283 replies to this topic

[Savin Hillbilly]

If the Sox are looking to pick up a starter in free agency, I'd hope they would be targeting Sanchez or Jackson as they seems like the best two bets to come in and be the best pitcher on the roster.

Interesting. Here's a FIP comp from Fangraphs of those three guys (Sanchez, Jackson and McCarthy), who all happen to be the same age, so their graphs line up nicely. Any guesses which is which?

Spoiler

blue = Jackson, green = Sanchez, red = McCarthy

Now, to be fair, McCarthy has pitched in the best pitcher's park of the bunch the past two years. But even if you add a full half a run to McCarthy's age 27 and 28 FIPs, there's still not a lot to choose between the three of them.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

I don't see anything in McCarthy that suggests he's likely to be a top of the rotation type starter. Never mind a top of the rotation starter in the AL East. Don't the Sox already have a bunch of guys who project to be middle of the rotation to average with Doubront and Lackey on the low end of that spectrum and Buchholz on the high end? Even Lester could end up being that kind of pitcher next year. If the Sox are looking to pick up a starter in free agency, I'd hope they would be targeting Sanchez or Jackson as they seems like the best two bets to come in and be the best pitcher on the roster.

I'd even prefer to see them trade for Peavy or even take a shot at Haren rebounding before seeing them grab McCarthy as a stabilizing force in the rotation. If you just meant to add him as middle of the rotation depth, I'm not sure I'd agree with that as a terribly good use of resources unless they have a trade lined up involving someone like Doubront that can address another area of need (LF, RF, SS, 1B, SU, CL).

I really don't see a top of the line starter in free agency - I think you would have to make a trade in order acquire one. To me the logical choices are Felix or Cliff Lee. Both should be available, but who knows of Seattle is still delusional enough to think that they'll compete under the life of Felix's contract.

I'd like to see the Sox sign McCarthy and deal for Cliff Lee that put them 6 deep in the rotation:
Cliff Lee
Clay Buchholz
John Lester
Brandon McCarthy
Felix Doubront
John Lackey

[maufman]

I don't see anything in McCarthy that suggests he's likely to be a top of the rotation type starter. Never mind a top of the rotation starter in the AL East.

Of course not, but he's not going to get paid like one either -- he has only made 60 major-league starts in the past four years, and the line drive he took off the head in September isn't exactly going to increase his value either.

McCarthy is likely to want a one-year, make-good deal. For the obvious reasons, Boston is not a destination of choice for guys in that situation.

If the Sox offered him a two-year deal, however, would McCarthy turn down the money at this point in his career? It would be a gamble, obviously, but not a huge one -- I'm guessing 2/14 would get it done. if he gives you 250-300 league average innings over two seasons, he'll earn that money and then some. And if he can capture his 2011 form -- or even split the difference between his 2011 and 2012 form -- he'd be an absolute steal for those dollars.

I'm not sure I'd do it, but it's certainly an interesting idea.

[shoebox91]

Of course a whole lot of this could be simplified by Lackey simply pitching like he's getting paid to. I know that is rather simplistic, but hey, I can dream, right?

[Rudy Pemberton]

If McCarthy is recovered from the line drive that almost killed him, he'll get a lot more than 2 / 14. I'd suspect 4 / 48 is a lot more likely. I'm a big fan, but given that he's had most of his success in Oakland, been injured quite a bit, and now this injury? Pretty risky but he's known as a cerebral guy who is more than a thrower.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Interesting. Here's a FIP comp from Fangraphs of those three guys (Sanchez, Jackson and McCarthy), who all happen to be the same age, so their graphs line up nicely. Any guesses which is which?

Spoiler

blue = Jackson, green = Sanchez, red = McCarthy

Now, to be fair, McCarthy has pitched in the best pitcher's park of the bunch the past two years. But even if you add a full half a run to McCarthy's age 27 and 28 FIPs, there's still not a lot to choose between the three of them.

Before I get into why I separate McCarthy from Sanchez and Jackson in this year's free agent crop, I will point out that I'm not terribly jazzed about the idea of signing either as the long term ace of the club. It's just that if the front office is determined to pick up a starting pitcher from free agency this winter, I'd rather it be one of those two. If signing one of Sanchez or Jackson is meant as a stop gap measure until they can either trade for or develop their own ace or is done in conjunction with a belief that Lester will rebound from his poor 2012, then I feel much better about it... assuming they have a good reason for believing Lester will turn it around and aren't just crossing their fingers.

Anyway, let's look beyond FIP and check on their xFIP's.

4.21, 4.60, 5.57, 5.49, 4.76, 3.30, 4.23
4.93, 6.29, 4.39, 4.58, 4.04, 3.25, 3.60
4.20, 4.99, 6.26, 5.24, 4.82, 4.97, 4.32, 3.71, 3.73, 3.79

Line one is McCarthy, two is Sanchez and three is Jackson. One of them does not match up with the other two. McCarthy appears, to me at least, to be a pitcher who has benefited from his home ball park and who cannot stay healthy. I think both Sanchez and Jackson are good enough to be number 2s on a championship caliber team and number 1s on a mediocre or bad team. Either could be the best pitcher on the Red Sox next year, so if the front office is determined to build a competitive team for next season, I'd much rather see them go for one of the latter two than McCarthy.

With Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, Morales, DLR, Webster, Barnes, Britton and Workman all on the depth chart to start the year, I just don't see the value of spending money on McCarthy. I can see three guys I'd probably bet on having similar seasons to what he'll do in 2013 right on the major league roster already, and a couple of guys in the minors who have the potential to do the same if given the chance. And that's more of a down view on McCarthy than a super rosy projection for Sox pitchers. I'm just not that high on him.

So I guess what I'm advocating here is not blowing the farm on one pitcher and instead plugging a hole in the rotation with a guy who has a chance to be the best pitcher on the roster next year with eyes toward developing a top of the rotation starter from within.

Whether they get lucky and that ends up being DLR or Barnes continues moving forward or someone younger flies through the ranks like Buttrey or a draft pick from next year or maybe they push hard to sign Otani thinking he's that guy, I believe the best course long term is to hold onto the system's top prospects and build around those that pan out while using money in free agency for guys like Jackson and Sanchez when they're available.

If you can swindle a team like the Mariners for a talent like Hernandez by not giving up any of Bogaerts, Bradley, Barnes or DLR, sure you jump at it. But once you start talking about including those guys, I get a bit apprehensive and I don't see any incentive for Seattle to deal him without getting at least two of those names.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Marcum still seems like a better fit than any of those guys, and might come cheaper. If Farrell brings over some of the coaches that Marcum worked with, seems like the odds get even better.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Anyway, let's look beyond FIP and check on their xFIP's.

4.21, 4.60, 5.57, 5.49, 4.76, 3.30, 4.23
4.93, 6.29, 4.39, 4.58, 4.04, 3.25, 3.60
4.20, 4.99, 6.26, 5.24, 4.82, 4.97, 4.32, 3.71, 3.73, 3.79

Line one is McCarthy, two is Sanchez and three is Jackson. One of them does not match up with the other two.

I would argue that to the extent this last statement is true at all, the one who doesn't match up is Sanchez, not McCarthy. Yes, Jackson has stabilized nicely over the past few years, but then because he started younger, he's benefiting from more experience at the same age than McCarthy or Sanchez.

Best way to make this point is with two graphs. First is the xFIPs lined up by age (which is also by real time). Blue=Jackson, green=Sanchez, red=McCarthy.



From this angle, you look right; McCarthy is the one whose xFIP lagged behind until he got to Oakland. But if you line them up by year of ML experience, the picture changes:



Now it's Sanchez who's the outlier, having taken about three years less than McCarthy and four years less than Jackson to get his xFIP out of the suck zone.

Granted, age matters--all things being equal, a guy who can get it together younger is probably more talented and valuable. But experience matters too. It generally takes a certain amount of innings for a young pitcher to pitch up to his talent. In Jackson's case, it took more innings than in Sanchez' or even McCarthy's case.

I think any of these guys would be a useful addition to the Sox staff. I wouldn't quarrel with ranking them Sanchez-Jackson-McCarthy, but if there's one of the three who stands out, it's more Sanchez on the upside than McCarthy on the downside.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm more focused on the last three years than the early innings from these guys. Young pitchers struggle and are highly variable. Even the really good ones. And age does matter, so the ability to break in and stick at an early age is a positive point for Jackson, IMO, but I just don't think what these guys were doing 4, 5 or 7-10 years ago is terribly instructive when talking about which of these guys is likely to be the best addition right now and in the next few years.

Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on this but here's what keeps McCarthy from being spoken about in the same breath as Jackson and Sanchez. I see it like this.

McCarthy 2010 2009: 97.1 IP, 4.76 xFIP, 1.4 fWAR
McCarthy 2011: 170.2 IP, 3.30 xFIP, 4.8 fWAR
McCarthy 2012: 111.0 IP, 4.23 xFIP, 1.8 fWAR

Jackson 2010: 209.1 IP, 3.71 xFIP, 3.9 fWAR
Jackson 2011: 199.2 IP, 3.73 xFIP, 3.9 fWAR
Jackson 2012: 189.2 IP, 3.79 xFIP, 2.7 fWAR

Sanchez 2010: 195.0 IP, 4.04 xFIP, 4.4 fWAR
Sanchez 2011: 196.1 IP, 3.25 xFIP, 3.8 fWAR
Sanchez 2012: 195.2 IP, 3.60 xFIP, 3.8 fWAR

McCarthy just can't stay on the mound and has had only one really good season as far as xFIP is concerned. The Sox have Doubront and Buchholz filling the "interesting upside but still questionable option" roles next year. I want to see them look for a pitcher who is more likely to pitch a full season and has a more stable track record than McCarthy.

And to include Rudy's response, here's Marcum.

