"This too shall pass" ---- righting the ship for 2016

[WenZink]

 
Except the prospects traded in the Gonzo deal were/are not nearly as highly touted as Moncada and Devers, and by year end likely Benintendi/Espinoza as well.  Kelly was rated in the 25-50 range, Rizzo in the ~75 range (and coming off cancer treatment) and Fuentes was unranked (though with a 1st round pedigree).  Moncada and Devers are consensus top-20 prospects, which is a whole different ballgame.  I can't think many/any trades that have required a team to give up 2 top-20 prospects.
 
Trading a top-20 guy, a guy like Owens/EdRod who would rate in the top 25-50 like Owens/EdRod and another top-100 guy in Guerra is a significantly better offer than Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes.  Yes, high prices have been paid for a guy like David Price - by a team trying to "go for it" and willing to overpay for the incremental value the next few months Price could provide.  The Sox would not be trading from that position, but more closely to when the As last traded a young, controllable ace in Gio Gonzalez.
 
Gio was a 25 year old power lefty pitcher coming off a 4+ WAR season with multiple years of team control ahead of him.  He was traded for a back-end starter in Milone, a fringe T100 prospect (AJ Cole), a top-75ish prospect in Derek Norris, and a top-50ish prospect in Brad Peacock.  The As got no "stud" prospects in return, but an ample supply of solid depth for their system.  So offering a top-15 prospect (Moncada), an MLB-ready top-50ish pitcher (EdRod/Owens), a top-100 SS (Guerra) and maybe one other piece is certainly at least compelling an offer once you adjust for the fact that Gray is better than Gonzo was in 2012.
As another comp, Alex Wood was just traded with 4 years of team control ahead of him WITH a top prospect in Jose Peraza (as well as Jim Johnson) and in return the Braves got a 30 year old infield prospect and a mediocre prospect in Zach Bird.  Wood doesn't have the name recognition of Sony Gray, but his career FIP is basically identical to Gray's.

 
Moncada is a special case, because the Sox paid $31.5 million for him last spring, and since they were already over the IFA cap, he cost them $63 million, including the 100% penalty.  The problem is, that in trade, he's only going to be valued at around $31.5 million, since Billy Beane isn't going to care about the Sox incurring a penalty.  And, yes, I admit that I did not originally "exclude" Moncada from the mix -- just allude to it.)
 
But, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I 'd take Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes(who was the Sox #1 pick, a year earlier) over Devers and any other two prospects in the system, (not including the $63 million Moncada).  And remember, the Sox were, in essence, just getting a year of $6 million Gonzo, plus the assurance that he's sign that $154 million extension.
 
The Gio Gonzales trade is a "good get," but GG never had a year like Sonny Gray is having in 2015, not to mention that GG had a year less club control at the time of the trade (and was due for arbitration), and Cole was ranked #57 prospect (BA), Peacock ranked #36, and Norris, had been ranked the year prior.  So it would be as if the Sox traded Owens, Johnson and Barnes for a young very good (but not great) starter, due for arbitration.

 

[Plympton91]

 
We are in complete agreement.  I stated that for the Sox to be a legitimate contender for 2016, they'd have to expand their payroll to well over $200 million.  Given that their payroll commitments are already $170 - $175 million in 2016*, adding "an ace starter and 2 ace relievers" is going to put their payroll at well over $200 million."
 
Again, that's not going to happen.
 
*Alex Speier on 2016 Sox payroll commitments: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/29/speier/loaG8jT7lwWCAPIsNIYKoK/story.html

Except you again ignored the fact that I showed a very plausible way to get 2 ace relievers for about $6 million in total payroll. One of whom would be controllable for 6 years.

I agree with you they're still more likely to trade for rather than pay for an ace starter. I disagree with you that doing so is the right thing to do. If I were John Henry I'd make offers to all four of the top pitchers and tell them the first one to sign gets the deal and the others are withdrawn.

Like PW, I think the luxury tax threshold is going way higher in the next bargaining agreement as are minimum salaries or there will be another long strike that will obviate the need to pay any luxury tax anyway.

 

[jscola85]

 
Moncada is a special case, because the Sox paid $31.5 million for him last spring, and since they were already over the IFA cap, he cost them $63 million, including the 100% penalty.  The problem is, that in trade, he's only going to be valued at around $31.5 million, since Billy Beane isn't going to care about the Sox incurring a penalty.  And, yes, I admit that I did not originally "exclude" Moncada from the mix -- just allude to it.)
 
But, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I 'd take Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes(who was the Sox #1 pick, a year earlier) over Devers and any other two prospects in the system, (not including the $63 million Moncada).  And remember, the Sox were, in essence, just getting a year of $6 million Gonzo, plus the assurance that he's sign that $154 million extension.
 
The Gio Gonzales trade is a "good get," but GG never had a year like Sonny Gray is having in 2015, not to mention that GG had a year less club control at the time of the trade (and was due for arbitration), and Cole was ranked #57 prospect (BA), Peacock ranked #36, and Norris, had been ranked the year prior.  So it would be as if the Sox traded Owens, Johnson and Barnes for a young very good (but not great) starter, due for arbitration.

 
That's total revisionist history, then, as nobody expected Rizzo to break out the way he did in the majors, and he was recovering from cancer at the time.  Kelly was a very good piece, the centerpiece.  Fuentes was a low-minors flyer who was viewed as a nice, but easy to part with piece.  Devers is a more highly-touted prospect than any of those guys was, and combining him with Owens (similar rankings as Kelly) and basically any other solid prospect (Guerra, Kopech, Marco Hernandez etc.) is a superior offer, hands-down.  

 

[WenZink]

Except you again ignored the fact that I showed a very plausible way to get 2 ace relievers for about $6 million in total payroll. One of whom would be controllable for 6 years.

