The off-season
- Thread starter Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat
- Start date
Wright's first 14 starts he averaged 1 unearned run every every 9 innings leading to his "ERA title" chase all while allowing only 4 HR. We knew that wasn't going to last because he has major HR problems, and he then gave up 8 in his last 58 innings. His last 10 starts: 43 R, 58 IP. How can anyone count on or really want him in the rotation?
Because as a knuckleballer, his season line is more instructive than any chunk of the season you can carve out. He's going to have good stretches and bad, but as a back of the rotation innings eater, he's a pretty nice piece to have. If you are setting the bar higher, you're going to be disappointed.
And while Wright is likely to be worth a bit less in production while being on the mound more often, I would argue that given the rest of the rotation in Boston, chewing up innings at a less productive rate might be a better use of that roster spot.
Hill can't be counted on for more than 100 innings. Maybe you want to roll the dice and hope that Buchholz and Hill combine to give you a nice 180 innings between them by having their DL stints alternate, but there's a pretty good chance you end up with both hurt at the same time and Henry Owens ends up making starts. You can certainly make the argument that the Sox are better off going that route, but it's also completely reasonable to want the guy more likely to be healthy while still being pretty good in his own right.
All of this, of course, is predicated on the assumption that Wright can come into spring training healthy. If the Sox have reason to believe he can't or won't, that changes things.
If he's the 5th/6th starter on the depth chart, they can certainly do worse. I expect the optimism surrounding him is based on his first half of 2016 and that as a knuckleballer, he's prone to having those types of hot streaks...ideally at a time when the team really needs it (Wakefield's bread and butter for years). Downside is that he can just as easily hit a funk like he was in before he got hurt. But the aggregate pitcher that he was for the full season is solid at the back-end of a rotation or in a swing role out of the pen. Add in that he costs next to nothing in baseball salary terms and he's a valuable piece of the staff.
When people talk about Wright, they too often act as if the only information we have is 2016. From 2013-2015, Wright pitched 105 major league innings with an ERA right around 4.00. The second half of last year was the first bad stretch he'd had in the majors. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it.
That said, starting the season with Hill in the rotation and two of Pomeranz, Wright, or Buchholz in the pen would be an option for a team with unlimited payroll. I don't think the Red Sox qualify, at least as long as they're paying Rusnay Castillo and Allen Craig to play for Pawtucket and Pablo Sandoval to eat.
That said, starting the season with Hill in the rotation and two of Pomeranz, Wright, or Buchholz in the pen would be an option for a team with unlimited payroll. I don't think the Red Sox qualify, at least as long as they're paying Rusnay Castillo and Allen Craig to play for Pawtucket and Pablo Sandoval to eat.
Even once weekly would have Hill pitching more innings than he has shown to be capable of. No thanks.
Just saw another, more serious article on ESPN by Jeff Sullivan, attempting to identify what it would take for various teams to get Sale:
http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/18160705/sullivan-how-five-teams-end-chris-sale
For the Red Sox, he says Moncado, Devers, Kpoech and Owens. His take:
I suspect the White Sox won't be able to get a young, big league position player. So the next best thing would be the top prospect in the minors, and that's Moncada. The Red Sox committed $63 million just to sign him in the first place, and his stock certainly hasn't fallen. No team would want to trade an asset like Moncada, but the Red Sox are in a situation where they could use Sale, and their roster already has a bunch of terrific young talent. Moncada isn't a part of the Opening Day picture, so they could suck it up, and the other players would be easier to part with. Kopech has a huge arm, but huge arms in the low minors are lottery tickets. Devers is young and good, but far away. Owens would be kind of a bounce-back pick. Moncada makes the package go. He could be in Chicago by the second half.