Marcum 2010: 195.1 IP, 3.71 xFIP, 3.6 fWAR
Marcum 2011: 202.2 IP, 3.89 xFIP, 2.8 fWAR
Marcum 2012: 124.0 IP, 4.21 xFIP, 1.4 fWAR

So I'd rank this quartet Sanchez and Jackson at about the same level, Marcum a step down from them and McCarthy another step down from Marcum. When you include the cost of acquisition, I agree that Marcum is an interesting name to consider.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 21 October 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

I wanted to add a breakdown of fWAR and rWAR for these 4 pitchers, because rWAR tells a different story. This doesn't mean that one stat is necessarily better than the other (although I have my preferences), but because looking at both is important since they are calculated differently, and use different sets of assumptions. I also calculated the WAR per IP, since the innings pitched for each pitcher weren't consistent, and WAR is a counting stat.

fWAR & rWAR for Sanchez/Jackson/Marcum/McCarthy

Sanchez	Year	fWAR	fWAR/IP	rWAR	rWAR/IP
	2010	4.4	0.0226	2.9	0.0149
	2011	3.8	0.0194	3.5	0.0178
	2012	3.8	0.0194	2.6	0.0133
Jackson
	2010	3.9	0.0186	1.7	0.0081
	2011	3.9	0.0195	2.8	0.0140
	2012	2.7	0.0143	1.6	0.0084
Marcum
	2010	3.6	0.0184	3.8	0.0195
	2011	2.8	0.0140	2.9	0.0145
	2012	1.4	0.0113	1.3	0.0105
McCarthy
	2009	1.4	0.0144	0.6	0.0062
	2011	4.8	0.0281	2.9	0.0170
	2012	1.8	0.0162	2	0.0180

rWAR shows that when McCarthy is on the mound, he's been the best pitcher of the bunch if you look at the last two years. His problem is, of course, health. I won't fault him for getting hit on the head, but his arm and shoulder have been giving him problems his whole career. This makes him cheaper, but also riskier too. Sanchez appears to be the most consistent, but rWAR shows that his performance in 2012 was the worst out of the 3 year range we are looking at. Jackson appears to just have one abnormally good year. He certainly didn't replicate his 2011 results according to rWAR. And finally, rWAR (and fWAR) shows that Marcum has performed on a 3 year downward trend.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Thanks for compiling that SSA. The reason I chose to go with the counting stat is that time on the mound is important when trying to decide how you're going to fix your starting rotation. It's exactly what you point out, that McCarthy can't stay on the mound, that makes him the least appealing option of the bunch for me. Adding rWAR to the mix just further pushes Sanchez to the front of the pack for me, actually.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

Thanks for compiling that SSA. The reason I chose to go with the counting stat is that time on the mound is important when trying to decide how you're going to fix your starting rotation. It's exactly what you point out, that McCarthy can't stay on the mound, that makes him the least appealing option of the bunch for me. Adding rWAR to the mix just further pushes Sanchez to the front of the pack for me, actually.

That makes sense. I only added the /IP to see who was most valuable when pitching. In particular, I wanted to get a sense of how good or bad McCarthy had been in 2011 and 2012, given his lower amount of IP, and I felt those low WAR totals were obscuring my perception of him. I'd agree his injury history is a big concern. But the adjustments he made before 2011 show a real improvement (they include a different fastball and improved mechanics - read more here).

One interesting thing to note is how the two stats disagree on Sanchez in 2012. fWAR shows that he was about the same wins above replacement in both Florida and Detroit. But, rWAR has him a lot better in Detroit than Florida.

[PandaSox]

Some more good color here from Rany on the Royals:

But if they can’t land Greinke or don’t want to try, then they need to go all-in on Anibal Sanchez. Those of you who catch my radio spots have heard me talk up Sanchez as the ideal free-agent target for months now; he’s this year’s version of Edwin Jackson for me.

Sanchez was a highly-regarded prospect with the Red Sox when he was traded along with Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett after the 2005 season. He had a fine rookie season in 2006 (2.83 ERA in 114 innings) but tore his labrum in early 2007, and missed more than a year. He returned in 2008 and was not effective; in 2009 he regained his effectiveness, and in 2010 he added durability to his talents. He has thrown between 195 and 196 innings each of the last three years, with ERAs ranging from 3.55 to 3.86.

The injury history has to be somewhat concerning; labrum tears are no joke. But in a way he reminds me of Gil Meche, who missed over TWO years following labrum surgery, but had been healthy for years before the Royals signed him – and if the Royals hadn’t criminally neglected his shoulder pain in the third year of his contract, he might still be pitching today.

Sanchez was traded to the Tigers this summer, and in 12 starts gave them a 3.74 ERA. Even though it was only 12 starts, it is very reassuring that he proved he could handle AL competition. His performance did suffer a little – his strikeout rate dropped to 6.9 per 9 innings, which would be his lowest rate since returning from surgery. But that’s still an acceptable rate for a starting pitcher in the AL, particularly one with well above-average (and improving) command. Sanchez’s walk rate has dropped from 3.2 per 9 in 2010, to 2.9 per 9 in 2011, to 2.5 per 9 before he was traded, to 1.8 per 9 after he was traded. This is the progression you’d expect to see from a starting pitcher as he ages – his strikeout rate dips slowly, but his walk rate drops as well, allowing him to maintain his effectiveness.

Plus, Sanchez’s strikeout rate is starting from a high enough point that he could lose some of his stuff and remain effective. He struck out 202 batters in 196 innings just last season; the only qualifying starters with a higher strikeout rate were Greinke, Brandon Morrow, and Clayton Kershaw. I’d expect a small bounce upward in Sanchez’s strikeout rate next year, particularly since his fastball is not losing velocity – according to Pitch f/x, his average fastball velocity has been between 91.5 and 91.8 mph each of the last three years.