I agree with you they're still more likely to trade for rather than pay for an ace starter. I disagree with you that doing so is the right thing to do. If I were John Henry I'd make offers to all four of the top pitchers and tell them the first one to sign gets the deal and the others are withdrawn.

Like PW, I think the luxury tax threshold is going way higher in the next bargaining agreement as are minimum salaries or there will be another long strike that will obviate the need to pay any luxury tax anyway.

 
I saw two "plausible" ways of getting ace relievers.  One was the Dodgers' way, where most of the pitchers came from within their organization, and then they got lucky with Nicasio, and the trade for Finnegan.  There's so much uncertainty and volatility with relievers, that the only way you can guarantee a reliever is an ace is to pay for a Miller or Kimbrell or the like, and even then there's uncertainty from year to year.  
 
Who knew that Wade Davis would go from being a league average starter to a light's out closer?  Or that you could get a closer like Koji for 2 years/$9.25 mil.  Or that Hanrahan would be done to injury at 31 years old, and Bailey at 29?  Or that Bobby Jenks was just a washed-up drunk?  (Okay, we had a good idea on that one!) Or knowing that Mark Melancon would be bad, at first, but then good later on?
 
Given the rising prices of relief "aces," it makes sense to me that teams take a more directed effort to spotting relief pitchers earlier in their development, rather than holding on to the hopes of higher-projected value if they remain on the starting pitcher track.
 
As far as what John Henry should do with his money -- he's spent a ton of money the past year.  He signed Castillo to $72 million, he signed a slew of IFA, including Moncada who had an effective cost of $63 mil with penalty.  He's not adverse to spending money, he just doesn't want to spend it on 30+ year old pitching FA's, knowing that there's a 90% probability of it being a bad deal.  I think he's right on that, and to declare his "plan" a failure, with Castillo in his first year, and Moncada 2 years away, is extremely premature.

 

[WenZink]

 
That's total revisionist history, then, as nobody expected Rizzo to break out the way he did in the majors, and he was recovering from cancer at the time.  Kelly was a very good piece, the centerpiece.  Fuentes was a low-minors flyer who was viewed as a nice, but easy to part with piece.  Devers is a more highly-touted prospect than any of those guys was, and combining him with Owens (similar rankings as Kelly) and basically any other solid prospect (Guerra, Kopech, Marco Hernandez etc.) is a superior offer, hands-down.  

Rizzo's cancer ended his 2008 season.  By the time of the Gonzo trade, he'd already had 2 good seasons in the minors.  Fuentes was still more prospect than suspect at the time of the trade.  He didn't stall until his first year in the Padres' organization.  Devers is rated higher, but, again, we're comparing a trade for Gonzo in his last year of club control vs a trade for Sonny Gray, with 4 years of control.  After the 1986 season would anyone have traded Roger Clemens for 3 20 year old prospects?

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I think he's right on that, and to declare his "plan" a failure, with Castillo in his first year, and Moncada 2 years away, is extremely premature.

The fact that John Henry just fired his GM is a pretty clear indication that he sees 2 consecutive years of last place finishes as a failure. As should everyone.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
Giving long-term contracts to 30+ pitchers is almost always going to be a losing proposition, in terms of dollars/WAR...

 
Did a quick catalog of 30+ pitchers given 4+ years FA deals since 2004 (I think that's the year referenced). I have their FA results handy, but won't clog up this post with that data unless asked:
 
2004
Derek Lowe
Pedro Martinez
 
2005
Kevin Millwood
Jarrod Washburn
 
2006
Ted Lilly
Jeff Suppan
 
2007
 
2008
AJ Burnett
Ryan Dempster
Derek Lowe
 
2009
 
2010
Cliff Lee
 
2011
Mark Buerhle
Yu Darvish
Papelbon
CJ Wilson
 
2012
Zach Greinke
Edwin Jackson
Anibal Sanchez
 
I don't see how it's "almost always" a losing proposition.

 

[Rasputin]

 
Did a quick catalog of 30+ pitchers given 4+ years FA deals since 2004 (I think that's the year referenced). I have their FA results handy, but won't clog up this post with that data unless asked:
 

 
Why four? We're looking at six year contracts at least.

 

[WenZink]

 
Did a quick catalog of 30+ pitchers given 4+ years FA deals since 2004 (I think that's the year referenced). I have their FA results handy, but won't clog up this post with that data unless asked:
 
...[snip]...
 
I don't see how it's "almost always" a losing proposition.

 
Although it may not have been explicitly stated, since we are talking about the Sox acquiring an "Ace" starter, I was referring to the long-term contracts (6+ years) at over a $100 million, as in the case of David Price and my estimate that it would take around $200 mil/7 years.  And this would be for 30+ pitchers.  The Kershaw deal is huge, but at least he's still in his 20s.
 
And John Henry has explicitly addressed the over 30 guys.

 

[WenZink]

The fact that John Henry just fired his GM is a pretty clear indication that he sees 2 consecutive years of last place finishes as a failure. As should everyone.

 
The Sox spent a lot of money in the last year and strengthened their organization.  The fact that most of the net value added was not at the major league level was Cherington's undoing in the face of an impatient, entitled fan base.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 
The Sox spent a lot of money in the last year and strengthened their organization.  The fact that most of the net value added was not at the major league level was Cherington's undoing in the face of an impatient, entitled fan base.

 
Ignoring the $183 million spent on two replacement level players of course.