While I think that's a reasonable package of what it would take to get him, in terms of value. But this would be painful, and I'm not sure it's worth it from the Red Sox perspective. I wouldn't be crazy about the idea of giving up both Moncado and Devers - I think we'll need one of them to fill a need for a bat, and at 3B, over the longer term. I'd be more inclined to include Bradley (but not Benintendi) as a substitute for one of these two, and use the slight upgrade(?) in the package and throw in another mid-level prospect to also pry loose Nate Jones (or Abreu, I suppose, if White Sox want to). [I recognize that the WS wouldn't want Bradley unless they are also dealing Eaton, but that's already been rumored as possible.}
I also wouldn't like giving up Kopech in this deal, as I love his upside, but I suppose that's preferable to giving up ERod, who they need more for 2017 (although I'd be interested in how others view this - in a deal for Sale (or Verlander, etc) would you rather give up ERod or Kopech?).
http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/18160705/sullivan-how-five-teams-end-chris-sale
For the Red Sox, he says Moncado, Devers, Kpoech and Owens. His take:
I suspect the White Sox won't be able to get a young, big league position player. So the next best thing would be the top prospect in the minors, and that's Moncada. The Red Sox committed $63 million just to sign him in the first place, and his stock certainly hasn't fallen. No team would want to trade an asset like Moncada, but the Red Sox are in a situation where they could use Sale, and their roster already has a bunch of terrific young talent. Moncada isn't a part of the Opening Day picture, so they could suck it up, and the other players would be easier to part with. Kopech has a huge arm, but huge arms in the low minors are lottery tickets. Devers is young and good, but far away. Owens would be kind of a bounce-back pick. Moncada makes the package go. He could be in Chicago by the second half.
While I think that's a reasonable package of what it would take to get him, in terms of value. But this would be painful, and I'm not sure it's worth it from the Red Sox perspective. I wouldn't be crazy about the idea of giving up both Moncado and Devers - I think we'll need one of them to fill a need for a bat, and at 3B, over the longer term. I'd be more inclined to include Bradley (but not Benintendi) as a substitute for one of these two, and use the slight upgrade(?) in the package and throw in another mid-level prospect to also pry loose Nate Jones (or Abreu, I suppose, if White Sox want to). [I recognize that the WS wouldn't want Bradley unless they are also dealing Eaton, but that's already been rumored as possible.}
I also wouldn't like giving up Kopech in this deal, as I love his upside, but I suppose that's preferable to giving up ERod, who they need more for 2017 (although I'd be interested in how others view this - in a deal for Sale (or Verlander, etc) would you rather give up ERod or Kopech?).
Moncada turns 22 in May. The plan with Moncada should be simple - patience. The more appropriate question there for now is whether the kid will learn to hit that curve before the MLB situation at third reaches it's non-best case scenario level of unacceptable suck. That is why a guy like Plouffe (if they like him and he comes at a relatively small investment) makes sense either way atm/imo, especially with Shaw having options left.
I ultimately get the need to remain optimistic in the face of absolute failure, but in that process people need to reign in the reality expectation. Hoping that Pablo revives his career AND banking that he's not going to be a complete black hole against LHP is quite the reach. Better to leave yourself more of a pick now in who's going to end up getting a substantial amount of at-bats to against LHP this season instead of (predictably) scrambling early on to both find and settle on the next Aaron Hill.
Rich Hill has four teams that are all "in" full pursuit of him and they are the Yankees, Dodgers, Rangers and Astros. It is believed that the Red Sox and Orioles are the two other teams that are in the mix to a lesser degree.
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0595350995387553224-4
http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0595350995387553224-4
From an overall standpoint Bowden was closer to hitting on what makes a deal work then Sullivan is.
Contrary to the growing individual tendency to over-value the potential upside of low ball prospects as whole these days, especially in comparison to multi years of below market control on an established MLB stud, there is really no logical reason for Chicago to dump 3 years of Sale in a deal that is too heavy on the bust potential. Legitimate front line starters are just too valuable. I mean in a sense they already won the lottery there, and regardless where you think they are as a franchise in the now 3 years is still a long time. Spending that winnings strictly on more tickets in hopes to hit it again on multiple guys would ultimately be rather wreckless imo.
Moncada would clearly be the meat of any deal, but insisting on Edro's higher floor instead of Kopech (while focusing in on the extra years of MLB control Edro gives you as Sale's immediate replacement) would also be key too imo.