Sanchez isn’t an ace, but he’s perfectly capable of being a #2 starter. He has shown remarkable consistency over the last three seasons, has taken the ball every time out, and has the ability to miss bats. He’s had the opportunity to face AL competition and has passed the test so far. He’ll turn 29 next February, so he’s young enough to justify a long-term deal. And – like Greinke – because he was traded during the season, he won’t cost the Royals draft pick compensation. That’s a rule change in the new CBA; the Tigers won’t get a draft pick if he signs elsewhere, and the team that signs him won’t lose one.

Really, the only thing not to like about him is that he keeps pitching well for the Tigers in the postseason and jacking up his price. He threw 6.1 innings against the A’s in the ALDS, allowing only two runs, then threw seven shutout innings against the Yankees in the ALCS. Postseason performances attract attention; probably too much attention, given how small of a sample size they are.

[maufman]

Some more good color here from Rany on the Royals:

If Rany is right, and Sanchez will cost 5/75 and Jackson will cost 4/50 (plus a pick), at what point do you start seriously looking at Zack Greinke?

The assumption around here is Greinke is too risky, but I think Greinke's psyche is more likely to hold up than Sanchez's shoulder. I'd pass on Greinke at the 6/120 sticker price, but his price wouldn't have to come down all that far for me to be extremely interested.

[j44thor]

Why not go after Sanchez and Greinke? Its not like this team has any salary issues at this time and neither player would require any draft pick compensation. A pitching staff with Lester/Greinke/Clay/Sanchez/Dubront/Lackey would look awfully nice come March and still give them plenty of financial flexibility. If they sincerely want to compete in 2013 these are the types of moves they have to consider.

[sachilles]

At what point does a pitchers agent look at the potential team and decide they have too many pitchers? We all know that a team can never have too many pitchers, but there has to be a practical limit. The agent has to assume that when a team has 6 perfectly good starters, they will jettison one. I have a hard time believing an agent will send a client to a team, where if he has inopportune slump or early adjustment period he'll be moved from the rotation.
If Lester/Lackey/Buchholz/Dubront play to their career averages, it is a decent core. I'd expect the RS to add one solid starter, but no two. It's not to say they won't add more starters, but they are more likely to be either reclamation projects or young unproven players that can be stashed in Pawtucket rather than taking a spot on the Boston roster, and forced into a bullpen role.

[Marbleheader]

Why not go after Sanchez and Greinke? Its not like this team has any salary issues at this time and neither player would require any draft pick compensation. A pitching staff with Lester/Greinke/Clay/Sanchez/Dubront/Lackey would look awfully nice come March and still give them plenty of financial flexibility. If they sincerely want to compete in 2013 these are the types of moves they have to consider.

Isn't this the line of thinking that got us Crawford, Lackey and Gonzalez? God I hope they don't spend money just to say they spent money.

[MHead81]

Why not go after Sanchez and Greinke? Its not like this team has any salary issues at this time and neither player would require any draft pick compensation. A pitching staff with Lester/Greinke/Clay/Sanchez/Dubront/Lackey would look awfully nice come March and still give them plenty of financial flexibility. If they sincerely want to compete in 2013 these are the types of moves they have to consider.

For years I have been against Greinke due to his off-field issues. That said, *on paper* he is the ideal fit and exactly what this team needs, which is a true Ace, and there is no debating the fact that Greinke has been just that. Whether or not his issues would keep him from being that here is obviously the dillema, but if I were in charge it would be very hard for me not to take that gamble. Last 4 years fWAR:

2012: 5.1
2011: 4.0
2010: 5.1
2009: 9.3(!)

During that span he is 5th in total fWAR for all SPs, behind only Verlander, Lee, Halladay and Hernandez (in that order). If you just go back to 2010 and eliminate his 2009 he is still 7th over those 3 years, and his 5.1 last year was good enough to tie him for 5th.

He won't cost a draft pick (regardless of having a protected pick) due to the fact that he was traded mid-season, and he is heading into his age-29 season.

I am in the camp that says this team can certainly contend next year. Re-sign Ortiz and Ross, trade for Morneau, trade for Andrus (using Ellsbury+), sign Pagan and then pair Greinke with Lester atop the rotation and I think this team would be as formidable a team as any that we've seen in recent years, not to mention that the payroll would still be lower than it has been.

I have come around on the idea of Greinke.

[j44thor]

Isn't this the line of thinking that got us Crawford, Lackey and Gonzalez? God I hope they don't spend money just to say they spent money.

I would take Greinke at Lackey $$. The problem isn't spending $$ it is spending $$ foolishly. Greinke is a proven #1 in the prime of his career. Lackey was a #2-3 when signed with all his peripherals headed in the wrong direction.

Plus we surrendered picks and in Gonzo's case prospects just for the privilege of paying them. Greinke and Sanchez are both available for just $$.
Lastly you likely aren't competing with the MFY and LAA for either player so you should be able to get them for actual market value.

[maufman]

I would take Greinke at Lackey $$. The problem isn't spending $$ it is spending $$ foolishly. Greinke is a proven #1 in the prime of his career. Lackey was a #2-3 when signed with all his peripherals headed in the wrong direction.

You won't get Greinke for Lackey money (5/82).

