Sox get Kimbrel

[alwyn96]

Just a small point - virtually all the key players on the 2004 Red Sox came either in FA or trade. Youkilis, Nixon and Nomar were the only truly homegrown players of note, and they only got 248, 167, and 169 PAs, respectively. I actually think the almost complete lack of homegrown players one of the really interesting things about that team. It's kind of astounding.

Not to say that teams shouldn't strive to develop awesome homegrown players, though. I'm not sure it's really possible to build a team like the 2004 team anymore.

 

[kazuneko]

It's hard to see DD trading more of his elite youngsters unless you value someone like Syndergaard (from the Mets pitching surplus) more than Bogaerts. 6 years of Thor every 5th day could be arguably more valuable than 4 years of Boras controlled Bogaerts. This too seems like an unlikely possibility though the teams seem like a match. However, unless you can acquire Syndergaard or maybe Matz, Bogaerts and Betts should be close to untouchable.

You'd have to think both X and Betts are now off the table. Hard to see DD trading either Margot or Guerra if he had any intention of considering a trade of those two.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I wonder generally if we're starting to see teams less reluctant to "blow it up" for prospects, or, at the very least, if teams are changing the way they value prospects to something different from what we're used to. Like maybe the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Certainly it does seem like teams are more willing to go for it than in the past, this year's Texas and Toronto teams serving as prime examples.

 

[The Boomer]

Stephen Gostkowski proved again the value of an elite and maybe among the all time great game closers. Just sayin'

 

[InsideTheParker]

Stephen Gostkowski proved again the value of an elite and maybe among the all time great game closers. Just sayin'

Yeah, that was amazing!!! Do the football folks discuss players in terms of WAR?

 

[Rasputin]

I wonder generally if we're starting to see teams less reluctant to "blow it up" for prospects, or, at the very least, if teams are changing the way they value prospects to something different from what we're used to. Like maybe the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Certainly it does seem like teams are more willing to go for it than in the past, this year's Texas and Toronto teams serving as prime examples.

The second wild card means every team is always a little closer to the playoffs. Also, we've had ample demonstrations in recent years that teams can go from very bad to very good very fast. There aren't very many teams that don't have some good pieces to build around. You get a couple extra pieces, you get a little lucky, and boom.

Plus, with the lower scoring environment, The difference between the best teams and the okay teams is just not that big.

 

[chrisfont9]

Let's try to keep in mind that the (World Series winning) GM previous was dismissed (in part) for for not trading away any of the plethora of prospects for ML-ready help. The bullpen was a disaster last year, even after the team started hitting in August. I think it's a given that more minor leaguers will go as they seek to improve the 25 man roster. You can only horde talent for so long before you have to place some bets about who you think will pay off eventually versus who will not. I am not really calling out this post as much as the general discomfort with trading prospects that I am hearing in this thread and on the board at the moment.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with the change in approach or the trade, as I've said a few times already. I just think the Globe is playing a little too much armchair GM of late.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Just a small point - virtually all the key players on the 2004 Red Sox came either in FA or trade. Youkilis, Nixon and Nomar were the only truly homegrown players of note, and they only got 248, 167, and 169 PAs, respectively. I actually think the almost complete lack of homegrown players one of the really interesting things about that team. It's kind of astounding.

Not to say that teams shouldn't strive to develop awesome homegrown players, though. I'm not sure it's really possible to build a team like the 2004 team anymore.

Agree with your premise, but would argue that you're being a bit restrictive on "home grown". I would add Lowe and Varitek to that list as they were prospects when acquired and became the pieces they were by being developed by the Red Sox. Small nitpick, but I think few substantial players are one org only literally from draft/signing until big league. But yes, I don't think we will see a team like that one assembled again.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

iayork has really good analysis of Kimbrel's pitches on the .com today.

"Kimbrel is not only one of the best closers in baseball, he is one of the very few who has shown consistency in the role, and at 27 years old, with a very reasonable pitching load, he has the potential to continue as an elite closer for years to come. No closer is a sure bet, but Kimbrel is as sure a bet as any."

 

[shepard50]

I guess we just have different ideas about what would make us feel confident. Carrasco doesn't have enough track record for me, but certainly reasonable minds can differ on that.



Wait, what? Are you referring to Ben Cherington? Because he wasn't dismissed. If you want to call bringing in DD kind of default dismissal, ok, but BC had Luchino over him before that and the role needed to be filled. I'm not sure that move was made because BC didn't trade enough prospects. I think that move was made because while they saw the value in the farm system BC had built, they didn't have a whole lot of faith in his ability to build the major league roster, via trade or FA signing.