 

[MikeM]

I don't think people fully appreciate how highly-prized Moncada, Devers and Espinoza would be for a rival GM.  Any one of them would be plenty to be the centerpiece for anyone not named "Trout" or "Harper".  Combine them with Owens or EdRod and someone like Javier Guerra likely nets you that #1 starter you're looking for.  It's probably not Gray, because with 4+ years of team control, I have no earthly idea why Beane would trade him.  The As have a bad record but are not a bad team - their run differential suggests they should be more like a 65-win team and not a 55-win team right now.  Their core (Gray, Vogt, Reddick, Lawrie, Semien) is all locked up for multiple years on cheap contracts.  That doesn't scream to me a team looking to completely tear it down.  With Zobrist and Kazmir gone, they also picked up a bunch of interesting prospects who could help later in 2016 like Manaea and Brooks or be flipped for more immediate help.  Lastly have basically zero payroll commitments for next year.  Not that they will ever be big spenders, but with only Butler and Crisp earning anything material, they could certainly go out and fill 2-3 holes via free agency or taking on a contract.  They've had $83M and $88M payrolls to start 2014 and 2015, respectively, and only ~$45-50M committed between existing salaries plus arbitration-eligible players like Reddick and Lawrie.

 
It is more a matter of people not fully appreciating Gray's value then vice-versa imo. 
 
I won't argue Cameron's trade value article on FG too much here, since he did go out of his way to stress that it was an exercise in fun and not to take a potential difference in bottom line opinions too seriously. But putting Betts above Gray strikes me as ultimately getting too caught up in age and projection value, especially while keeping in mind that the most likely GM candidate to see things in that extremist light just lost his job (imo) partially because of this. Sonny Gray is 25, already the arguable best pitcher in the AL right now, and would probably be looking at pushing Stanton'type money if he were to enter the open market tomorrow. He's also representative of the one universal market need that's guaranteed to be an every team constant regardless what else they may have going on around it. As much as i love me some Mookie Betts, he's simply not on that level (yet at least). 
 
But even being in agreement that Beane isn't trading Gray this winter, i'm still left pointing out the fact that you didn't actually include another potential target name there. Which seems to be the underlining theme behind every surface "we have the prospects to deal for a #1" claim. Heavy on the hypothetical, light on any speculation that doesn't just circle back to talking about Sonny Gray.  

 

[WenZink]

 
It is more a matter of people not fully appreciating Gray's value then vice-versa imo. 
 
I won't argue Cameron's trade value article on FG too much here, since he did go out of his way to stress that it was an exercise in fun and not to take a potential difference in bottom line opinions too seriously. But putting Betts above Gray strikes me as ultimately getting too caught up in age and projection value, especially while keeping in mind that the most likely GM candidate to see things in that extremist light just lost his job (imo) partially because of this. Sonny Gray is 25, already the arguable best pitcher in the AL right now, and would probably be looking at pushing Stanton'type money if he were to enter the open market tomorrow. He's also representative of the one universal market need that's guaranteed to be an every team constant regardless what else they may have going on around it. As much as i love me some Mookie Betts, he's simply not on that level (yet at least). 
 
But even being in agreement that Beane isn't trading Gray this winter, i'm still left pointing out the fact that you didn't actually include another potential target name there. Which seems to be the underlining theme behind every surface "we have the prospects to deal for a #1" claim. Heavy on the hypothetical, light on any speculation that doesn't just circle back to talking about Sonny Gray.  

 
The difference was probably that Betts is one more year away from arbitration than Gray, and one more year away from FA.  So, in theory, you get one more year of 5-6 WAR for the minimum salary.  That alone, adds $30 - $40 million to his value.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
Although it may not have been explicitly stated, since we are talking about the Sox acquiring an "Ace" starter, I was referring to the long-term contracts (6+ years) at over a $100 million, as in the case of David Price and my estimate that it would take around $200 mil/7 years.  And this would be for 30+ pitchers.  The Kershaw deal is huge, but at least he's still in his 20s.
 
And John Henry has explicitly addressed the over 30 guys.

 
What is the universe of pitchers that fit that bill? Why is it a given that it's a bad deal? I understand that intuitively it sounds true, but is it in reality?
 
Not everyone is a CC.

 

[WenZink]

 
Ignoring the $183 million spent on two replacement level players of course.

 
I haven't been paying attention lately.  Is Hanley up to replacement level!?!  For joy!

 

[jscola85]

Rizzo's cancer ended his 2008 season.  By the time of the Gonzo trade, he'd already had 2 good seasons in the minors.  Fuentes was still more prospect than suspect at the time of the trade.  He didn't stall until his first year in the Padres' organization.  Devers is rated higher, but, again, we're comparing a trade for Gonzo in his last year of club control vs a trade for Sonny Gray, with 4 years of control.  After the 1986 season would anyone have traded Roger Clemens for 3 20 year old prospects?

 
Again, you're shifting the argument.  First off you said you'd take the Rizzo+ package and now you're backtracking on that.  Clearly AGon had less surplus value than Gray, but power hitting was/is even more scarce than pitching, and hitters are far more predictable than pitchers as they age.
 
The argument you keep making is that the Sox would need to give up two or more consensus MLB top-25 prospects PLUS other top-100 pieces to get Gray.  That's a king's ransom really not ever seen in a trade before.  Again, looking at the Wood and Gonzalez trades, two of the more recent deals involving near-ace pitchers with 3+ years of team control, they were dealt for nothing near that value.
 
Another example of an ace with multiple years of control being traded was Zack Greinke going to Milwaukee.  In return, the Royals got Lorenzo Cain (never a top 100 prospect), Alcides Escobar (top-20 prospect who struggled in the majors in MIL), Jeremy Jeffress (top-100 prospect) and Jake Odorizzi (top-75 prospect).  So again, 1 marquee prospect (I'd call Escobar a prospect) and then a bunch of fringe-T100/filler types.
 
More than anything, this just shows to me there's basically zero likelihood that Gray is traded, because guys with his performance and years of control just don't get traded.  Even cash-strapped teams like Oakland see no benefit to dealing pre-arb studs.