Hamels got 7/144. Cain got 6/127. Greinke is better than Cain, and as good as Hamels. And unlike those guys, Greinke is hitting the open market.

Greinke's past mental-health issues may cost him money, but he's getting nine figures from someone. And if he drops down into the 5/105 range (which I totally don't expect), I hope that "someone" is the Red Sox.

[Kramerica Industries]

Plus we surrendered picks and in Gonzo's case prospects just for the privilege of paying them. Greinke and Sanchez are both available for just $$.
Lastly you likely aren't competing with the MFY and LAA for either player so you should be able to get them for actual market value.

In a perfect world, the Angels would have their top off-season target Zack Greinke secured to a long-term deal or get a firm decision from the free-agent right-hander that he is signing elsewhere by the end of the World Series.

http://www.latimes.c...0,4349272.story

Edited by Kramerica Industries, 24 October 2012 - 08:35 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Why is Greinke considered a bonafide ace? He had the one great year, but otherwise, he's been 15-20% better than league average, which is good, but that's Lackey type production. His k rate has been dropping, and he's not getting younger. Granted, his peripherals suggest he's been pretty unlucky, but given the other concern, giving him 20M per for 6 years seems pretty risky.

(Edit: not really true about his k rate, insanely high year last but stabilized this year, obviously well above average. I'm still not seeing him as a sure thing which is worth what it will take).

Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 24 October 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[j44thor]

From the link posted:

"The pace we move forward with on Zack is going to be dictated by Zack and the market as it unfolds," Dipoto said.

It is also noted that the LAA had a record payroll in 2012 so I doubt they will be looking at giving Greinke market value. After last years spending spree I just don't see LAA making that big a push in FA.

[bosockboy]

From the link posted:



It is also noted that the LAA had a record payroll in 2012 so I doubt they will be looking at giving Greinke market value. After last years spending spree I just don't see LAA making that big a push in FA.

I think the plan is to redirect Haren's money into Greinke's contract. Haren and Santana likely gone.

[Sprowl]

Why is Greinke considered a bonafide ace? He had the one great year, but otherwise, he's been 15-20% better than league average, which is good, but that's Lackey type production. His k rate has been dropping, and he's not getting younger. Granted, his peripherals suggest he's been pretty unlucky, but given the other concern, giving him 20M per for 6 years seems pretty risky.

(Edit: not really true about his k rate, insanely high year last but stabilized this year, obviously well above average. I'm still not seeing him as a sure thing which is worth what it will take).

Greinke's bonafide ace reputation is all about his stuff. His record and peripherals are attractive, but he has the stuff to do even better. Even with a substantial dropoff in fastball velocity over the last two years, all of his pitches still have ridiculous movement. The risk is all about his head. Offering Greinke a large multi-year contract is the sort of high-risk maneuver undertaken by a very good team trying to Go For It Now. I doubt that the 2013 Red Sox are that team, but like maufman, I think the team should consider playing backstop in the event of a falling market.

[barbed wire Bob]

I think the plan is to redirect Haren's money into Greinke's contract. Haren and Santana likely gone.

According to this LA Times article Greinke is expected to play the market and not sign until sometime in November or December. However, the Angels have only three days after the World Series to act on Santana's option and five days to act on Haren's option. So if they can't sign Greinke and Haren and Santana sign elsewhere, they will be sort of screwed. I suspect they will try to sign either Haren or Santana to a one-year deal at a reduced rate, as a back up plan.

[maufman]

Why is Greinke considered a bonafide ace? He had the one great year, but otherwise, he's been 15-20% better than league average, which is good, but that's Lackey type production. His k rate has been dropping, and he's not getting younger. Granted, his peripherals suggest he's been pretty unlucky, but given the other concern, giving him 20M per for 6 years seems pretty risky.

(Edit: not really true about his k rate, insanely high year last but stabilized this year, obviously well above average. I'm still not seeing him as a sure thing which is worth what it will take).

Greinke had some awful defenses behind him in KC and Milwaukee, so there's every reason to think his peripherals are the best predictor of his future production.

Signing free-agent starting pitchers is always risky. The timing probably isn't right for the Sox to take that risk, and Greinke and the Boston media would mix like oil and water. (Greinke obviously didn't get where he is without being a fierce competitor, but in interviews he speaks as though he doesn't give a crap, and he has a propensity to say what's on his mind even when he shouldn't.) The guy is one of my favorite non-Sox players, and I'll talk myself into loving the deal if they sign him, but if I'm using my head, the FO should let someone else take that risk.

[Montana Fan]

I heard Kevin Kennedy yesterday on MLB radio. He was bemoaning the loss of Rubby DeLarosa and his 98 MPH fastball to the Sox. He projects Rubby as pitcher who should be productive during 2013. Seemed to think Rubby would have been in LA's rotation in 2013 if he was still there.

[Rasputin]

People forget Lester and Buchholz are pretty good pitchers, de la Rosa has enormous potential and Lackey and Doubront don't have to be anything more than average

[maufman]

People forget Lester and Buchholz are pretty good pitchers, de la Rosa has enormous potential and Lackey and Doubront don't have to be anything more than average

There's no way the Sox' FO would have walked away from the Punto trade over de la Rosa. The Dodgers were obviously not enamored of him.

