28 replies to this topic

[The Boomer]

The alternative is guys like Alfredo Aceves and Carlos Silva.

and everyone else (Padilla, Miller, etc.). If Oswalt settles for that 1 year at $5 million (with incentives no doubt) to start for the Sox, Cherington's patience will be rewarded. Otherwise, he possbily can't get that much money to pitch out of the bullpen of the Cardinals, the Rangers or anyone else. If Oswalt prefers elsewhere for less, then he doesn't belong in Boston. The money they will pay for him will simply be available to pay a # 5 starter they can acquire for the stretch run when Bard shifts back to the bullpen to be presumably replaced by Dice-K. Until then, I'm fine with the #5 starter by committee. However, I'm hopful that Miller, in particular, will harness his wildness and claim this job to start after his old Tar Heel rotation mate. While he might never fulfill it, he still has a higher theoretical upside than anyone else who might do this job including aging Oswalt. Lefties generally take longer than righties to gain command and, though Miller might never do so, I appreciate that he will get one more chance to make it with the Sox.

[EddieYost]

Miller was awful last year. Just awful. I think to say he has more upside than Roy Oswalt is a reach.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Miller was awful last year, and every year before it. But, he looks like a pitcher and was a hIgh draft pick so he'll continue to get opportunities at the expense of better pitchers, I'd expect.

[Plympton91]

Miller was awful last year, and every year before it. But, he looks like a pitcher and was a hIgh draft pick so he'll continue to get opportunities at the expense of better pitchers, I'd expect.

I would take odds that by the end of May, Miller will be filling the role that Aceves filled last year, with Aceves filling Bard's role.

[The Boomer]

Miller was awful last year. Just awful. I think to say he has more upside than Roy Oswalt is a reach.

True except that, if he finally isn't awful, he will be a revelation. It all hinges on him getting his command. Another disappointment is a lot more likely to happen than not. However, Oswalt starting his inevitable decline or becoming even more injury prone because of his mileage is not far fetched either. You have to believe that management still hopes Miller fulfills his potential because they brought him back. I get the idea that, while their winter moves were relatively small and not dramatic, they purposely made the team younger at almost every spot where they had an opening. Drew, Wakefield, Tek and Scutaro would have been expensive in decline players if they had been retained. It is weirdly less of a gamble to buy a bunch of those lottery tickets than it is to expect players to suddenly play as if they found the fountain of youth after age 35.

[EddieYost]

I can't agree. I was really excited about Miller when the Sox called him up. Then I watched him be terrible start after start. I realize there is a chance one of the lottery tickets could be as good as Oswalt. I tend to doubt it, but it's possible. But Miller... I just don't see him all of a sudden gaining command.

Edited by EddieYost, 10 February 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Sprowl]

Splitting the Miller discussion out of the Oswalt thread...


Andrew Miller's 2011 pitchfx player card and Fangraphs page. What jumps out about his stats is the enormous variability in release point, fastball velocity and platoon split. He was devastating against lefties in 2011 and miserable against righties, especially in giving up line drives. I have my doubts about whether he can bring his BABIP below .330 -- RHB just see his stuff too well, and his slow-warming habits make him an improbable reliever.

[JimBoSox9]

I would take odds that by the end of May, Miller will be filling the role that Aceves filled last year, with Aceves filling Bard's role.

You are absolutely positivitely 100% out of your mind.

Everyone say it with me. Andrew Miller is terrible. Terrible terrible terrible. Finding a stat that says he's not terrible requires an excess of arithmetical gymnastics. If he's pitching the 6th or 7th of a tight game with any regularity, the Sox are in a world of trouble.

[Rasputin]

Miller's potential is another million less on the tax limit when we cut him two weeks into spring training.

He cannot repeat his delivery with any consistency and that's really all there is to it.

[SMU_Sox]

Lefties take longer than righties to gain command? While I can think of some high profile lefties who struggled with command before I'd like to know where you gained this insight. Is this common knowledge? Or is there possibly another reason like: lefties are more effective in the minors than righties of equal skill and therefore get promoted faster. Therefore their control develops at a higher level (AAA vs AA) than their righty counterpart.
Edit: just in case someone thinks I'm being snarky I am not. That was a genuine question and the example I gave was just one I could think of.

Edited by johnlimberakis, 11 February 2012 - 12:35 AM.

