193 replies to this topic

[TomRicardo]

sachilles, on 27 October 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

Not that they have the numbers to do it at the moment. Considering the general health and endurance of the staff this year, is this another opportunity to examine the merits of a 6-man rotation?

A six man rotation puts more strain on your rotation not less. You have to have one extra starting pitcher which digs deeper into your depth and you one less reliever meaning pitchers need to go longer.

[Rough Carrigan]

The Sox have:

Lester
Beckett
& Buchholz

Add Bard to that rotation and you only have to fill one spot.

I'm inclined to leave Aceves right where he is at the moment as he's so flexible in how he's used. I think Wakefield is cooked. The only other semi-realistic Sox options for #5 are Doubront and Matsuzaka. I have no idea what the latter's health status is though it seems very doubtful that he could contribute early in the season. What with Buchholz's troubles last year and porcelain horse Josh Beckett's perennial inability to throw 200 innings, they should definitely be in the market for a 5th starter type along with a reliever to fill Bard's spot.

But a rotation of:

Lester
Beckett
Buchholz
Bard
5th guy

Looks pretty good.

[gammoseditor]

soxfan121, on 27 October 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

I've seen speculation that Wilson would command 5 years and north of $80M. If you can get Darvish for 6 years and the same amount ($40M in posting, 6/$40M contract), that would invalidate that argument.

Heck, if CC opts out, he's looking at north of $23M/season for 5 or 6 years. So...it's not the money. The Red Sox have the money.

First I agree he's not going to be as expensive as Sabathia. Second, you're making an assumption that a $40M posting fee wins, and that he's sign for 6/40M after, which I don't agree with but let's look at that for a moment. Yes, the posting fee doesn't count against the luxury tax, but it is realy money, and it's upfront. $40M today is worth more than $40M spread out over 6 years. A $40M posting fee and a 6/$40 contract would be a significant investments, and again I don't think you get him for that anyway. Beyond that if we were to sign Darvish we still need a DH, SP, closer, and backup catcher.

[The Gray Eagle]

Rudy Pemberton, on 27 October 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

How good is Darvish going to be, though? I know that every time one of these guys comes out, they are supposed to be better than the last but ultimately, all of the international signings like this have hovered around average performance at best. Certainly value in that, but how much mileage is in his arm? How will he adapt to America? To MLB? To the AL East? Can he handle a slippery ball? It's been claimed by many smart people here that the posting fee paid for itself, but can that kind of impact be made again? Just seems like a lot of questions exist about that guy. Is he riskier than Wilson or Jackson? Probably not, but I think the wise move is to avoid all these guys. Tying up even more money in the rotation, unless the Sox plan on a substantial increase in payroll, seems like a questionable strategy.

Darvish's career ERA in Japan is a run lower than Matsuzaka's. Darvish is renowned for his command over there (which means he will probably have decent but not excellent command over here.) He at least speaks English, which Matsuzaka supposedly still can't. He's a gamble, but half of the money spent on landing him wouldn't count against the luxury tax. And if the Sox increased revenues in Asia from Matsuzaka, then adding Darvish would only increase those revenues. (Who knows if they did and how much?)

No one knows how he would adjust to the AL East, but how would Wilson adjust to the AL East? Or any other pitcher from any other division? No one knows, but you'd have to expect a dropoff from anyone.

Darvish is 25, not in his 30s like most free agents, which is a big advantage. If you want to add a starting pitcher, you're going to have to gamble, period. I like the idea of gambling on a 25-year-old, much of whose contract won't count against the luxury tax.

I hope we get Darvish. Even if we do, I would bring back Bedard (or at least offer him arb and if he rejects it, offer him a one-year deal, he might not get more than that from anyone) and also sign some scrub innings-eater on a one-year deal. And let Doubront start in Pawtucket's rotation, and see if he can put together a good start to the season.

[Jed Zeppelin]

Doubront is out of options.

[Kid T]

soxfan121, on 27 October 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

Heck, if CC opts out, he's looking at north of $23M/season for 5 or 6 years. So...it's not the money. The Red Sox have the money.

I think if all he wants is 5 or 6 years, the Yankees give it to him. It's the 7th year that might cause them to walk away...and I don't see the Red Sox capitulating to that 7th year either.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

MoGator71, on 26 October 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

I wonder if the Giants would have any interest in a deal built around Youk and Cain. They're one of the few contending type teams that could maybe afford to trade pitching, and they badly need an offensive boost. Though they still have Huff for another year, and as lousy as he was for them last year I'm not sure they'd be willing to pay him to sit the bench. And I'm not sure if the Sox would be willing to eat Huff to make the deal happen.

Rather than quote all the other follow up comments I'll keep it to this. Youk and Cain as the center pieces was the exact thought I had as well. If other pieces (Huff) need to be included to make it happen I doubt they would be too consequential other than salary dumps.

I could realistically see the 2012 Red Sox as having platoons around Shortstop and Third with Scutaro/Aviles/Lowrie and in Right Field with Kalish/Cuddyer/Reddick, and I would be ok with this if it means a better rotation.

[Kid T]

PrometheusWakefield, on 27 October 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

The Giants right now are building a team around the fact that they have three of the top young pitchers in baseball in Lincecum, Cain and Bumgarner, and they can compliment those guys with some rising young hitters like Sandoval, Posey and Belt. They aren't going to be interested in a radical roster shake-up, they are going to be looking to retool and upgrade a few positions and compete for another World Series in 2012.

ding ding ding!

