
The only way this statement is true is if you remove all the pitchers with the label of closer. And the only reason to do that is if you are one of those people who believe "proven closers" have some mystical quality that separates them from other really good relievers. You're not one of those people, are you Rudy?
Lest we not forget that he was a DFA candidate only a few seasons ago. If I recall correctly, one of the big issues he had was keeping his mechanics together. The Red Sox certainly turned him around by making him a reliever (and if I recall, using some Randy Johnson techniques), but there's still a realistic chance he could become Daniel Bard too. A 4 year deal seems like a bit of a risk to me.
Miller ranks 6th on the 2014 list, right? How many of the top 6 from 2011 are still good? Papelbon, Kimbrel, Roberston and Holland. Marshall has been hurt, but was still good before the injury issues and Rivera retired still on top of his game after the 2013 season. We all know there is a ton of variability with relief pitchers. Miller was in the cream of the crop this year, though and has pedigree to back it up.He was also really good in 2013 before hurting his foot, so that is two straight seasons where he's been really good.
Will he be overpaid if he signs for 4/36? Yeah, probably. But that's the nature of free agency in MLB. If he's worth his contract in the first two years, you live with him not being worth it in the last two. Signing him is something you only do if you mean to compete in 2015.
Will he be overpaid if he signs for 4/36? Yeah, probably. But that's the nature of free agency in MLB. If he's worth his contract in the first two years, you live with him not being worth it in the last two. Signing him is something you only do if you mean to compete in 2015.
It is true that they made him a reliever. They also simplified his mechanics by having him only throw out of the stretch. One of the coaches noticed that he had a higher walk and hit rate when he pitched from the wind up and that he was much more effective from the stretch. I am sure there were more subtle changes to his stretch mechanics , but I have no idea what they are. Because of this his mechanics are much less likely to break down.threecy said:
Simple mechanics, good command and control with excellent movement and good velocity make Miller less of a risk to sign to a multi-year deal than the vast majority of relief pitchers IMO.
He would also have simplified his repertoire to just the fastball and slider, making it easier to develop command.absintheofmalaise said:
Actually, Tric busted the balls while still typing like a drunk guy with boxing gloves on. Rudy's got reason to give you both shit now.Papelbon's Poutine said:
"I'm not familiar with this player and can't find him anywhere," lol
Anyway, does anyone actually believe the Red Sox, with all their holes this offseason, will plunk down four years at what it'd take to get Miller? I'd love to see it too but short of his falling in their laps I really don't see it happening.
Delcarmen was very good before he was very bad; his 2007-2008 are comfortably in the "very good reliever" category.twothousandone said:
He also improved after that first year with the changed mechanics. I would hazard a guess that Farrell and his staff probably helped with that.Here are some of his numbers from 2012-2014. Or he could have been luckier last year.
[tablegrid Miller 2012-2014] G IP K/9 BB/9 BABIP FIP xFIP 2012 53 40.1 11.38 4.46 0.269 3.17 3.37 2013 37 30.2 14.09 4.99 0.338 3.05 2.44 2014 73 62.1 14.87 2.45 0.263 1.51 1.58
[tablegrid Miller 2012-2014]
Also, per a prior post, I believe he's a big union guy and will be wary of setting a lower price point for others.MakMan44 said:
It looks like he wants to be a closer and wants to be paid like a closer. The Sox might not be a great fit at this point. That said, I'd give him 4 years if we had a hedge. 4/$24M with a $1M bump each year for finishing 25 games and another $1M for finishing 50. So a max of 4/$32M and an expectation that he takes over at some point for Uehara.
That's fair and reasonable, but I don't think that gets it done; it's just as far as I'd go, if I were Ben. As others have noted, we could already have some good late inning guys in house (RDLR, Webster, even Workman).
That's fair and reasonable, but I don't think that gets it done; it's just as far as I'd go, if I were Ben. As others have noted, we could already have some good late inning guys in house (RDLR, Webster, even Workman).