 

[burstnbloom]

Rizzo's cancer ended his 2008 season.  By the time of the Gonzo trade, he'd already had 2 good seasons in the minors.  Fuentes was still more prospect than suspect at the time of the trade.  He didn't stall until his first year in the Padres' organization.  Devers is rated higher, but, again, we're comparing a trade for Gonzo in his last year of club control vs a trade for Sonny Gray, with 4 years of control.  After the 1986 season would anyone have traded Roger Clemens for 3 20 year old prospects?

 
My god. This is so hyperbolic that I almost feel silly responding to it, but I can't help myself. The reason being that Clemens was just coming off of a 9 win season as a 23 year old.  When Gray was 23, he pitched 60 innings for the A's.  Clemens already had three seasons under his belt in 1986.  The Red Sox also didn't have a below average budget or a proclivity for trading players about to enter arbitration, as the A's clearly do.  

 

[jscola85]

 
It is more a matter of people not fully appreciating Gray's value then vice-versa imo. 
 
I won't argue Cameron's trade value article on FG too much here, since he did go out of his way to stress that it was an exercise in fun and not to take a potential difference in bottom line opinions too seriously. But putting Betts above Gray strikes me as ultimately getting too caught up in age and projection value, especially while keeping in mind that the most likely GM candidate to see things in that extremist light just lost his job (imo) partially because of this. Sonny Gray is 25, already the arguable best pitcher in the AL right now, and would probably be looking at pushing Stanton'type money if he were to enter the open market tomorrow. He's also representative of the one universal market need that's guaranteed to be an every team constant regardless what else they may have going on around it. As much as i love me some Mookie Betts, he's simply not on that level (yet at least). 
 
But even being in agreement that Beane isn't trading Gray this winter, i'm still left pointing out the fact that you didn't actually include another potential target name there. Which seems to be the underlining theme behind every surface "we have the prospects to deal for a #1" claim. Heavy on the hypothetical, light on any speculation that doesn't just circle back to talking about Sonny Gray.  

 
Well, if you're looking at what other pitchers might be available, here's who I'd have on the list who rank among the top 50 in fWAR since the start of 2014:
 
Carlos Carrasco - has been dangled once already
Tyson Ross - again, has been rumored a few times
Lance Lynn - Cards have a pitching surplus and have not been afraid to deal pitchers for the right piece
Matt Harvey - Mets may determine they can't pay him so sell high with their pitching depth to acquire hitting like Betts+Swihart
Stephen Strasburg - only 1 year left of control and perhaps Nats have worries about his durability
 
I think none of those guys are likely candidates, but all of them are just as possible in my view as getting Gray away from the As.

 

[czar]

It is more a matter of people not fully appreciating Gray's value then vice-versa imo. 
 
I won't argue Cameron's trade value article on FG too much here, since he did go out of his way to stress that it was an exercise in fun and not to take a potential difference in bottom line opinions too seriously. But putting Betts above Gray strikes me as ultimately getting too caught up in age and projection value, especially while keeping in mind that the most likely GM candidate to see things in that extremist light just lost his job (imo) partially because of this. Sonny Gray is 25, already the arguable best pitcher in the AL right now, and would probably be looking at pushing Stanton'type money if he were to enter the open market tomorrow. He's also representative of the one universal market need that's guaranteed to be an every team constant regardless what else they may have going on around it. As much as i love me some Mookie Betts, he's simply not on that level (yet at least). 
 
But even being in agreement that Beane isn't trading Gray this winter, i'm still left pointing out the fact that you didn't actually include another potential target name there. Which seems to be the underlining theme behind every surface "we have the prospects to deal for a #1" claim. Heavy on the hypothetical, light on any speculation that doesn't just circle back to talking about Sonny Gray.

SG was actually an interesting point of discussion among DC and FG staff for the trade value series. Most of us circled back to the fac that there's a massive disconnect between Gray's ERA (2.10) and peripherals (3.54 SIERA in 2015, 3.48 career) which cannot be explained away with "weak contact." Some regression is due there (either the peripherals have to get better or the results have to come back).
 
He's not doubt very good, but let's pump the brakes on "best pitcher in the AL" or "$325m contracts."

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Completely hypothetical, but if DDski decided David Price is the guy he's going to go out and get this offseason, how does that bode for the rest of the rotation?

LHP Price
LHP Rodriguez
LHP Owens
LHP Miley
RHP Porcello

RHP Buchholz (option?)
RHP Wright
LHP Johnson

If Buchholz isn't retained, we might be looking at a rotation of four lefties. Might be nice against the Yankees, but isn't too many lefties in the rotation generally a bad thing? Does it increase the likelihood we try do deal Owens++ for a Sonny Gray, or make it more likely we hang onto Buchholz?

 

[Rasputin]

Completely hypothetical, but if DDski decided David Price is the guy he's going to go out and get this offseason, how does that bode for the rest of the rotation?

LHP Price
LHP Rodriguez
LHP Owens
LHP Miley
RHP Porcello

RHP Buchholz (option?)
RHP Wright
LHP Johnson

If Buchholz isn't retained, we might be looking at a rotation of four lefties. Might be nice against the Yankees, but isn't too many lefties in the rotation generally a bad thing? Does it increase the likelihood we try do deal Owens++ for a Sonny Gray, or make it more likely we hang onto Buchholz?

I think it makes it more likely we go after someone other than Price. Conceivably nobody.

 

[In my lifetime]

Kelly has also been omitted from the list. It further shows that the RS do have starting pitching depth to include in a deal for an ace (or closer) if Buchholz is healthy.

 

[WenZink]

Kelly has also been omitted from the list. It further shows that the RS do have starting pitching depth to include in a deal for an ace (or closer) if Buchholz is healthy.