The only thing giving the Giants a chance to contend is the rotation. Why would they trade an integral part of it? Also, take a look at their line-up. One player won't make a dramatic difference in that offense. They'll need 2-3 upgrades before they can climb out from being one of the lowest scoring teams.

[ForceAtHome]

I hope the Red Sox are at least looking at and considering the other Japanese starter on the market. Hisashi Iwakuma was posted last year and the A's bid $19.1 MM to negotiate with him, but ultimately couldn't agree on a contract. This year is he a free agent and could come over without a posting fee, making him significantly cheaper overall (although likely a higher AAV). He doesn't have nearly the stuff of Darvish (then again, no one does this off season), but I think he could be a middle/back-of-the-rotation starter. He's a to-be 31-year-old groundball pitcher who throws low-90's with a few off speed pitches. He's had some shoulder issues in the past, including this season, but his numbers have been very good the past few years and he's been pretty healthy, too. He was great at the 2009 WBC, recording a 1.35 ERA and being named to the All-Tournament team. He was even chosen over Darvish to start the championship game.

Iwakuma isn't particularly flashy or sexy as a name these days, but he's consistently putting up good numbers in Japan and I think warrants a serious look to be a back-end starter, especially when you consider how much less he should get than CJ Wilson and Darvish (including post fee if it happens).

Hisashi Iwakuma Japanese Stats

Year	Age	W	L	GS	CG	SHO	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	WHIP	LgERA
2001	20	4	2	8	1	1	43.2	46	28	22	3	13	25	4.53	1.35	4.37
2002	21	8	7	23	2	0	141.1	132	62	58	10	42	131	3.69	1.23	3.69
2003	22	15	10	27	11	0	195.2	201	85	75	19	48	149	3.45	1.28	4.64
2004	23	15	2	21	7	1	158.2	149	57	53	13	30	123	3.01	1.13	4.68
2005	24	9	15	27	9	0	182.1	218	113	101	19	40	124	4.99	1.41	4.06
2006	25	1	2	6	2	0	38.2	43	18	16	4	12	16	3.72	1.42	3.62
2007	26	5	5	16	0	0	90	95	47	34	6	23	84	3.4	1.31	3.57
2008	27	21	4	28	5	2	201.2	161	48	42	3	36	159	1.87	0.98	3.9
2009	28	13	6	24	5	0	169	179	62	61	15	43	121	3.25	1.31	4.03
2010	29	10	9	28	4	1	201	184	68	63	11	36	153	2.82	1.09	3.94
2011	30	6	7	17	2	1	119	106	34	32	6	19	90	2.42	1.05	?

[Rasputin]

Lemme toss this out there.

Jamie Moyer.

Yeah, he's a hundred years old and coming off a missed season but he can't be demanding much money and we're looking for back of the rotation guys. Plus he''ll be a short term sign, would probably want a chance at a ring, and he won't be standing in the way of our in house options for 2013.

[Toe Nash]

Rasputin, on 29 October 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Lemme toss this out there.

Jamie Moyer.

Yeah, he's a hundred years old and coming off a missed season but he can't be demanding much money and we're looking for back of the rotation guys. Plus he''ll be a short term sign, would probably want a chance at a ring, and he won't be standing in the way of our in house options for 2013.

He had a 63 ERA+ two years ago in the NL. He'd get killed in the AL East with that stuff (or lack thereof).

I don't think I'd even offer him a minor league deal.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Rasputin, on 29 October 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Lemme toss this out there.

Jamie Moyer.

Yeah, he's a hundred years old and coming off a missed season but he can't be demanding much money and we're looking for back of the rotation guys. Plus he''ll be a short term sign, would probably want a chance at a ring, and he won't be standing in the way of our in house options for 2013.

Interesting thought, but the first thing that comes to mind when I think of signing a 49-year-old Moyer is that Wakefield, at age 45, is probably a better bet. Moyer missed last season, and his previous two years (ages 46 and 47) were 162 IP at 85 ERA+ and 112 IP at 84 ERA+. Wake's last two years were 140 IP at 82 ERA+ and 154 IP at 83 ERA+. If they're going to sign guys who are nearly eligible for AARP, better the one they know.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Rasputin, on 29 October 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Jamie Moyer.

There's probably other guys younger that fit the bill.

Ted Lilly's one of them - control lefty that pitched almost 200 innings in 2011, and would benefit from a better offense behind him at the back end of a starting rotation.

Even if he had to be signed for more than one year, I don't think it's cost-prohibitive, or risky, to give him two years/option/performance kickers. He wouldn't be blocking anyone in 2012 or 2013, and could ride off into the bullpen sunset and transition to LOOGY if he falls off a cliff in the rotation.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 29 October 2011 - 04:13 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Trlicek's Whip, on 29 October 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

There's probably other guys younger that fit the bill.

Ted Lilly's one of them - control lefty that pitched almost 200 innings in 2011, and would benefit from a better offense behind him at the back end of a starting rotation.

Even if he had to be signed for more than one year, I don't think it's cost-prohibitive, or risky, to give him two years/option/performance kickers. He wouldn't be blocking anyone in 2012 or 2013, and could ride off into the bullpen sunset and transition to LOOGY if he falls off a cliff in the rotation.