[Jack Sox]

I had the opportunity to chart Miller last season. Fortunately, it happened to be this game:

http://www.brooksbas..._type=1&s_type=

Miller (6-1, 4.42 ERA): The 6-7, 209-pounder from Gainesville, Fla. and the University of North Carolina is scheduled to make his 11^th start of the season…In his last start on Aug. 25, his only career appearance against Texas, the 24-year-old held the Rangers to three hits and two walks in 6.1 shutout innings and received credit for the 6-0 victory…He struck out six and recorded nine outs on ground balls

http://espn.go.com/b...lland-vs-miller

Negating the fact that Andrew Miller was actually 26 last season, ESPN actually has some semi reasonable info above. Personally, my gut tells me that a guy who can generate whiffs (multiple whiffs in case of the FB and SL) on all of the pitches he throws has a chance as a starter in the show. Couple this with the fact Miller did it against the eventual AL representatives in the World Series a month before his team went on to poop its collective pants merits, at the very least, a bit of optimism for quality innings at some point during the 2012 season.

[bd11]

This thread is a waste of time. Miller will be dfa by the end of spring training. He is god awful.

[The Boomer]

I had the opportunity to chart Miller last season. Fortunately, it happened to be this game:

http://www.brooksbas..._type=1&s_type=

[b][/size][/font][/color]

http://espn.go.com/b...lland-vs-miller

Negating the fact that Andrew Miller was actually 26 last season, ESPN actually has some semi reasonable info above. Personally, my gut tells me that a guy who can generate whiffs (multiple whiffs in case of the FB and SL) on all of the pitches he throws has a chance as a starter in the show. Couple this with the fact Miller did it against the eventual AL representatives in the World Series a month before his team went on to poop its collective pants merits, at the very least, a bit of optimism for quality innings at some point during the 2012 season.

Here is a comparable I found who gives some hope that, if he can't make it as a starter, he might nevertheless have some longevity as a major league reliever:

http://www.baseball-...rhodear01.shtml

[OttoC]

Miller had a very good stretch last year with Pawtucket before being called up to Boston. According to an article in IndyNews.com:

Miller wanted to find a way to feel sharp from the get-go, so he and his pitching coach, Rich Saveur [sic], came up with the idea of changing his pregame. Before the Indianapolis start, Miller made his warmup pitches, then sat down—as though he was in the dugout between innings—and then got back up on the bullpen mound and pitched what he called a "simulated inning." (You'll forgive me—I wasn't watching this and don't know if he had a "dummy hitter," i.e. a position-player teammate, stand at the bullpen plate.) "I got up to game speed and worked out some kinks, as opposed to just getting warm," he said. He repeated the routine before last night's game.

Date   IP   H  R  ER  W  K
5/29   7.0  1  0   0  2  4
6/03   6.0  6  3   3  0  9
6/08   7.0  5  1   1  0  3
6/14   5.1  5  1   1  1 10
--------------------------
4 GS  25.1 17  5   5  3 26

*The three runs allowed on June 3 were the result of poor fielding by PawSox players: Nava not catching a deep fly for a triple; that batter scoring on a grounder to short when Iglesias's throw home was high; Iglesias and Thomas failed to turn a DP on a routine grounder by the next batter; a couple of bloop hits.

That all fell apart once he got to Boston. Why? Sauveur figured out how to handle him? Miller went back to his old warm-up routine? Mound differences? I don't know but that stretch of games certainly shows he has something to offer and suggest why the Red Sox haven't given up on him. Can McClure straighten him out?

[Plympton91]

To me, the key thing is that Miller has never been told to prepare exclusively to be a reliever. We saw his fastball velocity vary between 91 mph and 99 mph last season as a starter. But, in both spring training and at the end of the season he was pitching out of the pen and his velocity was consistently above 95 mph. As a starter, he needs to command at least 3 pitches, as a reliver he can blow the ball by people and mix in a wiggle once in a while.

He may suck as a reliever too, but his statistics as a starting pitcher don't have much predictive power in that regard. What matters is his velocity-if you're thowing 98 in 5 batter stints, you can mislocate a few fastballs.

Edited by Plympton91, 11 February 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Is there any indication that the Sox are interested in Miller as a reliever, or are telling him to prepare to pitch out of the pen? Everything I read from when he resigned said that he was in the mix for the rotation.

Also, I thought his contract wasn't guaranteed. Is it?

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Is there any indication that the Sox are interested in Miller as a reliever, or are telling him to prepare to pitch out of the pen? Everything I read from when he resigned said that he was in the mix for the rotation.

Also, I thought his contract wasn't guaranteed. Is it?

He probably is in the mix for the rotation in spring training, but unlike the other lottery ticket guys who can start the year in Pawtucket, if he doesn't make the big club out of spring training, he'll be DFA'd. So if there's a place in the bullpen to put him (which is iffy considering they also have Bowden and Doubront as big-club-or-bust guys competing for one, maybe two spots), I think they give him that shot. Similar to how we've seen Reyes and Schoenweis make the club out of spring the last couple years...give the guy with no options first crack at being the lefty (or in this case, second lefty) out of the pen.