And just for clarity on the bolded - are you implying that BC should have made trades to acquire bullpen help in July or August? This season was cooked long before that. I'm not sure we would have looked too kindly on him moving any pieces, no matter how small, to trade for a reliever after about mid June or so. Trading for the entire KC bullpen wasn't making a difference by that point.

He was as good as dismissed, as DD being brought in as you say implied a a default dismissal (as you say) in decision making (more explicitly than LL) over BC's head. And yes, agreeing further that he did a fantastic job building a farm but he did fail to build the 25 man.

No they would not have contended last year with a better bullpen, but the ongoing construction of the 25 man is a longer view task than any one year. The bullpen was never a strength for Cherington, and this move is transformational in that respect.

The cost of Kimbrel to the Padres was arguably higher than what we just paid. They gave up two better prospects than we did, Maybin and Quentin (some salary dump but Maybin was the best CF the Braves has seen in years) and most painfully they will be paying arguably the worst player in baseball 16-17 M a year for two more years (BJ Upton).

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

No they would not have contended last year with a better bullpen, but the ongoing construction of the 25 man is a longer view task than any one year. The bullpen was never a strength for Cherington, and this move is transformational in that respect.
.

Of course it is, but midseason in a year when you're not competitive is not the time to do that. Especially with the addition of the second wild card, reliever prices in season have sky rocketed in season and have been trending that way for years.

 

[lexrageorge]

Of course it is, but midseason in a year when you're not competitive is not the time to do that. Especially with the addition of the second wild card, reliever prices in season have sky rocketed in season and have been trending that way for years.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Cherington was "effectively dismissed" because he failed to acquire ML-ready help at this year's trade deadline. The team was obviously not buying anything at that time. I have to believe the seeds of BC's non-promotion were sown well before that. My reading of the tea leaves is that Henry and Co. have a real "hire the best man for the job" mentality, and when Dombrowski became available, Henry jumped.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Cherington was "effectively dismissed" because he failed to acquire ML-ready help at this year's trade deadline. The team was obviously not buying anything at that time. I have to believe the seeds of BC's non-promotion were sown well before that. My reading of the tea leaves is that Henry and Co. have a real "hire the best man for the job" mentality, and when Dombrowski became available, Henry jumped.

OK, then how do you read this?

Let's try to keep in mind that the (World Series winning) GM previous was dismissed (in part) for for not trading away any of the plethora of prospects for ML-ready help. The bullpen was a disaster last year, even after the team started hitting in August.

 

[shepard50]

OK, then how do you read this?

It's not about the deadline, it's about consistently not adding ML talent. You seem to want to debate something that isn't being said.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It's not about the deadline, it's about consistently not adding ML talent. You seem to want to debate something that isn't being said.

I'm just wondering what the point of you noting that the bullpen was a mess "even after they stared hitting in August". I'm not sure what you wanted him to do.

 

[JakeRae]

It's not about the deadline, it's about consistently not adding ML talent. You seem to want to debate something that isn't being said.

He added a lot of ML talent in his first and last off-season. In the first, everything basically worked perfectly. In the last one, everything basically went as poorly as could be imagined. He can be criticized for that as regards the latter season, but it is silly to say he didn't add ML talent. Hanley, Porcello, Sandoval and Miley were all significant talent acquisitions last year alone.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The harm in a ridiculous offer is that your peers won't take you seriously. You do it enough if they won't take your phone calls.

This isn't a Sunday-Funday fantasy football league where you try to snooker Megatron out of your friend for Jimmy Garrapolo.

It's partly the reason why Reuben Amaro is our first base coach now.

You misread my post. I was referring to there being no harm in receiving a ridiculous offer. I agree wholeheartedly about making them.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Okay... so your view is that single recent seasons are generally more predictive than career norms? Not sure I agree.

Who will be significantly (say, more than a win) worse? Bogaerts, Holt and Swihart had elevated BABIPs, which we'd expect to regress somewhat. But both Bogaerts and Swihart also showed less power than they had shown in the minors, which we'd expect them (at their ages) to get nearer to tapping into in games. I wouldn't be the least surprised if Holt is worse in 2016; I also expect him to be traded.

(Ramirez and Sandoval both had very, very low BABIPs, FWIW.)