Lilly is signed through 2013 already and is still owed $22.5M. Plus he has a no-trade clause. That seems pretty cost-prohibitive to me, especially when you figure in whatever it would take to trade for him and/or get him to waive the no-trade.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Red(s)HawksFan, on 29 October 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Lilly is signed through 2013 already and is still owed $22.5M. Plus he has a no-trade clause. That seems pretty cost-prohibitive to me, especially when you figure in whatever it would take to trade for him and/or get him to waive the no-trade.

Sorry, I did a down-and-dirty Cots FA search and misread. My bad.

Guys I do like I've mentioned upthread (Bedard, Wang, McCarthy, Jackson, Francis)

[trekfan55]

Red(s)HawksFan, on 29 October 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Lilly is signed through 2013 already and is still owed $22.5M. Plus he has a no-trade clause. That seems pretty cost-prohibitive to me, especially when you figure in whatever it would take to trade for him and/or get him to waive the no-trade.

I would think Ted Lilly is still upset by the stunt that the Sox pulled in the 2003 ALCS (although he made up for that by making the Sox his bitch thereafter).

No way he waives his no trade clause to play in Boston.

[Doctor G]

Bruce Chen would give you the same thing as Lilly for less money and no players. I'd be comfortable adding Chen and Mc Carthy as 4+5.

Edited by Doctor G, 30 October 2011 - 11:36 AM.

[Kid T]

Toe Nash, on 29 October 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

He had a 63 ERA+ two years ago in the NL. He'd get killed in the AL East with that stuff (or lack thereof).

I don't think I'd even offer him a minor league deal.

Moyer had arm problems and underwent Tommy John surgery. Not sure how much his arm problems contributed to his struggles. Regardless, the last thing to come back after TJ surgery is control - which is what he mostly relied upon during his prime years. I think at best, he would fill the Wakefield role (mop up duty/emergency spot starter). I think for my money, there are better options out there.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Doctor G, on 30 October 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

Bruce Chen would give you the same thing as Lilly for less money and no players. I'd be comfortable adding Chen and Mc Carthy as 4+5.

Color me a little nervous about McCarthy. He's a great story, and apparently he has legitimately reinvented his mechanics & repertoire, but it's just one season, and we have no idea how the new McCarthy would function in the tougher parks of the AL East. If he were an FA I'd be all for it, but I'm uneasy with the idea of giving up talent from our already mildly depleted system for him. If Cherington could pull off a really good deal, then sure.

Chen I think is just a bad fit. His career split at Fenway is awful (1.006 OPS allowed), and though the sample size is small, I'm inclined to take the split seriously because Chen is exactly the kind of guy you'd expect to have trouble at Fenway: a LH flyball pitcher with a low K rate. He doesn't miss bats much any more, either: his SwStr% used to be average or better in his Orioles days, but for the past three years it has been well below average.

If we want to sign one of KC's soft-tossing lefties, I think Francis is more interesting. He keeps the ball on the ground (47% GB rate) and doesn't walk people (1.92 BB/9). His FIP and xFIP were better than Chen's, though a bit higher than you'd like from a high-BABIP guy. And he could be available cheaper than Chen given his poor-looking baseball-card stats.

[JMDurron]

Rudy posted this in multiple threads, but this is really a Starting Pitching discussion.

Rudy Pemberton, on 15 November 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

Posted this in the Papelbon thread, but probably more relevant here. I'd be inclined to put both Aceves & Bard in the rotation. There's enough good arms in FA that you can sign 3 of them (something like Nathan, Rauch, and Peralta, and if you don't like that it could be Farnsworth, Broxton, Francisco, etc.); and fill out the pen with guys like Bowden, Doubront, Weiland. Spending $10M on the pen seems likely to go farther than $10M on the rotation; and you won't have to make many, if any, multi-year commitments. If it works; you've filled in the rotation with two fairly cheap guys you control for awhile.

Beckett
Lester
Buchholz
Bard
Aceves

Is a pretty nice rotation, isn't it?

I feel like the answer to Rudy's question is pretty obviously "No!", but it seems that I might be in the minority here. This rotation consists of 5 pitchers, who respectively:

- Failed to pitch 200 IP and appears due for a performance regression, relative both to in-season peripherals and 2008-2010 performance levels.

- Pitched 191.2 IP over a full season, and just posted his least-effective season from a rate standpoint since 2007. Should be due for some positive performance regression if his control issues this season were an aberration. Hopefully his positive regression cancels out Beckett's negative regression.

- Has averaged 106 IP, entirely as a starter, over the last 4 seasons, with wildly varying levels of success. Great upside and high variability here.

- Last started a game in 2007, in high season A ball, and sucked at it at the time. It strikes me as completely insane to not only assume that he can make the successful conversion to a starter because of makeup and/or the fact that other pitchers have managed to do so, but that he'd be able to pitch enough innings at a sufficient level to be counted on as the 4th starter on a AL East playoff contender in the first season of that conversion. High upside, but he's far, far less likely to achieve it than Buchholz, who has at least put in a full season as an excellent starter only a year ago. He has averaged 66 IP over the past 3 MLB seasons, so I'd love to know how anyone is expecting to get 160 IP or more out of him even IF he is still nearly as effective as a starter as he was as a reliever.

- Has never pitched more than 114 IP in a season, and has only started in 9 career games. He has allowed an OPS against of over 100 points higher as a starter in that admittedly small sample when compared to his splits as a reliever. He is also due for performance regression relative to his excellent 2011 campaign.