Chris Carter DFA'd. This Chris Carter:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml
Would we have interest in a flyer, or does the 41 HRs last year mean he'll be priced out of any value? Obviously the guy has some holes in his swing. He's a RHH whose power is mostly to left field.
Also why does he get DFAd while Chris Davis gets a thousand million dollars to be pretty much exactly the same player, from the left side?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml
Would we have interest in a flyer, or does the 41 HRs last year mean he'll be priced out of any value? Obviously the guy has some holes in his swing. He's a RHH whose power is mostly to left field.
Also why does he get DFAd while Chris Davis gets a thousand million dollars to be pretty much exactly the same player, from the left side?
Last edited:
So probably not worth the likely cost. OK, thought I'd ask. That's a lot of power production, and we have spent a little time wondering who our next DH might be.
Here's an oddity: only 13 times since 1901 has a player hit the 40-HR mark and failed to top a 120 OPS+. Three of those 13 seasons happened in 2016: Carter (40/114), Trumbo (47/120) and Todd Frazier (40/109).
Huh! My first thought was that maybe it's easier to hit home runs. But it's probably more likely explained (if not by simple randomness) by the downturn in home runs, which allows bad players with that one last remaining skill to stick around.
?!?
HR have skyrocketed across MLB the past two years, from an average of 140 per team in 2014 to 164 in 2015 and then 187 this year. That last figure is the second-highest in the past 30 years, surpassed only by 2000's 190. (Probably the second highest ever, but I wasn't going to go back through 100+ years.)
Sorry, downturn in offense generally. Though I've seen at least one mention of HRs being down from the 1990s generally, and 50-HR seasons are suddenly quite rare, compared to most of the last 20 years. So I guess it depends which stat you want to use.
HRs were down from the late 90s until recently, but not this past year. It's true that 50-HR seasons are down, but that's offset by the proliferation of middling-power guys: 2016 had the most players with 20 or more HR in major league history, and the second-most with 25 or more (topped only by 2000).
So maybe... the home run downturn *did* allow the Chris Carters of the world to stick around, but in the new plentiful HR environment, they get DFA'd.
The ball might be juiced, but there's plenty of speculation out there that players are intentionally pulling more fly balls. Guys like Dozier and Frazier are good recent examples of this.
Despite 2016 having the most HR's since 2000, total offensive production is way down. More runs were scored in 2009 despite 500+ less HR's.
I think Chris Carter has a job because he's on mostly shitty teams with no better alternative from a run-producing standpoint.
Heyman says the sox are interested in bringing Napoli back.
From the article
I wonder if the sox would move him to first and slide Hanley to DH.
Edit: or it could be the opposite with Hanley at first and Napoli at DH.
From the article
http://www.fanragsports.com/news/heyman-mike-napolis-former-teams-interested-reunion/
I wonder if the sox would move him to first and slide Hanley to DH.
Edit: or it could be the opposite with Hanley at first and Napoli at DH.
Last edited:
I was as big a fan as anyone -- who wouldn't love a drunken, shirtless Italian guy slugging huge homers en route to a title? -- but his OPS+ the last two seasons were 96 and 104 in his "rejuvenated" year, and his strikeouts skyrocketed. So no, unless it's on a one-year deal. He's the same guy we got rid of in 2015, for good reason.
With better defenses and hitters striking out at historic rates, HRs are probably more valuable than ever.
Andrew McCutchen is reportedly being shopped around by Pittsburgh. Jeff Passan says they want to move Austin Meadows to a corner OF which would make the eventual Pittsburgh OF Polanco-Marte-Meadows. Any possible way the Red Sox could/should get in on him? He's only owed $28.5 million between next season and 2018. Getting McCutchen would free up JBJ to use in a trade for something they need.
To describe last year as "one of the finer seasons" in Napoli's career is an act of journalistic malpractice. (Unless the 11th best offensive season of his career - out of 13 total - counts.)
Pass.
What do they 'need' tho?
Bullpen help and someone to work into the 1B/DH/3B mix. I'd love to see a SP addition and move Clay either to the pen full time or to another destination, but I don't think it's going to happen unfortunately.