[Plympton91]

Is there any indication that the Sox are interested in Miller as a reliever, or are telling him to prepare to pitch out of the pen? Everything I read from when he resigned said that he was in the mix for the rotation.

Also, I thought his contract wasn't guaranteed. Is it?

I don't' know about the guarantee, but it was a major league contract, so they either have to keep him or cut him. He can't be stashed at Pawtucket this time. Given their reluctance in the past to foreclose options early in the season, I think they'll make room for him out of spring training. They can send Tazawa and Doubront to the minors.

I see one spot open in the rotation, but I also see Morales as the only lefthander guaranteed a spot in the pen (assuming Hill is out until at least May) and several pen options that have been just as erratic as Miller (e.g. Albers).
Without ruling out either option a priori, I don't see why they would not be looking at Miller more as a swingman than as a potential 5th starter.

Given his failure to adapt to starting, and the importance of velocity for a pitcher that lacks command, it just seems to me that the best hope for getting value is in the pen. I keep pointing to Arthus Rhodes as an example. It might still be a less than 50/50 proposition that he'd even approximate that success, but it is significantly greater than the hope that he could sustain success as a starter.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't' know about the guarantee, but it was a major league contract, so they either have to keep him or cut him. He can't be stashed at Pawtucket this time. Given their reluctance in the past to foreclose options early in the season, I think they'll make room for him out of spring training. They can send Tazawa and Doubront to the minors.

I see one spot open in the rotation, but I also see Morales as the only lefthander guaranteed a spot in the pen (assuming Hill is out until at least May) and several pen options that have been just as erratic as Miller (e.g. Albers).
Without ruling out either option a priori, I don't see why they would not be looking at Miller more as a swingman than as a potential 5th starter.

Given his failure to adapt to starting, and the importance of velocity for a pitcher that lacks command, it just seems to me that the best hope for getting value is in the pen. I keep pointing to Arthus Rhodes as an example. It might still be a less than 50/50 proposition that he'd even approximate that success, but it is significantly greater than the hope that he could sustain success as a starter.

One correction...Doubront is out of options, so he is in the same boat as Miller. In fact, I'd say they're in direct competition for both the 5th spot in the rotation and the second bullpen lefty spot. One of them will probably push the other out the door.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 11 February 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[djhb20]

Since we're talking about Arthur Rhodes, how the hell did he end up 20th in the MVP voting in 1997?

[absintheofmalaise]

This thread is a waste of time. Miller will be dfa by the end of spring training. He is god awful.

If this thread were a waste of time, no one would be posting in it. If you don't have anything to add to the thread except that post, then don't.

[The Boomer]

Doubront and Miller aren't mutually exclusive if the former makes it as the 5th starter and the latter is the second lefty in the bullpen. 2 lefty starters and 2 lefty relievers are ideal on the 25 man roster. I wouldn't discount management's move toward making the team younger, particularly with all the lineup openings and competition coming this spring. It's likely that only one of them makes it to the majors on opening day although both are out of options. Anticipating that Crawford will make enough of a comeback to not be a complete bust, management is apparently trying to avoid both excessive age and overpayment for their role players. They seem willing to populate SS, RF and C with role players (since only the Yankees have any hope of fielding virtual all stars in every slot of their lineup). Their biggest downgrade appears to be at SS although Aviles won't necessarily diminish production there that much. The Sweeey/Ross likely RF platoon has potential to produce better than the 2011 Drew, Reddick and McDonald committee. Improving Salty and Shoppach ought to be better than the 2011 Salty/Tek platoon. Bona fide upper level prospects Iglesias, Lavarnway, Kalish, Wilson and Middlebrooks will get a chance to further develop and, possibly, contribute later in 2012. Looking at this big picture is one more reason why management didn't want to block anyone from breaking through with any more wasteful spending on older players. The core is intact and they have the potential to go all the way. However, this is arguably that proverbial "bridge" year in terms of these 3 lineup spots, the back of the rotation and the lower inning pitchers in the bullpen.

Edited by The Boomer, 11 February 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[Plympton91]

How in the hell is Doubront out of options? Oh well. That means he has an insude track on a spot I would think.

I see 7 spots locked up, with Albers and Morales highly likely and Doubront likely then. That leaves 2 openings.

I would see Miller and Padilla as getting first dibs on those openings, given that Cook and Silva are on minor league contracts and Tazawa and Wilson have options.

So the competition for the 5th starter spot is between Doubront, Padilla, and Miller, with the losers headed to the pen.

Out of those Padilla has the best track record as a starter, Miller has the most potential as a reliever, and Doubront needs to be babied on innings so starting in the pen is a good idea for the long haul. I would think that those with options would need to demonstrate a likelihood of being significantly better for significantly longer to crack that troika.