I'm not seeing how that is a "pretty nice" rotation. If Bard's conversion is successful, then maybe it would be in 2013, but for 2012? Where are the other IP coming from? Without a single pitcher outside of Lester who is a safe bet to go 200 IP, you're basically assigning an almost-regular SP load to your 6th starter, who is likely to be one of Wakefield, Weiland, Doubront, or some scrap-heap FA aquisition, which is the best you'll get if it is known that the player is signing to be SP depth instead of one of the top 5 to start the season. I see that rotation as horrendously risky, with a near-certainty of large amounts of starts going to the 6th-8th best starters even in the best case scenario in terms of health and effectiveness. Matsuzaka won't be ready early enough, as I understand it, to contribute before August.

Setting aside the bullpen impacts, going into the 2012 season with a starting rotation consisting of Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, a freshly converted (freshly being key) and presumably still excellent (massive assumption) Daniel Bard, and Alfredo Aceves strikes me as somewhat reckless. Now, I think if you had Matsuzaka to start the season, or retain an Eric Bedard type (at least you're spreading the risk around, and Aceves can be on the roster as a reliever/6th starter with his apparently rubber arm), then that's another story. I see massive IP downside, moderate injury risk, and significant performance risk in Rudy's proposed rotation, and I'm really confused as to how something that might be serviceable in my mind is apparently being considered to be "nice" by the SoSH consensus. Sure, it might be nice if Bard replicates his reliever dominance over 210 IP, with no regression from Beckett, 2010 Jon Lester, 2010 Clay Buchholz, and 2011 Alfredo Aceves over double the IP, but what are the odds of that happening? With all due respect, this isn't nice, it's madness.

Edited by JMDurron, 15 November 2011 - 04:53 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

What's the alternative though? Who is a good bet to throw 200 innings that isn't going to cost a ton of money, and / or prospects? There's certainly risk in Bard-Aceves as the 4th-5th starters, but it's relatively inexpensive and there's a ton of potential reward there. If you sign a guy like Jackson or whomever, there's risk too. Especially if he pitches poorly and / or gets hurt and you've got another Lackey on your hand. If you were to go with Aceves- Bard as the back end of your rotation, you'd probably still want to sign a guy like Garland or Capuano, I guess.

I just have a hard time envisioning how this team, given the perceived payroll and all that, can afford to sign a top starter or give up assets to trade for one.

[TomRicardo]

Rudy Pemberton, on 15 November 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

What's the alternative though? Who is a good bet to throw 200 innings that isn't going to cost a ton of money, and / or prospects? There's certainly risk in Bard-Aceves as the 4th-5th starters, but it's relatively inexpensive and there's a ton of potential reward there. If you sign a guy like Jackson or whomever, there's risk too. Especially if he pitches poorly and / or gets hurt and you've got another Lackey on your hand. If you were to go with Aceves- Bard as the back end of your rotation, you'd probably still want to sign a guy like Garland or Capuano, I guess.

I just have a hard time envisioning how this team, given the perceived payroll and all that, can afford to sign a top starter or give up assets to trade for one.

Chances are you can get a starter that would be better than Bard and Aceves a lot cheaper than getting bullpen arms to replace them.

[Carroll Hardy]

TomRicardo, on 15 November 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

Chances are you can get a starter that would be better than Bard and Aceves a lot cheaper than getting bullpen arms to replace them.

I agree, if we can define "better" as more likely to give you 32 starts and 190 IPs. Because Bard and Aceves probably will not in be capable of that in 2012. Just give me a #4 that can do that with an ERA+ of 100ish, make Aceves the #5, keep Bard as high-leverage 2007 middle reliever "Oki-death". Sign one of the many 35-40 save closers after the market settles to a short deal. Assuming Lester-Beckett-Buchholz are still the legit 1-2-3 they have shown themselves to be, and we will have a manager who will expect them to go later in games than Tito, the bullpen should be appropriately rested (and therefore should be more effective late in the year). Then, sit down in October 2012 and watch the playoffs with the Red Sox in them.

[dbn]

Part of the problem is that (a) there don't seem to be many SP FA targets this year to whom they'd be willing to offer more than a year or two contract, which is relevant because (b) next year's SP FA market may be much better than this years, so © the only alternatives to Bard/Aceves types would be lottery ticket-types looking to rebuild value who may have less chance of success than Bard/Aceves.

The above statement is why I'm pretty trepidatious about the need to replace two starting pitchers this offseason.

[Savin Hillbilly]

One way of looking at it:




The idea is that the pitchers furthest to the southwest are the best bets.

I'm defining "risk" here broadly as "likelihood of being an overall negative factor." Thus Bard and Aceves are farther to the right than their talent would suggest, not only because of the risk that the conversion to SP will fail, but because of the risk that adequate replacements for their bullpen contribution will not materialize. Likewise, Bedard and Oswalt are further right than they would be if there was less doubt of their being able to make a full season's worth of starts.

This is obviously crude and pretty subjective, but I thought it might be an interesting way of approaching the problem. (Did I leave anybody important out?)

[dbn]

Savin Hillbilly, on 15 November 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

Best. Plot. Ever.

[Kramerica Industries]

dbn, on 15 November 2011 - 06:56 PM, said:

Part of the problem is that (a) there don't seem to be many SP FA targets this year to whom they'd be willing to offer more than a year or two contract, which is relevant because (b) next year's SP FA market may be much better than this years, so © the only alternatives to Bard/Aceves types would be lottery ticket-types looking to rebuild value who may have less chance of success than Bard/Aceves.