I don't think he's a good idea. Assets to acquire him, then either selling low on JBJ to net a bullpen piece or adding more assets to fill a SP role seems counter productive or at the very least unnecessary. If there were some kind of three way deal where we sent JbJ and some small pieces and netted McCutchen, sure. But then we are down the rabbit hole.
I'm all for moving JBJ but I'd prefer the replacement is either a platoon partner for Young or a FA without compensation. I'd rather they not spend prospects on a new OFer.
Yeah, the Sox are not a good fit here. There are plenty of teams who need productive outfielders and could be swindled into paying a king's ransom for peak-years production just as he passes out of his peak years. I would hope that the Sox, who are locked in with a young, cheap and dynamic outfield, don't even think about this.
Based on 2016 OPS+, McCutchen would be our #5 outfielder. After the starters and Chris Young. [Obviously that's not the whole story, but it's enough of a caution for me to want the Sox to pass.]
We have the next McCutchen - with a good chance to even better - in Mookie Betts.
OF is the least of our concerns this offseason.
OF is the least of our concerns this offseason.
“@Joelsherman1: New CBA is agreed upon. Hear luxury tax threshold is going to start at about $195M rise to $210M-$215M over life of 5-yr deal, sources say”
Good news for the Red Sox.
Edit: scratch that. That looks like a 6million dollar difference from this year.
Good news for the Red Sox.
Edit: scratch that. That looks like a 6million dollar difference from this year.
Also there will be no more forfeiting a 1st round pick to sign a premier free agent. That's huge news for large market teams like the Red Sox.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 12m12 minutes ago
There will be free-agent compensation, but with a draft pick that isn't a 1st rounder
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 13m13 minutes ago
Rosters remain at 25. Players said not to insist on 26th man.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 14m14 minutes ago
No international draft, but int'l signings are said to be capped to 5-6M per team per year.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 15m15 minutes ago
There will be a heavier tax on teams way over (over around 240-250)
There will be free-agent compensation, but with a draft pick that isn't a 1st rounder
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 13m13 minutes ago
Rosters remain at 25. Players said not to insist on 26th man.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 14m14 minutes ago
No international draft, but int'l signings are said to be capped to 5-6M per team per year.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 15m15 minutes ago
There will be a heavier tax on teams way over (over around 240-250)
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 10m 10 minutes ago
Free agent compensation must be paid by teams over the tax threshold only, is the word (w/ draft pick below 1st round)
Free agent compensation must be paid by teams over the tax threshold only, is the word (w/ draft pick below 1st round)
I thought the way to fix the compensation was by limiting it to only the truly best players, which could have been done by making the qualifying offer a three year deal at $20 million per. But then keep it as a lost first round pick for the signing team. and supplemental pick for the losing team, but only if they are in the bottom 20 teams in 3-year average revenue or lose the player to a higher revenue team. So the Yankees never get compensation, and the Red Sox only get compensation if they lose their player to the Yankees.
Edit: per above agreement: only by teams over the tax threshold is a similar and more easily understood system. Add in the even larger rate for being way over, and the agreement sufficiently screws the Dodgers and Yanees. Perfect. That works.
Edit: per above agreement: only by teams over the tax threshold is a similar and more easily understood system. Add in the even larger rate for being way over, and the agreement sufficiently screws the Dodgers and Yanees. Perfect. That works.
Interesting. ESPN is reporting that rosters will go to 26, there will be a draft pick loss if you go more than $40M over threshold and additionally that repeat offender tax will be up to 90%.
Yes. But this years FA class Is exempt from these rules. Still will cost a first round pick.
“@jonmorosi: Important clarification: Change to FA compensation structure goes into effect for 2017-2018 offseason; prior rules apply to existing class.”
No 1st rounder kinda sucks for the smaller market teams.
If these aggressively shopping him rumors are true I guess you might call McCutchen the first new CBA example we have of teams being a little more willing to trade off their big name players the closer they get to free agency.
If these aggressively shopping him rumors are true I guess you might call McCutchen the first new CBA example we have of teams being a little more willing to trade off their big name players the closer they get to free agency.