I’m pretty surprised by the number of posters here who are comfortable with a 4 year deal for a reliever. Guy is coming off of a career year, throws 40+% sliders, is about to hit 30, and is a reliever. Did I miss something recently where it started to make sense to give out long term deals to the most fungible players in the game? There is no reason or need to give Andrew Miller a 4 year deal. Yeah the stuff is so tantalizing that it feels like you need to bring him back, but the reality is contacts like that for relievers seldom work out. That’s just too much risk and not enough marginal benefit over a replacement.
To those of you who are okay with a 4 year deal for Andrew Miller, how do you feel about a deal of the same length for David Robertson? Longer track record and they’ve been pretty similar over the last 3 years. With or without the draft pick. I’m curious to see if it’s just love for a really good former Red Sox player or if people really think that 4 year deals for relievers is okay.
To those of you who are okay with a 4 year deal for Andrew Miller, how do you feel about a deal of the same length for David Robertson? Longer track record and they’ve been pretty similar over the last 3 years. With or without the draft pick. I’m curious to see if it’s just love for a really good former Red Sox player or if people really think that 4 year deals for relievers is okay.
I think Miller is a perfect fit for this team. He can supplement Koji as closer, taking some of the burden of the workload off the old guy, deal with the tightest 7/8 in spots otherwise, and thereby push Tazawa back to 7/8 inning duties too more so vs RHB. If Koji falls off a cliff we have a closer in waiting.
Miller struck out over 42% of the batters he faced last year, which is tied for the 8th best all-time for a season (min 50 IPs). The names above him on the list: Aroldis Chapman, Kimbrell, Gagne, Kenley Jansen, Bill Wagner and Brad Lidge. Even with on going spike in Ks this was an incredible near historical year. So, no not fungible.
I am a little curious about the extent of the faith in Tommy Layne as our sole lefty reliever next year. I suppose you could turn one of the Eduardos into a reliever, but there are questions/problems with that too. Overall re the pen, I am seeing lots of quantity, but quality is dubious.
I get it that Miller is far from a sure thing but the upside is Billy Wagner. As to the Robertson comparison, I would expect Miller to come cheaper, tho I think Robertson could be an option for the Sox, if they cant find a good way to spend 40-50M on SPs and/or a 3B.
Miller struck out over 42% of the batters he faced last year, which is tied for the 8th best all-time for a season (min 50 IPs). The names above him on the list: Aroldis Chapman, Kimbrell, Gagne, Kenley Jansen, Bill Wagner and Brad Lidge. Even with on going spike in Ks this was an incredible near historical year. So, no not fungible.
I am a little curious about the extent of the faith in Tommy Layne as our sole lefty reliever next year. I suppose you could turn one of the Eduardos into a reliever, but there are questions/problems with that too. Overall re the pen, I am seeing lots of quantity, but quality is dubious.
I get it that Miller is far from a sure thing but the upside is Billy Wagner. As to the Robertson comparison, I would expect Miller to come cheaper, tho I think Robertson could be an option for the Sox, if they cant find a good way to spend 40-50M on SPs and/or a 3B.
Yes, is probably go 4 years for Robertson too.
Joaquin Benoit, Scott Downs, Jeremy Affelt all are coming off recent 4 year deals that worked out much better than the 2 year deal to Bobby Jenks.
Papelbon's still looks fine going into year 4 of his deal.
How much prospect value---which is different from whether those prospects panned out---have they traded for relievers recently?
Moreover, the idea that elite relievers grow on trees is comical given how many innings teams give to borderline major leaguers like Alex Wilson every year.
Joaquin Benoit, Scott Downs, Jeremy Affelt all are coming off recent 4 year deals that worked out much better than the 2 year deal to Bobby Jenks.
Papelbon's still looks fine going into year 4 of his deal.
How much prospect value---which is different from whether those prospects panned out---have they traded for relievers recently?
Moreover, the idea that elite relievers grow on trees is comical given how many innings teams give to borderline major leaguers like Alex Wilson every year.
First, I'm not sure how trading "value" for relievers who turned out to be busts in Boston is an argument in favor of spending big on a reliever. If anything, the Melancon/Bailey/Hanrahan experiences should be reason to exercise caution when going after any reliever.Plympton91 said:
Second, doesn't Miller himself - a failed prospect DFA'd by his second team and traded for essentially nothing - prove the idea that good relief can be found on the cheap?