The above statement is why I'm pretty trepidatious about the need to replace two starting pitchers this offseason.

How about C) The Trade Market?

There have been rumblings of Jurrjens in Atlanta and Gio Gonzalaz in Oakland. Also John Danks and Gavin Floyd in Chicago. Of course, that option is complicated by the farm system and chances dont seem great, but its an option.

We need an innings eater. 200 innings of league average pitching. Do that and you can have Bard/Aceves/etc. battle for the 5 spot. But you need to add some type of stability to at least one spot.

There is always option D)

Hope that The "Theo trade" gets us Garza.

Edited by Kramerica Industries, 15 November 2011 - 10:12 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

TomRicardo, on 15 November 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

Chances are you can get a starter that would be better than Bard and Aceves a lot cheaper than getting bullpen arms to replace them.

I think you have it 180 degrees off.

Top starters get paid more than top relievers. Good starters get paid more than good relievers. That's a simple fact. There's no reliever who gets $22 million per year like Sabathia. Papelbon's just signed record contract for a reliever has been exceed by, what, a dozen, a score of starters? Starters are more expensive and rightly so.

And this offseason is a buyer's market for relievers. The market is flooded with closers.

This is *exactly* the time that it makes sense to be trying to make Bard and Aceves starters.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 15 November 2011 - 10:35 PM.

[maufman]

Great plot, Savin.

The guy from Fangraphs (sorry, his name escapes me) was on the ESPN Baseball podcast today. He thinks White Sox pitching coach Don Cooper is one of the best in the business, and he said pitchers who have left Chicago during Cooper's tenure have fared worse than expected with their new teams. That was enough to scare me away from Buehrle -- not that it took much, mind you.

Among the higher risk FAs, I like Capuano -- 3.67 xFIP, 8.1 K/9, and I think his TJ surgery will drag down his value more than it should. Problem is, he's always had trouble keeping the ball in the yard, and Fenway Park isn't exactly ideal for a LHP with gopher-ball issues.

Speaking of Fangraphs, Bradley Woodrum thinks Brandon Webb could be had for nothing more than a major-league contract. There's obviously a reason Webb's stock has fallen so far, but there isn't anyone available with better upside.

[Rasputin]

Rough Carrigan, on 15 November 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think you have it 180 degrees off.

Top starters get paid more than top relievers. Good starters get paid more than good relievers. That's a simple fact. There's no reliever who gets $22 million per year like Sabathia. Papelbon's just signed record contract for a reliever has been exceed by, what, a dozen, a score of starters? Starters are more expensive and rightly so.

And this offseason is a buyer's market for relievers. The market is flooded with closers.

This is *exactly* the time that it makes sense to be trying to make Bard and Aceves starters.

We're not looking for top starters we're looking for mediocre starters.

[maufman]

Rough Carrigan, on 15 November 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think you have it 180 degrees off.

Top starters get paid more than top relievers. Good starters get paid more than good relievers. That's a simple fact. There's no reliever who gets $22 million per year like Sabathia. Papelbon's just signed record contract for a reliever has been exceed by, what, a dozen, a score of starters? Starters are more expensive and rightly so.

And this offseason is a buyer's market for relievers. The market is flooded with closers.

This is *exactly* the time that it makes sense to be trying to make Bard and Aceves starters.

Rough is right about starters costing more than relievers on an apples-to-apples basis -- but the Sox aren't comparing apples to apples when it comes to Bard.

Bard is an elite reliever. The market is never flooded with players of that caliber; Madson is (imo) the only player currently available who fits the bill. As a starter, however, Bard is a huge question mark. There are several guys on the market who could provide Bard's expected value as an SP, and they're all likely to sign for less than Madson. And because there are multiple options, you can wait for a bargain, so you might save more in practice than you'd expect in theory.

The calculus for Aceves is much different, because he's not an elite reliever -- the market is flooded with players whose expected value is similar to Aceves's. So, if you think there's a decent chance Aceves can be a passable 5th starter, you almost have to give him a shot.

[JMDurron]

Rough Carrigan, on 15 November 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think you have it 180 degrees off.

Top starters get paid more than top relievers. Good starters get paid more than good relievers. That's a simple fact. There's no reliever who gets $22 million per year like Sabathia. Papelbon's just signed record contract for a reliever has been exceed by, what, a dozen, a score of starters? Starters are more expensive and rightly so.

And this offseason is a buyer's market for relievers. The market is flooded with closers.

This is *exactly* the time that it makes sense to be trying to make Bard and Aceves starters.

My problem with the last line is that there is a HUGE difference between "trying to make" Bard and Aceves starters, and "desperately relying on" Bard and Aceves as starters. If those two are Opening Day #4 and #5 guys, you might as well just pour gasoline all over anyone who is acquired to add to the bullpen and torch them now, because there will be so many IP thrust upon the bullpen that it won't matter what top relievers are signed to replace Papelbon, Bard, and Aceves. We've seen this happen too many times at this point, where a crappy/injured rotation brings the bullpen down with them once they implode.

Savin's plot is pretty awesome, and IF those two conversions are really the plan, then I feel like one or both of Capuano-Bedard is the sweet spot. The problem I have with both Bard and Aceves, particularly together, is the IP deficit. Signing someone who should be available to pitch Opening Day, even if he might not last the entire season, goes a long way towards soaking up some IP from the team-controlled guys who can be stretched out in AAA (Bard) and/or hidden in the bullpen (Aceves).