Assuming health, they'll have tough decisions when the wounded start returning.

[Pumpsie]

Hmmmm...I'm not sure if the Sox are going to go with a 12-man staff the entire season, or not, this year. A lot depends on how Valentine wants to manage and he may want one more guy on the bench than Tito did. We'll have to wait and see how everything shakes out. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how Cherington handles the roster this season. It's going to be tricky.

[mwonow]

Hmmmm...I'm not sure if the Sox are going to go with a 12-man staff the entire season, or not, this year. A lot depends on how Valentine wants to manage and he may want one more guy on the bench than Tito did. We'll have to wait and see how everything shakes out. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how Cherington handles the roster this season. It's going to be tricky.

I had a buddy who used to say (in a different context) when choosing between two roughly-equal candidates for keeping/cutting, "if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter." And frankly, the guys at the end of the roster at this point fall into that category. We're not choosing between budding stars and aging, proven vets; we're choosing (at least with the 11th/12th guys on the staff) between fungible assets. Miller wins out, great; if he doesn't, that's fine too. His real suck last year (and previously) trumps the potential of being lefty and big, imo.

[Pumpsie]

I had a buddy who used to say (in a different context) when choosing between two roughly-equal candidates for keeping/cutting, "if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter." And frankly, the guys at the end of the roster at this point fall into that category. We're not choosing between budding stars and aging, proven vets; we're choosing (at least with the 11th/12th guys on the staff) between fungible assets. Miller wins out, great; if he doesn't, that's fine too. His real suck last year (and previously) trumps the potential of being lefty and big, imo.

But, here's the thing...it DID matter last year when if we would have won just one more game, we would have made the playoffs during a year when there really wasn't one dominant team and the St. Louis Cardinals (who had the same record we ended up with) won the World Series. So, even these "small" decisions matter if one game ends up mattering.

Edited by Pumpsie, 12 February 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[mwonow]

But, here's the thing...it DID matter last year when if we would have won just one more game, we would have made the playoffs during a year when there really wasn't one dominant team and the St. Louis Cardinals (who had the same record we ended up with) won the World Series. So, even these "small" decisions matter if one game ends up mattering.

Fair enough - though fwiw, the way the Sox were playing at the end of the season, putting them in the Cardinals' glass slippers seems like a stretch. All I'm really saying is that I often (and having read this board, I know I'm not alone) talk myself into believing that the 4-6 guys on the bubble - not just with the Sox, but with the Pats, too - have a great chance to be something special...and more often than not, they play like end-of-the-roster guys, in Boston or elsewhere.

[nvalvo]

All I'm really saying is that I often talk myself into believing that the 4-6 guys on the bubble - not just with the Sox, but with the Pats, too - have a great chance to be something special...

The early years of Theo trained us all to think that way. We all remember the story of Minnesota non-tendering Ortiz, but the Sox got Bellhorn for cash from the Rockies. Everything was falling in for Theo. It trained us to think that there were useful fourth starters like Bronson Arroyo hiding in the waiver wire.

Now, the payroll's higher, and the Sox aren't sifting through the waiver wire for starting second basemen and DHs (fourth starters, though...), so we buy in to the few fringy guys they bring in.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

But, here's the thing...it DID matter last year when if we would have won just one more game, we would have made the playoffs during a year when there really wasn't one dominant team and the St. Louis Cardinals (who had the same record we ended up with) won the World Series. So, even these "small" decisions matter if one game ends up mattering.

But the problem isn't so much how it matters to the win/loss total of the Boston team, but the fact that it could be costly in a fungible asset. With Dubront, there is a chance that he doesn't make the team, yet the sox still think he has future value or at the least trade value. Now do you come up with a phantom injury to avoid allowing a young cost controlled lefty to hit the waiver wire? Do you allow him to hit the wire and hope a trade can be worked out? Do you take a gamble that no one will jump on a guy who could have real value in the future as a back of the rotation starter or bullpen arm?

DFA-ing Dubront or to a lesser extent Miller has secondary issues to deal with and those issues are simply avoiding the possibility of giving away an asset with no return.

A guy like Dubront wouldn't be a center piece of a trade, but If he had had options I could see him having a nice start at Pawtucket and then being Packaged toward the deadline with a guy like Lars to fill a hole that arises during the season. A non-contender could use a guy like Dubront and would have the ability to give him a real shot at the rotation. Last year's injury really set Dubront back as a starter, I can remember in 2010 there were real high hopes for him to stick in the rotation as a Wakefield replacement for years to come.

I'd hate to have to make the decision to DFA guys like him, to a lesser extent Miller, and to an even lesser extent Bowden, because they do have some residual value.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 13 February 2012 - 07:49 AM.