Because the reason they were available was due to question marks surrounding health (Bailey), quality (Hanrahan), or because the Red Sox overpaid by a shitton (Melancon).Danny_Darwin said:
And Daniel Nava proves that you can find good talent in the independent leagues, that doesn't mean the Red Sox should forfeit the 7th pick in the draft next year and reinvest the $4 million slot money in 100 independent league guys looking for the next Nava.Danny_Darwin said:
Miller is not a "good reliever." Burke Badenhop is a good reliever. Miller is a fucking stud reliever. There's a difference.
Plympton91 said:
Your point still doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, the Red Sox made three poor trades for relievers, but I still don't see how that argues in favor of signing Andrew Miller (or Robertson, or whoever) to a four-year deal. Why are those guys different? If Miller had hit the market last year instead of this, he'd be a major question mark.
I'm bullish on Miller, but a look at recent comps for Miller's situation does show why teams don't like these kinds of deals. From 2001 to 2010, 19 relievers had age-29 seasons between 1.5 and 2.1 rWAR (Miller 2014: 1.8). Their earnings for the following four years at a rate of 1 WAR = $6.5M are as follows (red numbers are negative value):
52.7 Matt Thornton
49.4 Keith Foulke
40.3 Rafael Soriano
37.1 Armando Benitez
32.5 Santiago Casilla
32.5 Brad Ziegler
29.3 Joe Beimel
24.7 Scot Shields
21.5 Damaso Marte
20.8 Pedro Feliciano
10.4 Ramiro Mendoza
10.4 Kevin Gregg
5.2 Brandon Lyon
0.0 Lance Carter
0.7 Julio Santana
2.0 John Grabow
7.2 Mike MacDougal
7.8 Todd Van Poppel
17.6 Chad Qualls
Talk about high risk, high reward. The good news is that fully half of these guys generated enough value that a 4/32 deal would have been at worst a sustainable overpay, at best a bargain. But the other half....gah.
I would dispute bellowthecat, though, in calling stud relievers "fungible." Fungible implies that you can always find one if you're willing to pony up the price. Stud relievers are almost exactly the opposite of that. You can always find someone who is one right now, or recently was one, or looks like he might be one. But you won't know whether he'll be one for you or not till it's too late to choose a different one.
52.7 Matt Thornton
49.4 Keith Foulke
40.3 Rafael Soriano
37.1 Armando Benitez
32.5 Santiago Casilla
32.5 Brad Ziegler
29.3 Joe Beimel
24.7 Scot Shields
21.5 Damaso Marte
20.8 Pedro Feliciano
10.4 Ramiro Mendoza
10.4 Kevin Gregg
5.2 Brandon Lyon
0.0 Lance Carter
0.7 Julio Santana
2.0 John Grabow
7.2 Mike MacDougal
7.8 Todd Van Poppel
17.6 Chad Qualls
Talk about high risk, high reward. The good news is that fully half of these guys generated enough value that a 4/32 deal would have been at worst a sustainable overpay, at best a bargain. But the other half....gah.
I would dispute bellowthecat, though, in calling stud relievers "fungible." Fungible implies that you can always find one if you're willing to pony up the price. Stud relievers are almost exactly the opposite of that. You can always find someone who is one right now, or recently was one, or looks like he might be one. But you won't know whether he'll be one for you or not till it's too late to choose a different one.
Would this be an opportunity to try once more to move away from the defined closer role? Sign Andrew Miller and just match up bullpen arms with situations that suit them in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings. Or, less radically, sign Miller to be the closer and have Koji set up. Koji took himself out of the closer role last year when he struggled, so it's possible he'd be okay with it. This gives Miller everything he wants and makes the bullpen as strong as possible. If you explain it to Koji as trying to replicate with Royals' pen from 2014 with multiple closers on the roster (or even what the Sox did going into 2013), it might resonate.
I can't see them doing the bullpen by committee, but I can see Koji being OK being a set up man after the way '14 ended. He seems like a team first guy and he has to realize if they signed someone like Miller that that guy would be the closer.
- Status