20 replies to this topic

[teejay1324]

The Red Sox appear interested in every starter who's value has been depreciated due to injury history. But I would think/hope a guy like Harden who's actually pitched some the last two years would be higher up on their list of options.

He's also going to be 34 next season, but he was pretty good in 06-07 with ERAs of 3.61 and 3.40 with FIPs of 3.62 and 3.39. Also, maybe he could be used as a relief pitcher? He has more career appearances out of the 'pen than as a starter, although that was primarily with the Blue Jays early on in his career. They could possibly bring him in, if he was cheap enough, to compete for a 5th starter role, or maybe as a long reliever/swingman similar to how Masterson was used.

[Marbleheader]

Smoltz, Penny, Escobar, Sheets, add them up and you might have a starter good enough to actually be with the team in September. I hope Theo learned his lesson and is not relying on contributions from these guys. In addition to an impact starter? Fine.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Smoltz, Penny, Escobar, Sheets, add them up and you might have a starter good enough to actually be with the team in September. I hope Theo learned his lesson and is not relying on contributions from these guys. In addition to an impact starter? Fine.

What lesson is there to be learned? That they should have over-extended for a Burnett or a Lowe and potentially blocked Buchholz all together?

Last year, they had Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, and Wakefield slotted in the rotation heading into the off-season, with Buchholz, Masterson, and Bowden waiting in the wings as possible 5th starters. So they signed Penny and Smoltz with the idea of the two of them plus Buchholz/Bowden/Masterson combining to put together a reasonable facsimile of a 5th starter and provide adequate fill-in for the inevitable DL trip by Wakefield. Buchholz did emerge per the plan. Penny had a decent stretch as well as a pretty ugly one. From that perspective, they accomplished exactly what they expected with those moves.

The unforeseen part was really Matsuzaka missing four months of the season, which raised the level of needed production from a composite 5th/6th starter to at least one of them being a solid 3rd/4th starter. They didn't intend to rely on Penny or Smoltz (or Buchholz or Bowden for that matter) to give them that...but Matsuzaka's injury in particular forced it.

Right now, they already have Lester, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Wakefield slotted into the rotation for 2010. So what they're after again is one-year, back-end of the rotation/Wakefield insurance type guys with upside, not necessarily a multi-year, multi-million dollar free agent overpay that gives them no flexibility at all moving forward. I think the only way they go the big name, big dollar route for a starting pitcher is if they deal Buchholz. Otherwise, I think they're seeking short-term solutions again this winter, and that means taking on a Harden or a Sheets or a Duchscherer or an Escobar.

[zenter]

What lesson is there to be learned? That they should have over-extended for a Burnett or a Lowe and potentially blocked Buchholz all together?
...
Right now, they already have Lester, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Wakefield slotted into the rotation for 2010. So what they're after again is one-year, back-end of the rotation/Wakefield insurance type guys with upside, not necessarily a multi-year, multi-million dollar free agent overpay that gives them no flexibility at all moving forward. I think the only way they go the big name, big dollar route for a starting pitcher is if they deal Buchholz. Otherwise, I think they're seeking short-term solutions again this winter, and that means taking on a Harden or a Sheets or a Duchscherer or an Escobar.

It's strange how people see the results as inevitable and predictable after the fact, and learn the wrong lesson. Smoltz and Penny were not up par for what they once were, nor were they reliable, but they provided innings.

I'd be happy with Escobar and Sheets as the Penny and Smoltz of 2010. In fact, I'd like to add one more to the mix, to be safe, given Wake's injury history and the fact that power pitchers occasionally get injured/need extra rest.

[DanoooME]

Plus there's the advantage that if the Sox sign Escobar and someone else, they could use Escobar in the pen as a quality long man, going 3 to 4 innings an outing. It's the kind of thing I wished they tried with Smoltz before they dumped him, although there was never really a spot in the pen for that all last season. With Saito and Wagner gone, maybe the Sox can create a role for a spot starter/long man again. Especially if Escobar would be able to come back and be effective.