I'm not sure if you read my spoiler, but a large part of the upside I project is that I don't expect the team to tolerate two players playing at a -2 WAR rate for an entire season. LITERAL REPLACEMENT LEVEL PERFORMANCE — just starting Marrero and Shaw, say — from 1B and 3B would be a four win improvement over what we had last season, even if Hanley is unplayable at first and Sandoval can no longer play baseball.

We don't need that much growth out of our young, athletic up-the-middle two-way players to get us to where we're close enough to contending that acquiring a closer makes sense, which is what I was trying to determine. And if you're not expecting improvement from those players collectively... why not?

all i'm saying is that anticipating an organic 10+ win surge it pretty optimistic.

especially since, while we had some spectaular failures, we had quite a few guys exceed expectations.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

That's not what happened and not what was said. The lineup disappointed for awhile but got going, and if you don't believe this is a good lineup I'm not sure what to say. The big risk for 2016 is an Ortiz injury or stubbornness in not benching underperforming players (e.g. if Ramirez/Sandoval/Castillo struggle).

What was said last year, basically, was that if we get 2014 Porcello, 2013 Kelly, 2012 Miley, pre-2014 Masterson and a healthy Buchholz the team could be very good. Everyone knew there was a collapse potential based on the number of ifs in that equation.

I see it a bit differently.

I think both the hitting (98wrc+, 17th) and pitching (102xfip-, 16th) were average, but the hitting was lucky and the pitching unlucky.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

You misread my post. I was referring to there being no harm in receiving a ridiculous offer. I agree wholeheartedly about making them.

Okay. Carry on then ...

 

[shepard50]

I'm just wondering what the point of you noting that the bullpen was a mess "even after they stared hitting in August". I'm not sure what you wanted him to do.

I was pointing to this as a failure beyond luck. The hitting returning could be argued as a regression to expectation. The Bullpen issue was beyond that (and a problem not to be fixed last year at the deadline but to have been addressed in an ongoing way for years)>

He added a lot of ML talent in his first and last off-season. In the first, everything basically worked perfectly. In the last one, everything basically went as poorly as could be imagined. He can be criticized for that as regards the latter season, but it is silly to say he didn't add ML talent. Hanley, Porcello, Sandoval and Miley were all significant talent acquisitions last year alone.

In the sense that they were on the 25 man, yes. Most of the four you mentioned were outperformed by replacement players much of the season.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

all i'm saying is that anticipating an organic 10+ win surge it pretty optimistic.

especially since, while we had some spectaular failures, we had quite a few guys exceed expectations.

Really? The only one I can think of is JBJ, and only because he had dug such a huge hole for himself last year. Who else exceeded expectations in your view?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

In the sense that they were on the 25 man, yes. Most of the four you mentioned were outperformed by replacement players much of the season.

But you're moving the goalposts. Your earlier comment was about "not adding ML talent." Adding ML talent unsuccessfully is a different problem.

 

[shepard50]

But you're moving the goalposts. Your earlier comment was about "not adding ML talent." Adding ML talent unsuccessfully is a different problem.

Fair criticism, and I just want to be clear that I understand that major league players were signed to contracts, they just weren't very talented.

 

[keninten]

Really? The only one I can think of is JBJ, and only because he had dug such a huge hole for himself last year. Who else exceeded expectations in your view?

and Bogaerts

 

[Devizier]

and Bogaerts

Betts, too, because you almost never project a young player to do as well as he did this year.

 

[edoug]

Swihart kept getting better and Shaw had a really nice year.

 

[nvalvo]

Shaw definitely outperformed his expectations, it's true. No one's expecting him to be that good again, though.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Shaw definitely outperformed his expectations, it's true. No one's expecting him to be that good again, though.

Shaw explained his greater success last year over AAA as having to do with better lighting in MLB parks and having access to much more sophisticated videos and other info about pitchers. Here's hoping he's right (and that he's not traded).

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Shaw explained his greater success last year over AAA as having to do with better lighting in MLB parks and having access to much more sophisticated videos and other info about pitchers. Here's hoping he's right (and that he's not traded).

Yes, let's hope he is right. He would make a fantastic piece to spend the next year or two as a bench piece to back up both corners and then if he blossoms, move to full time 1B when Papi hangs em up and Hanley moves to DH. I have considerable doubts about that happening, but yes, it would be a tremendous development.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

and Bogaerts

Betts, too, because you almost never project a young player to do as well as he did this year.

Swihart kept getting better and Shaw had a really nice year.