I'm going to flesh out one potential scenario here. Starting the season with a Beckett-Lester-Buchholz-Bedard-Bard rotation gives Bard a chance to miss a few starts during the early season off days, plus Aceves can provide support to and from the bullpen. If (when) Bedard gets hurt (or if Buchholz does, as I believe that Ellsbury's people call him "Lowrie Of The Mound"), Aceves moves in easily, and you get Beckett-Lester-Buchholz/Bedard-Bard-Aceves. As the season moves along, Bedard/Buchholz comes back from injury, and Aceves gets more starts for the annual random Beckett/Lester ouchies. This it the area where a 7th guy like Wakefield/Weiland might get some use if you have simultaneous injuries. As the season moves into August, Bard approaches his IP ceiling and returns to the bullpen, hopefully the other 4 guys are healthy, and Matsuzaka returns. That gives you Beckett-Lester-Buchholz-Bedard-Matsuzaka with Aceves as the 6th starter and Bard back setting up in the pen, along with your other acquired relievers (the expensive stars who suck ass, and the random-ass studs, obviously, since that's apparently how this works).

Playing out any kind of even semi-plausible scenario of pitcher fatigue/injury and IP constrains leads you to disaster, IMO, with Beckett-Lester-Buchholz-Bard-Aceves, but if you add just one 100-150 IP, performance upside guy to that rotation, then the picture starts to look significantly rosier. You're basically choosing between, presumable 20-25 starts of Wakefield/Weiland vs 20-25 starts of Bedard/Capuano. I think that's a no-brainer, and that's without any insider knowledge of how likely Buchholz or Matsuzaka are to recover from their 2011 injuries.

[TomRicardo]

Rough Carrigan, on 15 November 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think you have it 180 degrees off.

Top starters get paid more than top relievers. Good starters get paid more than good relievers. That's a simple fact. There's no reliever who gets $22 million per year like Sabathia. Papelbon's just signed record contract for a reliever has been exceed by, what, a dozen, a score of starters? Starters are more expensive and rightly so.

And this offseason is a buyer's market for relievers. The market is flooded with closers.

This is *exactly* the time that it makes sense to be trying to make Bard and Aceves starters.

Bard and Aceves aren't good starters. They are back fo the rotation starters. Expecting anymore than 150 IP from Bard is insane and Aceves really isn't a QS starter.

[SoxScout]

Guessing someone knows something

Quote

@SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
Wakefield belongs in NL says agent meister. 13 of 15 knuckleballers who switched leagues since 1937 lowered ERA by 1.25 runs

https://twitter.com/...874791792672768

Quote

Abraham
Meister said if #RedSox "underestimate" Wakefield "he'll go win 15 games for somebody else"

https://twitter.com/...931192766349312

Edited by SoxScout, 16 November 2011 - 05:20 PM.

[erfus]

JMDurron, on 16 November 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

The problem I have with both Bard and Aceves, particularly together, is the IP deficit. Signing someone who should be available to pitch Opening Day, even if he might not last the entire season, goes a long way towards soaking up some IP from the team-controlled guys who can be stretched out in AAA (Bard) and/or hidden in the bullpen (Aceves).

I agree the the IP deficit should be a serious concern. I would not be surprised to see Bard and Aceves in a ST battle for the 5th spot with the loser going back into the setup role. It seems cheaper and more likely to work if the Sox threw a bunch of arms on short contracts at the bullpen issue, maybe excepting a relatively short long term deal for someone like Heath Bell if that works out. But, I also agree w/ folks that believe it's optimistic to think they can solve their SP woes internally w/ both Bard and Aceves, particularly when the top tier of minor league depth guys seem to profile better as options to fix the bullpen (Weiland, Wilson, maybe even Doubront unless he gets back into a healthy form / shape). Paying through the nose for an old innings-eater like Buehrle isn't really attractive either and I'm not keen on depending on the fragile or the rehabbing like Bedard or Oswalt.

I wonder if the best option ends up being dealing for one of Danks/Floyd/Garza/Jurrens to address that 4th spot in the rotation, as Kramerica Industries suggests. I'm one of those optimists who think the state of the Sox farm system could absorb another significant hit to get one of those guys and still be pretty solid overall. Having something like this would be OK in my book:

Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, [Danks], Bard
[Bell], Aceves, Jenks, [Capps], Morales, Albers
Depth: Weiland, Doubront, Wilson, Tazawa, et al (although one or more may be dealt to get a starter)

[TomRicardo]

erfus, on 16 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

I agree the the IP deficit should be a serious concern. I would not be surprised to see Bard and Aceves in a ST battle for the 5th spot with the loser going back into the setup role. It seems cheaper and more likely to work if the Sox threw a bunch of arms on short contracts at the bullpen issue, maybe excepting a relatively short long term deal for someone like Heath Bell if that works out. But, I also agree w/ folks that believe it's optimistic to think they can solve their SP woes internally w/ both Bard and Aceves, particularly when the top tier of minor league depth guys seem to profile better as options to fix the bullpen (Weiland, Wilson, maybe even Doubront unless he gets back into a healthy form / shape). Paying through the nose for an old innings-eater like Buehrle isn't really attractive either and I'm not keen on depending on the fragile or the rehabbing like Bedard or Oswalt.