[mt8thsw9th]

Plus there's the advantage that if the Sox sign Escobar and someone else, they could use Escobar in the pen as a quality long man, going 3 to 4 innings an outing.

The eternal question is: would Terry ever use a long man?

I remember Escobar as a gas-can type reliever, I'd personally prefer him as a starter if he can still go 6 innings.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Plus there's the advantage that if the Sox sign Escobar and someone else, they could use Escobar in the pen as a quality long man, going 3 to 4 innings an outing. It's the kind of thing I wished they tried with Smoltz before they dumped him, although there was never really a spot in the pen for that all last season. With Saito and Wagner gone, maybe the Sox can create a role for a spot starter/long man again. Especially if Escobar would be able to come back and be effective.

You've answered your own question there. The times you need a "quality long man" are few and far between. When the starting pitcher has crapped the bed badly enough that he's out by the 4th inning, what good is bringing in a quality long man when the score is likely already 7 to 2 or worse? Sure, you need a guy to eat innings, but you might as well use a Bowden type who doesn't cost you anything, and might just benefit from the experience.

Using a piece of value for something that is needed every 3-4 weeks isn't a good use of value.

[glennhoffmania]

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4705809

Question about this story- could Milwaukee have offered Sheets arb since he wasn't under contract last year?

As for Escobar, I'd pass. I'd much rather take a shot with Sheets or Harden due to their age and level of recent success.

[TomRicardo]

Question about this story- could Milwaukee have offered Sheets arb since he wasn't under contract last year?

As for Escobar, I'd pass. I'd much rather take a shot with Sheets or Harden due to their age and level of recent success.

No they can't, but I think Edes was just referring to the fact that he is available without the cost of a draft pick. At least I hope he was.

[twothousandone]

What lesson is there to be learned? That they should have over-extended for a Burnett or a Lowe and potentially blocked Buchholz all together?

. . . they signed Penny and Smoltz with the idea of the two of them plus Buchholz/Bowden/Masterson combining to put together a reasonable facsimile of a 5th starter and provide adequate fill-in for the inevitable DL trip by Wakefield.

You make a good argument Red Hawk, for power in numbers. But I think you are making a leap with this:

So what they're after again is one-year, back-end of the rotation/Wakefield insurance type guys with upside, not necessarily a multi-year, multi-million dollar free agent overpay that gives them no flexibility at all moving forward.

Those aren't the only two options, and the Penney/Smoltz commitment from last year was significant, without any real upside from them. If it's depth and a limited downside they are after, the Sox can might also get that by offering a bit more than "market" on one-year deals for guys like Chan Ho Park, Darren Oliver (!?), Juan Cruz, Lance Cormier, Daniel Cabrera. The total cost can come up in several million less (enough to permit an overpay on Matt Holliday?). There's a challenge in potentially getting healthy guys to sign when they aren't guaranteed (or maybe even likely) to start, but it should be possible.

Last year worked out, but in a world where "value" seems so important, I think they paid an awful lot for back of the rotation insurance.

It also makes me wonder about the best examples of the upside coming true -- going back to Saberhagen, I'm not sure I remember when the Red Sox got a rehabbing All-Star and it paid huge dividends. Maybe Scott Williamson. Any other examples, even from other teams? How many have taken a chance on Tim Redding? Chad Fox? Mike Hampton? I think the "lesson" is that $6 million for three journey-men who put up a combined 5.50 ERA might be better that taking fliers on the big potential upside of Penny and Smoltz rehabbing AND finding the fountain of youth.

[Marbleheader]

What lesson is there to be learned? That they should have over-extended for a Burnett or a Lowe and potentially blocked Buchholz all together?

Last year, they had Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, and Wakefield slotted in the rotation heading into the off-season, with Buchholz, Masterson, and Bowden waiting in the wings as possible 5th starters. So they signed Penny and Smoltz with the idea of the two of them plus Buchholz/Bowden/Masterson combining to put together a reasonable facsimile of a 5th starter and provide adequate fill-in for the inevitable DL trip by Wakefield. Buchholz did emerge per the plan. Penny had a decent stretch as well as a pretty ugly one. From that perspective, they accomplished exactly what they expected with those moves.