With luck, the Dodgers' trash will become our treasure, but expecting de la Rosa to contribute to the big club in 2013 strikes me as excessively optimistic.

[koufax32]

There's no way the Sox' FO would have walked away from the Punto trade over de la Rosa. The Dodgers were obviously not enamored of him.

With luck, the Dodgers' trash will become our treasure, but expecting de la Rosa to contribute to the big club in 2013 strikes me as excessively optimistic.

If it's one thing the Dodgers have always been able to assess very well it's pitching. What would ever make anyone think that their trash could become Boston's treasure?

teehee


Really though, I would hope that Ben's only farays into the FASP market are of the New England Patriot variety. That particular market is where it seems mediocrity has the highest price tag.

[j44thor]

People forget Lester and Buchholz are pretty good pitchers, de la Rosa has enormous potential and Lackey and Doubront don't have to be anything more than average

I don't think anyone forgets that Lester and Clay are good pitchers but I really, really doubt that Lackey with diminishing stuff coming of TJ and Doubront who just doubled his innings pitched year over year will be close to league average. Doubront is a prime injury candidate and Lackey I have zero confidence in since command is the last thing to come back after TJ and his stuff was below average to begin with.

DLR could be a great but probably best to go the Papelbon route with him and have him start in AAA then bring him up mid-season to help in the bullpen and keep his IP manageable since he is coming off injury himself.

Greinke would be a great addition to go along with Clay/Lester and someone that will be just 29 on opening day. This team has plenty of payroll flexibility for the next few years and Greinke appears to be the clear #1 FA for at least the next two off-seasons.

The AL East probably hasn't been this week since the early 90s so the Sox should absolutely try to field a competitive team.

[gammoseditor]

There's no way the Sox' FO would have walked away from the Punto trade over de la Rosa. The Dodgers were obviously not enamored of him.

With luck, the Dodgers' trash will become our treasure, but expecting de la Rosa to contribute to the big club in 2013 strikes me as excessively optimistic.

Every scouting report on De La Rosa mentions his plus fastball, plus breaking ball, and developing change. He had success in the majors prior to tommy john surgery, and numerous pitchers have come back from tommy john surgery and pitched very well. Do you have any reason to doubt his ability other than the Dodgers traded him? Because it was pretty clear the Dodgers were willing to go to great lengths to get Adrian Gonzalez.

edit to note this same GM has traded away Carlos Santana, Joel Hanrahan, and James Mcdonald recently and saw them succeed with their new club.

Edited by gammoseditor, 28 October 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Plympton91]

Isn't this the line of thinking that got us Crawford, Lackey and Gonzalez? God I hope they don't spend money just to say they spent money.

Perhaps Lackey, but certainly not Crawford and Gonzalez. It is not possible to blame Crawford or Gonzalez on some undisciplined process by which they threw money at players who happened to be available. Both of those signings were planned well in advance, with multiple alternative avenues eschewed in favor of those signings. They went after Gonzalez because they projected that he'd be a generational talent with Fenway as his home park, and they went after Crawford because they thought his defense was off the charts and undervalued. Indeed, the year they signed Lackey, a lot of us, including me, wondered why they showed almost no interest in Matt Holliday. So, it may be that even a year in advance of signing Crawford they'd targeted him as the leftfielder of the future and decided to grab Lackey while others were in the Holliday chase. A lot of SOSH had questions about those signings from the beginning and they were validated by events in the end; but, that does not mean the organization wasn't thoroughly investigating the options and coming to reasoned conclusions.

The idea that you can blame the failures of 2009 to 2012 on some wild and crazy spending spree is wishful thinking. The problems and failures of 2009 to 2012 were the result of well thought out but faulty talent evaluation along with some bad luck. You can't fix bad talent evaluation by spending less money. You have to spend the money on better talent.

[Green Monster]

Its not like the Dodgers ever traded away Pedro Martinez.................

[yecul]

The lesson to be learned is that you cannot simply buy talent via free agencies in most cases. You are throwing good money after bad and almost all contracts become bad now that aging players are not able to lean as heavily on steroids. On top of that there are no small mistakes in free agency when you target big name players.

This is not to say you stay off the market and don't spend money. Quite the contrary. You just avoid big, long deals in just about all cases. Spend the money to retain your own players. Sign them to extenions that buy out some free agent years (if they allow it). Then you let them walk. That is the future.

Bringing in Grienke would be a mistake. Resigning Ellsbury would be a mistake. I want no part of that kind of deal. The ones that work out are the exception.

[Corsi]

The Angels have at least explored the possibility of trading starting pitchers Dan Haren and Ervin Santana before their options come due in a couple days, executives with other teams said.

One competing executive suggested he believed it might be hard to trade either pitcher based on their sub-par seasons. There is also an expectation the Angels won't exercise the pitchers' options, which would make them free agents.

http://www.cbssports...decision-is-due

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Its not like the Dodgers ever traded away Pedro Martinez.................

I get that there are similarities and that no one is seriously suggesting DLR is the next Pedro, but seriously... can we stop with this? DLR is an exciting pitching prospect and he could very well end up as a very good starting pitcher at the major league level, but there are very good reasons to temper enthusiasm when talking about him. I'm optimistic about him long term, but expecting more than a partial season from him in 2013 on the big league club seems a fairly rosy view.