I wonder if the best option ends up being dealing for one of Danks/Floyd/Garza/Jurrens to address that 4th spot in the rotation, as Kramerica Industries suggests. I'm one of those optimists who think the state of the Sox farm system could absorb another significant hit to get one of those guys and still be pretty solid overall. Having something like this would be OK in my book:

Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, [Danks], Bard
[Bell], Aceves, Jenks, [Capps], Morales, Albers
Depth: Weiland, Doubront, Wilson, Tazawa, et al (although one or more may be dealt to get a starter)

Doubront is already out of options and someone I think could be a candidate for SP spot

[The Gray Eagle]

Surely we're going to offer Bedard arbitration. If he takes it, or signs with us while avoiding arb, then that's one starting spot that will be filled for at least a while. That buys time for Doubront, Aceves and a low-priced signing to battle it out for the other spot, likely with Doubront and Aceves starting in the pen but still being available for spot starts. If the guy who wins the job in spring stinks in the first couple of months, or someone gets hurt, then Doubront or Aceves gets a shot in the rotation. If he can't get it done either then you try the other guy or add someone at the trade deadline. Matsuzaka should be available in August or September as well if we need a starter then.

We'd still need another starting pitcher candidate, and if Bedard rejects arb and signs somewhere else, we would need two arms. But they don't have to be big names and shouldn't be given long contracts. If our first three are healthy and in shape, they should form the nucleus of a very good rotation. We need a couple of candidates for the other slots, but we do have options in house. We would need one or two to come through and give us innings at around league average, which would be a huge improvement over what we got from those slots last year.

If we have multiple guys who have some upside battling for those innings, then maybe a couple of them come through for us. Best case scenario would probably be Bedard 100 IP at an ERA of 4.00, Doubront 100 at 4.80, Aceves 80 IP at 4.40, and starter X 120 IP at 4.75, or something like that. If that came through, that would likely make our overall rotation fantastic. But we need to bring in a couple of guys who might be able to give us that, on contracts that we are prepared to eat if they fail. A couple Brandon Webb types, and also a Millwood type on a minor league deal.

Having competition for jobs can be a good thing if you have solid candidates. Someone will have to pitch better than someone else to get the starts, unlike in September when most of our rotation was pitching worse than everyone but we had to keep running them out there anyway.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Is Bedard really coming back? I was under the impression that neither side was particularly enthralled with his experience here. Any idea how much he ended up making last year? I know he had a low guarantee but lots of incentives. Since he doesn't bring back compensation, why bother offering arb?

[nvalvo]

Rudy Pemberton, on 16 November 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Is Bedard really coming back? I was under the impression that neither side was particularly enthralled with his experience here. Any idea how much he ended up making last year? I know he had a low guarantee but lots of incentives. Since he doesn't bring back compensation, why bother offering arb?

Why? Because having Bedard — or any decent SP — on arbitration for one year would be an amazingly good outcome, with a strong SP FA year pending.

[maufman]

nvalvo, on 16 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Why? Because having Bedard — or any decent SP — on arbitration for one year would be an amazingly good outcome, with a strong SP FA year pending.

For a player who isn't a Type A or Type B free agent, offering arbitration is a no-win proposition. If you think Bedard will take a one-year deal, offer him a one-year deal for what you think is fair, but don't hand that decision to a third party.

[TomRicardo]

maufman, on 16 November 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

For a player who isn't a Type A or Type B free agent, offering arbitration is a no-win proposition. If you think Bedard will take a one-year deal, offer him a one-year deal for what you think is fair, but don't hand that decision to a third party.

Except you can void the contract in Spring Training paying only 1/5 the cost

[jacklamabe65]

Roy Oswalt, anyone? http://www.bostonher..._medium=twitter

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

jacklamabe65, on 16 November 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

Roy Oswalt, anyone? http://www.bostonher..._medium=twitter

He'd fit into Durron or erfus' scenario to a 'T.' I could get behind that, if it's a one year, or even for two at high seven figures per year. Better than extending for Buehrle or Jackson, or settling for anyone else on the free agent market. Probably the best possible option to provide enough quality and depth to shuffle Bard back into the bullpen before he hits his limit, right around the time when Matsuzaka shows he's ready to step back in, or when Aceves, Doubront, or Tazawa take his spot instead. Long term I want to see Bard challenged as a starter, not a closer. I buy Sprowl's explanation it was messing with his arm angle, not his natural stuff that didn't play as a starter.

The only problem is if it is more than a 2010 Betre style deal, and Bard succeeds and ends up a member of the rotation in '13, Lackey would have to fight to get his spot back. Not sure that would break too many hearts around here, though it would pose a complication.

[maufman]

Oswalt is losing velocity. He's a big risk.

I would definitely be interested at the right price, but imo, someone is going to overpay. Oswalt is nearly as risky as Capuano, but Oswalt will get a lot more money.

[Savin Hillbilly]

maufman, on 16 November 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

Oswalt is losing velocity. He's a big risk.

I would definitely be interested at the right price, but imo, someone is going to overpay. Oswalt is nearly as risky as Capuano, but Oswalt will get a lot more money.

The velocity decline was not that huge--basically a little over 1 MPH. And as the article you linked to pointed out, he gained velocity steadily after he came back from the DL. By the end of the year he was back in his customary 92-93 range. I don't know what to make of that going forward, but it's not as simple as saying that he had a stable, across-the-board velocity drop last year.