The unforeseen part was really Matsuzaka missing four months of the season, which raised the level of needed production from a composite 5th/6th starter to at least one of them being a solid 3rd/4th starter. They didn't intend to rely on Penny or Smoltz (or Buchholz or Bowden for that matter) to give them that...but Matsuzaka's injury in particular forced it.

Right now, they already have Lester, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz and Wakefield slotted into the rotation for 2010. So what they're after again is one-year, back-end of the rotation/Wakefield insurance type guys with upside, not necessarily a multi-year, multi-million dollar free agent overpay that gives them no flexibility at all moving forward. I think the only way they go the big name, big dollar route for a starting pitcher is if they deal Buchholz. Otherwise, I think they're seeking short-term solutions again this winter, and that means taking on a Harden or a Sheets or a Duchscherer or an Escobar.

Yes, that's exactly my point, overpay for mediocre pitching....sure, whatever. The lesson is this team has two reliable starters, everything else is a question mark. This is a big market team that has more than enough resources to obtain a quality starter that is not on the back nine or coming back from significant injury. A rotation of Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Wakefield is not a championship caliber rotation. Adding Escobar or Sheets doesn't change that. This team needs a top of the rotation starter, not two more bottom of the rotation starters. Going into 2010 with the same approach is foolish.

[luckysox]

Yes, that's exactly my point, overpay for mediocre pitching....sure, whatever. The lesson is this team has two reliable starters, everything else is a question mark. This is a big market team that has more than enough resources to obtain a quality starter that is not on the back nine or coming back from significant injury. A rotation of Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Wakefield is not a championship caliber rotation. Adding Escobar or Sheets doesn't change that. This team needs a top of the rotation starter, not two more bottom of the rotation starters. Going into 2010 with the same approach is foolish.

I agree here. It seems like every season since '04, the team has come into April with a rotation that is "potentially" one of the best in the league. This year, it makes the assumption that Dice pitches like he did in Japan and not like he did in April/May last season, CB pitches all year in 2010 like he did in August last season and doesn't revert to '08 Clay, and Wake continues to give you 10-15 wins, a mid 4 era and 6 innings a start as a #5. AND it assumes that Beckett and Lester don't have their own 4-6 weeks of suck like they both did last season. This team DOES need a top of the rotation starter, and it's one of the only teams that can really and truly afford to pay for one in money or personnel. Sheets, Escobar, Harden, Bedard - the Red Sox should do better than that. I will be very disappointed if they don't, and my expectation will defintely be low for the season.

[Sprowl]

Yes, that's exactly my point, overpay for mediocre pitching....sure, whatever. The lesson is this team has two reliable starters, everything else is a question mark. This is a big market team that has more than enough resources to obtain a quality starter that is not on the back nine or coming back from significant injury. A rotation of Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Wakefield is not a championship caliber rotation. Adding Escobar or Sheets doesn't change that. This team needs a top of the rotation starter, not two more bottom of the rotation starters. Going into 2010 with the same approach is foolish.

How's that? What major league starting rotation is better? My estimation is that Lester, Beckett, Matsuzaka and Buchholz are very much a rotation good enough to win a World Series, and probably the best 1-4 rotation in the league. It's important to have fallback starting options, including some veterans and some AAA depth, for the regular season. But for the Red Sox to expend resources on getting another top-flight starter when they have serious deficiencies on defense and road offense strikes me as a misallocation of resources.

If Buchholz is traded in a Gonzalez / Ramirez blockbuster deal, then another playoff-worthy starter is needed, but otherwise the Red Sox starting rotation is the strongest aspect of the team.

[Joe D Reid]

How's that? What major league starting rotation is better? My estimation is that [they] are very much a rotation good enough to win a World Series.