 
Outside of Rodriguez and Owens, which Red Sox starting pitcher would entice any GM to trade an ace or a closer?  And that's not to say that Kelly, Miley, a healthy Buch and even Porcello don't have any value at all, but none of them are on any GM's "wish list."
 
As for Buchholz -- in light of his being shut down for the year, the Sox won't have conclusive evidence that he'll be healthy in 2016, before they'll have to pick up his option.  If they do that, and then Buch has problems in ST, they'll be stuck with $13 mil against very tight cap constraints.  Perhaps they offer Buchholz some incentive laden contract, where he's guaranteed a small minimum ($5 mil?) and offer incentives based on starts in 2016.  ($10 mil for 15 starts, $15 mil for 25).  I just wonder what Buchholz would be able to get on the FA market, and how willing he'd be to go for it.

 

[Drek717]

 
Outside of Rodriguez and Owens, which Red Sox starting pitcher would entice any GM to trade an ace or a closer?  And that's not to say that Kelly, Miley, a healthy Buch and even Porcello don't have any value at all, but none of them are on any GM's "wish list."

The Nationals traded Tyler Clippard last winter for Yunel Escobar who's previous three seasons saw him post OPS+ numbers of 75, 96, and 91.  He's having a career year with a 116 OPS+ this season, but he wasn't anything special and had another $12M over the next two seasons (plus a $1M buyout) and he got a guy who saved 32 games in 2012 (so there's the "closer" cred) and then was much better in both 2013 and 2014.
 
I'd bet that any one of Buccholz, Kelly, or Miley could get a similar high quality reliever with one or two years of control left if the right situation was to develop.  Brian Johnson could get damn near any reliever except the very, very best as he looks like a safe bet for six years solid or better pitching with very little cost attached.
 
In the winter relievers are cheap.  In the summer they cost a premium.  So it has been, so it shall always be.
 
As for moving one for an ace, I think the headliner pieces matter much more.  If a club really loves Devers for example and the Sox are willing to trade him for an ace starter the difference between Miley or Owens as the attached pitcher is something that could be made up with the other ancillary pieces.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I just wonder what Buchholz would be able to get on the FA market, and how willing he'd be to go for it.

 
I think if he hits FA someone will take a 3/40 kind of flyer on him, even in this somewhat crowded pitching year and even with the fragility concerns. I mean, he's earned about $40M the past three years even with all the lost time. But he might well decide to go the Beltre route, seek a one-year contract and try for a bigger payday in 2017 when SP options will be a bit thinner on the ground. 

 

[NDame616]

I don't disagree with the thought he may try to get a 1 year flyer deal but it probably wouldn't be much more than 1/13 or so that he would get from the Sox.

If I was his agent I'd be highly skeptical of him wanting to sign a 1 year deal to prove he's healthy and good enough for a long term contract. This isn't a guy 2 years removed from a freak ACL injury....it's a guy who literally misses a half season every other year

 

[Plympton91]

 
Ignoring the $183 million spent on two replacement level players of course.

Plus $10 million on a below replacement level starter, and the $31 million AAA player acquired for Lackey, and $5 million for Mujica to pitch for the A's.

Pretending that the Red Sox didn't spend a ton of money on the major league team is a joke. Cherington was given a budget for major league acquisitions last offseason that at least 25 other GMs could only dream of. He, and whoever was advising him from above and below, completely blew it.

 

[benhogan]

 
Outside of Rodriguez and Owens, which Red Sox starting pitcher would entice any GM to trade an ace or a closer?  And that's not to say that Kelly, Miley, a healthy Buch and even Porcello don't have any value at all, but none of them are on any GM's "wish list."
 
As for Buchholz -- in light of his being shut down for the year, the Sox won't have conclusive evidence that he'll be healthy in 2016, before they'll have to pick up his option.  If they do that, and then Buch has problems in ST, they'll be stuck with $13 mil against very tight cap constraints.  Perhaps they offer Buchholz some incentive laden contract, where he's guaranteed a small minimum ($5 mil?) and offer incentives based on starts in 2016.  ($10 mil for 15 starts, $15 mil for 25).  I just wonder what Buchholz would be able to get on the FA market, and how willing he'd be to go for it.

I agree, Rick Porcello, with his new contract kicking in and after this lost season, is not attractive to other GMs.  We would have to subsidize his contract to unload him.  Probably not happening.
 
BUT Joe Kelly with a 5-0 August, 27yr old w/3 arb years, throws an easy 95+ has good value.  Wade Miley 28yr old has a fair contract, 2yrs at $15MM + club option, while averaging 33 starts/200 innings the last 3 seasons has decent value. And Buchholz's two team controlled options at $13MM are very valuable.  You can stop with guessing what Clay would get in free agency this off-season because anything short of TJ surgery the Sox will exercise the first option.
 
In order for the Sox to trade for an ACE, it doesn't have to be a one-for-one swap.  We have a plethora of high upside prospects at low A, a couple of studs at AA in Margot/Travis, several blocked AAA prospects in Cecchini, Coyle, Brentz. And a few months back an astute GM could probably have landed JBJ and Shaw for pennies on the dollar (not happening now).
 
If you're an opposing GM you're licking your chops looking at the Sox big market payroll to dump your bad contracts, the Sox farm and the Sox cost controlled ML caliber players (Holt, Edro, Betts, Xander, Owens, Wright, Johnson, Shaw, Barnes, JBJ, Vasquez, Swihart) and demanding a package of Sox players for your ACE.  
 
Using the Josh Donaldson blueprint, its not completely out of the question that an ACE like Sonny Gray gets dealt this off-season.  The Sox have the means to get it done, just need a little persistence.

 

[WenZink]

 
I think if he hits FA someone will take a 3/40 kind of flyer on him, even in this somewhat crowded pitching year and even with the fragility concerns. I mean, he's earned about $40M the past three years even with all the lost time. But he might well decide to go the Beltre route, seek a one-year contract and try for a bigger payday in 2017 when SP options will be a bit thinner on the ground. 