[gammoseditor]

I get that there are similarities and that no one is seriously suggesting DLR is the next Pedro, but seriously... can we stop with this? DLR is an exciting pitching prospect and he could very well end up as a very good starting pitcher at the major league level, but there are very good reasons to temper enthusiasm when talking about him. I'm optimistic about him long term, but expecting more than a partial season from him in 2013 on the big league club seems a fairly rosy view.

Are you saying this because you think his stuff is unproved at the major league level or because of the injury he is coming off of? I'd argue the injury shouldn't really be a concern, unless anyone is expecting 175+ innings out of him. Jeff Zimmermann in 2011, and Kris Medlen/Stephen Strasburgh in 2012 are recent examples of young pitchers coming off the same injury having great success.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Are you saying this because you think his stuff is unproved at the major league level or because of the injury he is coming off of? I'd argue the injury shouldn't really be a concern, unless anyone is expecting 175+ innings out of him. Jeff Zimmermann in 2011, and Kris Medlen/Stephen Strasburgh in 2012 are recent examples of young pitchers coming off the same injury having great success.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I like his potential to be effective, but he's not throwing anything near a full season for the team in 2013. He may also get off to a slow start as he regains his command. I really want the Sox to hold onto him as I'm excited to see just how good he can be long term, but they should take it easy with him next season.

[barclay]

It looks like Ryu (South Korea) will be posted:
http://english.yonha...008151315F.HTML
I only vaguely recall him and my apologies for not having the time to research this further -- but I am curious whether anyone knows more about him and whether he could be a potential target. He looks promising (which tallies with my admittedly distant memory).

Edited by barclay, 29 October 2012 - 04:41 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There's some discussion on him in the MLB forum in this thread: http://sonsofsamhorn...r-to-be-posted/

Seems like an interesting option worth exploring but not worth spending a ton of money on. Fastball averaging around 90, topping out at 93 with a good curve and change. Certainly an arsenal that can be effective in the majors, but it's tough to pin down just how likely players from leagues like the NPB or Korea's equivalent are likely to perform over here.

If the Sox FO can get away with a posting fee on the lower end of the spectrum, it might be a nice cheap way to get some rotational depth added to the roster.

[barclay]

Yes -- thanks much -- that sounds about right. I went to the other board (I seem to be losing my eyesight -- that or dementia setting in early) and I found Orel's take that scouting will determine whether the Sox enter the fight as a fair analysis. We'll soon see -- but it doesn't seem lke something to get too excited about at this point.

[JakeRae]

I get that there are similarities and that no one is seriously suggesting DLR is the next Pedro, but seriously... can we stop with this? DLR is an exciting pitching prospect and he could very well end up as a very good starting pitcher at the major league level, but there are very good reasons to temper enthusiasm when talking about him. I'm optimistic about him long term, but expecting more than a partial season from him in 2013 on the big league club seems a fairly rosy view.

4:23
Comment From Mack Gut feeling on when Rubby De La Rosa makes his major league debut next year?


4:23
Mike Newman: I think Rubby receives a chance to stretch his arm out and work on command to start the season and is recalled sometime in the early summer.

4:29
Comment From The Oriole Bird Are there any current minor leaguers you have seen in person that would receive an 80 grade for any of the five tools?


4:30
Mike Newman: Hamilton's 80 speed is the most obvious. Pretty sure Roman Quinn is an 80 runner as well. Domingo Tapia's fastball has flashed an 80. Rubby De La Rosa too. I don't think I've seen an 80 defender, or hitter this season.

http://www.fangraphs...ts-chat-102512/

I have no thoughts on the scouting report other that it is nice to see his fastball referred to as flashing at 80. As for the timeline, it seems about right.

The Red Sox have 4 starters who are locks to open the season in the rotation. If you want to sign 2 more starters, they need to trade one of the guys they already have. I don't think any of the 4 guys they currently have are good trade candidates nor is anyone on the FA market other than Greinke clearly better than the arms we already have. Rubby De La Rosa is the 6th starter and is the ideal 6th starter in that he has options and there is a good excuse for him to start the season in AAA but he has already proven that he is a MLB caliber pitcher. They have a bunch of other interesting arms that will be in AAA competing to fill out the depth chart as well as Morales, who is probably the 6th starter in April while they are still babying Rubby and will then be the swingman/7th starter. When Rubby debuts will be determined by the health and performance of the rest of the rotation.

You can never have too much pitching, but you can only have 5 established, healthy, MLB starters.

Edit: Fixed link.

Edited by JakeRae, 29 October 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[j44thor]

John Lackey should not be someone that blocks anyone in the rotation nor should he be guaranteed a spot. He hasn't been an effective starter since he signed with Boston and he won't be here by the time the team is seriously ready to compete. If he wins a spot in Spring training then good for him but he should absolutely have to earn a spot.

In a perfect world he gets off to a decent start while RDL hones his game in AAA and can somehow be moved in June with RDL taking his spot.

If Lackey is anything but the 5th/6th/7th starter come opening day this team is not going anywhere. I would rather see Morales get a shot at starting before Lackey. Lackey next year will = Dice K this year.