Hell, they're a good enough rotation that they've already won a World Series.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

My estimation is that Lester, Beckett, Matsuzaka and Buchholz are very much a rotation good enough to win a World Series, and probably the best 1-4 rotation in the league.

They're certainly good enough if everything falls into place - people stay healthy, the young 'uns continue to get better, etc... But everything doesn't fall into place, most of the time. Pitchers get hurt, players go through slumps. We saw this in spades last year, and the fallback options were decidedly mixed when Matsuzaka disappeared and Wakefield got hurt. Buchholz stepped forward after a slow start, but Smoltz was terrible, Penny quickly went from okay to terrible, Masterson didn't improve, Bowden dropped from our list of prospects, etc...

This team has the resources for overpay for areas of need and what team couldn't use another good starting pitcher? People here love to wring their hands over the prospect of a long-term commitment to a Burnett-type pitcher being a financial catastrophe from which the team will never recover in the event of injury. Is that really the case? The Sox paid Matt Clement over $25 million for what amounted to about half a season of decent pitching. Did that prevent us from winning the 2007 World Series, a year in which Clement made almost $10 million and gave us literally nothing? Did his contract prevent us from spending $100 million on Matsuzaka or signing JD Drew to a big contract? Was there some draft choice we passed upon over money because of the disastrous Clement commitment? Were we unable to take on Mike Lowell's big contract as part of the price of acquiring Josh Beckett?

Kelvim Escobar is fine as a non roster invite, a complete lottery ticket. He's pitched one game in two years. Relying on him to be anything whatsoever, like we did with Smoltz last year, would be a gamble of epic proportions. Let's hope that the Sox aren't thinking that way.

[bosockboy]

Hell, they're a good enough rotation that they've already won a World Series.

True enough; I doubt they win it in 2007 though without Schilling stepping up.

[Sprowl]

This team has the resources for overpay for areas of need and what team couldn't use another good starting pitcher? People here love to wring their hands over the prospect of a long-term commitment to a Burnett-type pitcher being a financial catastrophe from which the team will never recover in the event of injury. Is that really the case? The Sox paid Matt Clement over $25 million for what amounted to about half a season of decent pitching. Did that prevent us from winning the 2007 World Series, a year in which Clement made almost $10 million and gave us literally nothing? Did his contract prevent us from spending $100 million on Matsuzaka or signing JD Drew to a big contract? Was there some draft choice we passed upon over money because of the disastrous Clement commitment? Were we unable to take on Mike Lowell's big contract as part of the price of acquiring Josh Beckett?

Matt Clement was a reasonable signing as a #3 pitcher once Pedro Martinez went elsewhere. If Clement had not been injured, he probably would have gone on producing lots of slightly wild but generally effective outings. If there were a Matt Clement on the free agent market, he would probably be worth pursuing. Instead, it's a poor free agent class when John Lackey is the #1 starter available (older and more expensive than Clement, with better control but less effective stuff), but it's rich in rehab lottery tickets. The argument I was responding to suggested that the Red Sox should not be looking for injury-rehab lottery tickets, they should be looking at front-line starters. The Red Sox already have better front-line starters than any team in baseball (there are a few other competitors in that category, but just a few). The available front-line starters are underwhelming and overpriced, while the rehab lottery tickets are numerous and the Red Sox' coaching staff and shoulder-strengthening program have given Boston a good name as a place for injured veterans to recover.

Of all the things that the Red Sox need, starting pitchers are close to the bottom of the list, and there are opportunity costs to overbuilding one part of the roster. The Red Sox have a large budget, and have the flexibility to spend a good deal more if it can be spent effectively -- but I don't think that they have so many dollars, trading chips and young prospects that they can afford to pursue a difference-maker in the lineup (Gonzalez, Ramirez, et al.) and an improved defense, and a restocked bullpen to replace the losses of Wagner and Saito, and a front-line starter. Of those needs, the defense and bullpen are essential; the lineup improvement is contingent on the availability of one of the big names; and an additional front-line starter is a luxury, not a necessity.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

People here love to wring their hands over the prospect of a long-term commitment to a Burnett-type pitcher being a financial catastrophe from which the team will never recover in the event of injury. Is that really the case?