 
I just don't see how Buchholz  would get many offers, because his health is so uncertain.  Even with a clean bill of health from Andrews and a physical, you have to think that Buch is always going to be the outlier, or at least have the longest recuperation time.  I'm not dissing him per se, just his body.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

As for Buchholz -- in light of his being shut down for the year, the Sox won't have conclusive evidence that he'll be healthy in 2016, before they'll have to pick up his option. 

 
Why do you think they are incapable of determining he's healthy before they have to pick up his option? Are they not allowed to examine him or having him go through strength and conditioning tests before then? Is he barred from throwing simulated games? It's not like they will have to make that decision blind.

 

[WenZink]

...;[snip]
 
In order for the Sox to trade for an ACE, it doesn't have to be a one-for-one swap.  We have a plethora of high upside prospects at low A, a couple of studs at AA in Margot/Travis, several blocked AAA blocked prospects in Cecchini, Coyle, Brentz. And a few months back an astute GM could probably have landed JBJ and Shaw for pennies on the dollar (not happening now).
 
...[snip]

 
Dombrowski mentioned that he approached the Sox about trading for Bradley last spring, and that he was not on the market.  The Sox didn't want to sell low on JBJ.
 
As for Cecchini, Coyle and Brentz -- poor performances and bad health make them all close to worthless right now. Maybe, next year, but their time is running out.

 

[WenZink]

 
Why do you think they are incapable of determining he's healthy before they have to pick up his option? Are they not allowed to examine him or having him go through strength and conditioning tests before then? Is he barred from throwing simulated games? It's not like they will have to make that decision blind.

 
With 95% of the players tests and physicals would be enough.  With Buchholz, I'd want to see it on the field first.

 

[MikeM]

SG was actually an interesting point of discussion among DC and FG staff for the trade value series. Most of us circled back to the fac that there's a massive disconnect between Gray's ERA (2.10) and peripherals (3.54 SIERA in 2015, 3.48 career) which cannot be explained away with "weak contact." Some regression is due there (either the peripherals have to get better or the results have to come back).
 
He's not doubt very good, but let's pump the brakes on "best pitcher in the AL" or "$325m contracts."

 
Obviously can't argue on the disconnect going on there between the peripherals, but i'm just not sold that has nearly the implied effect on his current overall value. I still think Gray pushes towards Stanton money today, and certainly $30m/per, in a hypothetical scenario that saw him reach the open market. For a team checking in and who can't possibly spend that type of money on a starter, or one that can but is looking for an alternative to doing so, that in itself carries a mountain of present term value imo. 
 
Ultimately more so then what Betts offers, with all things considered. Wenzink's counter that Betts' extra year of control adds an additional $30-40m value sees a disconnect of it's own there as well btw/imo, since present day Mookie Betts isn't actually worth that in real money. 
 
(same goes for Buchholz on that latter. Using that "worth $25m" formula as a compelling argument in favor of picking up his option like you did in the other thread is one thing. Presenting that data in an absolute manner that labels Buchholz as being worth $25m in real market money is quite another)  

 

[Idabomb333]

Irrational optimism warning. Pretty much everything seems to be trending the right way for the Sox these days. Suppose for a moment that we hear news that Clay is nearly game ready at the end of the year, and everyone in the rotation is looking at least league average with one or two giving reason to expect the performance of a solid #2 in 2016. Or if necessary, suppose something even more optimistic that seems slightly possible to you for the rotation in the remainder of 2015. Is there a point where people start to think that we shouldn't actually invest in an ace for 2016 this off season? Or is it too late for the rotation to convince people that it isn't so bad anymore?

To me, there's a fair chance now that September convinces me the rotation is no longer a big problem, and my favorite outline for the off-season would then be to spend 15-20 million and some expendable prospects on the bullpen and be done. Then go into the season with an excellent offense, an OK pen, and a bottom-heavy but deep and acceptable rotation. Plan to spend whatever's left in the budget on mid-season upgrade rentals, so we can have top tier talent assuming we need it, without the whole year's salary counting against the tax.

Again, I know this is optimistic, but is anyone else seeing a chance for something like this? I'm thinking I'll start looking up bullpen FAs and next year's best rotation rental possibilities, to know what I hope happens.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

To me, there's a fair chance now that September convinces me the rotation is no longer a big problem, and my favorite outline for the off-season would then be to spend 15-20 million and some expendable prospects on the bullpen and be done. Then go into the season with an excellent offense, an OK pen, and a bottom-heavy but deep and acceptable rotation. Plan to spend whatever's left in the budget on mid-season upgrade rentals, so we can have top tier talent assuming we need it, without the whole year's salary counting against the tax.

 
That's pretty much what folks were saying heading into this season verbatim. It's worked out pretty good so far!

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I would still like an ace, but only if getting one doesn't hinder the acquisition of a decent, and entirely rebuilt, bullpen.

I wouldn't be nearly as disappointed if the Sox stood pat with the starters they've got now, as I would if they gutted the Greenville infield for a marginal upgrade whose efforts were still to be repeatedly pissed away in the late innings.

 

[Idabomb333]

 
That's pretty much what folks were saying heading into this season verbatim. It's worked out pretty good so far!

Yeah, I know. I'm saying it looks to me like there's a chance that was weirdly bad luck this year and it may have corrected itself now. But you seem to be in the camp of "too late for the rotation to convince" that it's going to be OK. Certainly an understandable position.

 

[Rasputin]

 
That's pretty much what folks were saying heading into this season verbatim. It's worked out pretty good so far!

There's really two reasons out didn't work.