[Edelpeddle]

John Lackey should not be someone that blocks anyone in the rotation nor should he be guaranteed a spot. He hasn't been an effective starter since he signed with Boston and he won't be here by the time the team is seriously ready to compete. If he wins a spot in Spring training then good for him but he should absolutely have to earn a spot.

In a perfect world he gets off to a decent start while RDL hones his game in AAA and can somehow be moved in June with RDL taking his spot.

If Lackey is anything but the 5th/6th/7th starter come opening day this team is not going anywhere. I would rather see Morales get a shot at starting before Lackey. Lackey next year will = Dice K this year.

I agree with you. We have over $80 million in yearly salary to work with this offseason and starting pitching is our number one priority. If we go in to the season with Lackey and Doubront in our rotation, I'll be disappointed. In a perfect world, Lackey, Doubront and De La Rosa would compete for the 5th rotation spot and the runner up will be the next man on the rotation depth chart when one of our starters inevitably gets hurt or pitches ineffectively.

[Scoops Bolling]

Are you saying this because you think his stuff is unproved at the major league level or because of the injury he is coming off of? I'd argue the injury shouldn't really be a concern, unless anyone is expecting 175+ innings out of him. Jeff Zimmermann in 2011, and Kris Medlen/Stephen Strasburgh in 2012 are recent examples of young pitchers coming off the same injury having great success.

I wonder if the Sox could use the Medlen strategy with DLR; have him start in the pen, then transition him into the rotation around the All Star break. I'd have no problem with that.

[Rasputin]

John Lackey should not be someone that blocks anyone in the rotation nor should he be guaranteed a spot. He hasn't been an effective starter since he signed with Boston and he won't be here by the time the team is seriously ready to compete. If he wins a spot in Spring training then good for him but he should absolutely have to earn a spot.

In a perfect world he gets off to a decent start while RDL hones his game in AAA and can somehow be moved in June with RDL taking his spot.

If Lackey is anything but the 5th/6th/7th starter come opening day this team is not going anywhere. I would rather see Morales get a shot at starting before Lackey. Lackey next year will = Dice K this year.

I agree with you. We have over $80 million in yearly salary to work with this offseason and starting pitching is our number one priority. If we go in to the season with Lackey and Doubront in our rotation, I'll be disappointed. In a perfect world, Lackey, Doubront and De La Rosa would compete for the 5th rotation spot and the runner up will be the next man on the rotation depth chart when one of our starters inevitably gets hurt or pitches ineffectively.

Does reality not matter around here any more?

In 2010 Lackey pitched 215 innings with a league average ERA. The fact that he's a douche doesn't change the fact that when healthy he's an effective pitcher.

The notion that starting pitching is the number one priority is absurd. If the season started today the rotation would be Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront, and de la Rosa in some order. Maybe DLR isn't game ready and Morales, Aceves, or some retread pitches the last spot for a while.

That's seven starting pitchers who are all major leaguers, some of whom are quite good major leaguers.

Can you name seven members of the lineup? I can't. Certainly not ones who are as good as even Lackey, Doubront, and DLR are likely to be.

Look at the hitters we have under contract. Pedroa, Ellsbury, who's the next best? Salty? Lavarnway? Sweeney?

Here's the bottom line. If the season started in five minutes, the Sox could field a competent--not necessarily excellent--rotation but the lineup would be execrable.

The number one priority is signing Ortiz. The number two, three, and four priorities are figuring out who the bloody fuck is going to play left, right, and first.

Then we can worry about finding an upgrade at short or bolstering the staff.

Also, the notion that the Sox won't be seriously ready to compete in 2013 is at best premature.

[Edelpeddle]

I guess we agree to disagree then. I don't see the offense as all that difficult to piece together and I'm not as optimistic about a rotation of Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, Doubront and De La Rosa as you appear to be. Lester, Buchholz and Doubront were our top three starters last year and none of them were even league average. I would love a bounce back season from Lester, but his 1.5 mph loss in velocity and and the loss in movement on virtually all of his secondary pitches gives me reason to be cautiously optimistic. I would love a bounce back season from Buchholz but the lack of his ability to stay healthy is concerning for someone who's supposed to be one of out top three starters. Doubront showed promise, but he didn't exactly set the world on fire. He saw a huge increase in innings, so he probably tired but his first half numbers weren't exactly stellar either and large innings increases often contribute to injuries the next year. And that would leave us with John Lackey, who hasn't had a league average season since 2009 and Ruby De La Rosa, who's yet to make his 11th major league start to round out the rotation. And that all ignores the fact that the typical major league team uses 10 or more starters a season. Injuries are going to happen. I'd rather have De La Rosa or Doubront making those starts than next year's Zach Stewart.

Edit: I did some quick math and over the last decade, starters who were not in the top five in innings pitched for us averaged just over 31 starts a season and just over a fifth of the team's starts in any given year. I want De La Rosa as our sixth or seventh starter on paper, not our third or fourth starter once someone gets hurt.

Edited by Edelpeddle, 30 October 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[OttoC]

There are people here talking about de la Rosa being part of the starting rotation. There are also people here noting that Doubront had a huge increase in innings for a season. Well, de la Rosa has had a season-high of 110.1 IP and a second-highest yearly IP total of 47.1, so that might be a factor with him, too.