I don't think it's hand wringing over a possible injury to such a player. The team does have the resources to stash an injured player, even an expensive one, on the DL and replace him with a functional big league pitcher. The hand-wringing is over the potential of having a healthy Burnett-type on the roster when he's 35-36-37, a shell of the guy they thought they signed, and due ten figures to suck up a roster spot better filled by someone ten years younger and ten million dollars cheaper.

And there's what Sprowl said...priorities with this team lie elsewhere at the moment. Given the market and what they already have in house, they are better served to buy a lottery ticket to address their back-end depth than overpay (dollars and years) for the "sure thing" at the front-end. The caveat being that if they decide to use Buchholz to address one of the other concerns, then they may have to explore pursuing the "sure thing" long-term guy like Lackey.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

I don't think it's hand wringing over a possible injury to such a player. The team does have the resources to stash an injured player, even an expensive one, on the DL and replace him with a functional big league pitcher. The hand-wringing is over the potential of having a healthy Burnett-type on the roster when he's 35-36-37, a shell of the guy they thought they signed, and due ten figures to suck up a roster spot better filled by someone ten years younger and ten million dollars cheaper.

But in recent years, they haven't been replacing the guys making $10+ million in their 30s with players making $0 in their twenties. There is nobody in AAA ball right now who is going to lose a spot in our rotation this year because of a John Lackey signing. There have been plenty of John Smoltzs and Bartolo Colon and Wade Millers and David Wellses, who have often been paid a fair bit of money for their bad performances. Is having a declining Burnett-type on the roster in his mid-to-late 30's that much worse than a revolving door of has beens and injury reclamations?

I can see Sprowl's argument that if signing John Lackey means you can't sign Matt Holliday, then that might not be the best use of resources for the team. I can't see the argument that you'd rather spend the money we gave Penny and Smoltz last year on this year's versions of guys like that instead of Lackey, even knowing that Lackey is going to cost somewhat more. Even conceding that Lackey is getting that money for four or five years, I'd rather give it to him than Ben Sheets and Rich Harden this year and whoever the equivalents are in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc...

Edited by Kevin Mortons Ghost, 03 December 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

But in recent years, they haven't been replacing the guys making $10+ million in their 30s with players making $0 in their twenties. There have been plenty of John Smoltzs and Bartolo Colon and Wade Millers and David Wellses, who have often been paid a fair bit of money for their bad performances. Is having a declining Burnett-type on the roster in his mid-to-late 30's that much worse than a revolving door of has beens and injury reclamations?

I can see Sprowl's argument that if signing John Lackey means you can't sign Matt Holliday, then that might not be the best use of resources for the team. I can't see the argument that you'd rather spend the money we gave Penny and Smoltz last year on this year's versions of guys like that instead of Lackey, even knowing that Lackey is going to cost somewhat more. Even conceding that Lackey is getting that money for four or five years, I'd rather give it to him than Ben Sheets and Rich Harden this year and whoever the equivalents are in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc...

Maybe I'm not communicating my point well enough. I'm not saying that I prefer them to always sign the Penny/Smoltz/Harden/Sheets rather than make long term commitments. I'm saying I prefer they take that route than making multi-year commitments to Burnett or Lackey types. It's less an endorsement of the lottery ticket approach and more of a dismissal of the paying a premium for less than premium talent.

Last off-season, I sure as hell would have rather they tried to sign Sabathia to a 5-6 year deal over Penny/Smoltz. He was a premium pitcher worth a premium price...a guy I'm willing to block Buchholz for or eat Wake's contract for or let Beckett walk after 2010 for. Burnett isn't that guy. Lackey isn't that guy. So better to take a one-year flier on a Harden, and have the flexibility to go after a premium guy next year when the market may be much more flush (Halladay/Beckett/Lee/Webb/Cain) rather than get locked in on a lesser guy.