Almost everyone in the rotation was worse than imagined from the get go. Even Buchholz and Miley who ended up being mostly what we expected were shit the first couple months.

Also, the offense was shit for most of the first couple months.

Then Hanigan broke his hand and we had Swihart and Sandy Fucking Leon trying to lead a pitching staff.

If we're just fix the bullpen and go to bat with the lineup and rotation we have, I think there's a good chance were competitive.

As perhaps you may have heard, I have higher aspirations than just competing.

 

[Rasputin]

I would still like an ace, but only if getting one doesn't hinder the acquisition of a decent, and entirely rebuilt, bullpen.

I wouldn't be nearly as disappointed if the Sox stood pat with the starters they've got now, as I would if they gutted the Greenville infield for a marginal upgrade whose efforts were still to be repeatedly pissed away in the late innings.

I don't think we need an entirely truly bullpen. I think we need three guys.

A relief ace who can push Koji to the 8th and Taz to the 7th. A primary lefty so Layne doesn't have to pitch to any righties ever again. And one other guy who is competent.

Combine that with Koji, Taz, Layne, and Wright, and we have a good bullpen.

 

[Rasputin]

Yeah, I know. I'm saying it looks to me like there's a chance that was weirdly bad luck this year and it may have corrected itself now. But you seem to be in the camp of "too late for the rotation to convince" that it's going to be OK. Certainly an understandable position.

The key to me is Porcello.

Rodriguez is going to have a spot in the rotation for his potential. Miley is going to have a spot based on his ability to eat innings. Porcello is going to have a spot in the rotation based on his contract. He doesn't have to be an ace, he just had to be better than average. Not one or two percent better than average, but ten percent better than average. Rodriguez can be a little better than overage. Buchholz can be much better than average for half a season.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

August was a really positive month for folks hoping to compete in 2016. The team went 15-12, a .555 win pct or 90 win pace. They had a lead in 23 of those 27 games. Six of those losses were directly attributable to the bullpen. Perhaps just as impressively they went 6-5 against playoff teams. They did it with a very strong offense (I struggle to call it elite when Toronto is in our division), a mediocre starting rotation and a below replacement bullpen. This was the strategy coming into the season, plus Koji, and it appears that when it works it works okay. We can't assume improvement across the board for this team next year, but the Red Sox are fun to watch again because they're a competitive team again.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Yeah, I know. I'm saying it looks to me like there's a chance that was weirdly bad luck this year and it may have corrected itself now. But you seem to be in the camp of "too late for the rotation to convince" that it's going to be OK. Certainly an understandable position.

To the bolded, I don't think it was bad luck. Porcello has come back from his DL vacation and pitched effectively saying he went back to doing what made him effective in the past - admitting he had gone away from that earlier in the season.  Kelly had never really been effective in the past, but now (August) he is because he has learned he needs to throw his off-speed stuff. Masterson had the slimmest of chances of being able to be effective this year. Buchholz and MIley have been about what we'd expect, as have the rookies thrown into the fire.
 
I'm optimistic for next year because of the awakenings by Porcello and Kelly, though both samples are too small to pin a lot on. I think adding an ace would be preferable to assuming the rotation's problems are solved.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

To the bolded, I don't think it was bad luck. Porcello has come back from his DL vacation and pitched effectively saying he went back to doing what made him effective in the past - admitting he had gone away from that earlier in the season.  Kelly had never really been effective in the past, but now (August) he is because he has learned he needs to throw his off-speed stuff. Masterson had the slimmest of chances of being able to be effective this year. Buchholz and MIley have been about what we'd expect, as have the rookies thrown into the fire.
 
I'm optimistic for next year because of the awakenings by Porcello and Kelly, though both samples are too small to pin a lot on. I think adding an ace would be preferable to assuming the rotation's problems are solved.

 
These are my feelings exactly, though I think I need to see more than a single start to hop back on the Porcello train. Kelly's success has been a night and day turnaround based off a real, articulated change in approach, which is very apparent in his results. I've seen enough to be excited at least. It sure feels foolish to count on Buchholz for anything more than 100 innings given his injury history and the nature of what he's planning on pitching through. And turning to very young or inexperienced starters to carry a (largely) equally young and inexperienced offense seems like a recipe for more of what we've seen this season. Both will have to fight through inconsistency and slumps, and having an anchor at the top of the rotation could go a really long way in gelling what should be an exciting but mercurial bunch.

 

[MikeM]

Yeah, I know. I'm saying it looks to me like there's a chance that was weirdly bad luck this year and it may have corrected itself now. But you seem to be in the camp of "too late for the rotation to convince" that it's going to be OK. Certainly an understandable position.

 
A positive SSS run in garbage time isn't going to change the fact that it's basically asking DD to run the same exact risk that failed miserably for the guy he's replacing. The very next year to boot. 
 
Coming in as a "savior" who's going to want to take a step forward in his first year, i just can't see DD making that bet. Not that Henry is going to fire him or anything, but yeah. The overall backlash on a perception that he tripped over the same roadblock would probably be fairly brutal.  

 

[Sampo Gida]

August was a really positive month for folks hoping to compete in 2016. The team went 15-12, a .555 win pct or 90 win pace. They had a lead in 23 of those 27 games. Six of those losses were directly attributable to the bullpen. Perhaps just as impressively they went 6-5 against playoff teams. They did it with a very strong offense (I struggle to call it elite when Toronto is in our division), a mediocre starting rotation and a below replacement bullpen. This was the strategy coming into the season, plus Koji, and it appears that when it works it works okay. We can't assume improvement across the board for this team next year, but the Red Sox are fun to watch again because they're a competitive team again.

 
This kind of brings me back to 1966, whose 2nd half was a prelude to a breakout by the teams youngster in 1967.   I think they need to move on from Pablo and/or Hanley one way or another though and hopefully JWH has approved DD to move on from his predecessors mistake and write off the non-performing assets, and they need to spend some money on an ace, or trade for one, and fix the darn bull pen.
 