I would argue that none of these performances, with the possible exception of Shaw's, should really have been unexpected. Steamer's preseason prediction hit Betts' wOBA pretty nearly on the nose (.345 proj/.351 actual), and only fell modestly short for Bogaerts (.325 to .338), though probably like most of us, they expected Xander to provide more power/discipline and less contact/BABIP. Even in Swihart's case, they weren't that far under (.289 to .312). All of these guys exceeded projections, but when you're talking about talented young players who haven't broken out yet, projections are always likely to be conservative, and expectations should be higher.

 

[mauf]

Agree with your premise, but would argue that you're being a bit restrictive on "home grown". I would add Lowe and Varitek to that list as they were prospects when acquired and became the pieces they were by being developed by the Red Sox. Small nitpick, but I think few substantial players are one org only literally from draft/signing until big league. But yes, I don't think we will see a team like that one assembled again.

I don't think it's a small nitpick. What's important is having cost-controlled players; whether they were drafted and developed by your organization is secondary (though of course, the best way to ensure a steady stream of such players is to develop them yourself).

It's hard to believe you could grab guys like Mueller, Millar, and Ortiz (!!) out of the bargain bin just over a decade ago. No wonder Theo felt comfortable promising 95 wins 8 years out of 10.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Really? The only one I can think of is JBJ, and only because he had dug such a huge hole for himself last year. Who else exceeded expectations in your view?

well since we're discussing WAR projections we can look back at last years ZIPS and compare. I'll only bother with guys still on our team because who the others don't matter going forward.

So here's the list of guys who were more than 1.0war off their projections:

Bogarts 2.3 --- 4.3 (+2.0)
Shaw -0.2 ----- 1.6 (+1.8)
Betts 3.1 ------- 4.8 (+1.7)
Bradley 0.7 --- 2.4 (+1.7)
Holt 1.1 -------- 2.4 (+1.3)
Buchholz 2.0 - 3.2 (+1.2)

Panda 2.8 ----- -2.0 (-4.8)
Hanley 2.7 ---- -1.8 (-4.5)
Rusney 2.4 --- 0.4 (-2.0)
Porcello 3.5 -- 1.6 (-1.9)
Pedroia 3.8 --- 2.5 (-1.3)

I think I got them all.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

What source are you using for WAR? I don't even need to go look, but by both bWAR and fWAR I can already see that your numbers for at least Betts are wrong as he put up 6+ on both.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

What source are you using for WAR? I don't even need to go look, but by both bWAR and fWAR I can already see that your numbers for at least Betts are wrong as he put up 6+ on both.

I don't know where you're getting your fWAR number for Betts, but evidently it's not from Fangraphs--his WAR number there is indeed 4.8.

EDIT: BTW, looking at his remarkable bWAR performance so far made me curious, so I looked to see how many players have accumulated so much value in so little opportunity at so young an age. The answer is an interesting look at both Betts' promise and the inherent volatility of talented young players. Just three guys have accumulated at least 8 bWAR in fewer than 1000 PA through their age 22 season: Mookie, Dick Allen, and Brett Lawrie.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

My bad, I guess I looked at his career line at 6.7. Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

[chawson]

Ehh. Wouldn't you rather sign Pearce or Raburn for $3m for a year and trade a cheap, blocked Travis Shaw to the Pirates, Marlins, Cardinals, A's, Rockies, Nationals, Padres, Astros, Mariners, Rays, Orioles, White Sox (3B) or Brewers (3B) before he puts up a .650 OPS playing once a week as Hanley's caddy?

 

[AB in DC]

Bogarts 2.3 --- 4.3 (+2.0)
Shaw -0.2 ----- 1.6 (+1.8)
Betts 3.1 ------- 4.8 (+1.7)
Bradley 0.7 --- 2.4 (+1.7)
Holt 1.1 -------- 2.4 (+1.3)
Buchholz 2.0 - 3.2 (+1.2)

I'm not really sure what this tells us. Shaw, Bradley, and Holt were projected as backups in 2015 (and two of them are still likely to be backups in 2016) and the higher-than-expected WAR is substantially due to playing time. So that leaves Betts and Bogaerts as the only true over-achievers here among position players. (And since they are so young, it could easily be a case of under-projecting rather than over-achieving.)

 

[MikeM]

I'm warming up to this deal after a little stewing over the last few days. At least while operating under the default assumptions that:

1. There were other offers out there on Kimbrel that DD needed to outbid

2. An older O'Day ends up signing a FA contract that's somewhat similar to what Kimbrel is owed, minus the friendly team option on the back end.

 

[alwyn96]

I don't think it's a small nitpick. What's important is having cost-controlled players; whether they were drafted and developed by your organization is secondary (though of course, the best way to ensure a steady stream of such players is to develop them yourself).