Yes, I would think this would spark more trades, especially among small and mid-market teams. Under the current system, if you have a player heading into his walk year, you knew you could offer a QO and either get the player back on a one-year deal or get a first round pick. While the QO stays, the value of the return pick(s) will be dramatically lessened under the new CBA. I would think that would incentivize both trading teams and acquiring teams to make deals -- ie, the trading team would get more certainty on the talent they're acquiring versus the hypothetical of a later-round draft pick by letting the player walk, and the acquiring team doesn't have to balance giving up talent to get the player plus a first-round pick.
I think the very incremental increase in the lux tax makes for some interesting discussions on Yawkey way. Speier's calculations include 10 mill for in season additions. Perhaps cutting that in half would lead to some more flexibility? Also may change the discussion of the value of Buch
Even without the addition of any players thus far this offseason, the Red Sox’ projected payroll for next year (as calculated for luxury tax purposes, including medical benefits payments, projected raises for arbitration-eligible players, and a reserve for in-season moves) is already north of $180 million, and perhaps closer to $190 million.
Meanwhile, the penalties for going past the threshold have become steeper in the new agreement. The Sox, who went over the luxury tax threshold in 2015, would be subject to a 50 percent penalty (up from 40 percent) for any expenditures beyond $195 million in 2017.
In other words, the new CBA provides the Red Sox with little additional freedom to spend without incurring a tax. Indeed, there appears to be something of a deterrent to aggressive spending as a result of the increased penalties in place.
Moreover, with the luxury tax threshold rising only to $197 million in 2018, the Sox’ preference to avoid longer-term deals for a middle-of-the-order addition likely will remain steadfast. Meanwhile, Jon Morosi of MLB Network reported that teams will still lose a first-round pick for signing a player who turned down a one-year, $17.2 million qualifying offer from his former team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/11/30/with-cba-agreement-red-sox-can-start-fill-holes/TNhxC4KAxXm5ajzfTN72PM/story.html?p1=Team_LeadArticle
Even without the addition of any players thus far this offseason, the Red Sox’ projected payroll for next year (as calculated for luxury tax purposes, including medical benefits payments, projected raises for arbitration-eligible players, and a reserve for in-season moves) is already north of $180 million, and perhaps closer to $190 million.
Meanwhile, the penalties for going past the threshold have become steeper in the new agreement. The Sox, who went over the luxury tax threshold in 2015, would be subject to a 50 percent penalty (up from 40 percent) for any expenditures beyond $195 million in 2017.
In other words, the new CBA provides the Red Sox with little additional freedom to spend without incurring a tax. Indeed, there appears to be something of a deterrent to aggressive spending as a result of the increased penalties in place.
Moreover, with the luxury tax threshold rising only to $197 million in 2018, the Sox’ preference to avoid longer-term deals for a middle-of-the-order addition likely will remain steadfast. Meanwhile, Jon Morosi of MLB Network reported that teams will still lose a first-round pick for signing a player who turned down a one-year, $17.2 million qualifying offer from his former team.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/11/30/with-cba-agreement-red-sox-can-start-fill-holes/TNhxC4KAxXm5ajzfTN72PM/story.html?p1=Team_LeadArticle
That makes some sense. I don't think John Henry is going to go to the point where he has to pay a 90% tax. This will make drafting and developing talent even more important than it was before.
This may be true to the Yankees and Dodgers, but why the Sox? Boston has been over the cap many times in the last decade, but never by $40M. Some years its a few million, others its $10-$20M, but never anywhere near $40. They have always focused on drafting and developing talent, so I dont think they were planning on a $235-$250M payroll at any point in the next 4 years, whether it be a 40% penalty or a 90% penalty.
For what it's worth, McCutchen was putrid in CF last year, after being merely below average or bad during previous years. Combined with his arm, he really only fits in LF in Fenway. He was hurt for parts of the last two years, and PNC Park in Pittsburgh is one of the toughest places to hit for RH pull hitters, so there's some bounceback potential there, but I don't think McCutchen is really the same guy he was in prior years (where he was the best non-Trout player in baseball).
Thankfully one of those three doesn't need to litter its roster with FAs for years to come anyway.