I think Oswalt would be a fabulous option at the right price. If we could get him for basically the same deal some of us are proposing for Ortiz -- i.e. 2/$25M plus option(s)--I'd go for it in a heartbeat. I just feel pretty sure somebody will show up with 3/$42M or thereabouts, and that seems like a little too much risk for a team that's already a bit overextended with long-term SP contracts.

[lambeau]

Zimmerman at FG has a quick and dirty FIP simplification ; value= IP (k%-0.8BB%). For some SP prospects in thinking dollars, consider 2011:


Capuano 29.7


Gio Gonzalez 28.8

Floyd 27.4

McCarthy 25.5

Danks 22.7

Bedard 20.7

Cahill 18.6

Buehrle 17.0

[RedOctober3829]

Quote

The Red Sox, who have yet to address their need for starting pitching, are among the teams in pursuit of free-agent left-hander C.J. Wilson, sources said.

Morosi

[koufax32]

lambeau, on 17 November 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

Zimmerman at FG has a quick and dirty FIP simplification ; value= IP (k%-0.8BB%). For some SP prospects in thinking dollars, consider 2011:


Capuano 29.7


Gio Gonzalez 28.8

Floyd 27.4

McCarthy 25.5

Danks 22.7

Bedard 20.7

Cahill 18.6

Buehrle 17.0

I recently read (in the globe?) about the Sox' apparent interest in Gio Gonzalez. I'd love to see this happen as he'd be under control from age 26-30. His last two seasons have produced br WARs of 4.7 and 5.0 with era+ around 125-130 each year. He is a lower BB rate away from being a real force. But there's that pesky issue of acquisition cost. Could he be had for Iglesias, Kalish, +?

[KenTremendous]

Getting starters from the A's feels like getting OF from the Rockies in 1999. Gio might turn out to be a great pitcher, but he's walked 90+ guys each of his two complete seasons. The league hits like .230 against him because that stadium is a cricket field and every ball hit in the air stays in the park, fair or foul. I feel like we'd give up several prospects, bring him to the AL East, and watch him walk 120 guys in 200 innings.

[Eric Van]

Two points.

First, like it or not, John Lackey will be a candidate for the rotation again, beginning in 2013, and will be under team control for three years at $31M. And, believe it or not, there's a decent chance that it will make more sense to keep him at that price than to deal him. It therefore makes little sense to acquire two guys whom you control for more than a year. While developing more talent than you need is the proverbial problem you don't mind having. it makes no sense to acquire more talent -- at a premium price, too -- than you need.

That's a pretty good reason to convert at least one of Bard or Aceves to the rotation. And if it's going to be one, it's going to be Bard. First of all, he's clearly the better pitcher. Second, there's nothing in his splits that suggests he has unusual value in relief versus the rotation, whereas Aceves has a big split by leverage that is entirely driven by hardness of contact, which suggests that a lot of his success comes from sort sort of deception from an altered approach that he reserves for high-lev situations. Bard seems to have a starter's makeup, not a reliever's, Bard has a much bigger split than Aceves versus 3 & 4 hitters and hence would benefit more from not being leveraged against the opposition's best hitters ... there are a ton of reasons here.

Secondly, there is actually almost no risk involved in filling the last two spots in the rotation. This team was somewhere between a 99 to 101 win team in terms of expected wins based on (non-situational) stats, and look at how the rotation slots performed, after dividing up the spot starts as they actually happened (#1 is start number 1; park-adjusted league average is 4.38):

Pitching By Rotation Slot

Slot	Who	GS	IP	ERA
1	Beckett, Wakefield #1, Aceves #4, Weiland #3	33	207.7	3.03
2	Lester, Weiland #1-2	33	201.7	3.70
3	Buchholz, Miller #1-8, 12, Weiland #4, Bedard	32	169.0	4.37
4	Lackey, Aceves #1-3	31	176.0	6.24
5/6	Matsuzaka, Wakefield #2-23, Miller #9-11, Weiland #5	33	185.7	5.43

It's almost inconceivable that Daniel Bard would be worse than the group of 5 and 6 starters from last year, and it's almost inconceivable that Alfredo Aceves would be worse than John Lackey. The Sox, in fact, have a rare opportunity to gamble on upside in these two rotation slots. Unless you suffer another catastrophic win efficiency shortfall or a an offensive collapse, you have every expectation of making the playoffs as long as the 4 and 5 starters are collectively just OK. So it's the perfect time to gamble on guys who look very likely to be at least OK but have a chance to be much better than that. It is an opportunity created by the excellence of the rest of the team, and it shouldn't be squandered.

Furthermore, when you look at the quality of the innings they are replacing, the innings shortfall problem evaporates. It's crazy to balk at converting Bard and quite possibly Aceves as well because you're worried about giving 8 to 10 extra starts (above what's required by injuries) to a returning Dice-K, Doubront, Tazawa, Weiland, Wilson, and hopefully one or two reclamation projects (either signed to minor league deals or expected to start the season on the DL or on rehab). The odds of that hurting you are slim; the odds of that hurting you more than the conversion helps you are even slimmer.

I think converting Bard is a no-brainer. For the last spot, they should be exploring the trade market for pitchers a year away from free agency, and comparing the cost / benefit of making such a trade versus converting Aceves and signing an additional reliever. My suspicion is that there isn't a trade that makes more sense than the second conversion ... and a year from now you can send whomever gained less value back to the pen to accommodate Lackey.