It's hard to believe you could grab guys like Mueller, Millar, and Ortiz (!!) out of the bargain bin just over a decade ago. No wonder Theo felt comfortable promising 95 wins 8 years out of 10.

Well, whichever idiosyncratic definition of "homegrown" you prefer and relative size of nitpick you like (is it possible have a big nitpick? These are the questions we ponder in the offseason), the number of guys who came up through the Red Sox system on the 2004 team is still pretty impressively small.

And I hadn't thought about it much lately, but really a pretty solid bullpen as well. Maybe there is something to be said for having a dominant closer. Too bad Foulke was never quite the same after 2004. That was a pretty gutsy postseason performance.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

There was a lot involved in 04 that would be really hard to replicate, especially in the postseason. I think that could be said about a lot of champions. But yes, the bullpen really stepped up in the alcs, especially games 4 and 5 and most of them were on fumes at that point. Timlin, Embree, Myers. But Foulke. Fucking Foulke, man. That guy was nails. It cost him his career and seemingly some hardship after, but damn if that guy didn't bring it. I wouldn't even classify him as a dominant closer, but you're not going to see many runs like that. Still pisses me off that Manny got mvp.

 

[Montana Fan]

There was a lot involved in 04 that would be really hard to replicate, especially in the postseason. I think that could be said about a lot of champions. But yes, the bullpen really stepped up in the alcs, especially games 4 and 5 and most of them were on fumes at that point. Timlin, Embree, Myers. But Foulke. Fucking Foulke, man. That guy was nails. It cost him his career and seemingly some hardship after, but damn if that guy didn't bring it. I wouldn't even classify him as a dominant closer, but you're not going to see many runs like that. Still pisses me off that Manny got mvp.

One gif/video I've never seen again was when Foulke was sitting in the bullpen and tossing a ball up in the air and catching it like a little kid. Not a care in the world. I think it was Game 3 of the WS. I also thought he was the MVP.

 

[Koufax]

He most certainly was the MVP.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

He most certainly was the MVP.

Sentiment aside, can someone explain to me how a closer can be the MVP of a series in which he only entered the game with a lead of less than three runs once, and promptly coughed that lead up?

 

[Cumberland Blues]

Well, the guy who really did cough up that lead got the MVP.

 

[djhb20]

Foulke was not the MVP of the World Series, and should not have been. The ALCS - sure, ok. The playoffs as a whole, I wouldn't argue. But I don't see why he should have been MVP of the World Series, except as a "there was no obvious candidate, so give it to him because of the overall playoff value". (It should have been Bellhorn, but whatever...)

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Agree with CB - those 2 errors were a big negative for Manny's MVP cause in my book. I'd have given it to Foulke, too. (Or Bellhorn. He had a good series, and his bomb saved game 1. Lose that game after building that lead, and the series could have been ugly. But I digress from the closer talk...)

Shiraldi's meltdown was a huge contributing factor in '86. The lack of faith in our bullpen by committee contributed to Little's blowing of the game in '03. Not having a "sure thing" at closer has cost this franchise. I'm happy to have Kimbrel, even if the prospect cost was high. It wasn't so high as to mortgage our future, and it gives us a top, reliable BP, at least on paper.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I would argue that none of these performances, with the possible exception of Shaw's, should really have been unexpected. Steamer's preseason prediction hit Betts' wOBA pretty nearly on the nose (.345 proj/.351 actual), and only fell modestly short for Bogaerts (.325 to .338), though probably like most of us, they expected Xander to provide more power/discipline and less contact/BABIP. Even in Swihart's case, they weren't that far under (.289 to .312). All of these guys exceeded projections, but when you're talking about talented young players who haven't broken out yet, projections are always likely to be conservative, and expectations should be higher.

Where do you find 2015 projections? It keeps taking me to 2016. I would've thought that Ortiz outperformed his by a decent amount.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Where do you find 2015 projections? It keeps taking me to 2016. I would've thought that Ortiz outperformed his by a decent amount.

On this page at the Steamer site, click on the first "here" for 2015 hitter projections. (Don't click on the word "up" in the preceding sentence--that will take you to the FG Steamer tab, which now has 2016 projections.)

Ortiz outperformed his projection only modestly. He was projected at .277/.364/.492, with a .366 wOBA, and finished at .273/.360/.553, with a .379 wOBA.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Thanks. For some reason it's not loading for me. I'm a little surprised that Ortiz' projections were that good but apparently I was wrong.