Henry is no dope, he understands fans have a limit in terms of how much losing they can take before the revenues drop and the brand is tarnished.  Its bigger than any single seasons financials. I doubt he lets Pablo and Hanley drag this team down another year.  Porcello likely gets another chance since DD knows him and this seams more likely to be a fluke if he is healthy
 
Red Sox have a nice core of young players, this can be fixed, 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't think we need an entirely truly bullpen. I think we need three guys.

A relief ace who can push Koji to the 8th and Taz to the 7th. A primary lefty so Layne doesn't have to pitch to any righties ever again. And one other guy who is competent.

Combine that with Koji, Taz, Layne, and Wright, and we have a good bullpen.

In theory I agree with this. But, as we have seen in the past bullpen production can be very hard to predict year in and out. They need a closer past next season. They also need a key piece that can take the stress off Taz as well since he's been run into the ground. If you can get a closer on the market and then slot Koji in the 8th and Taz in the 7th that's a really good pen. Koji has been excellent and one of the main bright spots in 2015 but how viable is it to expect a 41 year old to stay this effective? An ace is certainly the #1 priority though.

 

[smastroyin]

Remember after 97 Dan Duquette pulled the ultimate con job on the Boston media, talking about how you could be like Cleveland and build a pitching staff from the back forward (aka strong bullpen to support iffy rotation) and there was all this smoke about Wetteland and other closers and then like a week later he traded for Pedro? That was awesome.

There isn't necessarily a moral to the story I'm just reminded of it by the talk in this thread. I personally would give another year to the kids so I don't make a panic trade in desperation next summer. But, if the idea is to contend, this team needs a starter who can give them 33 starts and 210 good to great innings on top of what they have.  Yes there are many encouraging signs and no one they sign is a sure thing, but a steady guy at the top will make the sine waves the other guys ride more bearable. Again this is assuming there is a demand to be in playoff contention in 2016.

 

[JimD]

Completely hypothetical, but if DDski decided David Price is the guy he's going to go out and get this offseason, how does that bode for the rest of the rotation?

LHP Price
LHP Rodriguez
LHP Owens
LHP Miley
RHP Porcello

RHP Buchholz (option?)
RHP Wright
LHP Johnson

If Buchholz isn't retained, we might be looking at a rotation of four lefties. Might be nice against the Yankees, but isn't too many lefties in the rotation generally a bad thing? Does it increase the likelihood we try do deal Owens++ for a Sonny Gray, or make it more likely we hang onto Buchholz?

 
Dombrowski is getting an ace, through trade or free agency.  A big splashy move like that will be key to rebuilding fan interest and maintaining ticket prices.  Guys I see staying are Porcello (likely untradeable, plus the previous Tigers connection with DD), Rodriguez and Kelly (Dombrowski loves him some power arms).  Miley and Owens both would have the most value to other teams based on their contracts, so I could see both being moved this winter, giving us a rotation of 1. Ace, 2. Buchholz, 3. Rodriguez, 4. Porcello, 5. KellyWright//Pawtucket call-ups.
 
 

Again this is assuming there is a demand to be in playoff contention in 2016.

 
After two disappointing seasons in a row, I think Dombrowski will be expected to at least return the Red Sox to wild-card contention in 2016. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Dombrowski is getting an ace, through trade or free agency.  A big splashy move like that will be key to rebuilding fan interest and maintaining ticket prices.  Guys I see staying are Porcello (likely untradeable, plus the previous Tigers connection with DD), Rodriguez and Kelly (Dombrowski loves him some power arms).  Miley and Owens both would have the most value to other teams based on their contracts, so I could see both being moved this winter, giving us a rotation of 1. Ace, 2. Buchholz, 3. Rodriguez, 4. Porcello, 5. KellyWright//Pawtucket call-ups.

 
The bolded cuts both ways, doesn't it? I mean, Dombrowski's traded him before, so there's no reason to assume he won't trade him again. (Although, as you say, it may be moot because his contract isn't tradeable at the moment.)

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
Dombrowski is getting an ace, through trade or free agency.  A big splashy move like that will be key to rebuilding fan interest and maintaining ticket prices.  Guys I see staying are Porcello (likely untradeable, plus the previous Tigers connection with DD), Rodriguez and Kelly (Dombrowski loves him some power arms).  Miley and Owens both would have the most value to other teams based on their contracts, so I could see both being moved this winter, giving us a rotation of 1. Ace, 2. Buchholz, 3. Rodriguez, 4. Porcello, 5. KellyWright//Pawtucket call-ups.
 
 
 
After two disappointing seasons in a row, I think Dombrowski will be expected to at least return the Red Sox to wild-card contention in 2016. 

 
You can't pencil in Clay Buchholz as your #2 SP, and then say Owens, with his 3 options remaining after 2015, has "the most value to other teams" in the same paragraph.  You just can't.
 
No one knows right now if Clay Buchholz will pitch in 2016, how well he will pitch in 2016, or for how many starts he will pitch in 2016. Which means no one knows how to value the insurance policy of a pitcher like Henry Owens.
 
But an insurance policy like 23-year old Henry Owens, with his 3 options and undeniable big-league stuff, means the 2016 Sox don't really have to once again rely on milb free agent retreads like Aaron Cook or Chris Capuano or Kevin Millwood when a starter hits the DL.  Or even to trade some all-star caliber prospect to get that #4 SP needed to hold up the back end of the rotation. 
 
That type of insurance policy has the most value to a team like the Red Sox, who may get some great #2 SP innings out of Clay Buchholz, but are certainly not likely to get a great #2 SP season. 
 
Miley may arguably have more value to another team, but Owens definitely does not.